Happy 4/20

Pennstate315 · Runite Member 5-25-10

Duke Juker wrote:

Pennstate315 wrote:

First off, Shane it's a lot easier at least here to obtain marijuana then a handgun (if your underage). Plus, I mean you might as well legalize it, Alcohols effects are worse than pot. And you could get decent tax revenue from it. I mean were 14 trill in debt anything can help. Shane you mentioned what next? Nothing stuff like Cocaine and Heroin are way to extreme to be legalized compared to something like marijuana.

Just a side note, Today in my school multiple kids in my school got busted for there little "wake and bake" smoke before school.

1) Taxing people for their heath choices is wrong, esp. when it can be harmful.
2) The answer to solving debt isn't to tax more, but to spend less. Derp!

I personally agree with Shane that scientists should have found a way by now to solve the same problems people want to use marijuana to treat. And at that point, it's more a recreational drug than a medicinal drug. Although in truth, some people who use marijuana for medicinal purposes are using it for recreational purposes, too, and giving it to others as well. Ultimately, I wouldn't have a problem with them legalizing it in the United States, since most people who would start smoking it would be instantly removed from the job market as many employers don't like their employees smoking on the job.

Duke, I agree with you i know major cuts are needed, but id you haven't noticed Obama's not going to do it. All he wants is more spending. Plus cigarettes are taxed and thats not changing any time soon either. I mean i live in Pennsylvania and the state OWNS liquor stores.

Adbot · **Posted:** April 21st, 2011, 8:28 pm

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

@Penn
Ya, Washington State owns the liquor stores here as well. Quite a shame really.

@Warren
Eh, I just feel we keep going round and round in circles, so I'll put in my final thoughts on the subject.

I never claimed you nor I was an expert in such matters, only that in your "rant" about my sources, you took the things you didn't like and simply backed up what you thought with hearsay more than refuting evidence. Nothing against you, I just don't take people's word for it. I want facts, evidence, proof that it's the other way, not just something you have heard.

You made a cute straw man argument and inferred "Of pleasure, I don't know why having the bonus of pleasure is a bad thing, really. I don't know anyone would be like I HATE PLEASURE ALL HAPPY THINGS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL." Yes, so because I'm more concerned about the actual medicinal purposes, that means I hate happiness and want it to be illegal. Focus on my argument and don't make it into something it's not please. That is the kind of crap I'm referring to about serious debate. If you try to dumb down my arguments, we are no longer having a serious debate. Take the arguments as they are and address them. Ridiculing them to absurdity doesn't get you anywhere.

Anything about the DEA seems more like opinion than fact. I don't like government agencies either, but that doesn't mean they aren't trying.

When I was talking about discrimination, I did mean it in the sense that you saw it in negative terms as something that refers to unjust or unfair conditions. I'm sorry you don't like capitalism, but I don't know of too many other good economic systems out there that realistically work.

My point with the vegetarian example is that what someone eats is not as big a deal as the drugs they do. The comparison just isn't there. I'd say drug habits are quite more likely to interfere with work habits as alcohol or something comparable. And a cup of while doesn't make you drunk and most employers probably would care about that. Again, you are reducing my argument to absurd statements rather than only addressing what I say.

As for responsibility, appearances are appearances. References and recommendations only observe external behavior. They have nothing to do with internal behavior or personal matters. Some people you would never know did drugs, yet employers want to know that.

Again, drug usage is something employers want to know about. It's not whether you think it's important, Warren. The employer is running a business and trying to make money. He wants the best people for the job. It is reasonable to expect that if there are plenty of people out there that don't do drugs, he would choose from them first before picking a drug user. It's just the way it is. When you have a business one day, you run it how you see fit. You hire who you want, pay who you want, do what you want. But until then, I wouldn't bash the system until you actually understand how it is.

Anyway, that's my final take on this topic. I felt you were taking this topic too lightly, in fact almost to the point of trolling in my opinion. I'd like to have a serious debate about it, but with you reducing my arguments to absurdity and going off hearsay, I can't continue this conversation. Hope I had some kind of impact on the discussion, but for now, I need a rest.

Warren · **Posted:** April 21st, 2011, 11:33 pm

Who wants a serious debate, those are boring. Like remove all personality from it as if this "debate" had any impact on the world.

And your argument was that here this drug does everything marijuana does except the high - no need for marijuana. Thus it would stay illegal for medical purposes? So one is illegal, one isn't and the only difference is the illegal one has "pleasure" involved. So really, I'm fabricating your argument? Plus I thought choice was a good thing. If you thought it was a good thing that patients know about it as an alternative then you should have SAID SO. CAPS. Lmao you made me think I was trying to make it seem like you wanted to illegalize pleasure for a second. I was asking why is pleasure a bad thing -- why it should be legal while marijuana, no different except with euphoria, shouldn't. Then I went on about illegalizing happy things totally UNRELATED to YOU which is WHY it WAS in CAPS. lOl -- lmao that lOl has the squiggly spelling error line under it, looks like the person drowning sign on beaches.
Lol I just looked up straw man, I had always thought that it was celebrated within the US system but I never bothered to care what it meant XD

And I said the DEA stuff was all opinion, except the one that they're ruining people's lives with those actions. I don't know how they aren't. It certainly isn't bettering the world and doesn't make me feel safer at night knowing that a MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT!! is in prison for medicating.

Uhm, no I'm not. You're getting right at what I was getting at and then telling me I'm trying to mislead with what you've said. A glass of wine does not make you an alcoholic. But on the drug test, there is alcohol right there. The drug test doesn't say "occasional glass of wine with dinner", it says "this person has consumed alcohol in the last few days". The drug test says you've consumed, in one way or another, marijuana in the past few weeks. It doesn't tell the employer that it was from second hand smoke, it doesn't tell the employer how it got into you, it doesn't tell the employer the frequency. Exactly like the alcoholic vs glass of wine example. It doesn't give any indication to what type of employee you'd make. But I guess I'm just trying to reduce your arguments to absurdity, of course of course.

And exactly. If people would have never thought you did drugs, how exactly is it going to limit your performance? Obviously you're able to control it and not let it interfere in such matters if that's the case, unless the people around you are just oblivious. So it is irrelevant to an employer.
"They have nothing to do with internal behavior or personal matters."
Exactly. The employer has no business knowing, personal life wont interfere.

Is it right for employers to value people without kids over people with kids? I'm not sure where you'd stand on that. I think that is completely wrong. But here's the thing, a person with kids is "more likely" to have to miss work when their child is sick. They're more likely to have to leave in the middle of work to pick them up from school and stay home with them if they become sick during school. Their hours are more limited because they have to deliver their kids to school or day care. I don't think any of this is legitimate to not hire someone. Not trying to put words in your mouth but I feel that's in line with what you're describing? Not saying it is before you accuse me of that too lol
But that brings back to the alcohol thing. Drinking wine isn't going to limit your work performance. Neither is hitting the vape. I don't see why one is fine but the other isn't. I guess if you've used marijuana you're more likely to turn into a stoner than someone who hasn't. But that's just as legitimate as saying that someone who has drunken alcohol before is more likely to become an alcoholic - even if it was just wine.
I would say more even because alcohol is more addictive but I guess you can consider that hearsay since I'm not going to go through a bunch of articles and then find a good one and notice the address bar is cannabis420woot!.com or reading through articles that are going on about science I don't understand or reading through sites that consider it to be the most dangerous thing in the world. In all honesty I just want PSN to come back up... well I want to go to bed now.

hahaha I just read the end of your post. The classic RSBANDB cry troll. Jeez everything thats not 100% serious is just someone trying to trick you and make you feel stupid and make you angry at them so you flame them. I guess. Not really, lighten uP

I apologize that I don't go scouring the internet for everything I've read before. But don't link me propaganda and cry about "hearsay" responses to it. I could link a bunch of propaganda back, but that's all it would be. I gave you links to places that don't politically associate one way or another that back up what I was refuting to your links to things that I could. I admitted that it was opinion on the stuff I can't really back up because it's opinion (the DEA stuff. plus they were talking opinion only about the DEA too so). And I said I wasn't going to try to back up my response that they're stretching anything with claims like "it is very dangerous mentally physically emotionally and to your habits" - seriously, they refer to absolutely nothing in that, you can't argue against it. Plus that's hearsay in itself.
If there's any "hearsay" you want links to an article, its not like I wont find one. Not like you can't either though.

Pennstate315 · Runite Member 5-25-10

Warren wrote:

Who wants a serious debate, those are boring. Like remove all personality from it as if this "debate" had any impact on the world.

And your argument was that here this drug does everything marijuana does except the high - no need for marijuana. Thus it would stay illegal for medical purposes? So one is illegal, one isn't and the only difference is the illegal one has "pleasure" involved. So really, I'm fabricating your argument? Plus I thought choice was a good thing. If you thought it was a good thing that patients know about it as an alternative then you should have SAID SO. CAPS. Lmao you made me think I was trying to make it seem like you wanted to illegalize pleasure for a second. I was asking why is pleasure a bad thing -- why it should be legal while marijuana, no different except with euphoria, shouldn't. Then I went on about illegalizing happy things totally UNRELATED to YOU which is WHY it WAS in CAPS. lOl -- lmao that lOl has the squiggly spelling error line under it, looks like the person drowning sign on beaches.
Lol I just looked up straw man, I had always thought that it was celebrated within the US system but I never bothered to care what it meant XD

And I said the DEA stuff was all opinion, except the one that they're ruining people's lives with those actions. I don't know how they aren't. It certainly isn't bettering the world and doesn't make me feel safer at night knowing that a MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT!! is in prison for medicating.

Uhm, no I'm not. You're getting right at what I was getting at and then telling me I'm trying to mislead with what you've said. A glass of wine does not make you an alcoholic. But on the drug test, there is alcohol right there. The drug test doesn't say "occasional glass of wine with dinner", it says "this person has consumed alcohol in the last few days". The drug test says you've consumed, in one way or another, marijuana in the past few weeks. It doesn't tell the employer that it was from second hand smoke, it doesn't tell the employer how it got into you, it doesn't tell the employer the frequency. Exactly like the alcoholic vs glass of wine example. It doesn't give any indication to what type of employee you'd make. But I guess I'm just trying to reduce your arguments to absurdity, of course of course.

And exactly. If people would have never thought you did drugs, how exactly is it going to limit your performance? Obviously you're able to control it and not let it interfere in such matters if that's the case, unless the people around you are just oblivious. So it is irrelevant to an employer.
"They have nothing to do with internal behavior or personal matters."
Exactly. The employer has no business knowing, personal life wont interfere.

Is it right for employers to value people without kids over people with kids? I'm not sure where you'd stand on that. I think that is completely wrong. But here's the thing, a person with kids is "more likely" to have to miss work when their child is sick. They're more likely to have to leave in the middle of work to pick them up from school and stay home with them if they become sick during school. Their hours are more limited because they have to deliver their kids to school or day care. I don't think any of this is legitimate to not hire someone. Not trying to put words in your mouth but I feel that's in line with what you're describing? Not saying it is before you accuse me of that too lol
But that brings back to the alcohol thing. Drinking wine isn't going to limit your work performance. Neither is hitting the vape. I don't see why one is fine but the other isn't. I guess if you've used marijuana you're more likely to turn into a stoner than someone who hasn't. But that's just as legitimate as saying that someone who has drunken alcohol before is more likely to become an alcoholic - even if it was just wine.
I would say more even because alcohol is more addictive but I guess you can consider that hearsay since I'm not going to go through a bunch of articles and then find a good one and notice the address bar is cannabis420woot!.com or reading through articles that are going on about science I don't understand or reading through sites that consider it to be the most dangerous thing in the world. In all honesty I just want PSN to come back up... well I want to go to bed now.

hahaha I just read the end of your post. The classic RSBANDB cry troll. Jeez everything thats not 100% serious is just someone trying to trick you and make you feel stupid and make you angry at them so you flame them. I guess. Not really, lighten uP

I apologize that I don't go scouring the internet for everything I've read before. But don't link me propaganda and cry about "hearsay" responses to it. I could link a bunch of propaganda back, but that's all it would be. I gave you links to places that don't politically associate one way or another that back up what I was refuting to your links to things that I could. I admitted that it was opinion on the stuff I can't really back up because it's opinion (the DEA stuff. plus they were talking opinion only about the DEA too so). And I said I wasn't going to try to back up my response that they're stretching anything with claims like "it is very dangerous mentally physically emotionally and to your habits" - seriously, they refer to absolutely nothing in that, you can't argue against it. Plus that's hearsay in itself.
If there's any "hearsay" you want links to an article, its not like I wont find one. Not like you can't either though.

Maybe you are right about marijuana compared to alcohol. But it dosen't matter because pot is illegal alcohol is not. Which makes it more acceptable to drink wine for dinner because its LEGAL, smoking a joint before bed is frowned upon because it is ILLEGAL.

Warren · **Posted:** April 22nd, 2011, 11:13 am

But we're talking in the event of legalization.

Pennstate315 · Runite Member 5-25-10

Warren wrote:

But we're talking in the event of legalization.

Even if it was legalized some employers would probably still frown upon pot smoking, over something like drinking or even smoking cigarettes.

Adbot · **Posted:** April 22nd, 2011, 11:38 am

Warren · **Posted:** April 22nd, 2011, 12:11 pm

Yeah that's what Duke Juker is saying.

Matthew · **Posted:** April 22nd, 2011, 10:29 pm

What an interesting read I just had. Anyways imo, legalize it. Weed isn't even as near as dangerous as alchohol and ciggarettes. Tax it I say.