California Marijuana Regulation Act of 2010
- Thread starter AndyFromMonday
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So fucking what? take a look at your own life and stop thinking others need saving. If you need to control other peoples' actions to validate your own then you need to take a long hard look at your own. The arguments for proposition 19 vastly outweigh those against, it's hardly even an argument now.THEfog101 said:
You do know what marijuana is, right?Ldude893 said:
Even if it was as dangerous as opium, better it be taxed and regulated than mixed up in some lab and cut with who-knows-what.
As someone who lives in Utah, I can tell you for a fact that if something like that were proposed here it would get shot down in a minute. That is why I hate Utah.
Slippery slope of the month, right here.Ultratwinkie said:
Care to explain, exactly (or imprecisely, any way at all), how it being legal would cause such a drastic global melt-down?
Even among Fortune 500 companies with enacted drug-test policies, I imagine you'll still find a large number of current users among the work-forces. This specious concept that pot=killing productivity is largely ludicrous. Responsible users keep their jollies to their own time. Irresponsible users largely don't work for these kinds of companies in the first place, or don't for long.
Or, maybe I read that the wrong way-- here's an additional response--
I don't get where you're coming from at all, really. WHO gets harmed by legalizing a product that hundreds of thousands buy black-market with their money already? A regulated, taxed, legal system with commercial products would do more to improve the economy, than funnel large amounts of cash out-of-country and into the pockets of violent Mexican (or otherwise) cartels. A legitimate market is better than a black market almost 100% of the time. The money is already being spent. It being spent legally doesn't shift market flow anywhere but UP.
Ultratwinkie said:
I meant "regulated" to indicated a tracked market. Movement of product, fair taxation on revenue, etc. Quality --just like any product-- the market fairly regulates itself on that level. Or, at a basic quality level, ensuring producers aren't "Sherm"-ing their goods for an upper hand. Kinda like inspecting for tainted meat...or, so to say, "leaving flies in the soup."
The idea of the collapse of Big Pharm is rather laughable, to me. What's to stop Big Pharm itself from buying into these very compounds that currently can hardly even be researched at all, and finding their own breakthroughs in them? Or, indeed, from simply initiating a market shift? Companies rise and fall all the time. Generally, in the world of competition, the fall of one is the result of the rise of another. A rising company is in need of solid employment, and what's this? All these talented chemical analysts just got cut? Good, we've been looking to expand our operation. Time to recruit some talent.
Your argument is still specious to me.
Er, you're right, my mistake.Ultratwinkie said:
It's hard to corporately "ass rape" something that's illegal, and a jail-able offense...to, er, "ass rape" for profit....Ultratwinkie said:
All that aside, there's still no good reason for its illegal status. And this is coming from someone running on several months of non-use, because I discovered I for one didn't enjoy it as much as I may have thought I did...
Isn't some ridiculous percentage (like a third or something) of California's net worth based around the cultivation of cannabis? I recall seeing some doco when I was in Hawaii about it, if it's already supporting the states economy then the government should really tax it....Even without taking all the cartels and crime that could be disassociated with it, it makes sense purely in economic and cultural respects.
ehh i dont do it but i dont care if other people do it, just saying that in some way, shit would hit the fucking fan, as parents do not know how to be responsible parents (those two words havent been used together in a long time) and alot more kids would end up like a few people i know, broken down addicts who had it all but went to utter shit on the street.
i guess if it is true alchohol is more addictive than marijuana, then its true, but in my city you could highly argue against that with the type of numbers you would be seeing..
i guess if it is true alchohol is more addictive than marijuana, then its true, but in my city you could highly argue against that with the type of numbers you would be seeing..
You misunderstood. I'm running on several months of non-use, and actually, my life is better for it. Turns out, I don't think using it was for me. But, at any rate, there you go. As heavily as I used (abused?) it in the past, the fact that I can just turn around and walk away from it without massive withdrawal or rehab speaks volumes on its own. Find the person who got drunk 3-5 times a day (or more) that can say the same. (Of course, don't read too deeply into that statement, it's simply a comparison. Let's just say "drunk all day, everyday.")Ultratwinkie said:
PLENTY is known about it, even without substantial research. There's at least a few decades' (centuries? millennia?) worth of precedent to prove that overall, it's a relatively benign substance. Far less toxic than even coffee. WAAAAY less toxic than alcohol. Apparently, less toxic than an avocado. Sure, it affects everyone differently, but so does the world's favorite pastime, alcohol. Alcohol doesn't turn everyone into a violent, raging dick, but it sure does to a few. Just like marijuana doesn't turn everyone into an anxious paranoid. But it can to some.Ultratwinkie said:
But overall, the issue is ridiculous.
BTW: DEET is a common active ingredient in bug repellent sprays. And Marijuana isn't something created in a lab, synthesized by people. It comes out exactly the way it is, from a seed, in the ground. So, we've made it produce more alkaloid content with some careful breeding, but that wasn't born in a test-tube.
Why should marijuana produce such a substance that affects the human brain just-so with so little side-effects? In the same vein, why does psilocybin do the same? It's not a "toxic" reaction, anyone who knows, knows it's very organic, very.....natural. So....why? There MUST be a reason. But enough about that. Neither here nor there. Just rambling now...
The guy in the video hardly seems credible - inverting his colors, hiding his identity, cursing up a storm, and generally acting like a fanatic (which he claims to hate in the end of his video).
Having walked down the sidewalk at Venice Beach a few months ago, I saw plenty of losers holding up signs that read, "Need money for weed," and the like. I don't particularly see that as being encouraging. Those people obviously screwed up their lives somehow and turned to marijuana as a means of giving up.
//Begin Sarcasm
Yeah, it would make society a whole lot better.
//End sarcasm
Having walked down the sidewalk at Venice Beach a few months ago, I saw plenty of losers holding up signs that read, "Need money for weed," and the like. I don't particularly see that as being encouraging. Those people obviously screwed up their lives somehow and turned to marijuana as a means of giving up.
//Begin Sarcasm
Yeah, it would make society a whole lot better.
//End sarcasm
Quick note: Mary Jane is not an addictive substance. Any "withdrawal" symptons are purely mental and are not a real physical craving.Ultratwinkie said:
People who think they are "addicted" are probably as "addicted" as I am to chicken wings.