World's most pointless granny

[hugo]

Keeping a dog is just like keeping a gun. You have a responsibility to protect children from harm. Negligent homicide is definitely a proper charge hear.

[timesjoke]

Yes, some people should get high. Just like some people should take Prozac or Valium.

 

Those are issued by doctors, not rednecks or street dealers.

 

Then why are people prescribed anti-depressants?

 

I believe you hit on something there, see where you used the word PRESCRIBED"?

 

Many people have unbalanced or otherwise unstable brain chemistry. Too much of one chemical, not enough of another. We are all different and we all find balance in our own way. Altering your brain chemistry may actually be the best way to deal.

 

Under the care of a doctor I will agree with your statement but self medicating is never a good idea. In each case of unbalanced chemistry, you need the proper chemicals to bring you back to a balanced point and adding the wrong chemicals will make your problems worse.

 

What foolish and inexperienced teens have to say about it, is inconsequential. They'll think its 100% harmless until they smoke a skunk blunt and crash their car into a tree because they were too high to drive.

 

That is why policies should be made to protect society from these foolish and inexperienced teens. The car crash alone raises all our insurance rates.

 

 

It doesn't need to be determined. Why should we determine personal choice for people? Does everything we choose to put into our bodies have to have a Federal stamp of approval on it? Making sure that the proper agencies are profiting from it?

 

It is not personal chioce when others are involved. In this story we have a dead child because of a "personal choice" and that is wrong.

 

Hey, if you want to drive out to the middle of nowhere and get blasted on coke and pot then by all means, please do so but the second you do drugs around other people, then you are involving those other people and that is when it is wrong.

 

If you smoke a blunt and drive, there is no way other drivers can know you are impared and dangerious to everyone on the road so it is wrong for you to do so.

 

I am just as hard on drunk driving, I believe anyone busted drunk driving should never drive again, at least not without massive and extensive change being proven.

 

Point being is if your "personal choice" has even the most remote chance of harming other people, then it is not a "personal choice".

 

 

I suppose. Take, for example, a drugged out bitch that ignored the 200 pound vicious dog running around unsupervised with small children in her house.

 

The determining factor in whether or not someone should or shouldn't get high or drunk, is whether or not they can control themselves or their intake.

 

But the one to make that decision cannot be the person themself because there is not one person in the world that will be that honest with themselves.

 

 

Some people shouldn't get high because they cannot moderate their intoxication or control themselves while intoxicated, or perhaps they severely lack the intelligence and coping mechanisms to deal with even the simplest decisions while intoxicated. Its the same principle as to why some people can be faced drunk and manage to make the correct decision to not drive home, and others cannot. If you can't keep yourself from driving drunk, then you shouldn't drink.

 

That is why the penalties should be higher for crimes involving intoxication.

 

 

I have supported making drugs legal but having a massive multiplier to crimes where there is any drugs involved. For example, this story involves a person being intoxicated by two types of drugs and clearly cannot control herself, that person should not be in our society.

 

 

 

As far as what crime she should be charged with, how can this be any different than vehicle manslaughter? In vehicle manslaughter, the principle is you failed to maintain control of something you had a responsibility to control and she was also responsible for keeping the child safe so she failed proper care on two fronts and manslaughter is the least she should be charged with and I would add extra time for getting high and drunk while she was caring for a child, something any person knows is not a good idea.

[Jhony5]

Those are issued by doctors, not rednecks or street dealers.

It doesn't matter if you get it from a ing leprechaun. If it works for you, than it is good.

 

I believe you hit on something there, see where you used the word PRESCRIBED"?

Prescribed by? Doctors. Doctors get these "remedies" from? Pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies are major corporate donors to political parties and anti-drug legalization campaigns. They have huge turnovers and this generates a massive tax income to the government. Politicians rarely bite the hand that feeds them. Put crudely: the ban on cannabis is partly due to the corrupt influence of big money on government decision-making.

 

Have you ever heard of The Partnership For A Drug Free America?

They are a creation of an ad agency. They are also a major political contributer and a spreader of disgustingly inaccurate anti-marijuana ads. One of which was forced off the air because it was so blatantly inaccurate. It depicted a student sitting at a desk studying while hooked to an EKG machine. They show the EKG, all is good, than he took a hit off a joint and the EKG goes flat-line. The ACLU had it pulled for the misleading nature of it.

 

The Partnership for a drug-free America is primarily paid for by monies pooled by Pharmaceutical companies. By Pharmaceutical companies.

 

The Partnership for a drug-free America's bottom line is really keeping drugs illegal that might cut into these Pharmaceutical companies bottom line.

 

The Partnership for a drug-free America wants to keep pot outlawed, because who'd need Prozac, Valium, Zoloft, or paxil if weed was legal?

 

So, while The Partnership for a drug-free America might indeed be a partnership, it isn't for a drug-free America at all. Is it? Think about that for a minute. A DRUG COMPANY THAT PROMOTES A DRUG FREE AMERICA.

 

Drugs like Xanex and Prozac are powerful drugs. Xanex is actually a very popular street narcotic. Possession of it without a prescription is a felony. BUT, multi-billion dollar corporations still make money off of the Xanex that is sold on the street. Just like a kingpin, they get their cut.

 

When people turn toward pot as a relief for stress or whatever ills them, instead of Xanex or Prozac, then the kingpins lose money from their bottom line. There are many documented cases of people failing to get the relief they need from these prescriptions, and then they turn to pot, despite its illegal status.

 

You HAVE TO ask yourself, why the hell would a pharmaceutical company invest millions of dollars to lobby against marijuana legalization?

 

Under the care of a doctor I will agree with your statement but self medicating is never a good idea. In each case of unbalanced chemistry, you need the proper chemicals to bring you back to a balanced point and adding the wrong chemicals will make your problems worse

You mean like the many many cases of depressed teens that got anti-depressants prescribed to them, and then took a sudden spiral downward and killed themselves inexplicably? Ya I hear ya. Best to let billion dollar companies tell you whats best. Realize this. Many doctors make deals with specific pharmaceutical companies that they will prescribe only their brand. Its a transparent legal narcotics operation. With kingpins (Pharmaceutical companies), suppliers (doctors), and addicts (patients).

 

It is not personal choice when others are involved. In this story we have a dead child because of a "personal choice" and that is wrong.

You cannot stop free will. Her ignorant and negligent behavior is not the result of drug use. Its the result of personal negligence. Like I said, some people can get drunk and know not to drive, others cannot.

 

But the one to make that decision cannot be the person themself because there is not one person in the world that will be that honest with themselves

Boy, I dunno about that. I've been righteously ed up many times and was morally conscious enough to understand why it would be bad to get in my car and drive.

 

I have supported making drugs legal but having a massive multiplier to crimes where there is any drugs involved. For example, this story involves a person being intoxicated by two types of drugs and clearly cannot control herself, that person should not be in our society.

This is where I will strongly disagree. One has nothing to do with the other., That is, drugs and the unrelated crime.

 

My good friend had his life turned upside down when he got pulled over on his way home from hunting. It is a felony in and of itself to be in possession of a firearm and illegal narcotics. The shotgun he had was in the trunk. The drugs he had consisted of a large roach. No logical tie between the two, but due to overzealous drug laws, the singular offense of minor possession became a serious felony charge.

[timesjoke]

It doesn't matter if you get it from a ing leprechaun. If it works for you, than it is good.

 

But it does not "work" if all you are doing is masking your problems with getting stoned. That is an escape, not dealing with your problems.

 

Prescribed by? Doctors.

 

Yep, those people that go to school for at least 8 years and sometimes more to be able to understand (as much as possible) the complex body and make a decision on what medications you need based on both their education and tests that are performed on the patient.

 

 

 

You HAVE TO ask yourself, why the hell would a pharmaceutical company invest millions of dollars to lobby against marijuana legalization?

 

Nice rant against companies like this but it really has nothing to do with the discussion we are having.

 

This discussion was about how drugs like pot can lead tword other people getting hurt, not just the person using drugs.

 

You mean like the many many cases of depressed teens that got anti-depressants prescribed to them, and then took a sudden spiral downward and killed themselves inexplicably? Ya I hear ya. Best to let billion dollar companies tell you whats best. Realize this. Many doctors make deals with specific pharmaceutical companies that they will prescribe only their brand. Its a transparent legal narcotics operation. With kingpins (Pharmaceutical companies), suppliers (doctors), and addicts (patients).

 

So if highly trained doctors can make a mistake in prescribing certain medications for a patients problem, then obviously an untrained person is more likely to make mistakes if they are self-medicating.

 

You cannot stop free will. Her ignorant and negligent behavior is not the result of drug use. Its the result of personal negligence. Like I said, some people can get drunk and know not to drive, others cannot.

 

So being as we do not have the ability to seperate society into groups of those that can and those that cannot, we need to protect society by providing severe penalties to those that display they cannot right?

 

 

Boy, I dunno about that. I've been righteously ed up many times and was morally conscious enough to understand why it would be bad to get in my car and drive.

 

And yet you were still stoned and even if you could decide to not drive, you were around other people and could have made other mistakes that could harm others. The very decision to get stoned so bad was an immoral choice so everything done after that point was tainted by that immoral decision.

 

Anything could happen, just falling down and hitting someone else while drunk or stoned is a clear example of how getting stoned is not a personal choice.

 

This is where I will strongly disagree. One has nothing to do with the other., That is, drugs and the unrelated crime.

 

The woman was drugged, she more then likely would not have put this child into so much danger if she was not stoned and drunk so they are clearly related.

 

My good friend had his life turned upside down when he got pulled over on his way home from hunting. It is a felony in and of itself to be in possession of a firearm and illegal narcotics. The shotgun he had was in the trunk. The drugs he had consisted of a large roach. No logical tie between the two, but due to overzealous drug laws, the singular offense of minor possession became a serious felony charge.

 

He made a choice to have drugs in his possession, I have no sympathy for a drug user because all drug users put the rest of us in danger. Why would anyone have a "roach" in their car?

 

Because he was smoking in his car, that means he gets stoned and drives, I hope he was put under the jail.

[Jhony5]

The very decision to get stoned so bad was an immoral choice so everything done after that point was tainted by that immoral decision.

Whooooaaa! Hold on Bill O'Reily jr. Immoral choice? Who's morals, yours? Mine? Societies?

 

How the hell is my decision to smoke dope and eat pasta with my girlfriend, an immoral choice in your purview?

 

That shows me that you have an acute disconnect with the average joe, and I'm a for real blue collar average joe muthafacker.

 

I need you to clarify this statement before we go any further.

[timesjoke]

Whooooaaa! Hold on Bill O'Reily jr.

 

I don't see where personal attacks are needed.

 

I was commenting on your admission: "I've been righteously ed up many times" and I was pointing out if you are getting that wasted, then you could possibly be a danger to other people because you are not on an island, your decisions effect others.

 

 

Immoral choice? Who's morals, yours? Mine? Societies?

 

On a public forum, we can only discuss things on a general scale.

 

 

How the hell is my decision to smoke dope and eat pasta with my girlfriend, an immoral choice in your purview?

 

Any decision that can effect other people in a negative way is immoral. I make no distinction between those that drink to excess or those that do drugs to alter their mind and impare their judgement.

 

That shows me that you have an acute disconnect with the average joe, and I'm a for real blue collar average joe muthafacker.

 

Most people do not do drugs for recreational purposes, that is something only druggies claim.

 

I need you to clarify this statement before we go any further.

 

I always attempt to be very clear on my comments, that is why I gave the example of a stoned person falling on someone else to show how a drugged person can effect other people with their "personal choice".

 

We won't even talk about impared driving killing people all over the world because that is the next level.

 

 

 

You would need to be in the middle of nowhere, all by yourself or maybe in a closed room without the ability to get out for drug abuse to be a "personal choice" not to mention that most illegal drug trade goes to financing things like terrorists so there is another reason to be against illegal drugs.

[Jhony5]

I don't see where personal attacks are needed.

 

Its not a personal attack. Have a sense of humor. You're gonna need it with my monkey ass in here.

 

On a public forum, we can only discuss things on a general scale.

No sir. Thats a cop-out. You sighted your moral code as general law. You said that my decision to get high was immoral, even though no one was affected adversely due to my personal choice. You did poorly explaining how this was "immoral". It would have been immoral for me to say " it" and drive home anyway. But I did not, I made the moral decision to abstain from DUI. You're tying the two together in an illogical manner.

 

Most people do not do drugs for recreational purposes, that is something only druggies claim.

I'm extrapolating from this that people only do drugs like marijuana because they are physically addicted? I haven't smoked pot for a week. I'm waiting until this weekend when I don't have my daughter to care for, and I'll be with friends. Thats a moral decision of mine. If what you say is true, than why will I smoke pot on Saturday, if not for recreational purposes? Its no different than a fella that enjoys a few beers while he watches football on Sunday.

 

I always attempt to be very clear on my comments, that is why I gave the example of a stoned person falling on someone else to show how a drugged person can effect other people with their "personal choice".

I'm not getting your slant on this?

 

Sure, my choice can effect others. I can make the choice to kill my ex-wife with a Nerf bat. Should my penalty be made more severe because I smoked a joint first?

 

You would need to be in the middle of nowhere, all by yourself or maybe in a closed room without the ability to get out for drug abuse to be a "personal choice" not to mention that most illegal drug trade goes to financing things like terrorists so there is another reason to be against illegal drugs

So now I'm supporting terrorism? Thats a fallacy perpetuated by the aforementioned PDFA (Partnership for a Drug Free America). The debate on this issue is mired in semantics. One thing that is not in dispute, marijuana is not exported from Afghanistan. The ONLY drugs I know of that originate from that country, is opium and heroine.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Production_in_Afghanistan#Opium_trade_in_Afghanistan

Opium production in Afghanistan is controlled by local Afghan and regional mafia groups of Asia, more particularly of South and Central Asia. It has been a significant problem (or a significant business) for Afghanistan since the downfall of the Taliban in 2001. The CIA estimates that one-third of Afghanistan's GDP comes from opium export. The Asian Development Bank, however, indicates a lower figure: $2.5 billion, or about 12% of the GDP. At any rate, this is one of Kabul's most serious policy and law-enforcement challenges.

 

[phreakwars]

Whoa, big time bust.

 

$207 million dollars in drug money.

 

[ame]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=312_1190110242[/ame]

[timesjoke]

Its not a personal attack. Have a sense of humor. You're gonna need it with my monkey ass in here.

 

Calling people names is not humor to me but if you must.....

 

 

No sir. Thats a cop-out. You sighted your moral code as general law. You said that my decision to get high was immoral, even though no one was affected adversely due to my personal choice. You did poorly explaining how this was "immoral". It would have been immoral for me to say " it" and drive home anyway. But I did not, I made the moral decision to abstain from DUI. You're tying the two together in an illogical manner.

 

You are taking my comment out of context, let me try and help you understand again.

 

You said " I've been righteously ed up many times".

 

My basis of calling this kind of activity immoral is allowing yourself to get this far gone under the influence of any drug could possibly harm other people and driving is not the only way you can harm others when you are that impared.

 

 

I'm extrapolating from this that people only do drugs like marijuana because they are physically addicted? I haven't smoked pot for a week. I'm waiting until this weekend when I don't have my daughter to care for, and I'll be with friends. Thats a moral decision of mine. If what you say is true, than why will I smoke pot on Saturday, if not for recreational purposes? Its no different than a fella that enjoys a few beers while he watches football on Sunday.

 

I would say that smoking a tater with friends in a casual way would be similar to drinking a couple beers but it is when a person crosses the line and abuses the substance by getting "wasted" they are now putting other people in harms way for many possible problems.

 

My point about most people not using drugs was based on "illegel" drugs. Most people do not use illegal drugs.

 

I'm not getting your slant on this?

 

I was pointing out that an impared person can cause harm to others that is based on their being impared.

 

Sure, my choice can effect others. I can make the choice to kill my ex-wife with a Nerf bat. Should my penalty be made more severe because I smoked a joint first?

 

Yes, because you made two bad decisions, you got stoned and your being stoned led to your crime. Pot is well known for dropping a persons inhibitions so it would be easier for a stoned man to cross a line like that then a sobor man.

 

So now I'm supporting terrorism? Thats a fallacy perpetuated by the aforementioned PDFA (Partnership for a Drug Free America). The debate on this issue is mired in semantics. One thing that is not in dispute, marijuana is not exported from Afghanistan. The ONLY drugs I know of that originate from that country, is opium and heroine.

 

 

Terrorists have been proven to be middle line drug dealers in all drugs, including pot. It is considered the new and best way for cells to finance their operations with all the new restrictions to wired money.

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

Keeping a dog is just like keeping a gun. You have a responsibility to protect children from harm. Negligent homicide is definitely a proper charge hear.

 

Spot on Hugo. Like you I would have upped the charge from Manslaughter too. Negligent homicide is certainly a bit closer to the mark imho.

 

I have been inebriated on a few occasions. But I could never be so wasted as to wander off, leaving a toddler with a dog who had on several previous occasions demonstrated aggression toward that toddler. The woman is a disgrace.

 

Baby sitters should not be getting stoned or pissed.

[Jhony5]

You are taking my comment out of context, let me try and help you understand again.

 

You said " I've been righteously ed up many times".

 

My basis of calling this kind of activity immoral is allowing yourself to get this far gone under the influence of any drug could possibly harm other people and driving is not the only way you can harm others when you are that impaired.

The comment about O'Reilly was to provide an example of a person that believes that their own personal moral code, should be moral law. I believe both you and he, exhibit behavior that seems to dictate personal moral beliefs to others. If you took it as an insult, I apologize.

 

There are personal moral beliefs, and generally accepted social moral codes. Killing, stealing, raping etc, are examples of generally accepted immoral behaviors. But you're saying that for me and my friends to get high on a Saturday afternoon is immoral as well. Based on the increased possibility that someone could get hurt as a result of chemical impairment.

This is where I believe you are getting a little off-base. First of all, in this setting, everyone around us is either stoned themselves, or they are aware of the drug use. Therefor they have a choice to leave or stay.

 

I really do understand what you're saying. But I think you are being way to broad and sweeping in you're accusations.

 

Yes, because you made two bad decisions, you got stoned and your being stoned led to your crime. Pot is well known for dropping a persons inhibitions so it would be easier for a stoned man to cross a line like that then a sober man.

You see, this is where each individual case has to be looked at. In my example, I had already decided to kill my ex-wife, but I also decided to get high first. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

Driving drunk, however, is a good example of the two actions conjoining, drunkenness and driving. Neither is illegal by themselves. Put them together and you have a crime. For me to get high with my friends is not immoral. Everyone has a personal choice to engage in the drug use, and or accept the fact that drugs are being done and accept the risk of an accident occurring as a result. They can leave if hey wish, its their choice.

 

But if I get high i the bathroom while I'm taking care of my daughter, now I've made a immoral choice. But where does negligence come into play? If she falls down and breaks her arm, the fact that I'm stoned may or may not have anything to do with it, and this MUST be considered. If I'm just sitting there stoned watching football while she plays, and she trips and breaks her arm. How did my intoxication have anything to do with the injury? Should I honestly be charged with a serious crime because my daughter fell and I just happened to be a little high?

 

If I tripped while I was high,fell on top of her and she subsequently broke her arm, YES. I am negligent because its hard to term it as an accident when I made the choice to be intoxicated while caring for my daughter, and my intoxication can be shown to have had a direct effect on the injury.

 

 

So, concerning the story in the OP, I will concur fully with you. The lady made a choice to get intoxicated while caring for a child. Because of her responsibility to care for the child, her decision was not personal in nature.

 

Terrorists have been proven to be middle line drug dealers in all drugs, including pot. It is considered the new and best way for cells to finance their operations with all the new restrictions to wired money.

Prove to me that in any way that Middle Eastern terrorist cells have any involvement in marijuana distribution. Because I'm telling you, they don't. South American terrorist groups, sure. But not Al Qaeda. The government and the PDFA throw the word "terrorist" around like a buzzword, knowing good and well that when people hear the words "terrorist" and "pot" they automatically knee-jerk this image of Bin Laden himself packaging baggies of marijuana, and thats just not the case.

I would blame the government for this anyway. If they would understand that society would be better off if pot was legal, then South American terror cells and cartels wouldn't have this commodity to trade.

 

Pot is well known for dropping a persons inhibitions so it would be easier for a stoned man to cross a line like that then a sober man.

Yet another glaring inaccuracy. Marijuana actually raises your inhibitions. It makes you terribly paranoid. If the lady in the OP had not been drinking, only smoking, than its possible that she would have been overly aware of the dangerous presence of that animal. My money says that this lady is a bottom feeder and likely would be too stupid and self-involved anyway, and would have made the same decisions if she was sober.

[timesjoke]

The comment about O'Reilly was to provide an example of a person that believes that their own personal moral code, should be moral law. I believe both you and he, exhibit behavior that seems to dictate personal moral beliefs to others. If you took it as an insult, I apologize.

 

Are you kidding me?

 

What person does not consider their own morals are right and should be the basis of rules and guidelines?

 

Laws are nothing more than written morals where many people agreed that they are important and need to be the basis of their society.

 

 

 

There are personal moral beliefs, and generally accepted social moral codes. Killing, stealing, raping etc, are examples of generally accepted immoral behaviors. But you're saying that for me and my friends to get high on a Saturday afternoon is immoral as well. Based on the increased possibility that someone could get hurt as a result of chemical impairment.

This is where I believe you are getting a little off-base. First of all, in this setting, everyone around us is either stoned themselves, or they are aware of the drug use. Therefor they have a choice to leave or stay.

 

But in most studies, it has been peer pressure, a desire to fit in that keep people that may want to leave from being able to leave.

 

No matter how you slice it, getting severely stoned can harm other people and your personal choice ends where it involves other people. You are removing their right to be safe from impared people so your choice is immoral from that point of view.

 

Again, let me say if you are isolated from other people, then it can become a personal choice, but as long as other people are around you, you are effecting other people and there is no way to twist that into being right.

 

 

I really do understand what you're saying. But I think you are being way to broad and sweeping in you're accusations.

 

I base all of my opinions on the responsibility standard, if you directly impare yourself, you are responsible for that imparement and all possible results of that imparement.

 

 

You see, this is where each individual case has to be looked at. In my example, I had already decided to kill my ex-wife, but I also decided to get high first. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

If you already decided to kill your wife but stopped to get high, clearly the getting stoned was the most importent thing in the event, you did that first, that means it was a factor.

 

 

Driving drunk, however, is a good example of the two actions conjoining, drunkenness and driving. Neither is illegal by themselves. Put them together and you have a crime. For me to get high with my friends is not immoral. Everyone has a personal choice to engage in the drug use, and or accept the fact that drugs are being done and accept the risk of an accident occurring as a result. They can leave if hey wish, its their choice.

 

I already covered the peer pressure reason why most cannot leave so lets also see that I am not speaking of what is legal, I am talking of what is moral.

 

It is immoral to effect others with your choices, that is where you go beyond a personal choice. Putting other people at risk just because you want to get wasted is wrong.

 

But if I get high i the bathroom while I'm taking care of my daughter, now I've made a immoral choice. But where does negligence come into play? If she falls down and breaks her arm, the fact that I'm stoned may or may not have anything to do with it, and this MUST be considered. If I'm just sitting there stoned watching football while she plays, and she trips and breaks her arm. How did my intoxication have anything to do with the injury? Should I honestly be charged with a serious crime because my daughter fell and I just happened to be a little high?

 

Yes, if you should be taking care of children and neglect your responsibility to get stoned you should be severely punnished, here is why.

 

I have three kids myself, to be a good parent, you need to be aware of every noise and action of your kids because the second you drop your awareness, is when they will get into things they are not supposed to get into, or do things that you would have put an end to if you had been watching them properlly.

 

Just last weekend, my children thought it a good idea to stack several items up on and they intended to climb up on top of their structure, I stopped that from happening. If I was stoned on the couch watching football and not paying attention to my kids, they would have gotten hurt.

 

If I tripped while I was high,fell on top of her and she subsequently broke her arm, YES. I am negligent because its hard to term it as an accident when I made the choice to be intoxicated while caring for my daughter, and my intoxication can be shown to have had a direct effect on the injury.

 

There are indirect ways to also have a direct connection to blame, such as being stoned reduces your ability to properly supervise children and keep them from harm.

 

So, concerning the story in the OP, I will concur fully with you. The lady made a choice to get intoxicated while caring for a child. Because of her responsibility to care for the child, her decision was not personal in nature.

 

Thanks

 

Prove to me that in any way that Middle Eastern terrorist cells have any involvement in marijuana distribution. Because I'm telling you, they don't.

 

It is common knowledge, if you are blinding yourself just because you don't want to interrupt your need to get stoned there is not much I can say to change your mind, but your refusal to admit the truth does not make it less truthful.

 

Please reread what I posted, I clearly said they are middle dealers, playing go between and making money for independant cells, not that Bin Laden was filling baggies, stop being silly.

 

I would blame the government for this anyway. If they would understand that society would be better off if pot was legal, then South American terror cells and cartels wouldn't have this commodity to trade.

 

Oh yes, the country would be better off if we were all stoned, right.......

 

Yet another glaring inaccuracy. Marijuana actually raises your inhibitions. It makes you terribly paranoid. If the lady in the OP had not been drinking, only smoking, than its possible that she would have been overly aware of the dangerous presence of that animal. My money says that this lady is a bottom feeder and likely would be too stupid and self-involved anyway, and would have made the same decisions if she was sober.

 

Your wrong, all studies agree that pot drops your inhibitions, paranoia has nothing to do with inhibitions.

[Jhony5]

What person does not consider their own morals are right and should be the basis of rules and guidelines?

Ermmm, people that aren't dickheads? Look man, I got my own beliefs and morals that I operate by, but I would never impose them upon others.

No matter how you slice it, getting severely stoned can harm other people and your personal choice ends where it involves other people. You are removing their right to be safe from impaired people so your choice is immoral from that point of view.

According to you. To me though, I consider people that think like that to be afraid of things out of ignorance, and that think every corner should be padded to prevent injury.

 

Again, let me say if you are isolated from other people, then it can become a personal choice, but as long as other people are around you, you are effecting other people and there is no way to twist that into being right.

You're losing me man. If you think I pose a danger to others because I smoke weed, than you are disconnected from whats real, and basing your opinions on stereotypical imagery of a "menacing drug addict".

 

It is immoral to effect others with your choices, that is where you go beyond a personal choice. Putting other people at risk just because you want to get wasted is wrong.

How far you gonna take this though? Is it immoral to drive your car, because you're aware of the fact that you could kill people doing so? Is it immoral to own a gun, because someone might find it and be injured.

 

You make it sound selfish for me to get high because its dangerous to others. Most choices that one could make could affect others. Sounds to me like you're afraid of shadows, and your morals are out of touch.

 

 

I have three kids myself, to be a good parent, you need to be aware of every noise and action of your kids because the second you drop your awareness, is when they will get into things they are not supposed to get into, or do things that you would have put an end to if you had been watching them properly.

 

Just last weekend, my children thought it a good idea to stack several items up on and they intended to climb up on top of their structure, I stopped that from happening. If I was stoned on the couch watching football and not paying attention to my kids, they would have gotten hurt.

 

I understand this. BUT, what if your intoxication has absolutely no bearing on the injury? You act as if this isn't possible, and thats what I'm attacking. Believe it or not, sometimes your kids just get hurt and theres no foreseeable way to prevent this, despite your level of sobriety.

 

It is common knowledge, if you are blinding yourself just because you don't want to interrupt your need to get stoned there is not much I can say to change your mind, but your refusal to admit the truth does not make it less truthful.

My "need", aye? Believe it or not, buddy, some people smoke pot because they enjoy it. Not because they "need" to.

Ignorance.

 

Oh yes, the country would be better off if we were all stoned, right.......

I never said that. I said the country would be better off if marijuana was legal. America incarcerates more of its citizens than any other country in the world.

Police arrest more Americans per year on marijuana charges than the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

 

REFERENCE: Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2001. Uniform Crime Report: Crime in the United States, 2000. Table 29: Total estimated arrests in the United States, 2000. U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC.

 

More than 734,000 individuals were arrested on marijuana charges in 2000. Eighty-eight percent of those arrested were charged with marijuana possession only.

REFERENCE: Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2001. Uniform Crime Report Crime in the United States, 2000. Table: Arrest for Drug Abuse Violations. U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC.

 

Almost 5 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana since 1992. That's more than the entire populations of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington DC and Wyoming combined.

REFERENCE. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States (1993-2000). Table: Arrest for Drug Abuse Violations. U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC.

[timesjoke]

Ermmm, people that aren't dickheads? Look man, I got my own beliefs and morals that I operate by, but I would never impose them upon others.

 

So all laws are just assholes making rules to impose on others right?

 

If we don't have standards, we don't have a society.

 

According to you. To me though, I consider people that think like that to be afraid of things out of ignorance, and that think every corner should be padded to prevent injury.

 

There are clear statistics that prove impared people have more accidents than non impared people, ignoring facts just to make you feel better about your weaknesses is just silly.

 

You're losing me man. If you think I pose a danger to others because I smoke weed, than you are disconnected from whats real, and basing your opinions on stereotypical imagery of a "menacing drug addict".

 

Nope, just facts, again it is even common sence that people that are severely messed up are more likely to have accidnets of all sorts and if other people are around at the time, then that puts other people at risk.

 

How far you gonna take this though? Is it immoral to drive your car, because you're aware of the fact that you could kill people doing so? Is it immoral to own a gun, because someone might find it and be injured.

 

You are trying to mix apples and oranges, sure there are risks in all areas of life but adding severe chemical induced imparement to the mix changes things completely.

 

You make it sound selfish for me to get high because its dangerous to others. Most choices that one could make could affect others. Sounds to me like you're afraid of shadows, and your morals are out of touch.

 

And you are trying to make the decision to get stoned sound like deciding to drink a coke or pepsi and that is wrong.

 

If you make the decision that you wish to alter your state of mind through the use of illegal substances, then yes you are being selfish to an extent but people are selfish all the time, what makes this situation immoral is when you put other people at risk while you are being selfish.

 

I understand this. BUT, what if your intoxication has absolutely no bearing on the injury? You act as if this isn't possible, and thats what I'm attacking. Believe it or not, sometimes your kids just get hurt and theres no foreseeable way to prevent this, despite your level of sobriety.

 

If you are bombed out of your mind, how will you know if they are in danger? That is the problem, any loss of mental ability or attention will put the kids into harms way.

 

My "need", aye? Believe it or not, buddy, some people smoke pot because they enjoy it. Not because they "need" to.

Ignorance.

 

Yep, just like crack smokers like it and heroin users like it, everyone uses illegal drugs because they like it, why would they do it if they hated it?

 

Reality.

 

I never said that. I said the country would be better off if marijuana was legal. America incarcerates more of its citizens than any other country in the world.

Police arrest more Americans per year on marijuana charges than the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

 

So you agree there are a lot of people getting stoned out there, very disturbing that so many people can't stand their lives so much that they must turn to mind altering substances to cope with their existance.

 

 

Sounds like this is a mental health issue more than anything else.

[Jhony5]

Yep, just like crack smokers like it and heroin users like it, everyone uses illegal drugs because they like it, why would they do it if they hated it?

You kinda dodged the issue. You said that I "need" marijuana. I exclaimed that I don't "need" it, I use it because I enjoy it. Comparing crack and heroin to marijuana just shows your ignorance.

 

Do you ever drink a few beers? I've had this conversation with casual beer drinkers before. Somehow theres this idea that one cannot smoke some pot without getting screwed up out of their mind. Its like saying to casual beer drinkers that every time they drink a few beers they get fall down drunk and pass out, only to wake up with a hangover. Ya, I have been guilty of getting smoked out before. But for the most part, I just take a few puffs to relax.

 

So all laws are just assholes making rules to impose on others right?

If we don't have standards, we don't have a society

Some laws are misguided, and actually cause more harm than they prevent. I believe anti-marijuana laws are a perfect example of this. What good does it do for society to imprison over a half million people annually because they have a plant in their pocket that makes them giggle when they smoke it?

 

You are trying to mix apples and oranges, sure there are risks in all areas of life but adding severe chemical induced impairment to the mix changes things completely.

 

It doesn't always have to be that way though. Like I said above, many people only take a few puffs, just like many beer drinkers only drink a few beers. In both cases the level of impairment is minimal if at all. If your gonna say that smoking a little pot is immoral, than you must be fair and say that drinking a few beers is immoral as well.

 

If you make the decision that you wish to alter your state of mind through the use of illegal substances, then yes you are being selfish to an extent but people are selfish all the time, what makes this situation immoral is when you put other people at risk while you are being selfish.

No one is in peril is you're responsible and moderate your intake, just like with beer. Your hangup is the illegal status of marijuana.

 

So you agree there are a lot of people getting stoned out there, very disturbing that so many people can't stand their lives so much that they must turn to mind altering substances to cope with their existence.

 

 

Sounds like this is a mental health issue more than anything else.

 

I really want you to explain to me why you think this? Whys it gotta be this way man? I can't just enjoy a high from time to time without being a mentally ill drug addict?

 

Thats a short-cut to thinking, brother. If you're gonna say that, then you must as well say that anyone that ever drinks a beer or two, is doing so because they're a mentally ill drug addict.

 

Your problem is you believe the hype. You believe the lies about marijuana. Its cool if smokin ain't your thang, but to cast dispersions upon everyone that does is a manifestation of your own ignorance.

[timesjoke]

You kinda dodged the issue. You said that I "need" marijuana. I exclaimed that I don't "need" it, I use it because I enjoy it. Comparing crack and heroin to marijuana just shows your ignorance.

 

All drug abusers say the exact same thing, it is the "other" abusers with a problem, not me.

 

 

Do you ever drink a few beers? I've had this conversation with casual beer drinkers before. Somehow theres this idea that one cannot smoke some pot without getting screwed up out of their mind. Its like saying to casual beer drinkers that every time they drink a few beers they get fall down drunk and pass out, only to wake up with a hangover. Ya, I have been guilty of getting smoked out before. But for the most part, I just take a few puffs to relax.

 

If you take the time to read my posts I already said I see casual smoking of pot as similar to casual drinking, my points of immoral behavoir is when people cross the line and become impared, reguardless of what the item was a parson used to become impared.

 

There is the added element of using illegal substances but that is mostly rooted in the desire of the person to feel like they are not conforming, it makes them feel like they are rebelling, I don't see that as very harmful on the surface, it depends how far a person takes it.

 

Some laws are misguided, and actually cause more harm than they prevent. I believe anti-marijuana laws are a perfect example of this. What good does it do for society to imprison over a half million people annually because they have a plant in their pocket that makes them giggle when they smoke it?

 

Some people see no harm in hanging a black man either but we must set limits somewhere to maintain a functional society.

 

Breaking a law is up to the person, it is not like the people did not know they were breaking the law. I see this like your claim that those around you know the dangers and choose to stay. Every person busted for pot knew they were breaking the law and decided to take the risk, I don't feel sorry for them.

 

If you don't agree with a law you get together and fight it, you just don't snub your nose at it and then cry when you get busted. If you are man enough to flaunt the law, be man enough to take the punnishment that goes with your flaunting.

 

 

It doesn't always have to be that way though. Like I said above, many people only take a few puffs, just like many beer drinkers only drink a few beers. In both cases the level of impairment is minimal if at all. If your gonna say that smoking a little pot is immoral, than you must be fair and say that drinking a few beers is immoral as well.

 

Again, I only see an immoral element based on "heavy" use, well everyone is different so I will say use that takes a person past a mild buzz to being very impared to the point where their imparement could effect other people in a negative way.

 

I even see a blasted guy hitting on a girl at a bar after she already said no as bing immoral, I know the imparement is the main reason he is acting that way and that makes his overuse of these substances immoral.

 

No one is in peril is you're responsible and moderate your intake, just like with beer. Your hangup is the illegal status of marijuana.

 

Please try to read what I am saying, I have clearly stated that I have the same opinion of those that overindulge in drinking as well, we just seem to be concentrating on pot right now but all kinds of heavy imparement is immoral.

 

Being as you have admitted yourself that you have gotten severely stoned many times, I guess that even you can't be responsible, so there goes that arguement.

 

 

I really want you to explain to me why you think this? Whys it gotta be this way man? I can't just enjoy a high from time to time without being a mentally ill drug addict?

 

There is something missing in anyone that must look to mind altering substances to enjoy themselves. Again, I am not talking about small use, I am talking of those that escape reality by using heavy amounts of chemicals.

 

Thats a short-cut to thinking, brother. If you're gonna say that, then you must as well say that anyone that ever drinks a beer or two, is doing so because they're a mentally ill drug addict.

 

People that drink to excess are the same thing I agree. All successful alcholic programs require the addict to admit they are addicted and have a serious problem, only by admitting the problem can a person get past that problem, and even then most will struggle their entire life.

 

Your problem is you believe the hype. You believe the lies about marijuana. Its cool if smokin ain't your thang, but to cast dispersions upon everyone that does is a manifestation of your own ignorance.

 

 

No, the last 12 years of working with my local Guardian Ad Litem chapter and seeing parents who have an ounce of pot in the home and no food for the kids has jaded me a tad I am sure but all of my opinions are based on my own observations and research, I never take a possition on anything without fully researching all sides.

 

I see no benefit to society to have more legal ways to scramble your brains, we already have booze and that causes enough deaths and mayhem as far as I am concerned.

 

 

 

Let me close with a story:

 

A good friend of mine worked as a firefighter for over ten years and one day his supervisor smelled pot on him and had him take a piss test. He tested positive for pot and was fired. He had a difficult time finding another good paying job and his wife got tired of waiting and took off with the kids. Several of us tried helping him some but obviously he made his bed and had to figure out how to sleep in it.

 

He ended up living with me a few months, during that time he would go for walks, I live out in the country so it is no big deal but one night I busted him smoking pot in my back field under a pecan tree. After pot had led to losing his job and his family, he still smoked pot, and had it in my home on top of that.

 

I told him there he either enrolled in a drug abuse program or he needed to leave my home. He refused to admit he had a problem, he even said "It's just pot" similar to what you are saying. He decided to leave instead of getting help.

 

 

Pot is not harmless.

[Jhony5]

All drug abusers say the exact same thing, it is the "other" abusers with a problem, not me.

 

You're right. Anyone that ever drinks beer is a hopeless alcoholic and they need treatment.

 

Pot is not harmless.

Neither are cheeseburgers.

 

I think we have come to an understanding. Is this the first official debate on GFcom? Did we bust the debate cherry here?

[timesjoke]

You're right. Anyone that ever drinks beer is a hopeless alcoholic and they need treatment.

 

We were doing so well until that, well, what was that? I thought things like that were said in middle school, not between adults.

 

This discussion was about abusing drugs to the point of imparement, not casual use, I clearly pointed out that was the basis of my points.

 

 

Neither are cheeseburgers.

 

Yes, but there are degrees of harm, you can't get wasted by eating too many cheesburgers so your not puting other people at risk for your personal risk. Also Pot is illegel, cheesburgers are not (maybe they should be).

 

I think we have come to an understanding. Is this the first official debate on GFcom? Did we bust the debate cherry here?

 

 

Do we get a prize or something?????

[wez]

Since this topic morphed into the morality of weed, I'll toss in another 2 cents..

 

I contend that the only reason MJ is illegal is to create a market for it. To make it "worth" money.

 

I'll start my argument by saying.. I have a hard time believing the guv "bans" it for my own well being... If they did, McD's would be forced underground to sell artery clogging cheeseburgers. Booze and ciggarettes would certainly be illegal, as well as sunbathing... it's all about money. It's always about money.. and jobs.

 

Plus, this is phreaking America.. I should have a right to grow a plant and smoke it if I see fit.. Hmmmmm... Then it'd be free.. can't have that, now, can we?

[Jhony5]

We were doing so well until that, well, what was that? I thought things like that were said in middle school, not between adults.

Well, I keep wanting to agree with you, but then you keep making these stereotypical, broad sweeping generalizations, such as;

All drug abusers say the exact same thing, it is the "other" abusers with a problem, not me.

It is common knowledge, if you are blinding yourself just because you don't want to interrupt your need to get stoned there is not much I can say to change your mind, but your refusal to admit the truth does not make it less truthful.

 

So I just thought I'd fire some sarcasm into the bush and see what came crawling out.

 

Yes, but there are degrees of harm, you can't get wasted by eating too many cheeseburgers so your not putting other people at risk for your personal risk. Also Pot is illegal, cheeseburgers are not (maybe they should be).

 

It could be argued that ones decision to consume saturated fats and fried foods, causes financial and emotional damage to loved ones as well as detrimental affects on society due to the health care and insurance rate issues. But, I feel we are both getting caught up in the semantics of various terminologies.

 

I guess I'm just sore at you, for strongly suggesting that anyone who smokes pot, despite the frequency, is a menace to those around them. And with over 20 years of pot smoking under my belt, I have yet to see any harm to others as a result of my choice to smoke grass.

 

Other than your unrealistic portrayal of pot smokers, I agree with most of what you've said.

[timesjoke]

I guess I'm just sore at you, for strongly suggesting that anyone who smokes pot, despite the frequency, is a menace to those around them. And with over 20 years of pot smoking under my belt, I have yet to see any harm to others as a result of my choice to smoke grass.

 

A forum discussion about any topic must be based on general concepts, not individual ones because there is just too many varibles to get too specific.

 

Again I guess I must repeat myself and say that my points are based on those that use drugs in excess and includes those that drink too much. I have said many times that casual use of pot is "similar" to drnking so I don't understand why you are getting sore.

 

Deciding to screw with your brain chemistry to the point you become severely impared around other people, even those who also are imparing themselves, is not just a personal choice because you put other people at risk.

 

It is the risk that makes it immoral, and is the same for whatever substance a person uses to get impared.

 

 

Other than your unrealistic portrayal of pot smokers, I agree with most of what you've said.

 

Look, I admit that there are exceptions to every rule and I am sure there are a few people that can use drugs on a regular basis and be fine, and will never hurt someone else with their use.

 

But, the majority of all people are weak, not even cattle they are sheep, sitting there watching as the sheep next to them gets slaughtered and they just eat their grass without concern. Most people have a hard enough time staying alive without inserting chemical experimentation into their lives and have no business doing it because they put everyone at risk.

[Jhony5]

I understand. I am now going to retire into my bedroom to get high.

 

However from now on I'm going to wear a helmet as I now know how dangerous it is.