Ph.D in Pot & the G.H.W. Bush Legacy

[drbrumley]

:rotfl:

But drugs are addictive. Yes, and so is caffeine. But drugs are unhealthy. Yes, and so is high-fructose corn syrup. But drugs are dangerous. Yes, and so is skateboarding. But drugs are sinful. Yes, and so is adultery. But drugs are a bad habit. Yes, and so is burping in public. But drugs can be destructive. Yes, and so can tobacco smoking. But drugs are a vice. Yes, and so is gluttony. But drugs are immoral. Yes, and so is pornography. But drugs harm children. Yes, and so does divorce. But drugs may lead to premature death. Yes, and so may alcohol. But drugs have societal costs. Yes, and so does obesity. But drugs can lead to financial ruin. Yes, and so can using credit cards. But drugs can kill. Yes, and so can prescription drugs. But drugs can have unintended consequences. Yes, and so can sexual relations. But drugs can lead to crime to support one’s habit. Yes, and so can gambling. But drugs have no redeeming value. Yes, and neither do Twinkies.

 

[User Name]

Quite true....but I'm sure JR will argue those should be outlawed as well.

Not necessarily. JR has had this to say previously:

Drinking and smoking tobacco is fine.

Fine, meaning, they would/should not be against the law.

Typical hypocrisy.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That applies to alcohol in spades.

And?

A sip of alcohol doesn't make one drunk. It takes alcohol in spades (typically) for one to get drunk.

A man can have a glass of wine or can of beer and he'll never do anything dangerous.

However, one pull on a joint of pot and the person is no longer in control.

It's funny to him when his joint falls behind the couch, still lit, and he starts laughing as his couch starts to burn, and by the time he realizes it's out of control, the baby in the crib in the apartment upstairs is killed in the resultant fire, all because the pothead thought it was funny that his joint fell behind the couch.

That applies to tobacco in spades.

And?

A quick nicotine fix never made one intoxicated.

Do you?

I do.

Quite true....but I'm sure JR will argue those should be outlawed as well.

Nope.

No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities. - 1 Timothy 5:23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Timothy5:23&version=NKJV

Remember, being drunk is a criminal offense..

Not on our current lawbooks.

Public intoxication is.
Drunk driving is.
Simply being drunk is not, but needs to be.

 

[ok doser]

That applies to alcohol in spades.

:think:

Spoiler

:idunno:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not necessarily. JR has had this to say previously:





Typical hypocrisy.

Please, instead of making baseless accusations, show how my position is hypocritical.

My position is that being drunk or high should be criminal, and any substances which the normal use of makes one drunk or high should be controlled.

Jesus drank wine. His first miracle that He did was turn water into wine, and it WASN'T the cheap stuff. So clearly, drinking is acceptable.

Being intoxicated is not acceptable, because one becomes a risk to society that society does not have to tolerate, nor does God expect it to.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-enyart/why-marijuana-should-be-i_b_1340311.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-enyart/decriminalizing-pot_b_1373564.html

 

[drbrumley]

Not on our current lawbooks.
Simply being drunk is not, but needs to be.

I am not talking about what is on our current lawbooks. I was talking about what you think.


We will never agree as you believe in the nanny state, whereas I do not.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I am not talking about what is on our current lawbooks. I was talking about what you think.


We will never agree as you believe in the nanny state, whereas I do not.

That's a blatant lie.

A nanny state controls everything and everyone, taking care of people from cradle to grave.

All I'm asserting is that the government should make criminal behavior that puts others at risk.

For example:

A marksman may be able to shoot a target in public without hitting anyone, but that doesn't mean he should be allowed to, because his actions may harm an innocent bystander, therefore the government rightly prohibits target practice in public places.

 

[ok doser]

I am not talking about what is on our current lawbooks. I was talking about what you think.


We will never agree as you believe in the nanny state, whereas I do not.

a hypothetical:

i drive drunk often - the more the better, both in terms of frequency and alcohol consumption

in fact, one of my favorite things to do is grab a six pack and go for a road trip on back roads - there's a little tavern about two hours away in the woods where I can grab a couple shots of schnapps at the bar, shoot a little darts, buy another six pack and head home, finishing the beer before I get home

i've never hit anybody, never run into anything, never gone off the road, never had an accident

as the law currently stands, my biggest fear is getting stopped by the cops and given a breathalyzer and charged with DWI

is that an example of the nanny state?

is that a justifiable law?

 

[drbrumley]

That's a blatant lie.

Is it? I apologize if you think that.

A nanny state controls everything and everyone, taking care of people from cradle to grave.

Which is what your proposing...and which they already do....you just want them to rescind some laws you find wrong, and apply what you know to be right. I know you don't see it. You have not said one solitary word in our discussion that I haven't said at one time. Been there, done that.

All I'm asserting is that the government should make criminal behavior that puts others at risk.

Right, the difference between us is what is criminal and what is sin and vice.

 

[drbrumley]

a hypothetical:

i drive drunk often - the more the better, both in terms of frequency and alcohol consumption

in fact, one of my favorite things to do is grab a six pack and go for a road trip on back roads - there's a little tavern about two hours away in the woods where I can grab a couple shots of schnapps at the bar, shoot a little darts, buy another six pack and head home, finishing the beer before I get home

i've never hit anybody, never run into anything, never gone off the road, never had an accident

as the law currently stands, my biggest fear is getting stopped by the cops and given a breathalyzer and charged with DWI

is that an example of the nanny state?

is that a justifiable law?

If you dont hurt another person or property, we are good. I prefer you not be stupid and drive drunk though, as your chances are higher...BUT if you do hurt another person or property, you are responsible for the damage and the penalties it entails....the alcohol didn't make you do anything....just like the gun didn't kill anyone, the idiot behind the trigger did.

 

[ok doser]

If you dont hurt another person or property, we are good. I prefer you not be stupid and drive drunk though, as your chances are higher...BUT if you do hurt another person or property, you are responsible for the damage and the penalties it entails....the alcohol didn't make you do anything....just like the gun didn't kill anyone, the idiot behind the trigger did.

if i'm driving loaded and a child darts out in front of me and I smoosh him

vs

if i'm driving tired, or distracted (a bee flies in the window) and a child darts out in front of me and i smoosh him

should i be punished for either?

should i be punished equally?

 

[drbrumley]

if i'm driving loaded and a child darts out in front of me and I smoosh him

vs

if i'm driving tired, or distracted (a bee flies in the window) and a child darts out in front of me and i smoosh him

should i be punished for either?

should i be punished equally?

Then reckless driving laws are in place for such things as this.

 

[WizardofOz]

second-hand smoke can be dangerous to others.
do you know what the punishment is in the Bible for causing permanent injury to someone?

Smoking cigarettes around others can harm them via second hand smoke. Should it be illegal for adults to smoke cigarettes inside their own home if they also have children inside that home?

 

[Stripe]

Legally speaking, these entire states favor medicinal marijuana but oppose recreational marijuana. Correct?

Men make up rules to justify their behavior. Look at the people. I bet you can't find anyone wanting a change who thinks pot should be legal for medical use but not for recreational use.

Do you think pot for health is OK, but not for pleasure?

Still a non-answer. When you have a headache or muscle pain, etc do you take a pain reliever? Do you recognize that there is an opioid epidemic with thousands dying from accidental overdose? If that same person could manage their pain with a non-lethal and far less addictive alternative, wouldn't that be preferred?

Life is pain, Princess. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

 

[Stripe]

:liberals:
Do you actually find it hard to believe that a person would support medicinal marijuana use and oppose legalizing recreational use?

No.

The point was that pot for health reasons is used to allow potheads their addiction without legal repercussions.

Rauner: Yes to medical marijuana, still no to recreational

There's one.

Get him on here to make the case that the fight to decriminalize pot is entirely about medical needs.

 

[Stripe]

if i'm driving loaded and a child darts out in front of me and I smoosh him

vs

if i'm driving tired, or distracted (a bee flies in the window) and a child darts out in front of me and i smoosh him

should i be punished for either?

should i be punished equally?

We look at the evidence.

If there's evidence that you acted in an irresponsible manner causing death, you should be held accountable.

 

[User Name]

Do you think pot for health is OK, but not for pleasure?

Do you think alcohol and tobacco for health is OK, but not for pleasure?

 

[Stripe]

Do you think alcohol and tobacco for health is OK, but not for pleasure?

:AMR:

What on Earth would that matter (if it made any sense)?

You have no idea what is going on in this conversation, do you?

 

[drbrumley]

Life is pain, Princess.

Indeed it is, so when you have cancer and the opioids lose the potency and you have to take more and more and more to get the same relief and and you start popping them like candy and get addicted.

But life is pain, you can deal with it....grit those teeth...be a man....

 

[Stripe]

Indeed it is, so when you have cancer and the opioids lose the potency and you have to take more and more and more to get the same relief and and you start popping them like candy and get addicted.But life is pain, you can deal with it....grit those teeth...be a man....

:AMR: