Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 11-21-2011, 05:35 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,483 posts, read 33,188,159 times
Reputation: 7602

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Please reread what I set--I said that libertarians, which are a subset of conservatism, overwhelmingly support legalization.
Yes, I misread it. I see you said "libertarians."

Quote:
Neither. I refer to the law itself. As long as we have a free society, I support relatively loose immigration. If people come here to work and make their own way up the ladder, we should welcome them. But if we have a welfare state, and people come here (like a lot of the Somalis in my region) just to go on food stamps, then I am for tight restricitions on immigration, and stringent enforcement thereof.
There are only two kinds of immigrants... legal and illegal. I also am for tight restrictions on legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2011, 06:40 PM
 
4,049 posts, read 5,020,521 times
Reputation: 1333
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
You're into big government imprisoning people, stealing from them and blacklisting them over consuming and trading a non-harmful plant? You and your conservative friends/relatives are the type that gives the word "conservative" a bitter hypocritical taste to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Who said I am into that?
You did when you said you were against legalizing marijuana.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 08:02 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,075,333 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
You're into big government imprisoning people, stealing from them and blacklisting them over consuming and trading a non-harmful plant?
It is harmful. It consists of 490 chemical compounds including known carcinogens and numerous suspect carcinogens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apeters8 View Post
You sir, are a genius. Seriously, most neocons are simply the American taliban. They have no problem using the power of the state to tell people what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes. You can't say you favor less government intervention and then turn around and say " I think the government should be able to dictate who you can marry, what you can put in your body, blah blah blah." It's just hypocritical.
No, the hypocrisy is hiding under the guise of "in the privacy of their own homes."

It isn't private.

When you get doped up and come to work and kill/injure someone with the fork-lift you're driving, is that, um (snicker) "in the privacy of their own homes."

When you're doped up and your car drifts left of center and kills another person, is that"in the privacy of their own homes?"

When you're doped up and strike a pedestrian or cyclist is that "in the privacy of their own homes?"

When you're kid is developmentally disabled because of all the dope you smoked around them and I have to freaking pay for that with my tax dollars is that"in the privacy of their own homes?"

I tell you what, you can smoke your dope and live your pathetic fantasy life, under the following conditions:

1) Employers can deny employment to drug users without recourse;

2) Employers can terminate drug users without recourse;

3) Employers can use drug testing at will without recourse;

4) Health plan providers can terminate policies without recourse, and Medicaid/Medicare can reject persons injured by drug use;

5) You agree to forfeit a blood sample voluntarily under suspicion of DUI or lose your license forever;

6) All government employees at all levels, including teachers, police, EMT and firefighters, garbage haulers, waste water plant workers etc are barred from using drugs and must undergo mandatory drug testing or be terminated without recourse;

7) All persons engaged in public transport, pilots, airline crew-members, bus drivers, taximetrists, train/subway operators, and truck drivers are barred from using drugs and must undergo mandatory drug testing or be terminated without recourse.
You agree to that, and you can smoke away, and drink all the grape soda and listen to all the Pink Floyd you want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 08:15 PM
 
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,620 posts, read 12,696,292 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
It is harmful. It consists of 490 chemical compounds including known carcinogens and numerous suspect carcinogens.



No, the hypocrisy is hiding under the guise of "in the privacy of their own homes."

It isn't private.

When you get doped up and come to work and kill/injure someone with the fork-lift you're driving, is that, um (snicker) "in the privacy of their own homes."

When you're doped up and your car drifts left of center and kills another person, is that"in the privacy of their own homes?"

When you're doped up and strike a pedestrian or cyclist is that "in the privacy of their own homes?"

When you're kid is developmentally disabled because of all the dope you smoked around them and I have to freaking pay for that with my tax dollars is that"in the privacy of their own homes?"

I tell you what, you can smoke your dope and live your pathetic fantasy life, under the following conditions:

1) Employers can deny employment to drug users without recourse;

2) Employers can terminate drug users without recourse;

3) Employers can use drug testing at will without recourse;

4) Health plan providers can terminate policies without recourse, and Medicaid/Medicare can reject persons injured by drug use;

5) You agree to forfeit a blood sample voluntarily under suspicion of DUI or lose your license forever;

6) All government employees at all levels, including teachers, police, EMT and firefighters, garbage haulers, waste water plant workers etc are barred from using drugs and must undergo mandatory drug testing or be terminated without recourse;

7) All persons engaged in public transport, pilots, airline crew-members, bus drivers, taximetrists, train/subway operators, and truck drivers are barred from using drugs and must undergo mandatory drug testing or be terminated without recourse.

You agree to that, and you can smoke away, and drink all the grape soda and listen to all the Pink Floyd you want.


but its legal to sell 180 proof alcohol>> one of the worst poisons known to man
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 08:22 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,288 posts, read 20,660,084 times
Reputation: 9324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
....................
7) All persons engaged in public transport, pilots, airline crew-members, bus drivers, taximetrists, train/subway operators, and truck drivers are barred from using drugs and must undergo mandatory drug testing or be terminated without recourse.
You agree to that, and you can smoke away, and drink all the grape soda and listen to all the Pink Floyd you want.

So, you don't take any drugs? Hundreds of millions of people around the world take drugs and go to work and have no issues.

Nobody should be drug tested for any reason whatsoever. Drug testing should be outlawed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2011, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,483 posts, read 33,188,159 times
Reputation: 7602
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
You did when you said you were against legalizing marijuana.
Opposing legalizing it does not automatically make one a big government person. And it's hardly a "non-harmful" plant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 12:25 AM
 
Location: Earth
17,440 posts, read 28,509,183 times
Reputation: 7477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Opposing legalizing it does not automatically make one a big government person.
It disqualifies one from being a small government person or a limited government person. It makes one in favor of a massive bureaucracy and increased power of the federal government. Things that are pretty unconservative - unless you're a social conservative and a moderate or liberal on other issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 11:53 AM
 
4,049 posts, read 5,020,521 times
Reputation: 1333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Opposing legalizing it does not automatically make one a big government person. And it's hardly a "non-harmful" plant.
Maybe you think there should be small government in other areas, but in terms of personal freedom of ownership, you are a big government anti-freedom person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 11:58 AM
 
4,049 posts, read 5,020,521 times
Reputation: 1333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
It is harmful. It consists of 490 chemical compounds including known carcinogens and numerous suspect carcinogens.
The number of chemicals means nothing about its harm inherently. Which chemicals are carcinogens? You know, there have been recent studies to show that marijuana actually fights cancer! Google it.

And while you're at it, see if you can find ANY instance of ANYONE overdosing on marijuana. It's kind of a snipe hunt, because that just simply doesn't happen. That's why I say it's harmless.

For comparison, alcohol (the legal but extremely harmful drug) causes overdoses and death quite regularly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 12:44 PM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,896 posts, read 11,943,849 times
Reputation: 7502
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
The number of chemicals means nothing about its harm inherently. Which chemicals are carcinogens? You know, there have been recent studies to show that marijuana actually fights cancer! Google it.

And while you're at it, see if you can find ANY instance of ANYONE overdosing on marijuana. It's kind of a snipe hunt, because that just simply doesn't happen. That's why I say it's harmless.

For comparison, alcohol (the legal but extremely harmful drug) causes overdoses and death quite regularly.

Not to mention, oxycotin and other prescribed meds, as well as otc drugs such as aspirin! In fact name one drug OTHER than marijuana legal or illegal that DOESN'T have a risk of overdose and the possibility of death? I'm willing to bet the authoritarian types on here cannot!
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 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