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 a greater example is to arrest otherwise harmless parents of a child simply because they smoke some pot?
But honestly, how could it be any worse for there to be a few more pot heads running around? How could it be worse than the current state of how marijuana is dealt with?
Since marijuana is a medicine recognized as such by nearly all the states in the West it becomes difficult concealing it's use in families. For example, my father smokes weed for a painful neck injury that flares up like arthritis. When my sister began chemotherapy for cancer, her sons\ my nephews scored a lid of marijuana; she was able to eat & kept the food in her stomach. At family gatherings, marijuana is smoked outside on the patio just like a beer is consumed in front of the children.
I am concerned, however, that high school kids using marijuana lose initiative & can get lazy about school work. But kids have always been exposed to liquor & only a few become alcoholics as adults [plus marijuana is not addictive.
Since marijuana is a medicine recognized as such by nearly all the states in the West it becomes difficult concealing it's use in families. For example, my father smokes weed for a painful neck injury that flares up like arthritis. When my sister began chemotherapy for cancer, her sons\ my nephews scored a lid of marijuana; she was able to eat & kept the food in her stomach. At family gatherings, marijuana is smoked outside on the patio just like a beer is consumed in front of the children.
I am concerned, however, that high school kids using marijuana lose initiative & can get lazy about school work. But kids have always been exposed to liquor & only a few become alcoholics as adults [plus marijuana is not addictive.
I totally agree with it being used for medicine, like in the instance you mentioned. Some will say "these people only think they feel better". I will say "isn't that enough?"
I kind of agree and disagree about high school kids using marijuana. Younger kids like freshmen still have a developing brain and I don't really approve of them using anything (granted if a 14 year old gets drunk or high a couple times, they will prolly be ok, but habitually it's no good).
I hate to drag "me" into a discussion, but it's a fitting example. I smoked pot in high school and ended up dropping out (there are many reasons as to why) I went to get my GED and when I was 22 I started college. Now I am going to one of the best private colleges in my state, and I still smoke pot.
As far as the age issue goes I think maturity has a lot to do with it. And being an alcoholic or habitual user of any drug is usually a symbol of trying to deal with something else. Using to escape, "self medicate" whatever.
Since I started this thread, I suppose it up to me to define liberal and conservative. To me someone is liberal when they think we don't have enough sense to think for ourselves and require a government to decide things for us. The USSR was a phenominal experiment in liberal socialism. So was the group at New Harmony Indiana and the Mayflower Compact set the same socialist processes into effect only to fail within two years.
Conservatism can be just as wrong! Good is somewhere between the left and right ditches. I like to tell people that as an American, I like to drive just to the right of center but in neither ditch. Occasionally, I'll need to drive in the left lane to pass those who hinder progress, but if I stay out there too long I'll hit, or will be hit. To me a conservative is someone who thinks getting ahead is what is in the best interest for the people and not what's in it for only themselves.
I could be wrong but I think those who made the mayflower compact also failed because when they got here they didn't know how to grow crops or live off the land, their first winter was a rough one. I remember reading about one man that was so hungry he killed his wife, butchered and ate her. So If I am thinking of the right group of people they were bound to fail
by their own ignorance of the land.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomocox
I am not about to suggest that Republicans are better bureaucrats, for they aren't. But, I will tell you that the free market with all its faults is a much better manager of my money than a DC bungler. The big difference is that when Republicans are in charge, I don't send as much of my work to DC. .
But you'll be sending it to pay off the massive debt created when the Republicans are in charge and spend like drunken sailors.
It seems to me neither party is particularly good for the US as a whole. Reps involve us in a war so a few of them can get very wealthy. They make for large government and damage the constitution or at least in the last 8 yrs. Dems spend too much and both tax too much. Dems spend too much on welfare programs.
Here are spme things that need to be attended to
massive investments in wind and solar power so we can stop with coal, and nuclear powers.
Elimination of the gas burning internal combustion engine
reduction in military spending
elimiination of ALL special projects that waste our money.
accountability of politicians
elimination of the PACs in DC
control of campaign contributions. - Contribute to one point and let it be divided evenly. Nothing allowed to a specific person from anyone or group.
reform of the insurance industries
more incentives to create balance in our trade deficits
reinstatement of the constitution and the freedoms it offered
Peaceful resolution to issues - military action is a final option
reform of the Justice system
improvements in Education
Infrastructure investments
elimination of Homeland Security and other worthless government agencies
better control of how the nations money is spent stop allowing the siphoning of millions
there is the short list. Now we need a party that will attend to these issues and move us forward towards a world economy.
Why do we have to create a label? make everyone equal and then there will be no special interest to cater too at the expense of the country.
But it seems that any more, anyone who doesn't have their nose shoved up Bush's backside is castigated as a "flaming liberal" by the 25% who still claim that Bush has been doing a good job even with nearly 8 years of evidence to the contrary.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade52
Maybe it's just me...
But it seems that any more, anyone who doesn't have their nose shoved up Bush's backside is castigated as a "flaming liberal" by the 25% who still claim that Bush has been doing a good job even with nearly 8 years of evidence to the contrary.
And those who have their noses up that flaming backside would be flaming NeoConfuseds?
Bush is doing well, it's the country that's suffering.
OK, I should have written performing well.
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.
Ya know, I used to be a flaming liberal...
