Leaglize the Weed

[calpoon]

I'm saying that if you want to legalize mary jane to make people who are dying of cancer feel better, and certainly not just because you want to get high, then you should be in favor of legalizing heroin instead, because it will have a better effect in inducing calm and pain relief.

and I do believe that if something doesn't make society better, then what's the point in having it? it kind of goes back to the same argument, do you really care about helping people or do you just want to do things for yourself? yeah, there are a lot of useless benign things and while i'm not pushing to make them *******, I do think we'd all be better off without them. and then there are some things that are bad. I'd say that all of the things you said should be ******* because they do more harm than good. the only person that I know that did ***** and got anywhere in his life is bill clinton (that was a joke.) yeah, maybe smoking weed isn't the worst thing you could be doing with your time, but is it the best? that's what I meant about having low standards.

 

[D-rock]

I'm saying that if you want to legalize mary jane to make people who are dying of cancer feel better, and certainly not just because you want to get high, then you should be in favor of legalizing heroin instead, because it will have a better effect in inducing calm and pain relief.

and I do believe that if something doesn't make society better, then what's the point in having it? it kind of goes back to the same argument, do you really care about helping people or do you just want to do things for yourself? yeah, there are a lot of useless benign things and while i'm not pushing to make them *******, I do think we'd all be better off without them. and then there are some things that are bad. I'd say that all of the things you said should be ******* because they do more harm than good. the only person that I know that did ***** and got anywhere in his life is bill clinton (that was a joke.) yeah, maybe smoking weed isn't the worst thing you could be doing with your time, but is it the best? that's what I meant about having low standards.

I don't do *****. I don't even take things like aspirin or other over the counter medications. I have even given up things like caffeine, but doesn't your reasoning seem a little flawed here. In a society where liberty is considered essential and something that is good why do people have to justify anything they do to other people at all? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be vice versa where the people that want to stop you from doing something have to justify why they want you to stop and have an extremely damn good reason for doing so, reasons that must include the fact your hurting other people? By hurting people I mean in a direct or a very closely indirect way, and not some half-assed convoluted indirect way because they can't think of any other reasonable excuse to make you do what they want. Shouldn't they also do it on the basis your civil, constitutional, and human rights should never be ********. Not to mention it's not the responsibility or duty and it shouldn't be the right of the government, nor your next-door neighbor, or anybody else once you reach adulthood to protect you from yourself. If people want to do something stupid with themselves I consider it their right.

 

[calpoon]

Not to mention it's not the responsibility or duty and it shouldn't be the right of the government, nor your next-door neighbor, or anybody else once you reach adulthood to protect you from yourself. If people want to do something stupid with themselves I consider it their right.

well, this is sorta getting into the dark territory explored in other threads where the question is begged: what and how do you define liberty and how does that relate to your definition of responsibility?

some say that no man is an island. Since our whole human purpose is cohabitation, that's what country, society civilization and all the rest is about, than I don't believe the actions of one person can possibly help but e/affecting others.

As simply put as I can, I DO believe that is your duty and your responsibility; it's also the price that you have to pay for the privilege of expecting it in return.

I don't want to die alone. You don't want to die alone. We're all gonna die so far away from home. We're all gonna die alone. It's the natural consequence of being in a society that believes because you live in isolation it means you're free.

 

[Member2019]

As a Libertarian, when over 50% of Clinton's incoming Whitehouse staff failed hard-core **** tests -- not just weed, but harder stuff -- I'd say it's the least of our problems.

 

[calpoon]

as an anarchist, make ***** *******-get rid of politicians. :thumbsup:

 

[D-rock]

well, this is sorta getting into the dark territory explored in other threads where the question is begged: what and how do you define liberty and how does that relate to your definition of responsibility?

some say that no man is an island. Since our whole human purpose is cohabitation, that's what country, society civilization and all the rest is about, than I don't believe the actions of one person can possibly help but e/affecting others.

As simply put as I can, I DO believe that is your duty and your responsibility; it's also the price that you have to pay for the privilege of expecting it in return.

I think country, society, and civilization should be for the protection of your freedoms as it's easier to have them preserved there then in anarchy. While liberty might lead to negative consequences for some people that's part of the reason the saying "Freedom isn't free" exist. That is part of the price we have to pay to have it. If the rights of the individual over the whole never mattered then we might as well start ************ every person since birth to make them function as perfect as possible for the whole society. They would be like robots. Nature gave us free will and I believe that is our right. Paying the price for that is one of the things we need to do so we can have it. Along with that I think it's infringing on other people denying them that in the absence of extremely good reasons to do so, like the direct harm of others. With that said we have a higher duty to protect other peoples rights even if we don't like what they could possibly lead to than to be their nanny and protect them form everything, so we can receive that treatment in turn when our rights are at stake. All this doesn’t take into account what’s "good for you" is also a matter of opinion and subject to the whims of whoever is in charge. Why not just eliminate porn? It isn't like it plays an important part of society, and I'm sure a lot of people could come up with some reason or another why it's terrible for it. In fact I could come up with or at least find somebody that could come up with a reason to eliminate almost everything we do because they think it’s bad for us in one way or another.

 

[Member2019]

as an anarchist, make ***** *******-get rid of politicians. :thumbsup:

Some of the worst ******* are politicians, and the trash some of them bring in.
I don't have a problem before they take office, but I do while they are in it.
Then again, W. might benefit from having some while in office.

Me? I'm a true conservative-libertarian -- squeeky-clean, goodie two-shoes.
I'm a do as a I do, not do as I say -- so do what you want, but there's a reason why it's better to do as I do (and not do them).

 

[calpoon]

after reading that several times I think I get what you're saying prof. heh.

and Drock, that post really gave me a lot to think about. this is an issue that's not so cut and dry for me. I don't really like anything that's been brought about by the illegalization of *****, but on the other hand I still don't think any good can come from using them (as in non-medically and even that too has issues.)

 

[Iamforever]

after reading that several times I think I get what you're saying prof. heh.

and Drock, that post really gave me a lot to think about. this is an issue that's not so cut and dry for me. I don't really like anything that's been brought about by the illegalization of *****, but on the other hand I still don't think any good can come from using them (as in non-medically and even that too has issues.)

it could be worse. did you know that mexico almost legalized all *****? it was as close as close can get. i do mean all *****.

 

[calpoon]

that's because the government is the **** dealers in mexico, I guess they wanted to pretend like they had some semblence of democracy but changed thier minds when they remembered what a great excuse anti-**** legislation is for locking up political prisoners.

 

[Peter Gazinya]

it could be worse. did you know that mexico almost legalized all *****? it was as close as close can get. i do mean all *****.

Cliff Burton in your avatar. Priceless. :thumbsup:

 

[pathfinder]

Absolutely. It's no more harmful or addictive than ******* and tobacco. Tax it. Regulate the holy hell out of it. And lighten up the federal tax burden for the citizens. It's a win win situation.

 

[calpoon]

how are you going to lighten up the federal tax burdan? I really don't know about pot, but I do know that the number of people that don't have health insurance and are sick/dying/hospitalized as a result of the effects of alchohol and tobbaco cost the tax payers millions.

that's another thing I just thought about, we *say* that weed is harmless, but because of the fact that it's an ******* substance there aren't really any widespread conclusive studies showing how it effects long-time users.

 

[Torre82]

I dont know if it's been said on page 1 or 2...

But isnt it rather ironic that you're all ~arguing~ over legalizing a **** that *mellows* you out?

 

[Legzman]

I dont know if it's been said on page 1 or 2...

But isnt it rather ironic that you're all ~arguing~ over legalizing a **** that *mellows* you out?

Who's arguing? :dunno:

I love proudly love pot! :hatsoff:

 

[blindswordsman]

I love proudly love pot! :hatsoff:

we can tell

 

[Philbert]

Who's arguing? :dunno:

I love proudly love pot! :hatsoff:

I love that guy!

Seriously, Torre82min, take a minute D ) and read slower...the radical negativity has all come from avowed non-stoners.
The avowed stoners are mellow and secretly smiling with fond memories while they are posting.
No "arguing" there...
Weed is A) different from tobacco physically, and
B) weed is different from ******* situationally (dose and packaging)
Weed is not being debated as a medical necessity, merely as a preference.
It is a battle of power, not of danger or health risks, but who gets to set the rules.
The history of Henry J. and the Federal Goverment, and most of the history of "population control" legislation, clearly shows that actual harm caused was rarely ever a consideration.
Yes, there are many documented studies on populations that have smoked canniboids for multiple generations.
Here in the USA, there are millions of people that have smoked for 50 years and more.
So, if one wishes to argue the safety of weed, there are no surprises...it's only harmful in excess, and shouldn't be used where it may be dangerous (pilots, bus drivers, etc.).
When the population gets the gov it deserves, weed will be legal and Reality Shows won't!:rofl:

 

[Iamforever]

im still undecided.

 

[Legzman]

How many people die from cigarette smoking EVERY FUCKING DAY??? How many people die from weed every day???

Maybe we should make weed legal and cigarettes *******!
What am I saying? I love cigarettes too! But you see my point!

Why something is ******* and doesn't **** most of the people who use it and is next to nill as far as adictiveness goes. Yet something that is more addictive and deadly than heroin or cocain remains legal? :dunno:

Also weed is 100% natural. Just dry it, break it up, smoke it!
Cigarettes have TONS of extra **** in them besides just tobacco which makes them even more deadly!
A list of over 500 additives in cigarettes, even :eek: myself with this one!

Premium Link Upgrade

3 pages of extra unnecessary ****!

 

[calpoon]

my issue is not so much with weed, but with harder *****. I really don't see how you could try and make that legal and not make everything else. if you wanted to say that pot wasn't harmful and the other one's are, then people would say well, what about cigs and *****? we all know they are harmful, and they are perfectly legal. if you want to make them ******* besides all the people that would be really pissed off, then people would argue what right do you have to take one substance to get high and not another? since the arguement is about personal freedom and ultimatly about what your mind experiences, then you should be able to do whatever you want to as long as it's in your private life... and then there are the social issues and questions of responsibility that I brought up.