Democrats file HR 420 to legalize pot

Before we do that we need to know the actual extent of the problem and determine the ACTUAL cause. ASSUMING that it is "caused" by pot can result in all kinds of draconian legislation much like what we have today. The study only looked at 4 states not ALL of the states that have legalized post. What if those states do NOT show increases in accidents? There are a great many factors here and without SOUND DATA making baseless assumptions just results is bad legislation.

Haven't we already had enough bad legislation regarding pot?

 

Both Obama and Clinton were dealing with HOSTILE GOP Congresses.

But don't let actual FACTS get in the way of your ranting about Dems.

 

Not sure why you think they followed the US. Morphine used to be legal, as was cocaine etc, and there was a time when governments made an effort to ban harmful substances, and it included marijuana.

 

It can trigger fatal heart arrhythmia, and while the official cause of death would be heart failure, the root cause was pot. Lot of things can kill, and arguing pot is 100% harmless is a losing argument. We need an honest discussion which involves all the potential negative effects of legalization. We already know car accidents have increased in those States which have legalized it, and we know the psycho-toxins in pot can trigger mental illness.

 

I argued nothing about 100%. Claiming pot is dangerous is a ridiculous argument. It is safer than alcohol and tobacco.

Those arguing to keep it illegal had damned well better be arguing for legislation to classify alcohol and tobacco as Schedule I. Otherwise, you just sound judge~y and hypocritical. The number one cause of car accidents is alcohol and distracted driving is #2. Pot accidents can't touch either of those stats.

 

It is not safer than tobacco.

https://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/marijuana-and-lung-health.html

Smoke is harmful to lung health. Whether from burning wood, tobacco or marijuana, toxins and carcinogens are released from the combustion of materials. Smoke from marijuana combustion has been shown to contain many of the same toxins, irritants and carcinogens as tobacco smoke.

Beyond just what's in the smoke alone, marijuana is typically smoked differently than tobacco. Marijuana smokers tend to inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than cigarette smokers, which leads to a greater exposure per breath to tar.

Secondhand marijuana smoke contains many of the same toxins and carcinogens found in directly inhaled marijuana smoke, in similar amounts if not more.

 

Correct - The question of a referendum say on alcohol - is not - do you like alcohol. The question is "Do you have sufficient justification to force your personal/religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law).

"I don't like alcohol" is not a valid justification. If someone does not like alcohol - don't drink. Just because someone does not like alcohol personally - is not justification to force others to abstain.

"God says so" is also not a valid justification. No one can prove what God thinks.

That said - people are not supposed to be able to force their personal beliefs on others through Gov't - with respect to individual (unless there is an overwhelming majority = at least 2/3rds)

Clearly you disagree with this founding principle and the main principle of Republicanism. That "essential liberty is ABOVE the legitimate authority of Gov't.

Your justification was "Harm Reduction" - that because children might use Pot - the rest of us should be barred from using Pot. AKA - "Utilitarianism = what is best for the collective" This justification completely ignores individual liberty - the rights of the individual = Lefty land on Steroids and an anathema to Republicanism - and Classical Liberalism for that matter.

That disgusting pieces of human garbage want to do an end run around individual liberty - does not justify you wanting to do the same.

Capesce ?

 

Smoking ''too much'' pot can lead to lung cancer but that is no reason to ban it while tobacco is legal.

 

Accepting any news source as truth shows lack of intellectual grown. They sell a product they know their viewers are eager to consume. Just like a baby in a high chair eager for that airplane-shaped spoon full of applesauce. Maybe you like CNN, or MSNBCs applesauce, you you are no different from those consuming FOXs slop.

CNN good. FOX ba'a'a'a'a'ad!

 

My concern is that the legalization tends to condone the use, and that's not a good idea. The argument that there was otherwise innocent lives ruined because of "Draconian Drug Laws" also has some validity.

There were one or two states where a minimum was legal (Oregon and Washington if I recall correctly) but a lot of police discretion was used. That seemed to be a legitimate compromise which seemed to be working.

 

The subject was car crashes.

 

Sure. Smoking pot is the keystone of liberty.

 

Smoking either can be harmful but the interesting thing is that few seem to care about second hand pot smoke despite the near hysteria re second hand cigarette smoke. That 'pot is okay' is being promoted through the media as such suggests that the money should be followed. This is a pretty powerful lobbyist they have working for them. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...boehner-joins-marijuana-firm-s-advisory-board

 

Pot hasn't been legal long enough for legitimate stats to be made.

 

Really?
You try smoking pot next to a nicotine-nazi. They will soon let you know how anti-social you are being.
Meanwhile, breathing the air in central London is like passive smoking 10 cigs a day...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-as-bad-as-passive-smoking-10-a-day-60q2pwdg0

 

double post

 

I guess there are exceptions.

 

This is what I can never reconcile with the liberal folk. Smoking bad. Causes cancer... And yet here we are advocating smoking. Making it acceptable and celebrating it... smoking. Where oh where are the nanny progressives? Why is this brand of smoking ok? Can anyone from the progressive camp show us say some studies that delink this kind of smoking and like every brand of cancer that smoking creates in humans? The birth defects? The pain and suffering the democrat core of personal injury lawyers reaped billions for in US courts?

Or is that just the third act? You know, after all of those pesky public smoking bans are rescinded... Only to find out... gasp.... that all this new found smoking has the same long term health risks and needs immediate judicial remedy against.... The horror...

Democrats are only temporary supporters of 420 because it builds an entirely new revenue stream from which they fund government. And that's it. Greed.

 

Looks like at least an oz of bud there. 10 bucks? Hard to believe. ha ha ha

 

So you advocate outlawing tobacco?

Pot has far less toxins. Nobody is putting embalming fluid in pot. Either way, I don't smoke it anymore. It's been awhile. There are so many more options right now .... tinctures & vape pens are the way to go, along with edibles.

 

$10 bucks in Humboldt County.

The legal recreational/medical marijuana growers will never be able to compete against old hippies in Humboldt County.

 

Wrong. Daddy G not telling me what I can put in my body is liberty. Freedom FTW!

Victim-less crime should not be an actual thing. Why do so many partisans want to control me? Left or right; it doesn't matter. Your only disagreement is about which parts of my life you want to control.

 

Democrats and their supporters are very flexible about what is dangerous and what isn't. Saving the earth from toxic chemicals is okay and so is inhaling them into your lungs, but plastic straws and larger Slurpees must be banned.

 

So you also advocate that tobacco and alcohol be classified as Schedule I? If not, why not? How are they different, in terms of danger? (Hint - smoking tobacco, with all the crazy chemicals they put in there, like embalming fluid, is much more dangerous)