Genesis 1:29

Topspin said:
The gov is frying eggs and saying that's your brain on drugs. The gov said black men would rape white woman on pot and mexicans would be lazy. Yeah lets trust that.
Click to expand...
I expect you only believe the latter happened because it was your brains in the pan in the former.....
 
Damocles said:
Inane, they've also crashed cars and killed families. Anecdotal rubbish.

I fully support legalizing it, but pretending it is "good" because some guy was a functional addict is preposterous.

Whether or not it is good, it should be legal so we could make it far more difficult for kids to get it and become addicted. The drug dealer at the High School isn't checking anybody's ID for age...
Click to expand...
Word!
 
Damocles said:
It's just stupid to pretend that getting doped up makes you a better driver. It's just plain idiotic to even try to portray that.

It makes your reaction time much slower.

As I said, pretending it is "good" for people to drive or "better" than alcohol while driving is just silly. It is equally bad to drive under the influence of drugs as it is to drive under the influence of alcohol.

In a recent study of patients of injury accidents drugs were present 51% of the time, only 34% tested positive for alcohol of the sample. (Study by: Michael Walsh, Ron Flegel, Randolph Atkins, Leo A. Cangianelli, Carnell Cooper, Christopher Welsh and Timothy J. Kerns, Drug and Alcohol Use Among Drivers Admitted to a Level-1 Trauma Center).

Anyway.... It is just silly to refuse to admit that there can and will be problems when we finally legalize. Driving under the influence of MJ isn't any safer than driving under the influence of alcohol, it just literally makes you stupid enough to think so while you are still under its influence. (apparently if you are a convert too)
Click to expand...
Agreed. One should never consider driving under the influence of the weed. That's just bad mojo man.
 
Topspin said:
are you another student I'm waisting my time on, the prohibition was with racism in case you haven't read the history of the 30's.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume that deeply underlying that statement was some germ of an academic thought....lost of course, in a drug induced haze, but still it must have been laid in place by some external force, if only because we all know you aren't bright enough to think of anything on your own.....despite that, I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would come to the conclusion that the Prohibition had anything to do with race......I suppose you could make a credible argument that gender and religion were involved, since the driving force behind it was the Women's Christian Temperance Union....but race?......

in truth, there probably never would have been a Prohibition if the Brewer's Association hadn't been making political contributions to congressmen opposed to women's sufferage.....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
I'm going to assume that deeply underlying that statement was some germ of an academic thought....lost of course, in a drug induced haze, but still it must have been laid in place by some external force, if only because we all know you aren't bright enough to think of anything on your own.....despite that, I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would come to the conclusion that the Prohibition had anything to do with race......I suppose you could make a credible argument that gender and religion were involved, since the driving force behind it was the Women's Christian Temperance Union....but race?......
Click to expand...

Then obviously your totally ignorant on the origins of the prohibition of cannabis because even a remotely read novice on the topic knows this. So you might not be a student, it's more like a rightwingnut close minded fool to not read.
 
Topspin said:
Then obviously your totally ignorant on the origins of the prohibition of cannabis because even a remotely read novice on the topic knows this. So you might not be a student, it's more like a rightwingnut close minded fool to not read.
Click to expand...

to be honest, I've never given any thought to the prohibition of cannabis....I assumed you meant THE prohibition.....for the life of me, I can't imagine why I would devote the time to studying it, since the only ones who it would benefit would be stoners........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
to be honest, I've never given any thought to the prohibition of cannabis....I assumed you meant THE prohibition.....for the life of me, I can't imagine why I would devote the time to studying it, since the only ones who it would benefit would be stoners........
Click to expand...

I can't fucking believe I'm coming to Tops rescue....

He's right. Prohibition of various substances was started after the civil war, along with Jim Crow laws, to increase the arrest rates for blacks and had a nice benefit (for those who are racist) of demonizing blacks, citing that not only do they break the law, but their habits were 'evil'.

And it does do good to research prohibition in any and all forms. Remember the German story from WWII about the priest who refused to speak up for everyone, until there was no one left to stand up for him? In the words of Franklin, we shall all hang together, or we shall hang separately.
 
Prophet, I can except very easily that you don't care. No problem

While I'm 99% stoner, 1% medical user
there are people who actually benefit medically way more than I do. It keeps cancer patients from waisting away (munchies), it helps glacoma, ms and many other illnesses.

It's also the largest boost we could ever give to our economy.
By ending prohibition and not jailing 800,000 annually for possession.
those 800,000 would be paying taxes instead of costing 100,000 to jail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top