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.
So, would you allow your child to let your 6 month old grand kid smoke an ounce? If so, why? If not, why?
How is that even relevant? No one here has said kids should be smoking it. The normal method of administering it to a child having a seizure is through a liquid containing CBD oil that is given orally. Smoking has nothing to do with it.
I have also not seen where anyone has said it is completely harmless. While it can indeed be beneficial for some, when used appropriately, there are others who have no business using it at all, because it interferes with their life each and every time they try it. It varies by individual. Very similar to alcohol in that regard.
But that doesn't mean when someone posts misinformation that I won't call them on it. Not because I'm pro-cannabis, but because I am firmly anti-prohibition. There's a big difference, which does not always come through clearly when communicating through forum posts like this.
We really should have totally clamped down years ago, and wiped it out. This, for example, is what we did with full automatic weapons, and as a result they rarely are used in crimes. We wiped 'em out. It may now be too late to do that with marijuana.
Without trying to be snarky, the prohibitionists lacked the smarts to wipe it out -they've never grasped the simple fact that most pot smokers aren't Cheech and Chong, hiding out in the parents basement,or stumbling around with a mouthful of cookie dough - when you don't know your enemy, you place yourself at a disadvantage.
The overall common decency of society, prevented the prohibitionists from executing those who exercised sovereignty of their own mind and body, like those sick ***** in Singapore, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia etc, so it was always a losing battle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taratova
You are not free, you are a slave to weed..
If that's the case, then I'm cool with slavery - same with the vast majority of folks who like a beer, joint, coffee, religion etc, and who understand what personal responsibility really means.
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.
Surely, you jest. The extent of a state's "freedoms" goes well beyond access to your weed.
And do you feel the same way about tobacco? Being able to buy wine in a supermarket, or buy firearms freely? Do you think people should lose their drivers license for non-driving related drug offenses? How about those gawd-awful [gasp!] sparklers, which were verboten until Massah decided 2 years ago to "allow" their sale only for a certain number of days before/after July 4 and New Year's? Want a new kitchen door with a window, leading to the garage?
Yeah, don't come to NY, that bastion of personal freedoms.
Thanks for the laugh. And you might want to educate yourself by consulting any number of states' rankings with respect to freedoms. Your beloved blue ones come in at the bottom.
Serious, but I don’t completely follow your post. Regardless, drugs being legal is not a liberal or conservative thing per se. I know lots of liberals who don’t want their kids to go down to the wawa and buy drugs. It also doesn’t hurt cartels. They just wait for people to buy it “safely†and get hooked, then buy it at a tax-free discount from the dealer. Also, other illegal drug use has exploded in recent years since the legalization push. It’s a real boon for the cartels.
No reason for the cartels anymore. So it’s not a boom for them because it definitely hurts them. I’ve never know of anyone getting hooked on pot but I know may who are hooked on cigarettes.
No, what would you do, make Fentanyl legal? It is difficult with opiates because they are so addictive. Yet they are needed for medical purposes yet the prescribing of it is what produced so many addicts.
Fentanyl is safer than street heroin...MUCH safer in fact!
Ive said this before in similar threads, opioid prescription drugs are much safer than heroin, which could be laced with just about anything to increase weight, at least with the pain pills, they know what they are getting and taking, its safer to have people abusing opioid prescription drugs versus street heroin anyday.
Fentanyl is safer than street heroin...MUCH safer in fact!
Ive said this before in similar threads, opioid prescription drugs are much safer than heroin, which could be laced with just about anything to increase weight, at least with the pain pills, they know what they are getting and taking, its safer to have people abusing opioid prescription drugs versus street heroin anyday.
I don’t think you know what you are talking about since fentanyl laced heroin is what’s killing people. So where do you get this idea that fentanyl is safe.
I don’t think you know what you are talking about since fentanyl laced heroin is what’s killing people. So where do you get this idea that fentanyl is safe.
The fentanyl laced heroin is the issue, because users are getting a more potent dose than they're used to. The issue isn't heroin or fentanyl, it's the increased and unknown potency.
Fentanyl is on the WHO essential medicines list for pain relief that means it's pretty safe when used correctly.
If drug prohibition was lifted there's no reason to bump heroin with fentanyl to increase potency, you can import tons of the stuff legally, and it's not expensive to produce. Further heroin can be screened for purity guaranteeing that users get consistent strength doses, thus reducing the chance of and risk of accidental overdose.
ETA: On thread, I don't think holding up one policy and claiming proof of more liberty is a valid premise. In truth the proof of more liberty comes down to economic and social issues of which this is one aspect of one policy.
Fentanyl is safer than street heroin...MUCH safer in fact!
Ive said this before in similar threads, opioid prescription drugs are much safer than heroin, which could be laced with just about anything to increase weight, at least with the pain pills, they know what they are getting and taking, its safer to have people abusing opioid prescription drugs versus street heroin anyday.
You need to keep up with the times.
Those in the basic know now buy "street heroin" on a delivery basis, and it is fairly weak (pure, but weak due to methods used to make it) mexican brown or black "tar" heroin. It is consistent.
Fentanyl is imported by the 55 gallon drum from China and India, etc. where it is created chemically and can be of various strengths and analogues (different chemical structures, some 10X as strong, some not)....
One thing you are partially correct about. If you are not getting the "black tar" and buying white street heroin it might be laced with that fentanyl or worse.....
To put it another way, if we legalized heroin we'd at least know what the dose was.
The fentanyl laced heroin is the issue, because users are getting a more potent dose than they're used to. The issue isn't heroin or fentanyl, it's the increased and unknown potency.
Fentanyl is on the WHO essential medicines list for pain relief that means it's pretty safe when used correctly.
If drug prohibition was lifted there's no reason to bump heroin with fentanyl to increase potency, you can import tons of the stuff legally, and it's not expensive to produce. Further heroin can be screened for purity guaranteeing that users get consistent strength doses, thus reducing the chance of and risk of accidental overdose.
ETA: On thread, I don't think holding up one policy and claiming proof of more liberty is a valid premise. In truth the proof of more liberty comes down to economic and social issues of which this is one aspect of one policy.
All true, but being as MA (the state referenced) has universal health care, marriage equality and dozens of other social and economic policies which are often ahead of the rest of the nation....I think the "freedom" index is higher than most states...resulting also in other metrics which beat most states (better incomes, health, longer lives, etc.).
So called conservatives measure "freedom" by two metrics which are somewhat opposite to these. One is the freedom to pollute (people die due to this, let alone quality of life). Another metric they use is "the less in taxes, the more free the state", which is often opposite to reality since the state or "commonwealth" cannot provide the social and economic kickstarting for more freedom.
All true, but being as MA (the state referenced) has universal health care, marriage equality and dozens of other social and economic policies which are often ahead of the rest of the nation....I think the "freedom" index is higher than most states...resulting also in other metrics which beat most states (better incomes, health, longer lives, etc.).
So called conservatives measure "freedom" by two metrics which are somewhat opposite to these. One is the freedom to pollute (people die due to this, let alone quality of life). Another metric they use is "the less in taxes, the more free the state", which is often opposite to reality since the state or "commonwealth" cannot provide the social and economic kickstarting for more freedom.
One would think that people would be flocking to MA, or at least other blue states, yet its red states that are seeing the biggest influx of new residents.
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.
And do you feel the same way about tobacco? Being able to buy wine in a supermarket, or buy firearms freely? Do you think people should lose their drivers license for non-driving related drug offenses? How about those gawd-awful [gasp!] sparklers, which were verboten until Massah decided 2 years ago to "allow" their sale only for a certain number of days before/after July 4 and New Year's? Want a new kitchen door with a window, leading to the garage?
