justincredible wrote: This is the point I am trying to make. ALL drugs should be decriminalized, legalized, whatever.

haha i know you are, some on here arent though.

SQ_Crazies wrote: LOL.

Still missing the point.

you said the whole purpose was getting high. you can get high with other drugs also.

And the problem with that is?

Glory Days wrote:

SQ_Crazies wrote: Dude, it doesn't CURE cancer. Getting high is the whole medicinal purpose of it.

Have you used it Glory Days? If you said earlier in the thread, my bad, I missed it. But I'm not about to look through 15 pages.

no i havent used. if getting high is the whole purpose, why not use cocaine, meth, heroine and other opiates? all of those get you high and can take away the pain(heck, thats where morphine comes from). thats fine if you want to legalize all of them, but to pick and choose in my opinion is not much different than keeping alcohol somewhat legal and marijuana not.

Alcohol isn't somewhat legal, it's perfectly legal.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

SQ_Crazies wrote: Dude, it doesn't CURE cancer. Getting high is the whole medicinal purpose of it.

Have you used it Glory Days? If you said earlier in the thread, my bad, I missed it. But I'm not about to look through 15 pages.

no i havent used. if getting high is the whole purpose, why not use cocaine, meth, heroine and other opiates? all of those get you high and can take away the pain(heck, thats where morphine comes from). thats fine if you want to legalize all of them, but to pick and choose in my opinion is not much different than keeping alcohol somewhat legal and marijuana not.

Alcohol isn't somewhat legal, it's perfectly legal.

only if you are over 21 and arent driving, plus a few other laws regulating alcohol.

krazie45 wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

dwccrew wrote: This argument again? How many times can we have this argument? People aren't going to change their opinions. We should just put it to a vote in this country. If it passes, it passes. If not, continue making money on the black market.

yeah but then we would have people complaining like they are now with the smoking ban vote. oooooh but wait, they would be in favor of voting on marijuana because they support that issue haha. just not for smoking because it bans something.

Haha could you be comparing apples to oranges any more? The smoking ban in public places is different from marijuana prohibition. Personally I don't think the smoking ban should be in place but to insinuate the two are comparable to each other is both ignorant and asinine.

Exactly.

Glory Days wrote:
its vote by the public either way. i am not comparing the smoking ban and marijuana legalization issues, i am comparing the actual vote. haha plus if the vote for marijuana legalization happend and it didnt pass, you would have an outcry because only people who wanted to keep it illegal voted and everyone else was too stoned to get out and vote haha.

You really have bought into the government propoganda machine. The public votes you speak of are apples and oranges as are the issues. One vote (the smoking ban) was for public smoking. You can still smoke in private residences. Marijuana prohibition is not the same as being banned from smoking cigs in public. Smoking marijuana in public would be banned as well, but having it would be legal.

dwccrew wrote: You really have bought into the government propoganda machine. The public votes you speak of are apples and oranges as are the issues. One vote (the smoking ban) was for public smoking. You can still smoke in private residences. Marijuana prohibition is not the same as being banned from smoking cigs in public. Smoking marijuana in public would be banned as well, but having it would be legal.

how is the vote any different? you are missing the point i am making. they both would be just as constitutional or whatever you want to call it? you cant say the vote would be different for either. the issues are, the vote process itself is not. let the people vote and have the final say. if it passes and becomes legal, so be it. why let the big bad government decide right?

It's the politics of contraband...

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

SQ_Crazies wrote: Dude, it doesn't CURE cancer. Getting high is the whole medicinal purpose of it.

Have you used it Glory Days? If you said earlier in the thread, my bad, I missed it. But I'm not about to look through 15 pages.

no i havent used. if getting high is the whole purpose, why not use cocaine, meth, heroine and other opiates? all of those get you high and can take away the pain(heck, thats where morphine comes from). thats fine if you want to legalize all of them, but to pick and choose in my opinion is not much different than keeping alcohol somewhat legal and marijuana not.

Alcohol isn't somewhat legal, it's perfectly legal.

only if you are over 21 and arent driving, plus a few other laws regulating alcohol.

Just because there are rules doesn't mean something is "somewhat legal". There are rules regulating how you can use many different items and substances, most not even drug related. This doesn't make them "somewhat legal".

I vote we redo this whole thing and get a poll with it. It'd be interesting to see how we stand by the numbers.

1- Never smoked, pro-legalization
2- Don't smoke, pro-legalization
3- Smoke, pro-legalization
4- Never smoked, anti-legalization
5- Don't smoke, anti-legalization
6- Smoke, anti-legalization

I'd be #1. Have never done it due to having a coaching job with Toledo Public. But it's far less harmless than cigarettes or alcohol, ridiculous the government won't let it be legal.

Is it a state ban or federal?

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: I vote we redo this whole thing and get a poll with it. It'd be interesting to see how we stand by the numbers.

1- Never smoked, pro-legalization
2- Don't smoke, pro-legalization
3- Smoke, pro-legalization
4- Never smoked, anti-legalization
5- Don't smoke, anti-legalization
6- Smoke, anti-legalization

I'd be #1. Have never done it due to having a coaching job with Toledo Public. But it's far less harmless than cigarettes or alcohol, ridiculous the government won't let it be legal.

Is it a state ban or federal?

Marijuana is illegal on both state and federal levels. The iffy area is when a state legalizes pot for medicinal uses, the feds can still make raids and arrests on state approved smoke shops.. bullshit.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

SQ_Crazies wrote: Dude, it doesn't CURE cancer. Getting high is the whole medicinal purpose of it.

Have you used it Glory Days? If you said earlier in the thread, my bad, I missed it. But I'm not about to look through 15 pages.

no i havent used. if getting high is the whole purpose, why not use cocaine, meth, heroine and other opiates? all of those get you high and can take away the pain(heck, thats where morphine comes from). thats fine if you want to legalize all of them, but to pick and choose in my opinion is not much different than keeping alcohol somewhat legal and marijuana not.

Alcohol isn't somewhat legal, it's perfectly legal.

only if you are over 21 and arent driving, plus a few other laws regulating alcohol.

Just because there are rules doesn't mean something is "somewhat legal". There are rules regulating how you can use many different items and substances, most not even drug related. This doesn't make them "somewhat legal".

seriously? you are debating how i use "somewhat legal" haha are you trying to get me to go take a few hits from the pipe myself? it is not legal for anyone under 21. it is legal for over 21. somewhat legal isnt exactly a technical term, i was just pointing out its not legal for everyone, therefore "somewhat legal".

Trueblue23 wrote:

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: I vote we redo this whole thing and get a poll with it. It'd be interesting to see how we stand by the numbers.

1- Never smoked, pro-legalization
2- Don't smoke, pro-legalization
3- Smoke, pro-legalization
4- Never smoked, anti-legalization
5- Don't smoke, anti-legalization
6- Smoke, anti-legalization

I'd be #1. Have never done it due to having a coaching job with Toledo Public. But it's far less harmless than cigarettes or alcohol, ridiculous the government won't let it be legal.

Is it a state ban or federal?

Marijuana is illegal on both state and federal levels. The iffy area is when a state legalizes pot for medicinal uses, the feds can still make raids and arrests on state approved smoke shops.. bullshit.

The biggest part of the iffy area is state's rights. Which is yet another reason why a true and intelligent American loves to pot argument. The marijuana discussion pushes the issue of states rights more than any issue has in years--and more so than any time in recent history, we need to knock the federal government down a few notches. It started with medicinal use like TB said, but if California makes it legal they'll set a precedent that will spread like wildfire IMO. Especially once people see the results of it. If a bunch of states follow suit, the feds are fucked on the issue and have no choice but to give in. Which is a perfect example of how fucked up our government is right now, the states losing power was one of the worst things that ever happened to this country. Well, maybe losing isn't the best word. Not using the power they have may be a better way to say it. Like others said, vote on it. But that should be on the state level--if Arkansas votes it down and you live there, move to Cali if you want to smoke. See what I'm saying? The feds should have nothing to do with it, it's a bunch of shit.

But I shouldn't be part of this conversation right now. I'm high, which turns me into a raging zombie murder. I'm currently biting the heads off of puppies and my brain clearly doesn't function well enough to even form a complete thought, therefore disqualifying me from the argument...

Far less harmful*** Less harmless would be a bad for our argument haha


Anywho, fuck the federal government. If the weed is grown in a state, thus not crossing state lines....what business do they have in it?

Does anyone else think the tobacco and alcohol companies will adamantly oppose the legalization of marijuana? They seem to have a monopoly on people's vices and reap huge profits with it.

So I should love the legalize pot argument if I value the constitution?!?

I think there are better poster children out there for state rights than this kid:

SQ_Crazies wrote:

Trueblue23 wrote:

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: I vote we redo this whole thing and get a poll with it. It'd be interesting to see how we stand by the numbers.

1- Never smoked, pro-legalization
2- Don't smoke, pro-legalization
3- Smoke, pro-legalization
4- Never smoked, anti-legalization
5- Don't smoke, anti-legalization
6- Smoke, anti-legalization

I'd be #1. Have never done it due to having a coaching job with Toledo Public. But it's far less harmless than cigarettes or alcohol, ridiculous the government won't let it be legal.

Is it a state ban or federal?

Marijuana is illegal on both state and federal levels. The iffy area is when a state legalizes pot for medicinal uses, the feds can still make raids and arrests on state approved smoke shops.. bullshit.

The biggest part of the iffy area is state's rights. Which is yet another reason why a true and intelligent American loves to pot argument. The marijuana discussion pushes the issue of states rights more than any issue has in years--and more so than any time in recent history, we need to knock the federal government down a few notches. It started with medicinal use like TB said, but if California makes it legal they'll set a precedent that will spread like wildfire IMO. Especially once people see the results of it. If a bunch of states follow suit, the feds are fucked on the issue and have no choice but to give in. Which is a perfect example of how fucked up our government is right now, the states losing power was one of the worst things that ever happened to this country. Well, maybe losing isn't the best word. Not using the power they have may be a better way to say it. Like others said, vote on it. But that should be on the state level--if Arkansas votes it down and you live there, move to Cali if you want to smoke. See what I'm saying? The feds should have nothing to do with it, it's a bunch of shit.

But I shouldn't be part of this conversation right now. I'm high, which turns me into a raging zombie murder. I'm currently biting the heads off of puppies and my brain clearly doesn't function well enough to even form a complete thought, therefore disqualifying me from the argument...

The main reason I believe that you're actually high is because it took you 22 minutes to type something that probably should have only taken 5! LOL

LOL I probably typed it in 5 minutes, but needed another 17 to read over it and make sure it made sense.

SQ on a weed thread... who woulda thought ha.

I used to smoke pot every weekend in high school. I rarely ever smoke it now, but I wouldn't mind it if it was legalized.

I would LOVE to see how many haters would change their tune and start using it as soon as it became legal. It'd be HILARIOUS actually.

You know what another problem with weed is, drug tests for work are totally bogus. And before someone says, "yeah, so says the pothead", I know a business owner very well who is VERY clear that they aren't big fans of weed. But even they think drug tests for jobs are STUPID, especially for weed.

SQ_Crazies wrote: I would LOVE to see how many haters would change their tune and start using it as soon as it became legal. It'd be HILARIOUS actually.

You know what another problem with weed is, drug tests for work are totally bogus. And before someone says, "yeah, so says the pothead", I know a business owner very well who is VERY clear that they aren't big fans of weed. But even they think drug tests for jobs are STUPID, especially for weed.

i think if it becomes legal that would be a big problem. imagine getting pulled over or getting in an accident. they smell weed even though you havent smoked it in say a day or 2 because the jacket you are wearing smells like it or there is some in your car. yet they test you and hit positive because it stays in your system for so long.

It wouldn't be a problem.

SQ_Crazies wrote: It wouldn't be a problem.

well shit, problem solved.

Glory Days wrote:

SQ_Crazies wrote: I would LOVE to see how many haters would change their tune and start using it as soon as it became legal. It'd be HILARIOUS actually.

You know what another problem with weed is, drug tests for work are totally bogus. And before someone says, "yeah, so says the pothead", I know a business owner very well who is VERY clear that they aren't big fans of weed. But even they think drug tests for jobs are STUPID, especially for weed.

i think if it becomes legal that would be a big problem. imagine getting pulled over or getting in an accident. they smell weed even though you havent smoked it in say a day or 2 because the jacket you are wearing smells like it or there is some in your car. yet they test you and hit positive because it stays in your system for so long.

I can actually see the issue presented here. Since there are no tests for pot that tell if it is in your system "right now" (i.e. smoked recently and still high) there would need to be field sobriety tests for it. Not sure if they would be similar to those for alcohol related DUIs. Perhaps the cop could offer the driver some Cheetos. If they turn them down they are obviously not high.

justincredible wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

SQ_Crazies wrote: I would LOVE to see how many haters would change their tune and start using it as soon as it became legal. It'd be HILARIOUS actually.

You know what another problem with weed is, drug tests for work are totally bogus. And before someone says, "yeah, so says the pothead", I know a business owner very well who is VERY clear that they aren't big fans of weed. But even they think drug tests for jobs are STUPID, especially for weed.

i think if it becomes legal that would be a big problem. imagine getting pulled over or getting in an accident. they smell weed even though you havent smoked it in say a day or 2 because the jacket you are wearing smells like it or there is some in your car. yet they test you and hit positive because it stays in your system for so long.

I can actually see the issue presented here. Since there are no tests for pot that tell if it is in your system "right now" (i.e. smoked recently and still high) there would need to be field sobriety tests for it. Not sure if they would be similar to those for alcohol related DUIs. Perhaps the cop could offer the driver some Cheetos. If they turn them down they are obviously not high.

The Cheetos Test, you should trademark that now haha.

I used to smoke socially during college. I wouldn't mind if it was legalized. It's right up there with alcohol IMO.