The general decline in standards today

[HudsonHawk]

How big does it need to be? What's the quota?

I don't know. At what point do you throw the baby out with the bathwater?

It's far from the only reason to keep "the product" illegal, and actually a rather minor one in my view. It's useful mainly as a response to the incessant pot-lobby shills who fill newspaper comment sections with "LEGALIZE IT AND TAX IT" as their parrot-like response to any discussion at all of the issue.

But potential tax revenue *is* something that is going to grab the attention of lawmakers. To counter that, it's going to take more than "any bootleg product is unacceptable".

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I get so tired of people comparing cigarettes to dope. Cigarettes have no long-lasting impairing effects. If your surgeon goes out and smokes a cigarette and then performs surgery, would you be worried he couldn't do it? What if he went out and smoked a jay before he did? The same goes for any line of work.

I would say that it would be closer in comparing it to alcohol, which even still, is apples and oranges. An individual usually has to have more than one drink to feel any effects, can the same be said about one joint?

I don't really care if people do it or not, but the law is the law. I still think it's a stupid habit and that it does, in fact, ruin lives, no matter what the druggies try to say to the contrary.

 

[Matt Crunk]

I get so tired of people comparing cigarettes to dope. Cigarettes have no long-lasting impairing effects.
I don't really care if people do it or not, but the law is the law. I still think it's a stupid habit and that it does, in fact, ruin lives, no matter what the druggies try to say to the contrary.

Actually cigarettes do have a long-lasting impairing effect. It's called cancer. Marijuana has never been linked to causing cancer, but it has been linked to relieving some symptoms of cancer as well as relieving some harsh side-effects of cancer drugs. Yes, the law is the law, but the point is, it shouldn't be. Alcohol is more harmful and inebriating than pot, yet it's legal in most places. Also please don't try to tell me that people drink alcohol just for the taste. They drink it for the effects. Not everyone drinks with the goal of getting drunk. Some people just like a little to "take the edge off". Well, same with pot. A big difference though is I've never seen someone get a few tokes in them and go looking for a fight. But a lot of people get belligerent after a few drinks. Yes, marijuana can ruin lives when abused. But so can alcohol. So can morbid obesity for that matter. Too much of anything is bad. Once again, it all comes down to self control.

Sad thing is, many of you probably now assume I'm a pothead because of my stance on the issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. I rarely smoked pot even in my youth, and have not partaken at all in well over a decade. I just think the government's war on marijuana is a complete and utter failure and a huge waste of taxpayer dollars on many levels. I see absolutely no sense in continuing it.

But now I'm gonna step down from my soapbox, as I think too much time has been spent of this very polarizing issue already. I come to The Fedora Lounge to relax and enjoy myself, not to argue.

So there it is. Put a fork in me, I'm pau.

 

[vintageTink]

I neither drink nor do drugs. I feel that a loss of control would be horrible. What if there was a problem or emergency and I was too incapacitated to handle it?

Cigarettes have health-related risks as does reefer. But cigarettes don't alter your state and make you incapable of decisions, and a danger to yourself and others. If my doc had just smoked a cigarette? Wash your hands first.
Smoked a bong? Heck no.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

This has nothing to do with my statement. First off, I Don't know that I buy that cigarettes cause cancer. They may in people who are susceptible to it, but I know plenty of people who smoked all their lives, lived into old age, and passed of old age, or non-smoking relate ailments.

The point I was trying to make is if someone goes smoking dope before doing something, their judgement, and cognitive abilities are going to be impaired, whereas with a cigarette, that's not going to happen. Therefore, I think it's ridiculous to say the two are the same thing.

Actually cigarettes do have a long-lasting impairing effect. It's called cancer.

I agree with all of this, VT!

I neither drink nor do drugs. I feel that a loss of control would be horrible. What if there was a problem or emergency and I was too incapacitated to handle it?

Cigarettes have health-related risks as does reefer. But cigarettes don't alter your state and make you incapable of decisions, and a danger to yourself and others. If my doc had just smoked a cigarette? Wash your hands first.
Smoked a bong? Heck no.

 

[MikeBravo]

I love teaching my undergraduates about the libel case Liberace took against the Daily Mirror in 1959 for printing an article implying he was gay. He not only won, but won the biggest libel payment in history up to that point, later saying "I cried all the way to the bank". Course, then he had to stay in the closet for the rest of his life or be done for perjury, but those were different times and that probably seemed like not so bad an idea then... Bless 'im, I think he really did seem to believe that no-one knew... lol

Oh I think he knew the secret was out.

In 1982, pianist Liberace was sued for US$113 million in palimony by his partner Scott Thorson. Though most of Thorson's claim was dismissed, he received a US$95,000 settlement.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Once again, it all comes down to self control.

The problem is that self control seems to be a bit of a rare trait in people.

 

[Feraud]

How big does it need to be? What's the quota?

It's far from the only reason to keep "the product" illegal, and actually a rather minor one in my view. It's useful mainly as a response to the incessant pot-lobby shills who fill newspaper comment sections with "LEGALIZE IT AND TAX IT" as their parrot-like response to any discussion at all of the issue.

Ah,.."Legalize it and tax it", the mantra of those who otherwise rant and rave about government interference in their lives now want Big Brother to help manage their choice of poison! Now if that isn't an example of sound judgement.. Are these really the people we trust to help shape legislation? Not in my book.

I'll give you another very serious reason to keep weed in it's current illegal state. This one comes straight from the supporters themselves. Supporters have convinced themselves that smoking weed is not only panacea to a host of serious illness and awesome recreational tool but harmless. I have yet to hear a supporter talk about the potential harm of recreational long term smoking.
While the current medical information shows that marijuana does have beneficial effects in helping with certain illnesses, it also notes that marijuana like every other drug has negative physical and mental side effects. To acknowledge one and not the other is extremely disingenuous. Again, certainly not the group that I'd trust to shape legislation in this country.

For supporters to not acknowledge the negative aspect of this drug is a greater public safety issue than the act of keeping it illegal.

 

[jamespowers]

Ah,.."Legalize it and tax it", the mantra of those who otherwise rant and rave about government interference in their lives now want Big Brother to help manage their choice of poison! Now if that isn't an example of sound judgement.. Are these really the people we trust to help shape legislation? Not in my book.

I'll give you another very serious reason to keep weed in it's current illegal state. This one comes straight from the supporters themselves. Supporters have convinced themselves that smoking weed is not only panacea to a host of serious illness and awesome recreational tool but harmless. I have yet to hear a supporter talk about the potential harm of recreational long term smoking.
While the current medical information shows that marijuana does have beneficial effects in helping with certain illnesses, it also notes that marijuana like every other drug has negative physical and mental side effects. To acknowledge one and not the other is extremely disingenuous. Again, certainly not the group that I'd trust to shape legislation in this country.

For supporters to not acknowledge the negative aspect of this drug is a greater public safety issue than the act of keeping it illegal.

Dope smoking legislators. Now that explains a lot....

You know the stupid thing about those saying it has beneficial effects forget that they can get the same thing through the medicinal drug Marinol. This is created in a laboratory with strict FDA standards being adhered to. Potheads just want to smoke dope---it has nothing to do with alleviating pain---lets just be honest. Their NORML buddies always attack Marinol because of this. My mother was a cancer patient and it worked---no side effects---get over it.

The day dope is harmless is the day pigs fly---with bat wings.....

 

[nick123]

http://www.joejackson.com/smoke-lies.pdf

 

[HudsonHawk]

Ah,.."Legalize it and tax it", the mantra of those who otherwise rant and rave about government interference in their lives now want Big Brother to help manage their choice of poison! Now if that isn't an example of sound judgement.. Are these really the people we trust to help shape legislation? Not in my book.

That's just it, they *don't* want Big Brother looking over their shoulder. They neither want or need the government to "save them from themselves". That's the whole point of wanting it legalized.

 

[LizzieMaine]

That's just it, they *don't* want Big Brother looking over their shoulder. They neither want or need the government to "save them from themselves". That's the whole point of wanting it legalized.

Ah yes, that glorious America before the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 -- a cesspool of addiction, disease, vice, and death. Pity they waste all their time studying Randite tracts instead of actual history.

The right of the individual to poison himself ends where the right of society to protect itself against poison begins.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Ah yes, that glorious America before the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 -- a cesspool of addiction, disease, vice, and death. Pity they waste all their time studying Randite tracts instead of actual history.

The right of the individual to poison himself ends where the right of society to protect itself against poison begins.

You've got that backwards. Individual rights come before the rights of government. Always.

 

[Feraud]

That's just it, they *don't* want Big Brother looking over their shoulder. They neither want or need the government to "save them from themselves". That's the whole point of wanting it legalized.

Please tell me you don't seriously believe this naive piece of business. Do you honestly believe in this day and age marijuana (or any drug/vice/medicine etc.) will be legalized and go unregulated?
For pete's sake our mayor in NYC butt his damn nose into how much soda I can buy at McDonalds!
I cannot smoke a cigar in a restaurant anymore. Some people want to ban smoking cigarettes from public space. Every consumer oriented item and piece of information in our lives is scooped up by businesses working with government, quantified, modified for legal and other selfish purposes, and marketed towards specific groups.
You think marijuana will be exempt from this?

 

[LizzieMaine]

You've got that backwards. Individual rights come before the rights of government. Always.

In what fantasy world is this true?

There is no such thing as absolute liberty, period. It doesn't exist, it has never existed, and God willing, it never will exist. The individual does not have the absolute right to drive the wrong way down a one way street, to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, or to engage in any other activities that are damaging to society as a whole. This is the very basis of human civilization, except perhaps for fifteen-year-old boys who've never grown out of their sticky-copy-of-Atlas-Shrugged-under-the-mattress phase.

 

[Feraud]

Ah the illusion of "The Individual" as we willingly conduct all of our personal and professional business on computers then cry about government collecting data. If I have to listen to one more person in public giving out personal credit card information over a cellphone or posting videos online of every pointless aspect of their life I'm gonna bust..

 

[HudsonHawk]

According to whom?

Rights are granted by God, Allah, Zeus, Odin, or otherwise inherent in humanity. Governments are instituted by man, and the exist to protect individual rights, not the other way around.

There is no such thing as absolute liberty, period. It doesn't exist, it has never existed, and God willing, it never will exist. The individual does not have the absolute right to drive the wrong way down a one way street, to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, or to engage in any other activities that are damaging to society as a whole. This is the very basis of human civilization, except perhaps for fifteen-year-old boys who've never grown out of their sticky-copy-of-Atlas-Shrugged-under-the-mattress phase.

Don't be so absurd. No one has argued anyone has the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. That's an example used by junior high school students. We're talking about the proverbial circle of liberty that exists up to the point it bumps into another individual's. And your distaste for something, no matter how heartfelt, isn't that point.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Please tell me you don't seriously believe this naive piece of business. Do you honestly believe in this day and age marijuana (or any drug/vice/medicine etc.) will be legalized and go unregulated?

I never suggested anything of the sort. I said pot smokers, in general, argue that it should be legal. They don't really care if its taxed or not.

 

[jamespowers]

That's just it, they *don't* want Big Brother looking over their shoulder. They neither want or need the government to "save them from themselves". That's the whole point of wanting it legalized.

But they sure as heck will go on SSI and welfare when they burn their brains out. Or maybe they are on those things alreadybecause they sure don't work stoned like that. :rofl:

 

[LizzieMaine]

Rights are granted by God, Allah, Zeus, Odin, or otherwise inherent in humanity. Governments are instituted by man, and the exist to protect individual rights, not the other way around.

The main point of all the Abrahamic faiths is submission of the individual to a greater power, not exaltation of the individual. Or so I learned in Sunday School. I can't speak for the old Norse gods, since I'm a Methodist myself.

Don't be so absurd. No one has argued anyone has the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. That's an example used by junior high school students. We're talking about the proverbial circle of liberty that exists up to the point it bumps into another individual's. And your distaste for something, no matter how heartfelt, isn't that point.

All I can say is, maybe you should have paid more attention in Junior High. The example holds -- there are plenty of other instances where the will of the individual is required to bend to the will of the community for the good of society, and to pretend otherwise is to deny a fundamental truth of human history. You can argue all you want about whether substance A or substance B ought to be legal or illegal, but to suggest that the community doesn't have the right to set those regulations for the good of the majority of its members carries about as much weight as a fly buzzing against a window screen. There's nothing absurd about it.