Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 70 of 70
  1. #61
    jessejames09's Avatar
    jessejames09 is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,233

    Re: Could pot cure the economy?

    "singersp" wrote:
    "aceclown" wrote:
    "singersp" wrote:
    Could pot cure the economy?
    If you're high, do really give a shit about the economy?
    You could just as easily ask the same thing about being drunk.
    Which is why we get stimulus checks...........so we can spend it in beer & get drunk.
    Then you stimulate Pizza Hut at 3 AM...

  2. #62
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Could pot cure the economy?

    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:

    Exactly, we should be able to make our own decisions.

    Personally drugs are not attractive to me one way or the other and i rarely drink any more, but I feel strongly that there is no reason why i shouldn't be able to drive around in my vehicle with a loaded gun if I want to. I have never hurt anyone and don't intend to, so why should I be punished because some knuckle head did?
    Not only that but cars kill way more people in the country every day than firearms. Is there any attempt to outlaw them? No.
    [me=fourdoorchevelle]turns the sarcasm on[/me]

    sorry sir , you are not quiet smart enough to know what is best for you. in fact some bureaucrat in D.C. who is wise beyond belief has a plan just for you. please turn in any original thoughts you may have had, turn over your firearms and take some prozac.
    No shit. You said it all there.

  3. #63
    oaklandzoo24's Avatar
    oaklandzoo24 is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,897

    Re: Could pot cure the economy?

    "singersp" wrote:
    Could pot cure the economy?
    If you're high, do really give a shit about the economy?
    Its the only time i think about the economy.
    "There are 3 things that sell in America:
    Violence, sex, and drugs.
    The only way you are going to make this game more appealing to the public than it was before is if there are on field orgies at halftime and the domes become massive opium dens."

    [img width=450 height=55]http://img216.imageshac

  4. #64
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: Could pot cure the economy?

    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:

    Do you know how much oxycontin costs? Should people purchase or grow their own illegal opiates instead?
    YES

    are they infringing on your rights by growing opium and related products?

    murder, steal , commit arson , drive under the influence than go to jail . but when your in your own home and not infringing on others rights than where is it my or any one else's place to tell them what to do. Honestly tv makes people blind to what goes on around them , they are too entranced with their dancing with the stars and lost to really find out what is going on around them. should there be a law forcing tv manufactures to have a timer built into it? why is that any of my business?

    do you know how many people die from falling in the kitchen? falling asleep while driving? why arent kitchens out lawed? why are cars still legal? why doesn't society feel the need to protect the stupid citizens from those? THEY FAR MORE DEADLY THAN MARIJUANA. do i even need to get into alcohol and tobacco? do i need to get into legal over the counter drugs? what about prescription drugs? do i need to touch on that?

    prohibitions floods prisons with non-violent criminals
    prohibition makes gangsters rich and powerful
    prohibition does not stop citizens from partaking in said habit

    if you think pot or heroin is so bad than dont do it.

    i honestly think that people are smart enough to decide for them selves. plus i am a fan of natural selection
    I don't think pot is bad, and I know all about what prohibition does to the justice system, you sound just like 80% of the criminal justice and sociology professors at Rutgers.

    I have absolutely no problem with the government prohibiting a dangerous addictive substance, which marijuana is not.

    It's one less worry in my life knowing that there's less of a chance of someone driving while fucked up, or being robbed by an addict. Drugs like heroin are going to create crime whether or not it is a crime to possess them.

    You can say all the founding fathers stuff you want to, I don't know if they've met as many heroin addicts as I have(my best friend's father, a friend of the family, a friend from high school, and my uncle, some of which still use.) It's a dangerous, highly addictive substance that ruins lives. The government is intended to protect more than just our constitutional rights, it's intended to protect the safety of its citizens and legalizing heroin and other opiates for use in non-medical scenarios is incredibly dangerous.

    Find me a junkie who's truly happy with their choice to use, then tell me it should be legal.


    While I believe it should be illegal doesn't mean I think drug users, especially first time ones should be thrown in jail. That money should go towards rehabilitation. Needle exchange programs should be provided. Pot should be legal.

    I agree with much of what you're saying, but there's no justifying the legalization of hard drugs. Another issue I take is your paragraph on other things that kill citizens, like cars and kitchens.

    Those things are considered necessary for most people. Kitchens to prepare food, cars for transportation. You could argue that people did those things for millions of years before we had the modern technology of automobiles and kitchen appliances, but that would be stupid. You can't outlaw necessities. Television is not necessary for entertainment, but it's a damn good form of information sharing. No different than a newspaper, both of which can carry bias(just look at everything Rupert Murdoch owns). My point is, you can't outlaw technological advancements of necessary products. They enable people to do their jobs better, debilitating drugs do not.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,232

    Re: Could pot cure the economy?

    "Mr" wrote:
    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:

    Do you know how much oxycontin costs? Should people purchase or grow their own illegal opiates instead?
    YES

    are they infringing on your rights by growing opium and related products?

    murder, steal , commit arson , drive under the influence than go to jail . but when your in your own home and not infringing on others rights than where is it my or any one else's place to tell them what to do. Honestly tv makes people blind to what goes on around them , they are too entranced with their dancing with the stars and lost to really find out what is going on around them. should there be a law forcing tv manufactures to have a timer built into it? why is that any of my business?

    do you know how many people die from falling in the kitchen? falling asleep while driving? why arent kitchens out lawed? why are cars still legal? why doesn't society feel the need to protect the stupid citizens from those? THEY FAR MORE DEADLY THAN MARIJUANA. do i even need to get into alcohol and tobacco? do i need to get into legal over the counter drugs? what about prescription drugs? do i need to touch on that?

    prohibitions floods prisons with non-violent criminals
    prohibition makes gangsters rich and powerful
    prohibition does not stop citizens from partaking in said habit

    if you think pot or heroin is so bad than dont do it.

    i honestly think that people are smart enough to decide for them selves. plus i am a fan of natural selection
    I don't think pot is bad, and I know all about what prohibition does to the justice system, you sound just like 80% of the criminal justice and sociology professors at Rutgers.

    I have absolutely no problem with the government prohibiting a dangerous addictive substance, which marijuana is not.
    if the prohibitions worked you'd have a better argument

    "Mr" wrote:
    It's one less worry in my life knowing that there's less of a chance of someone driving while fucked up, or being robbed by an addict. Drugs like heroin are going to create crime whether or not it is a crime to possess them.
    so drunk driving and driving while under the influence are not a problem currently? didn't making it illegal to drive drunk eliminate the problem? and since the drugs are illegal , no one drives under the influence , right? the saying that theres "less" of a chance is speculation. and if you want i can look up crime rates in countries where heroin is legal and we can compare , just let me know and i'll bring you the proof you request , but the way you state it it is again speculation.

    "Mr" wrote:
    You can say all the founding fathers stuff you want to, I don't know if they've met as many heroin addicts as I have(my best friend's father, a friend of the family, a friend from high school, and my uncle, some of which still use.) It's a dangerous, highly addictive substance that ruins lives. The government is intended to protect more than just our constitutional rights, it's intended to protect the safety of its citizens and legalizing heroin and other opiates for use in non-medical scenarios is incredibly dangerous.
    'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin

    wait a minute , those herion addicts you mention shouldn't exists, due to the prohibition. or are you just reinforcing the fact that the prohibition doesnt work , and instead of help they could get hard time.

    "Mr" wrote:
    Find me a junkie who's truly happy with their choice to use, then tell me it should be legal.
    so who gets to decide if he truly happy or not? does the junkie get to make that decision for their self? or is there some barometer that some one has formulated? or is this some unprovable point you are trying to make?


    "Mr" wrote:
    While I believe it should be illegal doesn't mean I think drug users, especially first time ones should be thrown in jail. That money should go towards rehabilitation. Needle exchange programs should be provided. Pot should be legal.

    I agree with much of what you're saying, but there's no justifying the legalization of hard drugs.
    you think bureaucrats know what is best for every one , i think people should be able to decide for them selves. can we agree on this?

    "Mr" wrote:
    Another issue I take is your paragraph on other things that kill citizens, like cars and kitchens.

    Those things are considered necessary for most people. Kitchens to prepare food, cars for transportation. You could argue that people did those things for millions of years before we had the modern technology of automobiles and kitchen appliances, but that would be stupid. You can't outlaw necessities. Television is not necessary for entertainment, but it's a damn good form of information sharing. No different than a newspaper, both of which can carry bias(just look at everything Rupert Murdoch owns). My point is, you can't outlaw technological advancements of necessary products. They enable people to do their jobs better, debilitating drugs do not.
    i reiterate

    do i even need to get into alcohol and tobacco? do i need to get into legal over the counter drugs? what about prescription drugs? do i need to touch on that?



    http://justlube.net/?page_id=44

  6. #66
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,258

    Re: Could pot cure the economy?

    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:

    Do you know how much oxycontin costs? Should people purchase or grow their own illegal opiates instead?
    YES

    are they infringing on your rights by growing opium and related products?

    murder, steal , commit arson , drive under the influence than go to jail . but when your in your own home and not infringing on others rights than where is it my or any one else's place to tell them what to do. Honestly tv makes people blind to what goes on around them , they are too entranced with their dancing with the stars and lost to really find out what is going on around them. should there be a law forcing tv manufactures to have a timer built into it? why is that any of my business?

    do you know how many people die from falling in the kitchen? falling asleep while driving? why arent kitchens out lawed? why are cars still legal? why doesn't society feel the need to protect the stupid citizens from those? THEY FAR MORE DEADLY THAN MARIJUANA. do i even need to get into alcohol and tobacco? do i need to get into legal over the counter drugs? what about prescription drugs? do i need to touch on that?

    prohibitions floods prisons with non-violent criminals
    prohibition makes gangsters rich and powerful
    prohibition does not stop citizens from partaking in said habit

    if you think pot or heroin is so bad than dont do it.

    i honestly think that people are smart enough to decide for them selves. plus i am a fan of natural selection
    I don't think pot is bad, and I know all about what prohibition does to the justice system, you sound just like 80% of the criminal justice and sociology professors at Rutgers.

    I have absolutely no problem with the government prohibiting a dangerous addictive substance, which marijuana is not.
    if the prohibitions worked you'd have a better argument

    "Mr" wrote:
    It's one less worry in my life knowing that there's less of a chance of someone driving while fucked up, or being robbed by an addict. Drugs like heroin are going to create crime whether or not it is a crime to possess them.
    so drunk driving and driving while under the influence are not a problem currently? didn't making it illegal to drive drunk eliminate the problem? and since the drugs are illegal , no one drives under the influence , right? the saying that theres "less" of a chance is speculation. and if you want i can look up crime rates in countries where heroin is legal and we can compare , just let me know and i'll bring you the proof you request , but the way you state it it is again speculation.

    "Mr" wrote:
    You can say all the founding fathers stuff you want to, I don't know if they've met as many heroin addicts as I have(my best friend's father, a friend of the family, a friend from high school, and my uncle, some of which still use.) It's a dangerous, highly addictive substance that ruins lives. The government is intended to protect more than just our constitutional rights, it's intended to protect the safety of its citizens and legalizing heroin and other opiates for use in non-medical scenarios is incredibly dangerous.
    'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin

    wait a minute , those herion addicts you mention shouldn't exists, due to the prohibition. or are you just reinforcing the fact that the prohibition doesnt work , and instead of help they could get hard time.

    "Mr" wrote:
    Find me a junkie who's truly happy with their choice to use, then tell me it should be legal.
    so who gets to decide if he truly happy or not? does the junkie get to make that decision for their self? or is there some barometer that some one has formulated? or is this some unprovable point you are trying to make?


    "Mr" wrote:
    While I believe it should be illegal doesn't mean I think drug users, especially first time ones should be thrown in jail. That money should go towards rehabilitation. Needle exchange programs should be provided. Pot should be legal.

    I agree with much of what you're saying, but there's no justifying the legalization of hard drugs.
    you think bureaucrats know what is best for every one , i think people should be able to decide for them selves. can we agree on this?

    "Mr" wrote:
    Another issue I take is your paragraph on other things that kill citizens, like cars and kitchens.

    Those things are considered necessary for most people. Kitchens to prepare food, cars for transportation. You could argue that people did those things for millions of years before we had the modern technology of automobiles and kitchen appliances, but that would be stupid. You can't outlaw necessities. Television is not necessary for entertainment, but it's a damn good form of information sharing. No different than a newspaper, both of which can carry bias(just look at everything Rupert Murdoch owns). My point is, you can't outlaw technological advancements of necessary products. They enable people to do their jobs better, debilitating drugs do not.
    i reiterate

    do i even need to get into alcohol and tobacco? do i need to get into legal over the counter drugs? what about prescription drugs? do i need to touch on that?

    Please do.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  7. #67
    jessejames09's Avatar
    jessejames09 is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,233

    Re: Could pot cure the economy?

    I here pot makes you shoot yourself in the face while playing with dad's loaded handgun.. Must be dangerous stuff.


  8. #68
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: Could pot cure the economy?

    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:

    Do you know how much oxycontin costs? Should people purchase or grow their own illegal opiates instead?
    YES

    are they infringing on your rights by growing opium and related products?

    murder, steal , commit arson , drive under the influence than go to jail . but when your in your own home and not infringing on others rights than where is it my or any one else's place to tell them what to do. Honestly tv makes people blind to what goes on around them , they are too entranced with their dancing with the stars and lost to really find out what is going on around them. should there be a law forcing tv manufactures to have a timer built into it? why is that any of my business?

    do you know how many people die from falling in the kitchen? falling asleep while driving? why arent kitchens out lawed? why are cars still legal? why doesn't society feel the need to protect the stupid citizens from those? THEY FAR MORE DEADLY THAN MARIJUANA. do i even need to get into alcohol and tobacco? do i need to get into legal over the counter drugs? what about prescription drugs? do i need to touch on that?

    prohibitions floods prisons with non-violent criminals
    prohibition makes gangsters rich and powerful
    prohibition does not stop citizens from partaking in said habit

    if you think pot or heroin is so bad than dont do it.

    i honestly think that people are smart enough to decide for them selves. plus i am a fan of natural selection
    I don't think pot is bad, and I know all about what prohibition does to the justice system, you sound just like 80% of the criminal justice and sociology professors at Rutgers.

    I have absolutely no problem with the government prohibiting a dangerous addictive substance, which marijuana is not.
    if the prohibitions worked you'd have a better argument

    "Mr" wrote:
    It's one less worry in my life knowing that there's less of a chance of someone driving while fucked up, or being robbed by an addict. Drugs like heroin are going to create crime whether or not it is a crime to possess them.
    so drunk driving and driving while under the influence are not a problem currently? didn't making it illegal to drive drunk eliminate the problem? and since the drugs are illegal , no one drives under the influence , right? the saying that theres "less" of a chance is speculation. and if you want i can look up crime rates in countries where heroin is legal and we can compare , just let me know and i'll bring you the proof you request , but the way you state it it is again speculation.

    "Mr" wrote:
    You can say all the founding fathers stuff you want to, I don't know if they've met as many heroin addicts as I have(my best friend's father, a friend of the family, a friend from high school, and my uncle, some of which still use.) It's a dangerous, highly addictive substance that ruins lives. The government is intended to protect more than just our constitutional rights, it's intended to protect the safety of its citizens and legalizing heroin and other opiates for use in non-medical scenarios is incredibly dangerous.
    'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin

    wait a minute , those herion addicts you mention shouldn't exists, due to the prohibition. or are you just reinforcing the fact that the prohibition doesnt work , and instead of help they could get hard time.

    "Mr" wrote:
    Find me a junkie who's truly happy with their choice to use, then tell me it should be legal.
    so who gets to decide if he truly happy or not? does the junkie get to make that decision for their self? or is there some barometer that some one has formulated? or is this some unprovable point you are trying to make?


    "Mr" wrote:
    While I believe it should be illegal doesn't mean I think drug users, especially first time ones should be thrown in jail. That money should go towards rehabilitation. Needle exchange programs should be provided. Pot should be legal.

    I agree with much of what you're saying, but there's no justifying the legalization of hard drugs.
    you think bureaucrats know what is best for every one , i think people should be able to decide for them selves. can we agree on this?

    "Mr" wrote:
    Another issue I take is your paragraph on other things that kill citizens, like cars and kitchens.

    Those things are considered necessary for most people. Kitchens to prepare food, cars for transportation. You could argue that people did those things for millions of years before we had the modern technology of automobiles and kitchen appliances, but that would be stupid. You can't outlaw necessities. Television is not necessary for entertainment, but it's a damn good form of information sharing. No different than a newspaper, both of which can carry bias(just look at everything Rupert Murdoch owns). My point is, you can't outlaw technological advancements of necessary products. They enable people to do their jobs better, debilitating drugs do not.
    i reiterate

    do i even need to get into alcohol and tobacco? do i need to get into legal over the counter drugs? what about prescription drugs? do i need to touch on that?


    Should there be speed limits? Gun control? Any regulation on the substances you suggest legalizing, age restrictions? Should all substances be legal? I'd like to go buy some U-235.

    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    Another issue I take is your paragraph on other things that kill citizens, like cars and kitchens.

    Those things are considered necessary for most people. Kitchens to prepare food, cars for transportation. You could argue that people did those things for millions of years before we had the modern technology of automobiles and kitchen appliances, but that would be stupid. You can't outlaw necessities. Television is not necessary for entertainment, but it's a damn good form of information sharing. No different than a newspaper, both of which can carry bias(just look at everything Rupert Murdoch owns). My point is, you can't outlaw technological advancements of necessary products. They enable people to do their jobs better, debilitating drugs do not.
    i reiterate

    do i even need to get into alcohol and tobacco? do i need to get into legal over the counter drugs? what about prescription drugs? do i need to touch on that?
    I didn't write anything about prescription drugs, alcohol, or tobacco. I commented on your ridiculous point about kitchens and automobiles.

    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    While I believe it should be illegal doesn't mean I think drug users, especially first time ones should be thrown in jail. That money should go towards rehabilitation. Needle exchange programs should be provided. Pot should be legal.

    I agree with much of what you're saying, but there's no justifying the legalization of hard drugs.
    you think bureaucrats know what is best for every one , i think people should be able to decide for them selves. can we agree on this?
    What? I don't think that at all. I think people who are stupid enough to use dangerous addictive substances should be protected, not ignored.

    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    You can say all the founding fathers stuff you want to, I don't know if they've met as many heroin addicts as I have(my best friend's father, a friend of the family, a friend from high school, and my uncle, some of which still use.) It's a dangerous, highly addictive substance that ruins lives. The government is intended to protect more than just our constitutional rights, it's intended to protect the safety of its citizens and legalizing heroin and other opiates for use in non-medical scenarios is incredibly dangerous.
    'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin

    wait a minute , those herion addicts you mention shouldn't exists, due to the prohibition. or are you just reinforcing the fact that the prohibition doesnt work , and instead of help they could get hard time.
    Did I not say that they shouldn't go to jail, but instead use that money for rehabilitation?

    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    Find me a junkie who's truly happy with their choice to use, then tell me it should be legal.
    so who gets to decide if he truly happy or not? does the junkie get to make that decision for their self? or is there some barometer that some one has formulated? or is this some unprovable point you are trying to make?
    I'm 0 for 5 on people I know personally. I'm pretty confident that if you were to ask any addict "Are you happy that you decided to start using?" You'd get a consistent answer of no.
    [/quote]

    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    so drunk driving and driving while under the influence are not a problem currently? didn't making it illegal to drive drunk eliminate the problem? and since the drugs are illegal , no one drives under the influence , right? the saying that theres "less" of a chance is speculation. and if you want i can look up crime rates in countries where heroin is legal and we can compare , just let me know and i'll bring you the proof you request , but the way you state it it is again speculation.
    Unnecessary, I know it all already, and I also know that it does not accurately reflect the United States legal system(mainly prohibition laws in this case,) SES variation, and crime surveys/reporting systems so they are statistically incomparable and saying "if it were legal here" while comparing crime rate is far more speculative than anything I've said.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,232

    Re: Could pot cure the economy?

    "Mr" wrote:
    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:

    Do you know how much oxycontin costs? Should people purchase or grow their own illegal opiates instead?
    YES

    are they infringing on your rights by growing opium and related products?

    murder, steal , commit arson , drive under the influence than go to jail . but when your in your own home and not infringing on others rights than where is it my or any one else's place to tell them what to do. Honestly tv makes people blind to what goes on around them , they are too entranced with their dancing with the stars and lost to really find out what is going on around them. should there be a law forcing tv manufactures to have a timer built into it? why is that any of my business?

    do you know how many people die from falling in the kitchen? falling asleep while driving? why arent kitchens out lawed? why are cars still legal? why doesn't society feel the need to protect the stupid citizens from those? THEY FAR MORE DEADLY THAN MARIJUANA. do i even need to get into alcohol and tobacco? do i need to get into legal over the counter drugs? what about prescription drugs? do i need to touch on that?

    prohibitions floods prisons with non-violent criminals
    prohibition makes gangsters rich and powerful
    prohibition does not stop citizens from partaking in said habit

    if you think pot or heroin is so bad than dont do it.

    i honestly think that people are smart enough to decide for them selves. plus i am a fan of natural selection
    I don't think pot is bad, and I know all about what prohibition does to the justice system, you sound just like 80% of the criminal justice and sociology professors at Rutgers.

    I have absolutely no problem with the government prohibiting a dangerous addictive substance, which marijuana is not.
    if the prohibitions worked you'd have a better argument

    "Mr" wrote:
    It's one less worry in my life knowing that there's less of a chance of someone driving while fucked up, or being robbed by an addict. Drugs like heroin are going to create crime whether or not it is a crime to possess them.
    so drunk driving and driving while under the influence are not a problem currently? didn't making it illegal to drive drunk eliminate the problem? and since the drugs are illegal , no one drives under the influence , right? the saying that theres "less" of a chance is speculation. and if you want i can look up crime rates in countries where heroin is legal and we can compare , just let me know and i'll bring you the proof you request , but the way you state it it is again speculation.

    "Mr" wrote:
    You can say all the founding fathers stuff you want to, I don't know if they've met as many heroin addicts as I have(my best friend's father, a friend of the family, a friend from high school, and my uncle, some of which still use.) It's a dangerous, highly addictive substance that ruins lives. The government is intended to protect more than just our constitutional rights, it's intended to protect the safety of its citizens and legalizing heroin and other opiates for use in non-medical scenarios is incredibly dangerous.
    'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin

    wait a minute , those herion addicts you mention shouldn't exists, due to the prohibition. or are you just reinforcing the fact that the prohibition doesnt work , and instead of help they could get hard time.

    "Mr" wrote:
    Find me a junkie who's truly happy with their choice to use, then tell me it should be legal.
    so who gets to decide if he truly happy or not? does the junkie get to make that decision for their self? or is there some barometer that some one has formulated? or is this some unprovable point you are trying to make?


    "Mr" wrote:
    While I believe it should be illegal doesn't mean I think drug users, especially first time ones should be thrown in jail. That money should go towards rehabilitation. Needle exchange programs should be provided. Pot should be legal.

    I agree with much of what you're saying, but there's no justifying the legalization of hard drugs.
    you think bureaucrats know what is best for every one , i think people should be able to decide for them selves. can we agree on this?

    "Mr" wrote:
    Another issue I take is your paragraph on other things that kill citizens, like cars and kitchens.

    Those things are considered necessary for most people. Kitchens to prepare food, cars for transportation. You could argue that people did those things for millions of years before we had the modern technology of automobiles and kitchen appliances, but that would be stupid. You can't outlaw necessities. Television is not necessary for entertainment, but it's a damn good form of information sharing. No different than a newspaper, both of which can carry bias(just look at everything Rupert Murdoch owns). My point is, you can't outlaw technological advancements of necessary products. They enable people to do their jobs better, debilitating drugs do not.
    i reiterate

    do i even need to get into alcohol and tobacco? do i need to get into legal over the counter drugs? what about prescription drugs? do i need to touch on that?


    Should there be speed limits? Gun control? Any regulation on the substances you suggest legalizing, age restrictions? Should all substances be legal? I'd like to go buy some U-235.
    driving isn't a "god given right" and if you are driving on privately owned roads the speed limit is set by the roads owner

    criminals don't obey laws and there for gun control disarms law abiding citizens

    sure , regulate it like tobacco and alcohol

    "Mr" wrote:
    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    Another issue I take is your paragraph on other things that kill citizens, like cars and kitchens.

    Those things are considered necessary for most people. Kitchens to prepare food, cars for transportation. You could argue that people did those things for millions of years before we had the modern technology of automobiles and kitchen appliances, but that would be stupid. You can't outlaw necessities. Television is not necessary for entertainment, but it's a damn good form of information sharing. No different than a newspaper, both of which can carry bias(just look at everything Rupert Murdoch owns). My point is, you can't outlaw technological advancements of necessary products. They enable people to do their jobs better, debilitating drugs do not.
    i reiterate

    do i even need to get into alcohol and tobacco? do i need to get into legal over the counter drugs? what about prescription drugs? do i need to touch on that?
    I didn't write anything about prescription drugs, alcohol, or tobacco. I commented on your ridiculous point about kitchens and automobiles.
    why stop at protecting people too stupid to realize what is best for them at drugs? and you can apply the argument to alcohol , tobacco , prescription drugs


    "Mr" wrote:
    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    While I believe it should be illegal doesn't mean I think drug users, especially first time ones should be thrown in jail. That money should go towards rehabilitation. Needle exchange programs should be provided. Pot should be legal.

    I agree with much of what you're saying, but there's no justifying the legalization of hard drugs.
    you think bureaucrats know what is best for every one , i think people should be able to decide for them selves. can we agree on this?
    What? I don't think that at all. I think people who are stupid enough to use dangerous addictive substances should be protected, not ignored.
    you think that government know whats best for you better than you do. i think you should have the right to decide for your self
    how do you protect people from them selves? impossible ,
    see current war on drugs
    isn't it a crime to commit suicide? enforce that one bud!!
    isn't it a crime to take prescriptions not in accordance with doctors orders? aren't people taking prescriptions to get high? like say vicadin


    it is impossible to stop it from happening, so let people do what they want to them selves. how a bout a little bit of "mind your own business"

    if they commit a crime and violate some one's rights than take action

    "Mr" wrote:
    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    You can say all the founding fathers stuff you want to, I don't know if they've met as many heroin addicts as I have(my best friend's father, a friend of the family, a friend from high school, and my uncle, some of which still use.) It's a dangerous, highly addictive substance that ruins lives. The government is intended to protect more than just our constitutional rights, it's intended to protect the safety of its citizens and legalizing heroin and other opiates for use in non-medical scenarios is incredibly dangerous.
    'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin

    wait a minute , those herion addicts you mention shouldn't exists, due to the prohibition. or are you just reinforcing the fact that the prohibition doesnt work , and instead of help they could get hard time.
    Did I not say that they shouldn't go to jail, but instead use that money for rehabilitation?


    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    "Mr" wrote:
    Find me a junkie who's truly happy with their choice to use, then tell me it should be legal.
    so who gets to decide if he truly happy or not? does the junkie get to make that decision for their self? or is there some barometer that some one has formulated? or is this some unprovable point you are trying to make?
    I'm 0 for 5 on people I know personally. I'm pretty confident that if you were to ask any addict "Are you happy that you decided to start using?" You'd get a consistent answer of no.
    0-5 impressive , truly scientific . bet you didnt ask them when they where high. ;D
    people obviously enjoy getting high to deny that is ludicrous

    "Mr" wrote:
    "fourdoorchevelle" wrote:
    so drunk driving and driving while under the influence are not a problem currently? didn't making it illegal to drive drunk eliminate the problem? and since the drugs are illegal , no one drives under the influence , right? the saying that theres "less" of a chance is speculation. and if you want i can look up crime rates in countries where heroin is legal and we can compare , just let me know and i'll bring you the proof you request , but the way you state it it is again speculation.
    Unnecessary, I know it all already, and I also know that it does not accurately reflect the United States legal system(mainly prohibition laws in this case,) SES variation, and crime surveys/reporting systems so they are statistically incomparable and saying "if it were legal here" while comparing crime rate is far more speculative than anything I've said.
    so your speculation is more valid than real stats? give me a break

    wonder how the united states made it until nixion. some where around 200 years with out drug prohibitions

    http://justlube.net/?page_id=44

  10. #70
    VikingsTw is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,144

    Re: Could pot cure the economy?

    Intristing topic, to start off I'll say that Weed has nothing to do with the economy and certainly wouldn't help the economy. Weed is a drug, not nearly the strength of others but yet a drug, a mind altering drug. I know from experience.

    The economy is controlled by those who control, they have no fear of an economic meltdown there rich and there family is well taken care of, in places of power and fairly knowledgable.

    The first thing I think needs to be done to fix the economy or Society in general is to create a Goverment for which their purpose is protection only. PROTECTION ONLY! Military, armed forces and thats it, there job is protect the citizen from harm or destruction. Goverment will have nothing to do with the restriction of drugs or making law after law in a contination of manipulating personal rights.

    Opressive orginizations such as FDA are to be sold to private sectors, that money will be used to pay back all social security with intrist. From now on the Food industry along with the medical industry will be as free as the computer industry. Unregualted by goverment, non-opressive. When computers first came out they were not affordable, but through market businessmen the price has been driven lower and lower and now everyone has a computer with internet even my grandparents. The value of the dollar has to go up up up! Market Businessman must replace incopetent politicians who are more like bottom feeders. All industries will do as the computer industry in order to bring affordability and good wealth to all individuals.

    These are some the things that will take place in shaping a real society once the new structure is in place. The most important is the protection only goverment, thats the start, nobody in the history of world has ever seen a protection only goverment. Its gonna be awesome.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-03-2009, 01:32 PM
  2. The economy and two money-losing teams
    By Storm in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 220
    Last Post: 02-12-2009, 04:14 AM
  3. Another bank feeling the effects of the economy...
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-03-2009, 10:39 AM
  4. Dad Breaks Leg Trying to Cure Phobia
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-13-2006, 10:52 PM
  5. Cure? It won't happen.........
    By DaScRuM in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-11-2005, 11:07 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •