Yay!
California does something right.
Now if they’d get rid of their insane firearm regulations I MIGHT consider moving there.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The drinking age should be lowered. If you can volunteer for the military and DIE at 18, why the fuck can’t you drink a beer?
You haven’t explained why you are against it yet.
I’ll wait.
While you’re at it, explain why people need to be 21 to drink when most do it long before then?[/quote]
Because statistically 18-25 year old have the highest rates of alcohol related deaths, so we need the nanny state to protect us from our ignorant selves.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also…I thought all of you “right wing religious conservatives” were FOR less government oversight?[/quote]
And I thought all of you left wing national health care folks were for more government oversight?[/quote]
That’s always been your mistake. I am NO wing. I care about issues, not labels.[/quote]
Yes, I know that’s popular to say, but it seems that most every issue that you take a stand on you can be labeled liberal. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
[/quote]
Maybe you should be more concerned with what position sounds most right. You have a plant here with the potential to at least slow mankind’s greatest disease that has less harmful actions that substances we normally put in our bodies…one that could help reduce quite a bit of the economic burden this whole country is currently faced with…and you won’t vote for it because why?[/quote]
You know you may have something there X. And in order to increase our tax base I think we should lower the drinking age and start selling Jack Daniels to high school kids. Hey, they get it anyway, right? And look at the extra tax dollars we could make. And as we know alcohol can act as a sedative. I’m sure there are plenty of high school kids who get stressed out about grades so it would help there.
1-Cure-all
2-Increase tax revenue
Yep, I think we have another winner.[/quote]
??
The drinking age should be lowered. If you can volunteer for the military and DIE at 18, why the fuck can’t you drink a beer?[/quote]
Well see there, we agree on this one. After all the two have so much in common.
[quote]You haven’t explained why you are against it yet.
I’ll wait.[/quote]
Scroll back before you got into the conversation.
I ask myself daily, why is there a drinking age to begin with? Why do we have to prevent teens from enjoying the pleasures of alcohol? Why not lower it to 13? Tell me the truth, what would be wrong with that?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also…I thought all of you “right wing religious conservatives” were FOR less government oversight?[/quote]
And I thought all of you left wing national health care folks were for more government oversight?[/quote]
That’s always been your mistake. I am NO wing. I care about issues, not labels.[/quote]
Yes, I know that’s popular to say, but it seems that most every issue that you take a stand on you can be labeled liberal. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
[/quote]
Maybe you should be more concerned with what position sounds most right. You have a plant here with the potential to at least slow mankind’s greatest disease that has less harmful actions that substances we normally put in our bodies…one that could help reduce quite a bit of the economic burden this whole country is currently faced with…and you won’t vote for it because why?[/quote]
You know you may have something there X. And in order to increase our tax base I think we should lower the drinking age and start selling Jack Daniels to high school kids. Hey, they get it anyway, right? And look at the extra tax dollars we could make. And as we know alcohol can act as a sedative. I’m sure there are plenty of high school kids who get stressed out about grades so it would help there.
1-Cure-all
2-Increase tax revenue
Yep, I think we have another winner.[/quote]
Alcohol kills, cannabis does not. See the difference
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Yay!
California does something right.
Now if they’d get rid of their insane firearm regulations I MIGHT consider moving there.[/quote]
You could move there and experience what it’s like to live in the single worst fiscally managed state in the US.
By the way take a look at all of the states which have been historically run by liberals. Then compare their financial well being to that of states which have been run by more conservative governments like Texas for example.
The differences are indeed dramatic.
[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also…I thought all of you “right wing religious conservatives” were FOR less government oversight?[/quote]
And I thought all of you left wing national health care folks were for more government oversight?[/quote]
That’s always been your mistake. I am NO wing. I care about issues, not labels.[/quote]
Yes, I know that’s popular to say, but it seems that most every issue that you take a stand on you can be labeled liberal. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
[/quote]
Maybe you should be more concerned with what position sounds most right. You have a plant here with the potential to at least slow mankind’s greatest disease that has less harmful actions that substances we normally put in our bodies…one that could help reduce quite a bit of the economic burden this whole country is currently faced with…and you won’t vote for it because why?[/quote]
You know you may have something there X. And in order to increase our tax base I think we should lower the drinking age and start selling Jack Daniels to high school kids. Hey, they get it anyway, right? And look at the extra tax dollars we could make. And as we know alcohol can act as a sedative. I’m sure there are plenty of high school kids who get stressed out about grades so it would help there.
1-Cure-all
2-Increase tax revenue
Yep, I think we have another winner.[/quote]
Alcohol kills, cannabis does not. See the difference
[/quote]
It kills? Now tell me exactly how alcohol kills.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Zeb, it’s definitely less harmful then alcohol or cigarettes[/quote]
Let’s assume that you are correct, and you may very well be, is that what we’ve come to? We want what’s “less harmful”? Why not promote what actually benefits our teens?
No, not at all. Sorry if that’s the impression I gave. There would be no end to civilization. My point is why promote something that is obviously harmful? Why put it in the hands of even more people? I don’t understand why that would be good.
Well, I’m not so sure I have a better grasp on anything than you. But, thanks anyway. My point is that if something that is negative made more available to teens how does that help us?
[quote]I really hope I’ll see the day drugs won’t be a big legal issue in the western hemisphere.
[/quote]
I’d like to see people get high from training. But that takes work, while smoking a joint takes nothing more than someone to supply it to you. And the less society cares I fear the more young and impressionable will be tempted. I don’t see that as a good thing. Once again, I don’t have all the facts.
Way to go man, me too and I don’t see any harm coming from that do you? But on the other hand…
[/quote]
Serious question. What makes you say it is harmful?
How does the drinking age work in the US? In the UK or most of Europe there is an age limit for buying alcohol but drinking it is allowed at any age. That means my kid can’t go out and buy a bottle of vodka but I can choose how and when to introduce them to sensible drinking.
I was allowed a small watered down glass of wine with our family Sunday meal from the age of about 11. As I got older, the amount of water added was reduced. Of course, I went through stages of binge drinking when I first went to University however I have never really had what you would call a drinking problem.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
How does the drinking age work in the US? In the UK or most of Europe there is an age limit for buying alcohol but drinking it is allowed at any age. That means my kid can’t go out and buy a bottle of vodka but I can choose how and when to introduce them to sensible drinking.
I was allowed a small watered down glass of wine with our family Sunday meal from the age of about 11. As I got older, the amount of water added was reduced. Of course, I went through stages of binge drinking when I first went to University however I have never really had what you would call a drinking problem.[/quote]
There are no federal laws against parent/guardian-supervised under-aged drinking. Many states prohibit it though, and consider it child abuse. Yeah. We’re still run by puritans.
After reading the rates of alcoholism per country I’m starting to think that there might not be a nickels worth of difference in how you decide at what age someone can drink. However, I’d have to check the other stats to see the real damage of alcohol. For example, my brother has been a policeman for almost 20 years now and he’s told me many times if it wasn’t for alcohol there’d be little domestic abuse, and traffic accidents would be cut back as well, and of course there would be no DWI’s. Then there’s just general disorderly conduct etc.
Honestly, I don’t have an answer to the alcohol question. More than willing to read what others think. I wonder how well people drive while high? It certainly has a negative effect on reaction time etc. Certainly not as good. But anyone who is pro pot would tell you to stiffin the laws to deter driving while high. Uh huh.
ZEB, let me state for the record that I do not smoke (it seems you think everyone who supports legalization does), I guess I just believe that our country was founded on the belief that citizens should have the freedom to choose for themselves, and it’s really as simple as that. As you have stated alcohol has massive social problems. On top of that let me remind you that alcohol and smoking are huge risk factors associated with all of the top five causes of death in the United States (Heart disease, Cancer, Stroke, Chronic lower respiratory diseases, Accidents (unintentional injuries). But what are we gonna do? I want my freedom to enjoy a glass of whiskey with my friends just as much as you probably want whatever it is that you enjoy. If someone want’s to smoke why vilify them for it?
Alcohol is legal because you don’t go smoke a blunt on Sunday mornings.
…maybe we should all become Rastafarians…
Legalizing pot will ultimately add to the moral decomposition of the United States.
I say keep it illegal and use the arrested drug money to fund law enforcement.
Because think about it, when they start legalizing pot they’re inviting the presence of other drugs.
Just my opinions, not that I really give a crap.
~pat jr.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It kills? Now tell me exactly how alcohol kills.[/quote]
alcohol killed my mom. Her liver failed.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Legalizing pot will ultimately add to the moral decomposition of the United States.
I say keep it illegal and use the arrested drug money to fund law enforcement.
Because think about it, when they start legalizing pot they’re inviting the presence of other drugs.
Just my opinions, not that I really give a crap.
~pat jr.[/quote]
Not to be argumentative , but I consider to be a moral person requires me to mind my own business and not try to control other people . The Drug Marijuana is NONTOXIC has no PHYSICAL addiction. Considering the cost to combat this drug I consider it not only immoral but hugely expensive . IMO the reason law enforcement want this drug to be illegal is so they (LAW ENFORCEMENT)can search anybody , anytime all is the name of drugs . It is a huge tool to L.E.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I don’t smoke pot and I agree that it should be either decriminalized or legalized.
Not 100% percent of the population who uses is a hardcore user. There is a wide berth of what constitutes a pot smoker, just as their is with people who drink.
The hard core user is going to no matter what the law says (as I used to do) and many people are going to pass on it simply because they don’t see it as their cup of tea, or tried it and for what ever reason, didn’t like it (as many people have done and continue to do).
The patterns of use have long been established. Availability has never been a problem. The only thing in question that has ever changed has been “What happens when you get caught?”.
[/quote]
x2
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Legalizing pot will ultimately add to the moral decomposition of the United States.
I say keep it illegal and use the arrested drug money to fund law enforcement.
Because think about it, when they start legalizing pot they’re inviting the presence of other drugs.
Just my opinions, not that I really give a crap.
~pat jr.[/quote]
Not to be argumentative , but I consider to be a moral person requires me to mind my own business and not try to control other people . The Drug Marijuana is NONTOXIC has no PHYSICAL addiction. Considering the cost to combat this drug I consider it not only immoral but hugely expensive . IMO the reason law enforcement want this drug to be illegal is so they (LAW ENFORCEMENT)can search anybody , anytime all is the name of drugs . It is a huge tool to L.E.
[/quote]
This has nothing to do with this topic but: You’d consider yourself to have morals if you saw someone getting beat to death but didn’t do anything (i.e mind your own business). Or what about not caring about people starving- does minding your business then mean you have scuples?
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Legalizing pot will ultimately add to the moral decomposition of the United States.
I say keep it illegal and use the arrested drug money to fund law enforcement.
Because think about it, when they start legalizing pot they’re inviting the presence of other drugs.
Just my opinions, not that I really give a crap.
~pat jr.[/quote]
Not to be argumentative , but I consider to be a moral person requires me to mind my own business and not try to control other people . The Drug Marijuana is NONTOXIC has no PHYSICAL addiction. Considering the cost to combat this drug I consider it not only immoral but hugely expensive . IMO the reason law enforcement want this drug to be illegal is so they (LAW ENFORCEMENT)can search anybody , anytime all is the name of drugs . It is a huge tool to L.E.
[/quote]
This has nothing to do with this topic but: You’d consider yourself to have morals if you saw someone getting beat to death but didn’t do anything (i.e mind your own business). Or what about not caring about people starving- does minding your business then mean you have scuples?
[/quote]
Your point of contention is absurd, I am talking about me telling you that your wife’s dress is too short or your daughter is sexually promiscuous , things that are none of my business.
Yes minding your business means you have scuples .
That is the main problem I have with religion getting involved with politics , they want to shove their scruples down everybody’s throat. If i wanted scruples shoved down my throat , I would go to their church
[quote]StevenF wrote:
I really wonder what would happen to these cartels if they suddenly legalized pot and cocaine. I really do. [/quote]
This interests me too. It’s be interesting to see the big pharmaceutical companies wrestling with them for control of the market. Things could get very nasty.