Should marijuana be legalized?

[Rokerijdude11]

Documented by a man who doesn't even have a degree from a community college. Some evidence.

Prove it wrong pal

collect the money or STFU

 

[palerider]

Prove it wrong pal

collect the money or STFU

I already did prove it wrong with legitimate, credible scientific research.

I sent him the research that says that he is wrong and am eagerly waiting to see what sort of shuck and jive he gives for welching on his bet.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

I already did prove it wrong with legitimate, credible scientific research.

I sent him the research that says that he is wrong and am eagerly waiting to see what sort of shuck and jive he gives for welching on his bet.

Really? which points have you proven Wrong? seeing that there are several chapters and about 40 pages or more of
credits in the book showing where all the information came from. which point have you proven wrong? or are you claiming they are all wrong?


you say you sent him the info? really Ill Brb

 

[Rokerijdude11]

when did you send it to him? he hasnt recieved anything from you concerning this ? did you use palerider? or your name? and when was the date you sent the info ? Ill get back to you again,my belief is that your full of it!!!

which point has he made that you have proven wrong EXACTLY ......................???

please do tell the readers and myself

which point did Jack Herer make in his Book,that you believe you have proven wrong? EXACTLY which point please?

 

[PLC1]

Because the nature of our society is to help those who have victimized themselves and I don't want my tax money spent supporting people who engage in self destructive activities.

If our society was one that would let them live with the consequences of their actions and not offer help when they make a mess of their lives or wreck their health, it would be different, but our society isn't like that. You and I have to pay for their upkeep and I simply don't see any sound reason to add one more item to the ever growing list of legal ways to wreck your life and live off of someone else's dime.

Exactly why users should pay a tax to make up for the costs to society. I don't want my tax money used pay for someone else's "upkeep," either. Let's simply tax the product, just as we do with cigarettes.

 

[vyo476]

Exactly why users should pay a tax to make up for the costs to society. I don't want my tax money used pay for someone else's "upkeep," either. Let's simply tax the product, just as we do with cigarettes.

Sounds solid to me.

 

[r0beph]

If alcohol was illegal, it would be regareded as a gateway drug too. But because it is legal it isn't.

Yes it is in regards to addiction medicine. Any support of an addiction can lead to other forms of indulgence. Addictive personalities are NOT 1/0, on or off, black and white. They're ,like all things a gradient. It becomes more obvious in that those that would be at high risk of addiction to hard substance (due to genetic/environmental reasons) would either begin with alcohol or marijuana. Those with a high drive for addictive indulgence would, as the effects of the drug requires higher and higher doses, move to use the harder substances whether alcohol or marijuana was the fuse of choice. It's tough to actually pin down the initial snowball's seed. I don't exactly like the term gateway drug however since it's been bastardized to mean something that WILL lead to heavier substance abuse, where it should mean that it'll likely be the FIRST step in a high level addiction risk's path towards said harder substances. Blame DARE and it's spin offs for that misnomer.

I remain on the idea that ALL addictions should be treated when uncovered instead of jail which does nothing for them. Since behavioral disorders that have the appearance of choice in their execution tend to be given that credence, people who don't have such personalities ponder "Why don't they just stop?" Simply, they cannot. Recreational use of marijuana by non-addicts should be just as legal as alcohol. Addiction itself should perhaps have some legislation to attempt treatment. I say if any crime is committed due to substance addiction (not simply from (ab)use since this doesn't denote addiction thus punitive punishment is called for, unless you want my argument that the majority of crime is due to some form of mental illness) then treatment should be the answer. But regardless, (ab)use itself shouldn't be criminal.

Sounds solid to me.

We actually do =).... http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/TaxRates.pdf however a lot of courts are knocking this down, due to double jepordy, since the tax not being placed on said drugs would bring criminal/civil liability for something that already has the criminal and civil penalties. This obviously isn't the answer though to what is being said. Perhaps moving to simply fine those who paid tax for the possession of a taxed controlled substance and charging those criminally with a tax evasion law with similar penalties to possession of the substance as it stands currently along with the fine for posession of the product as per the tax paid substance. I don't really like this method in any form though, to be honest.

 

[9sublime]

From what I've seen over the years, it seems much of America frowns on people getting drunk, while in the UK it is acceptable and even more so on the continent. Getting drunk isn't that bad for you, as long as you don't do it every couple of days.

 

[palerider]

Really? which points have you proven Wrong? seeing that there are several chapters and about 40 pages or more of
credits in the book showing where all the information came from. which point have you proven wrong? or are you claiming they are all wrong?


you say you sent him the info? really Ill Brb

Yeah, and if any of the information you have linked to is any indication, most of it is as much as 20 years old.

Just looking through the credits, I see stuff like this:

Reign of Law: A Tale of the Kentucky Hemp Fields, 1900
HEMP, Farmer's Bulletin No. 1935, 1943
The Hemperor's Classic Clip Collection, 1985-1998
"Can We Have Rope Without Dope?" Popular Science, 1943
"Army Study of Marihuana Smokers..." Newsweek, 1945
"Rather Fight Than Switch?" Whole Life Times, 1985
"Marijuana More Dangerous Than Heroin or Cocaine," 1938
Authorities Examine Pot Claims, 1989
"The Chemistry of Reefer Madness," Omni, 1989
Doonesbury, by Garry Trudeau


I didn't see a reference to anything that could be considered real science and what might have passed for science to an uneducated man was nearly 20 years old and most was over 50 years old.

You call this a thoroughly researched, and documented book?

Scientific information has a shelf life. When new science comes along and proves that old ideas and theories are wrong, their shelf life is expired. Jack Herer's shelf life, and credibility, expired long ago.

 

[palerider]

Exactly why users should pay a tax to make up for the costs to society. I don't want my tax money used pay for someone else's "upkeep," either. Let's simply tax the product, just as we do with cigarettes.

So you believe that the taxes paid on cigarettes pay for cigarette related health problems, and the taxes on alcohol pay for alcohol related health problems. The taxes, even if they were reserved especially for those problems, wouldn't begin to cover the costs. The expenses are on of the reasons the dutch government is looking towards ending their current drug policy. It simply costs far too much and the taxes don't begin to cover them.

 

[palerider]

Sounds solid to me.

Then provide some credible information that proves that cigarette taxes cover the cost of cigarette related health issues and none of my tax dollars are spent on caring for those who have wrecked their health with cigarettes.

 

[9sublime]

Then provide some credible information that proves that cigarette taxes cover the cost of cigarette related health issues and none of my tax dollars are spent on caring for those who have wrecked their health with cigarettes.

Stop moaning about the cost of people in your healthcare while your government spends billions of dollars sending missiles into foreign countries every decade.

 

[PLC1]

Then provide some credible information that proves that cigarette taxes cover the cost of cigarette related health issues and none of my tax dollars are spent on caring for those who have wrecked their health with cigarettes.

There is a lot of controversy over this very issue. I don't think anyone has definitively proven that tobacco taxes do or do not provide enough revenue to pay for the health care costs related to smoking.

I suppose if some non political body would undertake a non biased study, they might come up with an answer, but that only happens in the land of Oz, never in the real world.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Yeah, and if any of the information you have linked to is any indication, most of it is as much as 20 years old.

Just looking through the credits, I see stuff like this:

Reign of Law: A Tale of the Kentucky Hemp Fields, 1900
HEMP, Farmer's Bulletin No. 1935, 1943
The Hemperor's Classic Clip Collection, 1985-1998
"Can We Have Rope Without Dope?" Popular Science, 1943
"Army Study of Marihuana Smokers..." Newsweek, 1945
"Rather Fight Than Switch?" Whole Life Times, 1985
"Marijuana More Dangerous Than Heroin or Cocaine," 1938
Authorities Examine Pot Claims, 1989
"The Chemistry of Reefer Madness," Omni, 1989
Doonesbury, by Garry Trudeau


I didn't see a reference to anything that could be considered real science and what might have passed for science to an uneducated man was nearly 20 years old and most was over 50 years old.

You call this a thoroughly researched, and documented book?

Scientific information has a shelf life. When new science comes along and proves that old ideas and theories are wrong, their shelf life is expired. Jack Herer's shelf life, and credibility, expired long ago.

I have asked you a DIRECT question..........Am I to assume you are unable to answer it? thats is the case isnt it?Ill ask you again


Which Point That was in Jacks Book Exactly which point have you SUPPOSEDLY proven wrong?

BTW Jack hasnt recieved anything concerning the challenge either yesterday or today


now answer the question......that is if you are able to.......which im sure your not because you have just shown us how full of shat you truly are


Which point that jack made have you proven wrong?

answer it or STFU because your Full of Shat

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Which point or Points that Jack has Documented with factual information have you supposedly proven wrong?

and where is this so called proof?


you have completly ruined the last shred of credibility you percieved you had on this forum

your full of it


your Unfortunatly Un-educated in this area

can you answer the simple question?