Posted on 11/23/2018 8:58:41 AM PST by Red6
Ah the desire of one human to control the others.
One of mankind’s worst qualities, you possess.
If you are 65 or older, postings with minor spelling or grammer problems are autoforgiven
CBD oil is changing lives for people with chronic pain. Ibuprofen ruins the liver. CBD oil doesn’t get you high if it doesn’t contain any - or much- THC.
I don't want to control them. I want them to not exist. there is a difference.
it shouldn’t surprise me that this thread is packed with people who are afflicted with pot addled brains.
You can’t love freedom if you only love it for yourself.
Evidence? I showed you the other day that there was only one House race where a Rat won by less than the third-vote total and a Libertarian was running.
As a libertarian Conservative, marijuana to me is fine. Matter of fact in my yearbook back in the 70s, my classmate had a few plants in his dorm room. He is a retired DEA agent.
Bravo - well stated.
Ping.
5.56mm
The question is the relative weights and probabilities of the given variables. Even fat people are addicted to food. Quite frankly, America is suffering from a bigger health risk in an order of magnitude from obesity. How many people do you think need dialysis because of pot? How many people do you think have type II diabetes because of pot, gout, GERD, high blood pressure...?
But sure, pot is a drug no doubt (I don’t refute that). I am even sure that it is possible to find some person somewhere that managed to do something stupid while on pot... but does that make pot statistically dangerous? No. Let me put it to you like this:
Deaths from Tylenol overdose per year: 458 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16294364
Deaths from pot overdose per year: 0
If I can show you that after eating a snickers bar there are physical changes in how a brain functions, what does that mean? Of course pot has a psychoactive effect, otherwise people wouldn’t use it! But what are the associated risks with its use? Very, very, low.
I like snickers and do not use pot. I am a total control freak and even drinking booze makes me feel out of control, so I don’t even drink (ever). But nonetheless, I cannot construct a logical and consistent argument where I look at the net benefits and costs to society against pot, unless I take the argument into the realm of absurdity (addictions, gateway drug nonsense arguments) or go into polemics (as you try to show contradictions etc.). I am interested in meaningful conversations, where there is substance.
What is the social redeeming benefit of junk food?
What is the social redeeming benefit of Candy Crush or the 10,000 other smart phone games?
Pretending to be logical and using this as an argument only works when folks don’t know your life very well, because when they do, they will learn about where you waste your time and money... I like a fast car and to fly. I fly an airplane and burn hundreds of dollars worth of fuel flying someplace for no reason at all, buy a cheeseburger, and then fly back home. What is the social redeeming value of that? I do it because it “makes me feel good.” Imagine if I took the thousands I blow on my F33 Bonanza and spent that on the poor or sick people?!?! I could be working in a soup kitchen instead of being socially irresponsible and engaging in an activity with no social redeeming value! Take that social redeeming argument and put it in the trash with the “gateway” drugs. It’s actually an appeal to emotions that pretends to be logical (fallacy).
15% of Americans used marijuana in 2017 - do you think we can or should jail them all?
You can’t love freedom if you only love it for yourself.
show me which article of the constitution, or which amendment of the bill of rights, restricts a state from passing a law that prohibits what it, acting in their roles as democratically elected state legislators, has determined to be a dangerous or harmful substances.
please show me. I defy you.
That was a really well thought out post. Thanks.
There is none.
Do you and I likewise agree that no article of the constitution, nor amendment of the bill of rights, restricts a state from passing a law that permits what it has determined ought to be permitted?
Amen! Me too!
but one is one too many.
Do you and I likewise agree that no article of the constitution, nor amendment of the bill of rights, restricts a state from passing a law that permits what it has determined ought to be permitted?
so, yes. the constitution allows states to do idiodic things. it does not guarantee perfect wisdom. it provides for workable government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.