|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 14, 2011 13:42:19 GMT -8
Is it tougher for a teenager to get pot (a dealer who would deal to anyone) or alcohol (a store the is required to card you by law)? And what makes you think there would be less social stigma attached to drugs? Just look at how cigarettes and smoker are treated, all done without having to make it illegal. It's taken 30 years or more of a concerted effort and LAWS to make smoking a socially unacceptable thing to do. What you propose is that society openly sanction an activity and then turn around and say "but we don't want you to do it". Seriously, is that a smart way to go about it? It's without a doubt easier to get their hands on booze. Often times, they can simply steal it from their parents but notice I haven't mentioned weed in any of my arguments. Not because I think it's good but because it seems to be becoming more acceptable and the laws are changing to reflect this reality. You cannot say the same for the others. Maybe you should start a "Medical Meth" campaign and claim it cures Lazy Eye or how it's an aid in the war against obesity or how the founding fathers cooked in their barns or some such other nonsense. It's working for the potheads. All I'm saying is the federal government needs to get out of it. Leave it up to the states. Can we at least agree to that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2011 14:03:19 GMT -8
I'm not proposing anything of the sort. Being a fatass is perfectly legal now, although I suspect if the Nanny Staters stay in power much longer, it won't be. my argument all along is that it's is impractical and radical to make something legal suddenly illegal and just flat out stupid to make something illegal suddenly legal, especially if that something is known to be poisonous and uniformly bad . and once again; I have not mentioned weed. See my post above. I don't think it should be suddenly legal. I do think the war on drugs should end and the states should decide how to deal with it. If they feel that legalizing a certain drug is better than the alternative shouldn't they be allowed to? No. All of these drugs are bad, bad for the individual and bad for society. There is no compelling reason to make them legal at any level. It seems to me that you agree that they are bad but you have a problem with the way we enforce the laws against them. I can get with that. there is almost always a better way to approach a problem but legalization isn't it. Besides, if the "states rights" argument is the way you want to go, you would have to put up with some fairly Draconian laws in certain states. What if for instance Florida decides to legalize small quantities and Alabama decides to make the possession of even trace amounts punishable by life in prison and Kentucky decides to make it death penalty? Then the Feds are back in the picture, are they not? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 15, 2011 18:20:59 GMT -8
I don't think it should be suddenly legal. I do think the war on drugs should end and the states should decide how to deal with it. If they feel that legalizing a certain drug is better than the alternative shouldn't they be allowed to? No. All of these drugs are bad, bad for the individual and bad for society. I'm sorry, but as usual you are full of crap. Let me guess- during your time at SDSU you "experimented" with pot a few times. But because Reagan declared the War on Drugs and because you bought into it, you put down. Or you may have put down because pot and academics are like water and oil, which is the reason I put down - pot and academics do not complement each other. My point is this - if you smoke you need to understand that it will interfere with your ability to think. Given that, you don't smoke during the day. I damn near flunked out of JC because I forgot that simple fact. But again, if someone smokes at night just before they go to bed instead of slugging down vast amounts of alcohol, which is worse? If you want to join the Womens' Christen Temperance Movement feel free to do so but please don't assume you get to lecture us on pot if you ever have even so much as a beer. =Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2011 19:48:44 GMT -8
No. All of these drugs are bad, bad for the individual and bad for society. I'm sorry, but as usual you are full of crap. Let me guess- during your time at SDSU you "experimented" with pot a few times. But because Reagan declared the War on Drugs and because you bought into it, you put down. Or you may have put down because pot and academics are like water and oil, which is the reason I put down - pot and academics do not complement each other. My point is this - if you smoke you need to understand that it will interfere with your ability to think. Given that, you don't smoke during the day. I damn near flunked out of JC because I forgot that simple fact. But again, if someone smokes at night just before they go to bed instead of slugging down vast amounts of alcohol, which is worse? If you want to join the Womens' Christen Temperance Movement feel free to do so but please don't assume you get to lecture us on pot if you ever have even so much as a beer. =Bob Pot does make you stupid but re-read the thread. I specifically left pot out of the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 16, 2011 6:30:34 GMT -8
I don't think it should be suddenly legal. I do think the war on drugs should end and the states should decide how to deal with it. If they feel that legalizing a certain drug is better than the alternative shouldn't they be allowed to? No. All of these drugs are bad, bad for the individual and bad for society. There is no compelling reason to make them legal at any level. It seems to me that you agree that they are bad but you have a problem with the way we enforce the laws against them. I can get with that. there is almost always a better way to approach a problem but legalization isn't it. Besides, if the "states rights" argument is the way you want to go, you would have to put up with some fairly Draconian laws in certain states. What if for instance Florida decides to legalize small quantities and Alabama decides to make the possession of even trace amounts punishable by life in prison and Kentucky decides to make it death penalty? Then the Feds are back in the picture, are they not? I used to feel pretty much like that. Now I would like to try taking the profit out of illegal drugs. Maybe end the war on drugs, tax Marijuana, and then make those Draconian laws for use of hard drugs at any time and being under the influence of even pot when driving. Might work and might not. If druggies can't control themselves and die, so what? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 16, 2011 6:33:57 GMT -8
I'm sorry, but as usual you are full of crap. Let me guess- during your time at SDSU you "experimented" with pot a few times. But because Reagan declared the War on Drugs and because you bought into it, you put down. Or you may have put down because pot and academics are like water and oil, which is the reason I put down - pot and academics do not complement each other. My point is this - if you smoke you need to understand that it will interfere with your ability to think. Given that, you don't smoke during the day. I damn near flunked out of JC because I forgot that simple fact. But again, if someone smokes at night just before they go to bed instead of slugging down vast amounts of alcohol, which is worse? If you want to join the Womens' Christen Temperance Movement feel free to do so but please don't assume you get to lecture us on pot if you ever have even so much as a beer. =Bob Pot does make you stupid but re-read the thread. I specifically left pot out of the discussion. Got to laugh at that one. Some folks got so fried that they don't even know they are handicapped. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on Jul 16, 2011 12:57:09 GMT -8
I don't think it should be suddenly legal. I do think the war on drugs should end and the states should decide how to deal with it. If they feel that legalizing a certain drug is better than the alternative shouldn't they be allowed to? No. All of these drugs are bad, bad for the individual and bad for society. There is no compelling reason to make them legal at any level. It seems to me that you agree that they are bad but you have a problem with the way we enforce the laws against them. I can get with that. there is almost always a better way to approach a problem but legalization isn't it. Besides, if the "states rights" argument is the way you want to go, you would have to put up with some fairly Draconian laws in certain states. What if for instance Florida decides to legalize small quantities and Alabama decides to make the possession of even trace amounts punishable by life in prison and Kentucky decides to make it death penalty? Then the Feds are back in the picture, are they not? I don't think it's bad necessarily. It has positive and negative side effects. If a person thinks the positive outweighs the negatives shouldn't they have the right to make that decision? Personally I would do any of it, in fact I've never smoked a cig, never done pot or any other illegal drug, I've only drank alcohol a few times to try it out. Even when it comes to pain killers I only took it when the pain was unbearable, I was given 10 and only ended up using half of them. But just because I wouldn't do it personally doesn't mean I don't think someone else shouldn't have the option to make the decision for themselves. As far as state rights, what you're proposing is pretty radical, but if the people of that state want that then it's up to them. It'd be a waste of tax dollars, but it'd be their tax dollars. Maybe it'd be effective and others would adopt or they would see Florida was more effective and they would adopt that. The states are able to punish other crimes without the Federal Government getting involved, why wouldn't they be able to figure out this issue? |
|
