Forums | MacLife
You are not logged in.
#1 2005-03-05 12:53 am
- more or less
- excrementalist
- From: noodley goodness
- Registered: 2003-04-16
- Posts: 6081
legalizing pot is smurfed up...
[cont. from the canadian mounty thread ]
::swagger mode enabled::
bratboy wrote:
There is a point of intoxication at which someone should not be driving. Why should it matter how much (or little) it takes of a given substance to reach that level?
i am not necessarily concerned with the amount it takes to get a dopefiend to a DUI. the point is that pot, secifically homebrewed, is ultrapotent. the further point is that the legalizing argument is usually predicated on the ability to TAX AND MARKET the drug to pay for the added enforcement costs.
it is not totally separate from everclear by comparison.
aside from the FACT that scientifically we are unsure of just WHAT levels of impairment are truly problematic, studies have the ADDED problem that you DOPEFIENDS tend to be drunk as well.
anyways, the point is, to get a "good high" as previously mentioned, certainly seems to be similar to BEING DRUNK... no?
then, when your high, you should not be driving? and why should this ease and desire to get high be something to legalize?
Last edited by more or less (2005-03-05 1:04 am)
anything you type can and will be used against you
Offline
#2 2005-03-05 1:11 am
- more or less
- excrementalist
- From: noodley goodness
- Registered: 2003-04-16
- Posts: 6081
Re: legalizing pot is smurfed up...
and further, why do you DOPEFIENDS always talk about hypothetical arguments of the do gooders? i triple dog challenge you to talk about the PRAGMATIC REALITY of what will likely happen.
at best, anything that results will be a COMPROMISE. IT WILL BE HEAVILY REGULATED AND TAXED. if you dont think so, WHY NOT? its the implimentation of said compromise i ask you to think about, because i don't actually think the likely pragmatic reality is in the best interest of the DOPEFIEND.
Last edited by more or less (2005-03-05 1:13 am)
anything you type can and will be used against you
Offline
#3 2005-03-05 2:23 am
- Pro_
- One skull short of a mousketeer reunion
- From: my parents, thanks for asking.
- Registered: 2002-12-07
- Posts: 3866
Re: legalizing pot is smurfed up...
who the hell said it would cost more to enforce? id say it is damn expensive right now considering the 'war on drugs' and all.
and the kind of people that drive intoxicated are not going to care wether it is legal or not.
Offline
#4 2005-03-05 2:35 am
- [MA] Flying_Meat
- Member
- From: Frisco?
- Registered: 2001-03-31
- Posts: 8543
Re: legalizing pot is smurfed up...
stereo-typical examples follow. please avert your eyes if you haven't a clue.
Drunk = slow reaction time and a general inability to see stuff.
Stoned = slow reaction time (but hell! they're prob'ly only driving a consistent 10 mph under the speed limit anyway (even in a 10 mph zone 
) )
put 2 and 2 together and you get:
drunk = ran into the guy ahead of him.
stoned = the guy he ran into.
tah-dah!!!
math. LOL!!!
...and watch out for the flying meat!
Offline
#5 2005-03-05 2:38 am
- more or less
- excrementalist
- From: noodley goodness
- Registered: 2003-04-16
- Posts: 6081
Re: legalizing pot is smurfed up...
Pro_ wrote:
who the hell said it would cost more to enforce? id say it is damn expensive right now considering the 'war on drugs' and all.
and the kind of people that drive intoxicated are not going to care wether it is legal or not.
well,
that war on pot is a small part of the war on drugs, afaik. lately, it seems the pot is increasingly domestic. but, that may be a cali thing. however, i admit that some of those funds would dilute the cost of added enforcement.
that idea that legalizing pot would not create costs is just nutty. first, wherein the notion of a PRAGMATIC AND REALISTIC program do you think its just going to suddenly be decriminalized.
smurf, i bet they will require the homegrown user to apply for a license and pay a fee.
tax on seeds, on paraphernalia... licenses to sell it. what is the the "legal" thc content. further, we just DON'T allow street markets in america for what would otherwise be controlled substances.
and if you think RJR does not have a plant just WAITING to make pot cigarettes, you are just innane. joe blow would love to just buy some ganja sticks with his meat and potatoes, and corporate america would stumble over itself to help.
its gonna be taxed, licensed and regulated and there is no reason to believe otherwise. this is not a "health supplement." this is not a grocery item. this is not some high school pipe dream wherein it just "becomes legal."
Last edited by more or less (2005-03-05 2:42 am)
anything you type can and will be used against you
Offline
#6 2005-03-05 6:45 am
Re: legalizing pot is smurfed up...
Why don't you disable 'swagger mode' and try again.
Here's a hint: If the first post is attacking people, it's getting closed again.
Offline
