Legalize It!!!!!!!

I'm not sure what the moral ground is against marijuana.

Pragmatically, my case against it has to do with the long-term effects I've seen on people I've known. People who lost their jobs, their wives, their children, their entire lives, all because they were stuck on weed.

Most of the people I've met, who were heavily hitting the flower power, were often the most useless pathetic people. Some have told me it's great because people high on pot, are funny and humorous. Not from what I've seen. That kind of funny, is no more entertaining than kindergartners exchanging potty jokes, or tripping a drunk guy causing him to fall, or that guy in California who made homeless bums fight over $10 bucks.

It's not funny, it's sick and pathetic. And the wife who longs for a her husband to come out of his drug induced stupor, and lead her family, or the child who can't figure out why daddy never plays with them, neither finds it very amusing either.

This is what I'm against. Having met enough people in loveless marriages, because one or both, was hooked on some substance, I can say I don't want to meet anymore. And if legalizing it will increase those numbers, then I'm against it.

I'm new here so if I'm responding to this in way that looks funny... ehhh sorry. Not used to blogging. But, originally I came in here coming to defend legalization. After reading this, I had to agree. I'm one of the wives you speak of and quite honestly, couldn't be more well put.
 
Werbung:
I guess The Dialogue takes all kinds.....

"We will speak to a 34-year-old teacher who is bi-polar who used marijuana for treatment but says it ruined her life. She tells Randi Kaye why she thinks marijuana is addictive and how she says the drug nearly killed her."​
:rolleyes:
 
Originally Posted by Andy
I'm not sure what the moral ground is against marijuana.

Pragmatically, my case against it has to do with the long-term effects I've seen on people I've known. People who lost their jobs, their wives, their children, their entire lives, all because they were stuck on weed.

Most of the people I've met, who were heavily hitting the flower power, were often the most useless pathetic people. Some have told me it's great because people high on pot, are funny and humorous. Not from what I've seen. That kind of funny, is no more entertaining than kindergartners exchanging potty jokes, or tripping a drunk guy causing him to fall, or that guy in California who made homeless bums fight over $10 bucks.

It's not funny, it's sick and pathetic. And the wife who longs for a her husband to come out of his drug induced stupor, and lead her family, or the child who can't figure out why daddy never plays with them, neither finds it very amusing either.

This is what I'm against. Having met enough people in loveless marriages, because one or both, was hooked on some substance, I can say I don't want to meet anymore. And if legalizing it will increase those numbers, then I'm against it.

LiberatarianMommy said:
I'm new here so if I'm responding to this in way that looks funny... ehhh sorry. Not used to blogging. But, originally I came in here coming to defend legalization. After reading this, I had to agree. I'm one of the wives you speak of and quite honestly, couldn't be more well put.

Here's my point on this: We have always had a percentage of humans that are 'Addicted' to: hallucinogenic drugs/alcohol/pain killers/food/gambling/sex...just because the 'lessor thinking/easily addictive personalities have a way of becoming problematic to our society why do the rest of us that utilize cannabis as a form of pain reliever {and we are medically responsible with this as we would be with any prescription pain killer} WHY do we have to be told that this Cannabis isn't what we could/should be using according to our government?

The humans that can't STOP their consumption of the things that they 'OVER INDULGE IN' will be a 4-EVER factor in our lives...I just don't want their addictive personalities making the 'RULES' by which I find a natural substance to help me deal with my day to day pain from Fibromyalgia/Arthritis of the spine!!!
 
Here's my point on this: We have always had a percentage of humans that are 'Addicted' to: hallucinogenic drugs/alcohol/pain killers/food/gambling/sex...just because the lessor thinking/easily addictive personalities have a way of becoming problematic to our society.....
Nahhhhhhhh......it's not a matter of lessor thinking/easily addictive personalities.

Such people (typically) have emotional-problems they're trying to self-medicate.

DRUGS aren't the problem. They're merely symptoms of other/life-long issues.

You show me an addict, and I'll show you someone who's always had problems with Life-in-general....and, a lot of friends who'd recognized that, long before the drug/food/whatever-use/abuse came-along.

But, I agree.....if a handfull (relatively-speaking) of people have problems with moderation, why should everyone-else be judged/limited, similarly?​
 
"Prominent politicians from Virginia to California — including Sen. Jim Webb and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — have begun to discuss the merits of legalizing and taxing marijuana. And most striking of all, New York — the state that pioneered the use of prison cells for drug addicts — has repealed its repressive Rockefeller drug laws, replacing the nation's harshest sentences with a progressive approach to treatment. "We put a stop to 35 years of bad policy," Gov. David Paterson tells Rolling Stone.

The pace of change has shocked even the most optimistic drug-reform advocates. "I could never have predicted the way things have opened up in the last four months," says Ethan Nadelmann, the founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "We haven't had an open and honest conversation about drugs like this on a national level since the 1970s."

Political pressure to end the War on Drugs is building in surprising quarters. In recent months, three distinct rationales have converged to convince a growing number of politicians — including many on the center-right — to seriously consider the benefits of legalizing marijuana.

Legalization is also backed by a growing number of veteran drug warriors. "The War on Drugs is a constantly expanding and self-perpetuating policy disaster," says Jack Cole, a former undercover narcotics agent who now serves as president of a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which includes hundreds of former drug agents, police officers and judges. "If all drugs were legal and regulated we could have exactly the same demand for drugs in the U.S., but there wouldn't be any killings. Mexico's 7,500 deaths since the beginning of last year — all those murders just wouldn't exist."

"There's an urgent need to end this mistaken drug war," says Kevin Zeese, head of Common Sense for Drug Policy. "This is just an example of an administration that says one thing and doe$ another."

Hey, Kev.....that's what "conservatives" are WORRIED-about!!!!

:cool:

Tommy Chong; Marijuana Martyr
 
Nahhhhhhhh......it's not a matter of lessor thinking/easily addictive personalities.

Such people (typically) have emotional-problems they're trying to self-medicate.

DRUGS aren't the problem. They're merely symptoms of other/life-long issues.

You show me an addict, and I'll show you someone who's always had problems with Life-in-general....and, a lot of friends who'd recognized that, long before the drug/food/whatever-use/abuse came-along.

But, I agree.....if a handfull (relatively-speaking) of people have problems with moderation, why should everyone-else be judged/limited, similarly?​

That's always the problem with these 'freedom supporting' Conservatives. When a small portion of the population has a problem, they penalize the entire population with their Puritanical laws.
 
That's always the problem with these 'freedom supporting' Conservatives. When a small portion of the population has a problem, they penalize the entire population with their Puritanical laws.

Actually, its the Progressives that pass laws based on problems that affect a minority of the population, laws that "punish" the majority in order to rectify the perceived problem. You 'freedom supporting' Progs piss n moan about government telling you what to put in your body... Oh wait, no you don't... You support your fellow Progs when they ban trans fats, place taxes on foods with sugar and enact 'sin' taxes on substances they deem to be unhealthy and all the other "puritanical" activities Progs busy themselves with.

The same people who demand government stay out of our bedrooms are the ones demanding government be in my driveway, dictating what kind of car I can drive and the mileage it should get. That government should be in my den, deciding what is acceptable free speech to see hear on TV and Radio, in my kitchen to tell me which foods are in my best interest to consume, in my living to tell me what thermostat tempurature is appropriate for my home... and every other room in my house, save one. At least you Progs draw the line somewhere, in the bedroom, at least there is such a thing as too much government in your progressive world of next tuesday.

Legalize drugs. Let nature run its course and if there are waste-cases dying in the streets, or homeless, or unemployed, then they should get zero assistance from the taxpayers. Let the handwringing busy bodies create and donate to charities that support the habits of those who would otherwise die. Do not insist that I am my brothers keeper because if you do, I am held financialy responsible for his action and I then have a right to dictate certain aspects of his life. I don't wish anyone to be responsible for my life or my debts, that is the only way I can remain free of your "puritanical" laws.
 
That's always the problem with these 'freedom supporting' Conservatives. When a small portion of the population has a problem, they penalize the entire population with their Puritanical laws.
No doubt....soul-saving, with a shotgun.

:rolleyes:
 
Actually, its the Progressives that pass laws based on problems that affect a minority of the population, laws that "punish" the majority in order to rectify the perceived problem. You 'freedom supporting' Progs piss n moan about government telling you what to put in your body... Oh wait, no you don't... You support your fellow Progs when they ban trans fats, place taxes on foods with sugar and enact 'sin' taxes on substances they deem to be unhealthy and all the other "puritanical" activities Progs busy themselves with.
Yeah, right.....Progressives body-slam them, then hold knives to their throats, and make them adopt such measures! Then....their profit-margin increases. Whatta travesty. :rolleyes:

The same people who demand government stay out of our bedrooms are the ones demanding government be in my driveway, dictating what kind of car I can drive and the mileage it should get. That government should be in my den, deciding what is acceptable free speech to see hear on TV and Radio, in my kitchen to tell me which foods are in my best interest to consume, in my living to tell me what thermostat tempurature is appropriate for my home... and every other room in my house, save one.
Whew!! Are you sure Wimpiness isn't your problem?

Does this happen to occur on the same-time....like, monthly....for you?? :confused:

Maybe hormone-therapy would be a logical-option, for you.​
 
Yeah, right.....Progressives body-slam them, then hold knives to their throats, and make them adopt such measures! Then....their profit-margin increases. Whatta travesty. :rolleyes:


Whew!! Are you sure Wimpiness isn't your problem?

Does this happen to occur on the same-time....like, monthly....for you?? :confused:

Maybe hormone-therapy would be a logical-option, for you.​


Letterman has nothing on you, does he?

Actually, if you really read GenSeca's post, it has nothing to do with wimpiness, and nothing at all to do with PMS, but everything to do with keeping the government from running our lives.

And yes, both major parties have planks in their respective platforms that would have the government running one or aspect or another of our lives.
 
The clock did not stop in 1778, when Voltaire died, GenSeneca.
Then why are you batching about people imposing their "puritanical" laws on you?

Here's what you said:

That's always the problem with these 'freedom supporting' Conservatives. When a small portion of the population has a problem, they penalize the entire population with their Puritanical laws.

You are demanding "universal" healthcare to cover a minority of the population who is currently without insurance for one reason or another. You can only "provide" (not promote) those people with coverage by "penalizing" the entire population, even (D) Chris Dodd has said so regarding the UH bill going through Congress:

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) told reporters Tuesday that everyone would be affected by this legislation, claiming during a press conference on healthcare that any reform will touch everyone’s lives.

“This bill is [going to affect] 100 percent of the population of our country, every consumer, every provider, every business,” Dodd said.

And while sticking 100% of the population with the bill for Universal Healthcare (which will only cover 1/3 of the 45 million and knock 23 million of those currently insured off their insurance), they plan, for the first time in history, to charge people for NOT having healthcare insurance as well as taxing company provided healthcare insurance as income. Some of the other ideas that will 'penalize' overtaxed Americans in order to accomodate a minority were mentioned later in the same article:

Senator Tom Harkin, (D-Iowa) told CNSNews.com that there was a cost ceiling for health reform. However, the senator did not give a specific number, preferring to focus on the myriad ways Congress could pay for a health restructuring.

“I suppose there is, in terms of how you pay for it,” Harkin said. “But there’s a lot of ways of paying for this that we haven’t talked about, there’s a lot of stuff out there.”

Harkin said that unhealthy “things” should bear some of the burden of a healthcare restructuring.

“Things that make it easy for you to be unhealthy ought to bear some of the burden.”

When asked by reporters if this meant taxing unhealthy behavior, Harkin said that government should tax unhealthy foods.

“No, foods,” Harkin explained. “Alcohol and tobacco and sugar and things like that.”

So once again... If you are going to batch about "puritanical" laws then you must come to realize that a government with the power to give you things you want, is powerful enough to take from you the things you already have... Thats the only way government can "give" you anything is to take it away from someone else first.

If you want government to be financially obligated for your welfare, like that of a parents responsibility for their child, then expect to be treated like a child in return.
 
PERSISTENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.thumb.png

"A controversial law in Massachusetts could go national if Congressman Barney Frank gets his way.

Frank has filed a bill that would eliminate federal penalties for personal possession of less than 100 grams of marijuana.

It would also make the penalty for using marijuana in public just $100.


"I think John Stuart Mill had it right in the 1850s," said Congressman Frank, "when he argued that individuals should have the right to do what they want in private, so long as they don't hurt anyone else. It's a matter of personal liberty. Moreover, our courts are already stressed and our prisons are over-crowded. We don't need to spend our scarce resources prosecuting people who are doing no harm to others."

Frank filed a similar bill last year, but it failed.

The law passed in Massachusetts last November."
 
"Oakland voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the nation’s first ever business tax on retail marijuana saleshttp://blog.norml.org/2009/07/22/ca...tion’s-first-marijuana-business-tax/#comments.

According to preliminary election results, approximately 80 percent of Oakland voters approved the new tax (which appeared on the ballot as Measure F), which imposes an additional tax for “cannabis businesses” of $18 for every $1,000 of gross receipts beginning January 1, 2010.
12065738861492645819Arnoud999_Right_or_wrong_6.svg.thumb.png
 
Werbung:
"I think John Stuart Mill had it right in the 1850s," said Congressman Frank, "when he argued that individuals should have the right to do what they want in private, so long as they don't hurt anyone else. It's a matter of personal liberty. Moreover, our courts are already stressed and our prisons are over-crowded. We don't need to spend our scarce resources prosecuting people who are doing no harm to others."

To be clear he is arguing that people should have the right to do this in private or in their own homes as long as it does not hurt anyone else, and then he pushes for a reduction in the public use of the substance. It would seem he is pushing not only for private use but easier public use as well.
 
Back
Top