First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Prop 19 has failed
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 11/6/10 , edited 11/6/10

DomFortress wrote:
I didn't overestimate the medical benefits of marijuana, because just like the state of California, Canada has a nationwide regulation on legalized medical marijuana usage. My problem is the constant illogical naturalistic fallacy of the "recreational" usage of marijuana for healthy people to escape, using the "medical" benefits of marijuana on those who are unhealthy. Since when did healthy people equal unhealthy patients? Do the recreational marijuana users see themselves being too weak to handle the natural struggle that is their own life in the first place? Why is the objective definition of recreation has anything to do with actively weakening humans' natural coping ability to manage stress? Just what's that got to do with promoting a good society through wellness lifestyle in California? All that need to be considered when you wanna make a law that maximizes flourishing.



The reason why healthy people use the medical argument of marijuana is because the beneficial effects of marijuana is consistent with people who are not officially deemed "unhealthy". An "unhealthy" person will use marijuana for basically the same reason "healthy" people use marijuana. The only difference is method of obtaining marijuana.

For example, a person who has emotional/physical pain may not be eligible for medicinal marijuana because of bureaucratic issues of how a physician will classify someone as "accepted for medicinal marijuana". If someone lost his/her job, lost a loved one, and many more issues within a short period of time - there is no doubt that the person will suffer from significant stress leading to related physical problems. One example is "loss of appetite". Furthermore, this loss of appetite will cause a downward spiral of reducing intake of proper nutrients leading to more severe depression as a lack of proper nutrition. However, this person will not qualify for medicinal marijuana because society will basically tell him/her, "Your life sucks at the moment, but chin up" instead of using marijuana to temporarily alleviate some of his/her pains. I am not saying marijuana is a cure; it is a treatment.

Legalizing marijuana, or as you put as "maximizing flourishing", is not true. Those who do not use marijuana in the first play will probably not use marijuana - or very rarely. This is like arguing that, assuming alcohol is still illegal today, legalizing alcohol will maximize people getting drunk etc. To this day, with alcohol having specific legal standards, many people choose not to drink at all while others do. It will be the same with marijuana. In addition, making marijuana legal will not create a large number of problem. Reason?

If there are x% of current population who regularly use marijuana illegally, the number of problem, y, is directly correlated to x. This law will only change the "illegal" part to legal. So now, it will be simply y is directly correlated to x. (Yes, perhaps x will go up slightly, but this goes to my previous point. Not everyone will suddenly begin abusing and using marijuana just because it is legal. Those who never used marijuana will continue not using it).

Although you do not explicitly state it, I'm sure that you think people who use marijuana to cope with daily struggles are "weak"; this is fairly evident in your posts.] I simply think that just because you don't personally use marijuana and you don't see a reason to use marijuana, you impose your belief on everyone else rather than looking at this universally in an objective view - which all points to "nothing much is going to change" except more income for state.
47117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 11/6/10
Im going to take back what I said about not responding back to you Dom. I know we started on a pretty rough ground, but I wish to continue this debate, since I am deeply enthusiastic about debating this subject.

However I think I can see where your reasoning is coming from....its from your ideologies. Correct me if Im wrong but, you are saying that a person should not smoke marijuana because that person is simply escaping from reality correct? That person needs to not avoid lifes struggles correct?

Then let me ask you. Do you wear warm clothes during the winter? Of course you do. How come? Because your cold right? How come you don't go out during the winter in light clothes to fight life's struggle? Because you don't want to get cold. By your own ideology of every single person should be fighting life's struggles....right in this example you disobey what you preach. See how silly that sounds? Now allow me to show you how that same concept is applied to marijuana.

A person is in pain. That person then smokes marijuana to relieve the pain. Why? Because that person doesn't want to feel pain.

Ill put them closer together for better comparison.

Person is cold. Person puts on warm clothes. When person puts on clothes, he then just escaped a life's struggle.
Person is in pain. Person smokes marijuana to relieve the pain. When person smokes marijuana, he then escaped a life's struggle.

Do you see how silly that sounds? When you preach one way of ideology, but in any type of example that can point out the hypocrisy in it, that ideology becomes null and void.
Posted 11/7/10

makix wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
I didn't overestimate the medical benefits of marijuana, because just like the state of California, Canada has a nationwide regulation on legalized medical marijuana usage. My problem is the constant illogical naturalistic fallacy of the "recreational" usage of marijuana for healthy people to escape, using the "medical" benefits of marijuana on those who are unhealthy. Since when did healthy people equal unhealthy patients? Do the recreational marijuana users see themselves being too weak to handle the natural struggle that is their own life in the first place? Why is the objective definition of recreation has anything to do with actively weakening humans' natural coping ability to manage stress? Just what's that got to do with promoting a good society through wellness lifestyle in California? All that need to be considered when you wanna make a law that maximizes flourishing.



The reason why healthy people use the medical argument of marijuana is because the beneficial effects of marijuana is consistent with people who are not officially deemed "unhealthy". An "unhealthy" person will use marijuana for basically the same reason "healthy" people use marijuana. The only difference is method of obtaining marijuana.

For example, a person who has emotional/physical pain may not be eligible for medicinal marijuana because of bureaucratic issues of how a physician will classify someone as "accepted for medicinal marijuana". If someone lost his/her job, lost a loved one, and many more issues within a short period of time - there is no doubt that the person will suffer from significant stress leading to related physical problems. One example is "loss of appetite". Furthermore, this loss of appetite will cause a downward spiral of reducing intake of proper nutrients leading to more severe depression as a lack of proper nutrition. However, this person will not qualify for medicinal marijuana because society will basically tell him/her, "Your life sucks at the moment, but chin up" instead of using marijuana to temporarily alleviate some of his/her pains. I am not saying marijuana is a cure; it is a treatment.

Legalizing marijuana, or as you put as "maximizing flourishing", is not true. Those who do not use marijuana in the first play will probably not use marijuana - or very rarely. This is like arguing that, assuming alcohol is still illegal today, legalizing alcohol will maximize people getting drunk etc. To this day, with alcohol having specific legal standards, many people choose not to drink at all while others do. It will be the same with marijuana. In addition, making marijuana legal will not create a large number of problem. Reason?

If there are x% of current population who regularly use marijuana illegally, the number of problem, y, is directly correlated to x. This law will only change the "illegal" part to legal. So now, it will be simply y is directly correlated to x. (Yes, perhaps x will go up slightly, but this goes to my previous point. Not everyone will suddenly begin abusing and using marijuana just because it is legal. Those who never used marijuana will continue not using it).

Although you do not explicitly state it, I'm sure that you think people who use marijuana to cope with daily struggles are "weak"; this is fairly evident in your posts.] I simply think that just because you don't personally use marijuana and you don't see a reason to use marijuana, you impose your belief on everyone else rather than looking at this universally in an objective view - which all points to "nothing much is going to change" except more income for state.
That's depression which can be "treated" through social works that can buildup natural human coping ability, not marijuana. While your example to treat "loss of appetite" using medical marijuana only classify for cancer patients, who lost their appetite because of their chemotherapy in the first place. Furthermore, not only that you misinterpret my meaning of maximizing social flourishing, you completely ignored the sociological background of marijuana abuse.


superluccix wrote:

Im going to take back what I said about not responding back to you Dom. I know we started on a pretty rough ground, but I wish to continue this debate, since I am deeply enthusiastic about debating this subject.

However I think I can see where your reasoning is coming from....its from your ideologies. Correct me if Im wrong but, you are saying that a person should not smoke marijuana because that person is simply escaping from reality correct? That person needs to not avoid lifes struggles correct?

Then let me ask you. Do you wear warm clothes during the winter? Of course you do. How come? Because your cold right? How come you don't go out during the winter in light clothes to fight life's struggle? Because you don't want to get cold. By your own ideology of every single person should be fighting life's struggles....right in this example you disobey what you preach. See how silly that sounds? Now allow me to show you how that same concept is applied to marijuana.

A person is in pain. That person then smokes marijuana to relieve the pain. Why? Because that person doesn't want to feel pain.

Ill put them closer together for better comparison.

Person is cold. Person puts on warm clothes. When person puts on clothes, he then just escaped a life's struggle.
Person is in pain. Person smokes marijuana to relieve the pain. When person smokes marijuana, he then escaped a life's struggle.

Do you see how silly that sounds? When you preach one way of ideology, but in any type of example that can point out the hypocrisy in it, that ideology becomes null and void.
What does the fact that I actively participate in hot-cold hydrotherapy as a part of my wellness lifestyle, has anything to do with your misinformation about myself afraid of a little cold? Or the fact that I actively condition my mind and body with fitness training in order to buildup my pain tolerance, has anything to do with your misinformation about myself afraid of a little pain? Don't think everyone is as weak and frail as you presumed, that's stereotyping.

Whatever that doesn't make you strong, will kill you.
47117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 11/7/10 , edited 11/7/10


Ill try sentence by sentence to see what you said.

What does the fact that I actively participate in hot-cold hydrotherapy as a part of my wellness lifestyle, has anything to do with your misinformation about myself afraid of a little cold?

Your wellness lifestyle? So now you are saying that some of the things you do are for your "Wellness"....while anything that is not part of your own "Wellness" is running from life's problems? But regardless, the fact that you believe that certain things can be described as "Running away from life's problems", when you do other things that have the exact same concept "Putting on warm clothes" and you consider that NOT running away from reality.....then there is an obvious flaw.

Or the fact that I actively condition my mind and body with fitness training in order to buildup my pain tolerance, has anything to do with your misinformation about myself afraid of a little pain? Don't think everyone is as weak and frail as you presumed, that's stereotyping.

Ok so you like to condition your mind and body with fitness training to build up pain tolerance. Cool. Since when is everyone supposed to do the same thing? Im pretty sure humans are allowed multiple choices for their solutions. But anyway, you train your body to face the pain in a more enduring fashion.....pot smokers alleviate their pain by smoking pot. Both are forms of enduring pain. There is no 1 correct way to endure pain.

I never said or thought that everyone is weak. Its natural for people to get warm when they are cold. Its also natural for people to get rid of pain when they want to get rid of pain. Your way of getting rid of pain is through training. Their way of getting rid of pain is through pot. I don't see why we need to crush a choice.



Posted 11/7/10

superluccix wrote:



Ill try sentence by sentence to see what you said.

What does the fact that I actively participate in hot-cold hydrotherapy as a part of my wellness lifestyle, has anything to do with your misinformation about myself afraid of a little cold?

Your wellness lifestyle? So now you are saying that some of the things you do are for your "Wellness"....while anything that is not part of your own "Wellness" is running from life's problems? But regardless, the fact that you believe that certain things can be described as "Running away from life's problems", when you do other things that have the exact same concept "Putting on warm clothes" and you consider that NOT running away from reality.....then there is an obvious flaw.

Or the fact that I actively condition my mind and body with fitness training in order to buildup my pain tolerance, has anything to do with your misinformation about myself afraid of a little pain? Don't think everyone is as weak and frail as you presumed, that's stereotyping.

Ok so you like to condition your mind and body with fitness training to build up pain tolerance. Cool. Since when is everyone supposed to do the same thing? Im pretty sure humans are allowed multiple choices for their solutions. But anyway, you train your body to face the pain in a more enduring fashion.....pot smokers alleviate their pain by smoking pot. Both are forms of enduring pain. There is no 1 correct way to endure pain.

I never said or thought that everyone is weak. Its natural for people to get warm when they are cold. Its also natural for people to get rid of pain when they want to get rid of pain. Your way of getting rid of pain is through training. Their way of getting rid of pain is through pot. I don't see why we need to crush a choice.
It's hydrotherapy, not "putting on warm cloths". Learn to read, stupid:

Alternating hot and cold (contrast hydrotherapy) is a common hydrotherapy treatment. The hot application expands blood vessels, filling them with blood, and the cold application constricts the blood vessels, forcing the blood to move on to other parts of the body. Hot and cold can be applied to any part of the body that is inflamed, congested, or injured. Treatment normally consists of applying a hot cloth for 3 minutes then a cold cloth for 30 seconds, alternating 3 times in a row.

The treatment can be done several times a day. The amount of time the hot and cold is applied may vary (e.g., 5 minutes hot, 1 minute cold) as long as the cold application is of shorter duration than the hot. It is also important to end the treatment with the cold application. The hot application should be pleasantly hot. Caution: Do not apply water that is hot enough to burn. People have different tolerance levels for hot water on different parts of their body. Tolerance levels can change from treatment to treatment, depending on emotional state, degree of injury or illness, and body temperature.

Water works on the body reflexively. This means that when water is applied to one part of the body, other parts of the body are also stimulated by an arterial (blood vessel) reflex or spinal cord reflex. Hydrotherapy takes advantage of this reflexive action. For example, if the left foot is fractured and in a cast, an alternating hot and cold treatment can be performed on the right foot. Because of the reflexive action, the left foot obtains the benefits of the hydrotherapy treatment even though it was done on the right foot. This principle is also used when a hot and cold treatment is applied to the feet to treat the throat or sinuses.(citation)
And I inflect pain on myself using my fitness training program, in order for myself to buildup my pain tolerance, whereas pot OTOH just numbs the pain. In the apply science of clinical medicine (not theory), it's a known fact that long term usage of painkiller has a double-effect of relieving the patient's pain by hastening the death of said patient. This is known as the Doctrine of Double-Effect in medical ethics. In other words, your body and subsequently your mind both need to experience real pain, in order for themselves to begin the healing and strengthening process. Thereby building up a better coping mechanism.

So you see, I don't try to get rid of my pain when I need it as a feedback for myself to measure up my training progress, so that I can make swift decision on how to adjust my training program when my body starts to adapt itself. Marijuana OTOH doesn't help anyone to do that, period.
47117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 11/7/10
Just as you inflict pain on yourself for using a fitness training program in order to build up pain tolerance, a pot smoker inflicts irritation in his throat to relieve pain of the body.

So what? That doesn't mean squat for the arguement for marijuana to be illegalized.

Your entire basis for why marijuana should be illegal is from your ideologies, not from people's freedom of choice, nothing that is logical, only what you think a human should live his life like
Posted 11/7/10 , edited 11/7/10

superluccix wrote:

Just as you inflict pain on yourself for using a fitness training program in order to build up pain tolerance, a pot smoker inflicts irritation in his throat to relieve pain of the body.

So what? That doesn't mean squat for the arguement for marijuana to be illegalized.

Your entire basis for why marijuana should be illegal is from your ideologies, not from people's freedom of choice, nothing that is logical, only what you think a human should live his life like
What "freedom of choice" is there for those that are under the influence of marijuana? When THC prevents people from generating real consent based on informed choice:

How Does it Affect You?

A mild hallucinogen, marijuana has some of alcohol’s depressant and disinhibiting properties. User reaction, however, is heavily influenced by expectations and past experience, and many first-time users feel nothing at all.

Effects of smoking are generally felt within a few minutes and peak in 10 to 30 minutes. They include dry mouth and throat, increased heart rate, impaired coordination and balance, delayed reaction time, and diminished short-term memory. Moderate doses tend to induce a sense of well-being and a dreamy state of relaxation that encourages fantasies, renders some users highly suggestible, and distorts perception (making it dangerous to operate machinery, drive a car or boat, or ride a bicycle). Stronger doses prompt more intense and often disturbing reactions including paranoia and hallucinations.

Most of marijuana’s short-term effects wear off within two or three hours. The drug itself, however, tends to linger on. THC is a fat-soluble substance and will accumulate in fatty tissues in the liver, lungs, testes, and other organs. Two days after smoking marijuana, one-quarter of the THC content may still be retained. It will show up in urine tests three days after use, and traces may be picked up by sensitive blood tests two to four weeks later.


The Impact on the Mind

Marijuana use reduces learning ability. Research has been piling up of late demonstrating clearly that marijuana limits the capacity to absorb and retain information. A 1995 study of college students discovered that the inability of heavy marijuana users to focus, sustain attention, and organize data persists for as long as 24 hours after their last use of the drug. Earlier research, comparing cognitive abilities of adult marijuana users with non-using adults, found that users fall short on memory as well as math and verbal skills. Although it has yet to be proven conclusively that heavy marijuana use can cause irreversible loss of intellectual capacity, animal studies have shown marijuana-induced structural damage to portions of the brain essential to memory and learning.



The Impact on the Body

Chronic marijuana smokers are prey to chest colds, bronchitis, emphysema, and bronchial asthma. Persistent use will damage lungs and airways and raise the risk of cancer. There is just as much exposure to cancer-causing chemicals from smoking one marijuana joint as smoking five tobacco cigarettes. And there is evidence that marijuana may limit the ability of the immune system to fight infection and disease.

Marijuana also affects hormones. Regular use can delay the onset of puberty in young men and reduce sperm production. For women, regular use may disrupt normal monthly menstrual cycles and inhibit ovulation. When pregnant women use marijuana, they run the risk of having smaller babies with lower birth weights, who are more likely than other babies to develop health problems. Some studies have also found indications of developmental delays in children exposed to marijuana before birth.(citation)
47117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 11/7/10
I meant the freedom of choice to CHOOSE whether to smoke marijuana or not. I dont think anyone in this country is expecting people under the influence of marijuana to make important choices.

I mean its used for recreational or relieving of pain purposes. Why most this be banned from people? It makes no sense.

Your going to reply back saying something like "Because people don;t need to be intoxicated, they should be doing something else more productive"

*sigh*
Posted 11/7/10 , edited 11/8/10

superluccix wrote:

I meant the freedom of choice to CHOOSE whether to smoke marijuana or not. I dont think anyone in this country is expecting people under the influence of marijuana to make important choices.

I mean its used for recreational or relieving of pain purposes. Why most this be banned from people? It makes no sense.

Your going to reply back saying something like "Because people don;t need to be intoxicated, they should be doing something else more productive"

*sigh*
Because it's in fact legal for certain patients to benefit from medical marijuana. Whereas those who need the choice of recreational marijuana usage, have mental problems that prevent themselves to have fun in their life without it.

Also, insofar none of your argument had managed to generate sufficient justifications to cross the threshold between marijuana from a medical drug with limited benefits for unhealthy patients, to a recreational drug with mostly positive benefits that maximizes human social flourishing. For example, I can drink tea with moderation for recreational purpose because there are real positive benefits for myself to do so. Just like I can drink red wine with moderation for recreational purpose because there are also real positive benefits for myself to do so.

Finally, there are regulations within Proposition 19 that deal with proper handling of recreational marijuana and subsequently punishments for breaking those said regulations:

2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis.
4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
(iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.
(b) “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301.
(c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
(i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;
(ii) consumption in public or in a public place;
(iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;
(iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls

Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
(a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
(c) appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21;
(d) age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older;
(e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;
(f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;
(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;
(h) appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare;
(i) appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by;
(j) appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis;
(k) appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;
(l) such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local
circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section;
(m) any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.

Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors

(a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.
(d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.(citation)
In other words, this is by no means a decriminalization on marijuana usage for those who broke the government regulations. Your recreational marijuana usage is still being seen as a problem to the rest of the greater society, when you can't manage to keep it solely to yourself.

BTW, you reporting my post with bogus claims doesn't help your cause in the long run. Nor will your ad homenim statements against only my person without sufficient justifications, can help you win the argument.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/9/10 , edited 11/9/10

digs wrote:

This is good news. Legalizing marijuana is a bad idea in my opinion and I'm glad California voters struck it down. Regardless, I'm not sure that a state can legalize a federally illegal substance.


So, where does the line for state-rights end and federal-rights begin? Is it a pick a choose thing? I know this is only slightly relevent to the OP, but you have, previously, expressed certain, most certainly, right-wing beliefs, and, among conservatives, state-rights seem to be the mode. But, I much agree, harmful substances should be prohibited or heavily regulated- such substances are not only harmful to those who abuse it but also to those who live with those who abuse those substances.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/9/10

longfenglim wrote:


digs wrote:

This is good news. Legalizing marijuana is a bad idea in my opinion and I'm glad California voters struck it down. Regardless, I'm not sure that a state can legalize a federally illegal substance.


So, where does the line for state-rights end and federal-rights begin? Is it a pick a choose thing? I know this is only slightly relevent to the OP, but you have, previously, expressed certain, most certainly, right-wing beliefs, and, among conservatives, state-rights seem to be the mode. But, I much agree, harmful substances should be prohibited or heavily regulated- such substances are not only harmful to those who abuse it but also to those who live with those who abuse those substances.


Lol what line, states have no rights. The feds have banned pot, plain and simple the states has no right to circumvent that and legalize it. period. Prop 19 even if it passes would be null and void as the feds would come in and be like "Lol i think not" and overturn it.
47117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 11/9/10
The federal government can indeed say California cant do it.....but I seriously doubt they would be able to enforce it. All the resources to just find California growers, would cost a ton of resources.
Posted 11/9/10

superluccix wrote:

The federal government can indeed say California cant do it.....but I seriously doubt they would be able to enforce it. All the resources to just find California growers, would cost a ton of resources.
That's counterproductive to what Proposition 19 was suggesting to do, which is government regulation on marijuana growth as a part of legalizing recreational marijuana usage. So thank you for denouncing your own claim. [/sarcasm]
47117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 11/9/10
I didnt denounce my own claim. Your reading in too much.

If you can't understand what I said, then I can't help you
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/10/10 , edited 11/10/10

superluccix wrote:

The federal government can indeed say California cant do it.....but I seriously doubt they would be able to enforce it. All the resources to just find California growers, would cost a ton of resources.


Dude, the federal government gives local police agencies somewhere around or over a billion dollars a year to go after growers, not just in CA but all overt the nation, that is why the police do not want pot to be legal because their federal monies dries up. The federal government have more than enough resources by a factor of 10 go track down and arrest all the growers if they really wanted to.

Every year police are buying brand new shiny 5 million dollar helicopters with all kinds of fancy pot detecting equipment with federal money.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.