“Will you please tell me how the equivalent of smoking 2.5 to 5 cigarettes a day (due to holding it in) will quickly kill someone?”
Hooch, you read this wrong, smoking one “joint caused DAMAGE EQUIVALENT to smoking 2.5 to five cigarettes in rapid succession.” Read the article again…
And… chain-smoking 2.5-5 cigarettes does not cause damage therefore this statement is irrelevant and nothing more than a desperate attempt to make it out like smoking a joint causes immediate damage to a person. I don’t smoke tobacco now but years ago did. And I have chain-smoked cigarettes… And there is nothing wrong with me or anyone who has. Smoking tobacco “sometimes” causes problems over MANY years of continuous use. Just like the abuse of anything does, including the abuse of FOOD which happens to be one of my only vices, well except the liqueur, and the women.
My point is that they are not apples to apples… you have wine, beer, mixed drinks, and while they all contain alcholhol, they are not specifically consumed to get a high… the same is not true of marijuana… that is it’s specific intent…
So consuming alcohol to get a high should be illegal,huh? Come on, relax a little bit Positive. Just because you don’t like to tie one on from time to time doesn’t make it right to make it illegal. Hold your horses there partner.
If you ask a kid if someone is smoking pot, or snorting cocaine or shooting up heroin, what are they doing? Drugs… marijuana is a drug… If you ask them if someone is drinking the response is not the same…They are drinking… different association… thereby, MUCH more chance of muddying the message…
And if marijuana was legal… And you ask them what that person is doing they say marijuana. There is only one reason today that they would say drugs and I think you know that it is due to the brainwashing they get from school teachers and the police man on show and tell day. The first year of legalization they would say that drug marajuana that they found to not be dangerous like the bad drugs are.
but the fact that it is not as “physically addictive and not seriously damaging to your health”, was not the point you all were making… it was that it was in private… and my point is that if you remove the illegal status for this reason, you have no reason NOT to for the other more potent drugs… it’s their body, right?
I never made a point that people should use marijuana in private. If legalized I support the use of marijuana in bars (with designated drivers) on the street (as long as you are not bothering others) in their house, and where ever they want to do it. Just not being under the influence during times of work or driving. Then maybe I could get some happy little complacent workers that will keep their jobs for the next 20 years with no aspirations of raises or desires to politically battle within in attempts to steal each others jobs. :biggrin
And, most I already know, do not agree with my standpoint on this but I do also agree with the legalization of any other drug that does not create victims. If a drug like crack or heroin or crystal meth causes thiefs which victimize others in armed robberies or murders than I disagree with it’s legalization. That is where I draw the line. If the drug is going to change a person through addiction into a criminal therefore creating many victims than I want it to remain illegal. If it creates a few victims like alcohol and bar fights do I have no problem with it. You can choose not to hang out at bars if you wish to avoid that type of scene.
Drugs that don’t create that many victims but can be avoided if you wish to do so - Alcohol, marijuana, acid and other hallucinogens, extacy.
Drugs I am not sure of but I don’t THINK cause many victims - Opium, Cocaine
Drugs that turn people into armed robbers and murders when deeply addictied - heroin, crystal meth, crack.
“So you think that it being illegal will stop people from doing it. Interesting.”
Those who get hooked/addicted on it… no, you won’t stop them… they put the fact that they can be incarcerated aside as well as other reason and will do it no matter the consequence…
Alcohol is “physically” addictive. Marijuana and hallucinogens are NOT physically addictive. It is questionable whether marijuana can be mentally addictive. This is why it is so easy for people to stop these drugs. Once an alcoholic though, it is very hard to stop, just like tobacco which is also physically addictive. So please explain how they are going to get “hooked” on marijuana or acid. And if they did, what is the point if it is legal. My mom is “hooked” on the drug caffeine and has to have 1 coffee in the morning each and every day to fully feel normal. I know lots of people who are, but it is not negatively effecting their lives with exception of the control that the addiction has on you.
by it being illegal it diminishes those who may be prone to addiction from coming in contact to it DUE to it’s illegality thereby dimishing the addictive rate…
Like I said, they can’t get addicted to marijuana or acid. And even if they could who cares, they aren’t harming anyone but themselves and with marijuana in particular they aren’t even doing that with exception of their lack of drive in life. Us A type personalities like to be on the top but everyone is not that way. And everyone can not be on the top.
You open it up to a wider audience by making it legal, you also expand the addicted class, WHICH DOES COST US MONEY… You are not disputing that are you?
I AM disputing how much money you think non addicted marijuana users would cause the tax payer. Actually they would make tremendous amounts of money for the tax payer via tax revenue just like alcohol does.
I think you are one of those people who believe the common misconception that the obese and tobacco users are costing insurance companies more cash than the average Joe does. Therefore this expense gets passed on to the rest of the population. This is INCORRECT. It costs significantly more money to care for a person long term and pay for their long death as they age than it does for someone who kicks it 10 or 20 years before they get to that stage of needing a nursing home and 24 hr care. This is another one of those frauds like the “man made global warming scam” is.
" I just happen to be a criminal once and a while when I don’t feel like putting my seat belt on. I’m such a bad person for that. "
In that case, the only person you are affecting is you… but the person who is impaired when driving and KILLS or injures someone else goes beyond themselves, whether you wear a seatbelt or not…
Why do you keep going back to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol? No one that I know says that is something we should legalize. We aren’t even talking about that. Tell me how using marijuana in a legal and responsible way causes victims.
"Why should they not be able to give themselves a disease if they want to not wear protection. "
Because it costs others more money to treat the deseases they do get…
Again, go to my previous point. It only causes the tax payer money if they live a long healthy life. And taxation of prostutution instead of them having to keep it under the table would contribute greatly to our economy. Also done in a responsible way like Nevada does, the medical community would benefit from frequent visits and the “john” would benefit from not contracting diseases if they did something stupid like not wearing protection. I would like for you to explain to me with examples of how prostitution is hurting Nevada and Canada tax payers. If you can’t do so than your argument is completely irrelevant and it should be legalized right away.
“And what is wrong with the way Nevada and Canada does is, prostitutes must have regular health checkups.”
And that would stop the ones WITH the deseases to start obeying the law? If they are involved in abusing their bodies in such a way by choice, they certainly aren’t going to stop because they failed a test…
I agree that they won’t stop, but WHAT guy would look for a hoe without a valid updated health card? The prostitutes without a clean bill of health wouldn’t get much work if you were given a choice between one that has verification and one who doesn’t. There is not that choice now therefore it will always remain a major risky behavior as long as the laws remain the same. Why do you not support this minimization of risk and the significantly reduced spread of sexually transmitted diseases? Why do you wish that it continue under the table in such a dirty manor? Are you one of the Americans that “sex” is a bigtime taboo thing?
Thereby, those who participate in this instead of developing real relationships remain exposed to desease risks…
What makes you think that every single person out there wants to have a longterm relationship with someone. Just because you like your longterm relationship with your wife doesn’t mean that others want to follow your path. 50% of marriages end in divorce. Those who have been through a divorce don’t necessarily want to go through another one after getting cleaned out for half of their assets. But that is besides the point. Simply said, some people want a no strings attached girl.
There are also people out there that have some sort of problem and they are destined to never be laid in their whole entire life. A retard for example or someone who is terribly ugly. Or a guy who has some severe personality defect and just doesn’t seem to click well with others. Not necessarily a bad person, just an odd ball. So you are telling me that those people don’t deserve to be able to get laid and if they do they should be criminals for doing so? Give me a break. Loosen up a little Mr. Stuffy.
There is also another flaw to the health check-ups… who pays?
All people don’t pay the same health insurance premiums Positive. The girl pays via higher premiums. It is her business expense. Or the insurance company doesn’t cover it and she pays cash to be tested every week. It is a business expense, not an expense to the tax payer.
If they are responsible themselves, who is going to police it at additional cost to the taxpayers?
No need to police it with health cards. The “Johns” police it. If the hoe doesn’t have a valid and updated card she won’t get work when given the choice of someone clean vs someone who is not. That will put the dirty prostitutes out of business and force them to do some other line of work.
And if they fail the test, is not the test easily forged?
Anything can be forged but as you know it can be made not easy to do so just like the dollar bill and have substantial punishment for forgeries. There are other ways as well, where you are able to look up secure records that are not in possession of the prostitute. Many things that could be done and I am not sure exactly how Nevada and Canada do it but I haven’t heard any problems and I haven’t heard it is strangling the tax payer even in a country like Canada where everyone has government run health care. I assure you if it was the government of Canada would stop it.
Another agency would have to be developed just to enforce it… just what we need… now, imagine it on a national level…
As I said, hoes that have no updated clean bill of health get no work when the “john” is given a choice of clean or possibly dirty.