********* Legalized in Colorado!

[zeeblofowl_1969]

********* is a plant grown and dried then smoked.
Heroin is opium refined down to pure form and injected into your system.

********* is proven not to be physically addictive.
Heroin withdrawal is so severe it can **** you.

And the whole 'Gateway' **** farce is just a myth perpetuated by the powers that be to demonize the dreaded weed.
Always struck me as weird that a doctor could give you morphine for pain but you cannot give a person *********.......

People do it, this is a country of freedom, freedom means personal choices, whether you do it or not should be a personal choice.
Why fill up the jails with people who's only crime is they enjoy pot???? Couldn't these cells be better served with the dregs of society???

All this and I don't smoke Weed???

 

[assari]

People do it, this is a country of freedom, freedom means personal choices, whether you do it or not should be a personal choice.

I agree.

If someone wants to use ***** it's just his/her business.

But in my view **** use is not a rebel or a mysterious thing.

 

[itcouldbeme]

Why do you think they call it dope...?

 

[Red Spyder]

The only difference is that now you'll get a ticket, not charges, if you possess an amount deemed to be for personal consumption.

That's the way it should be everywhere in the country. Our jails are too overcrowded and criminal charges are just overkill in the case of small quantities of marihuana.

Now, what about the hard *****? Meth, *******, heroin? That's where I draw the line. No compromise other than instead of charges or jail time for personal use quantities, mandatory rehab, or something like that. What do you all think?

You see, it's called dialogue, I propose something, someone else can come and fine tune it or make suggestions instead of just yelling "you're wrong, you racist republican homophobe :cussing: "

 

[lurkingdirk]

That's the way it should be everywhere in the country. Our jails are too overcrowded and criminal charges are just overkill in the case of small quantities of marihuana.

Now, what about the hard *****? Meth, *******, heroin? That's where I draw the line. No compromise other than instead of charges or jail time for personal use quantities, mandatory rehab, or something like that. What do you all think?

You see, it's called dialogue, I propose something, someone else can come and fine tune it or make suggestions instead of just yelling "you're wrong, you racist republican homophobe :cussing: "

You're a racist republican homophobe.
:cussing:

Good points, though. This is not a "gateway law," that will soften the stance on harder *****.

 

[itcouldbeme]

...This is not a "gateway law," that will soften the stance on harder *****.

Historically man's societal failures have been incremental...

 

[lurkingdirk]

Historically man's societal failures have been incremental...

Do you have a point?

 

[maildude]

It was always only going to be realized in small steps. That's how such advances of a controversial nature have come to be. At least now we have a foothold. California. Colorado. Washington. Arizona. Montana. And 13 others. Small steps.

 

[Red Spyder]

Well, yeah, I mean, there's the "slippery slope" argument to be made, that's why a line needs to be drawn VERY CLEARLY, decriminalizing marihuana? Sure. But why not harder *****? :dunno:

The controversy would be where to draw the line?

Same argument could be made for gay marriage, which was also legalized in some states this election, right? Legalize gay marriage but not bigamy? What about **********? Again, where to draw the line. That would be a very touchy issue. I mean, even if most of us would agree on gay marriage, that doesn't mean everyone else would, and especially for religious reasons. Even though I'm not particularly religious, I don't want to see religious people somehow facing legal problems because they don't want to get involved in a gay wedding because of their religious views. This is a very touchy issue because marriage is where church and state intersect.

http://www.therightscoop.com/court-...-of-discrimination-if-refuses-gay-ceremonies/

I mean, businesses have the right to refuse service, and if you're gay, why would you want someone who doesn't agree with your wedding to be involved in it anyway? :dunno:

Anyway, I'm all for civil unions though, but again..... propose something, fine tune it, where can we meet in the middle?

BREAKING NEWS: FREEONES MEMBERS MOVE TO GAY MARRIAGE STATES :tongue:

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

I agree.

If someone wants to use ***** it's just his/her business.

But in my view **** use is not a rebel or a mysterious thing.

Agreed

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

I was told the largest reason why Canada hadn't legalized it already was really pressure from the Bush administration; I was told further that this was one of the points where the Canadian government began to distance itself somewhat from the US which might explain, perhaps, why Canada came out so much better relatively-speaking in all this financial crisis business.

In any case, I find myself once again rather disappointed in Oregon. Save urban growth boundaries and assisted suicide, Washington is set to overtake Oregon in all areas of progress (they even voted in same-sex marriage!).

Actually, the largest reason it hasn't been legalized is due to the government that is currently in power. The Conservatives have already said they won't legalize it and they argurably take a harder stance on ***** than Obama seems to. Part of their mandate this year is to pass tougher **** laws as part of larger crime reforms. The Liberal Party - the third party in Parliament - are the only party which wants to legalize *********, but they haven't been in power since 2006, so pressure from the Bush administration really had no effect on our country deciding to pull away from the US; that really only has come to light since the Keystone Pipeline deal fell through, and the recession, where we only avoided being dragged down by you guys through our banking system. **** policy is far, far down the list of disagreements between Canada and the US.

Also, I didn't have my thinking cap on earlier, but I realize that any attempts by the provinces to move to legalization will likely result in a constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court since **** legislation will fall under the federal government's powers in the constitution; it's not a province's decision like it is for Washington. So, it's likely that even if BC tried, the Supreme Court would find their actions unconstitutional and strike it down. That's the bad news; the good news is once we get the Conservatives out in three years it'll be legalized across Canada, in which case I invite you for a joint and some maple syrup.

 

[Will E Worm]

Historically man's societal failures have been incremental...

:clap: Incrementalism

Fabian Society, Freemasonry, Satanism, Rosicrucians, Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.) (Order of the Temple of the East), all use icrementalism. All the same group under different names.

Why do you think they call it dope...?

:clap:

They are both ***** and **** user always need a stornger dose to get the desired mode.

Soft **** use can lead to heroin use.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/a/blwusm030503.htm

They sure do. Snoop Dogg Lion is fried out of his mind.

 

[LuMonty]

Due to the legal position at the federal level, it is doubtful that it'll be truly legalized.

I've talked with many neuroscientists and neuropsychologists and such and yes, ********* does shrink the hippocampus (memory center of the brain).

Anyways, my thing is they need to either legalize it all around or leave it alone. Otherwise it leaves too much room for restrictions being tacked on as it becomes "legal." In quotes of course because it won't be with all the crap added.

Now, I'm still unsure of whether I think it should be legal or not. But I think my approach is at least sound.

 

[Rattrap]

Well, yeah, I mean, there's the "slippery slope" argument to be made, that's why a line needs to be drawn VERY CLEARLY, decriminalizing marihuana? Sure. But why not harder *****? :dunno:

Indeed, why not? If one wants to destroy themselves in the comfort of their own home with X or Y ****...why not?

Well, yeah, I mean, there's the "slippery slope" argument to be made...
[...]
The controversy would be where to draw the line?

Same argument could be made for gay marriage

No, it can't - and anybody who tells you otherwise is practicing a thinly veiled bigotry. Because the line is very simple and very obvious: between consenting adults. There is one exception I can think of, though I'd argue even that can be dealt with through another means.

This is a very touchy issue because marriage is where church and state intersect.

This I agree is a touchy area, and I'd like to see this intersection fixed: take the ability to issue any legal document from churches and leave it entirely with the state. People can still have their marriage 'before God', and then go down to the courthouse and sign some documents to make it legal. Hell, take the name 'marriage' away entirely from the legal status and call it all civil partnerships. That's equality.

I mean, businesses have the right to refuse service, and if you're gay, why would you want someone who doesn't agree with your wedding to be involved in it anyway? :dunno:

This I certainly agree with. Why the hell would I want someone who things I'll burn in hell being a part of what is supposed to be a highlight in my life?

Actually, the largest reason it hasn't been legalized is due to the government that is currently in power.

Good information.