Making pot legal would be a bad thing....

[TheCanadianLiberal]

The old laws would need to be replace,
A ton of new laws would need to be brought in,
People would complain just as much about it,
More people would end up driving while smoking it,
These people would place more strain on the healthcare system due to things like lung cancer,
It would not solve any real issues with Mexico and,
It's simply not good for you.

I don't know why so many of you support it, I find it simply insane you could. It's no different then any other drug.

[Kolesar]

1. Two words

Toy Story

[Drale]

2. People would be sooooooo baked for about a year

that the repukes could do what ever they wanted because no one would care till the "newness" of it wears off.

Other then that. :popcorn:

[Merlot]

4. I think that most people who want to smoke pot are already doing so

a few more might smoke it if is legal. If you don't smoke pot, you're not going to start a habit just because it's legal.

[Drale]

5. I just feel like people would overdo it if it was made legal

Americans do tend to overdo things that are new.

[lob1]

6. Grass isn't addicting. It can't kill you, either.

[Drale]

9. Video games aren't addicting and they can't kill you

but we still have politicians trying to ban them.

PS. Anything can be addictive if you have an addictive personality.

[lob1]

33. But if anything can be addictive, then everything should

be illegal or nothing should be illegal. Why single out grass?

[Merlot]

13. Who said grass was addictive?

[lob1]

29. My mistake. I meant to reply to #4, who mentions

"...starting up a habit".

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

107. It doesn't need to be a habit

any more than the occasional beer.

:hi:

[Taverner]

3. If ALL DRUGS were legal, the drug cartels would go away

Pot is not the toxic substance the nanny staters would have you believe

It in fact prevents cancer, Alzheimers, severe to moderate pain and, well, its fucking great

If you don't want to smoke pot, please do not

But for the rest of us who go on with perfectly sucessful lives, raising familys and running businesses - shit, we're everywhere

Leave us the fuck alone

OK?

[ZombieHorde]

7. Liber OZ, by Crowley

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." —AL. I. 40

"thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay." —AL. I. 42–3

"Every man and every woman is a star." —AL. I. 3
There is no god but man.

1. Man has the right to live by his own law—
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.

2. Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.

3. Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.

4. Man has the right to love as he will:—
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." —AL. I. 51

5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.

"the slaves shall serve." —AL. II. 58

"Love is the law, love under will." —AL. I. 57

[wildbilln864]

8. wow man...

"A ton of new laws would need to be brought in,"
That sounds like they'd need to be hauled in by trucks and unloaded!?

It's not good for you. It's great for me! :smoke:

[Oasis_]

10. The benefit is two-fold

The additional tax revenue (although government on all levels has shown zero ability to refrain from spending every single penny it collects and more...) as well as the astronomical cost of incarcerating people under the current laws.

There's some downside, but it's far outweighed by the benefits, imo.

Oasis

[ixion]

11. You really should educate yourself before making such statements

seriously.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. you should seek to apply that thinking

in Canada. One item needs clarification. When you say 'a ton of new laws' would that be a metric ton or imperial?

[jmowreader]

63. Imperial ton.

A thousand-kilo mass is a "tonne."

[Tikki]

14. If you are going to smoke it and drive...

some of you already do...you should set aside a day to drive when I'm not on the road.

Tikki

[Patchuli]

20. I suggest you worry more about a drunk

hitting you.

[Tikki]

56. I do worry about drunk drivers...

Tikki

[Patchuli]

69. You should, more than you worry about potheads. nt

[Tikki]

70. People should drive while under the best of their abilities....

There are people on the road I love...


Tikki

[snooper2]

85. That would require proper training like in England

Here any fucking yahoo can get a license...

My FIL is 64 and has had around 6-7 strokes over the years, can hardly walk, busted his hip last November...

His license is up for renewal, he can just do that online--luckily he doesn't drive much at all, but he shouldn't be driving period.

What you need to watch out for is anybody driving around in late 90, early 00' model ford taurus

[CrispyQ]

119. ...or the texters.

[TheMadMonk]

73. In driving simulator tests, pot heads perform almost exactly the same...

...as completely sober drivers. They just slow down to the point where their reflexes can cope.

On the other hand, until they reach the point of needing two hands to guide a key into a keyhole, a drunk is more likely to speed up as his reflexes decrease. Almost as if rushing through would leave less time for mistakes.

Any pot smoker will tell you, that pot increases awareness of surroundings, alcohol narrows a person's awareness of their surroundings to whatever is right before them, or is the most attention grabbing at that moment - a tight arse, a conversation in the back seat, .


In fact I strongly suspect that at a certain density of stoned drivers on the roads, there would be significant benefits on several fronts as they dragged the entire traffic stream down below posted speed limits. Fewer and less severe accidents. A drop in overall fuel consumption and smog. Perhaps a bit less road rage too.

[Capitalocracy]

109. Stoned drivers are a million times better than drunk drivers

but I'd be perfectly willing to accept marijuana being legalized but not while driving. I'll take it. Good enough.

[wildbilln864]

15. Making pot/marijuana/cannabis/hemp legal would be a good thing!

It can be used to lower our dependence on foreign oil, it could boost our food supply. It would be used to make textiles creating more jobs.
Use it to make paper cutting down on the need to cut trees there by helping to enrich the atmosphere. Also make building materials from it which are used to build entire houses in France...

[RandomThoughts]

16. I would guess the issue is not weather it is good for a person or not.

But if it is harmful enough for a state to take away the right for someone to choose on that topic.

That is the question, the state does have the mandate to keep harmful things away from people, as agreed by most of society, while still respecting rights of minorities.

So the question is should the state decide for the individual on that topic.

In that the state has a role of an elder, if correct and caring for society, although in some cases, public and private sector are just trying to collect a check for there role, without the better actions of an elder.

The question is should the 'elder' if they are that role by caring for society, set a rule, or teach why something is better or worse, and allow people to chose, and maybe learn for themselves.

Because many of the elders, in that metaphor, don't care, the ability to limit choices is not thought of as a good thing by many people. The basic libertarian position says people should chose for themselves, although they lose the advantage of much thought and specialization on topics setting some rules to help people, and teaching on topics.

However becuase many of the 'elders' don't care, the libertarian position occurs and grows, since rules get created to care for the elders not society, and a movement occurs to remove that rule setting ability if abused for things like riches for a few, or control of many.


If your argument is that it is bad for someone, then the state could rule many things illegal. But what if the state is geared to create an army, or create an economy, and not geared for the pursuit of happiness of society, then it could, by the definition of setting laws based on what is bad for someone, make anything illegal that does not fit those goals. No vacations, no sports, no food that is not healthy, nothing that does not fufil the whatever role the state defines as important. When the state cares for the top 1% many of its restrictions become wrong, since they are based on wrong goals.

When the state also preserves 'pursuit of happiness' then it lets many choices that are not safest occur, and only outlaw if they actually infringe on someone elses rights, like you mention with driving accident issues.

The issue is, does the state have the right to remove the choice. And that is based on the calculation of if the state representatives have the experiance and knowledge to make that decision, and if they can explain and teach why that is the right decision to maintain the role of respect of making right decisions.

In truth, the issues in much of private and public is for other reasons, why some want to get rid of all government. Although they don't know that private sector is a governance also, and they would just shift the same thing there, so the answer is to regulate private sector to help society from that governance. So the role of public governance is to help keep other forms of governance from restricting citizens by things like economic factors. Since public governance in a democracy is elected (in theory) by most people, and an advocate for most people, while private sector is an advocate for a few people.


As an example. Government public could make Marijuana illegal.
A company could require a drug test to hire an employee.

They are the same thing.

Both make Marijuana illegal. So getting rid of government is not a libertarian position, using government to protect against private sector control over society, while not expanding nanny state government, is a libertarian position. Libertarians should be for progressive taxation, and economic regulation against groups that weigh systems for the few not the many. To protect against the removal of choices created by private sector controls.

That is the fundamental error of the Libertarian right.

[Capitalocracy]

77. "protecting the rights of minorities"

Actually, most demographic work they've done on drug use has shown that a majority of adults have used marijuana at some point. So should a majority of us be in jail? Well, maybe, but not for smoking weed. ;)

[RandomThoughts]

80. The comment was not on the drug issue.

In all choice of laws, society should govern based on decision of the majority, with protection of minority rights.

I prescribe to my local magistrates method of drug enforcement, where violent offenders are persued with much effort, but non violent offenders are not as high a priority for law enforcement. That has been the program in the NW area I live in for some time now.

That does not apply if economic violence is created by white collar crime, or if a drug would cause a form of strife or poverty to a community or individual of coarse, since poverty is a form of violence against a community by its many other effects.

However the different method of enforcement creates an issue of prosecutional discretion that can then be used for things like targeted justice, in that laws that are not enforced equally should be changed or removed to avoid the targeting of some people or groups and not others.

[Posteritatis]

84. I'd read something about that a couple years back...

I'd love to find where I heard it again, since I'd love to follow up on it.

Anyway, it was an argument that a lot of the drug bans in the US (and, let's be honest, Canada by extension) were generally inspired by one racist attitude or another, independent of any debate over their actual harmfulness. A lot of drugs that wound up getting outlawed in the early twentieth century were tied to one ethnic group or another - marijuana to blacks, opium and its relatives to Asian immigrants, cocaine to Italians, and so on. People would spin up some FUD about how insert-drug-here was a sign of insert-group-here's menacing takeover of society, and people got on the ban-wagon as what they saw as a protective measure.

I have no idea if that was actually the case, but it was an interesting enough claim to be worth rolling around in my head now and then.

[pipi_k]

17. Some of the reasons sort of don't make sense...

Like how more people will end up with diseases, etc.

making it legal won't cause lots of people to suddenly start smoking it.

Just like passing out birth control information or condoms won't cause kids to have sex unless they were going to do it anyway.


What "new laws" would need to be brought in? The same laws, for example, that govern cigarette smoking? Or alcohol? DUI...driving under the influence...would more than likely cover both pot and booze. No new laws needed.

Booze isn't good for you. Cigarettes aren't good. Fatty foods...junk food. Gambling isn't good for people, financially. Stress isn't good for anybody. Being overweight isn't good. Lots of prescription medications, used to treat various conditions, can actually kill.

Should we outlaw all of those, too?


People would complain just as much about it? Really? Wow. People complain about lots of things. High prices. Noise. Dirt. Hemmorrhoids. Snow. Heat. Mosquitoes. Should I go on?

Really, I think it's insane that we allow anything at all. It's all bad...

:eyes:

[era veteran]

18. Flame bait

"It's no different then any other drug." yes, pretty much the same as aspirin, heroin, or STP. Now some fresh baby adrenal gland, that is different.

[SOS]

99. All drugs are exactly the same!

There is no difference between caffeine and crystal meth.

:eyes:

[DreamSmoker]

19. Is this for real????

I believe your Post is to simply stir crap..

[TheCanadianLiberal]

21. Yes it is...

For real.I believe making pot legal would be a BAD thing.

[hobbit709]

25. Was it bad for all of human history until the 1930's?

[TheCanadianLiberal]

134. Yes.

Just because something has not always been legal does not mean it was not bad during that time.

[Patchuli]

28. Don't worry about U.S., k? nt

[Incitatus]

38. Do you think alcohol should be legal?

[hobbit709]

22. monomaniac poster.

[Patchuli]

23. It's not a drug. It's an herb.

I don't know why some of you can't get that idea into your heads.

P.S. If people want to do that now, they will anyway regardless of law. Too much money is wasted on enforcing criminalization and imprisoning potheads. It's stupid. Besides, what the fuck do you care?

[marmar]

24. .................

[RainDog]

47. LOL

everyone has a right to an opinion.

[AlabamaLibrul]

26. "It's no different than any other drug"

#notintendedtobeafactualstatement

[stuntcat]

102. +1

.

[ingac70]

27. People living longer puts more of a strain on the healthcare system. n/t

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Drale]

35. Wow just wow

calling people "Un-american" because they don't agree with you? Don't go down the road my friend because that is the road of the right wing.

[Incitatus]

36. I think the CANADIAN in the OPs name says that they are not AMERICAN

[Drale]

40. That doesn't mean you can berate them for not agreeing with you

Free speech is a human right not just a right here in America.

[AlabamaLibrul]

44. Free speech includes the right to call bullshit nt

[Incitatus]

45. sure it does

Free speech is a human right not just a right here in America.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Posteritatis]

90. *facepalm* (nt)

[DainBramaged]

93. Sure

I'll take the big red x for American politics Alex.

[Mass]

42. He is Canadian, therefore American. (or do you think the US is the only country in America)

[marmar]

46. There's plenty to attack in the OP without the ad hominem xenophobia.....

....... and quite honestly, sometimes I wish Canada did have some bearing on U.S. laws.

[notesdev]

31. Perhaps some soap...?

... would go well with that brainwashing you went through?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheCanadianLiberal]

43. I'm not?

Because of a single issue I don't support?

[Incitatus]

48. Should alcohol be legal?

[tekisui]

34. LOL! Trying too hard.

[hobbit709]

41. Pushing Too Hard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHho-rj448s

[JonLP24]

37. More dangerous drugs are already legal

Also prescription drugs contribute to thousands of deaths.

I think it is ridiculous cannabis is still illegal.

[stuntcat]

105. much

much more dangerous.

Also, far as I know (being old and gettin' around quite a bit) alcohol & cigarettes are both more dangerous.

[spanone]

39. unrec...

[joshcryer]

49. Making pot legal would have an immediate impact on the black market growers.

I knew, personally, people who were making thirty thousand dollars every "grow season."

[mitchtv]

50. oh go away

liberal my foot ;dunce is more like it.

[ReggieVeggie]

51. some other drugs don't get you jail time

some you can buy in a store and not expect to be arrested for it

[DainBramaged]

52. Outsiders, great at telling us what's good for us......

[joeunderdog]

122. Yeah, cigarette companies LOVED the warning labels. They actually increased sales.

The idea that making it legal will increase interest is unfounded. If education and treatment were funded by the taxes it brought, then there won't be any catastrophic effect.

Same as booze. Period.

[MrMickeysMom]

53. You should stop at the "I don't know" part of your sentence...

... as you clearly do not understand.

First, do your homework. This consists of hard reading and speaking on the subject with people who have and still do smoke, or eat it in some way.

The old laws you speak of needing to be replaced would be the least of it. In fact, nothing was illegal about cannabis at the beginning of the 20th century.
"A ton" of new laws brought in? Such as what law? There are laws already about substance abuse. Are you talking about them?

How do you come up with "more people would complain or drive under the influence"? I think it's obvious when someone has been drinking, but less obvious when someone has smoked a joint.

Having a legal avenue for it eliminates the illegal one. If you are a dealer, then you loose the fluid income. However, you might understand that it would solve a lot of harder drug problems if you understood anything.

Smoking is not good for anyone, but frequency of smoking pot is not the same as cigarettes. That's not the only way to enjoy marijuana, but a cigarette is a cigarette and seems to be smoked at the same frequency to be enjoyed.

Many people support the legalization of pot, but you lack this fundamental understanding because you have no basis of understanding why or when people get high.

It's different than speed, oxycontin, heroin, or anything else that seems to be prevalent in pain centers across the US. Talk about a drug problem... now THERE'S one...

[Incitatus]

54. The OP is a troll and don't expect any logical retorts to any of your responses. nt

[Imagevision]

55. 300,000+ die every year from continued smoking of tobacco, how many die from weed?

[piratefish08]

96. that would be "how many is '0'?" for the center square.....

i win!

[lawodevolution]

57. The war on drugs is responsible for most of the violent crime in the USA.

[franzia99]

58. Can you explain what makes it worse than alcohol? There are studies showing alcohol is worse.

If that's the case then I don't see what the big deal would be about legalizing it. Do you think more people would be walking around drunk or high in general? I imagine there are a lot of people who would smoke marijuana if it were legal who just drink instead since it isn't. But I don't know.

[Jumping John]

59. Lung cancer has not been linked to smoking pot. Read further:

Pot Smoking Not Linked to Lung Cancer
Study Shows No Increased Risk for Even the Heaviest Marijuana Smokers
By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
May 23, 2006 -- People who smoke marijuana do not appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer, new research suggests.

While a clear increase in cancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users.

Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.

The findings surprised the study’s researchers, who expected to see an increase in cancer among people who smoked marijuana regularly in their youth.

More here: http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer

Maybe because burning tobacco is radioactive is why smoking that can cause cancer of the lungs.

[sudopod]

60. This thread

[LetTimmySmoke]

61. Locking people in cages for smoking marijuana is immoral.

Why more people don't see this I'll never understand.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. We spend $40 Billion a year to keep a relatively benign psychoactive plant illegal.

Not including costs of incarceration.

Let's go down your inane OP point by point, shall we?

The old laws would need to be replace,

So?

A ton of new laws would need to be brought in,

That's your argument? That it might be inconvenient from a legislative sense?

People would complain just as much about it,

So we're spending $40 Billion a year to keep the complaint level stable, then?

More people would end up driving while smoking it,

driving while under the influence is the crime, and should be- not using the substance.

These people would place more strain on the healthcare system due to things like lung cancer,

BULLSHIT.

It would not solve any real issues with Mexico and,

So? It also wouldn't fix the ozone layer. But it WOULD be a step for sanity and personal freedom.

It's simply not good for you.


The relative truth of this statement notwithstanding, there are lots of things that are "simply not good for you" that we don't throw CONSENTING ADULTS IN PRISON for doing.




Get a grip. Marijuana prohibition is insane, it's wasteful, it's cruel, it's fundamentally anti-liberty and anti-choice, and one of these days, it's going to end- and unless you happen to be someone with a vested financial interest in the drug$$$war$$$$, your sky is NOT going to fall.

[BlueIris]

64. Oh, good luck trying to convince people illicit drugs are, like, bad for you.

Goooood luck.

[ohheckyeah]

66. Just because they are illegal

doesn't make them bad for you.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

72. I agree, the once-illicit alcohol is bad for you.

[devilgrrl]

92. Because the legal drugs are so much safer!!!!

:sarcasm:

[NYC Liberal]

101. Even if it was absolutely horrible for you...that is not a good enough reason to

throw people in prison. Shall we also make eating a Big Mac a criminal offense, punishable by jail time?

[ohheckyeah]

65. You obviously really know

nothing about pot. Why do you keep starting these threads?

[Capitalocracy]

75. Pot killed his father!

And raped his mother!

[ohheckyeah]

123. And turned his brother

into Frankenstein!

[TheCanadianLiberal]

128. I've only made a single topic about this if I recall.

The other was a post I made in a topic that ended up consuming the topic itself

[TransitJohn]

67. You forgot the sarcasm smiley, ironicusername!

:evilgrin:

[TheKentuckian]

68. I fart in your general direction.

[Supply Side Jesus]

71. *gasp* not NEW laws?!

what an airtight argument....:dunce: :freak: :silly: :crazy:

[Capitalocracy]

74. of course, as a Canadian, we should take your advice very seriously

after all, decriminalization has brought you guys no end of crime, cancer, economic hardship, government bureaucracy, and everyone there is cowering in their houses for fear of being run down by a stoned driver!

It's not good for you, eh? Neither is chocolate or McDonald's or TV or soda or cars that run on gas. Are you calling for a ban on all those things as well? Put everyone who uses them in prison for decades?

[defendandprotect]

76. Nonsense ...

and people who drink booze now don't drive? Are you kidding?

In fact, access to marijuana could very likely be a POSITIVE for health --

where are you getting your lousy information?

[BoWanZi]

78. Didn't the OP post this exact same thing last week?

Or maybe its just that I see these doomsday pot threads and they all blend together into inane nothingness.

[provis99]

79. Peace, Love, Dope!

[Modern_Matthew]

81. I'm for the legalization of all drugs, except meth (environmental reasons)...

[Posteritatis]

82. Let's take that point by broken point:

"The old laws would need to be replace,{sic}"

So what? Just because a law's on the books doesn't mean it's a good thing. A whole lot of legislation out there needs to be repealed, replaced or amended anyway.

"A ton of new laws would need to be brought in,"

Yeah, not really.

"People would complain just as much about it,"

So what?

"More people would end up driving while smoking it,"

This remains to be seen, though I'm less worried about them than people driving vehicles while faded by alcohol or cell phones.

"These people"

Always love terms like that applied to people one doesn't like.

"would place more strain on the healthcare system due to things like lung cancer,"

Maybe if they smoke an ounce a day for a few years.

"It would not solve any real issues with Mexico, and"

Assuming that's true - I do think the "if we legalize drugs Mexico will magically become peaceful" argument is BS - I don't see how it matters. Legalizing something that generally isn't that harmful is a good in and of itself, since it means you aren't blighting kids for life or jailing them for decades for doing something that's approximately the equivalent of drinking a couple beers. Most people arguing against the prohibition on marijuana are doing so because that prohibition is stupid, not as an altruistic gesture towards another country.

"It's simply not good for you."

Again leaving aside the debate about how dangerous it is or isn't, I assume you want to jail people for partaking in alcohol, aspartame, any number of sports, fast food, and so on and so forth? You don't want to be a hypocrite, right?

[JNelson6563]

87. Well done.

Bravo!

[Le Taz Hot]

83. Anytime you'd like to cite a source

for any of your assertions, we're listening. Otherwise, everything you've posted is a lie. It's not even opinion. It's a lie.

[JNelson6563]

86. lolz

Not to mention the increase in kids ax-murdering their parents!!1!

[CrownPrinceBandar]

88. Silly. Just silly.

[Octafish]

91. ...for the Mafia.

And their enablers in government.

[phleshdef]

94. I know this will get deleted. Fine. You're a fucking idiot.

Thats the most response you deserve.

[DutchLiberal]

95. 'No' on all of your points. Just 'no'. They're simply not true.

[Morning Dew]

97. Step away from the bong, dude.

[DLine]

98. Number of Lung Cancer cases linked to Marijuana smoking....

ZERO!!!!!!!!

[RagAss]

124. Amen !

[WilliamPitt]

100. (facepalm)

[Texasgal]

103. Could you be anymore transparent?

Jeez... atleast try to make your flamebait less obvious next time! :eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

104. No, it wouldn't.

unless you have a vested financial interest in the $$$DRUG$$$WAR$$$$.

[MicaelS]

106. Why are Canadians so concerned about US internal laws?

Far too many Canadians seem to enjoy lecturing us about the laws in our Sovereign (note that word) county. If you aren't lecturing us about gun laws, it's about drug laws, or something. We do not live in the North American Union, not yet anyway. So what we do internally in our country is none of your business.

[drokhole]

108. UNCOVERED - CanadianLiberal logic throughout recent history

1776 - Revolting against England would be a bad thing....

The old laws would need to be replace,
A ton of new laws would need to be brought in,
People would complain just as much about it,
More people would end up living in a free country,
These people would place more strain on self-governance due to things like "rights,"
It would not solve any real issues with England and,
It's simply not good for you.

I don't know why so many of you support it, I find it simply insane you could. They're no different then any other monarchy.



1850 - Making slavery illegal would be a bad thing....

The old laws would need to be replace,
A ton of new laws would need to be brought in,
People would complain just as much about it,
More people would end up walking around as free citizens,
These people would place more strain on the everything due to things like equality,
It would not solve any real issues with the South and,
It's simply not good for slave owners.

I don't know why so many of you support it, I find it simply insane you could. It's no different then any other labor.


1920 - Making woman suffrage legal would be a bad thing....

The old laws would need to be replace,
A ton of new laws would need to be brought in,
People would complain just as much about it,
More people would end up voting,
These people would place more strain on the electorate,
It would not solve any real issues with women and,
It's simply not good for white males.

I don't know why so many of you support it, I find it simply insane you could. It's no different than any other issue.

[TheCanadianLiberal]

126. So getting high is the same as...

People being treated terribly as slaves?

[drokhole]

131. Well, if you really need me to spell it out for you...

You offered exactly zero legitimate reasons as to why "making pot legal would be a bad thing." No scientific data, no cost analysis/comparison, no clear grasps on the laws, no personal anecdotes, no secondary anecdotes, etc... And of course you didn't, because most of the "facts" you listed are just vacuous, subjective, incredibly speculative bullshit. Hell, a few of your gems (...more strain on the healthcare system due to things like lung cancer, it's simply not good for you, it's no different then any other drug...) are flat-out, demonstrably false. You could have even qualified the whole thing with an "In my opinion...," but, no - you had to be like any other bloviating, pig-headed asshole and declare your opinion as simple fact.

What I was demonstrating, and what you clearly have the inability to comprehend, is how absurd your blind assertions were, and how your exact vapid "argument" can be used for any issue under the sun. You know why? Because it was vague as shit, and was complete hearsay. I see you're a very literal person, though. Good to know! Just a warning - when someone says they're "So hungry they could eat a horse," they probably don't really mean they could eat a horse.

(Oh, you also conveniently failed to consider reasons why "keeping pot illegal is a bad thing." Health benefits aside, the costs are staggering - law enforcement, increased border patrol, lives lost in the "drug war," court cases, booking/processing, prisoner upkeep, permanent mark on personal records...and to top it off, that's all taxpayer burden.)

Believe it or not, deciding whether or not to smoke pot is an individual's right (at least, it should be). No - smoking pot is not women's suffrage, smoking pot is not revolting from England, and smoking pot is not slavery. But you bet your ass that they are all rights issues (before you go running off and screaming "OMG! This stoner says not getting high is like slavery! Now I've heard it all! Derrr!" - realize I am not claiming there is absolute equivalence). And the fact of the matter is, whether or not I want to smoke cannabis is my choice, and the "law" should damn well "allow" me to do so. Oh, wait, I forgot - it's so hard to change laws, and people will just complain either way, so why even bother? (hey, maybe you would have fit in in the South! they needed an entire war to abolish those laws.)

If you took offense at all to this post, good. Because I found your OP incredibly offensive, for its ignorance, and for this comment in particular - "I don't know why so many of you support it, I find it simply insane you could."

The reason you "don't know why" is because you don't know shit, and I find it simply insane that idiots like you are still so uninformed. Do some research next time before posting. Hell, maybe even try it. Either way, educate yourself on the subject. Because, right now, you're only proving one thing - not smoking pot kills brain cells (#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement).

[JonLP24]

133. +1

Great stuff.

[anneboleyn]

129. *snort* amen, Lovely grammar, as well.

[kentauros]

110. You may or may not know this, but in Canada,

it is almost legal already. I know I've read reports of police not only "turning the other way" in regards whether to arrest for possession or not, but lessening the punishment, if any.

Also, if you had stricter enforcement of your marijuana laws, I doubt that your government would then allow for the production of hemp crops. Y'all get to benefit from that; we don't, thanks to an agency that sees no difference between hemp and marijuana...

[callous taoboy]

111. You forgot maniacal piano playing, demonic giggling, bug eyes...

[sarge43]

125. The dreaded munchies

:scared:

[BobbyBoring]

112. I've read some stupid shit on DU

but I think you win!

[Fire1]

115. LOL!!! Shame on you! LOL!!! n/t

[anneboleyn]

130. I have to agree.

[H2O Man]

113. Gosh.

[Fire1]

114. Not a great argument. Many things that are "bad" for you are

perfectly legal, i.e. cigarettes, liquor, etc. Pot will also be legal as soon as the tabacco companies figure out how the profits from tabacco can be replaced by those from pot. I think the sale of tabacco will drop significantly.

[LeftishBrit]

116. Well, what about alcohol?

People drive when drunk; damage their mental health and destroy relationships by excessive drinking; and put strain on the healthcare system with liver disease, increased rates of cancer, accidental injuries, etc.

But prohibition just made things worse. Same with pot.

[zinnisking]

117. I have a hard time believing you're Canadian.

I always thought Canadians were open-minded people with sound reasoning.

"It's no different than any other drug."

What?

[Posteritatis]

118. There's thirty-four million of us, and despite Harper's wishes we aren't exactly a hive mind. (nt)

[JackRiddler]

120. They should bring back alcohol prohibition instead.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

121. .

:rofl:

[Ramulux]

127. You are delusional

Everything you said is empirically false.

[NobleCynic]

132. But imprisoning 100's of thousands is a worse thing.... n/t