posted
Why, Nimrod? Have ya a few lines we can bang back, eh?
------------------ At that point, McDonald fired his gun three times in the air to emphasize his point. The crowd, estimated at 350,000, loudly cheered the new candidate.
"Let me make this clear: I am the law! I am your ruler! And you will have fries with that, motherf*cker!"
posted
I was just amused about the comparison. Inhaling coal is bad, yes, and so is smoking. Didn't quite help Gurgeh's case.
Gurgeh: "Also, even taking the lung damage into account, is this reason enough to make it illegal?"
Here you advocate that lung damage isn't reason enough. Because that's the impression you sent out when you said that. Then you back down on that point and retreat to "well, we can always eat it instead, and not smoke it". So now you agree that lung damage is reason enough to make it illegal? Make up your mind!
"If people are fat, it's generally because they are lazy, unexcercised, uneducated about basic nutrition, and undisciplined in their lifestyle, and legalizing marijuana will not change this."
So why legalize it then, if it won't change the overweight bit? You just gave up your weight loss argument. You are burning your own ships, what is this?
Gaseous Anomaly: "we" can bang back??? I haven't seen you adding to this discussion.
posted
Nimrod: You seem to have misunderstood one or two things in my post. I read back over my post and tried to see where something I said might have led to confusion. What I was saying seems pretty clear to me, but let me attempt to clarify:
Inhaling coal is bad, yes, and so is smoking. Coal is legal, marijuana isn't. All I was trying to do with this ( admittedly rather facile ) comparison was to eliminate the smoking factor from the reasons against legalising marijuana. You don't have to smoke coal, you don't have to smoke marijuana.
Which is where the eating comes into it. You can eat marijuana, and not smoke it. This is not, as you imply, to say that lung damage from smoking is reason enough to ban it, and that I'm backing down on what I said before. Here I mean that for those who are concerned about the lung damage, they can eat it instead. For those who aren't worried about it, they can smoke it. What I'm saying, exactly, is that someone who wants to use lung damage as an argument against the legalisation hasn't really got a leg to stand on.
About the obesity issue: My remark that obesity in society would not be affected by legalization of marijuana does not in any way militate against my argument for legalization. Your reasoning for saying
quote:So why legalize it then, if it won't change the overweight bit? You just gave up your weight loss argument.
is badly flawed, I'm afraid. This is because I am not arguing that marijuana should be legalized in order to reduce obesity, but that it should be legalized because of other reasons. My statement that obesity would not be affected by smoking pot was in response to a post by First of Two, where the point was made that the increased appetite would make people overweight.
Now that all that explaining is out of the way, I'll try to address another issue.
I would suggest that there be an age requirement for the use of marijuana, for the reasons of concentration, ambition etc mentioned previously, so that at the minimum age, an adult could make an informed decision as to whether to smoke/eat marijuana products. One might argue about people being able to get marijuana before reaching the required age. However, this is more of a problem in our (with the exception of Holland and Belgium) current situation (where marijuana distribution is illegal, and thus unregulated), than it would be if marijuana was legal and regulated.
------------------ "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen" Samuel Adams
[This message has been edited by Gurgeh (edited May 15, 2001).]
posted
I've never spent half an hour imitating you, TSN, whatever do you speak of -- ?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 *** Card-Carrying Member of the FlareAPAO *** "I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.
posted
Again, we come back to the most commmon argument that's been proposed in this thread: "don't knock it if you haven't tried it."
People are morons. If they want to be stupid, let 'em. Why muddy the gene pool? Plenty of people mamage to smoke pot without turning into criminal drug-ravaged sex-maniacal fiends.
I've done a fair amount of hash, and on the whole I can take it or leave it. It made me feel nice, it's had some interesting effects on my sex life (but I've been told not to talk about that here), but on the whole I'd sooner have a nice bottle of wine. Or some cocaine. 8)
posted
LOL, you guys need to chill about weed, download Weed Man, by Jerky boys on napster and have some laughs.
------------------ It never stops, when my mama ask me will I change I tell her yeah, but it's clear I'll always be the same Until the end of time - Tupac Shakur, Untill the End of Time
posted
What an interesting theory... Does it apply to everything? Such as, don't knock suicide 'til you've tried it...
------------------ "Adults Do Not Teach By Examples, But By Word Scams That Brainwash And Indoctrinate Their Children's Malleable Minds, Destroying Youth. Rote Education Corrupts Childhood, Forcing Children To Become Adults." -Gene Ray
posted
Obviously not, TSN. I mean, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Remarks like that do nothing to progress a discussion.
Nimrod: When Vogon Poet said he could "take it or leave it" when referring to hash, I think he was referring to his affinity for the substance, and not dependence, as you seem to have interpreted it. Despite what NIDA http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html say I don't think anyone could say that marijuana is physically addictive with any credibility, even for long term use. Which is a damn sight more than can be said for alcohol and tobacco.
Although I haven't seen many arguments here against legalisation ( and all the valid arguments have been addressed and given consideration ), there still seem to be one or two people here "against" cannabis, without a reason that I find satisfactory.
I can understand how being brought up in an environment where people lump cannabis in with hard drugs can tend to bias someones opinion. And besides, if something is illegal, it usually is bad. However, my argument is that cannabis is an exception. Banning it was a mistake.
I don't expect those against legalisation to just reverse their opinion because of my arguments, after all, the adversarial situation often formed in a debate hinders more than aids this, but I would appreciate if those individuals would come up with solid arguments instead of muddying the waters. Arguments like the effect of cannabis on learning and concentration, its effect on health, these are the kind of solid arguments I'm talking about. Most of the points have been exhausted on this topic, it seems, so at this stage I think it can be left to everyone to make up their own mind. Here are some links:
------------------ "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen" Samuel Adams
posted
Thanks Jernau. Nimmychops' post left me a little confused myself; truth is, dope doesn't do a lot for me. There are very few occasions when it can be said to have enhanced the experience of what I was doing at the time. And as for Timothy, he has this habit of making these little digs at many of my posts; just ignore him, that's what I do. 8)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
