Posted on 04/25/2006 7:33:08 AM PDT by cryptical
The money quote, in my opinion. It's not about safety, it's all about the benjamins.
Does "dexfenfluramine" get you high?
Marijuana has one fundamental purpose, to get you high.
There are probably a few medicinal purposes for marijuana, but the vast majority of pro-marijuana arguments are promoted by people who just want to get high.
Redux doesn't make people feel good...
So what? Lots of legal products "get you high". What's your point? Are we making getting high illegal?
So what?
Sometimes it makes them dead.
Whats your point?
Alcohol has one primary purpose, to give you at least a buzz or get you drunk. We don't make it a schedule 1 drug.
Pot prohibition as mandated by the feds is stupid. It should be a state issue.
Apparently so.
And people getting 'high', is bad because??
Well no one has responded to many of the points on this thread. Have no fear though, the drug warriors will arive in force soon. I admit I do find these war on drugs threads amusing.
Marijuana has one fundamental purpose, to get you high.
There are probably a few medicinal purposes for marijuana, but the vast majority of pro-marijuana arguments are promoted by people who just want to get high.
Oh no! Somewhere, someone is probably enjoying himself.
About half the prescription drugs out there will get you high. That's not the issue. The issue is whether it's medically useful or not.
Tobacco gets you high; it also seems to prevent ulcerative colitis. Perhaps, if I had smoked in the past, I wouldn't have UC now.
Alcohol gets you high; it also seems to have a beneficial effect on heart disease. Seems to affect lifespan in the US.
Marijuana gets you high; it also has a beneficial effect on nausea. If a relative of mine had been willing to smoke marijuana, perhaps she'd still be alive, rather than dying after refusing further cancer treatment.
I have never used any of the above except for a very small amount of alcohol. I just don't get their being illegal or controlled.
I'd tax them, though, but just to the extent that publically funded health care covers the costs of health problems related to their use. If there were no publically funded health care, that wouldn't be an issue.
Don't they remember that there was a " Pot is good" thread just yesterday.
I don't think you'd ever be able to establish a number here that reflects "contribution". How much does alcoholism cost us? How much does tobacco cost us? How much does antihistamine abuse cost us? It would just be more made-up Gov't numbers.
Oh no. Not another WOD thread. All the holier-than-thous line up, once again proving that conservatives can be just as self-important, arrogant and condescending as liberals.
Everyone is equal on the internet.
Even a bad number is better than me paying for it through my taxes.
Sure. We need another way for people to get stoned before they get in their cars.
We need more mothers who get messed up and leave their kids unprotected.
We need more fathers who get stoned and abandon their responsibilities.
Sure. We need more rather than less of all that.
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.