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.
Nah, if they wanted legal pot, they would have voted for it.
This is VERY typical of a prohibitionist. They don't even care to discover the truth, they just make up whatever suits their agenda.
So this person (who I believe is in law enforcement) proclaims from Florida that he knows why the measure in Ohio failed, and anyone from Ohio who disagrees with him, no matter how many there are, does not know what they are talking about.
That is just the way their minds work. One track. There is no way to get reality through to them.
I watched the 3 minute video about the law which was posted in a different thread. I am VERY anti-prohibition, but if I lived in Ohio those 3 minutes is all it would have taken to convince me to vote NO also. It was one of the worst written bills ever introduced in the history of this country, in my opinion. It just reeked of corruption.
I feel sorry for the residents of Ohio. It appears their state government is as corrupt as Oklahoma's is.
Yes you would. He opposes legal weed, so surely you would vote for him because of that. Just like you ASSumed that because I support ending prohibition I would blindly vote for a bad bill on the ballot in my state. See how that works?
Yes you would. He opposes legal weed, so surely you would vote for him because of that. Just like you ASSumed that because I support ending prohibition I would blindly vote for a bad bill on the ballot in my state. See how that works?
As I have told you before, the pot issue does not rank very high on my list of priorities when I vote for presidents. Presidents do not create laws. If there is a vote about legalizing pot on the ballot, I will vote "no".
You, in the other hand, voted no for pot legalization.
As I have told you before, the pot issue does not rank very high on my list of priorities when I vote for presidents. Presidents do not create laws. If there is a vote about legalizing pot on the ballot, I will vote "no".
You, in the other hand, voted no for pot legalization.
You contradict yourself. You say the pot issue does not rank high on your list of priorities, and yet you post numerous anti-pot threads here on CD. I voted against a bad bill. There will be other initiatives, as the push for legalization isn't going away. And quite frankly, I think the heat is going to be turned up even more in pushing the feds to rethink their stance on pot going forward. But given that legal or not it is still readily available. So honestly, legal or not if, I want it, I as well as millions of others will still get it. I mean, I'd rather it be legal, and be able to walk into a store like I would when buying a 6 pack, but I'm not going to blindly vote for a bad bill that rigs the game in favor of a select few, and is prone to all sorts of corruption just so I can have that luxury. Kind of like, I wouldn't just up and move to Colorado or another state where it is legal without a plan in place, such as a job lined up, or where I would live, just so I can legally smoke pot! I'll bide my time, because cannabis prohibition has just about run its course.
As for my stance on who I vote for in terms of candidates for president. I vote for candidates that champion individual liberties, and truly are committed to reducing the intrusion of government into our private lives, and currently there are no such candidates in either of the 2 main stream parties.
With the increase in use has come an increase in the total number of what the study called "marijuana use disorders."
If you think pot is bad . . . reading your posts is a killer!
"Socrates used the Greek word pharmakon – ‘drug’ – as a metaphor for writing, conveying the paradox that reading could be a cure but most likely a poison. Scaremongers would repeat his warning that the text was analogous to a toxic substance for centuries to come."
People who use any kind of substance are losers. Especially drunks and stoners.
Do you realize that there are several of OTC "drugs" that are addictive and can cause death? Ibuprofen for one:
While Ibuprofen is not physically or psychologically addictive, a person may become physically dependent in order to maintain their activity level by controlling pain. There are physical side effects and risks of Ibuprofen use and overdose that can occur without any warning while taking this drug.Mar 30, 2013
Not to mention Tylenol, which is addictive and can destroy the liver.
As far as I'm concerned, they are substances.
LOL losers. There are plenty of people that don't rely on or take substances, yet they are losers. How can that be?
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.
wake up call.. ohh and by the way your drug caesar man Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee are dead in the water
Just like you ASSumed that because I support ending prohibition I would blindly vote for a bad bill on the ballot in my state. See how that works?
I'll bide my time, because cannabis prohibition has just about run its course.