Posted on 02/21/2015 10:18:23 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
And civilization hasn't ended.
Yours didn't get the free pass.
It's not "mine" - and it's on its way to a pass.
No, it's profoundly immoral to induce people to try something that will wreck their lives just because some people can use it and not wreck their lives.
Your thinking is like allowing a vaccine because it only kills 40% of the population.
So your argument is that another step towards the cliff's edge won't end it either?
It's not "mine" - and it's on its way to a pass.
At the same point in history the nation is about to take a flying leap off a cliff, and for the exact same reason.
It is no coincidence that all this insanity is coming to a boil now. It is the consequence of past insanity coming to fruition. Your pet drug is just another manifestation of the coming chaos.
No, it's profoundly immoral to induce people to try something that will wreck their lives just because some people can use it and not wreck their lives.
So let's have no inducement - a no-advertising-allowed legalization would defund the cartels just as effectively.
Your thinking is like allowing a vaccine because it only kills 40% of the population.
Out of which orifice did you pull 40%? Of all those who ever used pot, 9% were at some point dependent ... which is not death and from which many recover.
I think putting tens of billions of dollars in criminal hands every year gets us a lot closer to the cliff's edge than legal pot ever would.
And how did you find out about drugs? I remember you saying it was newspapers and magazines, but it never occurred to me that it was some form of advertising.
Pull the other one.
Out of which orifice did you pull 40%? Of all those who ever used pot, 9% were at some point dependent ... which is not death and from which many recover.
And this reminds me of that old joke: "We've already determined what kind of girl you are, now we are just negotiating over the price."
It's better than putting trillions into the hands of legal companies doing the same thing.
You still don't get what happened with the British East India company do you?
And how did you find out about drugs? I remember you saying it was newspapers and magazines
To find out is not to be induced.
Out of which orifice did you pull 40%? Of all those who ever used pot, 9% were at some point dependent ... which is not death and from which many recover.
And this reminds me of that old joke: "We've already determined what kind of girl you are, now we are just negotiating over the price."
The logical consequence of your position is that no substance that will harm ANYONE should be banned - which is absurd. (I think there's a Latin phrase for this ...)
You still don't get what happened with the British East India company do you?
I find profits for legal businesses far preferable to profits for cartels; perhaps you feel differently. And you still don't get that this is not China and that (as addiction experts tell us) addiction is not solely about biochemistry.
I'll tell you what I get. I get that responding to anyone that believes that sort of bullshit is a waste of time.
Next thing i'll hear is that water doesn't cause "wet."
Here's what the American Society of Addiction Medicine says:
“Genetic factors account for about half of the likelihood that an individual will develop addiction. Environmental factors interact with the person’s biology and affect the extent to which genetic factors exert their influence. Resiliencies the individual acquires (through parenting or later life experiences) can affect the extent to which genetic predispositions lead to the behavioral and other manifestations of addiction. Culture also plays a role in how addiction becomes actualized in persons with biological vulnerabilities to the development of addiction.”
Copperhead Road...good one.
The actual physical addiction is as strong as any narcotic as far as trying to stop. If you call stopping smoking irritating you have never been hooked on nicotine.
A year later, he skipped a court-ordered drug test and spent nearly four months in the Los Angeles County jail.
In 1999, Downey skipped another drug test and spent nearly one year in a state prison in Corcoran, California."
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/people/shows/downey/profile.html
Robert Downey, Sr. introduced marijuana to his son when he was six years old. "Dad" says he regrets it. How'd that work out?
Wanna bet?
Pot should be kept away from kids - which criminalizing pot for adults has failed to do. Since well before any state had legalized pot, teens have reported that they could get it more easily than beer or cigarettes ... which is to be expected since legal sellers usually card and illegal sellers never do.
What could have possessed this father in introducing his six years-old child to pot? (Leading directly to heroin and cocaine use that is presently rampant in our nation).
Was he, himself, under the influence of pot?
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.