I would shoot up every driver that speeds around ones on the highway, squeezing between cars, just to be a few yards ahead, causing ones to panic in the process.
Legalize weed already...
- Thread starter Bravest FB
- Start date
You have my vote if you support me on making the use of ax, axed and axted a felony.
Legalized weed is something normal for the decade we live in now. There are many more dangerous things we should focus on, like: cyberattacks, terrorism, organs trafficking, dark web. More interdictions lead to zeal for weed, and in many cases, people tend to smoke in excess. If weed is legal, it is less likely people will overuse it. I have heard parsl.co tends to make the cannabis trade legal and in range with government rules. They use intelligent packaging technology recorded securely on blockchain technology. However, I still think professional sports should be kept far away from these natural energizes or stress relief, as I like to call a weed.
Last edited:
So, no rules or regulations at all? I'm guessing you would qualify it to some degree like saying "well you shouldnt be allowed to physically harm someone or forcefully take their things," and while almost everyone would agree, it is still people in government forcing their own personal beliefs on the masses.
There is a difference between laws and simple, societal norms. Laws are usually motivated by some sort of contrived version of what we think should be.
Societal norms transverse time and cultures.
In the end, my biggest beef with the no legal weed argument is this: why allow alcohol and tobacco? I don't want to get into the $ side of the argument (of which is obvious), but the simple, basic premise. You really can't make an argument for those to be legal, and cannabis to not be legal.
There is even a breathalyzer for weed now. So that argument is gone. The history of weed being criminalized is pretty basic: it provides our police officers jobs and revenue, and, historically, it affects minorities on a much greater scale.
No, I'm not a "woke lib" or something. Just stating facts.
EDIT: If anything, Nebraska football fans should be advocating for any mind-altering substance at this point. That includes huffing paint and/or glue.
Last edited:
Well, no, you probably get all sort of arguments on what is or is not a "societal norm," especially with the effort these days to segregate and differentiate races and ethnicities and "cultures." "Societal norms" would be all over the map. There is no doubt that there are behind-the-scenes, as well as overt, deals going on to make certain laws. It happens all of the time. It doesn't necessarily make the law bad law. Laws, rules, and regulations are absolutely necessary. People just get pissed when one of them limits something that the person thinks shouldn't be limited.
For the sake of argument, assume that legalizing weed would be an overall negative for society, which isn't an unreasonable position. We should legalize something, even if an overall negative, because there is something else that was legalized which is an overall negative? Let's make society worse because this certain segment of the population can't legally openly (allegedly) engage in that activity? Of course you can make an argument that something shouldn't be legalized IF that something isn't a good thing. The whataboutism doesn't make the subject matter less harmful.
And who will decide what is "harm" and "natural law." Silence is violence, amiright? "Misinformation" is the soup du jour, and you don't think that freaks in charge would use that against us? I love how some of you think it is so cut n dry, when nothing is. There will always be people in charge and those people will make the rules and those people will always have an opinion and many of those people will be willing to compromise.
I don't think it is about whataboutism. It about having consistent principles. In the case of drugs, it seems that it is an analysis of risk assessment. Is the risk of legalizing weed for the benefits worth the negatives? That is the argument many have. If the answer to this is no, then why can't we apply this reasoning to other laws concerning drugs like alcohol, which could easily be argued to be a much bigger net negative to society?
Many ask whether the pros of having a drug like marijuana illegal is worth the negatives. With alcohol prohibition, the negatives were seen as more of the problem.
Because of the basic reality that making alcohol illegal would lead to every single person voting for it losing their job, and very few people want it to be illegal.
Wouldn't substance usage be stated in my employment contract somewhere?
