Cali will vote to legzlize it!

Ever smelt a distillary Tom? or the breath of a person who has had a skinfull or got a rotting liver? also lets be honest a number of heavy drinkers do smoke 9Tobbaco) so the spilling of shall we say whiskey could be a problem.
I agree alchol might not make you wonder how many universes there are but you might well wake up not knowing what you have done or loose days on end due to the effects.
Look at the number of drunks who litter our streets Tom with there bottles and cans of cheap booze, great example for your 8 year old kid aint it?

 

C'mon, answer the question. You said there should be laws regarding stupidty, didn't you? Who would decide? How would they decide?

 

Sure you can. We do it all the time. What do you call non-smoking laws?

 

Smoking is not a moral issue, it is a public health issue. To my knowledge, smoking is only illegal in public places. When they enact a law that bans smoking entirely, that would qualify as legislating morality. And when they do, it will fail miserbly just like every other law that attempted to legislate morality.

 

That is basically what California is trying to do, I think. Out it to the people for a majority. Problem is the Feds can still say Oh No You Don't. So the majority thing, while a nice concept, doesn't really work in our current all powerful federal government.

 

What kind of smoking and how do you define "morality" is my question. As a tobacco smoker I don't see it as a moral issue. I see it as a bad habit.
I'm 47 years old and don't need anyone to tell me it's a bad and addictive habit. After all, I do it.


Figuring that you're talking about tobacco smoking let's ask this question. Has it EVER been illegal to smoke tobacco in this country? I really can't tell you but I DO know it has been accepted for quite some time.
Tobacco is an accepted and addictive drug basically. NOW as we learn more the "rights" of the smokers are being taken away and honestly I don't really have a problem with that.
I wasn't born smoking and surely didn't want people blowing smoke in my face when I didn't smoke nor do I now that I am a smoker. It's a compromise basically. A bit of respect for others.

If I want to smoke it's my decision. I will NOT blow smoke in your face, I will NOT smoke in areas that I am not allowed to, I will NOT encourage others to smoke.
Conversely, who are the non smokers to tell a business they can not allow smoking in their establishment when the act of smoking is NOT illegal? This should be left up to the individual business owner.

Of course we could outlaw smoking period. You know, just kill off a multi billion dollar industry, the tax revenue gained and have one hell of a lot of people suffering "nic fits". Makes a lot of sense from a moral standpoint.

Black market takes over and viola another "drug" to fight.


On the other hand we could legalize pot and put this in reverse motion more or less.
People will still smoke it, government can regulate (because they would have to after all) and generate a ton of tax revenues instead of SPENDING tax revenues.

Of course you would still have those "contributing to the deliquency", "driving under the influence" etc.. but would it increase? I doubt it.
Would taxpayers be funding more "dopers" in prison? No.

There are many points to consider of course and one's perceived view of morality is valid but PERCEIVED is a big word.

PERCEIVED, MORALITY AND REALITY ARE ALL VERY BIG WORDS IN THIS EQUATION.

 

This line alone proves my point. Making it illegal does not stop it. Hence, you can't legislate morality.

 

Looks like he's not going to David. May I respond? Good my little post chopping friend.

Let's look at the WHOLE post by Tom shall we? Here it is with your quote in bold of course.

Certainly sums up the Liberal mentality doesn't it David. Of COURSE it does if you rip it out of a much larger post.

Take a look at all the posts (not like you haven't David - you fool nobody except yourself).

I've seen a lot of people from various "leanings" comment here. Want some examples? OK.

To go hand in hand with any legalization of drugs, there has to be an automatic responsibility for using them. Commit a crime. No drug rehab program. Just jail.[/QUOTE]

Sorry I had to quote you Stujoe you whacky Liberal.


If I'm not mistaken this Liberal joined at the same time Tom did. They wanted to debate.

Now we all KNOW this guy is a Socialist leaning toward Communism type of guy. Hell, he ain't even a red blooded American!

How about this Liberal that agrees with Tom?

Gotta be another Liberal here.

Just a few Liberal comments there David. Seems that IF Marijuana were to be made legal there would need to be some government control. Also seems a lot don't agree with Tom's views and I'm gonna let you in a little secret. They're not all Liberals.
Actually it's probably one of the better threads I've seen in a long time. People with MANY differing political views tossing some honest opinions back and forth and many being in some sort of agreement.

You, unfortunately, chose the stupid route IMHO David. It's clear that I don't agree with Tom on this one but still a good debate. Then you reared your post of infinite stereotype. Really a shame.

So all said and done David. Can you give an opinion on the original topic and nothing more and then tell us why?

 

Can't say I've smelled someone with a rotting liver, or at least I didn't associate the smell with liver rot. What does it smell like? I've been around a lot of drunks. Usually all I smelled was booze. Not sure what skinfull is either. Maybe you could elaborate. Distilleries. I would imagine they smell like the beer soaked carpets of the many bars/nightclubs I frequented routinely in my younger days, and when I woke up the next day with my clothes piled on the floor beside my bed, they liked to have gagged me. It's amazing what you can get used to for women, music and a buzz.
The net effect alcohol is no better or worse than pot IMHO, other than it is currently legal. You seem to be defending the use of pot by referring to alcohol. Is alcohol supposed to be the gleaming example that we're supposed to follow with pot? It's a notch DOWN for society instead of a notch up by legalizing pot. So in your judgment, pot's not as bad as say...crack. So what's the big deal might be your line of thought. What's the next crescendo after pot? Crack? Crank? Society will come along and start arguing for those drug's legalization 'cause they want it..and pot is legal and that's no different' and on and on. In your judgment perhaps, crack/crank are worse and much more serious. In someone else's opinion, it isn't. You can't see the deteriorating path that presents?
Alcohol is a very poor example for an 8 year old kid DeOrc. So is pot and so is any other substance that is taken leisurely and for entertainment that serves to kill brain cells and alleviate responsibility. Alcohol isn't in my household and I'll share with him, some of my bad and STUPID experiences with it when he's old enough. Hopefully he'll be smarter than I was and make better decisions than I did. I guess I'll find out. My goal will be to steer him away from that irresponsible behavior by sharing what I have experienced with it and other chemical substances that encourage stupidity.

 

I think you should decide for them Davey.

Does Bounty make a quicker picker upper in single packs?

 

Cancer prevention for those who do not wish to suck in the stinking puke gases of tobacco pollution?

 

And you have the right to smoke....away from me, and I have the right to not have to breathe it or smell it.

I have a a very good friend who smokes like a chimney. I don't visit him that often because it literally makes me sick breathing in that foul air as he puffs away. It's HIS home. He has the right to smoke in his own house, and I have the choice not to enter his home, so I don't very often.
I can smell smoke instantly and from quite a distance OUTSIDE every day going in and out the door at work, with the smoking "area" probably 40-50 feet away. I can tell you for non smokers...it's a friggin nasty smell. There is plenty of information that suggests that second hand smoke is more cancerous than the smoke the smoker is breathing in after it mixes in with whatever other pollutants it happens to come in contact with.
I stayed at a hotel recently, in a non smoking room, that stunk to high heaven of cigarette smoke and was awakened promptly at 5:30 without the assistance of an alarm due to the considerate patrons that chose to light one up as soon as they woke up and blasted through the ventilation system (it you want to call it ventilation).
I used to work with a guy that puffed all day and filled the room with his clouds of blue smoke that I was forced to breathe in all day. He just laughed about it bothering me. Told me to go outside if I didn't like it. There's one example where a simple law would resolve that issue, and I wouldn't have to rely on whether or not someone was polite enough or considerate enough to worry about my health.
People hide in the stalls in the bathroom to smoke, inconsiderate of anyone except themselves. (yes it is a 'corporate' bathroom, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised).

Point is people are often stupid, inconsiderate, and disregard the "no smoking in the bathroom" sign on the door when you go in. The non pot smokers would be the beneficiaries of this type (and worse I'm sure) behavior because people are stupid, people are ignorant, and people act selfishly when left to their own devices. Currently, at least with pot, I have some recourse if/when I experience this kind of disregard for their fellow man. They act like that with cigarettes...you think it'd be any better with a, now legal, drug that enhances stupidity?
I think not.

 

Sorry I had to quote you Stujoe you whacky Liberal.


If I'm not mistaken this Liberal joined at the same time Tom did. They wanted to debate.



Now we all KNOW this guy is a Socialist leaning toward Communism type of guy. Hell, he ain't even a red blooded American!



How about this Liberal that agrees with Tom?



Gotta be another Liberal here.



Just a few Liberal comments there David. Seems that IF Marijuana were to be made legal there would need to be some government control. Also seems a lot don't agree with Tom's views and I'm gonna let you in a little secret. They're not all Liberals.
Actually it's probably one of the better threads I've seen in a long time. People with MANY differing political views tossing some honest opinions back and forth and many being in some sort of agreement.

You, unfortunately, chose the stupid route IMHO David. It's clear that I don't agree with Tom on this one but still a good debate. Then you reared your post of infinite stereotype. Really a shame.

So all said and done David. Can you give an opinion on the original topic and nothing more and then tell us why?[/QUOTE]

Not sure about what you wanted to accomplish with this post clembo.
The guy to whose defense you are running made a long post regarding the specific issue of pot legalization and a general comment regarding limiting stupidity. I wanted him to explain his limits on stupidity further, see? His comment wasn't twisted or taken out of context, was it? I simply want him to expound on his suggestion. Making irresponsible & stupid comments like that (and allowing them to go unchecked) is what helped BO get elected, and look where that's gotten us! One of things that I find most humorous is when you quote exactly what someone posted & they accuse you of twisting their words....straight out of BO's playbook.
When I respond to a posting, I typically prefer to address specific points in that post...too many members drone on and on and on (heck, look at your post- I "quoted" the entire thing & I've probably used up a whole page here) and ramble or go off on tangents. Heck, I know you like to hear yourself talk but there is wisdom in brevity.
As far as my view on the pot issue? Let the states decide. Personally, I am against it for 2 reasons. 1) Legalizing any criminal activity simply to benefit from it financially is lowering the bar for our country & we really don't need that right now. Today pot is legalized for the tax revenue, what's next? 2) I thinks pot adds to the dumbing down of our country. Pot is a gateway drug &, zaps you of motivation...my opinion.
The bottom line, though, is it's a state's right issue & should be decided as such.
Want to increase tax revenue responsibly? Tax consumption. Why look to a guy spending $50 on pot as the solution to empty cofers? Tax the drug dealers who are buying fancy cars, big houses, jewelry, electronics, etc & not paying a dime in taxes!!!

Look, you've made me fall into the clembo trap...posting and posting and posting...

 

Oh yeah, and he didn't respond to the post, did he? Typical.

 

Tom I use booze as a example because it is on a par with pot but IMHO slightly worse.
Now what sort of argument would you like for the legalization of it?anything anyone says is wrong according to you.
What happend when they banned the use of hash Tom? the same as happend when the use of booze was banned it went underground and the only people making money out of it was criminals.
By decriminalising it how many court hours do you free up? How many prison places do you free up? How many law enforcement hours do you Free up? What would the Revenue for the State/Goverment be in comparrison what they spend now criminalising it?
Still have laws about smoking it in public places same as you do with drink, it is allready a crime to drive whilst under the influence so no problem there, possibly take the Dutch route and have licensed premisis away from schools residential areas?
Set a age limit on it like Booze, make it a felony to supply it to a minor.
Make it a crime with extreemly high penelties to adultarate it with chemicals (In other words trying to enhance it's effects)
Now you list the down sides Tom

 

David,

Perhaps you could show some proof that marijuana is a gateway drug. Once you have done that, you should ponder if it would still be a gateway drug if it was legal. Let me know your thoughts!

 

lol. It's ok. I've been called worse.

All kidding aside, I know I am actually quite liberal. But I am also very much conservative. The thing is one has to define what one is talking about. Just calling people 'liberals' or 'conservatives' as is often done here just isn't specific enough.

I am quite socially liberal when it comes to personal actions and liberties but I am very conservative when it comes to the government and fiscal policy as well as when it comes to personal responsibility.

That can be quite confounding to the entrenched members of the two party system which is really only a choice between socially and governmentally liberal or socially and governmental conservative. I m lucky enough to be able to piss them both off equally.

 

Nice try David but a failure. You quoted me for sure. ONLY problem is the quotes I used from other members don't show up now do they?

Tom made this statement.

Limits...we all need them imposed to deter us from making stupid decisions. You yanked this out of a much longer thread by the way.

Then YOU said this.

Just for you I put the first line in BOLD so you can understand why I posted as I did. I'm sure the others here are smart enough to see it but just in case they can't go back to post #68.

It's not that hard to see David. All you did was take one of your patented potshots at Liberals but if anyone cares to dig into this thread they can see that there are several people, including myself that do not agree with Tom. You can also see that those of us that do have some type of agreement realize that there would, indeed, have to be a lot of government control in any legalization of smoking pot.

Funny how you skip over all of this isn't it David? You may whine about my long posts because "I like to hear myself talk". Well, I do it for you because it illustrates how shallow you can be. I do it for others because I have some respect for them.

Now, as I look back on this thread I have been in most agreement with Blueindian65, Lehigh96, DeOrc and Stujoe. I highly doubt you'd ever see us at a political rally together. Is that a fair assessment?

As for those I haven't agreed with it's been TomC, KLJ and you.
I will give you credit for at least answering when called upon though David. I'll address that shortly.
Hey, I may even qoute just a line or two at that. Go figure.

 

You do it very well.

 

Fallen into the Clembo trap David? Posting, posting and posting? Look at the stats and I really don't think you can argue with them can you?

Clembo: 1.40 posts per day
David: 1.96 posts per day.

OK kids that was mean but fun. Still someone had to do it so why not me "poster boy". LOL


Now as for this part.

"Want to increase tax revenue responsibly? Tax consumption. Why look to a guy spending $50 on pot as the solution to empty cofers? Tax the drug dealers who are buying fancy cars, big houses, jewelry, electronics, etc & not paying a dime in taxes!!!"

There is actually a teeny bit of sense here but should we ask how they go about buying all this stuff?
Perhaps they have really good lawyers and run "legitimate" businesses to cover it all? Perhaps they "spread the wealth" to keep it under hiding? There are many ways to do this. It's called organized crime.

To bust organized crime it costs a lot of money. Taxpayer money. IF/WHEN they are caught it takes more money to prosecute them. THEN we get the seizure part of the picture.

In other words spend millions to make millions. Kind of balances out in the long run. Meanwhile the criminals just find other ways to stay in business. This is nothing new folks.

Legalizing would help "cut out the middle man". Would it solve all of our problems? Absolutely not. No more than legalized gambling but can anyone really tell me how it would hurt?

Please try and do this without scenarios from "Reefer Madness".