Democrats file HR 420 to legalize pot

As I said, since taxpayers are burdoned with caring for drug zombies they have a right to limit freedem of the drug abusers

 

Thats my personal term of endearment for illegal drug addicts

 

And obese people...but you are fine with them


I am for freedom

 

As I keep reminding you everyone has to eat

Even if many do not do so wisely

But no one HAS to escape reality through drugs

 

Legalization has been a mixed bag here. Legal supply cannot keep up with demand and many dispensaries had to shut down because they could not meet government regulations which were really restrictive and not well thought out.

A bit of a gong show really. Lots of people walking around smoking pot on the streets though....

 

No one needs to eat fast food. Mot a single person on the planet needs it

 

So dying cancer patients are drug zombies because they smoke to get their appetite up and relieve anxiety...

Ok

Also, when you have to edit out parts of a quote because you cannot respond to it without demolishing your argument — likely means your argument is wrong.

 

One or the other is bad enough

But why add to the problem by being fat and a pothead?

 

So you will allow over consumption on food even though it costs the country the most money but you draw the line at weed. Interesting.

Guns kill more people than weed — no restrictions
Pharmaceuticals kill more people — ignored
Alcohol, smoking...

I’m sensing an agenda.

 

I used to highlight sections I want to comment on

But for some reason the software on this liberal forum no longer allows me too

 

All the problems you mention are real

My position is why add more problems to the list?

 

So the forum is liberal. The news is liberal.
All search engines are liberal.
School are liberal.

The whole world seems to be Turing away from your ideology.
Maybe it’s you that’s wrong? Just a thought.

 

republican voters support this, many old time Republicans in office do not sadly

 

Why that tooth was so hard to pull - I am not sure - but, now we can have a discussion.

Lets summarize. Your claim is that because Pot is a cancer risk (an unsupported claim but we will assume this is true for now) this justifies using physical violence (Law) to stop people from using the stuff.

You do not quantify the risk of harm from Pot - (which in the case of Pot is very low - much lower than cigarettes for example)
In fact - the risk of harm/cancer to an occasional user of pot is exceedingly low. Like alcohol and heart disease - the risk increases with increased use.

For example: the risk of harm from occasionally smoking pot is far lower than working in an benzene environment .. benzene levels below the legal limit for 8 hours.

What is interesting is that heavy drinking poses a greater risk of harm than smoking cigarettes.

Your argument is a "harm reduction" argument "if it saves one life". That law is justified on the basis of reducing harm.

This is what is known as Utilitarianism - Law justified on the basis of "increasing happiness of the collective" via reducing harm in this case. This justification completely ignores individual liberty.

Since your bar is so low - you want to ban pot even though the risk of harm to the occasional user is exceedingly low - akin to "if it saves one life" or a small number of lives on a relative basis.

In order to not be a complete contradictory hypocrite - you then also support banning alcohol, cigarettes and anything else that risks harm near to or above the risk of harm from occasionally smoking pot.

Skiing for example would be banned under your proposed justification ... would this not save lives ?
Boating ? forget it - one could drown.
Driving a car ? banned - that is way more dangerous than occasionally smoking pot.

Sugar ? just as dangerous as pot. banned

and so on.

You are welcome to your desire for a totalitarian nanny state .. and your complete lack of respect for individual liberty .. and your Socialist ideology (any law is justified on the basis of what is best for the collective/ collectivism on steroids.).

I just do not share that desire.

 

Why would we ban item A that is 100x less dangerous than item B that is legal?

Arrest people that use it and make them unable to find work again, does that make sense to you?

 

Yes, the world is sinking fast into liberal hell

 

Marijuana is not part of the problems, long past time to make it legal

 

Eating is an addiction humans have been hooked on for as far back as anyone can remember

 

Smoking pot is a cancer risk

And its a bad idea to expand its use

 

That wasn’t the question.
Try again

 

You can vaporize it.
Zero cancer risk.

Next argument, if you can even call it that.

 

No need to restate your belief that "harm reduction" - even something that presents very little risk of harm - is justification for law. I got it

You are welcome to your desire for a totalitarian nanny state, your complete lack of respect for individual liberty .. and your love of Socialist ideology (any law is justified on the basis of what is best for the collective = collectivism on steroids.).

I did not realize that you were such a leftist and hated the ideas of Republicanism so much. Your hatred of individual liberty makes those on the extreme left look like raging right wing extremists !

 

It is for me

Earing is a necessity

Getting high is not

 

The fact that libs are desperate to get high is a red flag itself

 

Most potheads smoke it