Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by chompalot, Jan 16, 2014.
looks like it's gaining momentum here in ky.
The undignified fraud of "medical marijauna only", or the at least self-respecting admission that they want to use it recreationally?
Prohibition didn't end because of people sniveling about pleading for the medicinal benefits of distilled liquors, for one thing.
As for why I think we're better off with pot illegal it's because it's not like alcohol culturally -- to wit, people think of showing up to work or school drunk as being about the social nadir of self-respect, but nothing at all of showing up to work or school having just smoked when they got up. You get all the impairing effects of a light alcohol buzz but probably less social stigma than even a tobacco cigarette break. If you could flip the culture to one where people thought of their weed as that "working for the weekend" or "I'm never doing that again" work night mistake the way they do their booze, I might be less concerned about it not being contriband.
at the moment, medical marijuana. we'll see how that goes.
One of the very reasons I have distanced myself from the Rep party and voted Libertarian last time. Reps are not for small government. They want big government but they want it in the brand that suits them. So you have big government Dems on one side and big government Reps on the other.
then put it on the ballot, don't make it a requirement for governor or other elected office, simply put it on the ballot as a constitutional amendment, but stop pretending it is a pre requisite for elected office, and that if you are pro marijuana you will somehow be capable of tackling the big issues facing our state/country
Umm, it is going on the ballot. That is what this thread is about. It going on the ballot will supposedly bring out more democrats
You make many assumptions. For instance, one about how everyone will suddenly start showing up to work stoned, high fives all around, and another one that no one shows up to work the worse for wear for their "weekend only," imbibing. I wouldn't be surprised if hangovers were one of the top reasons for non-illness absenteeism in the workplace.
The only "cultural" thing in play here is your own cultural bias. You probably drink, so it's defensible, but you don't smoke pot, so it's not.
I really don't see the point in smoking before work. I guess some, perhaps, but nobody I know. Why? What's the purpose? That's for after work. I imagine the number of functional alcoholics and functional wake-and-bakers is probably a similar percentage of the overall.
And by the way, drunks have been swearing they just need a drop from their flask for "medicinal purposes," since forever.
corp,i didn't realize it was on the ballot, i thought it was being discussed as a possibility, i didnt even realize the ballot was available for review, and that that possibility may help elect a dim governor, with my point being what a shame that this (pot) is a topic which may help elect a governor of any party or any elected official. it amazes me that this is in the top echelon of issues which may decide our governor, ignoring taxes jobs education fishery management.......... so no lets base it on if he will allow medicinal pot, makes perfect sense.
Virginia is looking into it, too. Studying it in committee and such, maybe sell it through the state ABC liquor stores. Conservatives should be all over this opportunity to raise money without raising taxes. From the WashPo:
"And combining the data from the most definitive of these studies, here is my fiscal starting point: Virginia could reap more than $250 million a year in “sin tax” revenues on regulated marijuana sales, and save another $245 million in enforcement costs. That’s roughly $500 million a year. Granted, Virginia’s statewide budget is about $42 billion a year. But $500 million would build and fix a lot of roads and buy a lot of classroom computers."
Two Martini lunches come to mind.
Of course, not everyone who drinks alcohol drinks to get drunk. In fact, among civilized people past the age of 30, it is relatively rare. Most people can and do limit their alcohol intake to avoid getting drunk most of the time. Many people have a single drink with dinner, for example, and don't even get a buzz. Smoking pot is done specifically to get high, is it not? So alcohol can fulfill a social function without involving intoxication, whereas pot does not seem to. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
People drink for the effect not the taste.
It isn't on the ballot yet although it appears there are enough signatures. The court will have to approve the 75 word summary and then it will need 60% yes votes to pass.
"The intoxicating effects of marijuana include relaxation, sleepiness, and mild euphoria (getting high)." Sounds a little like alcohol.
What??? You've never enjoyed an O'Doul's?
Nor hardly. I am not saying you can't like the taste too but the main reason people drink is for effect.
Considering all the lives that have been ruined by liquor, I can't believe you think it's more benign than pot.
I haven't smoked since the 70's (and only twice then, I didn't care for it) but I don't buy your thesis that drinkers are more functional and responsible than pot smokers. One of your straw men is a stoner from "Reefer Madness," compared to straw man #2, the upstanding citizen with a strict limit on intake.