Jump to content

If Pot Was Legal . . .


Texsox
 Share

  

66 members have voted

  1. 1. What min age would be appropriate?

    • 16
      0
    • 18
      32
    • 19
      1
    • 21
      32
    • Dude, I'm too baked to vote
      1
  2. 2. Should it be the same for alcohol?

    • Yes
      52
    • No
      10
    • Blazin'
      4
  3. 3. Since it's not illegal, should parents be more strict if they catch their underage child smoking?

    • Yes
      22
    • No
      12
    • Depends on the kid
      29
    • My toe looks like a cheeto lol
      3


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 11:45 AM)
....Mary Ann from Gilligans Island wouldnt be in trouble.

 

Wait, what is this thread about? ;)

 

Mary Ann was hot, but no match for Mrs. Howell . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 12:45 PM)
....Mary Ann from Gilligans Island wouldnt be in trouble.

 

Wait, what is this thread about? ;)

 

Let the Marry Anne on Mary Jane jokefest begin.

 

And looking at that mug shot a damn one of those Castaways aged gracefully, did they? Stilll it could be worse, she could have had Bob Denver's size 23 old man ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a major pothead through most of my college years, I can honestly say that any scientist/pyschiatrist who says pot is worse than alcohol is a complete moron (minus any damage done to your lungs, which may or may not be "worse" than what alcohol can do to your liver).

 

The issue, like with alcohol, is at what age it's appropriate to use and the subsequent stigma attached to it. If this country wouldn't make alcohol such a big deal, young kids wouldn't drink it. Same with pot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 01:27 PM)
Unless you are going to argue it is good for you, the a,lcohol comparison is worthless. But I'm glad you found the time to pick up that medical degree while in law school :lol:

Come on, look at the pharmacological effects of weed versus booze--no contest that pot is less harmful. None.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never really enjoyed smoking in college but the majority of the friends did and some still do. I really see less negatives with pot use than with alcohol use. One of the main reasons i think marijuana should be legal is so the government could tax the hell out of it and in turn make revenues for the country. It would also allow them to control the potency, the distribution, and some of the crime associated with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 12:27 PM)
Unless you are going to argue it is good for you, the a,lcohol comparison is worthless. But I'm glad you found the time to pick up that medical degree while in law school :lol:

 

You can't argue for legality because some is less bad than something else? I mean, if everything had to be good for you, cigarettes, cigars, TVs, and alcohol would be thrown right out the window and banned instantly, wouldn't they?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Soxy @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 12:31 PM)
Come on, look at the pharmacological effects of weed versus booze--no contest that pot is less harmful. None.

 

Less harmful then say carrots? Less harmful then water?

 

Unless you are going to argue that pot is beneficial, these comparisons are meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 12:39 PM)
You can't argue for legality because some is less bad than something else? I mean, if everything had to be good for you, cigarettes, cigars, TVs, and alcohol would be thrown right out the window and banned instantly, wouldn't they?

 

Then you would have to accept an argument that alcohol is worse then pot so alcohol should also be banned. The comparisons are dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More deaths attributed to tylenol last year than Pot.

 

Has anyone seen the show intervention on A and E? Im still waiting for the one on Pot. So far ive seen meth, coke, heroin, vicodin, oxy, alcohol, eating disorders, etc etc. Never one on Pot. You know why? Because the addiction rate is lower than many legal drugs, the effects arent as mind numbing as alcohol and prescription drugs, and you CANNOT overdose on marijuana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 02:24 PM)
Less harmful then say carrots? Less harmful then water?

 

Unless you are going to argue that pot is beneficial, these comparisons are meaningless.

Well, that certainly is your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 01:24 PM)
Less harmful then say carrots? Less harmful then water?

 

Unless you are going to argue that pot is beneficial, these comparisons are meaningless.

It has many medicinal beneficial uses without many of the dangerous side-effects of prescription drugs. Marijuana is useful in treating pain, nausea, appetite loss, it acts as a sedative and reduces anxiety. For MS victims it helps reduce the painful spasms that plague their nights, and also reduce the burning feelings in their limbs that no other painkiller seems to have the ability to do. Spinal cord victims have experienced a reduction in discomfort and pain, and glaucoma sufferers have about a 65 percent chance of reducing the intraocular pressure that causes a majority of the damage, no approved drug can claim that success rate.

 

Anxiety is one of the realms that Marijuana is just entering these days with the increasing abuse of anti-anxiety drugs like xananx and the over diagnosis of said conditions. Marijuana is shown to decrease anxiety at a similar rate without the extreme addiction and without many of the side effects, and with ALOT less risk of death.

Edited by RockRaines
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 01:52 PM)
Until they come up with a breathalyzer for pot, it won't happen. Need to be able to gauge the amount of high for driving just like we can gauge the amount of drunk for driving.

 

You can refuse a breathalyzer and still get a DUI.

 

You can still get a a urine test to find out if you are high

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 01:55 PM)
You can still get a a urine test to find out if you are high

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the results wouldn't come back quick enough for them to know. Plus, it would just say that you've been high in the past 30 days (or however long a urine test goes back), and wouldn't specify if you were high at the time of arrest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Felix @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 01:56 PM)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the results wouldn't come back quick enough for them to know. Plus, it would just say that you've been high in the past 30 days (or however long a urine test goes back), and wouldn't specify if you were high at the time of arrest.

 

at that point the argument would probably shift to your behavior at the time of arrest, wouldnt it? People who refuse breathalyzers have to then argue against the police officers evidence of impairment (failure of field sobriety tests, erratic driving, smell of alcohol, etc.), why couldnt an officer present evidence of THC impairment?

 

I dont know, to say that a breath test would prevent legalization seems like it is simplifying it too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 01:52 PM)
Until they come up with a breathalyzer for pot, it won't happen. Need to be able to gauge the amount of high for driving just like we can gauge the amount of drunk for driving.

They wouldnt need to, Pot doesnt impair your driving nearly to the point that Alcohol does. There are many prescription drugs that impair people's driving more than pot and there is no breathalyzer for that either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 02:08 PM)
at that point the argument would probably shift to your behavior at the time of arrest, wouldnt it? People who refuse breathalyzers have to then argue against the police officers evidence of impairment (failure of field sobriety tests, erratic driving, smell of alcohol, etc.), why couldnt an officer present evidence of THC impairment?

 

I dont know, to say that a breath test would prevent legalization seems like it is simplifying it too much.

What the hell would a field sobriety test be for detecting if you were high? See if you can finish a bag of cheetos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 01:24 PM)
Less harmful then say carrots? Less harmful then water?

 

Unless you are going to argue that pot is beneficial, these comparisons are meaningless.

 

There are plenty of cancer patients who would claim that marijuana is beneficial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 02:09 PM)
What the hell would a field sobriety test be for detecting if you were high? See if you can finish a bag of cheetos?

 

I know your angle, but people can be too wasted to drive. It is a drug, it can cause impairment, it can cause an accident.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...