ADVERTISEMENT

Legalize weed already...

And this is flat out wrong. I don't know him at all, but he should have no problem getting what he wants. So his use would remain at current levels, just like mine would. Do you actually think either him or I or any of the other people in illegal states ever run out of weed and just shrug our shoulders and give up?
Here in Kansas I can get as much weed as I like. I haven't drastically increased my use but I have experimented with different methods of consumption since those options are more available now that Colorado did their thing.
 
Here in Kansas I can get as much weed as I like. I haven't drastically increased my use but I have experimented with different methods of consumption since those options are more available now that Colorado did their thing.
Me too. And actually, I don't care for the edibles at all. I started buying the vape cartridges and then I set my vape thing to 4.5 and I got so high and paranoid I'll never do that again. Setting the heat setting to around 3-3. 5 is enough for this Gopher, lol. But I still prefer the natural plant and the taste it leaves in my mouth.

I think I might have to smoke some weed in your stadium one time just to say I did it lol. (By the way, I actually wanna get to Lincoln someday, all the Gopher fans that go there say it's one of the better B1G road trips to make. Apparently everyone is friendly and welcoming - even if the Gophers win, the Neb fans still are nice to Gopher fans, is what I've heard.)
 
And my fault for not being more specific, as you anti-weed people are finding new and creative ways to identify "victims". So to be more specific, I'm referring to "someone who is a participant in a crime that has motivation to report said crime to police". Now you might accuse me of moving the goal posts, but that was my original intention for the meaning of the word. Some examples:

1. If you shoot me, either I'll call the police or someone who finds my body will
2. If you rob me or my home, I'll call the police

Those are the people I was referring to with "victim". No such person usually exists for weed. I suppose you could make a claim that the friends of the guy with the truck full of edibles could notify law enforcement, but if he thought they would, he wouldn't have taken them on the trip and could have easily gone alone, meaning no one would know.

That's it. The main idea is that no one knows about these crimes. Similar to DWI, if you make it home and into your bed without hitting anything/anyone, no one knows a DWI occurred.

How about this: if I came to Lincoln for a Gopher game and I brought my weed with me, smoked it in Nebraska, and then left again, no one would be the wiser. That's what makes it a tough crime to police. Do you not agree?
Finding new ways to identify victims? Good lord dude, you sure are sensative. No one knows about these crimes, got it, except that they do. The point you are trying to make is that the "criminals" consent to the crime, so even though people see it and know it, they arent directly harming someone, so that is different. If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, it didn't make a noise. It is a tough crime to police because of peoples civil rights.
 
Last edited:
Since weed is easily available, I don't get that choice. Criminalizing weed does nothing to make me feel safer that my dr. isn't using it at work.

Again, the arguments you anti-weed people make are ridiculous. There is no correlation between outlawing it and stopping people from using it.
Fair points. Correlation does not always equal causation. I can only speak from my lives experience being in Denver from 2009-2017.
 
Me too. And actually, I don't care for the edibles at all. I started buying the vape cartridges and then I set my vape thing to 4.5 and I got so high and paranoid I'll never do that again. Setting the heat setting to around 3-3. 5 is enough for this Gopher, lol. But I still prefer the natural plant and the taste it leaves in my mouth.

I think I might have to smoke some weed in your stadium one time just to say I did it lol. (By the way, I actually wanna get to Lincoln someday, all the Gopher fans that go there say it's one of the better B1G road trips to make. Apparently everyone is friendly and welcoming - even if the Gophers win, the Neb fans still are nice to Gopher fans, is what I've heard.)
Far out
 
755qpRM.png
 
Interesting thread. Back to Oklahoma for first time in 2 years for family memorial. Surprised by all the weed shops. More than in San Francisco. Gummies with CPD help my wife through some pains so not completely against it although never smoked the stuff (US Navy). But looks likes it is selling like hotcakes. Will be more alert on the Interstate.
 
Finding new ways to identify victims? Good lord dude, you sure are sensative. No one knows about these crimes, got it, except that they do. The point you are trying to make is that the "criminals" consent to the crime, so even though people see it and know it, they arent directly harming someone, so that is different. If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, it didn't make a noise. It is a tough crime to police because of peoples civil rights.
Re: bolded, no, that's what you guys are doing. I clearly stated my sense/use of the word "victim" when I made the original post. It was anti-weed people that said "society is the victim" etc and started using the word in a different context/meaning.

Do you really think that if I drove my stash to Nebraska, smoked weed and got high, went to the game, smoked the rest of the day, and drove home the next day...that anyone in Neb would be aware of the crime? I sure don't.

But you understand a point I'm trying to make, when you mentioned "criminals" consenting to the crime. That was my main idea way back. If it's consentual, it's a lot harder for the cops to know about it. Surely they'll get lucky once in a while and happen to just see the suspicious behavior, etc. but for the most part it's not really seen. Just like prostitution. It's illegal, but it happens. Can you tell Johns from non-Johns?
 
Fair points. Correlation does not always equal causation. I can only speak from my lives experience being in Denver from 2009-2017.
Thanks for the bolded. It seems that for a lot of people, if they don't agree with you, they'll never acknowledge that you have a decent idea.

What were some of your experiences from Denver? Do you have any knowledge of what remote Colorado thought/experienced? My understanding is the remote parts are a lot more conservative, so they probably think like Nebraskans?
 
Re: bolded, no, that's what you guys are doing. I clearly stated my sense/use of the word "victim" when I made the original post. It was anti-weed people that said "society is the victim" etc and started using the word in a different context/meaning.

Do you really think that if I drove my stash to Nebraska, smoked weed and got high, went to the game, smoked the rest of the day, and drove home the next day...that anyone in Neb would be aware of the crime? I sure don't.

But you understand a point I'm trying to make, when you mentioned "criminals" consenting to the crime. That was my main idea way back. If it's consentual, it's a lot harder for the cops to know about it. Surely they'll get lucky once in a while and happen to just see the suspicious behavior, etc. but for the most part it's not really seen. Just like prostitution. It's illegal, but it happens. Can you tell Johns from non-Johns?
"You guys?" What guys? I'm not speaking for anyone else, just bringing up concerns with your reasoning, and using your words in doing it. I don't really follow what you are trying to prove. Is it that because weed possession / usage isn't easy to observe, it shouldn't be a crime? Or is it that because the people involved in the crime are both agreeable with the crime (selling and usage), that it shouldn't be a crime? There are a ton of people who get clipped for possession, usually in association with another crime / violation (coincidence or causation?).
 
"You guys?" What guys? I'm not speaking for anyone else, just bringing up concerns with your reasoning, and using your words in doing it. I don't really follow what you are trying to prove. Is it that because weed possession / usage isn't easy to observe, it shouldn't be a crime? Or is it that because the people involved in the crime are both agreeable with the crime (selling and usage), that it shouldn't be a crime? There are a ton of people who get clipped for possession, usually in association with another crime / violation (coincidence or causation?).
My "victim" statement was in response to this, from the guy with the "Falling Down" avatar: "Murder is illegal too and they can't seem to stop it. Should they legalize it and tax it?" I was saying things like murder and stuff are different from weed (and prostitution) in that it's pretty straightforward on how law enforcement gets involved. The person shot either notifies the police or the family does (if victim died).

Basically I was responding to a snide remark and I probably shouldn't have wasted my time.

But overall, I'm saying it's not worth criminalizing it because you're not gaining anything from it being illegal. You're not stopping people from obtaining it, you're not stopping people from using it, etc. Nothing is accomplished from it being illegal except for a few useless arrests that don't make any impact.

I *suppose* that one could make an argument that if someone is caught stealing your car and they also have a bag of weed in their pocket, they might be looking at slightly longer jail time than if they didn't have the weed, but I'd rather just increase the penalty for stealing cars.
 
My "victim" statement was in response to this, from the guy with the "Falling Down" avatar: "Murder is illegal too and they can't seem to stop it. Should they legalize it and tax it?" I was saying things like murder and stuff are different from weed (and prostitution) in that it's pretty straightforward on how law enforcement gets involved. The person shot either notifies the police or the family does (if victim died).

Basically I was responding to a snide remark and I probably shouldn't have wasted my time.

But overall, I'm saying it's not worth criminalizing it because you're not gaining anything from it being illegal. You're not stopping people from obtaining it, you're not stopping people from using it, etc. Nothing is accomplished from it being illegal except for a few useless arrests that don't make any impact.

I *suppose* that one could make an argument that if someone is caught stealing your car and they also have a bag of weed in their pocket, they might be looking at slightly longer jail time than if they didn't have the weed, but I'd rather just increase the penalty for stealing cars.
A few useless arrests? Ha. I would imagine there would be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars a year in fines across the country. Can't stop meth, can't stop heroine, can't stop gun trafficking, can't stop prostitution, all good to legalize?
 
A few useless arrests? Ha. I would imagine there would be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars a year in fines across the country. Can't stop meth, can't stop heroine, can't stop gun trafficking, can't stop prostitution, all good to legalize?
Key word: "imagine". And even if that we're true, how much money went into the work in order to collect those fines? The cop has to make the arrest, write the ticket, confiscate the weed and bring it to the evidence room, then the person has their day in court, which costs money for the judge, bailiff, court reporter, prosecutor, etc. And then someone has to process that fine. I just looked it up and where I live, the fine would be $300. All that labor from salaried, gov't employees should easily surpass that. So most likely, unless Nebraska has some crazy high fines, the gov't loses money on the deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedMyMind
Key word: "imagine". And even if that we're true, how much money went into the work in order to collect those fines? The cop has to make the arrest, write the ticket, confiscate the weed and bring it to the evidence room, then the person has their day in court, which costs money for the judge, bailiff, court reporter, prosecutor, etc. And then someone has to process that fine. I just looked it up and where I live, the fine would be $300. All that labor from salaried, gov't employees should easily surpass that. So most likely, unless Nebraska has some crazy high fines, the gov't loses money on the deal.
Yeah, they're losing money. You can talk yourself into anything. You know they dont pay those people for the sole purpose of prosecuting stoners. Having to run your paperwork is pretty simple and can be done in between lots of other things they are doing that day. How about the other part now, based on your rationale, are we legalizing everthing that people outside the criminals wont easily find out about?
 
Of course prosecutors and such have other things to do to. And what happens when gov't employees get backed up, usually another one is hired, right? Or you have to wait longer to make your court appearance for your traffic ticket or whatever. It's similar to raising the speed limit, it's not that people want to drive faster, it's that they are already driving faster and are getting tired of tickets.

As for the other part, I'm not as knowledgeable about meth so I'll punt on that one. Heroin is a no, clearly that ruins lives and no one using it for long periods of time has anything good to say about it. Can you be more specific about the gun one, like you mean people bringing them to Mexico or just selling to their neighbor without telling the gov't? Prostitution I am very much in favor of legalizing.
 
Of course prosecutors and such have other things to do to. And what happens when gov't employees get backed up, usually another one is hired, right? Or you have to wait longer to make your court appearance for your traffic ticket or whatever. It's similar to raising the speed limit, it's not that people want to drive faster, it's that they are already driving faster and are getting tired of tickets.

As for the other part, I'm not as knowledgeable about meth so I'll punt on that one. Heroin is a no, clearly that ruins lives and no one using it for long periods of time has anything good to say about it. Can you be more specific about the gun one, like you mean people bringing them to Mexico or just selling to their neighbor without telling the gov't? Prostitution I am very much in favor of legalizing.
Prosecuting stoners is easy to do, I know. You ain't bogging the system down, and you're making the counties a lot of money. The crux of your argument is that it's not easy to observe or catch someone doing dope, and those breaking the law are doing so in concert with others who also want to break the law, so why bother? Why would that not apply to every other crime that is not obvious and isn't directly harming others? Pretty much, no harm no foul, right? Why wouldn't that apply to every crime? Heroin ruins lives, but weed doesn't (or can't?). This was fun, but I've gotta be done if you are taking the position that weed can't ruin lives and that's what distinguishes from another drug.
 
Prosecuting stoners is easy to do, I know. You ain't bogging the system down, and you're making the counties a lot of money. The crux of your argument is that it's not easy to observe or catch someone doing dope, and those breaking the law are doing so in concert with others who also want to break the law, so why bother? Why would that not apply to every other crime that is not obvious and isn't directly harming others? Pretty much, no harm no foul, right? Why wouldn't that apply to every crime? Heroin ruins lives, but weed doesn't (or can't?). This was fun, but I've gotta be done if you are taking the position that weed can't ruin lives and that's what distinguishes from another drug.
All drugs need to be legalized and regulated.
 
Thanks for the bolded. It seems that for a lot of people, if they don't agree with you, they'll never acknowledge that you have a decent idea.

What were some of your experiences from Denver? Do you have any knowledge of what remote Colorado thought/experienced? My understanding is the remote parts are a lot more conservative, so they probably think like Nebraskans?
Denver, boulder, Fort Collins, Durango are super liberal. Just about everywhere else is red. There was even a movement a few years ago for Weld county to secede and become North Colorado.

Colorado was a red state 20 years ago. Legalizing weed is not the sole cause of the liberalization, but you can argue it has helped. Net migration into CO up significantly post weed legalization:


from a macro scale in general Colorado is getting objectively shittier - Talk to anyone that lives there and is not a defund the police type bird brain, the place is becoming California... more homeless, crime, ridiculous property values (boomers love this, people under 35 not so much). Denver specifically, People getting stabbed/mugged on 16th street. (Lot of corporate offices there). Had a buddy that lived in RINO district, had to move bc of safety concerns in 2019, before covid. Tent city in front of coors field now.

Have heard that homeless encampments under I-70 go as far west as Kipling now. 7 years ago, that was unthinkable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John_J_Rambo
Denver, boulder, Fort Collins, Durango are super liberal. Just about everywhere else is red. There was even a movement a few years ago for Weld county to secede and become North Colorado.

Colorado was a red state 20 years ago. Legalizing weed is not the sole cause of the liberalization, but you can argue it has helped. Net migration into CO up significantly post weed legalization:


from a macro scale in general Colorado is getting objectively shittier - Talk to anyone that lives there and is not a defund the police type bird brain, the place is becoming California... more homeless, crime, ridiculous property values (boomers love this, people under 35 not so much). Denver specifically, People getting stabbed/mugged on 16th street. (Lot of corporate offices there). Had a buddy that lived in RINO district, had to move bc of safety concerns in 2019, before covid. Tent city in front of coors field now.

Have heard that homeless encampments under I-70 go as far west as Kipling now. 7 years ago, that was unthinkable.
Per article - weed legalization does have some impact on migration. Somewhat conjecture here, but my line of thinking... Weed was essentially legal in Cali before 2013, low income stoners (least productive contribution to society) see co legalizes what their life revolves around (weed-uh) and they have better prospects for employment/cheaper housing there so they make the move. Legalizing weed in Nebraska could lead to similar situation instead of ca -> co in 2013, co - > ne now.

from what I hear from my friends in Lincoln, Lpd isn’t even really persuing small weed busts. You can use recreationally and it’s fairly low risk. Don’t send out a “he stoners - move to Nebraska please” message via bs headlines please.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lincoln100
Denver, boulder, Fort Collins, Durango are super liberal. Just about everywhere else is red. There was even a movement a few years ago for Weld county to secede and become North Colorado.

Colorado was a red state 20 years ago. Legalizing weed is not the sole cause of the liberalization, but you can argue it has helped. Net migration into CO up significantly post weed legalization:


from a macro scale in general Colorado is getting objectively shittier - Talk to anyone that lives there and is not a defund the police type bird brain, the place is becoming California... more homeless, crime, ridiculous property values (boomers love this, people under 35 not so much). Denver specifically, People getting stabbed/mugged on 16th street. (Lot of corporate offices there). Had a buddy that lived in RINO district, had to move bc of safety concerns in 2019, before covid. Tent city in front of coors field now.

Have heard that homeless encampments under I-70 go as far west as Kipling now. 7 years ago, that was unthinkable.
Gone to pot, as they say.
 
Prosecuting stoners is easy to do, I know. You ain't bogging the system down, and you're making the counties a lot of money. The crux of your argument is that it's not easy to observe or catch someone doing dope, and those breaking the law are doing so in concert with others who also want to break the law, so why bother? Why would that not apply to every other crime that is not obvious and isn't directly harming others? Pretty much, no harm no foul, right? Why wouldn't that apply to every crime? Heroin ruins lives, but weed doesn't (or can't?). This was fun, but I've gotta be done if you are taking the position that weed can't ruin lives and that's what distinguishes from another drug.
Re: the first bolded, is that what you do? Just curious. How is it making the counties a lot of money? I'm not being sarcastic, if you have some first-hand experience, do tell. Do none of them spend time in jail, like they just get the equivalent of a traffic ticket and they just pay it?

Re: the second bolded, I already stated I'm in favor of prostitution. Do you have more examples of crimes besides weed and prostitution that fit this description?

Re: the third bolded, "ruins lives" is too generic. I've never heard of a life being ruined by smoking weed. Now if you're talking about someone getting a long prison sentence and being separated from family, not being able to get gainful employment after getting out, etc. well the weed didn't ruin that person's life, the penalty for it did. Legalize it and that life isn't ruined. But maybe there are people who got on the stuff and couldn't stop and lost their job because they are always high. Does that mean the rest of us have to suffer?

How about I play the role of you and we talk about guns or something. Guns don't ruin lives? Sure they do, so let's outlaw them for everyone, right? Are you taking the position that if something ruins at least one person's life, it needs to be outlawed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9and4
Re: the first bolded, is that what you do? Just curious. How is it making the counties a lot of money? I'm not being sarcastic, if you have some first-hand experience, do tell. Do none of them spend time in jail, like they just get the equivalent of a traffic ticket and they just pay it?

Re: the second bolded, I already stated I'm in favor of prostitution. Do you have more examples of crimes besides weed and prostitution that fit this description?

Re: the third bolded, "ruins lives" is too generic. I've never heard of a life being ruined by smoking weed. Now if you're talking about someone getting a long prison sentence and being separated from family, not being able to get gainful employment after getting out, etc. well the weed didn't ruin that person's life, the penalty for it did. Legalize it and that life isn't ruined. But maybe there are people who got on the stuff and couldn't stop and lost their job because they are always high. Does that mean the rest of us have to suffer?

How about I play the role of you and we talk about guns or something. Guns don't ruin lives? Sure they do, so let's outlaw them for everyone, right? Are you taking the position that if something ruins at least one person's life, it needs to be outlawed?
Ruined lives comment - josh Gordon and Randy Gregory. Ruined is relative term, but their inability to lay off the weed cost them millions.
 
Ruined lives comment - josh Gordon and Randy Gregory. Ruined is relative term, but their inability to lay off the weed cost them millions.
Who knows how good Josh Gordon could have been, look at that one 14 game season he had, ridiculous. But even if that counts as a ruined life, I don't think it's fair to the rest of us to keep weed criminalized because a few NFL players couldn't stop. Heck, does anyone even know if they consumed weed in a "decriminalized" state?
 
Re: the first bolded, is that what you do? Just curious. How is it making the counties a lot of money? I'm not being sarcastic, if you have some first-hand experience, do tell. Do none of them spend time in jail, like they just get the equivalent of a traffic ticket and they just pay it?

Re: the second bolded, I already stated I'm in favor of prostitution. Do you have more examples of crimes besides weed and prostitution that fit this description?

Re: the third bolded, "ruins lives" is too generic. I've never heard of a life being ruined by smoking weed. Now if you're talking about someone getting a long prison sentence and being separated from family, not being able to get gainful employment after getting out, etc. well the weed didn't ruin that person's life, the penalty for it did. Legalize it and that life isn't ruined. But maybe there are people who got on the stuff and couldn't stop and lost their job because they are always high. Does that mean the rest of us have to suffer?

How about I play the role of you and we talk about guns or something. Guns don't ruin lives? Sure they do, so let's outlaw them for everyone, right? Are you taking the position that if something ruins at least one person's life, it needs to be outlawed?
1) Less than an ounce is an infraction and the first few times is only going to cost you a few hundred bucks. There are enhancement statutes will make it worse if you start getting busted a bunch. It makes money because it is revenue in the form of fines, just like speeding tickets.

2) I've given you many. Essentially any drug (heroin, meth, all types of prescription pain meds, etc.), trafficking in firearms / weapons, sex with minors (who are we to say how old someone should be to consent to sex? Two people want to have sex, let them at it), and again, pretty much every traffic law. These are all crimes that you would say have no "victim."

3) Perfect. This is how it always works; you and yours provide a definition or example, your definition / example is exposed, and so you adjust and go to "that's not what I meant" and give us your truth, which of course nobody can ever disprove because who are we to tell you what's true and not true? You can join princess uni-kitty (aka redmymind) in cloud kookoo land (sounds like you two enjoy spending most of your day in the clouds) if you actually believe the garbage you type. Never heard of a life being ruined due to weed, that's brilliant. You admitted (or was it uni-kitty) that weed at the very least exacerbated the problems in Seattle, or Portland, or both. At the very least it is making lives, on a large scale, worse, if it isn't the primary cause already. Being a stoner that can hold down a job doesn't make the drug harmless, but congrats on your ability to do so to this point.

"Does it mean that the rest of us have to suffer?" How old are you? Uni-kitty is a "slave" and you are suffering? You are suffering because you have to get high behind closed doors, is that it? You two snowflakes should move in together.

You're the idiot that said weed doesn't (or can't) ruin lives, and I just called you out on it. No, I don't think everything that can ruin a life should be outlawed, just pointing out the stupidity of your position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: otismotis08
1) Less than an ounce is an infraction and the first few times is only going to cost you a few hundred bucks. There are enhancement statutes will make it worse if you start getting busted a bunch. It makes money because it is revenue in the form of fines, just like speeding tickets.

2) I've given you many. Essentially any drug (heroin, meth, all types of prescription pain meds, etc.), trafficking in firearms / weapons, sex with minors (who are we to say how old someone should be to consent to sex? Two people want to have sex, let them at it), and again, pretty much every traffic law. These are all crimes that you would say have no "victim."

3) Perfect. This is how it always works; you and yours provide a definition or example, your definition / example is exposed, and so you adjust and go to "that's not what I meant" and give us your truth, which of course nobody can ever disprove because who are we to tell you what's true and not true? You can join princess uni-kitty (aka redmymind) in cloud kookoo land (sounds like you two enjoy spending most of your day in the clouds) if you actually believe the garbage you type. Never heard of a life being ruined due to weed, that's brilliant. You admitted (or was it uni-kitty) that weed at the very least exacerbated the problems in Seattle, or Portland, or both. At the very least it is making lives, on a large scale, worse, if it isn't the primary cause already. Being a stoner that can hold down a job doesn't make the drug harmless, but congrats on your ability to do so to this point.

"Does it mean that the rest of us have to suffer?" How old are you? Uni-kitty is a "slave" and you are suffering? You are suffering because you have to get high behind closed doors, is that it? You two snowflakes should move in together.

You're the idiot that said weed doesn't (or can't) ruin lives, and I just called you out on it. No, I don't think everything that can ruin a life should be outlawed, just pointing out the stupidity of your position.
It "exacerbated" problems in Washington/Colorado in that it attracted the downtrodden to set up camp. If all states had it legal, there wouldn't be a mass migration.

Drugs are abused by ones who are downtrodden and stuck in the muck of a broken society. It is a vicious cycle, like poverty/crime.

Denying ones the right to consume what they want to consume is a violation of civil rights. Just because you have a phobia towards marijuana doesn't mean that we all need to be subjected to such. Drug laws are laws to control the populace and keep the lower classes down.

Now drink your whiskey and beat your wife before running over some minorities to your klan meeting. ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gonzo3705
It "exacerbated" problems in Washington/Colorado in that it attracted the downtrodden to set up camp. If all states had it legal, there wouldn't be a mass migration.

Drugs are abused by ones who are downtrodden and stuck in the muck of a broken society. It is a vicious cycle, like poverty/crime.

Denying ones the right to consume what they want to consume is a violation of civil rights. Just because you have a phobia towards marijuana doesn't mean that we all need to be subjected to such. Drug laws are laws to control the populace and keep the lower classes down.

Now drink your whiskey and beat your wife before running over some minorities to your klan meeting. ;)
 
Why does it need to be compared to other legal substances? It is illegal for a reason, just because there is a nationwide "make it legal" mantra does not change the information, it just demonstrates that people will ask for something that may not be good for them. Now that several states have legalized it, you will begin to see more research and data. When it was illegal nationally, there was no reason to research something that was illegal. Google is your friend.

Here is a cumulative research on the negative affects. You can read each one that is linked if you wish. https://kgov.com/negative-effects-of-marijuana-pot-research-shows-cannabis-is-harmful Here is another article that has both pros and cons and links to various other symptoms and studies. https://www.healthline.com/health/addiction/marijuana/effects-on-body#1

What I don't understand is the lack of understanding/caring what it is doing or even possibly doing to athletes who must compete at the highest level possible. Then there is the tired comparison to alcohol. People can pretend it is OK and the best thing these kids can do is just be smarter about using it but is that what we think is best for their overall health? This is not the same weed that was around in the early 70's as well.
The psychotic, bipolar/mania and violence is all very real. I voted to legalize in my home state and now wish I hadn’t. I have a family member who went thru a violent cannibus-induced mania, scary as $hit. Took a month and a half off work to keep the family member safe and dropped $40k (at least) in expenses to bring the person back to earth. Different than alcohol and not well understood, they are not the same
 
The psychotic, bipolar/mania and violence is all very real. I voted to legalize in my home state and now wish I hadn’t. I have a family member who went thru a violent cannibus-induced mania, scary as $hit. Took a month and a half off work to keep the family member safe and dropped $40k (at least) in expenses to bring the person back to earth. Different than alcohol and not well understood, they are not the same
That's why we need to keep California out of Nebraska.
 
The psychotic, bipolar/mania and violence is all very real. I voted to legalize in my home state and now wish I hadn’t. I have a family member who went thru a violent cannibus-induced mania, scary as $hit. Took a month and a half off work to keep the family member safe and dropped $40k (at least) in expenses to bring the person back to earth. Different than alcohol and not well understood, they are not the same
need more CBD strains

 
  • Like
Reactions: Kingslyfishao
The psychotic, bipolar/mania and violence is all very real. I voted to legalize in my home state and now wish I hadn’t. I have a family member who went thru a violent cannibus-induced mania, scary as $hit. Took a month and a half off work to keep the family member safe and dropped $40k (at least) in expenses to bring the person back to earth. Different than alcohol and not well understood, they are not the same
Shhh. Our resident hippy and addict tell us it is harmless, that there aren't any victims, and that it is the system that is the cause. I trust them.
 
1) Less than an ounce is an infraction and the first few times is only going to cost you a few hundred bucks. There are enhancement statutes will make it worse if you start getting busted a bunch. It makes money because it is revenue in the form of fines, just like speeding tickets.

2) I've given you many. Essentially any drug (heroin, meth, all types of prescription pain meds, etc.), trafficking in firearms / weapons, sex with minors (who are we to say how old someone should be to consent to sex? Two people want to have sex, let them at it), and again, pretty much every traffic law. These are all crimes that you would say have no "victim."

3) Perfect. This is how it always works; you and yours provide a definition or example, your definition / example is exposed, and so you adjust and go to "that's not what I meant" and give us your truth, which of course nobody can ever disprove because who are we to tell you what's true and not true? You can join princess uni-kitty (aka redmymind) in cloud kookoo land (sounds like you two enjoy spending most of your day in the clouds) if you actually believe the garbage you type. Never heard of a life being ruined due to weed, that's brilliant. You admitted (or was it uni-kitty) that weed at the very least exacerbated the problems in Seattle, or Portland, or both. At the very least it is making lives, on a large scale, worse, if it isn't the primary cause already. Being a stoner that can hold down a job doesn't make the drug harmless, but congrats on your ability to do so to this point.

"Does it mean that the rest of us have to suffer?" How old are you? Uni-kitty is a "slave" and you are suffering? You are suffering because you have to get high behind closed doors, is that it? You two snowflakes should move in together.

You're the idiot that said weed doesn't (or can't) ruin lives, and I just called you out on it. No, I don't think everything that can ruin a life should be outlawed, just pointing out the stupidity of your position.
Name calling and losing your temper. Good job, man. Another internet keyboard warrior tough guy. Childish name calling. Anyone can do that, and it just ruins the boards.

You gave a good response to #1, and I appreciated that. You inferred you had some experience/knowledge, which is why I wrote you back. I wouldn't mind responding to #2, but at #3 you went off the rails, so nevermind.

Anyways, this thread has worn itself out. People brought up points on both sides, no one is changing their opinion. Now off to argue about the expanded playoff proposal....
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedMyMind
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT