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
68,327 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiseManOnceSaid
That's not accurate really. It's not been proven. There's actually studies that have been done on large swaths of the population for years with alcohol/tobacco. A lot of research done. Because of MJ's classification as a Schedule 1 drug, the studies done have been very limited to this point. It will probably take another decade of studies to find a good set of data on ailments caused by MJ.
I have known several long term weed addicts that have a multitude of health problems as they age into their late 60's, and I've know several long term weed addicts that are perfectly healthy. Same can be said for drinkers. I don't really know any long term tobacco smokers who are in perfect health, smoking most certainly causes a load of breathing issues.
I know a bunch of habitual pot heads that have a chronic horrible cough too though. They won't admit their lungs are getting wrecked, but if you hear them, day after day, hacking up a lung, you know that they're doing damage to their lungs.
Compare it to global warming. Without science, folks flat out refuse to believe in it's existence. Same is true with pot. As the science catches up to the trend, you'll see a lot of those deniers in the latter states of Stage 4 melanoma wanting to sue because no one told them it was bad to smoke pot...
It's certainly been proven alcohol is physically addictive and going thru the DTs is no bed of roses, nothing comparable applies to marijuana.
Again, I hope that our OP and others on "the opposite side of the fence" can address this point with respect:
Nearly twenty years ago, I lost a job in Virginia (through no fault of my own) on short notice; a house "back home" which I'd bought out of a relative's estate was rented out and being improved, so I evaluated job prospects (good pay and low regimentation being the top priorities), packed the car, and headed for Omaha, where I found suitable employment within a week of arrival.
The job turned out to be a great fit, but not so much so as to justify the inconvenience and expense of selling the house, so I reluctantly turned down the "fast track", and returned home when the lease expired eight months later. In the meantime, I learned a lot about employment prospects, and practices in a thinly-settled "red" state. The least-desired jobs. in the feedlots and slaughterhouses, for example, invariably fell to the hard-core druggies.
Point being -- "soft" drug policy, and its effects with regard to employment prospects, tends to orient itself along the lines of many of the other issues which are polarizing our nation.
The whole devotion to "freedom" is misguided. Read Cass Sunstein's excellent book 'nudge' regarding how government can intervene to help us make better personal decisions.
We legalized pot here (WA) several years ago by ballot initiative. I voted no. We already have enough problems with legal alcohol. Why do we want to add to that? Marijuana is linked to brain damage, according to the CDC. I suspect that all intoxicants carry some risk of brain damage.
In this era of Obamacare, and with possibly medicare for all coming, the taxpayer has a legitimate interest in controlling unhealthy behaviors. If you end up with emphysema or brain damage, the taxpayer will probably pay for your care.
Point being -- "soft" drug policy, and its effects with regard to employment prospects, tends to orient itself along the lines of many of the other issues which are polarizing our nation.
That's a very good observation. It is one of the nefarious side effects of prohibition that few can think clearly enough to see.
I submit that your point is not only true, but that it is not limited to just employment aspects, but life in general, and that it has been this way for decades. Festering.
Conservatives talk about individual freedoms.
Libertarians talk about it even more, but tend to vote Republican (as a whole).
They act as if they would fight and die for my "freedoms" to, for example, give speeches to White Suprematists about how the Holocaust was a myth.
They go on about "Natural Rights", but yet don't seem to know what that actually means....
And so, my example and question is this. Here in MA. I can now walk into a store and buy (and consume later) pot in any and all flavors and types. I can buy large quantities of it, just like with booze. For almost a decade a citizen of this commonwealth has been able to use it with no penalties. We can grow it.
I'd really like to hear comments from thoughtful conservatives - not rants or excuses from those whose minds are already made up. Simply - why are virtually ALL the states that have looked at this as a "natural law" situation Blue? We could say AK, ME and NV are purple, but all are different in many ways....but, by and large, those 70 million or so people who are not going to get arrest records, jail stints and general abridging of their rights....are in solid blue areas.
Why? If the talking points about conservatives getting government out of their lives are anywhere near true - why would they support putting normal citizens in jail and charging them with crimes...whilst their Blue Brothers are enjoying pain relief and relaxation and recreation?
I'd really like to hear a reasoned response because I cannot think of one...except that the authoritarian concept of "law and order" is so strong in red states that they fear their citizens are not capable of such decisions....and THEY have to force prohibitions upon them.
Oh yes, you mean that up until recently, every state including blue states, outlawed?
To paraphrase;
"Oh, you mean the thing you just legalized recently and are now judging me for not doing it yet?"
When the Democrats had Congress and the presidency, why did they not make it legal under federal law?
When the Democrats had Congress and the presidency, why did they not make it legal under federal law?
The question has been answered many times on these forums: Money.
Our lawmakers are not representing the will of the people on this matter, and won't until they sense their seat might be at risk. There is just too much under the table money involved, coming from Big Industry lobbyists. These Big Industries have a huge vested interest in trying to maintain its illegal status for as long as humanly possible. Spending $Millions to protect $Billions in profits is a no-brainer for them.
Democrat or Republican president and congress makes little difference in this money-driven $equation.
The whole devotion to "freedom" is misguided. Read Cass Sunstein's excellent book 'nudge' regarding how government can intervene to help us make better personal decisions.
We legalized pot here (WA) several years ago by ballot initiative. I voted no. We already have enough problems with legal alcohol. Why do we want to add to that? Marijuana is linked to brain damage, according to the CDC. I suspect that all intoxicants carry some risk of brain damage.
In this era of Obamacare, and with possibly medicare for all coming, the taxpayer has a legitimate interest in controlling unhealthy behaviors. If you end up with emphysema or brain damage, the taxpayer will probably pay for your care.
I think people either view the individual as having sovereignty over their own mind and body, or they don't.
Those that don't, have no position to logically fall back on if they feel that government has overstepped the mark - if the government decides that religion isn't in your best personal interests, then who you gonna call? ... ghostbusters? .... the A team? .... Michael and Kitt?
Nah.. both Democrats and Republicans like to over regulate people's lives... they just choose different things to regulate.
Democrats do it out in the open.
Republicans say they are against big government but that's a lie.
Yup
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.
