- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 13,988
- Reaction score
- 6,593
- Location
- Charlottesville, VA
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Freedom and liberty.Progress?
You call being socially acceptable to be stoned all day progress?
Progress towards what exactly?
Freedom and liberty.
Correction.
No Kids SHOULD be getting any that way.
It still happens, often.
Freedom and liberty.
You can be served by some stoned retard waiter/waitress at a restaraunt, eating food made by a guy who was stoned out of his mind if you want to.
Precisely. Yes, I can if I want. Up to the restaurant, obviously, if they want to allow their staff to work like that, more power to them. And then I'll decide if i want to patronize the place or not.
I think I see what your saying.
And again, the topic of this thread is "social norm" not "legality"
You can be served by some stoned retard waiter/waitress at a restaraunt, eating food made by a guy who was stoned out of his mind if you want to.
And it already is.
You asked what it was progress towards, and I stated freedom and liberty. (ergo: decriminalization)
Then you went off about someone being stoned and carrying food out to people, blah blah. I reiterated the freedom part.
I understand why people would not want a pilot/bus driver/whatever being high on the job, but how exactly does being high effect a waiter or chef?
Well, my question is.
Why would you desire for it to be a social norm.
Do you want a drunk chef or waiter?
Impairment is impairment.
I understand why people are supportive of legalization. I am too.
But Im not going to let that issue befuddle the discussion that it should be accepted by society that people run around stoned all day while conducting their daily business.
To a thinking person yes, but to politicians trying to get votes it will become too hard to control and keep away from the children.
If it were sold in stores that were strictly controlled, like state liquor stores, no kids would be getting any that way.
A multutude of waiters and chefs go to work stoned already, and for the most part those that they cater to do not have a clue. I do not see how this has any bearing on either weeds legality, or whether or not it is a social norm, in the restraurant business it is normal already
I know quite a few people in the restaurant business as I have 2 cousins that are top rated chefs, one in Savannah, GA and another in Charlottesville, VA. They partake of the herb, but not during business hours. They are high speed when cooking, juggling a full menu with just 2 or 3 chefs and backs. They both work in gourmet kitchens. They save their "relaxation" until after the kitchen is closed and they are prepped for the next day. The same holds true for the front staff.
You really have no way to know if they are stoned or not, the ones that do go in work stoned (or after a few drinks) are not going to advertise it. I was one of those stoned waiters on countless occasions back in the daze of my youth, and I can tell you from experience that there was a subset of employes getting stoned before or between shifts at literally every restaurant I worked at. It is a common occurance, although it is a subset of the staff, it is by no means insignificant.
The majority are smart enough to seperate work from recreation. These are the same ones who will not suddenly start going into work high because weed is legal or more socially acceptable; the responsible will not suddenly start being irresponsible, and the same core group of stoned waiters and chefs will still be there either way.
Point being, there will not be a rise in stoned chefs and waiters, this nightmare scenario of stoned waters and chefs taking over and infecting everyones ones dining experiences with their stoned cooties would not suddenly spring from nothing. Those who are alredy iresponsile and go to work intoxicated will still be doing so, and those who are responsible and do not will still refrain. It is not a function of whether pot is legal or social norm, it is a function of responsibility.
Always makes me wonder if weed will ever be accepted in our society like alcohol is?
What is degenerate about weed?
At the moment? The fa ct that its criminal to be partaking in it.
A multutude of waiters and chefs go to work stoned already, and for the most part those that they cater to do not have a clue. I do not see how this has any bearing on either weeds legality, or whether or not it is a social norm, in the restraurant business it is normal already
Other than the fact that it is criminal to partake, I adhere to the guideline of "Civil Disobedience". I really don't understand how it ever came to be criminal. There was a concerted propaganda effort to make it so as the users were clearly dark-skinned. How racist can you get.
Other than the fact that it is criminal to partake, I adhere to the guideline of "Civil Disobedience". I really don't understand how it ever came to be criminal. There was a concerted propaganda effort to make it so as the users were clearly dark-skinned. How racist can you get.
That wasn't what you asked.
You asked what about it is degenerate.
The very nature of partaking in something that is criminal to grow, criminal to buy, criminal to use, is degenerate in nature. You can justify it by civil disobediance but that doesn't magically change what it is. People can justify murdering someone too, doesn't mean its any less illegal. People can justify why it was okay to drink and drive, doesn't make it any less illegal or degenerate.
You asked why its degenerate, and I gave you a reason.
Well, I don't know about comparing murder to getting high, but both are criminal, as you pointed out. As getting high doesn't harm anyone, I wonder why it is criminal.
I think you took me wrong as I wasn't meaning to object to your saying what you said. You are 100% correct, that is what makes it degenerate. I was questioning why is it criminal and made an accurate observation about how it became criminal, which was racist. I do not feel I am playing the race card in some debate we are having as I do not feel we are debating any issue. I was merely expanding the scope of the conversation.
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?