Out of Pod Experience

Interesting thread, going to have to go back and hand out some likes.
Just wanted to throw a few wrenches at you guys. :)


EDIT--
Wow it's censored...
********** = pot
--


EDIT2--
I should mention that I am a non-combatant.
No interest here in seeing it legal or illegal.
--






1) The War on Drugs, is not about drugs. It's about drug dealers.
Regardless of a person's feelings about corruption within a government, even taken to hyperbole a corrupt government keeping up the appearances of being a benevolent one is still preferable to the violence found in Mexico. Do you think Americans are immune to this because we're bad asses or something? You think with our immigration laws as they are, the cartels couldn't move in and do exactly the same things as they do in Mexico?

I'm sure someone who is comfortable hating the drug war will have a strong come back to give rather than reconsider, but please do include your explaination of why we don't have police chiefs being beheaded and pits with dozens of bodies in them being discovered every other week while it's on the news in Mexico every. single. day. Just put 'Mexico' into BBC. 40+ slaves SLAVES released from cartel. Cartel leader burns down casino. Arrests over mass killings. There is a REASON we do not live that in the U.S. with soldiers in our cities wearing masks, and it aint Obama, the tooth fairy, or free speech.




2) Behavioral arguments are dangerous.
When a person says something like 'dependent' or 'psychologically addicted' in an article it sounds very scary, but it really just means a strong habit. Semantics arguements incoming I'm sure, but clearly these are words of exaggeration.

it's strange to see people encourage the government to correct their habits and govern their children. Replace marijuana with anything else and you'll see my point quickly. How about video games? There are plenty of articles that use the exact same words and meanings for world of warcraft, and there are just as many horror stories about people not feeding their kids to play WoW, or selling things they need to pay for computers.

People can be stupid about anything. That's up to a parent to fix early, or it's really the right of an adult to live out their life as they choose if it happens later. Even if you hate marijuana for some reason, you should make an effort to think a little bigger and fight tooth and nail against arguments like those.

These are the real world foundations that the worst conspiracy theories rest on. An area where the government could come in and set a precedent for TELLING YOU HOW TO LIVE based on terms that can be, without exaggerating, used to mean anything you love. Anything you do every day, anything you make sacrifices to further, anything you're emotional about could be construed as a situation of dependency, addiction, or compulsion, if something like marijuana can be cast in that light to set a precedent for something to be illegal. Believe me if it comes down to that, you'd rather have legal Marijuana, so let the pot heads have it now.






3) Schizophrenia is a ridiculous thing to cite.
All statistics on Schizophrenia are created abstractly to begin with and the period of life where people develop it (typically teens to early twenties) are the same age group where marijuana is romanticized and where people against it have to target.

Also, chances of getting to that point are so small that tiny changes represent huge percentages that make arguments look stronger than they are. Google the affliction by itself. Site after site, medical professionals lining up to tell you living in a city increases your chances 30%, being black raises your chances 150%, women who don't get enough food during early pregnancy increase their chances by 100%. Had an infection? Got vaccinated? Bad day at work? Everyone on this board should be Schitzo already. Did you stub your toe twice in a row? Not get enough sleep? 4,000% ****.

If you actually ask a doctor out of concern, the first question they'll ask you that will form the basis for their opinion as the greatest factor (after your obvious current mental state) is if your parents or grandparents had it. BOTH PARENTS having it would only be 30-36% increased chance by the first few google results I got, but smoking MJ every day after school is 200% or causes 8% of all cases by some of the same sites. Please tell me you're all smarter than that.

Smoke weed erryday.

Driving under the influence of dope...


With the rise of anti-depressants came zombie drivers like I would have never expected years ago.


There was a drudge linked article about anti-depressants being at a very high rate of usage lately.


But I remember what the roads were like before Prozac. They were much better. Worse was that the Prozac popping started when I was away from the country. So when I came back, I was like "WTF?" Seems like everybody tarded out.

I was once rearended by one of these prozac poppers. She was totally out of it. Not upset, not anything. Minor damage to her Mercedes, none to my truck, but it was a very dumb thing she did and her reaction to the whole thing was comparable to that of a house plant. I gave her my information to help with her insurance claim (instead of writhing on the ground going "aaaaa! I'm rich!......uh.... my neck!!!1! my neck!!!" which is standard operating procedure in the USA) .

Then, after getting back in my old truck, I hear a crunch.

She backed up into traffic from behind be and completely wrecked someones car. The dude driving it comes out blowing his top, so I get out to make sure he doesn't kill her.

So I ask her, "you alright?" and she says "yes", still a house plant, vacuous.

I got the hell out of there. Real life zombies freak me out.

But the anti-depressants are legal and prescribed and all that so I am sure that rolling hazard didn't get charged with anything.

But hey, if you get caught with dope - off to prison with you!!!1! We gotta save America from responsibility.... uh... terrorism.

C U in 10 years.... we'll have a recoup on the situation.

Edit on the edit..... the last statement finally got to me....... lets just say im the kinda guy lets the 'people that can deliver' know where i plan to set up the sound system.

Wooosh is the sound of you completely missing the point. The point being is you are going to regulate peoples choices of substance intake you do not pick and choose. It is much more efficient to punish the individuals on a case by case scenario instead of trying to regulate everyone's actions. And if you are going to choose death rates to be the underlying indicator of what you are going to regulate then you best go after the behaviors that affect the most people. The numbers in the US for deaths associated to the use of drugs and the criminal activity associated with it are minuscule compared to the reckless behavior people instill in their children with their gluttonous and sloth like practices.

For Baltec, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm also please remember that deaths associated with substance abuse are not counted in in the 'accidents' section

If you want to save everyone from themselves and the actions of others, by controlling everyone's actions, then you can not pick and choose, and very few are willing to go the fascist state route. Also, this is a class issues as well because anyone in a position of power or wealth, will routinely skirt the lines of justice as they have the finances and strings to pull so they do not suffer the same consequences as your regular citizens.


Slade

Take the comma out and address works... come on now should be able to see that in the link. Or adjust the address on your own without going nuts.

Edit also people aren't suppose to be driving on a lot px drugs either. States it right on the damned bottle for many of them. Which is why some people can't do certain jobs/get let go because they can't operate machinery. Said people if in an accident are also suppose to be fined/ticketed for a DUI as well.

Driving under any reaction/motion impairing substances should be no bueno. Not really sure why this is such a hard concept for many people... Laziness or carelessness I suppose.

The linked is fixed. It is relevent because of how low on the list homicide is ranked as a cause of death. The percentage of those homicide deaths that are attributed to driving while intoxicated is even lower. No need to waste public tax monies on prevention of that which is ultimately non preventable and utilizing said funds in more beneficial fashions or not take it from the citizens to begin with. The judicial system just needs to buck up and start throwing the book at those that actually **** up while intoxicated. That will fix the problem itself.


Slade

It beign a crime to use cannabis in the first place is absurd. Why should I not do what I see fit to my own body? Why should a plant growing in the nature be agaisnt the law to use?

Any governemt that enforces such lawes should really be disbanded and replaced wiht something that makes more sense.

50%? FIFTY PERCENT!?

Are you out of your mind? 50% of Americans do NOT take prescription narcotics, pain killers, anti-depressants, or even prescription allergy medication.

You best be citing a source for that statistic, because it fails any sort of sanity test you apply to it.

If you go back and look, I said estimated and drivers. Not all Americans. If you do not think it is even possible then you are woefully unaware of the level of medication use in the US population. Just think about the number of senior citizens on the road and the potential for them to be on at least one medication that restricts driving. And that is only part of the iceburg. The point is that many people drive under the influence of a substance that contradicts doing activites that require fine motor control and do so without causing irreprable damage. Logic would say it is a waste of resources to try and prevent the act of taking said substances and to actually throw the book at those that cause damage while intoxicated. But that would diminish a large source of revenue for the localities and also force the judicial system to actually punish those that normally subvert thecurrent system due to their 'rank within the system'.


Slade