Topic: Should weed be legalized? POLL - page 2. (Read 5597 times)

Hi sir fuck you right back Im your age and I drank since 15 but last few yrs have woken up to its implications im glad I get responses from ppl like you reenforces my decision to quit for good.

About the link its old news kiddo I knew that 5 yrs ago.. how about the 1 beer a day test? Remember that? Well none of its true and although wine may help woth dinner Eating your antioxidents like grapes strwaberries acai berries etc are even better. Better yet ive been making fresh juice every other day with fruits m veges combines which is the best thing u can do to supercharge ur body better than any wine will help ur dillusional ass any day.

I already said fast food should be taxed not banned since there is still a market for it in my view just not as big as today.

Smoker and drinker huh? must be doing swell! Maybe ur one of chosen ones lol

Ack!  I never thought about it like that... just one more reason for me to hate on them fat peepz.  I'm so sick of the stigma that smokers get in this country (USA) but being morbidly obese is an issue that we have to skirt because we could offend the fatties.

more people should watch this, shows more about the benefits of this wonderful plant :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31SrjjgPbhU

First let me say this: Fuck you, sir!

Educate yourself a little: http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/wine-how-much-is-good-for-you

And a little of my personal experience, I'm 31 years old, I drink alcohol since I was 7 or so, I'm not an addict, never was, not even a functional drunk, I just enjoy drinking and have done that a lot! And hope still be doing a lot more in the future!

I will argue the same way Damnsammit did, why not ban fast food, or any unhealthy food, like bacon, as it is a major cause of death and/or disability, I'll bet much higher than alcohol consumption.

And check my post on addiction/banning/decriminalization from someone who saw the changes in policy reflecting on the social changes: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3106944


I do live in such a country also, but like you typed, and very well done, free is not actually free...

In defense of this "free" healthcare I'll argue that putting junkies in jail where they will perpetuate their addiction, or letting them on the streets begging for money or robbing or spreading aids prostituting themselves has a much higher social and financial cost then implementing treatment into the "free" healthcare system.

And another point on this subject, some people argue that smokers are a big burden on the healthcare system, because they have higher chance of developing diseases like cancer and treating these diseases is very expensive.

Where I live, something like 90% of a cigarette pack price goes for taxes, what a smoker contributes in his life time in taxes pays many times whatever treatment he might need for a smoking related disease, so, we smokers are the ones paying for the treatment of the fat fucks who like to clog their veins with fatty foods that have a low tax attached.

How about the costs of healthcare for the drug users vs the costs of incarceration for those same drug users?

In the state of California it costs $47,000/yr to incarcerate someone[1].  The taxpayers also take that hit. The war on drugs has failed, and I would rather my tax dollars go toward healthcare for drug addicts than locking up people for silly ass "crimes".

[1]http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3

That's the other side of the problem.  When you have "free" healthcare everybody's health suddenly becomes everyone's business.  Which is crazy because people's health, what they consume, how much exercise they do etc is a very personal thing.   You can't decree people should be healthy though govt never seems to learn that lesson.

And not that the health care is actually free of course.  The more socialised health care becomes, the more expensive overall it seems and the worse the service (waiting lists, etc).

People need to be responsible for their own health and part of that responsibility is taking the consequences of bad actions.  Free health care takes this responsibility away from the individual with predictable consequences.   Yay, free health care for all.  Oh, but some people consume things they shouldn't which puts a strain on the system.  Solution: ban those things.  And so on.   And eventually you get a nanny govt.
 

I'm in agreement with you, yet I suspect that the main line of reasoning has to do with things like the cost of healthcare for chronic drug users.  Trust me, it escalates quickly.  Drug use is much higher among the homeless, for example, and guess what type of healthcare the homeless usually have?  Public aid!  And while public aid doesn't typically fund substance abuse treatment, it does fund dual-diagnosis clients, and that's virtually any drug user that's had a serious hospitalization of some kind.  Here's a typical cycle, especially in inner cities:

1)  Person consumes drugs often and frequently
2)  Symptoms of mental illness arise; financial situation declines.
3)  Person becomes homeless, is hospitalized, or both.
4)  Person gets dually-diagnosed:  (Poly)substance abuse + serious mental illness, often depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or schizoaffective disorder.
5)  Person applies for public aid.
6)  Public aid funds psychiatric care, some medications, medical aid, and counseling services.  It also makes the person eligible for residency in places like nursing homes or group homes.
7)  Person lives in institutional setting funded by public aid until they relapse.  Then they go back to the hospital.
8.)  Repeat from step 4.

Depending on how long this cycle lasts, you could easily be looking at $100,000+ in public aid per person every couple of years.

In a society where healthcare is "free" like where I live some will argue that it will increase government spending on medical care. Not that I'm in favour of "free" and poorly managed healthcare but this is another mater.

Agree 100% with that.  I'll agree to disagree on the other part of this argument though.  I don't like the government stepping in and saying what is right or wrong when it comes to personal health.  That should be up to the parents (unless they are unfit) in a case of a minor, and up to the individual in the case of an adult.

If I want to free-base a ball of tar off of a fire made from asbestos then that should be my right to do so as long as it is in my house where the fumes aren't killing anyone else.

You don't get it, most ppl smoking cigarettes do not want to smoke but they do because of addiction. Its a gray area... fast food is also an addiction. Trans fat and sugars in fast food exhibit withdrawls with the likes of other substance abuses. The minute you touch any of these your remotely addicted, the more you use it the more addicted you get. Alcohol I learned is addictive from your first sip, however little addiction there is. But the more you have the more addicted you get. I'm occasional but health oriented through exercise and sports which I say keeps me away from drowning my stress in drinking. I use exercise to relieve stress instead.

I also don't believe a fullon intervention is needed and that your right gov't shouldn't spend overly on these things but a simple incentive approach would work but taxing fast food/alcohol producers and adding incentive or tax breaks on healthy food producers right now its opposite corn etc is subsizidized to allow for cheap fast food and higher profits while the healthy stuff costs an arm and a leg which is very awkward.

I don't think the government should be able to tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies.  They should reserve their resources to combat fraud and malintent.  If a company is selling rat poison with a label that says "Not for human consumption" then it is legal.  If a company is selling rat poison disguised as food, then the government should step in. 

If someone is smoking cigarettes because they think it is beneficial to their health then they are stupid and deserve the cancer they are getting.  The government shouldn't step in and tell a business that they can't sell the cigarettes just because it's unhealthy though.  If McDonalds was marketting a Big Mac and Fries as a "healthy alternative" to a home cooked meal, then there are problems.  However, I would venture to say that most people know that eating a pound of saturated fat isn't a healthy choice, but they want something quick to satisfy their hunger.

I think that there actually should be some sort of consortium regarding what your allowed to feed to the public through sale. Some sort of standard because we all know fast food is a killer so why would you let people promote it? Why not keep using Fiat then why are you here using bitcoin? We know its bad for us so lets just keep feeding the fat cats until they explode and then feed a new fat cat working away our lives like a slave??

Yes its not as addictive so it may be allowed to be held but business should be allowed to serve food that is NOT going to have negative effects on such a widescale such as fast food! this is just common sense to me dont know how hard it is to understand for so many people. Maybe because they are in the circle its hard to have an external perspective on things and realize it.

Yes freedom of choice comes into it, but again it comes down to the fact that people who eat it everyday dont think there's anything wrong with it, theres smart ppl dying because of it. If incentive (money) is given to feed people to death with bad food then that is the wrong message and we turned off on a tangent somewhere. I just think there should be an inecntive to becoming healthy and promoting health as success is highly correlated to being healthy. Maybe success isn't something those with power wish to share with us minions.

Its not like I havent drank because I have and do, but I think that it would be great for everyone involved if it weren't available anymore. Recent legal issues has made me think twice and reflect on the true nature of it and how it may effect so many things along the way that we may not know until its too late. This is where an expert with outside influence and knowledge would be able to correct based on incentive on being healthy and promoting success.

Fuck that line of thinking.  Fuck it straight to hell!  

I love my alcohol, and I am fully aware of it's detrimental affects on my health.  

I don't know why people think that stuff that is bad for you should be "banned and destroyed". Might as well add all fast food, most frozen food, soft drinks, Kool-Aid, etc. to your list of "wish this was banned" substances.

Obesity is the leading cause of death in the USA, so take away the french fries and burgers before even thinking about putting your paws on my whiskey.

If its medically proven that in the long term occasional usage of weed is not determental to your overall health in any way then yes legalize it, alcohol however should be outright banned and destroyed.... it is addictive from the first sip and it is proven to be bad for you in the long run.

Dealing with addiction is weird because some may no thave have the will power to do it, or some may be in a depression cycle exaggerated by alcohol which they have no free will to try to quit, so saying that its your own decision is utter bullshit. An addictive substance is made to lure you in after occasional use turns frequent because of stresses in life. If you dealth with the stress in another way then ofcourse you will get over it faster!

Also socializing with friends seems to go hand in hand with getting hammered. This needs to change aswell. It seems to be wasting an entire generation of talent and knowledge or potential. Seems as though those that do not occasionally drink are the only ones getting somewhere in life!

Coke and heroin should be legal, too, IMO.

No reason we can poison ourselves with some substances but not others.  As long as I am only shooting up in my veins, then what makes it an issue with the federal government?

legalize it and tax it just think eliminating it as a crime will save tons of money for the real bad drugs like coke and heroin and make extra money thru the taxes and save from having potheads rotting in jail that they really don't deserve (some do because of other issues but not all)

Haters gonna hate. Fuck medical. Weed has its place as medicine, but this grey market alongside the black market creates perverse economic incentives and obviously does not work to restrict it to medical use.

The medical cannabis industry -- exceptions aside -- exploits black market consumers en masse. The majority of dispensaries here in LA area are fly-by-night and run by thugs trying to make as much money as fast as possible. The Bay Area is considerably better in this respect, in my experience, but still shady as hell.

It won't be legalized as this eats in to the profit of the cartels and decrease the prison population, all against the interest of the Zionist Jew World Order.

They will shoot you.

Pretty definitive result.