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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,363,738 times
Reputation: 40731
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
I've been telling these idiots for years that I was hit by a stupid, useless mj smoker in 1999, and to this day, thanks to that pos who was HIGH while driving, I still suffer pain.
Well then, please cite specific examples of those who call for legalization who also advocate driving under the influence. Or do you also call for the prohibition of alcohol, cell phones, and anything else that leads to reckless or distracted driving?
I wouldn't put it in exactly those terms, but basically, yes. They're essentially a form of suicide, albeit a slow one. In general, Christianity aside, it's really really stupid to do something that's so demonstrably harmful to yourself. So, if it isn't banned, it should at least be highly discouraged (via very high taxes, etc).
I presume you're referring to pot. I suppose maybe it's possible science could someday confirm that smoking marijuana is truly not at all harmful, and if so I'd be happy to change my stance. In the meantime, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that inhaling anything into your lungs besides fresh air isn't going to have some kind of long-term negative effect.
The usual rebuttal to my position is alcohol: There are actually proven health benefits to light or moderate amounts of alcohol, so that's why it's fine in my book (I'm a light drinker myself). Of course there is the opportunity for abuse and addiction, so it's something you just need to be careful with.
A possible further rebuttal to my response to the rebuttal are the active chemicals in cigarettes and marijuana, which, all by themselves, may have some moderate health benefits and few if no bad long-term effects. For instance, I read somewhere a couple years ago that nicotine, while certainly addictive, is actually an OK stimulant with some decent health benefits. The problem is that the preferred delivery method (cigarettes) are simply awful. Thus, I have no problem with nicotine gum, nicotine pills and (maybe) even vaping. The same might be true with whatever the active chemical in marijuana is, for all I know. So, while my stance may seem rather rigid, it's actually more nuanced than it seems.
I oppose using taxation as a form of punishment.
Additionally, it only really punishes the poor who choose to partake.
I'm trying to understand the double standard. Neo Progs detest cigarettes (rightfully so) but think pot smoking is the coolest, trendiest, hippest thing ever. They're both carcinogens, stink like crazy and are terrible for your body, yet leftists are staunch advocates for recreational pot everywhere and staunch advocates against cigarettes everywhere. So please, help me understand the disconnect. Thanks
I'm a liberal, and I smoke cigarettes, and I'm not a staunch advocate of anything. Staunchness requires giving a damn. I do not. Where did I ever say smoking pot was "the coolest, trendiest, hippest thing ever"?
*takes careful aim...***** shotgun...shoots down your stereotype*
Not all liberals care about the things y'all think we care about.
I wouldn't put it in exactly those terms, but basically, yes. They're essentially a form of suicide, albeit a slow one. In general, Christianity aside, it's really really stupid to do something that's so demonstrably harmful to yourself. So, if it isn't banned, it should at least be highly discouraged (via very high taxes, etc).
We need to talk about sugar, and caffeine then just to start with. Caffeine is insanely addictive, and causes people to engage in extremely unhealthy lifestyles.
Seriously folks, this is nonsense. We're supposed to be a free country. That means people should be free to do what they want. If you want to do something about it, then provide education so people make informed choices. But look at this thread, the vast majority are completely uninformed about the realities of these choices.
Legalize this stuff, but provide good factually based information to people.
I'm a liberal, and I smoke cigarettes, and I'm not a staunch advocate of anything. Staunchness requires giving a damn. I do not. Where did I ever say smoking pot was "the coolest, trendiest, hippest thing ever"?
*takes careful aim...***** shotgun...shoots down your stereotype*
Not all liberals care about the things y'all think we care about.
We need to talk about sugar, and caffeine then just to start with. Caffeine is insanely addictive, and causes people to engage in extremely unhealthy lifestyles.
Seriously folks, this is nonsense. We're supposed to be a free country. That means people should be free to do what they want. If you want to do something about it, then provide education so people make informed choices. But look at this thread, the vast majority are completely uninformed about the realities of these choices.
Legalize this stuff, but provide good factually based information to people.
THE doctor has taken my mom off caffeine for six weeks. She drank a lot of tea. She is having headaches from the caffeine withdrawal.
We need to talk about sugar, and caffeine then just to start with. Caffeine is insanely addictive, and causes people to engage in extremely unhealthy lifestyles.
Addiction to a mild stimulant is not something bad in and of itself (see, once again, what I said about nicotine). The problems are in the delivery systems. Some are OK, some are definitely not. If you absolutely HAVE to get your nicotine fix then take a nicotine pill.
I wouldn't put it in exactly those terms, but basically, yes. They're essentially a form of suicide, albeit a slow one. In general, Christianity aside, it's really really stupid to do something that's so demonstrably harmful to yourself. So, if it isn't banned, it should at least be highly discouraged (via very high taxes, etc).
I presume you're referring to pot. I suppose maybe it's possible science could someday confirm that smoking marijuana is truly not at all harmful, and if so I'd be happy to change my stance. In the meantime, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that inhaling anything into your lungs besides fresh air isn't going to have some kind of long-term negative effect.
The usual rebuttal to my position is alcohol: There are actually proven health benefits to light or moderate amounts of alcohol, so that's why it's fine in my book (I'm a light drinker myself). Of course there is the opportunity for abuse and addiction, so it's something you just need to be careful with.
A possible further rebuttal to my response to the rebuttal are the active chemicals in cigarettes and marijuana, which, all by themselves, may have some moderate health benefits and few if no bad long-term effects. For instance, I read somewhere a couple years ago that nicotine, while certainly addictive, is actually an OK stimulant with some decent health benefits. The problem is that the preferred delivery method (cigarettes) are simply awful. Thus, I have no problem with nicotine gum, nicotine pills and (maybe) even vaping. The same might be true with whatever the active chemical in marijuana is, for all I know. So, while my stance may seem rather rigid, it's actually more nuanced than it seems.
Re: the bold text: It sure is! I'm impressed.
But I still sense a brick wall. You said "it's really really stupid to do something that's so demonstrably harmful to yourself". That indicates to me you are a victim of all the propaganda that has been so rampant since The War on Drugs started. If so, no matter what I say will change that. If I'm wrong, you would be the first in history (except maybe Dr. Sanjay Gupta) to change your stance.
I have offered evidence that cannabis has been in daily use by literally millions for 50 years. I have also offered my own story as evidence (61 years old, 47 years of daily use, and have never filed a medical insurance claim in my life). Then there is still the small problem of not one documented case of cancer due to cannabis use exists.
So am am wondering what other types of evidence that it would take to get your attention (not falsified studies that always produces the outcome the funding party wants) ?
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.
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.
Where did I ever say smoking pot was "the coolest, trendiest, hippest thing ever"?
