"War on Drugs"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Virtuoso, May 6, 2004.

  1. i also saw a study by NORML - showed that any device (bong/vaporizer/filtered joint) used to clean out the tar/toxins actually cleaned out more THC - thus you had to smoke more to get the same amount of THC into you with a worse ratio of thc/tar.

    so if everyone would eat it instead.. but that might cause other issues.

    but this whole healthcare thing - should we start banning sports? fast cars? what about if you sleep around a lot and get HIV?
    #21     May 7, 2004
  2. Maverick74


    Commisio, sorry I didn't provide the link. Why does that matter? I'm not the drug expert on here and I told you my only interest in this issue is a financial one, not a moral one. I don't care what you do to your body, how many times do I have to say that. I just don't care. I do care how it relates to my pocketbook, thats it. Why are you trying to make this into drugs are good or drugs are bad argument. I could care less. I don't care if you do blow, Oxy, crsytal meth, Ectasy, I just don't care. So put all this all bullshit aside. Like I said in my first post, if you are willing to sign off on health insurance and emergency room healthcare, then I will join you in your crusade. Fair enough?
    #22     May 7, 2004
  3. Yup, Mav wants the government to closely watch and guard over us- for our own good, of course. Kind of like a nurturing nanny, or a protective <b>big brother</b>.
    #23     May 7, 2004
  4. I had no problem with you not providing the links, but if one were to go back and look at the passages you copied it is easy to see you left out key statements like, scientists believe, we think, etc to support your case and make them come accross as more conclusive/valid. Thats just cheesey bro.

    And for the record I no longer smoke pot other than a few times a year, well under a dozen. The only reason I am even posting here is because I don't think the government shoud play mother and then make us pay for it. If these dumbfucks want to kill themselves then in a supposed free country they should be allowed. If our government is going to allow people to shove Krispy Kremes and Big Mac's into our fat fuck faces then they should definately let some working stiff come home from work and pull a few bong hits.

    Your healthcare concerns are hollow, either come up with something more substantial or I suggest you play the cut and paste game on another thread. Dildo.
    #24     May 7, 2004
  5. Sounds ok, but i have no idea why you think dangerous drug abuse would increase in the slightest bit with the ending of prohibition.
    #25     May 7, 2004
  6. Maverick74


    Dude, where do you even get that shit from? I'm saying the exact opposite of that. I am saying I want you out of the system so gov't cannot watch you and guard you. Dude, put the freaking bowl down for a sec any type a coherent post. I want you to be completely on your own as it pertains to drugs. That means no gov't intervention at all. But I don't want you having access to emergency room healthcare and I want you to pay substantially higher premiums, not premiums that get averaged into mine so my healthcare costs double. Do you get it now? Jeez man, you guys are so freaking defensive over this. This is not a morality issue to me. I'm not saying that again.
    #26     May 7, 2004
  7. Well its not a morality issue for me either. It's an issue of liberty and mans basic rights to do one thing becuase it is beneficial to the gov (smoke cigs) but not another (smoke weed) because its not. Its fucked up.
    #27     May 7, 2004
  8. Maverick74


    Well as God as my witness, it was not my intention to leave out any specific parts, come on man, give me a break. I was in a hurry and did a sloppy job with it. I didn't know I had big brother editing my posts for me jeez.

    But yes, I do agree with you that we need to allow individuals who choose to live dangerous lifestyles, to pay higher premiums, including those who are addicted to big macs instead of heroin. Same thing as far as I'm concerned. However Joe, as you know that would not be politically popular as its the poor and minorities in this country who have the greatest problem with living healthy and raising the cost of insurance on the poor is not going to fly with either political party.

    I'm sure you understand this. So don't tell me my insurance argument is a hollow one, it is not, it's a reality. But why are you refusing to answer my first post. I never said you smoked pot a lot, I never called you a stoner, I simply asked you if you would be willing to sign off on free emergency room healthcare and if you would be willing to pay insurance premiums independent of mine? That's it? Why are you not answering this question? You don't need to attack me and my copy and pasting, just answer the freaking question, it's an honest question and I don't know the answer to it. I am very curious if for the freedom of smoking pot, would you be willing to pay a certain price, yes or no. That's it.
    #28     May 7, 2004
  9. Maverick74


    Actually, I don't think the gov't endorses tobacco smoking. It's the biggest tax on the poor we have in this country. I disagree with your assertation.
    #29     May 7, 2004
  10. I didn't answer it because I simply cannot understand why you think they will skyrocket if marijuana is legalized. Do you think use will tripple overnight or something? Do you not think the insurance companies know that millions of people smoke pot now? I just don't understand where you are coming from...
    #30     May 7, 2004