I don't think so. I can vote, I can drink, I can serve and die for my country, nah, I think someone old enough to do all of that is capable of making an informed decision about whether to smoke pot or not.
If you acknowledge that mj is intoxicating....and acknowledge that some activities such as driving should be regulated reference this intoxication...how on ewrth is legalization justified?
Because the constitution of the US leaves those decisions up to the states?
Ok, 25 is an adult. You can make an informed decision. I get it.
Well lets go back to a previous question. Should I contribute to welfare spending, on a person who made an adult decision to stunt his/her brain growth? Enforcement of that would be absurd of course...but back to my original question.
If an able bodied 24 y/o male walks past all the Help Wanted signs in town and finds the welfare office...they shouldn’t test him for drugs? They should fork over the people’s cash, no questions asked? What if the guy were obviously intoxicated? Now the guy behind the counter at the welfare office knows he is below 25 y/o...and other than being on mj, he is completely able bodied...he just signs the guy up and puts him on the dole?
If that’s too harsh for you, how about this scenario. If, in the past 5 years, you have been arrested for a drug offense, and you apply for welfare...testing then?
On to the constitution - I agree it should be a state issue. But the question remains the same - were Colorado and Washington premature in legalization, since not enough has been established concerning intoxication levels?
Here’s a headline from this year:
“Study: Fatal Car Crashes by Marijuana Smokers up 300% over Last Decade”
Here is the predictable headline of an article in response, from the legalization crowd:
“Another bogus headline about weed warns of stoned drivers”
Houston, we have a problem. If nobody can agree on what constitutes intoxicated, how can it be legalized?
And this leads to my major complaint. I really don’t have a complaint against marijuana. I’m fairly ambivalent. My complaint is with the MJ worshipping crowd.
Medical Marijuana - Intellectually dishonest. Plain and simple. If it really is a miracle drug, have it administered at the doctor’s office, or put in pill form (like 99% of other drugs). For every one person who legitimately feels better smoking, there are nine others joking about their wink, wink, nudge, nudge ‘prescription’. I have no respect for anybody who uses such a dishonest argument.
Legalization - I have more respect for this crowd. At least they are being honest. They want to get high, plain and simple. But this is what I can’t stand:
They won’t give an inch.
Not one f@cking inch.
Any other substance on the planet, they will tell you what’s bad with it - caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, prescription drugs. And they’re right - most things have a downside. So lets discuss the pros and cons of MJ.
NOPE! There is nothing wrong with it. There can’t be anything wrong with it. Look at this thread - a guy ate a marijuana cookie and shot his wife...that’s the story. But none of the pot crowd believe it. Its just not possible to them. Now, if I told the exact same crowd that a guy took too many aspirin and shot his wife, they wouldn’t question that for a second.
That attitude is, also, intellectually dishonest. Marijuana is not a wonder drug and a cure all, with zero side effects or downside. That product is called Snake Oil.
I appreciate your answering my questions - that was intellectually honest. Notice nobody else did. Notice how many people were immediately dismissive of the original story, even though none of us know any of the details. Others on this thread were not being intellectually honest.