Legalize Pot! Says Pat Robertson

[Saipan]

Trial lawyers bill out billions of dollars for marijuana cases.

Because the JustAss system lets them. If not MJ it'll be something else. Unless we legalize EVERYTHING THAT IS NOW ILLEGAL. Including driving drunk and importing military stuff throught indian reserve.

[BubberMiley]

Because the JustAss system lets them. If not MJ it'll be something else. Unless we legalize EVERYTHING THAT IS NOW ILLEGAL. Including driving drunk and importing military stuff throught indian reserve.

Your logic is faulty.

[Saipan]

Who cares if its healthy or not?

Exactly. As long as the dopes are not allowed to drive (including bicycles) they can smoke their heads off.

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly. As long as the dopes are not allowed to drive (including bicycles) they can smoke their heads off.

Except they won't limit use to "recreation", so it would add more headaches and safety concerns to the workplace.

[BubberMiley]

Except they won't limit use to "recreation", so it would add more headaches and safety concerns to the workplace.

It "would"? You talk as if it doesn't exist everywhere already. I didn't realize you were so sheltered and naive. You have to get away from that computer some time and come out into the real world. It's not as scary as it seems.

[bush_cheney2004]

It "would"? You talk as if it doesn't exist everywhere already. I didn't realize you were so sheltered and naive. You have to get away from that computer some time and come out into the real world. It's not as scary as it seems.

Dopers always have the answers until we make them pee in a bottle and fire their asses.

[Shady]

Yes, and they say in your link: "To date, no epidemiological studies have consistently confirmed an association between long-term marijuana use and cancer risk."

Yes, it's been inconsistent. But you don't dispute the fact that there's dozens and dozens of chemicals in marijuana smoke that are also found in tobacco smoke right? How can that be healthy? How can that not contribute to cancer? 30 years ago people like you were telling us that cigarette smoke doesn't cause any health problems. Go push your drugs somewhere else.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Go push your drugs somewhere else.

Indeed....dopers can rationalize anything.

[Saipan]

Your logic is faulty.

Prove it.

[Wild Bill]

Indeed....dopers can rationalize anything.

You're right, BC. However, there's another side to the argument. There are many people who can always rationalize a justification for telling their neighbour what to do and how to live his life.

Once again, I'm getting very sick of people telling me I can't do something because someone ELSE has a problem! If someone is going to tell me how to live my life I would like to have the favour returned once in a while.

I'd start with censoring their music collection! No disco, no hip hop and no country except for Keith Urban!

[bush_cheney2004]

You're right, BC. However, there's another side to the argument. There are many people who can always rationalize a justification for telling their neighbour what to do and how to live his life.

This is very ironic, given that the thread starts with a hope that Pat Robertson could influence such things in Canada.

Once again, I'm getting very sick of people telling me I can't do something because someone ELSE has a problem! If someone is going to tell me how to live my life I would like to have the favour returned once in a while.

That's fine, but it doesn't mean employers should have to underwrite the risks. For instance, I don't want a doper for my airline pilot.

[BubberMiley]

Yes, it's been inconsistent. But you don't dispute the fact that there's dozens and dozens of chemicals in marijuana smoke that are also found in tobacco smoke right? How can that be healthy? How can that not contribute to cancer? 30 years ago people like you were telling us that cigarette smoke doesn't cause any health problems. Go push your drugs somewhere else.

You would criminalize the possession of a plant because of speculation that it couldn't be healthy, even though there's no conclusive evidence that it isn't? And you also believe government should have less of an influence on people's lives than they have now?

You're dripping with hypocrisy and too dumb to realize it.

[Wild Bill]

This is very ironic, given that the thread starts with a hope that Pat Robertson could influence such things in Canada.

That's fine, but it doesn't mean employers should have to underwrite the risks. For instance, I don't want a doper for my airline pilot.

Hey, I've got nothing to do with any Pat Robertson supporter!

As for having a doper for an airline pilot, how about an alcoholic? You may have had one already! More than once!

Unless he is drunk when he shows up for work, how do you tell? For that matter, does every pilot blow into a breathalizer before he enters the cockpit? Sure, they have rules about how much time must pass from his last drink and his work shift but how do we know for sure if he lies?

So we should have someone pee in a bottle? That test only tells if you've smoked dope in the past few months, not that morning. Why not test a lock of his hair? That will tell you if he smoked some pot within 6 months. Would that make you feel safer?

The only thing that's important is if the pilot is sober when he's on the job! Whether he has a drink or a toke on his own time is not important at all. If we follow your logic, then we need a test which will tell if a pilot has high THC levels in his blood AT THE TIME HE ENTERS THE COCKPIT! We give him a breathalizer at the same time, too!

Frankly, I'm MORE afraid of the pilot who drinks than one who has a toke once in a while! I will admit, however, to be a little leery of a pothead flying so slowly that he might stall the plane...

[Saipan]

You would criminalize the possession of a plant because of speculation that it couldn't be healthy

It's unhealthy for other drivers and their passengers. And pedestrians.

[BubberMiley]

It's unhealthy for other drivers and their passengers. And pedestrians.

It will always be illegal to drive cars under the influence. You're not allowed to sniff your glue when you drive either, but that doesn't mean we need to ban it.

You need to get over your attachment to the nanny state.

Edited December 30, 2010 by BubberMiley

[Saipan]

It will always be illegal to drive cars under the influence.

That is the whole point.

You're not allowed to sniff your glue when you drive either

You live on Reserve?

but that doesn't mean we need to ban it.

You need to get over your attachment to the nanny state.

That's I will do everything to make sure Liberals won't be able to declare legally bought and registered products illegal - ever again.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Saipan

[BubberMiley]

That's I will do everything to make sure Liberals won't be able to declare legally bought and registered products illegal - ever again.

That's you will do everything to make sure Conservatives will be able to declare natural god-given plants illegal?

[Shady]

That's you will do everything to make sure Conservatives will be able to declare natural god-given plants illegal?

Kinda like C02!!!! :lol:

[dre]

It will always be illegal to drive cars under the influence. You're not allowed to sniff your glue when you drive either, but that doesn't mean we need to ban it.

You need to get over your attachment to the nanny state.

Youre just not going to make these BIG GOVERNMENT NANNY STATE LIBERALS understand. They want the government to make personal choices for people, and youre not going to talk them out of that philosophy.

[dre]

Because the JustAss system lets them. If not MJ it'll be something else. Unless we legalize EVERYTHING THAT IS NOW ILLEGAL. Including driving drunk and importing military stuff throught indian reserve.

Utter horse shit. Its like you cant grasp even basic grade 3 level logic or something.

Must be hard way to go through life!

[Shady]

They want the government to make personal choices for people, and youre not going to talk them out of that philosophy.

Unfortunately that has to be part of the equation. That's part of the negative consequences of single-payer health care. We all pay for eachother's costs, so our actions and choices become part of our business.

[dre]

Unfortunately that has to be part of the equation. That's part of the negative consequences of single-payer health care. We all pay for eachother's costs, so our actions and choices become part of our business.

Thats fine, as long as youre consistant. Fast food is also unhealthy, and puts a strain on the HC system. Same with alcohol and tobacco. In fact... theres hundreds of thousands of products that qualify for criminalization based on your big government nanny state philosophy, so you have your work cut out for you!

[GostHacked]

Are you an idiot? You think breathing smoke into your lungs is healthy? You think inhaling some of the same ingredients found in tobacco is healthy?

If you use the right kind of filter, then you should be alright. It's not so much the smoke, but the tar that one takes in, that is the main issue. But there are filters out there for that that will help in those cases. Most pot smokers don't use a filter like the one on the end of a cigarette.

Pure natural tobacco is not so much an issue either. It is the chemicals that are put into it during the manufacturing process that are the real problem. The chemical content are on the packs of smokes when you buy them.

http://www.helium.com/items/271259-the-contents-of-a-cigarette

Aside from ammonia, you got lead, copper, aluminum, mercury, arsenic, butane... just to name a few. The reason they are present is because of the manufacturing process. None of this stuff is in pot. And none of these items are naturally in tobacco when grown.

[Shady]

You would criminalize the possession of a plant because of speculation that it couldn't be healthy, even though there's no conclusive evidence that it isn't?

There is evidence. There's also logic and reason. If something contains much of the same toxins found in cigarette smoke, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to make the connection.

And you also believe government should have less of an influence on people's lives than they have now?

You're dripping with hypocrisy and too dumb to realize it.

That's a great strawman argument. That must mean that you want to keep things criminalized.

[dre]

If you use the right kind of filter, then you should be alright. It's not so much the smoke, but the tar that one takes in, that is the main issue. But there are filters out there for that that will help in those cases. Most pot smokers don't use a filter like the one on the end of a cigarette.

Pure natural tobacco is not so much an issue either. It is the chemicals that are put into it during the manufacturing process that are the real problem. The chemical content are on the packs of smokes when you buy them.

http://www.helium.com/items/271259-the-contents-of-a-cigarette

Aside from ammonia, you got lead, copper, aluminum, mercury, arsenic, butane... just to name a few. The reason they are present is because of the manufacturing process. None of this stuff is in pot. And none of these items are naturally in tobacco when grown.

Part of it is also the heat... thats why theres a market for vaporizers etc. Smoking ANYTHING is bad for you, and smoking PERIOD is a poor health choice.