Sure, I don't live in California... I just want to see it happen.
...Lucky FW
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: Adelaide on October 28, 2010, 07:27:04 PM
More lame weed crud because people have gotten so pathetic they cant get through their days without some form of substance abuse :D Why live life when a substance can live it for you??!
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: bloo-apple on October 28, 2010, 07:34:37 PM
crayons are colorful
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: kinjo on October 28, 2010, 07:44:07 PM
less minor drug criminals in prisons (i mean even blue collar workers go to jail for weed) less war on drugs money spent
SAVE SAVE and NEW TAXES! the pro's out weight the cons
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: Wesker on October 28, 2010, 07:46:52 PM
After all, weed is less harmful than alcohol. Plus, like the K-man said, it'd free up prisons and thus eliminate the prison overcrowding struggle.
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: bloo-apple on October 28, 2010, 10:11:04 PM
(http://www.thefreshscent.com/wp-content/post_imgs/0307/toxicity.jpg) Here is how much less lethal it is than alcohol. Along side with some other drugs...
MDMA is extacy, even extacy is less lethal than alchohol
They are doing it for Tax Revenue which is smart. They say it will Generate $1.4 billion a year in new tax revenue
I also think if it's Legal, Goodbye to more than 90% of the black market
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: Flashwerewolf on October 29, 2010, 12:10:21 AM
If they make it legal for a person to grow pot, legalization will not make enough of a profit to fix our budget, as people would grow it to avoid costs.
The current budget deficit in CA is in the $20 Billion range. It would take almost 15 years for legalization revenue alone to balance us out(if that $1.4billion number is accurate). In that time, Arnold and the next THREE governors' terms will have ended(give or take a year). What sells as well as it did(not to mention the same price) when it was new fifteen years down the line?
Individuals(any person from any walk of life) can and do sell pot to make a personal profit that is being untaxed. That is a significant influence in the arrest of said individual selling pot. Its money not going to the government.
Drug dealers are not always gang affiliated, but "drug gangs" will not allow for equal competition against businesses; people will be harmed and shit will be damaged.
Another player who won't just stand aside and let a legal smokable product enter the market is big tobacco. I'm sure they've worked some ideas out in case legalization happens, whether to cripple legalization or become a player in the new market. They have the power(See: "Money=Power") to possibly monopolize the pot market, tossing nicotine in your dank smoak.
More people will be under the influence of pot while in public and in motor vehicles, dangerous and annoying for bystanders(same reason one cant be drunk in public). This occurs enough as it is with the current popularity and availability of pot.
Employers and Institutions(colleges) will still drug screen. As a result, screening will be more enforced a lot more and the tests harder to fake. These agencies want alert, attentive, and clear-thinking employees to reach profit margins.
The unemployed(government leachers, man-children(adults who still live at home without working), and the elderly) are the optimum market for the legal consumption of pot(without duping the system). We already pay for their lifestyles(if applicable) why should we pay for them to get high as well?
Stoner culture is already lame and overly dressed with family guy apparel, why do we want more of that?
tl;dr: The social implications surrounding pot make legalization moot(of no significance or relevance) and would only complicate an already complicated society.
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: kinjo on October 29, 2010, 07:19:28 AM
if this does happen, i am pretty sure not many states will follow
maybe nevada, but that is it
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: Adelaide on October 29, 2010, 09:59:43 AM
You both continue to argue that jail time for drug abusers is costing too much tax dollars and is impairing the economy, but you don't realize that marijuana abusers don't get much jail time at all. Don't forget offenders are fined too; this also helps make up the lost revenue.
In Pennsylvania, one first offense (provided its not a large amount of weed) possession of weed gets the offender put on probation; second offense, as long as the offender has 30 grams or less, they get 30 days Incarceration; more gets a year (this being aimed at drug dealers). This is considered a misdemeanor.
Since this is about CA, look at some of the statistics on them, since they are much more eased and the ones suffering economical right now.
An offender caught with 28.5 grams or less had committed a misdemeanor, gets NO jail time, possible probation an a minimum of a $100 fine. Those stats look pretty economically prosperous if you ask me. They get a whole 10 days of jail time if they have it on schoolgrounds. :I More than that they get a big 6 months in jail, and a $500+ fee. All offenders have a possibility of being put on probation; some get the option of spending less time in jail and more time on probation.
The only true cost of a person being on probation is the cost of the probation officer, but because probation officers are tax paying residents, and they arent unemployed, its actually an economical advantage of having people placed on probation. The legalization of weed would reduce job openings in law enforcement and probational services; economically damaging.
The argument that legalization of marijuana would reduce crime is also false; you like to compare it to alcohol so much, let's continue to do so. Alcohol, a legal substance, has led to the following crimes: causes family disputes, rape, robbery, reckless driving, and murder. With it being legal, its more accessible and more crime possibilities are at hand. There is certainly more crime to come about with the use of weed, due to its psychological adversaries. Beyond that cost deficit, as I have mentioned before, the smoking of weed will also cause an increase in medical bills. Smoking ANYTHING, weed, cigarettes, catnip, oregano, ect., is unhealthy for the lungs, brain, and overall body. It DOES cause lung problems and it can lead to cancer; those aren't false facts that can be denied. It also does cause susceptibility to infection and virus, as well as deformities and asthma. As stated before, tax payers paid $50,000 for me to be treated for a single severe asthma attack; compare that to the price it most cost for the other 15 million Americans with asthma, and you have quite a costly situation on your hands; weed smoke does trigger and cause asthma. Furthermore, if you look into the number or asthma cases, its gone dramatically up since the increased use of tobacco products. You adults are irresponsible careless people, that don't care if your kids suffer medical problems for the rest of your life because at least you got to get high. (This sarcastic jab doesn't pertain to all adults, but it does go for a huge number of the ones that smoke tobacco and weed) Even my mom smoked the entire time she was pregnant with me. No surprise I was asthmatic since birth.
Research as proved the weed use in pregnant women has negatively effected the baby's development, most commonly in the brain and lungs (how convenient... arent those are the same organs weed most frequently effects???) It caused behavior changes and slower development of visual perceptions and language comprehension.
As with alcohol and cigarettes, legalizing weed makes it more accessible to minors. Children are curious and most often are able to obtain alcohol and cigarettes through their parents, whether they know or not. When my brother started smoking, it was through stealing cigarettes from my parents or finishing off the butts of my parent's cigarettes that he found in ash trays. Many kids steal alcohol from their parents as well. Some can say that with better parenting this can be avoided but the fact is that if the parents obtain it and its in their house the children can just as easily obtain it, regardless of the quality of parent they are. Any time you make something legal, you make it more accessible to children.
If you want to keep arguing economical advantage, even though FW and I have both listed several reasons why it won't be that helpful to the economy, then you can question yourself more so. Even if you use the drug responsibly, there will always be abusers and as long as its legal you are enabling those abusers. Those abusers will always have an effect of their children, their families and themselves. Is it really worth the health of fetuses, babies, and children who aren't at all at fault for the abuse they are exposed to just for you to get legally high once in a while?
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: bloo-apple on October 29, 2010, 03:36:25 PM
addy you say pron is deadly? illogical!
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: willow on October 29, 2010, 04:01:57 PM
how does one 'abuse' weed...? im confused.....
and who the hell drives recklassly stoned? most people drive significantly better..... or at least every stoner ive ever met does....
and illegality doesnt make stuff unavailible to minors. if people want shit they'll find a way to get it..... and like weeds an easy one which is probably one of the more harmless.... like it's not addictive and its not like ur gonna od and die on it.
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: Adelaide on October 29, 2010, 07:04:26 PM
and who the hell drives recklassly stoned? most people drive significantly better..... or at least every stoner ive ever met does....
and illegality doesnt make stuff unavailible to minors. if people want shit they'll find a way to get it..... and like weeds an easy one which is probably one of the more harmless.... like it's not addictive and its not like ur gonna od and die on it.
Abusing drugs is using a drug without having a medical reason for doing so. One abuses weed by using it recreationally.
And I've been in the car with the driver stoned several times and the drive more zoned out and dont pay attention; she kept driving past stop signs going "Oh shi- was there a stop sign there?" then looking around for a cop, sometimes she'd feel too high to drive so she wouldn't, which at least she knows her boundaries but the point is its evidence weed tampers with ones ability to drive.
And what's illogical is making the claim that legalizing substances doesn't make it more readily available to kids. When its legal, adults can obtain it easily and have it in the house, and kids can find it. If booze were illegal it wouldnt just be sittinng around an people's fridges randomly, and kids can easily go in the fridge and grab a beer; a lot of smokers also leave their packs of cigarettes in specific places around their houses where children can get ahold of them. Weed, if legalized, will become one of those things that people just leave laying around for their kids to get a hold of.
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: Flashwerewolf on October 29, 2010, 07:24:29 PM
Today growers make weed more potent, you need less to reach stronger levels of intoxication, making it easier to over-dose yourself. By over-dose I mean be rendered unable to speak and/or move.
People who do smoak just don't want to get busted for it, is all. They should openly admit that they wanna get stoned and not worry about the law. Its a sound arguement compared to "LOL POT CURES CANCER" or "WE CAN SELL IT FOR MORE MONIES"
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: Wesker on October 29, 2010, 07:28:09 PM
I think beforehand it would've been smart not to just make a topic about this. We all know this shit sparks huge arguments over here. Bloo, hush up. We all know it's not lethal, as I pointed out, but can we just not bother with this? Hell, I'd much sooner just have a conversation about upsidedown sex or something.
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: Adelaide on October 29, 2010, 07:36:48 PM
People who do smoak just don't want to get busted for it, is all. They should openly admit that they wanna get stoned and not worry about the law. Its a sound arguement compared to "LOL POT CURES CANCER" or "WE CAN SELL IT FOR MORE MONIES"
I think beforehand it would've been smart not to just make a topic about this. We all know this shit sparks huge arguments over here. Bloo, hush up. We all know it's not lethal, as I pointed out, but can we just not bother with this? Hell, I'd much sooner just have a conversation about upsidedown sex or something.
This is also a good point since we all have our opinions, but just because a topic is controversial doesn't mean it should be avoided; what should be avoided is repetition of a topic thats been discussed over and over again. however in Bloo's defense he's not been around for too terribly long to have seen one of these topics play out as they typically do.
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: kinjo on October 30, 2010, 07:35:35 AM
well we all know where i stand on the subject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahHozo2Db_A
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: Adelaide on October 30, 2010, 09:35:29 AM
I wanted to ad the fact that if the government sells it because it will make more revenue then the government has officially taken the stance as a drug dealer. I mean, after all, isn't that why must drug dealers deal? Because they need money and selling drugs is a quick fix to their financial dilemmas? It's certainly why my brother and his girlfriend jumped in the game.
And to the claims alcohol does more harm, along with the fancy pants graphs and all; you don't know how much worse it is than weed, because alcohol, being a legal substance, has been more openly used and more studies have been made on it. If it is legalized, I can almost promise the numbers of marijuana related deaths would shoot up.
Besides that I think we've already argued out our points of view, and those who argue for marijuana for the plain reason that they want to legally use it for recreational purposes should admit to doing so, since marijuana doesn't cure cancer, and there's no promise it will help California's debt.
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: kinjo on October 30, 2010, 12:04:42 PM
maybe it helps a little? in all counts?
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: bloo-apple on October 30, 2010, 01:01:11 PM
JUST BECAUSE P0RN IS ADDICTIVE DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN KILL!!
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: kinjo on October 30, 2010, 02:10:22 PM
bloo... day by day your turning into a [tkoold]
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: Wesker on October 30, 2010, 05:36:08 PM
The government IS a drug dealer. In Florida, there's a thing known as 'Doctor Shopping' where people go to the countless scores of pharmacies in FL where doctor's can dish out HUGE quanitites of Oxycontin to anyone who sets up an appointment.
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: tkoold on October 30, 2010, 11:38:49 PM
someone has to take my place, besides if he doesent goto rule 34 or gelbooru then hes got nothin on me
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: bloo-apple on October 31, 2010, 02:38:55 AM
I think it's because of P0RN that I am a minute man, it need to figure out how to last longer though!! :I It's depressing
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: Flashwerewolf on October 31, 2010, 02:34:18 PM
and YOU wont be able to smoke it until you have a terminal illness, and because it would be in the form of a THC capsule mixed with other medicines.
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: kinjo on October 31, 2010, 06:46:50 PM
who needs drugs when all you need is a cup of 4m
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: bloo-apple on October 31, 2010, 11:35:48 PM
FORM and P0RN :D FOR LIFe
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: kinjo on November 01, 2010, 06:49:13 AM
tomorrow is the big day!! TOY STORY 3 IS COMING OUT ON BLU RAY!!!!
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: bloo-apple on November 01, 2010, 08:15:36 PM
and DVD
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: kinjo on November 02, 2010, 05:59:52 AM
lol, such old technology
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: bloo-apple on November 09, 2010, 08:33:10 PM
I doubt BluRay is going to catch on in the long run. I mean spell check doesn't even bother to recognize it. I think when it is on television it makes picture look worse and fake if it's on a smaller screen.
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: Flashwerewolf on November 09, 2010, 10:18:46 PM
Bluray has already caught on. Being recognized in a dictionary is irrelevant.
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: bloo-apple on November 09, 2010, 10:23:33 PM
It really has to get cheaper for it to get popular. Idk if DVD's were ever that expensive at first.
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: Flashwerewolf on November 09, 2010, 11:02:06 PM
Oh yeah they were, I remember they were like 200-300 for a player, or DOUBLE for a really nice one. DVDs were like 30-50 bucks each.
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: kinjo on November 10, 2010, 07:58:49 AM
everyone who works for disney world, gets a free copy of toy story 3 on blu ray
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: bloo-apple on November 10, 2010, 11:07:54 PM
do u work for disney?
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: Adelaide on November 11, 2010, 05:15:30 AM
no he doesnt :Dc
Title: Re: November 2
Post by: kinjo on November 11, 2010, 06:39:00 AM
... no
BUT MY GF DOES!!!! *does the free toy story 3 dance!*