[Mr_Canada]

raydan wrote:

The 24 types of pot-smokers:

http://coedmagazine.com/2009/05/18/the- ... t-smokers/

I think 12 (The Teenager) and 15 (The Drinker) sums me up well.

[uwish]

I guess my point was, yes cocaine comes from a plant but it is processed extensively to much higher potency levels than the natural leaf.

[Gunnair]

DerbyX wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

Kinda easy to make these arguments, Derby.

Kinda easy to make a "because its illegal" argument too. Sorta like "because I said so" and I'm sure you wouldn't just accept it if the government said that to something you enjoy.

I usually don't indulge myself in illegal activities, that way I don't get so easily disappointed.

[Mr_Canada]

Gunnair wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

Kinda easy to make these arguments, Derby.

Kinda easy to make a "because its illegal" argument too. Sorta like "because I said so" and I'm sure you wouldn't just accept it if the government said that to something you enjoy.

I usually don't indulge myself in illegal activities, that way I don't get so easily disappointed.

'Just Because', the first sign of a stupid rule. - George Carlin

[Mr_Canada]

Gunnair wrote:

Mr_Canada wrote:

OnTheIce wrote:

When you're ready to learn a little about the economic, health, and social issues involved with legalizing any drug, then we can have an intelligent debate.

Until then, you can take your "Eat Lays - Be Happy" campaign and preach your ignorance to others.

When you can stop being an ignorant superficial partisan clown and actually explain what you assume would happen, THEN we can have an intellectual debate.

So far you haven't given any reason against legalization.

Why should Supports of Legalization have to defend our views when you won't even properly present yours?

Because marijuana is illegal. It's not required to justify that to the small percentage of potheads with maturity issues.

Small amount?

So you disregard the 53% of Canadians who either smoke pot or sympathize with those who do? They have "maturity issues"?

Your only argument is "because".

That makes this so much easier. Thanks.

[ASLplease]

Choban wrote:

ASLplease wrote:

I tend to think of a doobie smoker as someone that is slumped forward with droopy shoulders, expressionless face, poor posture, eyes down, jaw slack.......a real slacker with the physiology to prove it.

but thats just my opinion.

Obviously you do not know any pot heads.
I know a lawyer that smokes, very successful person
I also know plenty of others that work as hard or harder than you all day long and when they get home instead of cracking a beer to unwind they blaze a reefer
You have a stereotype in your head that was implanted in our society from the 50's.

50's?

Geez!!! I am not that old.

[dino_bobba_renno]

You all ways hear about how great decriminalizing pot would be and how it would not only save but make money and free up the courts from those who support it. One thing you don't ever hear mention of though are the costs associated with it. New laws need to be made and enforced even if it is decriminalized, that in turn would require a increased need for policing. There are social costs associated with the increased use that be a unavoidable result and again you would see a cost in terms of rehabilitation and treatment for addictions which is all ready stretched to it's limits. Increased health costs, not to mention the irony in the fact that we just spent the last 10 or 15 years trying to get people to quite smoking and now you want to turn around and say "smoking cigarettes = bad, smoking pot = ok".

These are just a few things that come with legalizing pot, and there are plenty more where those came from.

[ASLplease]

Yes, I wonder if I can find the article again, but I remember seeing an article on the costs related to legalized marijuana in that pothead country of Europe.....what was it's name again?

[Gunnair]

Mr_Canada wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Kinda easy to make a "because its illegal" argument too. Sorta like "because I said so" and I'm sure you wouldn't just accept it if the government said that to something you enjoy.

I usually don't indulge myself in illegal activities, that way I don't get so easily disappointed.

'Just Because', the first sign of a stupid rule. - George Carlin

Quoting George Carlin, the first sign of a stupid argument.

[Gunnair]

Mr_Canada wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

Mr_Canada wrote:

When you can stop being an ignorant superficial partisan clown and actually explain what you assume would happen, THEN we can have an intellectual debate.

So far you haven't given any reason against legalization.

Why should Supports of Legalization have to defend our views when you won't even properly present yours?

Because marijuana is illegal. It's not required to justify that to the small percentage of potheads with maturity issues.

Small amount?

So you disregard the 53% of Canadians who either smoke pot or sympathize with those who do? They have "maturity issues"?

Your only argument is "because".

That makes this so much easier. Thanks.

I figured you'd need it to be easy in order for you to keep up.

You're welcome.

[DerbyX]

Gunnair wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

Kinda easy to make these arguments, Derby.

Kinda easy to make a "because its illegal" argument too. Sorta like "because I said so" and I'm sure you wouldn't just accept it if the government said that to something you enjoy.

I usually don't indulge myself in illegal activities, that way I don't get so easily disappointed.

Usually? So you do indulge sometimes. The fact that you don't indulge in pot is your choice. You might also not smoke, gamble, or drink even if they are legal. The reality is that lots of people do and want the law changed just as people have done over the centuries against laws they considered unjust.

[Thanos]

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

You all ways hear about how great decriminalizing pot would be and how it would not only save but make money and free up the courts from those who support it. One thing you don't ever hear mention of though are the costs associated with it. New laws need to be made and enforced even if it is decriminalized, that in turn would require a increased need for policing. There are social costs associated with the increased use that be a unavoidable result and again you would see a cost in terms of rehabilitation and treatment for addictions which is all ready stretched to it's limits. Increased health costs, not to mention the irony in the fact that we just spent the last 10 or 15 years trying to get people to quite smoking and now you want to turn around and say "smoking cigarettes = bad, smoking pot = ok".

These are just a few things that come with legalizing pot, and there are plenty more where those came from.

What's really laughable is the idea that the gangsters who are growing pot right now are suddenly going to become good corporate citizens, start paying business taxes, and submit themselves to government-mandated product quality control codes. The whole concept is beyond ridiculous. Pot growing and trafficking is forever going to be tied to organized crime and tax evaders. All of this dopey well-wishing on the part of a few potheads isn't going to change the basic nature of how the illegal narcotics business operates.

[Lemmy]

Thanos wrote:

What's really laughable is the idea that the gangsters who are growing pot right now are suddenly going to become good corporate citizens, start paying business taxes, and submit themselves to government-mandated product quality control codes. The whole concept is beyond ridiculous. Pot growing and trafficking is forever going to be tied to organized crime and tax evaders. All of this dopey well-wishing on the part of a few potheads isn't going to change the basic nature of how the illegal narcotics business operates.

I TOTALLY agree with you on your assessment of the nature of thugs. But the time tested best solution to fighting thugs is to eliminate their source of revenue. If you take away the pot percentage of their revenue, that's a big hit. Given that pot, I suspect, is their #1 revenue source, it's not just a pot-head solution to make it legal. It's sound law enforcement technique.

[ASLplease]

Some people say that we should legalize drugs, gambling and prostitution and then tax the hell out of it.

But who wants their sons to shoot heroin? Who wants their daughters to be used as a sex tool to enhance government revenues?

The question then: Who wants their child to be treated as a resource to be milked by the government for revenue? Who wants to offer up their child’s body to be used for that?

[ASLplease]

yep, lets all be politically correct liberals and rephrase the whole idea into "for no other reason, lets legalize it so we can tax it"

It sickens me to think that this is sound logic for open minded educated people.