+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: The Speakeasy (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=54)
+--- Thread: Did you vote today? (/showthread.php?tid=32208)
Did you vote today? - Kanuhduh - 2010-11-03
Mute Wrote:Plus it'd deal a larger blow to the black market for it than trying to police it.
Also a more than valid point. California's current "war" on drug cartels is clearly losing and costing us taxpayers money. Legalizing it would allow them to focus on policing harder drugs, and even create more funds to fight those cartels.
Well, here's to hoping we get another shot at it in 2012.
Did you vote today? - Sarah - 2010-11-03
It really doesn't matter, the White House made an official statement after it failed saying that if it had passed the federal laws would have still been in affect and they wouldn't have let things change much, if at all. Probably the most disappointing thing Obama's administration has said/done to date.
Did you vote today? - Takebacker - 2010-11-03
White house Wrote:It's ok guys. Even if you had voted yes toprop 19economic recovery we would have directly opposed what you all voted for anyway.
Did you vote today? - Sarah - 2010-11-03
Sounds like the Republican party!
Ba-dum-tish
Did you vote today? - Roxas - 2010-11-03
Satellite Wrote:Who was the junkie, that got the idea of legalizing drugs? Have fun when US is full off homeless bums smoking drugs.
I guess Americans really are plain stupid. http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm
This is a stupid assumption. Here in the Netherlands weed is legal, yet we have no such things.
Did you vote today? - Zelkova - 2010-11-03
Roxas Wrote:This is a stupid assumption. Here in the Netherlands weed is legal, yet we have no such things.
I agree.
(Not from the Neterlands)
China views the U.S. as this though.
[video=youtube;jY6TILz-seY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY6TILz-seY[/video]
Did you vote today? - CarrionCrow - 2010-11-03
Kanuhduh Wrote:Hmm, you do realize that Alcohol and Tobacco are worse than marijuana, right?omgroflomg.jpg. You can't really compare tobacco to alcohol to pot, the only thing that they really have in common is that they are toxic. I prefer to look at it this way: Tobacco - no brain damage. Alcohol - brain damage after long term use. Pot - brain damage much faster than from alcohol. If you want to debate the brain damage issue you clearly never paid attention to heavy smoking friends or smoke enough yourself to already gone slow in the head. I have closely observed a number of friends that used to smoke every day and how they all have grown slower processing thoughts and speaking. Potheads first defense is always this, and looking at a few biased bloody researchpapers does not make pot into cotton candy. Get a grip folks.
Mute Wrote:Plus it'd deal a larger blow to the black market for it than trying to police it.
Kanuhduh Wrote:Also a more than valid point. California's current "war" on drug cartels is clearly losing and costing us taxpayers money. Legalizing it would allow them to focus on policing harder drugs, and even create more funds to fight those cartels.
Well, here's to hoping we get another shot at it in 2012.
This is true and valid . The line must be drawn somewhere though. Legalize pot, then what is next?
Did you vote today? - Netto - 2010-11-03
CarrionCrow Wrote:This is true and valid . The line must be drawn somewhere though. Legalize pot, then what is next?
A bit of a slippery slope fallacy there...Just because something becomes legalized, doesn't mean it'll move for something else potentially more dangerous to become law.....oh....excluding this of course.
What you said is exactly what I've seen. Being from the Bay Area, I've seen this ALL TOO OFTEN. I would appreciate it if people did NOT criticize my way of thinking if you do not live in my area (not saying anyone has done so). How much of our sanity are we willing to sacrifice just because we're in a deficit?
"Smoking weed has no effect on you." - Um. Yes it does? Smoking = burning chemicals = changing molecules in it = chance of causing cancer.
"It's less dangerous than all the other things we use." - Maybe so, but has anyone considered that a combination of this pomegranate isn't a good idea?
All-in-all, this proposition was doomed from the beginning.
Did you vote today? - Takebacker - 2010-11-03
People don't say NO effect, they say LITTLE effect. They compare to alcohol and tobacco.
And no, it didn't occur to me that mixing chocolate with my milk isn't a good idea.
Did you vote today? - Netto - 2010-11-03
Takebacker Wrote:People don't say NO effect, they say LITTLE effect. They compare to alcohol and tobacco.
And no, it didn't occur to me that mixing chocolate with my milk isn't a good idea.
Again, I live in the BAY AREA. People from Eureka say differently than people from San Diego, for example. I know a bunch of people claiming it has "no effect" on things like your brain cells and ability to think. "All it does it just get you high, and that's it. No crash and no addiction". That last quote was their exact words. From a frequent pot user, I might add. Although, I know that it's false either way. The way I see it, it does have an effect and it's way more than just "little". But hey, I don't smoke at all, so I can't say be experience it is. But by observing, it has told me more than enough
Hahaha. Very funny too by adding in chocolate and milk. I knew I should have left all that information in that quote because I clearly said "THIS" and not "certain". I was referring to alcohol and weed. Why not we just throw in cigarettes since they were going to be in its own category anyways.
Did you vote today? - larmie - 2010-11-03
If someone visits LA or San Fran and they get weed smell on them because people around them were smoking marijuana, they'd be arrested when they land in their home country's airport. Or any other state in the US for that matter.
And what if drug dealers started growing weed in California and start selling it cross-border in Nevada or Arizona? or Mexico?
Did you vote today? - RahlsSoldier - 2010-11-03
CarrionCrow Wrote:omgroflomg.jpg. You can't really compare tobacco to alcohol to pot, the only thing that they really have in common is that they are toxic. I prefer to look at it this way: Tobacco - no brain damage. Alcohol - brain damage after long term use. Pot - brain damage much faster than from alcohol. If you want to debate the brain damage issue you clearly never paid attention to heavy smoking friends or smoke enough yourself to already gone slow in the head. I have closely observed a number of friends that used to smoke every day and how they all have grown slower processing thoughts and speaking. Potheads first defense is always this, and looking at a few biased bloody researchpapers does not make pot into cotton candy. Get a grip folks.
This is true and valid . The line must be drawn somewhere though. Legalize pot, then what is next?
1) Alcohol is more addictive than pot.
2) Tobacco is more addictive than pot.
3) Tobacco is a mind altering drug. It was previously used to induce hallucinations in the indigenous peoples.
4) Alcohol has been shown to be much more damaging to regular users than pot has, however Alcohol is legal.
5) Tobacco has been shown to be much more damaging to regular users than pot has, however Tobacco is legal.
I find it very funny when people say that pot should be illegal because it is mind altering and dangerous, when it has been show many times that cigarettes and alcohol are much more so. I've seen some very heavy users of pot get off of it and they are still as bright as ever. I very rarely see someone able to quit smoking, or drinking, even though they know the very serious repercussions. The real reason marijuana is illegal is because there is a huge social stigma attached to any type of 'drug' and people automatically assume it is something terrible. The only reason alcohol and tobacco are legal is because that social stigma was overcame by enough people willing to use it, regardless of legality.
In my opinion, all drugs should be legalized so they can be regulated and taxed. Then extensive testing could and would be done to identify those drugs that were significantly worse than others. Those could then be banned on scientific evidence, not social stigma, or the opinions of the ill-informed.
Did you vote today? - Rob - 2010-11-03
Fiel Wrote:Dilma Rousseff? Whatcha think.
Placeholder until Lula comes back in 2015 ^O^
Did you vote today? - CarrionCrow - 2010-11-03
RahlsSoldier Wrote:Stuff
Firstly, addictiveness in all it's glory, it was hardly the point of what I wrote. Not to mention that addictivness is just 1 of the many factors that must be accounted for. Secondly, if you know anything about history you know why alcohol and tobacco is still legal. It is by far harder to cancel the legality of a substance when half the bloody world is using it, as the prohibition fiasco showed us. You don't go stupid from ciggarettes, but you will from pot and that's not even debatable if you got experience, like I've already described.
And finaly, about facts pulled from ones merry behind:
"3) Tobacco is a mind altering drug. It was previously used to induce hallucinations in the indigenous peoples." This is most likely incorrect and at least incredibly biased. Sure it has a certain soothing effect, but hell if you trip on it. Shamanistic methods that induce hallucinations always have more than tobacco to it. They use peyote cactuses, mushrooms or other fun stuff. Did I do odd stuff after a smoke during the 8 years I used tobacco? No, no I do not. Drunk I might beat someone for reasons that would not bother me sober in the slightest. Pot, the good stuff that is, might get you into some very messed up and disturbing thought patterns, lets just leave it at that.
This topic was not really about this, so I shall digress no further.
Did you vote today? - OB3LISK - 2010-11-03
I could have voted, but it was too much of a hassle.
Voting is the stupidest thing in America. You could be the most retarded person alive, but you're 18 and you pay taxes? Go in and pick your leader come on it's the right thing to do.One stupid guy could completely nullify my educated vote.
So no. Voting is a waste of time.
Did you vote today? - RahlsSoldier - 2010-11-03
CarrionCrow Wrote:Firstly, addictiveness in all it's glory, it was hardly the point of what I wrote. Not to mention that addictivness is just 1 of the many factors that must be accounted for. Secondly, if you know anything about history you know why alcohol and tobacco is still legal. It is by far harder to cancel the legality of a substance when half the bloody world is using it, as the prohibition fiasco showed us. You don't go stupid from ciggarettes, but you will from pot and that's not even debatable if you got experience, like I've already described.
And finaly, about facts pulled from ones merry behind:
"3) Tobacco is a mind altering drug. It was previously used to induce hallucinations in the indigenous peoples." This is most likely incorrect and at least incredibly biased. Sure it has a certain soothing effect, but hell if you trip on it. Shamanistic methods that induce hallucinations always have more than tobacco to it. They use peyote cactuses, mushrooms or other fun stuff. Did I do odd stuff after a smoke during the 8 years I used tobacco? No, no I do not. Drunk I might beat someone for reasons that would not bother me sober in the slightest. Pot, the good stuff that is, might get you into some very messed up and disturbing thought patterns, lets just leave it at that.
This topic was not really about this, so I shall digress no further.
Sources for information about Tobacco being a hallucinogenic plant:
Gately, I. 2001. Tobacco: a cultural history of how an exotic plant seduced civilization. Simon and Schuster, London.
Goodman, J. Tobacco in history: the cultures of dependence. Routledge, London.
In regards to addictiveness rating:
Brecher, E. M. 1972. Licit and illicit drugs: the Consumers Union report on narcotics, stimulants, depressants, inhalants, hallucinogens, and marijuana, including caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. Little and Brown, Boston.
This information was not pulled from my ass, so maybe you should stop making assumptions about where people get their facts from. While addictiveness is not the most critical point, it is still very important. I know a great deal about history, and alcohol is still frowned upon in Muslim countries. "Getting stupid" sounds like spending $10/pack of cigarettes. I know we are off topic here, but this is related to Prop 19, in ways. If you ever craved a smoke and did something irrational to get your 'fix', then cigarettes made you stupid. Alcohol is much worse. Marijuana does the same thing, so don't give me that bull pomegranate.
Did you vote today? - FrozNlite - 2010-11-03
OB3LISK Wrote:I could have voted, but it was too much of a hassle.
Voting is the stupidest thing in America. You could be the most retarded person alive, but you're 18 and you pay taxes? Go in and pick your leader come on it's the right thing to do.One stupid guy could completely nullify my educated vote.
So no. Voting is a waste of time.
You know what? It's true. What you said is 100% correct, and anyone like myself who is heavily involved in campaign politics admits that. But I hope you realize that you just made a worse mistake by not voting, in that the stupid people don't recognize this logic, and still vote.
In other words, instead of neutralizing stupid votes, you let the stupid control this country. Thanks. And to everyone who chooses not to vote for the same reason, thanks, because that's what it truly means.
Did you vote today? - madanthony - 2010-11-03
OB3LISK Wrote:I could have voted, but it was too much of a hassle.
Voting is the stupidest thing in America. You could be the most retarded person alive, but you're 18 and you pay taxes? Go in and pick your leader come on it's the right thing to do.One stupid guy could completely nullify my educated vote.
So no. Voting is a waste of time.
*cough* Gofuckyourself *cough*
You just made the most retarded person in your state/district more powerful than you. You failed to nullify that person's retarded vote with your educated choice. Feel retarded? You should. Retard.
On the other side of things, this made me feel a little better
Did you vote today? - Lozmaster - 2010-11-03
OB3LISK Wrote:I could have voted, but it was too much of a hassle.
Voting is the stupidest thing in America. You could be the most retarded person alive, but you're 18 and you pay taxes? Go in and pick your leader come on it's the right thing to do.One stupid guy could completely nullify my educated vote.
So no. Voting is a waste of time.
And in all your "educated" glory, you failed to realise that your now nonexistant vote could have nullified the vote of "one stupid guy". Heck, as far as I'm concerned, you not going out and voting makes you the "stupid guy" vs anyone who bothered taking some time out to do it, or at least, without trying to make such a bad justification for not voting.
Did you vote today? - KajitiSouls - 2010-11-03
OB3LISK Wrote:I could have voted, but it was too much of a hassle.
Voting is the stupidest thing in America. You could be the most retarded person alive, but you're 18 and you pay taxes? Go in and pick your leader come on it's the right thing to do.One stupid guy could completely nullify my educated vote.
So no. Voting is a waste of time.
As so many other people pointed out, there's a big flaw in your reasoning, given the goal that you wanted X candidate or Y proposal approved.
I am disappointed in you. So so disappointed.