Originally posted by popinjay (and God knows, you know he's been looking for info)
Marijuana is considerably less dangerous, proven by statistics countless times, than either alcohol, cigarettes or even common household aspirin.
I have plenty of information to post, but if you read above, I said I am done. You are not debaters, you are bickering cry babies who would simply skew the information with your tears.
Now, just for fun, here is a funny little news article just released yesterday regarding the link of marijuana to "aggressive" testicular cancer. Seems you have a 70% increased risk of getting your nuts cut off than I do. Enjoy.
No one here is arguing that it is completely safe, we're just saying that it's no more dangerous than completely legal recreational substances. So unless you are for making alcohol, nicotine, cough syrup, caffeine, etc. illegal also, you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate.
Originally posted by Fishermage So if something causes cancer it should be illegal?
No, no. It was simply a counter to his point that marijuana is completely harmless.
I think they are simply misunderstanding my perspective. First, and foremost, the OP's argument was complete idiocy. Legalization would not save the current economic "crisis" (which, if you remember the early 80's, this is just a scratch compared to then). That was his basis for legalization. I'm with you on liberty and self ownership, but I am against the idiot's guide to legalization.
They want it to run free without regulation - they believe it will not cause harm - that marijuana is fool proof. They can believe me, or not, but I have seen first hand accounts of related deaths, injuries and high costs associated with the use. It's not a matter of legalization, it's a matter of common sense. They believe it is not mind altering, that oh, you can drive and your judgment will not be affected. Do what they will at home, but leave it at home.
Why do you have to try to ruin my day and btw doctors said once upon a time that eggs were bad for you and milk and all kinds of stuff. Guess what I eat eggs and drink only whole milk and I am in good shape. So there...nyah!
Originally posted by Sabiancym So unless you are for making alcohol, nicotine, cough syrup, caffeine, etc. illegal also, you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate.
Go through my posts in this thread. Please point to one example of where I stated it should stay illegal. My argument has been against those who have said it is harmless. Show me a plan that would be successful in regulating the industry. Allow it in homes - fine, I don't care, but understand the smoke is an unnatural addition to the air which I breathe.
It's like cigarette smoke - I do not wish to walk through a cloud of smoke to get to my destination. I do not wish to be inconvenienced by your addiction. As people have previously found out before, I will either rip it out of your hand, douse you with my water bottle, or rip a fire extinguisher off the wall and spray you down.
Originally posted by Fishermage So if something causes cancer it should be illegal?
No, no. It was simply a counter to his point that marijuana is completely harmless.
I think they are simply misunderstanding my perspective. First, and foremost, the OP's argument was complete idiocy. Legalization would not save the current economic "crisis" (which, if you remember the early 80's, this is just a scratch compared to then). That was his basis for legalization. I'm with you on liberty and self ownership, but I am against the idiot's guide to legalization.
They want it to run free without regulation - they believe it will not cause harm - that marijuana is fool proof. They can believe me, or not, but I have seen first hand accounts of related deaths, injuries and high costs associated with the use. It's not a matter of legalization, it's a matter of common sense. They believe it is not mind altering, that oh, you can drive and your judgment will not be affected. Do what they will at home, but leave it at home.
My post was an exaggeration, an attention grabber. Of course I did not think legalizing it would fix the entire economy, but it could definately be part of the solution, if only a small block of it. It's 9 billion dollars we would instantly save, and who knows how much we could make in taxes. Go look at the stimulus bill and see how many programs are in there under 9 billion dollars.
And why do you keep saying they? You don't even read most of the posts, you just throw it up to "Oh, it's just worthless stoners with no jobs."
I believe it does cause harm, is mind altering and could possibly cause death if used irresponsibly, but so do guns, alcohol, nicotine, etc. Do you really think most of us are suggesting legalizing it without restrictions? Cmon now.
You're right, it is about common sense, use yours and see the hypocrisy in the drug war.
Why do you have to try to ruin my day and btw doctors said once upon a time that eggs were bad for you and milk and all kinds of stuff. Guess what I eat eggs and drink only whole milk and I am in good shape. So there...nyah!
Well, they can be, but unless you are buying organic milk, you are drinking pus that forms in the cows udder from the use of growth hormones. Yum!
Why do you have to try to ruin my day and btw doctors said once upon a time that eggs were bad for you and milk and all kinds of stuff. Guess what I eat eggs and drink only whole milk and I am in good shape. So there...nyah!
Well, they can be, but unless you are buying organic milk, you are drinking pus that forms in the cows udder from the use of growth hormones. Yum!
Originally posted by Fishermage So if something causes cancer it should be illegal?
No, no. It was simply a counter to his point that marijuana is completely harmless.
I think they are simply misunderstanding my perspective. First, and foremost, the OP's argument was complete idiocy. Legalization would not save the current economic "crisis" (which, if you remember the early 80's, this is just a scratch compared to then). That was his basis for legalization. I'm with you on liberty and self ownership, but I am against the idiot's guide to legalization.
They want it to run free without regulation - they believe it will not cause harm - that marijuana is fool proof. They can believe me, or not, but I have seen first hand accounts of related deaths, injuries and high costs associated with the use. It's not a matter of legalization, it's a matter of common sense. They believe it is not mind altering, that oh, you can drive and your judgment will not be affected. Do what they will at home, but leave it at home.
Ahhhh okay, Sorry I jumped the gun on ya. i was surprised since you are usually so reaosnable! Thanks
I agree it is potentially harmful -- and it definitely impairs you.
Originally posted by Sabiancym My post was an exaggeration, an attention grabber. Of course I did not think legalizing it would fix the entire economy, but it could definately be part of the solution, if only a small block of it. It's 9 billion dollars we would instantly save, and who knows how much we could make in taxes. Go look at the stimulus bill and see how many programs are in there under 9 billion dollars. And why do you keep saying they? You don't even read most of the posts, you just throw it up to "Oh, it's just worthless stoners with no jobs." I believe it does cause harm, is mind altering and could possibly cause death if used irresponsibly, but so do guns, alcohol, nicotine, etc. Do you really think most of us are suggesting legalizing it without restrictions? Cmon now. You're right, it is about common sense, use yours and see the hypocrisy in the drug war.
The stimulus bill is a complete sham, it will not fix anything. Using that as a bridge of support for nine billion dollar programs won't fly.Just ask this one question - if it does create jobs, what happens when the funding runs out? Are we to pass another tax-payer paid "stimulus" to resupply the funds to continue the funded employees so they will not be out of work yet again?
And by "they", I mean everyone in this thread who has posted who seems to think there are no harmful effects.
And yes, I do think, as not stated otherwise, you would wish for it to go unregulated in the sense you could smoke it anywhere at anytime. Remember, there are open container laws for alcohol and public intoxication laws as well. It would be the same for weed.
Why do you have to try to ruin my day and btw doctors said once upon a time that eggs were bad for you and milk and all kinds of stuff. Guess what I eat eggs and drink only whole milk and I am in good shape. So there...nyah!
Well, they can be, but unless you are buying organic milk, you are drinking pus that forms in the cows udder from the use of growth hormones. Yum!
Everything causes cancer these days.. who cares... and if it does cause cancer its probably illegal to use in the state of california, but marijuana is legal, so who knows.
If you toke, keep token, if not god bless, do you. There are other ways people get off. With or without cancer. Why are you people arguing over this. Seriously.
Such a stupid argument. I like smokin reefer. I also like people who dont like smokin reefer. I'll take anyone who appeals to my liking.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
Originally posted by Sabiancym My post was an exaggeration, an attention grabber. Of course I did not think legalizing it would fix the entire economy, but it could definately be part of the solution, if only a small block of it. It's 9 billion dollars we would instantly save, and who knows how much we could make in taxes. Go look at the stimulus bill and see how many programs are in there under 9 billion dollars. And why do you keep saying they? You don't even read most of the posts, you just throw it up to "Oh, it's just worthless stoners with no jobs." I believe it does cause harm, is mind altering and could possibly cause death if used irresponsibly, but so do guns, alcohol, nicotine, etc. Do you really think most of us are suggesting legalizing it without restrictions? Cmon now. You're right, it is about common sense, use yours and see the hypocrisy in the drug war.
The stimulus bill is a complete sham, it will not fix anything. Using that as a bridge of support for nine billion dollar programs won't fly.Just ask this one question - if it does create jobs, what happens when the funding runs out? Are we to pass another tax-payer paid "stimulus" to resupply the funds to continue the funded employees so they will not be out of work yet again?
And by "they", I mean everyone in this thread who has posted who seems to think there are no harmful effects.
And yes, I do think, as not stated otherwise, you would wish for it to go unregulated in the sense you could smoke it anywhere at anytime. Remember, there are open container laws for alcohol and public intoxication laws as well. It would be the same for weed.
I don't want to argue the stimulus bill here.
And there you go assuming again. I don't want marijuana to be smoked in public. I would want it to be handled in the same way alcohol is. Stop pinning me as a 17 year old high school drop out sitting in a basement smoking weed all day. I work 40 hours a week, pay my bills and taxes just like you.
Keep telling yourself that I want it to be unregulated and unrestricted. The rest of the people reading this thread will see you as a .
I like smokin reefer. I also like people who dont like smokin reefer. I'll take anyone who appeals to my liking.
As I said, do what you like, but don't invade my airspace and we will be fine.
I'm going to parallel this with smokers. When laws in Oklahoma were passed making a required separation of a smoking area, smokers went nuts and said it was unconstitutional - they should smoke when and where they please.
What of us non-smokers? Why is it a smoker's constitutional right to smoke anywhere they please, but not at least a decency to the non-smoker's desire for clean air? I hate cigarette smoke, and am just disgusted at the smell of weed - it smells like shit,literally, and, no offense, but you smokers do too.
I like smokin reefer. I also like people who dont like smokin reefer. I'll take anyone who appeals to my liking.
As I said, do what you like, but don't invade my airspace and we will be fine.
I'm going to parallel this with smokers. When laws in Oklahoma were passed making a required separation of a smoking area, smokers went nuts and said it was unconstitutional - they should smoke when and where they please.
What of us non-smokers? Why is it a smoker's constitutional right to smoke anywhere they please, but not at least a decency to the non-smoker's desire for clean air? I hate cigarette smoke, and am just disgusted at the smell of weed - it smells like shit,literally, and, no offense, but you smokers do too.
Well, the question really was one of property rights, If you own your property, it is not up to the government to usurp your ownership of that property by claiming ownership of the air within that property.
Your argument can go towards all pollution. If smoking is to be banned, so is all manufacturing, all cars etc. There are better ways to deal with these issues than Edict.
Originally posted by Sabiancym And there you go assuming again. I don't want marijuana to be smoked in public. I would want it to be handled in the same way alcohol is. Stop pinning me as a 17 year old high school drop out sitting in a basement smoking weed all day. I work 40 hours a week, pay my bills and taxes just like you.
As I said, if not stated otherwise, but, you stated your point - enough said.
And, how am I pinning you as a 17 year old high school drop out? That's a pretty large stereotype.
I like smokin reefer. I also like people who dont like smokin reefer. I'll take anyone who appeals to my liking.
As I said, do what you like, but don't invade my airspace and we will be fine.
I'm going to parallel this with smokers. When laws in Oklahoma were passed making a required separation of a smoking area, smokers went nuts and said it was unconstitutional - they should smoke when and where they please.
What of us non-smokers? Why is it a smoker's constitutional right to smoke anywhere they please, but not at least a decency to the non-smoker's desire for clean air? I hate cigarette smoke, and am just disgusted at the smell of weed - it smells like shit,literally, and, no offense, but you smokers do too.
Well, the question really was one of property rights, If you own your property, it is not up to the government to usurp your ownership of that property by claiming ownership of the air within that property.
Your argument can go towards all pollution. If smoking is to be banned, so is all manufacturing, all cars etc. There are better ways to deal with these issues than Edict.
I'll give an example of what I am referring to.
I work at a college. State law limits smoking near the building at 25 feet. There are three entrances I could choose, 2 that are about 1/4 mile from my office, or one that is 50 feet. Since I have to rush in after dropping my kids off at school I choose the one that is 50 feet from my office.
The entrance path is a narrow, enclosed (about 8 feet) path about 30 feet long. Instead of the smokers walking an additional 10-15 feet away from the path, they stay right at the entrance smoking. So, I must suffer every morning through a cloud of smoke to get to my office in time, or park a 1/4 and be late.
Since the natural chemical composition of air is mostly N2 and O2, and that is what I wish to breathe, the smokers are the ones who should be inconvenienced and walked the extra distance. Quite logical, I believe.
I hate cigarette smoke, and am just disgusted at the smell of weed - it smells like shit,literally, and, no offense, but you smokers do too.
I smoke cigarettes as well, I dont like it when my house smells of cigarette smoke, which is why i go outside. but people, i can care less. Marijuana.... does not smell like shit.. shit..smells like shit. marijuana smells like skunk. ever been driving in a wooded area, and run over some skunk road kill ... thats the smell of weed. I enjoy it. The smell of the bud before it burns is actually a quite nice smell.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
I like smokin reefer. I also like people who dont like smokin reefer. I'll take anyone who appeals to my liking.
As I said, do what you like, but don't invade my airspace and we will be fine.
I'm going to parallel this with smokers. When laws in Oklahoma were passed making a required separation of a smoking area, smokers went nuts and said it was unconstitutional - they should smoke when and where they please.
What of us non-smokers? Why is it a smoker's constitutional right to smoke anywhere they please, but not at least a decency to the non-smoker's desire for clean air? I hate cigarette smoke, and am just disgusted at the smell of weed - it smells like shit,literally, and, no offense, but you smokers do too.
Well, the question really was one of property rights, If you own your property, it is not up to the government to usurp your ownership of that property by claiming ownership of the air within that property.
Your argument can go towards all pollution. If smoking is to be banned, so is all manufacturing, all cars etc. There are better ways to deal with these issues than Edict.
I'll give an example of what I am referring to.
I work at a college. State law limits smoking near the building at 25 feet. There are three entrances I could choose, 2 that are about 1/4 mile from my office, or one that is 50 feet. Since I have to rush in after dropping my kids off at school I choose the one that is 50 feet from my office.
The entrance path is a narrow, enclosed (about 8 feet) path about 30 feet long. Instead of the smokers walking an additional 10-15 feet away from the path, they stay right at the entrance smoking. So, I must suffer every morning through a cloud of smoke to get to my office in time, or park a 1/4 and be late.
Since the natural chemical composition of air is mostly N2 and O2, and that is what I wish to breathe, the smokers are the ones who should be inconvenienced and walked the extra distance. Quite logical, I believe.
Damn, you're just a hater... nuff said.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
I like smokin reefer. I also like people who dont like smokin reefer. I'll take anyone who appeals to my liking.
As I said, do what you like, but don't invade my airspace and we will be fine.
I'm going to parallel this with smokers. When laws in Oklahoma were passed making a required separation of a smoking area, smokers went nuts and said it was unconstitutional - they should smoke when and where they please.
What of us non-smokers? Why is it a smoker's constitutional right to smoke anywhere they please, but not at least a decency to the non-smoker's desire for clean air? I hate cigarette smoke, and am just disgusted at the smell of weed - it smells like shit,literally, and, no offense, but you smokers do too.
Well, the question really was one of property rights, If you own your property, it is not up to the government to usurp your ownership of that property by claiming ownership of the air within that property.
Your argument can go towards all pollution. If smoking is to be banned, so is all manufacturing, all cars etc. There are better ways to deal with these issues than Edict.
I'll give an example of what I am referring to.
I work at a college. State law limits smoking near the building at 25 feet. There are three entrances I could choose, 2 that are about 1/4 mile from my office, or one that is 50 feet. Since I have to rush in after dropping my kids off at school I choose the one that is 50 feet from my office.
The entrance path is a narrow, enclosed (about 8 feet) path about 30 feet long. Instead of the smokers walking an additional 10-15 feet away from the path, they stay right at the entrance smoking. So, I must suffer every morning through a cloud of smoke to get to my office in time, or park a 1/4 and be late.
Since the natural chemical composition of air is mostly N2 and O2, and that is what I wish to breathe, the smokers are the ones who should be inconvenienced and walked the extra distance. Quite logical, I believe.
If it is a private college the government is usurping property rights.
It is only logical if you believe the government owns all our land and all our air, even the air over private property.
If it is a socialist school (I believe the socialist Euphemism is "State School" or "Community College" or "Public" school), that is another issue entirely.
You are however making an excellent argument for people being polite to each other, which has been destroyed mostly by our socialist society which wants to make everything a law, and nothing a matter of etiquette. Forced politeness however is tyranny.
Originally posted by Fishermage If it is a private college the government is usurping property rights. It is only logical if you believe the government owns all our land and all our air, even the air over private property. If it is a socialist school (I believe the socialist Euphemism is "State School" or "Community College" or "Public" school), that is another issue entirely. You are however making an excellent argument for people being polite to each other, which has been destroyed mostly by our socialist society which wants to make everything a law, and nothing a matter of etiquette. Forced politeness however is tyranny.
It is, unfortunately, a state school. And, no, I don't believe they own the air above our homes. That was actually one of my more interesting lectures in Constitutional law regarding individuals ownership of property extending above one's home to infinity. However, the government bent that rule when flight was achieved. Expansion of the definition of interstate commerce as a priority over individual property was the result- sort of a quasi eminent domain policy.
Originally posted by hvc801 Damn, you're just a hater... nuff said.
So, I am a "hater" for wanting to breathe clean air and expecting politeness from inconsiderate people?
No... You're a hater because you cry like a baby about it. Why hate so much, obviously you're only walking inside a building, which what... takes 1.4 seconds? Who cares... People smoke, atleast its outside and not inside.. Be greatfull they made it that ways.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
Originally posted by Fishermage If it is a private college the government is usurping property rights. It is only logical if you believe the government owns all our land and all our air, even the air over private property. If it is a socialist school (I believe the socialist Euphemism is "State School" or "Community College" or "Public" school), that is another issue entirely. You are however making an excellent argument for people being polite to each other, which has been destroyed mostly by our socialist society which wants to make everything a law, and nothing a matter of etiquette. Forced politeness however is tyranny.
It is, unfortunately, a state school. And, no, I don't believe they own the air above our homes. That was actually one of my more interesting lectures in Constitutional law regarding individuals ownership of property extending above one's home to infinity. However, the government bent that rule when flight was achieved. Expansion of the definition of interstate commerce as a priority over individual property was the result- sort of a quasi eminent domain policy.
Ah, I see. The abuse of the interstate commerce clause has cost us almost every freedom we hold dear.
Comments
I have plenty of information to post, but if you read above, I said I am done. You are not debaters, you are bickering cry babies who would simply skew the information with your tears.
Now, just for fun, here is a funny little news article just released yesterday regarding the link of marijuana to "aggressive" testicular cancer. Seems you have a 70% increased risk of getting your nuts cut off than I do. Enjoy.
news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20090209/hl_hsn/marijuanalinkedtoaggressivetesticularcancer
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29099116/
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7869709.stm
www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx
www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/138372.php
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/09/marijuana-may-raise-testi_n_165192.html
www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE5181BP20090209
www.news-medical.net/
No one here is arguing that it is completely safe, we're just saying that it's no more dangerous than completely legal recreational substances. So unless you are for making alcohol, nicotine, cough syrup, caffeine, etc. illegal also, you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate.
The Official God FAQ
Coolness, no worries for me then! I don't have nuts! LMAO!
No, no. It was simply a counter to his point that marijuana is completely harmless.
I think they are simply misunderstanding my perspective. First, and foremost, the OP's argument was complete idiocy. Legalization would not save the current economic "crisis" (which, if you remember the early 80's, this is just a scratch compared to then). That was his basis for legalization. I'm with you on liberty and self ownership, but I am against the idiot's guide to legalization.
They want it to run free without regulation - they believe it will not cause harm - that marijuana is fool proof. They can believe me, or not, but I have seen first hand accounts of related deaths, injuries and high costs associated with the use. It's not a matter of legalization, it's a matter of common sense. They believe it is not mind altering, that oh, you can drive and your judgment will not be affected. Do what they will at home, but leave it at home.
Coolness, no worries for me then! I don't have nuts! LMAO!
Marijuana and ovarian cysts/cancer.
aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/161/6/520
Coolness, no worries for me then! I don't have nuts! LMAO!
Marijuana and ovarian cysts/cancer.
aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/161/6/520
Go through my posts in this thread. Please point to one example of where I stated it should stay illegal. My argument has been against those who have said it is harmless. Show me a plan that would be successful in regulating the industry. Allow it in homes - fine, I don't care, but understand the smoke is an unnatural addition to the air which I breathe.
It's like cigarette smoke - I do not wish to walk through a cloud of smoke to get to my destination. I do not wish to be inconvenienced by your addiction. As people have previously found out before, I will either rip it out of your hand, douse you with my water bottle, or rip a fire extinguisher off the wall and spray you down.
No, no. It was simply a counter to his point that marijuana is completely harmless.
I think they are simply misunderstanding my perspective. First, and foremost, the OP's argument was complete idiocy. Legalization would not save the current economic "crisis" (which, if you remember the early 80's, this is just a scratch compared to then). That was his basis for legalization. I'm with you on liberty and self ownership, but I am against the idiot's guide to legalization.
They want it to run free without regulation - they believe it will not cause harm - that marijuana is fool proof. They can believe me, or not, but I have seen first hand accounts of related deaths, injuries and high costs associated with the use. It's not a matter of legalization, it's a matter of common sense. They believe it is not mind altering, that oh, you can drive and your judgment will not be affected. Do what they will at home, but leave it at home.
My post was an exaggeration, an attention grabber. Of course I did not think legalizing it would fix the entire economy, but it could definately be part of the solution, if only a small block of it. It's 9 billion dollars we would instantly save, and who knows how much we could make in taxes. Go look at the stimulus bill and see how many programs are in there under 9 billion dollars.
And why do you keep saying they? You don't even read most of the posts, you just throw it up to "Oh, it's just worthless stoners with no jobs."
I believe it does cause harm, is mind altering and could possibly cause death if used irresponsibly, but so do guns, alcohol, nicotine, etc. Do you really think most of us are suggesting legalizing it without restrictions? Cmon now.
You're right, it is about common sense, use yours and see the hypocrisy in the drug war.
The Official God FAQ
Coolness, no worries for me then! I don't have nuts! LMAO!
Marijuana and ovarian cysts/cancer.
aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/161/6/520
Well, they can be, but unless you are buying organic milk, you are drinking pus that forms in the cows udder from the use of growth hormones. Yum!
Coolness, no worries for me then! I don't have nuts! LMAO!
Marijuana and ovarian cysts/cancer.
aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/161/6/520
Well, they can be, but unless you are buying organic milk, you are drinking pus that forms in the cows udder from the use of growth hormones. Yum!
Kinda of like bee barf huh? Yummy.
No, no. It was simply a counter to his point that marijuana is completely harmless.
I think they are simply misunderstanding my perspective. First, and foremost, the OP's argument was complete idiocy. Legalization would not save the current economic "crisis" (which, if you remember the early 80's, this is just a scratch compared to then). That was his basis for legalization. I'm with you on liberty and self ownership, but I am against the idiot's guide to legalization.
They want it to run free without regulation - they believe it will not cause harm - that marijuana is fool proof. They can believe me, or not, but I have seen first hand accounts of related deaths, injuries and high costs associated with the use. It's not a matter of legalization, it's a matter of common sense. They believe it is not mind altering, that oh, you can drive and your judgment will not be affected. Do what they will at home, but leave it at home.
Ahhhh okay, Sorry I jumped the gun on ya. i was surprised since you are usually so reaosnable! Thanks
I agree it is potentially harmful -- and it definitely impairs you.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The stimulus bill is a complete sham, it will not fix anything. Using that as a bridge of support for nine billion dollar programs won't fly.Just ask this one question - if it does create jobs, what happens when the funding runs out? Are we to pass another tax-payer paid "stimulus" to resupply the funds to continue the funded employees so they will not be out of work yet again?
And by "they", I mean everyone in this thread who has posted who seems to think there are no harmful effects.
And yes, I do think, as not stated otherwise, you would wish for it to go unregulated in the sense you could smoke it anywhere at anytime. Remember, there are open container laws for alcohol and public intoxication laws as well. It would be the same for weed.
Coolness, no worries for me then! I don't have nuts! LMAO!
Marijuana and ovarian cysts/cancer.
aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/161/6/520
Well, they can be, but unless you are buying organic milk, you are drinking pus that forms in the cows udder from the use of growth hormones. Yum!
Kinda of like bee barf huh? Yummy.
MMM, honey. Good stuff there.
Everything causes cancer these days.. who cares... and if it does cause cancer its probably illegal to use in the state of california, but marijuana is legal, so who knows.
If you toke, keep token, if not god bless, do you. There are other ways people get off. With or without cancer. Why are you people arguing over this. Seriously.
Such a stupid argument. I like smokin reefer. I also like people who dont like smokin reefer. I'll take anyone who appeals to my liking.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
The stimulus bill is a complete sham, it will not fix anything. Using that as a bridge of support for nine billion dollar programs won't fly.Just ask this one question - if it does create jobs, what happens when the funding runs out? Are we to pass another tax-payer paid "stimulus" to resupply the funds to continue the funded employees so they will not be out of work yet again?
And by "they", I mean everyone in this thread who has posted who seems to think there are no harmful effects.
And yes, I do think, as not stated otherwise, you would wish for it to go unregulated in the sense you could smoke it anywhere at anytime. Remember, there are open container laws for alcohol and public intoxication laws as well. It would be the same for weed.
I don't want to argue the stimulus bill here.
And there you go assuming again. I don't want marijuana to be smoked in public. I would want it to be handled in the same way alcohol is. Stop pinning me as a 17 year old high school drop out sitting in a basement smoking weed all day. I work 40 hours a week, pay my bills and taxes just like you.
Keep telling yourself that I want it to be unregulated and unrestricted. The rest of the people reading this thread will see you as a
.
The Official God FAQ
As I said, do what you like, but don't invade my airspace and we will be fine.
I'm going to parallel this with smokers. When laws in Oklahoma were passed making a required separation of a smoking area, smokers went nuts and said it was unconstitutional - they should smoke when and where they please.
What of us non-smokers? Why is it a smoker's constitutional right to smoke anywhere they please, but not at least a decency to the non-smoker's desire for clean air? I hate cigarette smoke, and am just disgusted at the smell of weed - it smells like shit,literally, and, no offense, but you smokers do too.
As I said, do what you like, but don't invade my airspace and we will be fine.
I'm going to parallel this with smokers. When laws in Oklahoma were passed making a required separation of a smoking area, smokers went nuts and said it was unconstitutional - they should smoke when and where they please.
What of us non-smokers? Why is it a smoker's constitutional right to smoke anywhere they please, but not at least a decency to the non-smoker's desire for clean air? I hate cigarette smoke, and am just disgusted at the smell of weed - it smells like shit,literally, and, no offense, but you smokers do too.
Well, the question really was one of property rights, If you own your property, it is not up to the government to usurp your ownership of that property by claiming ownership of the air within that property.
Your argument can go towards all pollution. If smoking is to be banned, so is all manufacturing, all cars etc. There are better ways to deal with these issues than Edict.
fishermage.blogspot.com
As I said, if not stated otherwise, but, you stated your point - enough said.
And, how am I pinning you as a 17 year old high school drop out? That's a pretty large stereotype.
As I said, do what you like, but don't invade my airspace and we will be fine.
I'm going to parallel this with smokers. When laws in Oklahoma were passed making a required separation of a smoking area, smokers went nuts and said it was unconstitutional - they should smoke when and where they please.
What of us non-smokers? Why is it a smoker's constitutional right to smoke anywhere they please, but not at least a decency to the non-smoker's desire for clean air? I hate cigarette smoke, and am just disgusted at the smell of weed - it smells like shit,literally, and, no offense, but you smokers do too.
Well, the question really was one of property rights, If you own your property, it is not up to the government to usurp your ownership of that property by claiming ownership of the air within that property.
Your argument can go towards all pollution. If smoking is to be banned, so is all manufacturing, all cars etc. There are better ways to deal with these issues than Edict.
I'll give an example of what I am referring to.
I work at a college. State law limits smoking near the building at 25 feet. There are three entrances I could choose, 2 that are about 1/4 mile from my office, or one that is 50 feet. Since I have to rush in after dropping my kids off at school I choose the one that is 50 feet from my office.
The entrance path is a narrow, enclosed (about 8 feet) path about 30 feet long. Instead of the smokers walking an additional 10-15 feet away from the path, they stay right at the entrance smoking. So, I must suffer every morning through a cloud of smoke to get to my office in time, or park a 1/4 and be late.
Since the natural chemical composition of air is mostly N2 and O2, and that is what I wish to breathe, the smokers are the ones who should be inconvenienced and walked the extra distance. Quite logical, I believe.
I hate cigarette smoke, and am just disgusted at the smell of weed - it smells like shit,literally, and, no offense, but you smokers do too.
I smoke cigarettes as well, I dont like it when my house smells of cigarette smoke, which is why i go outside. but people, i can care less. Marijuana.... does not smell like shit.. shit..smells like shit. marijuana smells like skunk. ever been driving in a wooded area, and run over some skunk road kill ... thats the smell of weed. I enjoy it. The smell of the bud before it burns is actually a quite nice smell.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
As I said, do what you like, but don't invade my airspace and we will be fine.
I'm going to parallel this with smokers. When laws in Oklahoma were passed making a required separation of a smoking area, smokers went nuts and said it was unconstitutional - they should smoke when and where they please.
What of us non-smokers? Why is it a smoker's constitutional right to smoke anywhere they please, but not at least a decency to the non-smoker's desire for clean air? I hate cigarette smoke, and am just disgusted at the smell of weed - it smells like shit,literally, and, no offense, but you smokers do too.
Well, the question really was one of property rights, If you own your property, it is not up to the government to usurp your ownership of that property by claiming ownership of the air within that property.
Your argument can go towards all pollution. If smoking is to be banned, so is all manufacturing, all cars etc. There are better ways to deal with these issues than Edict.
I'll give an example of what I am referring to.
I work at a college. State law limits smoking near the building at 25 feet. There are three entrances I could choose, 2 that are about 1/4 mile from my office, or one that is 50 feet. Since I have to rush in after dropping my kids off at school I choose the one that is 50 feet from my office.
The entrance path is a narrow, enclosed (about 8 feet) path about 30 feet long. Instead of the smokers walking an additional 10-15 feet away from the path, they stay right at the entrance smoking. So, I must suffer every morning through a cloud of smoke to get to my office in time, or park a 1/4 and be late.
Since the natural chemical composition of air is mostly N2 and O2, and that is what I wish to breathe, the smokers are the ones who should be inconvenienced and walked the extra distance. Quite logical, I believe.
Damn, you're just a hater... nuff said.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
As I said, do what you like, but don't invade my airspace and we will be fine.
I'm going to parallel this with smokers. When laws in Oklahoma were passed making a required separation of a smoking area, smokers went nuts and said it was unconstitutional - they should smoke when and where they please.
What of us non-smokers? Why is it a smoker's constitutional right to smoke anywhere they please, but not at least a decency to the non-smoker's desire for clean air? I hate cigarette smoke, and am just disgusted at the smell of weed - it smells like shit,literally, and, no offense, but you smokers do too.
Well, the question really was one of property rights, If you own your property, it is not up to the government to usurp your ownership of that property by claiming ownership of the air within that property.
Your argument can go towards all pollution. If smoking is to be banned, so is all manufacturing, all cars etc. There are better ways to deal with these issues than Edict.
I'll give an example of what I am referring to.
I work at a college. State law limits smoking near the building at 25 feet. There are three entrances I could choose, 2 that are about 1/4 mile from my office, or one that is 50 feet. Since I have to rush in after dropping my kids off at school I choose the one that is 50 feet from my office.
The entrance path is a narrow, enclosed (about 8 feet) path about 30 feet long. Instead of the smokers walking an additional 10-15 feet away from the path, they stay right at the entrance smoking. So, I must suffer every morning through a cloud of smoke to get to my office in time, or park a 1/4 and be late.
Since the natural chemical composition of air is mostly N2 and O2, and that is what I wish to breathe, the smokers are the ones who should be inconvenienced and walked the extra distance. Quite logical, I believe.
If it is a private college the government is usurping property rights.
It is only logical if you believe the government owns all our land and all our air, even the air over private property.
If it is a socialist school (I believe the socialist Euphemism is "State School" or "Community College" or "Public" school), that is another issue entirely.
You are however making an excellent argument for people being polite to each other, which has been destroyed mostly by our socialist society which wants to make everything a law, and nothing a matter of etiquette. Forced politeness however is tyranny.
fishermage.blogspot.com
It is, unfortunately, a state school. And, no, I don't believe they own the air above our homes. That was actually one of my more interesting lectures in Constitutional law regarding individuals ownership of property extending above one's home to infinity. However, the government bent that rule when flight was achieved. Expansion of the definition of interstate commerce as a priority over individual property was the result- sort of a quasi eminent domain policy.
So, I am a "hater" for wanting to breathe clean air and expecting politeness from inconsiderate people?
So, I am a "hater" for wanting to breathe clean air and expecting politeness from inconsiderate people?
No... You're a hater because you cry like a baby about it. Why hate so much, obviously you're only walking inside a building, which what... takes 1.4 seconds? Who cares... People smoke, atleast its outside and not inside.. Be greatfull they made it that ways.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
It is, unfortunately, a state school. And, no, I don't believe they own the air above our homes. That was actually one of my more interesting lectures in Constitutional law regarding individuals ownership of property extending above one's home to infinity. However, the government bent that rule when flight was achieved. Expansion of the definition of interstate commerce as a priority over individual property was the result- sort of a quasi eminent domain policy.
Ah, I see. The abuse of the interstate commerce clause has cost us almost every freedom we hold dear.
fishermage.blogspot.com