Yea or Nay: Legalize ********* (Prop 19 in CA)
Ridiculous not to, in my opinion.
Legalize *****. Ban the GOP.
We spend 45 billion every year on the war on *****. This does not include the tax dollars to house inmates with pnly **** offenses or the judges that hear the case, or even the police. This 45 billion is for control and regulation on the federal level not state. So if legalization occured theres $45billion saved. Then lets taxe the crap out of weed like tobacco, theres probably what? Another $30billion. That equates to a $75billion turn around. If tax accounts were politicians instead of lawyers this country would be in the positive.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
So far 100% yea. Quel surprise.
I'd like to add an amendment to my vote: It should really be rationed. Too much use of ********* has unpleasant side effects.
I'd like to add an amendment to my vote: It should really be rationed. Too much use of ********* has unpleasant side effects.
As are ******* and tobacco, far worse ***** in fact. Are you in favour of making those *******?
Half of British politicians have admitted smoking it. Probably most of the rest have too. Just a pity they haven't got the guts to decriminalise it.
We've already gone down that road in the past. The crime waves that hit cities like Chicago and New York during the 1920's were largely due to Prohibition. It took the Great Depression for the government to admit that they fucked up by eliminating both jobs and revenue when they ****** *******. Today, any public event (concert, sporting event, etc) makes its money from the sale of *******.
Pot would likely have the same effect on the economy if it were legalized.
I'm already very much aware of this and it is basically the subject of my first post in this thread. My point to Johan is an attempt to extrapolate on this disconnect people have when it comes to judging ***** that have been classified "*******" solely on that fact but then failing to see the effects of those ***** that those in the business of government and in making profits off of these items have seen to make perfectly acceptable within society.
it really is funny..one night i seen on tv where they busted these two **** with weed on cops..took them to jail..then..the first commercial that came on after it was this girls gone wild **** trying to sell naked videos of teenage girls that you cant prove by me that they are all old enough..now thats fucked up when you think about it
impdaddyI have seen plenty of impaired drivers because they were smoking there cigarettes WHILE driving. They may as well have had a cell phone in their hand. I have seen plenty of cigarette smokers take both hands off the wheel to light their smoke. Or they are busy blowing smoke out their window or tapping off the ash and not paying attention to the road. So cigarette smoking might not be a true impairment, it can be a big distraction while driving.
If you look at the studies, most driving tests with ********* smokers have found that they compensate for their impairment unlike *******. If anything they tend to drive slower and more careful to compensate. Here is a study funded by National Institute on **** ***** and what they found:
"During the course study, subjects were asked to respond to various simulated events associated with automobile crash risk — such as avoiding a driver who was entering an intersection illegally, deciding to stop or go through changing traffic lights, responding to the presence of emergency vehicles, avoiding colliding a dog who entered into traffic, and maintaining safe driving during a secondary (in-the-car) auditory distraction. Subjects performed these tests sober, and then shortly (30 minutes) after smoking a single ********* cigarettes (or placebo)... Participants receiving active ********* decreased their speed more so than those receiving the placebo cigarette during a distracted section of the drive. [N]o other changes in driving performance were found.”
Thanks for your comment, but unless you have some kind of contradictory study then i'd say that your arguement doesn't hold up to well.
"[*********] is not a ****. It's a leaf." -- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in an interview with the British edition of GQ magazine on October 22, 2007.
Personally, I am not going to disagree with the Governator!
Caffeine is a psychoactive stimulant ****, do you believe that should be ******* as well? I'd rather someone driving slow because they are stoned, than fast because they just had an energy *****.
Thanks for your comment, i like to see why people don't want to see it legal.
Similar threads
