Ozzy Says He Now Believes Pot Leads To Other Addictions

MTV ^ | 07.08.2003 | Robert Mancini, with reporting by Gideon Yago

[vin-one]

Because drugs harm not just the user but those around him.

Biggest BS statement I have ever seen

if I am single, live in the woods all by myself, I then would be able to smoke a joint legally?

obviously there is nobody around me. so I can not be harming anyone........but myself

Who owns your body, you or the govt?????
answer this one please...

[eyespysomething]

hmmmm, that sarcasm fits right in in this thread.

[presidio9]

People like you are the reason why I said from the beginning that debating with Libertarians is a waste of time. Your childish political views are a symptom of your utopian view of the world.

[jayef]

Drugs do no such thing. If you can't understand that inanimate objects don't do anything to anybody, perhaps you should contact Sara Brady.

[commonerX]

Oh that's right, I'm sorry I forgot the "just because" reasoning. LOL

[eyespysomething]

h ah ah ah ah aha ha hahahahahahahahaha

[toothless]

People like you are the reason why I said from the beginning that debating with Nanny Statists is a waste of time. Repeated use of ad hominem attacks are a symptom of your lack of logic.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Goes to show the dangers of having some peoples' humble opinions backed up by the bludgeons and guns of the police, courts, and jails.

One of the many dangers of a society of laws. Get out there and get the laws changed.

[presidio9]

So I guess you never fly or use our highways then? Interesting. How do you think all that pot you are smoking gets to you?

[eyespysomething]

Alas, although your quick witted response hath sliced me not unlike a rapier to the quick, you have failed to answer the question I so posed to you:



post# 577
So do a lot of things. Should the government control everything? My 3 y.o. was swinging and kicked my 2 y.o. when the latter walked in front of the former. Now, either I need to go to jail for being a negligent parent, or swings need to be outlawed because they can cause harm to those around them.

And what about guns?

[commonerX]

There we go again labels, labels, labels. You don't relize how irrelevant it makes your arguement.

[presidio9]

Your question does not warrant a response. You are trying to equate the damage drugs do to society and to individuals to a fight among toddlers. Get back to me when you think of an intelligent allalogy.

[eyespysomething]

What about guns?

[toothless]

Wasn't it you who related smoking MJ with killing your baby?

[lugsoul]

Presidio9 - a serious question:

1) Do you believe that intoxicating substances which, when abused, cause societal problems and cause problems for persons in close proximity to abusers should be outlawed and that their use should be subject to criminal penalties?

2) If so, do you believe that such criminal penalties should be limited to those substances presently illegal, or should additional substances which meet the standard in #1 be added to the prohibition list (i.e. ecstacy in the 80s)?

3) If the former, why?

4) If the latter, can you think of anything not currently on the list that should be?

5) BONUS: Can you name an illegal intoxicating substance of which use was eradicated by making the substance illegal and aggresively pursuing criminal convictions of those who possessed it? How about substantially reduced?

[presidio9]

I have no kids. Next?

[eyespysomething]

fight among toddlers

Twasn't a fight, just a mere wrong place wrong time, but it could happen to anyone, anywhere!

[toothless]

lol, ok.

[commonerX]

It might take presidio9 a little time to get back to you, he has to check with his conservative dictionary. OOPs did I label presidio9!!!

[presidio9]

We passed an ammendment there. Next?