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.
yeah haven't heard any good reasons from you. just your limited opinion.
you don't care if thousands of people go to prison a year for posessing a plant? we pay for all those prisoners. funny..I bet you complain about "free stuff" and "paying for people's healthcare"
Your presumption about how "gang violence will be the same" doesn't mean anything
You aren't up on the latest research on PTSD, depression, status epilepticus, alcoholism and nicotine addiciton if you don't think cannabis and psilocybin are relevant in 2016 in the medical world.
If you hang out on this forum long enough you'll find that conservatives aren't up on the research on a great many things. Trust me, it goes well beyond the cannabis research you are referring to. You should head over to the global warming threads. There's some real gems over there.
Yeah, throwing out personal attacks about how I should do this or that and grow a sac and take care of my family (lol, what?) when you don't know me whatsoever makes you seem a little angry. Seems like you have some personal rage issues. Then again you just go on diatribes about "liberalism" instead of acknowledging you didn't really respond to the actual question in the thread correctly, as I have already pointed out twice, and won't again. I actually like alcohol. I'm an avid craft beer drinker, and brew my own. I use cannabis once a month, max. Stop throwing out assumptions about me, it makes you look really foolish. BTW, I voted for Ron Paul in 2008.
I asked why the laws SHOULD be this way, hoping to get an intelligent discussion, and instead you come in and rant over and over and over again on why the laws ARE this way. It's not my fault you can't distinguish the difference between those two areas of discussion.
I run my own practice as my primary position, sweety. Only hospitals sometimes. I do what I want. Plus, I'd be much more afraid of some raging alcoholic doctor (trust me, there are lots) who downs a case of bud lite every 2 days taking care of me than one who smokes cannabis once a month and drinks 2 or 3 craft beers a week.
Your life and your career.. Do what you want. I don't care.. Just hope that your next practice isn't in a correctional facility...
01-31-2016, 11:15 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
Bc they are a public nuisance and health hazard that cost $. Especially alcohol. With many unfortunate victims who are sideswiped into it (unlike being obese, etc).
However, jail time for simply taking a drug seems silly and doesn't really fit the crime.
Do explain how marijuana is a "public nuisance" and health hazard.
It's only an expensive problem for the public because of prohibition. Reasonable states have legalized it and are enjoying being able to direct police resources at actual crimes, not having their jails filled with people who've done nothing to anyone, and they get a whole bunch of extra tax revenue to pump into schools, law enforcement, and alcohol treatment.
Prohibitionists like to blather on about how horrible marijuana is for the public, seemingly unable to grasp the simple fact that marijuana isn't the problem, prohibition is. This is more than a little strange since we already saw what a disaster alcohol prohibition was and can easily witness the harmful effects of marijuana prohibition today.
you would bankrupt the county incarcerating over 100 million people
you would go down as the absolute worst leader the country has ever seen for enacting such draconian laws...
and by the way most people that drink alcohol and smoke pot do so responsibly.
As I said, justification to use an intoxicant. Stoners and drunks do that.
One thing I have learned; stoners and drunks will always justify their use of an intoxicant.
Just for your personal edification, my brother died from booze. A lot of posters here know that except you.
If I were in charge, all intoxicants would be illegal and I would gladly build prison space to house those derelicts who need to escape reality.
Freaking losers.
Well you're not in charge. I'd love to see your reaction if they made it illegal to own guns. You conservatives champion freedom as long as it's a freedom you approve of. You guys are pathetic.
Well you're not in charge. I'd love to see your reaction if they made it illegal to own guns. You conservatives champion freedom as long as it's a freedom you approve of. You guys are pathetic.
If marijuana was one of the rights granted in the Bill of Rights, then we wouldn't be having this discussion..
If marijuana was one of the rights granted in the Bill of Rights, then we wouldn't be having this discussion..
If it had not been prohibited 78 years ago for reasons that were corrupt and had nothing to do with the effects that the plant has on humans, then we wouldn't be having this discussion..
Plus we have had to live with all the unintended negative consequences of prohibition, all over again. We didn't learn from history on that one because the corruption was (and remains) so powerful.
If it had not been prohibited 78 years ago for reasons that were corrupt and had nothing to do with the effects that the plant has on humans, then we wouldn't be having this discussion..
Plus we have had to live with all the unintended negative consequences of prohibition, all over again. We didn't learn from history on that one because the corruption was (and remains) so powerful.
Well, 78 years later, we are here and it isn't going to change, regardless of what your elected leadership is telling you.. It simply isn't going to happen on a national level. Now it may become a law that is not enforced, but it will not become a legal substance. The reason? Money.
Well, 78 years later, we are here and it isn't going to change, regardless of what your elected leadership is telling you.. It simply isn't going to happen on a national level. Now it may become a law that is not enforced, but it will not become a legal substance. The reason? Money.
I was going to COMPLETELY disagree with you, but actually you are pretty close.
Up until fairly recently, you were spot on with that observation. It is one reason why politicians always made damn sure the harshest draconian punishment they could implement stayed in place, with no possibility of legal research whatsoever.
But something has changed, and it is called The Majority. Now that the majority of Americans favor legalization, including the majority of every age group except 65+, the politicians can't keep their seats if they don't change their stance. Yes, they will lose LOTS of corrupt money from lobbyists representing a number of mega-huge industries, but they don't have a choice.
I believe that is why the corrupt Ohio lawmakers came up with their screwy way to implement legalization there. They conspired with a very small handful of rich growers, only 4 I believe, and wrote the law stating that only those few growers could supply the entire state. In addition, they wrote in a clause stating that this arrangement could not be changed for at least 4 years. That sounds to me like they wanted to use these corrupt growers to at least partially replace all of the corrupt lobbyist money, for at least long enough for them to find a replacement source of corrupt money.
Cannabis prohibition has been based on and totally immersed in corruption since it began. Finally the voters are going to change that.
There is no way prohibition on a national level will last much longer.
I was going to COMPLETELY disagree with you, but actually you are pretty close.
Up until fairly recently, you were spot on with that observation. It is one reason why politicians always made damn sure the harshest draconian punishment they could implement stayed in place, with no possibility of legal research whatsoever.
But something has changed, and it is called The Majority. Now that the majority of Americans favor legalization, including the majority of every age group except 65+, the politicians can't keep their seats if they don't change their stance. Yes, they will lose LOTS of corrupt money from lobbyists representing a number of mega-huge industries, but they don't have a choice.
I believe that is why the corrupt Ohio lawmakers came up with their screwy way to implement legalization there. They conspired with a very small handful of rich growers, only 4 I believe, and wrote the law stating that only those few growers could supply the entire state. In addition, they wrote in a clause stating that this arrangement could not be changed for at least 4 years. That sounds to me like they wanted to use these corrupt growers to at least partially replace all of the corrupt lobbyist money, for at least long enough for them to find a replacement source of corrupt money.
Cannabis prohibition has been based on and totally immersed in corruption since it began. Finally the voters are going to change that.
There is no way prohibition on a national level will last much longer.
I still don't see it happening. The money involved is astronomical and it is not all going to campaigns. A lot of it is going into politicians pockets. They are not going to turn away from the trough, only find other ways to deceive.
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.
