- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 38,198
- Reaction score
- 15,841
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
he worked as a bartender and some farm work
The comparison argument doesn't fly with me.
Pot and alcohol are different as are their effects both short time and long term.
When it comes down to it, by legalizing pot your allowing it to wash into the Communities that MY kids have to grow up in.
And its effects ARE self destructive.
Why does a stoners self destructive habit have to infringe upon my wanting to raise my family in a Community not awash with idiot stoners ?
Why does his "rights" supercede mine ?
I live in Texas, so I dont have to "deal with it ".
Is keeping black tar heroin illegal a "authortarian" policy ? Laughing gas ?
Cocaine ?
Where do you draw the line ? Do we use the drug addicts position to justify flooding a harmful chemical into a society ?
he and most supporters think legalized pot is less harmful than alcohol, when it fact it is probably much worse. My uncle died at 47 from lung cancer and pot was all he smoked.
NO, your "personal freedom" STOPS when it imposes upon my personal freedoms.
Your comparing movies to a highly potent chemical and mild hallucinogen is just desperate flailing.
Yeah, because TAR HEROIN is the same as pot. :lamo
Your ignorance is the problem. Unless you are asking for prohibition as well, making pot illegal is compeltely illogical.
Pot is the same as alcohol is. BOTH are to be used by ADULTS only. Anything more than that is criminal by either the parents or the person who buys it for them. But BOTH should be LEGAL. And yes, eventually YES, pot will be legal even in Texas when they realize what fools they have been.
When states see the money, it will be all over.
Do you have any idea how many people die from alcohol related illness? No you don't.
Bet you don't support gun control, even though it CAN endanger your family.
Picking and choosing like your ilk always do.
An argument can be made that spectator sports have a negative effect on the family.
Exactly. When they see other states rolling in the sales tax, they will follow as well.
Which says so much more about you than he. ROFL.the ? is... does anyone give your post even a moniker of credence..I sure dont..
Why does a stoners self destructive habit have to infringe upon my wanting to raise my family in a Community not awash with idiot stoners ?
Why does his "rights" supercede mine ?
the ? is... does anyone give your post even a moniker of credence..I sure dont..
Which says so much more about you than he. ROFL.
Good thing I don't care what you think then, isn't it? Bet I'm not alone either.
Moderator's Warning: |
Because the right YOU'RE asking for is forcing other people to act in a certain way to accomodate YOUR desires.
The right THEY'RE asking for is the ability for HTEMSELVES to act in a certian way to accomodate THEIR desires.
YOU don't have hte right to demand how other people act if it does not DIRECTLY impact you. What you're basically saying is that as long as that impact can be manufactured through loose jumps of logic and multiple steps of seperation, then it's reasonable for the government to act.
Well thank you Mr. Bloomberg, I didn't realize Mr. Soda Ban was posting on the Debate Politics forum under the screen name of Fenton
How is this different from any of the other legal intoxicants and pharmaceuticals that interfere with a person's ability to drive? From steroids that can increase road rage to sleeping pills that will let you drive without even knowing you've left your bed.... Seems the only way to assure safe roads is to ban driving altogether.so if a stoned out fool , all wasted and jolly crashes their car into someone and hurts or kills them or their family.. it does not "infringe on the victims rights"....
yea that makes sense.. so should they infringe on their rights and get a blood sample on the spot?... wait.. what if they say they werent stoned should we still take blood samples.. so whos rights again are preserved here...?? If its made "legal" trust me your rights will be taken..
nice try
so if a stoned out fool , all wasted and jolly crashes their car into someone and hurts or kills them or their family.. it does not "infringe on the victims rights"....
The car crashing into you infringes on your right...not the being stoned.
Just like a guy talking on the phone while driving and crashes a car into you infringes upon your rights by crashing into you...not by talking on a cell phone.
Just like a guy drinking and then driving and crashes a car into you infringes upon your rights by crashing into you...not by drinking.
Just like a guy trying to eat while driving and crashes a car into you infringes upon your rights by crashing into you....not by eating.
Just like a guy whose on 2 hours of sleep and crashes a car into you infringines upon your rights by crashing into you...not be being deprived of sleep.
It's hillarious watching a group of people normally on the side decrying "Guns don't kill people, People kill people" and suggesting people should blame the PERSON, not the OBJECT, basically turn around and blame the thing.
If someone crashes their car into you, THAT'S the action infringing upon your right. Not the texting, the smoking, the eating, the drinking, or anything else...it's the CRASHING INTO YOU that is the infringement.
If someone crashes into you, that is not justification to make weed illegal anymore than it is to make less than 8 hours of sleep a night illegal or making texting illegal. There's justification for perhaps making those actions WHILE driving illegal, but again...that's different than the item/action by itself.
Now, I agree that there's significant things that would need to happen to make legalization happen in a repsonsable manner. I'm not a rose colored glasses type of guy. For example, I'm absolutely someone that believes driving while intoxicated, whether it's weed or alcohol, is something that should be illegal. And I absolutely believe we'd need to find a test for that. And guess what, I'm a fan of this crazy "free market" thing and believe that some sort of quick response test would likely be able to be discovered if there was a viable market for it...say, if suddenly marijuana was legal and so every police station in the country would need said testing unit. Are there hurdles to get over? Absolutley. "Wahhh, it'd be difficult" however isn't a reason to NOT do something to me however.
Neither are poor analogies that are ridiculous on their very surface.
he and most supporters think legalized pot is less harmful than alcohol, when it fact it is probably much worse. My uncle died at 47 from lung cancer and pot was all he smoked.
your wordy response actually proves me correct.. that weed will end up harming those who oppose it and will infringe on their rights at some point..
so if a stoned out fool , all wasted and jolly crashes their car into someone and hurts or kills them or their family.. it does not "infringe on the victims rights"....
yea that makes sense.. so should they infringe on their rights and get a blood sample on the spot?... wait.. what if they say they werent stoned should we still take blood samples.. so whos rights again are preserved here...?? If its made "legal" trust me your rights will be taken..
nice try
Except I didn't say that at all.
Weed will "end up harming" people an "infringing on their rights" as much as a Gun will "end up harming" people and "infringing on their rights".
Is it POSSIBLE that someone may smoke, drive, and crash into someone? Yes.
Is it POSSIBLE that someone may take a gun and shoot someone? Yes.
What is responsible in both those instances? The Person.
What is the infringement happening in both of those instances? The actual ACTION that impacts another person (crashing into someone, shooting someone) and NOT the item that they possess/use (gun, weed)
Is your argument that HYPOTHETICALLy peoples right MIGHT get infringed in some fashion, and that's your justification for actual, factual, tangable infringment of rights going on currently? Sorry, but that's a horribly weak argument in my book.
So lets get you on the record travis. What's responsible when someone kills someone else...the items that are present and contribute to the situation, or the individual and the action taken BY said individual?
So you want alcohol banned to then right? You are talking about someone doing an ILLEGAL activity such as driving a car on weed. What rights are being taken from you by some guy minding his own business at home smoking weed?
Seems YOU want to be the one to infringe on someone's rights.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?