Marijuana

[emjlr3]

you can easily get a high from second hand mj smoke - i am proof of that

you can't get ppl drunk when you drink yourself

and mj is actually harmful to the brain (though alcohol is too)

 

[BlowingKush]

First of all, I don't speak for all republicans or evangelicals, but I certainly speak for a majority of them.

The republican base, that has adopted ignorance (i.e. Sarah Palin) and right ideology as their paradigm, who believes, quite literally in a "Space God", and who supposedly has all the answers to the afterlife and how to live your life until then, and who won't even consider, for a second, all evidence to the contrary, is in-fact close minded. Unfortunately it has become commonplace for such individuals to legislate their opinion. I on the other hand, who am not a christian, is still open to the possible existence of an intelligence greater than myself, although it is highly unlikely.


The chances of you being killed on the highway from some jackass talking to his doctor about penis enlargement on his Nokia 7300 is 1000 fold greater than the chances of getting slammed by some high UNO student who is rushing to make it to a sociology final.
Getting high is already illegal while driving, but to make home use illegal is completely unnecessary and a slap in the face of liberty.
Cell phones are not banned at home even though you may bring them with you to your vehicle. To ban something at home based on what might happen if the user chooses to act unintelligibly is unconstitutional. In order to preserve freedom, a certain degree of tolerance is necessary in any society. Hell let's make it illegal to leave your house past 7:15 Am because you may be sleepy. Lets make illegal any and all prescription drugs. Lets ban really tight underwear because you may need to adjust your johnson while driving. Right, christian conservatives are so eager to tighten the noose around the neck of liberty in order to satisfy an ignorant and unconstitutional agenda that legislates their way of life. Not only with marijuana, but in many facets of law.

I give less than a fuck as to how your high school gym teacher taught you to debate in regards to name calling. Unfortunately, in this situation, I referred to certain divisions of society as evangelicals and republicans. The last time I checked, this isn't name calling. This is identifying a group, not only as society does, but even as they describe themselves!

And for those of you who happen to be getting high from my second hand smoke and don't appreciate it, I have a message for you.

Spoiler

GET THE FUCK OFF MY COUCH YOU FUCKING DUMBASS

Regardless of whether you agree with me or not, misquoting me, and suggesting that I suck cocks, even though it is true (and very satisfying), is flaming and has no place in rational debate.

 

[Zakyath]

>Obviously not every single person who is a republican or evangelist is against legalizing marijuana

He never said that.

>you can easily get a high from second hand mj smoke - i am proof of that

and mj is actually harmful to the brain (though alcohol is too)


No smoking in public areas?

>you can't get ppl drunk when you drink yourself

No, you're right. But that's no reason not to legalize marijuana...

>and mj is actually harmful to the brain (though alcohol is too)

I though I read in the newspaper a (long) while ago that showering is, too. Isn't it up to the user to decide how he wants to effect his mind and thoughts? Everyone should have the right to do what they want with themselves, especially if it's about affecting your state of mind.

 

[Miz]

Well I believe if people want to make themselves stupid, let them. But don't let them do it in places where they can make others stupid (2nd hand smoke, etc.) or cause injury to other people.

 

[Zakyath]

>Well I believe if people want to make themselves stupid, let them. But don't let them do it in places where they can make others stupid (2nd hand smoke, etc.) or cause injury to other people.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Darthfett]

I give less than a fuck as to how your high school gym teacher taught you to debate in regards to name calling. Unfortunately, in this situation, I referred to certain divisions of society as evangelicals and republicans. The last time I checked, this isn't name calling. This is identifying a group, not only as society does, but even as they describe themselves!

Since when does calling a group of people sheltered and uninformed not qualify as name calling?

The way to debate isn't an opinionated matter. It's a way to make yourself sound intelligent, as opposed to extremely offensive, and close-minded.

I was replying to a very nonconstructive and offensive post. I was trying to act in a civil manner, by showing you that what you said is simply not true. You never said in your original post that you only wanted to legalize marijuana in your home, so don't you dare be calling anyone a "FUCKING DUMBASS."

The republican base, that has adopted ignorance (i.e. Sarah Palin) and right ideology as their paradigm, who believes, quite literally in a "Space God", and who supposedly has all the answers to the afterlife and how to live your life until then, and who won't even consider, for a second, all evidence to the contrary, is in-fact close minded. Unfortunately it has become commonplace for such individuals to legislate their opinion. I on the other hand, who am not a christian, is still open to the possible existence of an intelligence greater than myself, although it is highly unlikely.

So what you're saying is that you haven't yet chosen what you believe, but that you are willing to ch
oose something to believe. However, you're also calling everyone who has already chosen something to believe is close-minded.

We don't just hold to our beliefs for no reason, we have legitimate reasons, just as you do for believing what you believe.

Hell let's make it illegal to leave your house past 7:15 Am because you may be sleepy. Lets make illegal any and all prescription drugs. Lets ban really tight underwear because you may need to adjust your johnson while driving.

Your examples are fail. Marijuana is illegal right now because 1. They can't enforce the law to keep everybody only smoking in their home, and 2. The second-hand smoke gets other people high, which causes negative effects on their brain, even if they may not want to get high. Prescription drugs are prescribed. That means your doctor told you to take them, so you can get better. Many of them which make you sleepy also say you're not allowed to operate heavy machinery (including a car). Your other 2 'examples' are completely irrelevant.

>you can't get ppl drunk when you drink yourself

No, you're right. But that's no reason not to legalize marijuana...

I think the point he was making was that alcohol being legal is not a good argument to make for legalizing marijuana. In other words, when you're getting drunk off alcohol, you're not getting the people around you drunk. However, when you're getting high off marijuana, you are getting the people around you high.

You can be near drinking people, and be completely unaffected. You can't be around smoking people, and be completely unaffected.

 

[BlowingKush]

Since when does calling a group of people sheltered and uninformed not qualify as name calling?

I was replying to a very nonconstructive and offensive post. I was trying to act in a civil manner, by showing you that what you said is simply not true. You never said in your original post that you only wanted to legalize marijuana in your home, so don't you dare be calling anyone a "FUCKING DUMBASS."

Evangelical biblebangers and their supporters ie. The Republican Party, like Sarah Palin IS sheltered and uninformed. Unfortunately it was this party ,that was supported, and who's base continued to push legislation that keeps marijuana illegal.

"FUCKING DUMBASS" is refering to the fact that if you are getting high from second hand smoke and don't understand how to prevent it, any human with a brain stem would realize that they probably need to leave the room, then YES you are a DUMBASS. Don't ever sit on my couch beside me and not expect to get high.

So what you're saying is that you haven't yet chosen what you believe, but that you are willing to choose something to believe. However, you're also calling everyone who has already chosen something to believe is close-minded.

Yep.... Anyone who has chosen to believe in some sorta space god and disregard all scientific evidence to the contrary in my mind is close minded.

At least my belief isn't so hardened that it doesn't allow for other possibilities to be true. ie The stubborness of the biblebangers. And how dare they suggest to know more about the afterlife than I do when in all reality we are all human with the same capacity.

Your examples are fail. Marijuana is illegal right now because 1. They can't enforce the law to keep everybody only smoking in their home, and 2. The second-hand smoke gets other people high, which causes negative effects on their brain, even if they may not want to get high. Prescription drugs are prescribed. That means your doctor told you to take them, so you can get better. Many of them which make you sleepy also say you're not allowed to operate heavy machinery (including a car). Your other 2 'examples' are completely irrelevant.

To ban something at home based on what might happen if the user chooses to act unintelligibly is unconstitutional. In order to preserve freedom, a certain degree of tolerance is necessary in any society.

I am expanding on this principle which apparently you cease to understand.

Even after I discuss getting high on my fucking couch, you still continue this meaningless argument that somehow second hand marijuana will get you high , and I should feel sorry for this because I am smoking in my own home and you are too much of a dumbass to leave? Oh Pity.

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

Evangelical biblebangers and their supporters ie. The Republican Party, like Sarah Palin IS sheltered and uninformed. Unfortunately it was this party ,that was supported, and who's base continued to push legislation that keeps marijuana illegal.

Actually, you only show your own ignorance by saying all members and supporters of the Republican Party AND Evangelicals ARE (not is) sheltered and uninformed. First of all, there are a majority of Democratic Evengelicals, some of which are close friends of mine. Secondly, many Catholic and Evengalical people do illegal drugs or have issues with said drugs. Just because they believe in a religion doesn't mean that they are perfect or that they don't know the truth. You blindly stereotype all religious people as morons, when you have no proof or reasons to back up your claim.

It amuses me to see how so many Democrats claim they're open minded. If they were open minded, they would freely research and understand the position that the opposing group is coming from rather than ignorantly attacking the other group with no supporting evidence and with the only goal of enraging the other party.

"FUCKING DUMBASS" is refering to the fact that if you are getting high from second hand smoke and don't understand how to prevent it, any human with a brain stem would realize that they probably need to leave the room, then YES you are a DUMBASS. Don't ever sit on my couch beside me and not expect to get high.

You just called emjlr3 a "fucking dumbass"... nice going.

Anyways, why should non-smokers have to go out of their way for smokers? Smokers should realize that people they live with do not like smoking and therefore should not smoke in the vicinity of non-smokers. Especially if a smoker is living with a non-smoker. The smell lingers throughout the room, is very hard to get rid of (different from covering up) and effects both you and ALL people living with you.

Yep.... Anyone who has chosen to believe in some sorta space god and disregard all scientific evidence to the contrary in my mind is close minded.

Yet another ignorant statement. Only Scientologists believe in a "space god" because their god can be quantified (i.e. aliens). God does not necessarily belong to our perception of the universe. If you actually want to stop being ignorant about other people's beliefs, please READ the Catholic Catechism and do something to educate yourself. Link is online here
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

At least my belief isn't so hardened that it doesn't allow for other possibilities to be true. ie The stubborness of the biblebangers. And how dare they suggest to know more about the afterlife than I do when in all reality we are all human with the same capacity.

As I said, read the Catechism.

To ban something at home based on what might happen if the user chooses to act unintelligibly is unconstitutional. In order to preserve freedom, a certain degree of tolerance is necessary in any society.

Why don't you tolerate the fact that I and many other people have issues with people who smoke and that it effects us negatively. The fact that it's a health risk means that smokers should be more accommodating instead of non-smokers.

So it was perfectly fine to allow child abuse in homes? Pedophiles are allowed to touch other children because it is their home or their child? Your argument holds no grown when compared to other things that effect other people as well as themselves.

I am expanding on this principle which apparently you cease to understand.

Even after I discuss getting high on my fucking couch, you still continue this meaningless argument that somehow second hand marijuana will get you high , and I should feel sorry for this because I am smoking in my own home and you are too much of a dumbass to leave? Oh Pity.

If I lived with you in your home as well than I should have a fair say in what happens. If you do something that is against what I think is healthy than yes you should conform to my beliefs as it is keeping myself healthy and still allowing you to smoke.

 

[Darthfett]

Evangelical biblebangers and their supporters ie. The Republican Party, like Sarah Palin IS sheltered and uninformed. Unfortunately it was this party ,that was supported, and who's base continued to push legislation that keeps marijuana illegal.

Once again, you have grouped us all together in a group, as if we all think the same way, when that is a complete stereotype. Once again I will try to explain it to you. There are people in all parties who are against the legalization of marijuana, and people in all parties who are for the legalization of marijuana.

Provide some PROOF about how we are sheltered and uninformed before name calling.

"FUCKING DUMBASS" is refering to the fact that if you are getting high from second hand smoke and don't understand how to prevent it, any human with a brain stem would realize that they probably need to leave the room, then YES you are a DUMBASS. Don't ever sit on my couch beside me and not expect to get high.

And any human with a brain stem should understand that since it is the smoker who is causing the problems to everyone around him, and not everyone around him that is causing the problem, it is HIS duty to move. I don't have to be standing next to you acting like an idiot to breathe in some of your toxic marijuana fumes. I could just happen to be walking by. At my college, ASU, I walk by about 30 smokers in less than 10 minutes of walking, and I have to either hold my breath, or breathe it in every time I walk by, neither of which are appealing to me. When a smoker walks by someone else, they don't have to hold their breath for me.

Yep.... Anyone who has chosen to believe in some sorta space god and disregard all scientific evidence to the contrary in my mind is close minded.

Who said they were disregarding all scientific evidence? Please, provide some scientific evidence, so I actually have something to debate. In my mind, it is YOU who is being close-minded, as you are completely ignoring the points we have been making, and it is YOU who has continued to bring the argument back to simple name-calling and stereo type grouping.

At least my belief isn't so hardened that it doesn't allow for other possibilities to be true. ie The stubborness of the biblebangers. And how dare they suggest to know more about the afterlife than I do when in all reality we are all human with the same capacity.

Yes it is. You're refusing to believe that people who have a belief in religion have any credibility at all, and simply grouping us all together as stubborn, close-minded, and sheltered is simply refusing to see the other side, or even listen to what they have to say.

Also, what are you talking about when you say that they claim to know more about the afterlife than you do? They have their own beliefs, you have yours. They're not claiming anything, except telling you what they believe, and why.

To ban something at home based on what might happen if the user chooses to act unintelligibly is unconstitutional. In order to preserve freedom, a certain degree of tolerance is necessary in any society.

I am expanding on this principle which apparently you cease to understand.

And again, why do you cease to understand why they can't simply allow it at home? Police do not have the power to stop every smoker from smoking it in public. They can't even stop it the smoking when it's completely banned.

It's an all or nothing subject: Smoke wherever, or no smoking.

That's the reason I'm ignoring the fact that you're only talking about at home -- It won't only be at home.

Now can we revive this debate with something to actually debate?

 

[Zakyath]

>Now can we revive this debate with something to actually debate?

Very, very good idea. No one says marijuana has to be smoked.

 

[BlowingKush]

Actually, you only show your own ignorance by saying all members and supporters of the Republican Party AND Evangelicals ARE (not is) sheltered and uninformed. First of all, there are a majority of Democratic Evengelicals, some of which are close friends of mine. Secondly, many Catholic and Evengalical people do illegal drugs or have issues with said drugs. Just because they believe in a religion doesn't mean that they are perfect or that they don't know the truth. You blindly stereotype all religious people as morons, when you have no proof or reasons to back up your claim.

It amuses me to see how so many Democrats claim they're open minded. If they were open minded, they would freely research and understand the position that the opposing group is coming from rather than ignorantly attacking the other group with no supporting evidence and with the only goal of enraging the other party.

All religious people in my opinion are morons. They reach decisions despite overwhelming evidence, which in my opinion, is moronic. They claim to understand the "correct and proper" way to live life and push their views on others as if they were law. But most importantly, a majority of evangelicals look down on people who do not subscribe to their way of life and instead pursue a lifestyle of sex and drugs. This is true because they attempt to influence your lifestyle, therefore they obviously feel that your life isn't being lived "properly". Fuck that, no one but me sets rules on how I live my life. Evangelicals are the most close-minded individuals on the face the planet. They are so concrete in their beliefs that one cannot engage in any conversation that isn't built of the ideas of Faith.

You just called emjlr3 a "fucking dumbass"... nice going.

Anyways, why should non-smokers have to go out of their way for smokers? Smokers should realize that people they live with do not like smoking and therefore should not smoke in the vicinity of non-smokers. Especially if a smoker is living with a non-smoker. The smell lingers throughout the room, is very hard to get rid of (different from covering up) and effects both you and ALL people living with you.

All I have argued since I started this waste of time is that it should be legal to smoke in your own home. And evangelicals want to even take that away.
Ummm, maybe that is something they might have took into consideration BEFORE signing the fucking lease.

Yet another ignorant statement. Only Scientologists believe in a "space god" because their god can be quantified (i.e. aliens). God does not necessarily belong to our perception of the universe. If you actually want to stop being ignorant about other people's beliefs, please READ the Catholic Catechism and do something to educate yourself. Link is online here
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

I believe this sentence is misinterpreted. Reread my argument again and maybe you might understand that it was a play on words expanding on the idea of some "Greater Power"

Why don't you tolerate the fact that I and many other people have issues with people who smoke and that it effects us negatively. The fact that it's a health risk means that smokers should be more accommodating instead of non-smokers.

Well lets see here.... We can't smoke in bars now where people go to kill themselves and escape the gravity of life.....We can't smoke in the mall...... we can't smoke at restaurants..in fact THE ONLY PLACE WE CAN SMOKE IS OUTSIDE!! in the fucking face of mother nature...... and even then, you wish to end that. How can you become more accommodating then smoking in the only place on fucking earth that has yet to be industrialized!!! LMFAO

So it was perfectly fine to allow child abuse in homes? Pedophiles are allowed to touch other children because it is their home or their child? Your argument holds no grown when compared to other things that effect other people as well as themselves.

Child abuse will occur in homes regardless of legislation to stop it. And pedophiles will do so the same. Once again, just because a crime occurs, it doesn't warrant the right to do away with individual privacy.

If I lived with you in your home as well than I should have a fair say in what happens. If you do something that is against what I think is healthy than yes you should conform to my beliefs as it is keeping myself healthy and still allowing you to smoke.

Once again, this pretense of you having equal control in living with me is irrelevant due to the fact that the only people who would live with me would be people who are agreeable to my conditions before they occupy my space.

 

[Seb!]

All religious people in my opinion are morons.

Come on, man. You have good points, but when you say something like that it's just difficult to take you seriously.

 

[BlowingKush]

Come on, man. You have good points, but when you say something like that it's just difficult to take you seriously.

Let me expand on this then,

To advocate a concrete philosophy like christianity, or budism, or islam, or any other idealogy that encompasses how one should live thier life, in my opinion is moronic.

I don't believe that every idea, that a person of this nature has, is moronic. But I certainly believe that such concrete philosophy is.

 

[Seb!]

Some of the ideas aren't so bad. Let's say that the Bible is a bunch of stories that give you some helpful advice of kindness and charity. Let's say that Buddhism is a guide to reach inner peace and happiness. Where's the harm in that?

 

[BlowingKush]

There isn't harm in that. The harm comes when people of faith, who are not open to alternative lifestyle, attempt to legislate their opinion.

Once again this falls back on the crux of my argument.

To ban something at home based on what might happen if the user chooses to act unintelligibly is unconstitutional. In order to preserve freedom, a certain degree of tolerance is necessary in any society.

 

[quraji]

Thread's a little old but I thought I'd post my opinion. Sorry if I rehash (no pun intended, tehe) previous points.

Banning marijuana under the justification that it is potentially dangerous to the user or others (the common example being driving while high) is just silly.
As BudSMoke said, any number of things could be looked at the same way. It is up to the user and those around him to be responsible. If you drink or smoke to the point of having your driving ability impaired, then you make the right decision and don't drive. Same goes for any activity. If you do, you suffer the consequences. As a side note, that decision is easier to make while you're high from pot than while you're drunk.

Second-hand smoke. From what I've read, you need to inhale a lot of second-hand smoke to actually get high from it. Like, a lot. So as far as getting affected any more than by cigarette smoke while someone walks past, I say nay. I can't say from experience, since I haven't been around second-hand marijuana smoke while not making some of my own.

Driving while smoking. If I remember correctly, studies have shown that even while under the effects of marijuana, subjects' driving ability did not decrease by a large amount; and some actually drove more "slowly and carefully". Despite this I'd concede to regulations similar to drinking while driving.

As far as public use goes, you can treat it like alcohol. If the user isn't causing trouble, then what's the deal? But, if they're causing trouble, then react as such (just as you would if they were drinking). Although this wouldn't be a big problem, since most people don't just walk around and smoke, they do it in their home, which brings me to my next point:

Concerning home use, this just seems like a no-brainer to me. If people are allowed to get drunk (even if not), they should be allowed to get high, especially in their own homes. Besides, I think most people would agree that high folks are much more enjoyable/tolerable than drunk folks (if you're sober).

It comes down to this: Many people use it, and many will, regardless of the legality of it. But, if it were legal, we wouldn't be spending so much effort getting minor "offenders" caught up in the legal system for trying to enjoy themselves. Also, it could be taxed and regulated, etc.


As a final note, for anyone wishing to further the discussion, perhaps a good way to do it would be to compare how it is now, as illegal, and how you think it would be, as legal.

 

[Seb!]

As a final note, for anyone wishing to further the discussion, perhaps a good way to do it would be to compare how it is now, as illegal, and how you think it would be, as legal.

Yeah, if it were legal: the money would go into regulated and taxed American business, and it would probably be a lot better quality. You wouldn't have to worry about crazy dealers, either.

 

[sqrage]

Well 11 or so states have already realized that the negative effects of its outlaw highly outweigh the drug's health negatives and have made small amounts of marijuana possession legal.

The only reason it was made illegal in the first place was so the government would have a reason to get rid of illegal Mexicans in states boarding Mexico.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yqyx0pCIHA This is a good documentary to watch about the history of Marijuana by the History Channel. Might enlighten some.

 

[Mac Dre]

I say legalize it everywere. If the US was going to sell it and put tax on it do you know how much they would make? It would really help with the debt we are in right now. + for those of you who dont smoke it, just try it. It's really not even close to as bad as the commercials make it out to be.

 

[eellem1]

The government here in the U.S. make more money with the drugs being illegal than they would if it was legalized.