Medical Marijuana

[cxx]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @cxx said:

> > I remember when there was a separate culture for those who had an interest in drugs and the lifestyle that went with it. There wasn't the crossover that you see today.

> >

> > The one thing that I found a bit off-putting was when this couple's 5 year old started complaining that mom never gives me any weed anymore. It was a bit of a freak show watching that kid wander around toking on a lit one.

>

> can you clarify what exactly “the lifestyle that goes with it” is?

>

> As for the second part of your statement, anyone passing anything to a 5 year old isn’t a weed issue, that is a parents need to be in prison issue. That one can’t be blamed on weed, that is just someone that doesn’t need to be a parent. If it wasn’t weed, it would have been something else. And curious where you live?

 

The lifestyle that goes with these particular people is a drug-centric life. That is, everything besides the quest to get high takes a back seat.

 

Doesn't really matter where. There are people like that everywhere.

 

 

[MooJersey]

> @cxx said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @cxx said:

> > > I remember when there was a separate culture for those who had an interest in drugs and the lifestyle that went with it. There wasn't the crossover that you see today.

> > >

> > > The one thing that I found a bit off-putting was when this couple's 5 year old started complaining that mom never gives me any weed anymore. It was a bit of a freak show watching that kid wander around toking on a lit one.

> >

> > can you clarify what exactly “the lifestyle that goes with it” is?

> >

> > As for the second part of your statement, anyone passing anything to a 5 year old isn’t a weed issue, that is a parents need to be in prison issue. That one can’t be blamed on weed, that is just someone that doesn’t need to be a parent. If it wasn’t weed, it would have been something else. And curious where you live?

>

> The lifestyle that goes with these particular people is a drug-centric life. That is, everything besides the quest to get high takes a back seat.

>

> Doesn't really matter where. There are people like that everywhere.

>

>

 

I would say this applies to drunkards as well. When you get to that level of alcoholism...nothing else matters. I'd say just call it addiction.

[LeoLeo99]

> @MooJersey said:

> > @cxx said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @cxx said:

> > > > I remember when there was a separate culture for those who had an interest in drugs and the lifestyle that went with it. There wasn't the crossover that you see today.

> > > >

> > > > The one thing that I found a bit off-putting was when this couple's 5 year old started complaining that mom never gives me any weed anymore. It was a bit of a freak show watching that kid wander around toking on a lit one.

> > >

> > > can you clarify what exactly “the lifestyle that goes with it” is?

> > >

> > > As for the second part of your statement, anyone passing anything to a 5 year old isn’t a weed issue, that is a parents need to be in prison issue. That one can’t be blamed on weed, that is just someone that doesn’t need to be a parent. If it wasn’t weed, it would have been something else. And curious where you live?

> >

> > The lifestyle that goes with these particular people is a drug-centric life. That is, everything besides the quest to get high takes a back seat.

> >

> > Doesn't really matter where. There are people like that everywhere.

> >

> >

>

> I would say this applies to drunkards as well. When you get to that level of alcoholism...nothing else matters. I'd say just call it addiction.

 

Don't lump the potheads in with the drunks, crackheads, tweakers, opium fiends, or heroin addicts.

[Roadking2003]

> @Krt22 said:

> The war on drugs was and continues to be a complete and utter failure, so I am not up for increasing punishments for any aspect of its use or delivery, as we have seen it has done absolutely nothing to deter the use or prevalence of narcotics in our country, unfortunately you cannot legislate out vices, at least not in America (prohibition being on clear example) .

 

The war on drugs has been much worse than a failure. It's ruined millions of lives.

 

Why does anybody think the government should tell adults what they can eat, drink, or smoke?

[Roadking2003]

> @LeoLeo99 said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > I had an interesting thought.

> > >

> > > All the arguing here ( of which most have been civil and is very much appreciated ) nobody is saying a word about legalizing it on the grounds of unfair jail sentences or unjust arrests , kids losing a parent to jail time etc. it’s all been about the sub division residents view. The recreational view. Me me me. No consideration for the people who really risk it all to stock the dealers. And the dealers themselves. They carry enough to get in a real pickle. To me it says a lot about the prevailing attitude that goes along with it.

> > >

> > > Id up the criminalized element of buying and consumption. For even tiny amounts. Stop the demand. And the outrage would be insane. But it would really just be flipping the liability around from one end to another. How’s that for irony compared to some of the inflammatory statements that have been dropped by a few.

> >

> > Rather than making the penalties more harsh your post read as one for legalizing it. Takes away the criminal element, raises taxes on the sales of the product, and enables the potency of the product to be regulated.

> >

> >

>

> Problem is that legal weed costs more than street. It's hurting legal sales. Or so I've heard.

 

That's because of the excessive taxes. Governments sustain black markets with over regulation and excessive taxation.

[Roadking2003]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @Philomathesq said:

> >

> > > As for your slavery comment, I'm not even sure how you got there. Comparing slavery to the use of marijuana is a step I'm not willing to take or debate.

> >

> > Learn to read. I didn't compare slavery to the use of marijuana. I used slavery to illustrate the concept that sometimes bad laws should be violated.

>

> That is absolutely the incorrect way!! Anyone can justify a variety of laws that are unfair and wrong from their personal pow and break them because they feel they are wrong. In case you feel a law is unjust and should be changed then you need to take the correct way of influencing the people making the laws instead breaking them, for heaven's sake!!!

 

You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

 

I think morality trumps laws and my example of slavery illustrates that concept perfectly. 200 years ago people built the underground railroad to free slaves and that was illegal but the correct thing to do. I hope that I would have the strength to break those laws as they did if I were living back then.

 

Jury nullification supports this concept. I can assure you that if I'm on a jury that is hearing a case of somebody accused of possessing pot I will invoke my jury nullification rights and vote to acquit.

 

[bigred90gt]

> @cxx said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @cxx said:

> > > I remember when there was a separate culture for those who had an interest in drugs and the lifestyle that went with it. There wasn't the crossover that you see today.

> > >

> > > The one thing that I found a bit off-putting was when this couple's 5 year old started complaining that mom never gives me any weed anymore. It was a bit of a freak show watching that kid wander around toking on a lit one.

> >

> > can you clarify what exactly “the lifestyle that goes with it” is?

> >

> > As for the second part of your statement, anyone passing anything to a 5 year old isn’t a weed issue, that is a parents need to be in prison issue. That one can’t be blamed on weed, that is just someone that doesn’t need to be a parent. If it wasn’t weed, it would have been something else. And curious where you live?

>

> The lifestyle that goes with these particular people is a drug-centric life. That is, everything besides the quest to get high takes a back seat.

>

> Doesn't really matter where. There are people like that everywhere.

>

>

So anyone who smokes pot lives a lifestyle where everything else comes second to getting high? Am I reading that right?

 

And it does matter. I’ve been around more things than I care to admit, and done more things than needs to be public knowledge, but I have NEVER seen or even heard of anyone’s 5 year old kid complaining because mom doesn’t give them weed anymore while walking around smoking a joint. That is absolutely absurd. If that is true in any way, I hope you called the police and got that kid out of that nightmare. If you did not, you have no business looking down on anyone for anything they do.

 

[bladehunter]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > The war on drugs was and continues to be a complete and utter failure, so I am not up for increasing punishments for any aspect of its use or delivery, as we have seen it has done absolutely nothing to deter the use or prevalence of narcotics in our country, unfortunately you cannot legislate out vices, at least not in America (prohibition being on clear example) .

>

> The war on drugs has been much worse than a failure. It's ruined millions of lives.

>

> Why does anybody think the government should tell adults what they can eat, drink, or smoke?

 

Same reason ..... ugh. Nope nope nope. Stop clicking in this thread !

[Krt22]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @LeoLeo99 said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > I had an interesting thought.

> > > >

> > > > All the arguing here ( of which most have been civil and is very much appreciated ) nobody is saying a word about legalizing it on the grounds of unfair jail sentences or unjust arrests , kids losing a parent to jail time etc. it’s all been about the sub division residents view. The recreational view. Me me me. No consideration for the people who really risk it all to stock the dealers. And the dealers themselves. They carry enough to get in a real pickle. To me it says a lot about the prevailing attitude that goes along with it.

> > > >

> > > > Id up the criminalized element of buying and consumption. For even tiny amounts. Stop the demand. And the outrage would be insane. But it would really just be flipping the liability around from one end to another. How’s that for irony compared to some of the inflammatory statements that have been dropped by a few.

> > >

> > > Rather than making the penalties more harsh your post read as one for legalizing it. Takes away the criminal element, raises taxes on the sales of the product, and enables the potency of the product to be regulated.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Problem is that legal weed costs more than street. It's hurting legal sales. Or so I've heard.

>

> That's because of the excessive taxes. Governments sustain black markets with over regulation and excessive taxation.

 

Very true words, can't argue with this or your previous statement. It's a huge fallacy to think that the government can stop people (particularly Americans) from enjoying their vices, instead they eventually "regulate" it and enjoy the windfall in funds from so called sin taxes

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @LeoLeo99 said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > I had an interesting thought.

> > > > >

> > > > > All the arguing here ( of which most have been civil and is very much appreciated ) nobody is saying a word about legalizing it on the grounds of unfair jail sentences or unjust arrests , kids losing a parent to jail time etc. it’s all been about the sub division residents view. The recreational view. Me me me. No consideration for the people who really risk it all to stock the dealers. And the dealers themselves. They carry enough to get in a real pickle. To me it says a lot about the prevailing attitude that goes along with it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Id up the criminalized element of buying and consumption. For even tiny amounts. Stop the demand. And the outrage would be insane. But it would really just be flipping the liability around from one end to another. How’s that for irony compared to some of the inflammatory statements that have been dropped by a few.

> > > >

> > > > Rather than making the penalties more harsh your post read as one for legalizing it. Takes away the criminal element, raises taxes on the sales of the product, and enables the potency of the product to be regulated.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Problem is that legal weed costs more than street. It's hurting legal sales. Or so I've heard.

> >

> > That's because of the excessive taxes. Governments sustain black markets with over regulation and excessive taxation.

>

> Very true words, can't argue with this or your previous statement. It's a huge fallacy to think that the government can stop people (particularly Americans) from enjoying their vices, instead they eventually "regulate" it and enjoy the windfall in funds from so called sin taxes

 

 

[cxx]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @LeoLeo99 said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > I had an interesting thought.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > All the arguing here ( of which most have been civil and is very much appreciated ) nobody is saying a word about legalizing it on the grounds of unfair jail sentences or unjust arrests , kids losing a parent to jail time etc. it’s all been about the sub division residents view. The recreational view. Me me me. No consideration for the people who really risk it all to stock the dealers. And the dealers themselves. They carry enough to get in a real pickle. To me it says a lot about the prevailing attitude that goes along with it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Id up the criminalized element of buying and consumption. For even tiny amounts. Stop the demand. And the outrage would be insane. But it would really just be flipping the liability around from one end to another. How’s that for irony compared to some of the inflammatory statements that have been dropped by a few.

> > > > >

> > > > > Rather than making the penalties more harsh your post read as one for legalizing it. Takes away the criminal element, raises taxes on the sales of the product, and enables the potency of the product to be regulated.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Problem is that legal weed costs more than street. It's hurting legal sales. Or so I've heard.

> > >

> > > That's because of the excessive taxes. Governments sustain black markets with over regulation and excessive taxation.

> >

> > Very true words, can't argue with this or your previous statement. It's a huge fallacy to think that the government can stop people (particularly Americans) from enjoying their vices, instead they eventually "regulate" it and enjoy the windfall in funds from so called sin taxes

>

>

>

 

Unfortunately, the government treats those sin taxes like an annuity and incorporates them into their budget, becoming complicit in the sin. It's worked for the tobacco companies forever.

[Vindog]

Wait you guys. It's "micro" and not "macro"?

 

Holy crap it's gonna be a long night. Maybe I'll live blog if the monitor stops melting.

[LeoLeo99]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > >

> > > > As for your slavery comment, I'm not even sure how you got there. Comparing slavery to the use of marijuana is a step I'm not willing to take or debate.

> > >

> > > Learn to read. I didn't compare slavery to the use of marijuana. I used slavery to illustrate the concept that sometimes bad laws should be violated.

> >

> > That is absolutely the incorrect way!! Anyone can justify a variety of laws that are unfair and wrong from their personal pow and break them because they feel they are wrong. In case you feel a law is unjust and should be changed then you need to take the correct way of influencing the people making the laws instead breaking them, for heaven's sake!!!

>

> You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

>

> I think morality trumps laws and my example of slavery illustrates that concept perfectly. 200 years ago people built the underground railroad to free slaves and that was illegal but the correct thing to do. I hope that I would have the strength to break those laws as they did if I were living back then.

>

> Jury nullification supports this concept. I can assure you that if I'm on a jury that is hearing a case of somebody accused of possessing pot I will invoke my jury nullification rights and vote to acquit.

>_

 

I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”_

 

MLK

[Philomathesq]

> @LeoLeo99 said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > >

> > > > > As for your slavery comment, I'm not even sure how you got there. Comparing slavery to the use of marijuana is a step I'm not willing to take or debate.

> > > >

> > > > Learn to read. I didn't compare slavery to the use of marijuana. I used slavery to illustrate the concept that sometimes bad laws should be violated.

> > >

> > > That is absolutely the incorrect way!! Anyone can justify a variety of laws that are unfair and wrong from their personal pow and break them because they feel they are wrong. In case you feel a law is unjust and should be changed then you need to take the correct way of influencing the people making the laws instead breaking them, for heaven's sake!!!

> >

> > You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

> >

> > I think morality trumps laws and my example of slavery illustrates that concept perfectly. 200 years ago people built the underground railroad to free slaves and that was illegal but the correct thing to do. I hope that I would have the strength to break those laws as they did if I were living back then.

> >

> > Jury nullification supports this concept. I can assure you that if I'm on a jury that is hearing a case of somebody accused of possessing pot I will invoke my jury nullification rights and vote to acquit.

> >_

>

> I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”_

>

> MLK

 

The problem with your proposition is that it is wholly subjective. That is, who determines what is just and what is unjust? As can be seen in this thread, there are differences of opinions regarding the justness of using marijuana. If we can't agree on something like marijuana, what makes you think people can agree on much larger issues? Many people think the death penalty is unjust. Under your proposition, those people are justified in attempting to break out of prison those who are on death row. To use an example you previously brought up: I have no doubt that there are some people who live in this country that think slavery is a right and any law prohibiting it is unjust... should these people be allowed to enslave others? The problem with using justness and morality as yardsticks is that they are subjective measures which differ amongst everyone in society. Abortion is a great example. I fully understand the arguments on both sides, and both sides have moral soap boxes they can stand on. Who is right? There is no clear answer. What is clear, or at least discernible enough to follow, is the laws regarding abortion. One can easily determine if their planned actions are legal or illegal when the law is one's yardstick.

 

Whether you believe a law is just or unjust, obeying that law should not be an option. Obeying the law is objective; it is binary. Sometimes, following the law sucks, but it is what needs to be done. When I was in the Middle East, I had to follow innumerable laws and rules that were in place to protect those trying to kill me despite the fact that I knew that none of my enemies were going to follow the same laws and rules. I may have thought the laws were unjust, or at least unjust in application, but that didn't give me the right to disobey them, even if it meant my likelihood of survival was decreased.

 

Your proposition _might_ work in a society in which everyone was on the same page and could agree on all things. That is not the society we live in, and as such, we cannot allow people to choose which laws they wish to follow. While I don't think it functions well, we have governments in place (local, state, and federal) that set the rules. Any time we disagree with those rules, we can petition our representatives to change them. That is the proper way to object to a law which one feels is improper and/or unjust... disobeying the law is not.

[LeoLeo99]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @LeoLeo99 said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > As for your slavery comment, I'm not even sure how you got there. Comparing slavery to the use of marijuana is a step I'm not willing to take or debate.

> > > > >

> > > > > Learn to read. I didn't compare slavery to the use of marijuana. I used slavery to illustrate the concept that sometimes bad laws should be violated.

> > > >

> > > > That is absolutely the incorrect way!! Anyone can justify a variety of laws that are unfair and wrong from their personal pow and break them because they feel they are wrong. In case you feel a law is unjust and should be changed then you need to take the correct way of influencing the people making the laws instead breaking them, for heaven's sake!!!

> > >

> > > You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

> > >

> > > I think morality trumps laws and my example of slavery illustrates that concept perfectly. 200 years ago people built the underground railroad to free slaves and that was illegal but the correct thing to do. I hope that I would have the strength to break those laws as they did if I were living back then.

> > >

> > > Jury nullification supports this concept. I can assure you that if I'm on a jury that is hearing a case of somebody accused of possessing pot I will invoke my jury nullification rights and vote to acquit.

> > >_

> >

> > I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”_

> >

> > MLK

>

> The problem with your proposition is that it is wholly subjective. That is, who determines what is just and what is unjust? As can be seen in this thread, there are differences of opinions regarding the justness of using marijuana. If we can't agree on something like marijuana, what makes you think people can agree on much larger issues? Many people think the death penalty is unjust. Under your proposition, those people are justified in attempting to break out of prison those who are on death row. To use an example you previously brought up: I have no doubt that there are some people who live in this country that think slavery is a right and any law prohibiting it is unjust... should these people be allowed to enslave others? The problem with using justness and morality as yardsticks is that they are subjective measures which differ amongst everyone in society. Abortion is a great example. I fully understand the arguments on both sides, and both sides have moral soap boxes they can stand on. Who is right? There is no clear answer. What is clear, or at least discernible enough to follow, is the laws regarding abortion. One can easily determine if their planned actions are legal or illegal when the law is one's yardstick.

>

> Whether you believe a law is just or unjust, obeying that law should not be an option. Obeying the law is objective; it is binary. Sometimes, following the law sucks, but it is what needs to be done. When I was in the Middle East, I had to follow innumerable laws and rules that were in place to protect those trying to kill me despite the fact that I knew that none of my enemies were going to follow the same laws and rules. I may have thought the laws were unjust, or at least unjust in application, but that didn't give me the right to disobey them, even if it meant my likelihood of survival was decreased.

>

> Your proposition _might_ work in a society in which everyone was on the same page and could agree on all things. That is not the society we live in, and as such, we cannot allow people to choose which laws they wish to follow. While I don't think it functions well, we have governments in place (local, state, and federal) that set the rules. Any time we disagree with those rules, we can petition our representatives to change them. That is the proper way to object to a law which one feels is improper and/or unjust... disobeying the law is not.

 

St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther King disagree.

 

Lex iniusta non est lex

 

 

[Philomathesq]

> @LeoLeo99 said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > > @LeoLeo99 said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > As for your slavery comment, I'm not even sure how you got there. Comparing slavery to the use of marijuana is a step I'm not willing to take or debate.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Learn to read. I didn't compare slavery to the use of marijuana. I used slavery to illustrate the concept that sometimes bad laws should be violated.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is absolutely the incorrect way!! Anyone can justify a variety of laws that are unfair and wrong from their personal pow and break them because they feel they are wrong. In case you feel a law is unjust and should be changed then you need to take the correct way of influencing the people making the laws instead breaking them, for heaven's sake!!!

> > > >

> > > > You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

> > > >

> > > > I think morality trumps laws and my example of slavery illustrates that concept perfectly. 200 years ago people built the underground railroad to free slaves and that was illegal but the correct thing to do. I hope that I would have the strength to break those laws as they did if I were living back then.

> > > >

> > > > Jury nullification supports this concept. I can assure you that if I'm on a jury that is hearing a case of somebody accused of possessing pot I will invoke my jury nullification rights and vote to acquit.

> > > >_

> > >

> > > I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”_

> > >

> > > MLK

> >

> > The problem with your proposition is that it is wholly subjective. That is, who determines what is just and what is unjust? As can be seen in this thread, there are differences of opinions regarding the justness of using marijuana. If we can't agree on something like marijuana, what makes you think people can agree on much larger issues? Many people think the death penalty is unjust. Under your proposition, those people are justified in attempting to break out of prison those who are on death row. To use an example you previously brought up: I have no doubt that there are some people who live in this country that think slavery is a right and any law prohibiting it is unjust... should these people be allowed to enslave others? The problem with using justness and morality as yardsticks is that they are subjective measures which differ amongst everyone in society. Abortion is a great example. I fully understand the arguments on both sides, and both sides have moral soap boxes they can stand on. Who is right? There is no clear answer. What is clear, or at least discernible enough to follow, is the laws regarding abortion. One can easily determine if their planned actions are legal or illegal when the law is one's yardstick.

> >

> > Whether you believe a law is just or unjust, obeying that law should not be an option. Obeying the law is objective; it is binary. Sometimes, following the law sucks, but it is what needs to be done. When I was in the Middle East, I had to follow innumerable laws and rules that were in place to protect those trying to kill me despite the fact that I knew that none of my enemies were going to follow the same laws and rules. I may have thought the laws were unjust, or at least unjust in application, but that didn't give me the right to disobey them, even if it meant my likelihood of survival was decreased.

> >

> > Your proposition _might_ work in a society in which everyone was on the same page and could agree on all things. That is not the society we live in, and as such, we cannot allow people to choose which laws they wish to follow. While I don't think it functions well, we have governments in place (local, state, and federal) that set the rules. Any time we disagree with those rules, we can petition our representatives to change them. That is the proper way to object to a law which one feels is improper and/or unjust... disobeying the law is not.

>

> St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther King disagree.

>

> Lex iniusta non est lex

>

>

 

Your "response" does not address a single point I raised. Neither St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, nor MLK (or, MLK, Jr., who I assume you meant to reference) are going to be of any help to you if you are on trial for a violation of the law.

[Vindog]

In my opinion, unjust laws start where men and women try to legislate personal freedom. Marriage. What type of sex I can have. What I might smoke or drink in my own home on my private property. As I said before decriminalization at the state level isn't going away, but I also don't expect it to change at the Federal level any time soon. Too bold of a move for any party. The obvious loophole for the Fed is to stop enforcing that part of the drug code. A de facto decriminalization.

 

At least now, in 2019 we can choose where we want to live. We can choose a place that is congruent with our lifestyle, pay taxes in and support that State/municipality. Want to be able to marry another boy and smoke some weed? Move to MA or ME or CA. Want to be somewhere that makes it a FELONY to carry a thc cartridge, and where laws are pulled from The Good Book? Move somewhere in the South.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mikey5e]

> @Vindog said:

> In my opinion, unjust laws start where men and women try to legislate personal freedom. Marriage. What type of **** I can have. What I might smoke or drink in my own home on my private property. As I said before decriminalization at the state level isn't going away, but I also don't expect it to change at the Federal level any time soon. Too bold of a move for any party. The obvious loophole for the Fed is to stop enforcing that part of the drug code. A de facto decriminalization.

>

> At least now, in 2019 we can choose where we want to live. We can choose a place that is congruent with our lifestyle, pay taxes in and support that State/municipality. Want to be able to marry another boy and smoke some weed? Move to MA or ME or CA. Want to be somewhere that makes it a FELONY to carry a thc cartridge, and where laws are pulled from The Good Book? Move somewhere in the South.

>

>

>

>

>

 

So it's a big conspiracy by legislators that band these types of substances? What about all the ramifications that go along with types of drugs that cost taxpayers billions of dollars? Cancer, emphysema, brain damage, and other organ damage that insurance companies have to pay out. Even though alcohol is legal, look at all the negative consequences and problems alcohol causes in our society. Yeah, it's a big conspiracy by legislators to take away your fun. What a crock! If something doesn't go your way, it's got to be a conspiracy to take away your rights, doesn't it?

[Krt22]

 

> @Mikey5e said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > In my opinion, unjust laws start where men and women try to legislate personal freedom. Marriage. What type of **** I can have. What I might smoke or drink in my own home on my private property. As I said before decriminalization at the state level isn't going away, but I also don't expect it to change at the Federal level any time soon. Too bold of a move for any party. The obvious loophole for the Fed is to stop enforcing that part of the drug code. A de facto decriminalization.

> >

> > At least now, in 2019 we can choose where we want to live. We can choose a place that is congruent with our lifestyle, pay taxes in and support that State/municipality. Want to be able to marry another boy and smoke some weed? Move to MA or ME or CA. Want to be somewhere that makes it a FELONY to carry a thc cartridge, and where laws are pulled from The Good Book? Move somewhere in the South.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> So it's a big conspiracy by legislators that band these types of substances? What about all the ramifications that go along with types of drugs that cost taxpayers billions of dollars? Cancer, emphysema, brain damage, and other organ damage that insurance companies have to pay out. Even though alcohol is legal, look at all the negative consequences and problems alcohol causes in our society. Yeah, it's a big conspiracy by legislators to take away your fun. What a crock! If something doesn't go your way, it's got to be a conspiracy to take away your rights, doesn't it?

You should really look up the history of Marijuana laws in the US. Laws are made by imperfect politicians, not by medical professionals.

 


 

 

[Dpavs]

Things are hardly ever really simple or as black or white as be depicted at times, but either way...

 

Waiting for the lock now!

 


 

[Oldboy]

i wonder what the dress code was for golf when that PSA came out ...? sorry mixing my topics up ...

[Mikey5e]

> @Dpavs said:

> Things are hardly ever really simple or as black or white as be depicted at times, but either way...

>

> Waiting for the lock now!

>

>

 

I don't see anything wrong with this Fred, people are generally quite civil, and why would you want it locked?

[Mikey5e]

> @Mikey5e said:

> > @Dpavs said:

> > Things are hardly ever really simple or as black or white as be depicted at times, but either way...

> >

> > Waiting for the lock now!

> >

> >

>

> I don't see anything wrong with this Fred, people are generally quite civil, and why would you want it locked?

 

Fred = thread

( how come I cannot edit my post?)

[Roadking2003]

> @Mikey5e said: Even though alcohol is legal, look at all the negative consequences and problems alcohol causes in our society.

 

Freedom isn't free, but it's worth every penny.

 

And BTW, who gave you the authority to tell other people how to live their lives?

[Roadking2003]

> @Krt22 said:

> You should really look up the history of Marijuana laws in the US. Laws are made by imperfect politicians, not by medical professionals.

>

 

It's actually worse than that. It stared for racial reasons.

[Roadking2003]

> @Mikey5e said:

> Fred = thread

> ( how come I cannot edit my post?)

 

Did you try clicking on the gear icon in the upper right corner of your post?

[Dpavs]

> @Mikey5e said:

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > > @Dpavs said:

> > > Things are hardly ever really simple or as black or white as be depicted at times, but either way...

> > >

> > > Waiting for the lock now!

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I don't see anything wrong with this Fred, people are generally quite civil, and why would you want it locked?

>

> Fred = thread

> ( how come I cannot edit my post?)

 

It's gotten pretty off topic from golf and has become more about the those who are pro vs those who are con for certain substances. But either way.. I don't want the thread locked I just think it will be!

[Philomathesq]

> @Krt22 said:

>

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > > @Vindog said:

> > > In my opinion, unjust laws start where men and women try to legislate personal freedom. Marriage. What type of **** I can have. What I might smoke or drink in my own home on my private property. As I said before decriminalization at the state level isn't going away, but I also don't expect it to change at the Federal level any time soon. Too bold of a move for any party. The obvious loophole for the Fed is to stop enforcing that part of the drug code. A de facto decriminalization.

> > >

> > > At least now, in 2019 we can choose where we want to live. We can choose a place that is congruent with our lifestyle, pay taxes in and support that State/municipality. Want to be able to marry another boy and smoke some weed? Move to MA or ME or CA. Want to be somewhere that makes it a FELONY to carry a thc cartridge, and where laws are pulled from The Good Book? Move somewhere in the South.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > So it's a big conspiracy by legislators that band these types of substances? What about all the ramifications that go along with types of drugs that cost taxpayers billions of dollars? Cancer, emphysema, brain damage, and other organ damage that insurance companies have to pay out. Even though alcohol is legal, look at all the negative consequences and problems alcohol causes in our society. Yeah, it's a big conspiracy by legislators to take away your fun. What a crock! If something doesn't go your way, it's got to be a conspiracy to take away your rights, doesn't it?

> You should really look up the history of Marijuana laws in the US. Laws are made by imperfect politicians, **not by medical professionals.**

>

>

>

>

That's a good thing, especially considering the AMA thinks it proper for them to be involved in creating gun laws.

 

[Mikey5e]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Mikey5e said: Even though alcohol is legal, look at all the negative consequences and problems alcohol causes in our society.

>

> Freedom isn't free, but it's worth every penny.

>

> And BTW, who gave you the authority to tell other people how to live their lives?

 

When it starts costing me money, and every other free person money, because of higher insurance rates, medical bills, etc, I think we have a right to speak up!

[Mikey5e]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > Fred = thread

> > ( how come I cannot edit my post?)

>

> Did you try clicking on the gear icon in the upper right corner of your post?

 

I am on my Android phone and don't see anything in the upper right corner to click on?