marijuana should be legal
It should never have been made ilegal
89.8% (53)
89.8% (53)
I need to reaserch the cannabis plant before i vote yes
8.5% (5)
8.5% (5)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Colorado,Washington,Oregon voting to legalize marijuana

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Who has the best chance of winning this nov 6th. I don't live in any of the three states,so i was wondering if any out there had some more personal knowledge of the ballot measures chances.Polls are looking good in Washington and Colorado.

Why can't i vote "it should never become legal"

It's already legal for medical reasons in Colorado, and in practice it's very easy to get a medical marijuana card, so it'll probably pass there.

I don't know enough about the other two to say.

Is this a referendum or a political vote? What are the options available on the vote?

If it's a referendum, it can win, otherwise it won't.

Repeat after me: Will never happen.
I can't imagine any state in the US legalizing marijuana successfully.

And as for the basic arguments: Yes, alcohol is more dangerous, but blah blah do we really need another legal, dangerous substance?
"Blah blah freedom to chose blah blah" - No, fuck Freedom. Freedom is not necessarily a good thing. There's plenty of reasons for curtailing freedoms.

Realitycrash:
Repeat after me: Will never happen.
I can't imagine any state in the US legalizing marijuana successfully.

And as for the basic arguments: Yes, alcohol is more dangerous, but blah blah do we really need another legal, dangerous substance?
"Blah blah freedom to chose blah blah" - No, fuck Freedom. Freedom is not necessarily a good thing. There's plenty of reasons for curtailing freedoms.

The problem with marijuana remaining illegal is that nonviolent marijuana offenders are taking up a substantial amount of space in jails, to the point where it's causing some overpopulation problems. It's at the point where the most trouble being caused by marijuana is in the process of investigating and arresting, plus it's one more item for drug cartels and gangs to peddle.

What exactly are the benefits of keeping it illegal? Yes it is dangerous in some respects, but it's not as though it being illegal is stopping anybody. What is the benefit of the state spending millions to incarcerate marijuana offenders when its most dangerous by-product is being a sales item for drug dealers, which would be solved if it were legal? I saw you said in another thread that legalizing something to tax and regulate it is a stupid reason to legalize something. Well, how is keeping something illegal for the sake of having it illegal not a stupid reason for keeping it illegal?

As for the topic at hand, I say maybe Oregon might successfully legalize it because they are known for being very liberal, but they may have the same problem California's prop 19 had, which is explained by this graph:

image

The people who most strongly want pot to be legalized are typically not the kind to go out and vote.

Lilani:

Realitycrash:
Repeat after me: Will never happen.
I can't imagine any state in the US legalizing marijuana successfully.

And as for the basic arguments: Yes, alcohol is more dangerous, but blah blah do we really need another legal, dangerous substance?
"Blah blah freedom to chose blah blah" - No, fuck Freedom. Freedom is not necessarily a good thing. There's plenty of reasons for curtailing freedoms.

The problem with marijuana remaining illegal is that nonviolent marijuana offenders are taking up a substantial amount of space in jails, to the point where it's causing some overpopulation problems. It's at the point where the most trouble being caused by marijuana is in the process of investigating and arresting, plus it's one more item for drug cartels and gangs to peddle.

Oh, I'm not saying that such a thing isn't stupid. I suggest not counting pot towards the "three strikes" that some states have, or just having increasingly larger fines instead of jail-time.

I saw you said in another thread that legalizing something to tax and regulate it is a stupid reason to legalize something. Well, how is keeping something illegal for the sake of having it illegal not a stupid reason for keeping it illegal?

You're gonna have to quote me right off here, because context is everything, and I really can't remember what thread and topic that would be.

Realitycrash:
Repeat after me: Will never happen.
I can't imagine any state in the US legalizing marijuana successfully.

And as for the basic arguments: Yes, alcohol is more dangerous, but blah blah do we really need another legal, dangerous substance?
"Blah blah freedom to chose blah blah" - No, fuck Freedom. Freedom is not necessarily a good thing. There's plenty of reasons for curtailing freedoms.

The cannabis plant also known as marijuana,weed,pot whatever you want to call it is good for you. In 1937 cannabis was made illegle through lies caused by greed. the US goverment pattented the plant in 2006 as a neuroprotectant and antioxident. Marijuana protects your entire body from age related illnesses, it is a protective medicine. IT is inpossible to die from marijuana. The FDA reports 0 deaths from it ever. OUR goverment has lied to us about this plant for over 75 years now. Just reaserch how marijuana became illegle. Marijuana is one of the healthiest plants you can put in your body. Spend some time and actually reaserch the plant.

Lilani:

The problem with marijuana remaining illegal is that nonviolent marijuana offenders are taking up a substantial amount of space in jails, to the point where it's causing some overpopulation problems. It's at the point where the most trouble being caused by marijuana is in the process of investigating and arresting, plus it's one more item for drug cartels and gangs to peddle.

What exactly are the benefits of keeping it illegal? Yes it is dangerous in some respects, but it's not as though it being illegal is stopping anybody. What is the benefit of the state spending millions to incarcerate marijuana offenders when its most dangerous by-product is being a sales item for drug dealers, which would be solved if it were legal? I saw you said in another thread that legalizing something to tax and regulate it is a stupid reason to legalize something. Well, how is keeping something illegal for the sake of having it illegal not a stupid reason for keeping it illegal?

The danger with making it legal is that it might become socially acceptable and the use would eventually heavily increase.

And i believe that that mere users of marijuana should be heavily fined. Those who grow it or sell it should get into jail.

Realitycrash:
You're gonna have to quote me right off here, because context is everything, and I really can't remember what thread and topic that would be.

Oh sorry, that was ravenshrike not you, lol. All these R names look alike.

Anyway, without that post in mind, what benefits come from marijuana remaining illegal, apart from the fact that it's illegal. What benefits could possibly outweigh drug dealers controlling manufacture and sales and jails being up to their eyeballs in nonviolent marijuana offenders?

Bubba Jones:

The cannabis plant also known as marijuana,weed,pot whatever you want to call it is good for you. In 1937 cannabis was made illegle through lies caused by greed. the US goverment pattented the plant in 2006 as a neuroprotectant and antioxident. Marijuana protects your entire body from age related illnesses, it is a protective medicine. IT is inpossible to die from marijuana. The FDA reports 0 deaths from it ever. OUR goverment has lied to us about this plant for over 75 years now. Just reaserch how marijuana became illegle. Marijuana is one of the healthiest plants you can put in your body. Spend some time and actually reaserch the plant.

I know 0 doctors who would even think about claiming marijuana is anything but harmful. And i'll take their word over the internet.

generals3:
he danger with making it legal is that it might become socially acceptable and the use would eventually heavily increase.

Okay, well there are many countries in which marijuana is already legal, mostly in Europe. Has that happened there? Has marijuana use become more dangerous than our drug dealing and gang activity? You've got a functioning social experiment with this going on right now across the pond, let's see the results.

Lilani:

generals3:
he danger with making it legal is that it might become socially acceptable and the use would eventually heavily increase.

Okay, well there are many countries in which marijuana is already legal, mostly in Europe. Has that happened there? Has marijuana use become more dangerous than our drug dealing and gang activity? You've got a functioning social experiment with this going on right now across the pond, let's see the results.

The only country i know which made marijuana legal are the Netherlands and based on what blah says it's all but a success. And in Belgium it's being widely ignored (smoking it, dealing and growing is an other thing) and tbh i don't see any good about it. I just see friends smoking it in public as if it were cigarettes because the odds of them being caught and punished for it are so tiny. Funny how we can smoke cigarettes in less and less places but weed in more and more because of the impunity.

generals3:
The only country i know which made marijuana legal are the Netherlands and based on what blah says it's all but a success. And in Belgium it's being widely ignored (smoking it, dealing and growing is an other thing) and tbh i don't see any good about it. I just see friends smoking it in public as if it were cigarettes because the odds of them being caught and punished for it are so tiny. Funny how we can smoke cigarettes in less and less places but weed in more and more because of the impunity.

Okay, so you don't see anything good about it. But what's so bad about it? There's nothing good about smoking or drinking but they're legal, so you're going to need a little more than that to explain why pot should be illegal.

Lilani:

Realitycrash:
You're gonna have to quote me right off here, because context is everything, and I really can't remember what thread and topic that would be.

Oh sorry, that was ravenshrike not you, lol. All these R names look alike.

You..You..Name-racist!

Anyway, without that post in mind, what benefits come from marijuana remaining illegal, apart from the fact that it's illegal. What benefits could possibly outweigh drug dealers controlling manufacture and sales and jails being up to their eyeballs in nonviolent marijuana offenders?

I actually think legalization (but controlled and regulated) might be good for some states. Sorry if it came off as if I did not, I just think those two basic arguments are pretty stupid.
The major reason is the cartels losing their income (but as someone pointed out in the last thread, Cartels make most their money from heroin/cocaine), and the economic benefit of not having to stick these people in jail. I think it outweighs the dangers of having another substance on the market.

Lilani:

generals3:
The only country i know which made marijuana legal are the Netherlands and based on what blah says it's all but a success. And in Belgium it's being widely ignored (smoking it, dealing and growing is an other thing) and tbh i don't see any good about it. I just see friends smoking it in public as if it were cigarettes because the odds of them being caught and punished for it are so tiny. Funny how we can smoke cigarettes in less and less places but weed in more and more because of the impunity.

Okay, so you don't see anything good about it. But what's so bad about it? There's nothing good about smoking or drinking but they're legal, so you're going to need a little more than that to explain why pot should be illegal.

Correct but than again, we are regulating tobacco more and more. And alcohol is simply too widely used to be effectively tackled at the moment. So while for one you have a more restrictive trend and the other a status quo why would we make a more liberalizing move for weed? Isn't that basically saying: smoking is bad, alcohol is meh but weed is good?

Realitycrash:
You..You..Name-racist!

I prefer the term "name-identification impaired" ;-)

The major reason is the cartels losing their income (but as someone pointed out in the last thread, Cartels make most their money from heroin/cocaine), and the economic benefit of not having to stick these people in jail. I think it outweighs the dangers of having another substance on the market.

That is true, but did you know heroin and cocaine were pretty readily available before World War I? In fact, there were little care packages you could buy in Europe that you could send to soldiers that had coffee, cigarettes, food, heroin, and cocaine. It wasn't until it was made illegal that the crazy potent stuff started to come around, and only drug dealers mixed them with drain cleaner and all sorts of other shit so that they could sell more for less.

I can't say if things would go back to that World War I state if heroin and cocaine were legalized and regulated, but do you at least think there could be benefits to taking that power away from the cartels in exchange for regulating what can be in the stuff? Of course it wouldn't stop people from illegally selling more potent stuff, but it would certainly take the rug out from under cartels in a big way. And I think it's safe to say people who resort to drugs as a vice aren't doing it because they want to purchase things from criminals.

generals3:
Correct but than again, we are regulating tobacco more and more. And alcohol is simply too widely used to be effectively tackled at the moment. So while for one you have a more restrictive trend and the other a status quo why would we make a more liberalizing move for weed? Isn't that basically saying: smoking is bad, drugs are bad, alcohol is meh but weed is good?

When did I ever say that? You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying you should be able to smoke weed anytime any place, in fact I dare you to find where I did. I say put the same kind of regulations on it as alcohol: have standards for public intoxication, and driving while intoxicated, allow places to have no doping zones, only sell it to people of a certain age.

But, those standards can only exist if it's legal.

Lilani:

generals3:
Correct but than again, we are regulating tobacco more and more. And alcohol is simply too widely used to be effectively tackled at the moment. So while for one you have a more restrictive trend and the other a status quo why would we make a more liberalizing move for weed? Isn't that basically saying: smoking is bad, drugs are bad, alcohol is meh but weed is good?

When did I ever say that? You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying you should be able to smoke weed anytime any place, in fact I dare you to find where I did. I say put the same kind of regulations on it as alcohol: have standards for public intoxication, and driving while intoxicated, allow places to have no doping zones, only sell it to people of a certain age.

But, those standards can only exist if it's legal.

And i never said you said you could smoke weed anytime and any place. I merely said that legalizing it is liberalizing the use of weed and that it is a bad thing. A liberalizing trend sends the message that the substance is now considered less bad than before. And that in my opinion is enough to say no to legalizing weed. We aren't currently fighting the use of tobacco through restrictions and taxation to at the same time satisfy dope heads, that seems entirely counter-productive.

generals3:
And i never said you said you could smoke weed anytime and any place. I merely said that legalizing it is liberalizing the use of weed and that it is a bad thing. A liberalizing trend sends the message that the substance is now considered less bad than before. And that in my opinion is enough to say no to legalizing weed. We aren't currently fighting the use of tobacco through restrictions and taxation to at the same time satisfy dope heads, that seems entirely counter-productive.

Oh good Lord. Do you know anything about what you're talking about? And could you stop talking about "liberals" for like five minutes? It's not helping your case and is only making you seem like those kinds of conservatives/Republicans who fight against things just because the other side likes it.

Cigarettes are being fought because secondhand smoke is very harmful to other people, especially children. I don't know about the smoke that comes from marijuana, but I'm sure if it's the same kind of bad stuff then it would become subject to the same regulations. The government is not obligated to care about what people put into their own lungs, and they will certainly never make it totally illegal because they get way too much tax money and the tobacco industry lobbies too much to let it happen. But they are obligated to protect other people and children who involuntarily become victims of its effects. And again, nobody is saying they shouldn't regulate against those kinds of secondhand effects with marijuana. And I'm certain they will when the time comes, if for no other reason than to cover their asses if something does happen.

Again, your argument is based purely on principle. There isn't any logic there, only spite. "We're fighting against cigarettes, so we're not about to give anything to those damned potheads!" Imagine if we did this with other things: "We're fighting against Islam in the middle east, so why should we let them be Muslim over here?!"

Lilani:

Oh good Lord. Do you know anything about what you're talking about? And could you stop talking about "liberals" for like five minutes? It's not helping your case and is only making you seem like those kinds of conservatives/Republicans who fight against things just because the other side likes it.

Cigarettes are being fought because secondhand smoke is very harmful to other people, especially children. I don't know about the smoke that comes from marijuana, but I'm sure if it's the same kind of bad stuff then it would become subject to the same regulations. The government is not obligated to care about what people put into their own lungs, and they will certainly never make it totally illegal because they get way too much tax money and the tobacco industry lobbies too much to let it happen. But they are obligated to protect other people and children who involuntarily become victims of its effects. And again, nobody is saying they shouldn't regulate against those kinds of secondhand effects with marijuana. And I'm certain they will when the time comes, if for no other reason than to cover their asses if something does happen.

Again, your argument is based purely on principle. There isn't any logic there, only spite. "We're fighting against cigarettes, so we're not about to give anything to those damned potheads!" Imagine if we did this with other things: "We're fighting against Islam in the middle east, so why should we let them be Muslim over here?!"

Firstly:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberalisation
Why should avoid words that have "liberal" in it while liberalization has a very neutral meaning. I never talked about liberals only you just did.

Actually there is a lot of logic. Our government has pursued a road towards health (and that in general, not just collateral damage) and decided to act upon toxic substances. And you ask that one toxic substance becomes legal while we are trying to get others out of the streets. We need LESS of that crap not more. And that's what we should strive towards. And as such legalization of weed is counter-productive. If anything we should become more severe towards dealers and people who grow weed.

generals3:
Firstly:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberalisation
Why should avoid words that have "liberal" in it while liberalization has a very neutral meaning. It's kind of tiring to see posters making of everything some kind of left vs right debate. I never talked about liberals only you just did.

I'm sorry about the confusion, but around here about the only time somebody uses the term is in a "left vs right" debate, which I also find tiring which is why I said something about it.

Actually there is a lot of logic. Our government has pursued a road towards health and decided to act upon toxic substances. And you ask that one toxic substance becomes illegal while we are trying to get others out of the streets. We need LESS of that crap not more. And that's what we should strive towards. And as such legalization of weed is counter-productive.

You're taking their actions to keep people from affecting others with their toxic substances and pretending they actually care about the threat. What they're doing is walking a fine line--they have to keep it legal and reasonably available because otherwise the tobacco industry will go after them (and they employ millions of people and put a lot of money into the economy), but they also have to keep regulations on it and they keep raising the tax rate of tobacco to keep the anti-drug lobbyists satisfied as well. If they truly cared about the well being of people then they would make it illegal altogether, but that isn't what they truly care about so that isn't what they're doing (or will ever do).

Hell, even Prohibition was just a political stunt to earn brownie points from the women who, only a couple of months after Prohibition was ratified, also gained the right to vote. They weren't really concerned about the averse affects of alcohol, they were just trying to satisfy their constituents and constituents-to-be.

And you have still failed to prove that marijuana has the same affects of cigarettes. Your argument might hold some water if you can prove the long-term affects of marijuana are as markedly harmful as cigarettes, but at this point you're comparing apples and oranges.

generals3:

Actually there is a lot of logic. Our government has pursued a road towards health and decided to act upon toxic substances. And you ask that one toxic substance becomes legal while we are trying to get others out of the streets. We need LESS of that crap not more. And that's what we should strive towards. And as such legalization of weed is counter-productive. If anything we should become more severe towards dealers and people who grow weed.

That's not the reason drugs are illegal. If the US government really did care about the well being of its citizens then it would do everything in its power to legalize all drugs because, as seen during the prohibition, a relatively harmless substance becomes dangerous the moment it is taken out of the hands of legally sanctioned distributors and put into the hands of criminals. And yes, this does include harder drugs like heroin for example.

The War on Drugs has not reduced the ammount of "toxic substances" available on the streets. In fact, since the War on Drugs started the ammount of people who use or have used drugs has increased exponentially. The US already has some of the most severe penalties for drug use. Increasing the penalty for using and selling won't do anything. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, why would it work with drugs?

PercyBoleyn:

generals3:

Actually there is a lot of logic. Our government has pursued a road towards health and decided to act upon toxic substances. And you ask that one toxic substance becomes legal while we are trying to get others out of the streets. We need LESS of that crap not more. And that's what we should strive towards. And as such legalization of weed is counter-productive. If anything we should become more severe towards dealers and people who grow weed.

That's not the reason drugs are illegal. If the US government really did care about the well being of its citizens then it would do everything in its power to legalize all drugs because, as seen during the prohibition, a relatively harmless substance becomes dangerous the moment it is taken out of the hands of legally sanctioned distributors and put into the hands of criminals. And yes, this does include harder drugs like heroin for example.

The War on Drugs has not reduced the ammount of "toxic substances" available on the streets. In fact, since the War on Drugs started the ammount of people who use or have used drugs has increased exponentially. The US already has some of the most severe penalties for drug use. Increasing the penalty for using and selling won't do anything. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, why would it work with drugs?

Because alcohol is used much more widely and is considered much more socially acceptable. It's like suddenly banning coffee. It simply can't work. Other drugs are considered evil by the majority of people and thus most will see the ban as justified and help with the fight or at most stay passive but not act counter-productively.

Lilani:

And you have still failed to prove that marijuana has the same affects of cigarettes. Your argument might hold some water if you can prove the long-term affects of marijuana are as markedly harmful as cigarettes, but at this point you're comparing apples and oranges.

The effects are different and as such are hardly comparable. It's like comparing bi polarity with the flu. However since most put tobacco in their joints one can say they also have the same effects as tobacco smokers with the mental effects of cannabis on top of it.

EDIT: about the rest of your post. While the intention of the government are often all but charitable at the end, it us up to us citizens to see the good side in it. I see it as a fight for our health.

generals3:
Because alcohol is used much more widely and is considered much more socially acceptable.

It wasn't back when the prohibition was enacted, at least not to the level it is right now. The number of people who started drinking also rose sharply during the prohibition, similar to how the number of people who used drugs also rose sharply after the War on Drugs started.

generals3:
Other drugs are considered evil by the majority of people

Pot isn't. In fact, you could argue that most "soft" drugs are considered socially acceptable. Hard drugs might not be but then again, this is about doing what's best and as it stands, legalizing drugs is doing just that.

generals3:
and thus most will see the ban as justified

So you're not interested in what's best for society then? Because to me at least it seems as if you're more interested in furthering your ideologies than helping people.

generals3:
and help with the fight

How?

generals3:
or at most stay passive but not act counter-productively.

How do you explain the sharp rise in drug use then? In fact, how do you explain that countries with very lax policies on drug use tend to have lower percentages of drug users?

PercyBoleyn:

How do you explain the sharp rise in drug use then? In fact, how do you explain that countries with very lax policies on drug use tend to have lower percentages of drug users?

First of all i need evidence of that "sharp rise". And secondly, it's because our society has become much less "conservative" than it used to be. "Sinning" and doing stupid stuff is no longer considered evil by society (i know this might sound contradictory with what i said previously but this is more of a big picture statement, it doesn't mean that individual actions are never considered socially unacceptable). The parenting and general attitude of society has changed severely the last decades.

(Warning: while i know some words have a political connotation i just used them due a lack of more appropriate words to describe what i wanted to)

Why does it always have to be either extreme for Americans. Do what most countries have done, decriminalization. In most developed countries you can smoke in your own home no problem. In some you can grow your own pot. If you get caught in possession for personal use it is a small fine.

The people that are targeted for criminal prosecution are organized syndicates with a wide distribution network. The criminal underworld associated with drugs is a larger problem than most drugs themselves.

Decriminalization is essentially saying "we don't think any good is going to come of this but you are not really causing anyone problems so we will back off, cause problems though and we will deal with it".

generals3:
The effects are different and as such are hardly comparable. It's like comparing bi polarity with the flu. However since most put tobacco in their joints one can say they also have the same effects as tobacco smokers with the mental effects of cannabis on top of it.

Okay, so show me your figures. Show me:

That such mental affects happen to a vast majority of those who use cannabis, and in a progressive and measurable way (that is, show me that it is a common occurrence and show me it is markedly progressive in the same way the effects of tobacco are markedly progressive). And yes, you said they are hard to compare, but with tobacco you can measure the effects on a pretty regular scale and it happens to everybody who uses it. I know it's hard to prove marijuana affects everybody like that (actually I'm pretty sure that's just because it doesn't), but rather than simply taking away a point straight away I'll let you prove it with a good majority (more than 60-70% of users) and proof that the effects happen progressively according to long-term use.

If you can prove those things, you can at least prove it's almost as harmful as cigarettes. In which case I guess we'll just have to end the discussion, because apparently you see no problem with:

- Something more harmful than marijuana being legal
- Something less harmful than cigarettes causing huge problems with law enforcement
- Something less harmful than cigarettes giving power and money to drug dealers
- People who aren't subject to federal regulations and standards regulating the sale and standards of something that is (usually) less harmful than cigarettes
- Something less harmful than cigarettes not being taxed and regulated

Or, if you want to continue this discussion in a more interesting way: Why should cigarettes remain legal? Give me your opinion on that. You seem to be pretty set on them staying around, and the same with alcohol since you just told Percy the only reason it's legal is because of its "social acceptability." What's "socially acceptable" changes over the years. If that's going to be the lynchpin of our drug and alcohol laws, then why doesn't the growth in the social acceptability of pot matter?

EDIT: about the rest of your post. While the intention of the government are often all but charitable at the end, it us up to us citizens to see the good side in it. I see it as a fight for our health.

So, you're okay with this because you've convinced yourself the government has intentions you know for a fact it doesn't? Okay, I guess...

generals3:

Bubba Jones:

The cannabis plant also known as marijuana,weed,pot whatever you want to call it is good for you. In 1937 cannabis was made illegle through lies caused by greed. the US goverment pattented the plant in 2006 as a neuroprotectant and antioxident. Marijuana protects your entire body from age related illnesses, it is a protective medicine. IT is inpossible to die from marijuana. The FDA reports 0 deaths from it ever. OUR goverment has lied to us about this plant for over 75 years now. Just reaserch how marijuana became illegle. Marijuana is one of the healthiest plants you can put in your body. Spend some time and actually reaserch the plant.

I know 0 doctors who would even think about claiming marijuana is anything but harmful. And i'll take their word over the internet.

http://proxy.baremetal.com/druglibrary.net/crl/movement/Consroe_et.al_97_Multiple_Sclerosis_Eur.Neurol.pdf

It isn't exactly a robust study[1], but it certainly proves wrong a frankly ludicrous claim. There will always be someone who disagrees. And this study[2] shows that there is potential for the use of cannabis for non-drug effects. The research is limited but there is almost certainly a couple of useful chemicals that can be derived from the plant.

generals3:
First of all i need evidence of that "sharp rise"

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/drugtab.cfm

http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2012/05/rise-teen-marijuana-use-demonstrates-continued-failure-war-drugs-and-prohibitionist-app

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6331/decades-drug-use-data-from-60s-70s.aspx -4%
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/druguse.htm -8.7%

generals3:
And secondly, it's because our society has become much less "conservative" than it used to be.

Source?

generals3:
"Sinning" and doing stupid stuff is no longer considered evil by society.

What do you mean?

generals3:
The parenting and general attitude of society has changed severely the last decades.

For example?

PercyBoleyn:

generals3:
The parenting and general attitude of society has changed severely the last decades.

For example?

Oh this one is easy. Now, I'm not going to go citing sources, forgive me, but parenting has gotten a lot more permissive over the years as far as I see here at least. Fooooor example, when I was in school, it was my fault if I got a bad grade. Nowadays, it's apparently the teacher's. Here, that's an example.

image

Lilani:
That is true, but did you know heroin and cocaine were pretty readily available before World War I? In fact, there were little care packages you could buy in Europe that you could send to soldiers that had coffee, cigarettes, food, heroin, and cocaine. It wasn't until it was made illegal that the crazy potent stuff started to come around, and only drug dealers mixed them with drain cleaner and all sorts of other shit so that they could sell more for less.

You've been watching QI, haven't you?

Admit it! No human being could possibly know that if it weren't for the grace of Stephen Fry!

Elcarsh:
You've been watching QI, haven't you?

Admit it! No human being could possibly know that if it weren't for the grace of Stephen Fry!

No, never! I never watch that show!

Well...maybe sometimes.

Well...maybe while I'm working on projects.

Well...maybe just right now because my TV isn't working.

Well...yeah, I like QI :-P

generals3:

And i believe that that mere users of marijuana should be heavily fined. Those who grow it or sell it should get into jail.

Me and my hobby of brewing toxins out of honey for people to drink thank you for continuing the cultural hippocrisy that makes me a celebrated wine maker, and a pot grower a filthy criminal who deserves prison time even though we both grow poisons.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked