Thread: Obama: Pot 'not very different' to cigs

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Pot is a gateway drug, and the damages and social effects is huge, not in the way Alcohol stands out, but then Pot was also illegal so less openly abused.

That's such a load of bollocks, akin to an old wives tale. You only have to look at Holland, where less young people gravitate to hard drugs than countries where weed is illegal.

Scientists long ago abandoned the idea that marijuana causes users to try other drugs: as far back as 1999, in a report commissioned by Congress to look at the possible dangers of medical marijuana, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences wrote:

Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana — usually before they are of legal age.
In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a “gateway” drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, “gateway” to illicit drug use. There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.
Since then, numerous other studies have failed to support the gateway idea. Every year, the federal government funds two huge surveys on drug use in the population. Over and over they find that the number of people who try marijuana dwarfs that for cocaine or heroin. For example, in 2009, 2.3 million people reported trying pot — compared with 617,000 who tried cocaine and 180,000 who tried heroin.

With legalisation will come a host of problems they haven't prepared for, like a lot more DUI cases, that is if they do what they are supposed to, namely start looking for it on the same level as DUI alcohol since it now is legal and thus needs regulating in the exact same way.

You've been in Thailand too long Lardarse. Most countries now realise they can't stem the flow of all sorts of drugs, and have long since incorporated Driving Under the Influence to include either Alcohol or Narcotics. You can even be done for being impaired by prescription drugs.

Again same for work places, company's will need to up the drug testing, not that they want to, but because they risk huge lawsuits from injured employees if it turns out the offender was high, and the company policy/control lax, in the crazy US lawsuit system, you can bet this will become an issue.

We do not need more legalised drugs, alcohol is plenty bad enough as most of the pro free pot crowd constantly drone, so why would adding one more legal mindfvuck-drug be any better if not twice as bad.
.

Drugs are already incorporated into most OHS legislation, you are living in the past you silly old fart.

Light yourself a spliff and stop getting so worked up about nothing.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

What I am on about is official Government policy, the protection of the weak, our young, and our children, and that has to "ideally" measure up to much higher moral standards than any of us as individuals.

IMHO.

What a load of sanctimonious bullshit.

If you want to protect the weak and the young, ban alcohol.

In fact, ban cigarettes as well. And greasy fried breakfasts.

Take away all these harmful decisions from people, that's what governments are for, eh?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by larvidchr

What I am on about is official Government policy, the protection of the weak, our young, and our children, and that has to "ideally" measure up to much higher moral standards than any of us as individuals.

IMHO.

What a load of sanctimonious bullshit.

If you want to protect the weak and the young, ban alcohol.

In fact, ban cigarettes as well. And greasy fried breakfasts.

Take away all these harmful decisions from people, that's what governments are for, eh?

Well lets hope you don't have kids then if your idea is to do nothing eh.

Your reading and comprehension skills are on par with the Devil trying to get a grasp of the bible Harry.

It's not about banning something that is already legal, it is about not adding more crap to the mistakes done already, those mistakes we have to live with and manage the best we can, and yes helping people reduce Smoking, and setting limits for trans fats in food by legislation, is part of the Governments job since company's wont do it by themselves, that is why the fat content of a Mc.Donald's in Denmark is much less than most other places, sensible regulation Harry for the benefit of all.

Since many of the better working Democracy's have a policy of everyone sharing the costs of society, some limits without going overboard, to peoples unhinged behaviour, is only fair and correct since your neighbours has to share in covering for the damages.

In the end it is all about education education education coupled with balanced sensible regulation.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by larvidchr

What I am on about is official Government policy, the protection of the weak, our young, and our children, and that has to "ideally" measure up to much higher moral standards than any of us as individuals.

IMHO.

What a load of sanctimonious bullshit.

If you want to protect the weak and the young, ban alcohol.

In fact, ban cigarettes as well. And greasy fried breakfasts.

Take away all these harmful decisions from people, that's what governments are for, eh?

Well lets hope you don't have kids then if your idea is to do nothing eh.

Your reading and comprehension skills are on par with the Devil trying to get a grasp of the bible Harry.

It's not about banning something that is already legal, it is about not adding more crap to the mistakes done already, those mistakes we have to live with and manage the best we can, and yes helping people reduce Smoking, and setting limits for trans fats in food by legislation, is part of the Governments job since company's wont do it by themselves, that is why the fat content of a Mc.Donald's in Denmark is much less than most other places, sensible regulation Harry for the benefit of all.

Since many of the better working Democracy's have a policy of everyone sharing the costs of society, some limits without going overboard, to peoples unhinged behaviour, is only fair and correct since your neighbours has to share in covering for the damages.

In the end it is all about education education education coupled with balanced sensible regulation.

Christ you are full of it aren't you?

Yes, I'm a parent, and NO, I did not do "nothing". I taught my son about the dangers of alcohol and drugs because I knew he'd end up exposed to them no matter what I did. Same goes for porn and swear words and diet.

He's polite, respectful to women, has a lovely girlfriend, he smokes the odd joint at Uni and he doesn't binge drink. He doesn't eat McDonalds because I taught him that it's shit made out of fat and chemicals and revolting body parts.

I taught him how to catch scorpions when he was three, because I knew the first chance he got he'd try and pick one up. You don't need legislation, you need EDUCATION.

Good luck with your banning your kids from doing everything; as most retarded Victorian-style parents learn, they'll be absolutely gagging to go ape on everything you tell them not to do.

It's the kind of mistakes that stupid intrusive governments and stupid parents make that decriminalising a spliff will correct. Most kids then won't even need to go near a drug dealer in their lives, so they won't get exposed to the drugs that do the real damage (other than alcohol and tobacco).

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by larvidchr

What I am on about is official Government policy, the protection of the weak, our young, and our children, and that has to "ideally" measure up to much higher moral standards than any of us as individuals.

IMHO.

What a load of sanctimonious bullshit.

If you want to protect the weak and the young, ban alcohol.

In fact, ban cigarettes as well. And greasy fried breakfasts.

Take away all these harmful decisions from people, that's what governments are for, eh?

Well lets hope you don't have kids then if your idea is to do nothing eh.

Your reading and comprehension skills are on par with the Devil trying to get a grasp of the bible Harry.

It's not about banning something that is already legal, it is about not adding more crap to the mistakes done already, those mistakes we have to live with and manage the best we can, and yes helping people reduce Smoking, and setting limits for trans fats in food by legislation, is part of the Governments job since company's wont do it by themselves, that is why the fat content of a Mc.Donald's in Denmark is much less than most other places, sensible regulation Harry for the benefit of all.

Since many of the better working Democracy's have a policy of everyone sharing the costs of society, some limits without going overboard, to peoples unhinged behaviour, is only fair and correct since your neighbours has to share in covering for the damages.

In the end it is all about education education education coupled with balanced sensible regulation.

Christ you are full of it aren't you?

Yes, I'm a parent, and NO, I did not do "nothing". I taught my son about the dangers of alcohol and drugs because I knew he'd end up exposed to them no matter what I did. Same goes for porn and swear words and diet.

He's polite, respectful to women, has a lovely girlfriend, he smokes the odd joint at Uni and he doesn't binge drink. He doesn't eat McDonalds because I taught him that it's shit made out of fat and chemicals and revolting body parts.

I taught him how to catch scorpions when he was three, because I knew the first chance he got he'd try and pick one up. You don't need legislation, you need EDUCATION.

Good luck with your banning your kids from doing everything; as most retarded Victorian-style parents learn, they'll be absolutely gagging to go ape on everything you tell them not to do.

It's the kind of mistakes that stupid intrusive governments and stupid parents make that decriminalising a spliff will correct. Most kids then won't even need to go near a drug dealer in their lives, so they won't get exposed to the drugs that do the real damage (other than alcohol and tobacco).

"In the end it is all about education education education coupled with balanced sensible regulation."