Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-03-2009, 09:51 AM
 
Location: San Diego
2,521 posts, read 2,349,669 times
Reputation: 1298

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
Imagine there is a race going on, some people start when the pistol is fired, some start 20-30 seconds later. Eventually everybody should make it past the finish line, right? Why aren't the primitive men and/or apes that you suggest are our ancestors, who began the evolution process a bit later in the game, catching up and arriving at where we are now? If they were 1,500 years or 2,000 years late in regards to mutations, shouldn't they be catching up by now? We should be able to witness some amount of apes and primitive men arriving at the point where we are now at, or at the point where we were at 1,500 years ago (or however far ahead of them we presently are, they should be X years behind us, so they should now be where we were at X years ago), right?
There are people who are 1500-2000+ years behind us. Look up "undiscovered people" in Google and you will find information about tribes of people hidden away in remote places who have never come into contact with modern society and who live as we did before civilization. They have not evolved a written language, or any kind of discernable culture. They are simply more primitive people. As for the lack of neanderthals today, ever hear of extinction? How many dodos do you see around today?

Another reason pot should be legalized is to tax it and pay for better science teachers to help this kind of ignorance from overwhelming those of us who actually think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-03-2009, 10:28 AM
 
6 posts, read 20,232 times
Reputation: 13
The government makes more money in the war on drugs than they would legalizing it. PERIOD.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Nowhere
9,762 posts, read 3,415,961 times
Reputation: 2201
I lived in Germany for a while and each household was allowed so many plants before they could get in trouble for distribution.. I dunno.. I think the bud would be more pure and safer to smoke if it were regulated.. that's a big issue for me. If I don't know where the bud is coming from.. I don't like to smoke it. And.. most of the country lights up.. lol.. I don't think it's any worse than alcohol but I would never do either in excess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
520 posts, read 895,899 times
Reputation: 176
California is introducing legistature to tax and regulate marijuana almost exactly the same way alcohol is regulated. If it passes, California expects a 1.3 billion dollar revenue from the taxation of Marijuana alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,050 posts, read 34,603,290 times
Reputation: 10616
Besides all of the arguments presented in 64 pages of postings, there's the trend toward legalization in general. We live in a society where nobody wants to be told that they can't have/do whatever they want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 10:23 AM
 
165 posts, read 600,876 times
Reputation: 191
Marijuana should be legalized for adults, taxed and regulated. It is much safer than alcohol. THC is actually one of the safest pain killers there is.

If marijuana was taken off the table, then law enforcement can concentrate more on getting rid of the "hard" drugs like cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin and crystal meth, if only because law enforcement would have better resources in tackling these truly dangerous drugs. If pot was legal, it would be sold alongside narcotics in the dealers house for the unsuspecting, and in my opinion, hard drug use would go down if marijuana was brought mainstream.

I think the only problem is people smoking it. From a health standpoint, there is the smoking and the risks thereof. But cigarettes are legal and kill 400,000 people a year, so is marijauna that much of a leap? A lot of marijuana smokers are tobacco smokers anyway, so marijuana legalization wont uptick those figures that much anyway, even if there was a causal link between smoking and cancer.

Another problem to be considered is that there is no real test to test drivers for drugs. Obviously, you can test someone for marijuana usage, but there is no test available to see how recently someone ingested THC. Although, I do have problems with "drug testing" and personal rights, I do not have a problem with drug testing in transportation, the military, or any company as a condition of hire.

If marijuana was legalized, there would probably be a lot of prohibitions against it, and in most places it would be regulated like tobacco. Can't smoke a cigarette inside the store, ditto for weed. More than likely, public smoking will be regulated in clubs, coffee shops and music venues. Beer is accepted in society, but is not accepted for people to drink outdoors, or in a public place besides bars. Why would marijuana be different?

In short, marijuana should be done at home, not in a car and only in public venues that allow it (like at a concert). Drug testing as normal for transportation, the military and companies. Find a suitable drug testing apparatus to catch people driving while high.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
857 posts, read 1,422,918 times
Reputation: 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
Imagine there is a race going on, some people start when the pistol is fired, some start 20-30 seconds later. Eventually everybody should make it past the finish line, right? Why aren't the primitive men and/or apes that you suggest are our ancestors, who began the evolution process a bit later in the game, catching up and arriving at where we are now? If they were 1,500 years or 2,000 years late in regards to mutations, shouldn't they be catching up by now? We should be able to witness some amount of apes and primitive men arriving at the point where we are now at, or at the point where we were at 1,500 years ago (or however far ahead of them we presently are, they should be X years behind us, so they should now be where we were at X years ago), right?
If they are our ancestors then they did evolve because we did.

secondly you might want to brush up on your understanding of evolution. evolution is not guaranteed, its not if you survive x many years you automatically become smarter/ more evolved. its a mechanism that allows some species to become better adapted to their environment, but if the species has found equilibrium in its environment its not going to evolve very much. The great white shark is a perfect example of this, it has been around for millions of years, longer than humans by a long shot, but since it already dominates its environment it has not needed to evolve very much if at all.

thirdly go rent a couple documentaries on evolution, get ahold of some weed (this is for educational purposes so its okay right ) smoke it up, watch the documentaries, then come back here and apologize for your ignorance while thanking the film makers and marijauana for helping you to gain better understanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,009 posts, read 875,499 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone View Post
If they are our ancestors then they did evolve because we did.

secondly you might want to brush up on your understanding of evolution. evolution is not guaranteed, its not if you survive x many years you automatically become smarter/ more evolved. its a mechanism that allows some species to become better adapted to their environment, but if the species has found equilibrium in its environment its not going to evolve very much. The great white shark is a perfect example of this, it has been around for millions of years, longer than humans by a long shot, but since it already dominates its environment it has not needed to evolve very much if at all.

thirdly go rent a couple documentaries on evolution, get ahold of some weed (this is for educational purposes so its okay right ) smoke it up, watch the documentaries, then come back here and apologize for your ignorance while thanking the film makers and marijauana for helping you to gain better understanding.

Drugs are for losers, I don't pollute my body. I didn't even let them give me general anesthetic when the oral surgeon was pulling teeth. He wanted to give me general anesthetic but I refused.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 03:17 PM
 
Location: The D-M-V area
13,691 posts, read 18,454,215 times
Reputation: 9596
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
Drugs are for losers, I don't pollute my body. I didn't even let them give me general anesthetic when the oral surgeon was pulling teeth. He wanted to give me general anesthetic but I refused.
General anesthetic or local? Not numbing the pain when having a tooth pulled is just ridiculous.

If you were having your appendix removed or open heart surgery would you refuse anaesthesia?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2009, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,009 posts, read 875,499 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem View Post
General anesthetic or local? Not numbing the pain when having a tooth pulled is just ridiculous.

If you were having your appendix removed or open heart surgery would you refuse anaesthesia?
They offered me general anesthetic which I refused. They used a minute amount of local anesthetic on each of the four teeth.

I'd want to be awake for any procedure so I could make sure that A- they weren't going to inject an air-bubble into me to covertly kill me B- they don't sodomize me C- they don't leave any surgical tools inside me.

As a general rule I wouldn't have any operation unless an immediate family member was in the room.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:51 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top