Posted on 01/02/2018 10:14:46 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
What’s naive is try to “teach” people who went to school with and sometimes workrd around or did business with pot heads that we didn’t see what we saw, didn’t hear what we heard, didn’t notice the overall productivity, accuracy of their work and trajectory of the lives of pot heads was ...ahem.... not impressive. We KNOW.
And where do you think all of those “funny” wine memes all the women post on Facebook come from? Do you think some housewife drew it up and posted it? It's all marketing and nonsense, developed by the wine and alcohol industry. No different. Same with those studies touting the “health benefits of wine. There’s a lot of money being spent out there to get you drunk and hooked.
Decades of consistent observation have made it obvious to me that pot heads belong in a separate category. Oh it might be their self-righteousness of those desperate to evangelize their favorite “activity,” but I think it’s their LEVEL of irresponsibility, immaturity, silliness and inactivity of pot heads that earned them derision.
That is naive.
Actually it’s not. Today’s domestically grown pot is much more potent, better tasting, and purer than the ditch weed that’s coming out of Mexico these days. Like craft beer, it’s preferred over the mass-grown swill.
Same thing goes for alcohol. You don't call everybody that imbibes in alcohol an alcoholic, do you? Most people who drink are recreational drinkers, not lushes. They have a drink with friends after work or a glass of wine with dinner or a beer after mowing the lawn. They're not buzzed all the time.
But you overtly throw all pot users into the pot head category, implying they are slacker stoners with not direction, motivation or responsibility in their lives. That's just not true.
But having said that, people should not use either alcohol or pot or other drugs while driving or at work. But they do. I've had to fire two employees in the past for drinking on the job. If I was aware of someone smoking pot at work or being high, they would go too.
And they, by doing so, give some a purpose in life, bwahahahahaha...
When was the last time you heard of somebody operating an illegal still? Heard of any "alcohol pushers" murdering each other over territory? I've heard of "drug gangs" but haven't heard of "alcohol gangs".
How about shootouts between law enforcement and alcohol smugglers?
Despite the rather considerable taxes on legal alcohol, there is very little gangsterism surrounding illegal alcohol. I look forward to a day when the same can be said of pot. I'll know that day has come when my wife and I can safely travel through the Menocino National Forest and not have to fear running across an illegal pot farm and being shot.
How many will die on the roads because the democrats want votes from potheads?
And for this, they and their suppliers should be imprisoned?
Soros “facts and figures”
Anyone who doesn’t smoke mj, and knows others who do, knows the truth about it.
And if said person used to smoke it, you cannot fool them with lies about how mj is harmless, doesn’t make people lazy, or stupid, or crazy, etc.
I used to smoke it in the bad old days with much lower THC, plus hash when I could get it. Stopped decades ago.
MJ is a dangerous drug and dopers lie plus they can’t think rationally.
Comparing alcohol and drugs is also naive.
Why so? How is alcohol not a "drug"? When alcohol was illegal we had some of the same problems that we presently have with "drugs", by which we now mean those that are always illegal and those subject to prescription abuse.
I would guess that we have millions of Americans suffering from alcohol abuse; drunkenness, homelessness, violence, early death. What I don't see with alcohol are the violations of the Second and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution such as civil forfeiture, exigent circumstances requiring SWAT teams, and gang wars.
“your inherent prejudice “
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Those are actually my inherent observations performed over decades. They match the experience of the prior generation with whom I’ve spoken (My father, his brothers and sister) and the experience of the high school students I’ve taught. I think the “inherent prejudice” is all yours and it makes you sound like a petulant teenager.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“but most people who smoke pot are just casual recreational users”
And your data is taken from? Your inherent prejudice. Keep trying to tie pot heads to wine/alcohol because you need all the filler you can muster since most of us have known or met pot heads (i.e., recreational users - what else is there? Professional Users? Advanced pot users?) at some point in our lives you have to try to make us think we didn’t observe what we observed and really try to get us to think, “Should I believe my life’s experiences going to school with, working around, observing pot users encountered over decades or this whiny advocate for legalized pot?”
And for this, they and their suppliers should be imprisoned?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is “suppliers” your polite word for drug dealers? If so, yes if they meet the criteria for prison versus lesser punishement. I believe in a rule by law and if people are dealing drugs and buying illegal drugs then the law applies. I don’t know whether that’s fines, drug rehab, community service whatever.
LOL! What bull! In the absence of infringement on another person's rights—via force, fraud, or negligence—people pursuing their own happiness aren't criminals simply because the State passes some piece of crap law which says so—whether that law is backed by a self-righteous mob or not. That kind of law is nothing more than majority Tyranny.
Haw haw! The kind of "law" you're supporting leaves the door to Tyranny wide open—too wide. You know, like putting someone in prison for possessing (or transferring) the wrong plant!
Such laws are arguably unconstitutional. But even if such laws weren't unconstitutional, they'd still remain pieces of Tyrannical garbage. Federal Prohibition, for example, at least required amending the Constitution, if I recall. It was an abject failure, of course, which exacerbated some of the problems, while creating new ones to boot (just like the phony Drug War). The modern Regulatory State—with the support of Big Government ideologues in both parties—has dispensed such inconvenient formalities as honoring Constitutional Rights.
It's kind of hard to be a believer in minimal government if one supports such an expansive vision of nanny-state State power. Indeed, it's the same kind of logic which the Left employs to justify their lengthy list of oppressive nanny-state legislation.
I'll take "none of the above", Alex. I'll take actual Freedom—with all of its warts, inconveniences, annoyances, and challenges—and without arbitrary and Tyrannical nanny-state shortcuts.
Education and rehabilitation—not incarceration...
Your response does sound like a teen in their first year of college paying attention to just enough of their civics classes to sound like they are all about freedom when they just want to sit around and get high.
And yours sounds like that of someone who understands Freedom even less than that stereotypical teen...
Ooooohhhh ooohhhhhh BURN!!! /sarcasm
Ah yes, the emotipnally and lawlessly disordered makes a Dubya-style cry for compassionate conservatism during the Trumpian age of law and order.
Weakness.
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.