mid-term election

[Drem]

I'm not interested in debating this issue, or the facts I just presented. If you want to pretend these facts don't exist, or you want to believe in junk science that downplays the negative effects of marijuana use, then go ahead and wallow blissfully in your ignorance... that's your perogative. I'm just glad it got shot down. NEXT.

you're such a tool

oh you aren't interested in debating? good for you

7000-8000 B.C.
First woven fabric believed to be from hemp.

1619
Jamestown Colony, Virginia passes law requiring farmers to grow hemp.

1700s
Hemp was the primary crop grown by George Washington at Mount Vernon, and a secondary crop grown by Thomas Jefferson at Monticello.

1884
Maine is the first state to outlaw alcohol.

1906
Pure Food and Drug Act is passed, forming the Food and Drug Administration. First time that drugs have any government oversight.

1913
California, apparently, passes the first state marijuana law, though missed by many because it referred to “preparations of hemp, or loco weed.”

1914
Harrison Act passed, outlawing opiates and cocaine (taxing scheme)

1915
Utah passes state anti-marijuana law.

1919
18th Amendment to the Constitution (alcohol prohibition) is ratified.

1930
Harry J. Anslinger given control of the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics (he remains in the position until 1962)

1933
21st Amendment to the Constitution is ratified, repealing alcohol prohibition.

1937
Marijuana Tax Act

1938
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act

1951
Boggs Amendment to the Harrison Narcotic Act (mandatory sentences)

1956
Narcotics Control Act adds more severe penalties

1970
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act.
Replaces and updates all previous laws concerning narcotics and other dangerous drugs. Empasis on law enforcement. Includes the Controlled Substances Act, where marijuana is classified a Schedule 1 drug (reserved for the most dangerous drugs that have no recognized medical use).


nobody cared (and most other countries still don't) until your parents' generation came around. and as soon as that generation and the people from it that are in power are dead it'll probably come back. there's even video of the president talking about how a doctor prescribing it to a glaucoma or cancer patient definitely isn't worse than any other option

i really wouldn't rather take a pill for pain than get high. and i don't. can't stand pills unless they're just antibiotics/vitamins. i don't even take advils or anything. fuck that liver-rotting shit

[Tikker]

Attached is the same table of combined harm, the second one shown simply, the first is broken down by each individual harm type. Note please the drug that is by FAR the worst of all drugs as far as harm is concerned, and how much worse it is than pot, or even heroin.

-Arlos

your graph seems to show that marijuana is about as bad as amfetamines, tobacco and cocaine

not really doing much for your championing of your drug of choice arlos


personally, I think they shoud legalize it, and tax the shit out of it, since stupid fucks are going to smoke it anyways

might as well have the stupid pay for the roads via taxes

[Arlos]

I was actually quite surprised how highly they had it rated as well.

Even so, pot comes in at about 3/4 as harmful as tobacco is, and that includes factors tobacco doesn't have, such as results of pot currently being illegal. Amphetamines are nearly twice as bad, by the numbers, but alcohol, which is, of course, also legal, is what, over 3x as harmful, again without any of the illegality factors?

Just goes to show, stuff that's banned is quite frequently banned for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with how bad the drug is for those that use it or for society as a whole.

-Arlos

[brinstar]

1. Marijuana is a gateway drug.

I'll go one step further than Arlos: this is not even a provable statement. The vast majority of respondents who have ingested marijuana in any form never go on to use anything "harder" - but nearly 100% have experienced acute alcohol intoxication prior to any marijuana experimentation. I specifically wish to avoid deflecting the argument onto alcohol, but that is a measurable fact. More importantly, it is completely absurd to suggest that marijuana use creates a physiological desire for harder drugs (speaking strictly from a neurochemistry perspective). All that remains, then, is each person's idiosyncratic brain chemistry balance, combined with an innumerable host of preexisting factors (such as home environment, the presence or absence of positive role models, etc). All these add up to form as many completely unique sets of drug ladder susceptibilities as there are people in the world.

In short, the only people who progress beyond marijuana into the realm of harder drugs are the people who were already societally and neurochemically equipped to do so in the first place. It has less than nothing to do with the physiological effects of marijuana itself. I guess you could make the argument that keeping marijuana illegal protects the susceptible from fulfilling their conditioning, you go right ahead and try. Hasn't exactly been successful thus far, has it?


2. THC is a very powerful mind-altering drug.

Yes it is. So what? I can go buy a few bottles of Robitussin DM and get just as twisted. I can complain of anxiety and get prescribed some Xanax. Lunesta. Adderall. Valium. Cymbalta. These days there are more drugs (and drug commercials, ugh) to treat symptoms than there are symptoms. Americans are inundated by very powerful mind-altering drugs, so why is THIS one not okay?


3. Marijuana smoke is carcinogenic and has more toxins in it than you are aware of, or want to admit.

Of course it's carcinogenic! It's fucking smoke going in your lungs! But again, so what? Are there laws against suntanning just because you might get skin cancer? Are there laws against meat because you might get colon cancer? Are there laws against high fructose corn syrup because you might get diabeetus? Of course not. Are there laws against riding a motorcycle without a helmet? Actually for the most part there are, but a lot of bikers get pissy about it. If you want to cross that bridge, fine - make it illegal to SMOKE marijuana; force users to vaporize or cook it. Fact is, people knowingly do all sorts of rotten things to their bodies (and I simply can't let this section end without mentioning the obvious: cigarettes), and none of those are illegal, so why marijuana? "Oh, it's bad for you." So is steak; fuck off.


4. They're going to make it so that employers cannot force employees to take random drug tests UNLESS there is a workplace accident. FUCK THAT.

That should be the case anyway, if you ask me. Obviously it's not okay to come to work stoned, no one anywhere is making that argument. I just don't see why it matters as long as nothing happens. If a crane operator shows up so stoned he can't even speak and smashes the boom into an adjacent building, he should absolutely be drug tested - and if he's positive, he should absolutely get fired. But how do we tell? That's actually one of the more relevant questions in this thread, and concern over determining level of impairment is the first logical argument I've read here. Good news, there are a few different ways to determine impairment!

First of all, saliva retains drug compounds for as long as 10 hours, and on-site tests have been engineered to tests for these chemicals. The collection process is a bit funky but is also A) much less invasive than urine collection or even blood collection and more importantly B) much harder to falsify. In addition, there is a certification known as DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) that trains you how to observe a subject's body language, stimulus tracking, and pupil dilation in order to determine level of impairment. Simply requiring foremen to be certified in DRE training would go a long way toward cutting down on workplace drug intoxication. There is still much development to be done in this area, but the ability to determine level of impairment has come further than most of you probably know. I'm not sure if they're ready to set a standard, but we're not far off.

(Oh, and Arlos - it is absolutely possible to detect alcohol use via urine, for as long as 80 hours after consumption. Go look up a compound called ethyl glucuronide and its companion chemical ethyl sulfate.)


All that being said, Nusk makes some very good arguments against prop19, most of which I have no real answer for (though I have at least addressed the concerns in his Points 3 and 5). Those are real logical arguments based on relevant societal infrastructures and concerns, not just some tired worn-out puritanical "drugs are bad, m'kay" bush league bullshit. If those reasons he listed were the basis for Prop 19 being voted down, so be it, I can't complain about most of it - but I have a sneaking suspicion most of those concepts weren't in people's minds as they filled in the "against" bubble.

[Narrock]

This is mostly directed at Binrstar. THC stays in fat cells for 2 months. And to let government tax the sale of marijuana is completely laughable. When has the government stuck their fingers in something and not fucked it up? Well, I guess barry's "cash for clunkers" program worked pretty good... at least it removed 98% of those annoying "obama 08" bumper stickers off the road. But anyway, marijuana IS a gateway drug. That is an indisputable fact. Sure you can bring up a handful of tokers who say that's the only thing they've ever done, blah blah blah. What's more important is to look at the true vast majority of drug users who have done heroin, cocaine, or meth. They've ALL started with marijuana. So fuck off. It's a very good thing that prop 19 got rejected by the majority of Californians. But I don't expect most of you to understand that since you believe so firmly in junk science, because in your fantasy world, you take that as truth. I hope you enjoy having your head up your rectum and are comfortable being ignorant.

[Arlos]

Uh, Mindia, The Lancet isn't junk science. As I said, it is the first or second MOST respected medical journal in the world. The only other one that competes at all is the New England Journal of Medicine. The Lancet has been in existence since 1823. A liberal johnny-come-lately it is NOT. Those graphs I posted come DIRECTLY from a Lancet article. (which I fortunately have access to through my grad school library, so I don't have to pay through the nose). You'll note that I'm not disputing them, even though their results didn't conform to what *I* expected either.

Also, you forget what Brinstar does for a living. He works for his state anti-drug agency, handling rehab cases, etc. Given that he lives in Nebraska, I somehow doubt that the state government there is radically leftist, either. The information he's quoting is known, verifiable, absolute fact WITHIN THE DRUG TREATMENT COMMUNITY. He didn't make them up or get them from Daily KOS or something, they come from data supplied by law enforcement, government statistics, and professional medical organizations. Junk science and a fantasy world, it most certainly is NOT.

-Arlos

[brinstar]

This is mostly directed at Binrstar. THC stays in fat cells for 2 months. And to let government tax the sale of marijuana is completely laughable. When has the government stuck their fingers in something and not fucked it up? Well, I guess barry's "cash for clunkers" program worked pretty good... at least it removed 98% of those annoying "obama 08" bumper stickers off the road. But anyway, marijuana IS a gateway drug. That is an indisputable fact. Sure you can bring up a handful of tokers who say that's the only thing they've ever done, blah blah blah. What's more important is to look at the true vast majority of drug users who have done heroin, cocaine, or meth. They've ALL started with marijuana. So fuck off. It's a very good thing that prop 19 got rejected by the majority of Californians. But I don't expect most of you to understand that since you believe so firmly in junk science, because in your fantasy world, you take that as truth. I hope you enjoy having your head up your rectum and are comfortable being ignorant.

You didn't read a single thing I said, did you? Par for the course, I guess.

First of all, as Arlos says, I'm pretty well in the loop as far as drug science and policy goes, so don't throw a soundbite like "hurr fat cells" at me and expect me to cower like a bitch. I am well aware of the elimination rate of cannabinoid compounds from the body (funny thing is you're not even right about that), and routinely apply cutting-edge toxicological formulae to chromatographic/spectrometric lab results in order to determine the difference between normal biological removal of said compounds and actual new use. I'd post findings I've accumulated in the past four years (validated by known leaders in the toxicology field) if I thought you were the least bit interested in - or for that matter, capable of - actually learning something here instead of just excreting more imaginary fluff you slurped up from Rupert Murdoch's old dusty wang.

That being said, your whole stance on MJ being a gateway drug completely ignores any sort of logic. Yes, it's a fact that every heroin/coke/meth user tried MJ first. No one is arguing against that. What you're forgetting - or, more likely, choosing to completely ignore - is that A) well over 90% of people who try MJ never progress to harder drugs and more importantly that B) this is not data based on surveys, this is data based on circumstances of arrest collected over a span of 18 years in 24 major cities. We're talking a sample size in the upper 8-digit range here. Here's a simple picture I drew (dimensions are approximate; I'm not great with geometry):



It's funny to me that you'll quickly point to meth/coke/H use as a natural progression from MJ use, specifically because you only choose to see it the one way. If we pretend for a second that your gateway theory isn't as full of holes as your brain - why don't we go further upstream and ban alcohol and tobacco? I guarantee you that every single person in the world who has ever used any form of cocaine, marijuana, or heroin smoked a cigarette or consumed alcohol first. But once we step out of La-La Land, we see that oh, gosh, not everyone who tries alcohol or tobacco then moves on to MJ! How can you not see that this argument is just as ridiculous as yours? For fuck's sake, I bet the vast majority of people who have ever tried alcohol or tobacco started out with caffeinated beverages such as soda, tea, or coffee! OMG GAETWAY DRUG! BAN CAFFIENE LOL

So back to my graph - why don't all the rest of those MJ users move on to harder stuff? By your logic, the red circle should expand to fill up the green one, right? So what is it? Harder drugs are widely available, so that's not an issue. The fact that they spite the law by smoking MJ in the first place means the illegality of harder drugs shouldn't be a deterrent, right? I know where my answers come from: toxicologists, neurobiologists, sociologists, statisticians, the scientific method, and warehousefuls of properly-collected field data. Where the fuck do you get yours?

[Narrock]

I know where my answers come from: toxicologists, neurobiologists, sociologists, statisticians, the scientific method, and warehousefuls of properly-collected field data.

ROFL

You're full of shit, and you are doing nothing but presenting propaganda. Do you really want to come across as an ignorant dipshit about this? I don't care what chart/graph/bullshit you post about it. It's evident that you know NOTHING about marijuana. Educate yourself properly and open your mind and eyes.

Read this from this unbiased source presenting the truth and REAL factual data pertaining to THC. You probably won't read it, or you will read parts of it until they say something you don't like or agree with, knowing you... and then you'll come back here and post more bullshit. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/index.htm

[leah]

I know where my answers come from: toxicologists, neurobiologists, sociologists, statisticians, the scientific method, and warehousefuls of properly-collected field data.

ROFL

You're full of shit, and you are doing nothing but presenting propaganda. Do you really want to come across as an ignorant dipshit about this? I don't care what chart/graph/bullshit you post about it. It's evident that you know NOTHING about marijuana. Educate yourself properly and open your mind and eyes.

Read this from this unbiased source presenting the truth and REAL factual data pertaining to THC. You probably won't read it, or you will read parts of it until they say something you don't like or agree with, knowing you... and then you'll come back here and post more bullshit. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/index.htm

omg mindia seriously

he works in the drug court! he performs drug tests on a weekly basis! HE MAKES HIS LIVING BY KNOWING ABOUT DRUGS! he doesn't tell you everything you know about truck driving is wrong, so why on earth are you telling him that he knows nothing about marijuana when that is obviously patently untrue?!

i'm actually kind of convinced that you're kidding because this response can't possibly be sincere.

[10sun]

I know where my answers come from: toxicologists, neurobiologists, sociologists, statisticians, the scientific method, and warehousefuls of properly-collected field data.

ROFL

You're full of shit, and you are doing nothing but presenting propaganda. Do you really want to come across as an ignorant dipshit about this? I don't care what chart/graph/bullshit you post about it. It's evident that you know NOTHING about marijuana. Educate yourself properly and open your mind and eyes.

Read this from this unbiased source presenting the truth and REAL factual data pertaining to THC. You probably won't read it, or you will read parts of it until they say something you don't like or agree with, knowing you... and then you'll come back here and post more bullshit. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/index.htm

omg mindia seriously

he works in the drug court! he performs drug tests on a weekly basis! HE MAKES HIS LIVING BY KNOWING ABOUT DRUGS! he doesn't tell you everything you know about truck driving is wrong, so why on earth are you telling him that he knows nothing about marijuana when that is obviously patently untrue?!

i'm actually kind of convinced that you're kidding because this response can't possibly be sincere.

Mindia was lured in by sin semilla as a younger man and it was a gateway drug for him. A gateway to shitballs and all kinds of other mistakes before he found Jesus.

[brinstar]

First of all, propaganda? Seriously? You think I'd hop on the internets and intentionally spread propaganda that weakens/undermines my livelihood? What, did you fall back off the wagon again?

Anyway, I read the link. Despite the fact that it reads like a poorly-edited high school report and contains huge amounts of bias, it actually offers no credible facts to support either side of this particular argument. Nice .info site by the way, why don't you just link a geocities page while you're at it.

Whatever, I'm done debating this particular matter. In all honesty, your credibility on virtually every subject bottomed out years ago - so if you don't mind, I (and I assume everyone else here) will simply continue believing the established science behind my profession.


Now, if you'd care to graduate to big-boy logic and offer educated opinions on Nusk's points about why Prop 19 would've been a mess to implement, I might actually listen. You probably don't actually have any though; I'm guessing they don't offer "Public Policy 101" in trucker school.

[Drem]

I know where my answers come from: toxicologists, neurobiologists, sociologists, statisticians, the scientific method, and warehousefuls of properly-collected field data.

ROFL

You're full of shit, and you are doing nothing but presenting propaganda. Do you really want to come across as an ignorant dipshit about this? I don't care what chart/graph/bullshit you post about it. It's evident that you know NOTHING about marijuana. Educate yourself properly and open your mind and eyes.

Read this from this unbiased source presenting the truth and REAL factual data pertaining to THC. You probably won't read it, or you will read parts of it until they say something you don't like or agree with, knowing you... and then you'll come back here and post more bullshit. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/index.htm

all you do is regurgitate websites and shit retards told you (ALSO websites written by retards). you posted photoshopped pictures about giant humans that you actually believed were real because you read it on a christian website that's desperately trying to prove the existence of Goliath.... you're a fucking idiot. you're dumber than any stoner i've ever met and you don't even smoke!

and i'm glad you don't smoke because you're already fucked-up and it's assholes like you that give drugs bad raps in the first place imo

[Tuggan]

hey look another weed thread, AND look what else... everyone being trolled by mindia.

[Drem]

JUST LIKE THE GOOD OL DAYS

[Narrock]

You guys are hopeless. I'm not going to respond individually to binrstar, leah, 10sun, drem, or arlos. Go ahead and drink the "marijuana is harmless" cool aid. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. Just please, for the love of mankind, do not reproduce. We don't need yet another generation of ignorant liberal retards running around.

[Arlos]

Uh, Mindia, just a question here:

Why is it when you are presented with the following:

1) A major scientific medical journal's recent study on the dangers of all sorts of drugs, including Marijuana

2) An actual expert in the field, who works with real drug cases and actual drug law enforcement members every day


both of which agree that yes, Marijuana *DOES* potentially cause harm, but nowhere near as much as other already-legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol.

So, why when presented with that information is your automatic reaction to respond with insulting everyone involved and assuming that you alone are right and everyone else is wrong? Is it that impossible to believe that whatever information you have received on the issue is not 100% accurate and that you might perhaps be wrong? Note that I was surprised by the Lancet results, as they disagreed with what I believed, but I didn't go on a rant that the people producing it shouldn't reproduce just because the medical study disagreed with one of my previously-held notions...

-Arlos

[brinstar]

i'm not surprised at all. his ability to completely ignore any sort of reason is well-documented, as is his ability to spew incredibly hateful vitriol. makes me wonder why any of us bother offering logical discourse to a truck-driving ex-tweaker.

he's done more drugs than all of the rest of us combined - maybe this is a case study in brain damage

[Drem]

no shit lol

[10sun]

We are all committing a fallacy here though! Kind of.
Ad hominem et tu? Even though I agreed with Mindia's major point against Prop 19 and haven't said anything contrary, but I did bring up shitballs and his past.

[Narrock]

i'm not surprised at all. his ability to completely ignore any sort of reason is well-documented, as is his ability to spew incredibly hateful vitriol. makes me wonder why any of us bother offering logical discourse to a truck-driving ex-tweaker.

he's done more drugs than all of the rest of us combined - maybe this is a case study in brain damage

You have yet to present a logical and unbiased resource on this topic. This statement

poorly-edited high school report and contains huge amounts of bias, it actually offers no credible facts to support either side of this particular argument

is proof positive that you didn't even read it. And your claim about me being an ex-tweaker and having done more drugs than all of you combined... is just more proof that you are a liar, and are displaying sub-average intellect.

The big questions here are: Why are you so adamant about ignoring real facts about marijuana? WHY????????????? Why are you defending propaganda and junk science findings regarding marijuana and its use? And why are you in a drug-related career field when you know NOTHING about marijuana other than it makes you high? You claim that I am ignorant? Have you looked in the mirror lately?

[Narrock]

Uh, Mindia, just a question here:

Why is it when you are presented with the following:

1) A major scientific medical journal's recent study on the dangers of all sorts of drugs, including Marijuana

2) An actual expert in the field, who works with real drug cases and actual drug law enforcement members every day


both of which agree that yes, Marijuana *DOES* potentially cause harm, but nowhere near as much as other already-legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol.

So, why when presented with that information is your automatic reaction to respond with insulting everyone involved and assuming that you alone are right and everyone else is wrong? Is it that impossible to believe that whatever information you have received on the issue is not 100% accurate and that you might perhaps be wrong? Note that I was surprised by the Lancet results, as they disagreed with what I believed, but I didn't go on a rant that the people producing it shouldn't reproduce just because the medical study disagreed with one of my previously-held notions...

-Arlos

Arlos, you are not being objective at all. Marijuana has MUCH more detrimental effects than your statement of "potentially causes harm..." Do you smoke weed or something? I've heard doctors on talk shows talk about how dangerous and mind-altering THC is. Why would several REAL MD's (not crackpot ex hippies like Dean Edell) warn people on radio and tv about the dangers of smoking marijuana? Real doctors don't have a political agenda, unlike Dr. Dean Edell, who has a major agenda. Why is it so hard for you to accept that THC destroys the brain, and marijuana smoke destroys lung tissue?

[Gypsiyee]

You guys are hopeless. I'm not going to respond individually to binrstar, leah, 10sun, drem, or arlos. Go ahead and drink the "marijuana is harmless" cool aid. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. Just please, for the love of mankind, do not reproduce. We don't need yet another generation of ignorant liberal retards running around.

the problem is that your opposition to marijuana legalization is hypocritical and senseless if for no other reason than the fact that in every other political facet you think government should be completely hands off and grant people privacy.

you saying marijuana should not be legalized completely refutes your other political stances. if you're someone who truly believes in smaller government--which you constantly espouse--then you should not be an advocate for the war on drugs, which involves huge government spending.

do you disagree that legalizing marijuana would not only cost the government far less money in the justice system, but it would also generate huge revenues for the government? if you do disagree, I'd be interested to know why you would ignore basic math and basic economics.

I don't smoke pot, I'm not a fan. It makes me incredibly paranoid and I hate the feeling of it. But I don't really see why I'm allowed to walk into a bar and get absolutely sauced while someone who catches a buzz at home once in a while is at risk of jail time. It just defies logic.

Alcohol destroys a number of organs and tons of cases of alcohol related deaths are reported each year. Are you also for prohibition?

[Arlos]

Arlos, you are not being objective at all. Marijuana has MUCH more detrimental effects than your statement of "potentially causes harm..." Do you smoke weed or something? I've heard doctors on talk shows talk about how dangerous and mind-altering THC is. Why would several REAL MD's (not crackpot ex hippies like Dean Edell) warn people on radio and tv about the dangers of smoking marijuana? Real doctors don't have a political agenda, unlike Dr. Dean Edell, who has a major agenda. Why is it so hard for you to accept that THC destroys the brain, and marijuana smoke destroys lung tissue?

Mindia, did you not look at either graph I posted in my post on the first page? Those come from the article from The Lancet, which, as I said, is one of the TOP (and most conservative) medical journals on the planet. The people that wrote the article are indeed REAL MDs. (and no, it was not written by Dr. Dean Edell). They CLEARLY show that marijuana DOES cause harm. However, the AMOUNT of harm it causes is lower than other drugs that are already legal: tobacco and alcohol.

I have already freely admitted that those graphs showed marijuana causing more harm than I believed it did. I expected a much lower result on the scale than what the Lancet article displayed. It still doesn't change my ultimate point, though: While it may cause harm, the harm it causes is LESS than other drugs that any adult can go buy in any quantity they desire at any time. There is no agument against alcohol causing major losses to business either; I mean, how many man-days of productive work are lost per year due to people showing up to work hung over to the point where they're not or barely functional? I'd say that number is large... Why is that OK, yet there is something fundamentally wrong with someone smoking a joint at home in the evening, yet they show up to work the next day completely OK?

-Arlos

[Narrock]

You guys are hopeless. I'm not going to respond individually to binrstar, leah, 10sun, drem, or arlos. Go ahead and drink the "marijuana is harmless" cool aid. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. Just please, for the love of mankind, do not reproduce. We don't need yet another generation of ignorant liberal retards running around.

the problem is that your opposition to marijuana legalization is hypocritical and senseless if for no other reason than the fact that in every other political facet you think government should be completely hands off and grant people privacy.

you saying marijuana should not be legalized completely refutes your other political stances. if you're someone who truly believes in smaller government--which you constantly espouse--then you should not be an advocate for the war on drugs, which involves huge government spending.

do you disagree that legalizing marijuana would not only cost the government far less money in the justice system, but it would also generate huge revenues for the government? if you do disagree, I'd be interested to know why you would ignore basic math and basic economics.

I don't smoke pot, I'm not a fan. It makes me incredibly paranoid and I hate the feeling of it. But I don't really see why I'm allowed to walk into a bar and get absolutely sauced while someone who catches a buzz at home once in a while is at risk of jail time. It just defies logic.

Alcohol destroys a number of organs and tons of cases of alcohol related deaths are reported each year. Are you also for prohibition?

Gyps, letting the government take control of it and tax it is a huge mistake. I'm not ignoring basic math or economics. The government WILL fuck it all up, especially this current irresponsible administration. But I'm more interested in the social impact of this drug, not so much the fiscal impact. THC is dangerous, plain and simple. If you want to compare effects of impairment, THC is much more powerful than alcohol. I'm not being an advocate for alcohol, but I (and most people) can drink 2 beers and maintain better coordination and motor skills than taking 2 tokes off a joint. Comparing alcohol to THC, is comparing apples to oranges.

[Drem]

oh so you just can't handle it and that's why you think it's so crazy. for fuck's sake dude get real. just because you're a huge pussy and can't take two hits from a joint doesn't mean it makes everyone freak out

it's different for everyone

but why would i expect you to have any empathy or give two shits how anyone else feels. you never have before. you're like a textbook bigot that can't think for himself. shit you can't even post pictures on your own, you had to get someone that disses you constantly to do it for you lol