LunaC Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 If you make that legal, then make prostitution legal Yep. Regulate, license, tax and test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Yep. Regulate, license, tax and test. Why not. I really think all laws that have been created to protect people from themselves should be abolished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I have a stain where I spilled my bong water. Will oxy clean remove it? I've always had good luck with Resolve. Damn dog knocking it over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 nominee: dumbest post ever. Right. We all know that people don't drive drunk and that pot doesn't make any people sleepy. I'd love to see more drunk drivers coming at me on the roads who are stoned as well. It's such a fantastic "medicinal" herb that maybe it would make people better drivers as well as smarter, healthier and better citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Right. We all know that people don't drive drunk and that pot doesn't make any people sleepy. I'd love to see more drunk drivers coming at me on the roads who are stoned as well. It's such a fantastic "medicinal" herb that maybe it would make people better drivers as well as smarter, healthier and better citizens. Get over yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Get over yourself. Tell that to parents who's kids have been killed by impaired drivers. I wonder how they'd respond to hearing "get over yourself". That has to be about the weakest response to a post that I've seen here in a long time. What happened....did you use "get a life" a few times yesterday and want to change things up a bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Tell that to parents who's kids have been killed by impaired drivers. I wonder how they'd respond to hearing "get over yourself". That has to be about the weakest response to a post that I've seen here in a long time. What happened....did you use "get a life" a few times yesterday and want to change things up a bit? Talk about weak response, let's trot out the statistically insignificant yet emotionally powerful "parents of kids who have been killed by drunk drivers"...jeesh life is risky. if you're not willing to ban all guns due to accidental deaths, ban all liquor due to drunk drivers and health effects, eliminate cigarettes because of the health problems they cause smokers and non-smokers, then how can you arbitrarily decide marijuana should be illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Talk about weak response, let's trot out the statistically insignificant yet emotionally powerful "parents of kids who have been killed by drunk drivers"...jeesh life is risky. if you're not willing to ban all guns due to accidental deaths, ban all liquor due to drunk drivers and health effects, eliminate cigarettes because of the health problems they cause smokers and non-smokers, then how can you arbitrarily decide marijuana should be illegal? I will agree that there are risks inherent in life. Cars serve a irreplaceable service in our lives, yet still do damage and cause death. The idea here, however, is to not ADD to the list of human vices that cause problems. The tired, old arguement that cars, cigs and booze are legal, so we should legalize pot is exactly that.....tired and old. Why not just legalize meth, crack and cocaine, too? I'm sure kids who get killed by drunk drivers are pretty insignificant to people who are never personally affected by such a tragedy. I still didn't see where you bothered to ask a parent who lost a child (or any family member, for that matter) how insignificant an issue it is. It must not be that insignificant, considering the toughening of the DWI laws several times over the last few decades and the money that gets spent on making the public aware of the dangers of DWI. Are do you just like to argue? Consider yourself fortunate if no one you've ever known has been maimed or killed by a drunk in a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I will agree that there are risks inherent in life. Cars serve a irreplaceable service in our lives, yet still do damage and cause death. The idea here, however, is to not ADD to the list of human vices that cause problems. The tired, old arguement that cars, cigs and booze are legal, so we should legalize pot is exactly that.....tired and old. Why not just legalize meth, crack and cocaine, too? I'm sure kids who get killed by drunk drivers are pretty insignificant to people who are never personally affected by such a tragedy. I still didn't see where you bothered to ask a parent who lost a child (or any family member, for that matter) how insignificant an issue it is. It must not be that insignificant, considering the toughening of the DWI laws several times over the last few decades and the money that gets spent on making the public aware of the dangers of DWI. Are do you just like to argue? Consider yourself fortunate if no one you've ever known has been maimed or killed by a drunk in a car. Asking why not just legalizing meth, crack and coke shows you have no understanding of the differences of the drugs. And quite frankly that argument is tired and old. Pot just is not those other drugs. And if we are stiffening DWI laws, then we certainly have the ability to translate these laws, enforcement and sentencing to driving under the influence of pot. My point is, millions of people across this country have either tried or currently choose to do something that is illegal. And if this was made legal, there could be tax benefits, and benefits to the american agriculture industry. Honestly, it doesn't make much difference to me. I know there is little trouble obtaining quality product, at a decent price, with little worry of legal reprocussion. Just seems a shame that it all goes to an underground economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Asking why not just legalizing meth, crack and coke shows you have no understanding of the differences of the drugs. And quite frankly that argument is tired and old. Pot just is not those other drugs. And if we are stiffening DWI laws, then we certainly have the ability to translate these laws, enforcement and sentencing to driving under the influence of pot. My point is, millions of people across this country have either tried or currently choose to do something that is illegal. And if this was made legal, there could be tax benefits, and benefits to the american agriculture industry. Honestly, it doesn't make much difference to me. I know there is little trouble obtaining quality product, at a decent price, with little worry of legal reprocussion. Just seems a shame that it all goes to an underground economy. I do know way more than you can possibly know. I overstated the case to make this point: Where do we draw the line? How do we know which drugs to legalize and which ones not to? Setting up controls isn't as easy as it may sound. There's a lot of illegal alcohol abuse. How do you control yet another drug? What's the criteria? Cocaine actually has valid medicinal purposes, too, as does morphine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest i know this person Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I do know way more than you can possibly know. I overstated the case to make this point: Where do we draw the line? How do we know which drugs to legalize and which ones not to? Setting up controls isn't as easy as it may sound. There's a lot of illegal alcohol abuse. How do you control yet another drug? What's the criteria? Cocaine actually has valid medicinal purposes, too, as does morphine. here he is again. mr. "over the top guy". don't you have anything else in your arsenal? driving while impaired is a crime no matter what substance it is. nobody is saying more impaired drivers is better. first of all, just because it's legal doesn't mean everyone will start smoking pot. it's not hard to get. they have already made that choice. second, the same laws in place for alcohol would be the same for pot. i would put forth that scientists could easily determine impairment levels. it's 2008. the point is you can't ban something just because a small % of people will act irresponsibly with it. this is a free society. if someone wants to smoke a joint in their basement at night, with no kids around and not driving, they should be able to. this victim defense is pathetic. that was someone's choice and was against the law. you obviously know nothing about drugs. pot is not in the same class as hard drugs. it is not physically addicting, and will not make someone rob a convienance store to buy it. booze and cigs are far more harmful. pot can easily be used responsibly. cocaine, crack, heroin, and meth are abused by the majority of people who use it. the direct opposite of pot. they are far more addicting and damaging to the mind and body. to compare them to pot is moronic. once again, reasonable idea=car crashes and why don't we legalize everything. stop posting or come up with real arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 here he is again. mr. "over the top guy". don't you have anything else in your arsenal? driving while impaired is a crime no matter what substance it is. nobody is saying more impaired drivers is better. first of all, just because it's legal doesn't mean everyone will start smoking pot. it's not hard to get. they have already made that choice. second, the same laws in place for alcohol would be the same for pot. i would put forth that scientists could easily determine impairment levels. it's 2008. the point is you can't ban something just because a small % of people will act irresponsibly with it. this is a free society. if someone wants to smoke a joint in their basement at night, with no kids around and not driving, they should be able to. this victim defense is pathetic. that was someone's choice and was against the law. you obviously know nothing about drugs. pot is not in the same class as hard drugs. it is not physically addicting, and will not make someone rob a convienance store to buy it. booze and cigs are far more harmful. pot can easily be used responsibly. cocaine, crack, heroin, and meth are abused by the majority of people who use it. the direct opposite of pot. they are far more addicting and damaging to the mind and body. to compare them to pot is moronic. once again, reasonable idea=car crashes and why don't we legalize everything. stop posting or come up with real arguments. You sure are easy to stir up. the same laws in place for alcohol would be the same for pot. The same ones that don't keep our roads safe now? i would put forth that scientists could easily determine impairment levels. Right. Some sort of breath analyzer, huh? Not gonna happen. And "scientists" aren't the guys who would be administer any sort of THC/blood level test. the point is you can't ban something just because a small % of people will act irresponsibly with it. Hmmmm.....using your logic, again, we shouldn't ban opiates. Not everyone would act irresponsibly with those, would they? You might want to think these blanket statements through before you post them. you obviously know nothing about drugs. pot is not in the same class as hard drugs. it is not physically addicting, and will not make someone rob a convienance store to buy it. You also might want to do more homework. There is no scientific evidence proving whether THC is or isn't addictive. The "jury is still out" on that one. You know for a fact that no one ever committed a crime in order to buy pot? Really?????? Again, I know way more than you can possibly imagine about alcohol and drugs. THOSE are what you call "real arguments"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 The fact is...smoking doesn't really impair drivers..I drive all the time and im fine..Also marajuana is less damaging then the other drugs and less addictive..the government shouldn't allow everything but should on the minor things..this is the "land of the Free" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrapyouincold Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 You sure are easy to stir up. the same laws in place for alcohol would be the same for pot. The same ones that don't keep our roads safe now? i would put forth that scientists could easily determine impairment levels. Right. Some sort of breath analyzer, huh? Not gonna happen. And "scientists" aren't the guys who would be administer any sort of THC/blood level test. the point is you can't ban something just because a small % of people will act irresponsibly with it. Hmmmm.....using your logic, again, we shouldn't ban opiates. Not everyone would act irresponsibly with those, would they? You might want to think these blanket statements through before you post them. you obviously know nothing about drugs. pot is not in the same class as hard drugs. it is not physically addicting, and will not make someone rob a convienance store to buy it. You also might want to do more homework. There is no scientific evidence proving whether THC is or isn't addictive. The "jury is still out" on that one. You know for a fact that no one ever committed a crime in order to buy pot? Really?????? Again, I know way more than you can possibly imagine about alcohol and drugs. THOSE are what you call "real arguments"? yup....we have a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Is that really what this thread has come to? Pot makes people bad drivers? Geesh. If that's the argument: My aunt has schizophrenia. She's on medications I can't even pronounce, she drives. I don't think she should but her meds are legal and her driving is horrible. My sister is an alcoholic. She lives a few miles away from any bar. Guess what? She drinks and drives. Has to drive to get home from the bar because it's located in the middle of nowhere. Doubt anyone could walk home from there. I got a friend who has sleep apnea. He can fall asleep anytime and he has a license. My neighbor is 84 and she's got a license and a car. She can't see over the steering wheel, let alone 2 feet in front of her. New licenses last 9 years so she can legally drive until she's 93 as her license was recently renewed. The roads are crap around here. Binghamton hardly cleans up after a storm, the roads are more dangerous than half the dimwits driving them. I'm thinking we should BAN DRIVING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 The fact is...smoking doesn't really impair drivers..I drive all the time and im fine..Also marajuana is less damaging then the other drugs and less addictive..the government shouldn't allow everything but should on the minor things..this is the "land of the Free" My point from the very beginning was NOT about stoners driving. A few pages of threads later, and people assume thats' what I was saying. My point was that if pot were legal and people who had been drinking AND smoking were driving, the danger would be increased by them being high AND drunk. I drive all the time and im fine What does that mean? That you drive and you're fine? Or that you think you're fine when you're driving stoned? Most drunk drivers think they're "fine", too. That's how they get into accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I can tell you this when you drink and smoke you get really f***** up! and no i dont drink and drive im too scared too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I can tell you this when you drink and smoke you get really f***** up! and no i dont drink and drive im too scared too! Maybe I missed this...is pot a bigger carcinogen than tobacco? For my 2 cents I think it should be legal...but people need to know the dangers...if any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 My point from the very beginning was NOT about stoners driving. A few pages of threads later, and people assume thats' what I was saying. My point was that if pot were legal and people who had been drinking AND smoking were driving, the danger would be increased by them being high AND drunk. I drive all the time and im fine What does that mean? That you drive and you're fine? Or that you think you're fine when you're driving stoned? Most drunk drivers think they're "fine", too. That's how they get into accidents. I meant to say i drive high fine...tests have been done in london that show that it does little to impair drivers..but drinking and smoking is another thing..i could handle it but i know alot of people who couldn't...back to the point=legalize it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Guestinger Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I meant to say i drive high fine...tests have been done in london that show that it does little to impair drivers..but drinking and smoking is another thing..i could handle it but i know alot of people who couldn't...back to the point=legalize it I like pizza, I like bagels, I like hotdogs with mustard and beer. I'll eat eggplant, I could even eat a baby deer. La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la, Who's that baby deer on the lawn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrapyouincold Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I like pizza, I like bagels, I like hotdogs with mustard and beer. I'll eat eggplant, I could even eat a baby deer. La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la, Who's that baby deer on the lawn? Someone hit the bong early Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Guestinger Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Someone hit the bong early And often! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I second that! Almost time for another hit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest i know this game Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 You sure are easy to stir up. the same laws in place for alcohol would be the same for pot. The same ones that don't keep our roads safe now? i would put forth that scientists could easily determine impairment levels. Right. Some sort of breath analyzer, huh? Not gonna happen. And "scientists" aren't the guys who would be administer any sort of THC/blood level test. the point is you can't ban something just because a small % of people will act irresponsibly with it. Hmmmm.....using your logic, again, we shouldn't ban opiates. Not everyone would act irresponsibly with those, would they? You might want to think these blanket statements through before you post them. you obviously know nothing about drugs. pot is not in the same class as hard drugs. it is not physically addicting, and will not make someone rob a convienance store to buy it. You also might want to do more homework. There is no scientific evidence proving whether THC is or isn't addictive. The "jury is still out" on that one. You know for a fact that no one ever committed a crime in order to buy pot? Really?????? Again, I know way more than you can possibly imagine about alcohol and drugs. THOSE are what you call "real arguments"? actually, everything in this post is factually incorrect. ask a 9th grader to explain it to you. factually incorrect equals "arguments" for you. crack a book sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 um no ................. Smoke a joint sometime! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.