Should Pot be legalized?
0
I think it should be legalized. In fact, i think there should be no restrictions on what a person can own, unless its something really useless like anthrax powder.
0
Only with check-test available to control your health state in order to avoid miserable accidents.
As for now, it does not look like people would smoothly do self-control and take adequate action items, regarding alcohol and the like (sleeping pills, etc).
As for now, it does not look like people would smoothly do self-control and take adequate action items, regarding alcohol and the like (sleeping pills, etc).
0
Misaki_Chi
Fakku Nurse
Fligger wrote...
Only with check-test available to control your health state in order to avoid miserable accidents.As for now, it does not look like people would smoothly do self-control and take adequate action items, regarding alcohol and the like (sleeping pills, etc).
I feel similar to this.
I don't mind it being legal, but with how our society is with abusing drugs kinda 50/50 on this.
One of the main reasons I would want it to be legalized to some extent is for medicinal purposes such as with cancer patients or patients that have to suffer through chronic and severe pain, where no treatment can help otherwise.
0
Holoofyoistu
The Messenger
Im kind of super allergic to anything in the hemp family... last thing i need is for literately the only thing that could kill me to be legal. sorry nick, but i cant support your 420 campaign.
That being said, enjoy this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2TO5atI4rU
That being said, enjoy this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2TO5atI4rU
0
Holoofyoistu wrote...
Im kind of super allergic to anything in the hemp family... last thing i need is for literately the only thing that could kill me to be legal. sorry nick, but i cant support your 420 campaign.Well, it's not the only thing that could kill you. Perhaps from an illegal reaction.
Second, how does making it legal all of sudden mean it's going to find it's way into your body? They'll undoubtedly keep it so that the restrictions on it are even tighter than they are on cigarette smoke. If weed is legalized it doesn't mean that you're going to see it smoked everywhere regardless of people around the smoker. I mean, even as it is, unless you live somewhere where weed is ACTUALLY illegal, and not just we'll take it away from you if you have less than a gram on you and call it a day illegal, your chances of being exposed are pretty high.
Should peanut butter and fish be illegal, too? Eggs?
0
Holoofyoistu
The Messenger
ecchigaijin wrote...
Holoofyoistu wrote...
Im kind of super allergic to anything in the hemp family... last thing i need is for literately the only thing that could kill me to be legal. sorry nick, but i cant support your 420 campaign.Well, it's not the only thing that could kill you. Perhaps from an illegal reaction.
Second, how does making it legal all of sudden mean it's going to find it's way into your body? They'll undoubtedly keep it so that the restrictions on it are even tighter than they are on cigarette smoke. If weed is legalized it doesn't mean that you're going to see it smoked everywhere regardless of people around the smoker. I mean, even as it is, unless you live somewhere where weed is ACTUALLY illegal, and not just we'll take it away from you if you have less than a gram on you and call it a day illegal, your chances of being exposed are pretty high.
Should peanut butter and fish be illegal, too? Eggs?
If its legal, people will be able to use it in public places i guess, and that could be bad for me.
0
Holoofyoistu wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
Holoofyoistu wrote...
Im kind of super allergic to anything in the hemp family... last thing i need is for literately the only thing that could kill me to be legal. sorry nick, but i cant support your 420 campaign.Well, it's not the only thing that could kill you. Perhaps from an illegal reaction.
Second, how does making it legal all of sudden mean it's going to find it's way into your body? They'll undoubtedly keep it so that the restrictions on it are even tighter than they are on cigarette smoke. If weed is legalized it doesn't mean that you're going to see it smoked everywhere regardless of people around the smoker. I mean, even as it is, unless you live somewhere where weed is ACTUALLY illegal, and not just we'll take it away from you if you have less than a gram on you and call it a day illegal, your chances of being exposed are pretty high.
Should peanut butter and fish be illegal, too? Eggs?
If its legal, people will be able to use it in public places i guess, and that could be bad for me.
I agree with ecchigaijin. 'Legal' does not mean people can use it in public places. For instance, in Britain, it is legal to give children over 5 alcohol on private property, but it's illegal to give anyone under 16 alcohol in a public place. Given some people are allergic to hemp, then it would be logical for the government to have similar rules on where you can smoke marijuana, if they were to legalize it.
And of course, people have the right to stop people smoking in a place they own. So no doubt there will still be many public facilities will not allow you to smoke marijuana on/in their property, just as there are places which will not allow you to smoke cigarettes.
0
Holoofyoistu wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
Holoofyoistu wrote...
Im kind of super allergic to anything in the hemp family... last thing i need is for literately the only thing that could kill me to be legal. sorry nick, but i cant support your 420 campaign.Well, it's not the only thing that could kill you. Perhaps from an illegal reaction.
Second, how does making it legal all of sudden mean it's going to find it's way into your body? They'll undoubtedly keep it so that the restrictions on it are even tighter than they are on cigarette smoke. If weed is legalized it doesn't mean that you're going to see it smoked everywhere regardless of people around the smoker. I mean, even as it is, unless you live somewhere where weed is ACTUALLY illegal, and not just we'll take it away from you if you have less than a gram on you and call it a day illegal, your chances of being exposed are pretty high.
Should peanut butter and fish be illegal, too? Eggs?
If its legal, people will be able to use it in public places i guess, and that could be bad for me.
It being legalized and it being smoked wherever, whenever are entirely different things. Smoking cigarettes isn't illegal, but where and when you can smoke are dictated, same as alcohol. Also, unless you're blind and lack a sense of smell, you're not going to not notice that marijuana exists until you're head deep in a cloud of smoke.
I can't even justify your point, because to do so would be to indicated that, as I said, eggs and peanut butter and fish (which people have severe allergies to) should not be legal. All three also give off a smell which can affect people who have allergies, although it will not be as severe as if they had ingested it. Same as yours. So if you see someone with something that could be a joint, keep your distance.
0
As if...
When there is recession there is depression and where there is depression there are disorders, sometimes deaths, most of time some cost for society.
Not sure taxes would solve anything, since it has never prevent people to begin to smoke tobacco nor to drink alcohol. Not even to buy by import.
You wouldn't gain more money, just the same but from fewer people, or people would turn toward illegal providers with no taxes.
When there is recession there is depression and where there is depression there are disorders, sometimes deaths, most of time some cost for society.
Not sure taxes would solve anything, since it has never prevent people to begin to smoke tobacco nor to drink alcohol. Not even to buy by import.
You wouldn't gain more money, just the same but from fewer people, or people would turn toward illegal providers with no taxes.
0
Fligger wrote...
As if...When there is recession there is depression and where there is depression there are disorders, sometimes deaths, most of time some cost for society.
Not sure taxes would solve anything, since it has never prevent people to begin to smoke tobacco nor to drink alcohol. Not even to buy by import.
You wouldn't gain more money, just the same but from fewer people, or people would turn toward illegal providers with no taxes.
True, but what if, rather than tax it, the government were take total control over it's production? As in, it would illegal for anyone else to make it.
If the government price it reasonably, then illegal dealers won't be able to get many buyers if they price it too high, and won't get much profit if they price it too low.
That way, all profits from its sale go to the government, without extortionate tax rates.
0
I'm not sure I can just support blind legalization.... but I think we should move it out of schedule 1 into a status where human testing is actually legal. and then we SHOULD do human testing with volunteers. as the law stands right now it's against federal law to test marijuana on humans. but it IS legal in the US at least, to test things like Coke or Meth and other amphetamines on humans......
0
In my opinion, pot should be legal but a couple of rules and regulations must be erected to make sure people don't abuse it.
Example of some reasonable rules:
-Marijuana shouldn't be consumed by a minor?
-Marijuana only can be planted and distributed by licensed distributors and farmers?
-There is probably a lot more but this is only a few little suggestions...
Example of some reasonable rules:
-Marijuana shouldn't be consumed by a minor?
-Marijuana only can be planted and distributed by licensed distributors and farmers?
-There is probably a lot more but this is only a few little suggestions...
1
OsamaBeenLagging wrote...
In my opinion, pot should be legal but a couple of rules and regulations must be erected to make sure people don't abuse it. Example of some reasonable rules:
-Marijuana shouldn't be consumed by a minor?
-Marijuana only can be planted and distributed by licensed distributors and farmers?
-There is probably a lot more but this is only a few little suggestions...
Judging by that part I highlighted, I would say you don't know what legalization implies... Like a Dutch friend of mine once put it: What people don't seem to get is that legalizing drugs means they will be controlled by the government as opposed to being controlled by gangsters.
In other words, legalizing pot means making rules. Saying it should be legal but with rules is like saying the coke you order at McDonald's should be liquid.
0
nateriver10 wrote...
OsamaBeenLagging wrote...
In my opinion, pot should be legal but a couple of rules and regulations must be erected to make sure people don't abuse it. Example of some reasonable rules:
-Marijuana shouldn't be consumed by a minor?
-Marijuana only can be planted and distributed by licensed distributors and farmers?
-There is probably a lot more but this is only a few little suggestions...
Judging by that part I highlighted, I would say you don't know what legalization implies... Like a Dutch friend of mine once put it: What people don't seem to get is that legalizing drugs means they will be controlled by the government as opposed to being controlled by gangsters.
In other words, legalizing pot means making rules. Saying it should be legal but with rules is like saying the coke you order at McDonald's should be liquid.
I understand what legalizing pot. But what I was trying to point out what type of rules that should be set.
Osama loves weed. :)
0
OsamaBeenLagging wrote...
I understand what legalizing pot. But what I was trying to point out what type of rules that should be set. Osama loves weed. :)
In that case you shouldn't have phrased it the way you did. I'll take a Grammar Nazi stamp if you have one but if, the way your comment is structured, it implies what I said it implied.
0
nateriver10 wrote...
OsamaBeenLagging wrote...
I understand what legalizing pot. But what I was trying to point out what type of rules that should be set. Osama loves weed. :)
In that case you shouldn't have phrased it the way you did. I'll take a Grammar Nazi stamp if you have one but if, the way your comment is structured, it implies what I said it implied.
Don't worry too much about Nate's "grammatical structure" comments, Osama. They can come out for any reason. Like if he doesn't understand there are multiple meanings of the term "committed".
0
ecchigaijin wrote...
nateriver10 wrote...
OsamaBeenLagging wrote...
I understand what legalizing pot. But what I was trying to point out what type of rules that should be set. Osama loves weed. :)
In that case you shouldn't have phrased it the way you did. I'll take a Grammar Nazi stamp if you have one but if, the way your comment is structured, it implies what I said it implied.
Don't worry too much about Nate's "grammatical structure" comments, Osama. They can come out for any reason. Like if he doesn't understand there are multiple meanings of the term "committed".
And you don't understand that if there are multiple meanings to a word then you have to make it absolutely clear which meaning you want so that the other person pefectly understands you. But I'm fairly sure you are not looking to be understood as I highly doubt you are capable of understanding yourself.
And listen, good sir, if you were addressing Osama you would have done a better job quoting his comment so I wouldn't be the one to get notified.
0
nateriver10 wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
nateriver10 wrote...
OsamaBeenLagging wrote...
I understand what legalizing pot. But what I was trying to point out what type of rules that should be set. Osama loves weed. :)
In that case you shouldn't have phrased it the way you did. I'll take a Grammar Nazi stamp if you have one but if, the way your comment is structured, it implies what I said it implied.
Don't worry too much about Nate's "grammatical structure" comments, Osama. They can come out for any reason. Like if he doesn't understand there are multiple meanings of the term "committed".
And you don't understand that if there are multiple meanings to a word then you have to make it absolutely clear which meaning you want so that the other person pefectly understands you.
Perfectly. And no. If you go about judging other people on their English, it pretty much removes all need for me to explain the meaning of every word with more than one meaning, because surely someone without a full grasp of a language wouldn't go about telling other people they're doing it wrong. Would they?