Marijuana Kills

[jerseyrugger76]

you are ok with using your tax dollars to police people's private behavior?

I've seen TV, and even moreso, VIDEO GAMES incapacitate people. I've seen porn and the internet in general do the same too. Weed doesn't incapaciate people, it does to some, sure, but for others it actually enables them (I'd point to many artists for empiracal evidence of such).

Dude, if you're going to argue that smoking up makes people in general more productive than when they are sober, I'm willing to bet you're high right now.

 

[jerseyrugger76]

you are ok with using your tax dollars to police people's private behavior?

I've seen TV, and even moreso, VIDEO GAMES incapacitate people. I've seen porn and the internet in general do the same too. Weed doesn't incapaciate people, it does to some, sure, but for others it actually enables them (I'd point to many artists for empiracal evidence of such).

And I hate to tell you this, genius, but yeah, I am okay with that and so are a lot of other people. The distribution of kiddie porn is a private behavior and I'm perfectly happy paying for those mother fuckers being put under the jail.

 

[jnevin]

you are ok with using your tax dollars to police people's private behavior?

I've seen TV, and even moreso, VIDEO GAMES incapacitate people. I've seen porn and the internet in general do the same too. Weed doesn't incapaciate people, it does to some, sure, but for others it actually enables them (I'd point to many artists for empiracal evidence of such).

This also from the guy that's spammed the board with Rock Band pics.

 

[binö]

JR burn one and stfu already

 

[Lestat]

So, you think that it's only ok to harrass these people?

I'm not sure if harass is the right word but I think I agree with your meaning of it.

I think that behavior that has a significant negative effect on others should be controlled or regulated. Now I realize that this is wholly subjective, and that is really the issue here and why its difficult to "argue" if you switch back from the legalization issue to "is it bad for you issue" They are seemingly tied because why would you make something illegal if it wasn't bad, right? Well the fact is, many things are bad, for the individual, or some individuals, and this can have a negative effect on others, so we all have to determine what the tolerance for that was.

If I was living in a country like Dubai that had laws on the books prohibiting being intoxicated, I'd have a tougher time arguing for the legalization of weed. This is where the subjectivity really comes into play.

I understand that our country is like most, where if 51% of people say something is bad, it can be made illegal and persecuted. Is this right? I don't know! Morals and ethics are only good within context and a certain frame of time. What was legal for one generation could be illegal for the next, or the other way around. Does this mean that the laws of the previous years were flawed? Does it mean that the newer laws are better? I believe this is fully dependent on the attitudes, wants, and needs of the people at the time.

I can empathize with all sides of the debate. I always use prohibition as an example. I can see why those laws were enacted. I believe the intentions were good. People felt that the use of alcohol was a MAJOR source of social ills. The literature on it is laughable now, but it really hit home for many people then.

Same thing with sodomy laws. Why not pass them? It protects people from getting their assholes blown out and future incontenance. Seems to be a good thing right, who wants a stretched out asshole?

But the point is, if someone wants to drink themselves silly and be unproductive, or get their asshole reamed till it bleeds, why is that my business, why should I or anyone else be able to tell those people what they can and can't do?

 

[jnevin]

I'm not sure if harass is the right word but I think I agree with your meaning of it.

I think that behavior that has a significant negative effect on others should be controlled or regulated. Now I realize that this is wholly subjective, and that is really the issue here and why its difficult to "argue" if you switch back from the legalization issue to "is it bad for you issue" They are seemingly tied because why would you make something illegal if it wasn't bad, right? Well the fact is, many things are bad, for the individual, or some individuals, and this can have a negative effect on others, so we all have to determine what the tolerance for that was.

If I was living in a country like Dubai that had laws on the books prohibiting being intoxicated, I'd have a tougher time arguing for the legalization of weed. This is where the subjectivity really comes into play.

I understand that our country is like most, where if 51% of people say something is bad, it can be made illegal and persecuted. Is this right? I don't know! Morals and ethics are only good within context and a certain frame of time. What was legal for one generation could be illegal for the next, or the other way around. Does this mean that the laws of the previous years were flawed? Does it mean that the newer laws are better? I believe this is fully dependent on the attitudes, wants, and needs of the people at the time.

I can empathize with all sides of the debate. I always use prohibition as an example. I can see why those laws were enacted. I believe the intentions were good. People felt that the use of alcohol was a MAJOR source of social ills. The literature on it is laughable now, but it really hit home for many people then.

Same thing with sodomy laws. Why not pass them? It protects people from getting their assholes blown out and future incontenance. Seems to be a good thing right, who wants a stretched out asshole?

But the point is, if someone wants to drink themselves silly and be unproductive, or get their asshole reamed till it bleeds, why is that my business, why should I or anyone else be able to tell those people what they can and can't do?

per·se·cute (pûrs-kyt)
tr.v. per·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing, per·se·cutes
1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.

 

[Lestat]

And I hate to tell you this, genius, but yeah, I am okay with that and so are a lot of other people. The distribution of kiddie porn is a private behavior and I'm perfectly happy paying for those mother fuckers being put under the jail.

great point!

Why are you against kiddie porn? I can tell you why I am.

It victimizes CHILDREN. They are not old enough to consent to doing porn, its damaging and a form of abuse.

But back to your original point, you are unwilling to spend tax money on what exactly? billions are spent on the incarceration of drug offenders, I thought you said you weren't willing to spend tax dollars on the issue?

 

[Lestat]

This also from the guy that's spammed the board with Rock Band pics.

And your point is?

 

[jerseyrugger76]

I've seen TV, and even moreso, VIDEO GAMES incapacitate people. I've seen porn and the internet in general do the same too.

Let's break down the argument here.

We have things in this society that do bad things to people: incapacitate them, make them less productive, estrange them from one another. If we consider the case of DUI, these other perfectly legal things could be DEADLY.

THIS is your argument FOR the legalization of POT???? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Why in God's name would any society of sane people EVER agree to legalizing ANYTHING with the same deleterious effects as all of the other aforementioned substances. Are things not bad enough???

 

[Lestat]

per·se·cute (pûrs-kyt)
tr.v. per·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing, per·se·cutes
1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.

thanks for the valuable viewpoint!