Leftist Hypocrisy On Pot

[Archangel]

I'm just wondering why the statist Left is trying to ban cigarettes everywhere and bankrupt the tobacco industry while at the same time promoting the legalization of pot.

Which is even worse on the lungs because it's rolled in a joint and smoked without a filter.

I'm just wondering if the Left thinks that pot won't be commercialized and mass produced like cigarettes and that dominant pot companies won't amass fortunes at the expense of the people it kills.

Why do Leftists think that they can support freedom on one thing and restrict it on another, both acclaimed to be personal lifestyle choices? I don't for a second believe that Leftists believe in personal freedom on this or any other issue, and that even feigned overtures to freedom mask a statist agenda. They just can't help themselves.

 

[Redress]

I am on the left, not trying to ban cigarettes and see no reason to legalize pot. So that is pretty much your whole premise failed right out of the gate.

 

[Paschendale]

Probably because nobody ever gave anybody else cancer by smoking pot near them, but secondhand smoke from cigarettes really does hurt people. If you wanna smoke a cigarette, go ahead. But at home. Away from other people who want your poison. It's the exact same standard that anyone would apply to marijuana. You don't walk down the street with a joint, or smoke in a public place. No matter what you're smoking, keep it away from other people.

But seriously, the fact that you used the word "statist" pretty much guaranteed that you didn't think this through very much. Spend less time worrying about weird conspiracies and try to understand that not everything is about you and no one is out to get you.

 

[APACHERAT]

I am on the left, not trying to ban cigarettes and see no reason to legalize pot. So that is pretty much your whole premise failed right out of the gate.

How asbout "poppers" aka amyl nitrate ?

 

[Unrepresented]

Most don't want cigarettes banned, but want to make sure the costs associated with them (healthcare) are represented in the price, that second hand smoke is limited to prevent health issues for the rest of us, and want to limit children's access.

I don't think those differ particularly from the left's view of marijuana legislation.

 

[azgreg]

Most don't want cigarettes banned, but want to make sure the costs associated with them (healthcare) are represented in the price, that second hand smoke is limited to prevent health issues for the rest of us, and want to limit children's access.

I don't think those differ particularly from the left's view of marijuana legislation.

Unfortunately not enough of the tax money from cigarette sales and proceeds from legal settlements go where they would do the most good.

Transform Tobacco - Where Does the Money Go

 

[Karl]

I'm just wondering why the statist Left is trying to ban cigarettes everywhere and bankrupt the tobacco industry while at the same time promoting the legalization of pot. Which is even worse on the lungs because it's rolled in a joint and smoked without a filter. [...]

[...] a recent review of studies on the effects of marijuana and tobacco smoke suggests that the cancer-promoting effects of these ingredients is increased by the tobacco in nicotine and reduced by the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) found in cannabis. [...]

Pot Smoke: Less Carcinogenic Than Tobacco?

I blame right wing talk media.

 

[Archangel]

I am on the left, not trying to ban cigarettes and see no reason to legalize pot. So that is pretty much your whole premise failed right out of the gate.

Right. You're very typical of the Left. Wait...actually you're not.

 

[Archangel]

Probably because nobody ever gave anybody else cancer by smoking pot near them, but secondhand smoke from cigarettes really does hurt people. If you wanna smoke a cigarette, go ahead. But at home. Away from other people who want your poison. It's the exact same standard that anyone would apply to marijuana. You don't walk down the street with a joint, or smoke in a public place. No matter what you're smoking, keep it away from other people.

But seriously, the fact that you used the word "statist" pretty much guaranteed that you didn't think this through very much. Spend less time worrying about weird conspiracies and try to understand that not everything is about you and no one is out to get you.

How does second hand smoke from cigarettes harm people while second hand smoke from pot doesn't? Is this just more romanticizing of pot as a harmless substance?

 

[Paschendale]

How does second hand smoke from cigarettes harm people while second hand smoke from pot doesn't? Is this just more romanticizing of pot as a harmless substance?

Did you miss how I didn't say that? I said both should be kept away from people who don't want to be around it. Smoke whatever you want in your own place, but you have to share the air in public and you don't have the right to fill it with whatever contaminates you want.

 

[Redress]

Right. You're very typical of the Left. Wait...actually you're not.

Actually I am. Where you fail is trying to fit "the Left" into your preconceived notions, even though "the Left" doesn't really fit those preconceptions.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Actually I am. Where you fail is trying to fit "the Left" into your preconceived notions, even though "the Left" doesn't really fit those preconceptions.

This troll thread really isn't about pot, it's about leftists.

 

[ludin]

all i see from the legalization of marijuana is a bunch of unhireable people.

 

[Risky Thicket]

all i see from the legalization of marijuana is a bunch of unhireable people.

Illegal users are hirable, just not legal users? Got it! :unsure13:

 

[Bigfoot 88]

I don't understand people who want to ban pot but keep guns legal...or ban guns but legalize pot.

Self crimes are not enforceable, nor should they be, period.

 

[Muhammed]

There is no evidence that anyone has ever developed cancer caused by the secondhand smoke of either tobacco or wacky tobacky.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm just wondering why the statist Left is trying to ban cigarettes everywhere and bankrupt the tobacco industry while at the same time promoting the legalization of pot.

Which is even worse on the lungs because it's rolled in a joint and smoked without a filter.

I'm just wondering if the Left thinks that pot won't be commercialized and mass produced like cigarettes and that dominant pot companies won't amass fortunes at the expense of the people it kills.

Why do Leftists think that they can support freedom on one thing and restrict it on another, both acclaimed to be personal lifestyle choices? I don't for a second believe that Leftists believe in personal freedom on this or any other issue, and that even feigned overtures to freedom mask a statist agenda. They just can't help themselves.

Cannabis has far fewer health drawbacks than commercialized tobacco. All the research shows this. Tobacco costs society more than cannabis in damages.

Not saying that cannabis is perfect either. To me it seems like a numbing agent that people use to avoid facing themselves and their lives, but they use alcohol for that too and alcohol is legal. At least cannabis has proven medical uses.

I think the only thing that tobacco is good for is increased neural processing, as nicotine is cholergenic. But it's hard to justify that when cigarettes are loaded with so many known carcinogens.

Would be interesting to see a study done on organic tobacco vs. industry tobacco. I wonder if the garden grown stuff causes cancer at anything near the standard rate?

 

[ludin]

Illegal users are hirable, just not legal users? Got it! :unsure13:

it doesn't matter most companies require a drug test to get hired. if you fail then well sorry about your luck.
but hey what does it matter you can get high right? who needs a friggen job when you can just get stoned.

PS way to not get what i said but that is typical.

 

[Archangel]

I don't understand people who want to ban pot but keep guns legal...or ban guns but legalize pot.

Self crimes are not enforceable, nor should they be, period.

Perhaps you might not be informed....gun rights are in the Constitution, the "right" to get high isn't.

 

[Archangel]

Cannabis has far fewer health drawbacks than commercialized tobacco. All the research shows this. Tobacco costs society more than cannabis in damages.

Not saying that cannabis is perfect either. To me it seems like a numbing agent that people use to avoid facing themselves and their lives, but they use alcohol for that too and alcohol is legal. At least cannabis has proven medical uses.

I think the only thing that tobacco is good for is increased neural processing, as nicotine is cholergenic. But it's hard to justify that when cigarettes are loaded with so many known carcinogens.

Would be interesting to see a study done on organic tobacco vs. industry tobacco. I wonder if the garden grown stuff causes cancer at anything near the standard rate?

Perhaps you missed the point of the OP. Could you try reading it again because you seem to think it's about the health consequences of pot.

 

[Archangel]

all i see from the legalization of marijuana is a bunch of unhireable people.

Legalization is the first step. Then they'll insist that they have a "right" to use drugs and can't be fired for it. Oddly enough, these are often the same people pushing for bans on cigarettes in the workplace. This hypocrisy is the topic of this thread.

 

[Risky Thicket]

it doesn't matter most companies require a drug test to get hired. if you fail then well sorry about your luck.
but hey what does it matter you can get high right? who needs a friggen job when you can just get stoned.

PS way to not get what i said but that is typical.

So people drinking on the job is a huge problem where you work? What kind of work do you do?

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Perhaps you might not be informed....gun rights are in the Constitution, the "right" to get high isn't.

Did I mention the Constitution?

The logic applies to both products.

 

[Archangel]

Did I mention the Constitution?

The logic applies to both products.

Logic dictates that rights aren't just anything we want them to be....or do you think your children have a right to everything they want?

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Logic dictates that rights aren't just anything we want them to be....or do you think your children have a right to everything they want?

So I made the claim that self-crimes are not enforceable, nor should they be.

Banning guns doesn't stop people form using them, nor does banning drugs for the most part. Those are simply facts.

Rights derive largely from the concept of self ownership. We have the rights to self defense and self determination, and the importance of these rights is why the 2nd amendment was put into place. For less important rights, we have the 9th amendment. Of course, the Bill of Rights is only supposed to legally apply to the federal government, although the same logic should apply to other levels of government.

Rights are also understood to exist under the condition that one does not violate another person's rights.

The Declaration of Independence mentions the right to pursue happiness. It doesn't say we have the right to happiness. In the context of this discussion, I do believe people have the right to smoke pot. I don't think people have the right to have pot delivered at their doorstep courtesy of the taxpayer. So you are indeed correct, rights are not anything we want them to be.

It has been understood that children and the mentally ill do not have all the same rights as adults.