[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Excellent suggestion, and as Sloth noted, just be sure I can legally exclude said drug users from any insurance pool I participate in (public or private). Health insurance, life insurance, auto insurance - not my job to underwrite the risk of your stupidity.
[/quote]
Would you ask the same of those in your insurance pool that utilize nicotine and imbibe alcohol?
The health risks are at worst the same and at best much better to utilize THC than nicotine and alcohol.[/quote]
We should also have the right to exclude people that are over weight , that consume the wrong foods , Any one that does not have the right skin tone
Would you ask the same of those in your insurance pool that utilize nicotine and imbibe alcohol?[/quote]
Not necessarily - those risks can be priced into the risk pool more effectively. Drug use, not as much.
Depends on volume of the usage, of course, and that is the primarily problem, and whether the drug user retricts his drug use to marijuana, which I don’t have much confidence will happen.
In any event, that’s my point - there is a bunch of risk, i.e., too many unknowns, and as such, I shouldn’t be forced to underwrite those risks.
I have a lot of respect for the posts of Bolt, ZEB, and Sex machine in this forum.
But you cannot seriously think that marijuana is in the same category as Meth, Heroin, Cocaine, Crack, Prescription Drugs or even Alcohol and Nicotine in terms of harming the body.
We enable Mexican cartels with a willing market that we could tax ourselves and bring much needed revenue into bankrupt states and at the same time take money from gangsters in Mexico.
We cannot afford to keep up the “war on weed” …that was started after somebody made Reefer Madness, and turned the whole country into some sort of illogical,paranoid science experiment.
We…Just…Can’t…Afford…It.[/quote]
Well, I don’t think that marijuana is in the same category as the other drugs, but it’s like a cousin in the same family, and too often acts to facilitate use of harder drugs.
That said, my point is that we no longer need to continue the “war on weed” either - I just shouldn’t have to pay for the materialized risks of such poor individual choices.
And, we should regulate where it can be used. Very much so. Public spaces have to be off-limits.
I have a lot of respect for the posts of Bolt, ZEB, and Sex machine in this forum.
But you cannot seriously think that marijuana is in the same category as Meth, Heroin, Cocaine, Crack, Prescription Drugs or even Alcohol and Nicotine in terms of harming the body.
We enable Mexican cartels with a willing market that we could tax ourselves and bring much needed revenue into bankrupt states and at the same time take money from gangsters in Mexico.
We cannot afford to keep up the “war on weed” …that was started after somebody made Reefer Madness, and turned the whole country into some sort of illogical,paranoid science experiment.
We…Just…Can’t…Afford…It.[/quote]
Well, I don’t think that marijuana is in the same category as the other drugs, but it’s like a cousin in the same family, and too often acts to facilitate use of harder drugs.
That said, my point is that we no longer need to continue the “war on weed” either - I just shouldn’t have to pay for the materialized risks of such poor individual choices.
And, we should regulate where it can be used. Very much so. Public spaces have to be off-limits.[/quote]
I contend that all drug users started with alcohol and tobacco , lets take it a step farther all drug users started with milk or sugar or flour or aspirin or antibiotics Jeez
I contend that all drug users started with alcohol and tobacco , lets take it a step farther all drug users started with milk or sugar or flour or aspirin or antibiotics Jeez
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter what you “contend”, if it isn’t true.
I contend that all drug users started with alcohol and tobacco , lets take it a step farther all drug users started with milk or sugar or flour or aspirin or antibiotics Jeez
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter what you “contend”, if it isn’t true. [/quote]
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Come up with a way to test for impairment at the time the person does something stupid (ex. getting behind the wheel of a car) and it would get legalized real quick.[/quote]
They’ve been working on something like this for about 20 years. Apparently they’re having trouble coming up with a reliable test that determines how long it’s been since someone smoked. Simple bloodtests don’t say whether you smoked last night or ten minutes ago. A saliva test is currently the newest and most realistic possibility, but state legislatures that are trying to enact this can’t decide on how many nanograms of THC there need to be in someone’s saliva to before he/she is impaired.
Personally, I say legalize it and forget about it. I’ve done a lot of research into this issue as it pertains to California. As far as Cal. goes, there isn’t a single credible study that indicates with any certainty that weed would bring in profits via tax revenue. I’ve explained the reasons why ad nauseum on here in the past, so if you really want to know why revenues are dubious at best, PM me and I’ll tell you why. Of course, this is only in reference to Prop. 19 in California, which was defeated in 2010.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
you can eat chocolate chip cookies until you explode, wow such heavy thinking
I have tripped on weed before but hind sight makes me think it was treated with something else and that is a good reason to regulate it[/quote]
Either that or stop making illegal drug purchases…Naw…that would make too much sense.[/quote]
Zeb , you are just too wise
[/quote]
Wise enough not to make illegal drug purchases and to allow smoke (of any type and nature) to be sucked into my lungs. [/quote]
you just suck up all that Republican garbage in your head
[/quote]
Does an unrelated sarcastic comeback make you feel better? You have no legitimate answer for your horrendous decision.[/quote]
The US federal government has no leg to stand on when it comes to prohibiting substances, which is why the prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment.
Without FDR pressuring the SCOTUS into perverting the interstate commerce clause it would still need one.
You support a blatant overreach of the federal legislative, judiciary and executive branch that can, will and already is turned against you if you do not live up to the standards of the likes of Pelosi, to support a principle that is as nanny state as they come.
The goverment likes to ban things.Thats what goverment does,coz they have to do something in order to justify taxing and all those jobs in the public offices ;))
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Come up with a way to test for impairment at the time the person does something stupid (ex. getting behind the wheel of a car) and it would get legalized real quick.[/quote]
They’ve been working on something like this for about 20 years. Apparently they’re having trouble coming up with a reliable test that determines how long it’s been since someone smoked. Simple bloodtests don’t say whether you smoked last night or ten minutes ago. A saliva test is currently the newest and most realistic possibility, but state legislatures that are trying to enact this can’t decide on how many nanograms of THC there need to be in someone’s saliva to before he/she is impaired.
Personally, I say legalize it and forget about it. I’ve done a lot of research into this issue as it pertains to California. As far as Cal. goes, there isn’t a single credible study that indicates with any certainty that weed would bring in profits via tax revenue. I’ve explained the reasons why ad nauseum on here in the past, so if you really want to know why revenues are dubious at best, PM me and I’ll tell you why. Of course, this is only in reference to Prop. 19 in California, which was defeated in 2010.[/quote]
I would think that the majority of the money could come in the saving from not having to search out, prosecute and incarcerate all marijuana offenses.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Shit, I don’t even wanna be drivin’ when I’m stoned.[/quote]
Me neither.
The last time, which was a decade ago, I was driving 40 km/h and was scared shitless.[/quote]
How the hell did you even get into the car? I become one with the couch when I’m stoned.[/quote]
I used to do some of my best lifting in that condition.I became one with the weights… allegedly.[/quote]
BONEZ recommended pot pre-workout. Not enough to get a high but like a toke or 2. I can’t remember why and he was being serious.[/quote]
I would say it’s the mind muscle connection. It’s helps you get into the zone and push beyond. It has a shelf life, though. I don’t think I could do it anymore. Maybe, it’s been a long time. Such activities lose their luster over time. It’s like going to the same place over and over again. It’s alright, but it can get kinda old too. No, I didn’t think so either, but age is weird.
Age is the weirdest drug of them all, you don’t understand old people until start crossing some thresholds. Suddenly, going out all night, getting fucked up, partying like an animal sounds like a hassle. It’s like, well that’s a lot of work, then I am going to feel like shit for 2 days. Ever thought of partying, like work?
I am not that old, but I have had a lot of very unfortunate shit happen to me that makes me feel older than I am…I will rise from the ashes though… I hope.
