Cigarettes should be illegal.

[AnarchistFish]

Weed is less harmful than cigarettes. At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette. And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why don't we just ban you from talking.

In what way does it help anybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis
I rest my case.

Edit: It's used against the symptoms of Huntington's Disease, who wouldn't want Olivia Wilde to be a bit more healthy?

I have no idea what you're trying to tell me. Maybe you misunderstood my post?

 

[mrgerry123]

yh but do they have a right to harm me? (just being provocative)

 

[everythingbeeps]

Weed is less harmful than cigarettes. At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette. And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.

Fine with me. Either legalize pot or make cigs illegal.

Alcohol has in some cases been shown to have some benefits, so I don't think we need to make that illegal as some below you suggested.

 

[Hazy992]

I haven't read through all this but this thought keeps popping into my head.

Why are smokers not put on suicide watch? I mean if someone was addicted to rat poison, would you not get them help? They know they are killing themselves so why are they not thrown into straight jackets?

Just curious.

Why aren't people who eat at McDonald's every day? That shit's slowly killing them too you know.

Or maybe it's because smokers know full well what they're putting in their bodies because they're not idiots, and saying that they're mentally ill for smoking is ridiculous.

 

[Shiftygiant]

Weed is less harmful than cigarettes. At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette. And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.

Not harmful? What? Oh no, nicotine is dreadful, with its addictive issues and such. Cannabis is defiantly awesome, with its addictive issues and such. cigarettes do contain chemicals. Yes. That is a fact. In high quantities these can be deadly. In small quantities these can clear airflow and release stress. I know cannabis users. They are stress full. They embarrassed themselves and have horrible hallucination. Walking to school and hearing you mate believe himself to be a marshmallow isn't fun. If you are apposed to smoking in such a way go to Molassia.

 

[Stu35]

Weed is less harmful than cigarettes. At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette. And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.

Right. Let's just ban everything that isn't helpful and that can hurt people. Because, you know, who gives a crap about freedom of choice? Let's all get treated like immature children by people who know better. Let's all eat only organically grown vegetables, let's all drive eco-box cars, let's all live in government housing, let's ban loud music, alcohol, motorcycles, casual sex, anything that doesn't directly benefit the nanny state shall henceforth be VERBOTEN!!!


You know who implemented the first smoking bans in history? The nazis.

You know what should be banned? The right of daft people to voice their opinions.

Well that's an extreme slippery slope argument.

And an absolutely accurate one imho.

Every step we take towards letting the government tell us what we can and can't do, is a step towards everybody living perfectly boring, safe, long lives in which nothing fun happens.

In my lifetime I've seen it begin in Britain - compare our health and saftey regulations to those of 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago, and you can see the slope getting ever more slippy.

Or, you would, except that slopes will end up banned, due to the threat of slipping.


Steve Hughes says this best for me(approximately 2:10 in for Health and Saftey, and about 5:40 in for smoking):






Now, don't get me wrong, I'm kinda for the smoking ban in pubs - I wasn't when it came into force, but I've since grown up a bit, and decided that it wasn't really fair for non-smokers to have to hang out with us - However, whilst I kinda see how the ban is a good thing now, I also kinda reckon that, now, we could reintroduce smoking to bars - at the landlord/owners discretion, so that those who want smoking in their pubs can have it, those that don't, don't... Something which would have been impossible when they introduced the ban as no owner in their right mind would have banned smoking in their pub for fear of losing business.

However, to ban cigarettes outright? Fuck that.

I'd also say we should legalise marijuana (I reckon that, taxed and regulated, we could end the recession in the UK within 4 years just by selling the damned stuff to tourists).

 

[Treblaine]

Weed is less harmful than cigarettes. At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette. And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.

Right. Let's just ban everything that isn't helpful and that can hurt people. Because, you know, who gives a crap about freedom of choice? Let's all get treated like immature children by people who know better. Let's all eat only organically grown vegetables, let's all drive eco-box cars, let's all live in government housing, let's ban loud music, alcohol, motorcycles, casual sex, anything that doesn't directly benefit the nanny state shall henceforth be VERBOTEN!!!


You know who implemented the first smoking bans in history? The nazis.

You know what should be banned? The right of daft people to voice their opinions.

Well that's an extreme slippery slope argument.

And an absolutely accurate one imho.

Every step we take towards letting the government tell us what we can and can't do, is a step towards everybody living perfectly boring, safe, long lives in which nothing fun happens.

In my lifetime I've seen it begin in Britain - compare our health and saftey regulations to those of 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago, and you can see the slope getting ever more slippy.

Or, you would, except that slopes will end up banned, due to the threat of slipping.


Steve Hughes says this best for me(approximately 2:10 in for Health and Saftey, and about 5:40 in for smoking):






Now, don't get me wrong, I'm kinda for the smoking ban in pubs - I wasn't when it came into force, but I've since grown up a bit, and decided that it wasn't really fair for non-smokers to have to hang out with us - However, whilst I kinda see how the ban is a good thing now, I also kinda reckon that, now, we could reintroduce smoking to bars - at the landlord/owners discretion, so that those who want smoking in their pubs can have it, those that don't, don't... Something which would have been impossible when they introduced the ban as no owner in their right mind would have banned smoking in their pub for fear of losing business.

However, to ban cigarettes outright? Fuck that.

I'd also say we should legalise marijuana (I reckon that, taxed and regulated, we could end the recession in the UK within 4 years just by selling the damned stuff to tourists).

You could also do with learning that the Slippery Slope argument... is a fallacy.

Yeah, little note on internet debating: you aren't going to get very far if you depend on stand up comedians making humorous one-sided observations as the crux of your argument. See stand up comedians don't have to make sound rigorous arguments, just superficial witty comparisons that never have to stand up to any real counterarguments. They are there to entertain.

And your comedian contradicts you (you support ban of smoking in pubs) and supports my argument where he objects to the inconstancy in cigarettes still being sold. I'm saying that cigarettes should not be sold.

Which is NOT the same as an outright ban like heroin is banned. You can own tobacco and smoke it where your habit cannot affect others, but you cannot sell it for profit. You can grow your own tobacco plant but you cannot sell it any more than you can honestly sell asbestos insulation: you are profiting off something that gives people cancer.

I think the only accountable way cannabis for recreational use could be legalised if the legalised sale was only of a food form where it is totally impractical to smoke - which hugely contributes to cancer and damaging the pulmonary system. Weed brownies and weed tea are a safe way of getting the recreational high from Cannabis. Enterprising individuals might smoke it, but some people might open their petrol tank and start huffing the vapours, you can't stop people using things against their intended purpose.

I have assisted in the treatment of people who have suffered from the diseases of smoking. I met a gentleman who could barley speak and he can never ever again eat anything, the combination of the smoking, the cancer, and the treatment to remove the cancer before it killed him, completely destroyed his throat. If he ate anything, he'd instantly choke. He had a persistent and agonising cough as every time he swallowed the saliva went into his lungs.

When I saw this and so many others I knew no one should be allowed to profit off doing this to someone. And nearly every shop in the UK still sells cigarettes.

You go to a hospital and you help with the people afflicted by the diseases of smoking, you'll see it's not slippery slope, it's no government control, it is a fundamental injustice to sell cigarettes which are ONLY for smoking.

 

[Stu35]

Yeah, little note on internet debating: you aren't going to get very far if you depend on stand up comedians making humorous one-sided observations as the crux of your argument. See stand up comedians don't have to make sound rigorous arguments, just superficial witty comparisons that never have to stand up to any real counterarguments. They are there to entertain.

Yawn... Yeah, because you're such an intellectual.

A note on internet debating: It's just for shits and giggles, I do it to keep me entertained when there's nothing on telly and I've run out of books to read or games to play. If you're going to take it entirely seriously then I'd suggest not debating with me at all.

Incidentally, just because something is there to entertain, doesn't mean it can't have a few nuggets of wisdom thrown in there.

And your comedian contradicts you (you support ban of smoking in pubs) and supports my argument where he objects to the inconstancy in cigarettes still being sold. I'm saying that cigarettes should not be sold.

He does not support your argument at all. Through the medium of humour he does point out the current government reasoning behind smoking bans (i.e. Control over Health), that does not equate to supporting outright bans on smoking.

Do you want me to get Bill Hicks out next? He's a bit more vitrollic on the matter, although I find him a wee bit less funny, he also doesn't really approach smoking from a 'freedom of the individual' point of view as much as a 'fuck you you non-smoking ****' point of view. (No, pointing out he died of cancer related to his smoking will not help your cause.

Which is NOT the same as an outright ban like heroin is banned. You can own tobacco and smoke it where your habit cannot affect others, but you cannot sell it for profit. You can grow your own tobacco plant but you cannot sell it any more than you can honestly sell asbestos insulation: you are profiting off something that gives people cancer.

I think the only accountable way cannabis for recreational use could be legalised if the legalised sale was only of a food form where it is totally impractical to smoke - which hugely contributes to cancer and damaging the pulmonary system. Weed brownies and weed tea are a safe way of getting the recreational high from Cannabis. Enterprising individuals might smoke it, but some people might open their petrol tank and start huffing the vapours, you can't stop people using things against their intended purpose.

I'm well aware that cannabis would never be legalised. I don't get where you're coming from with your 'food form' argument though? Are you saying its unfeasible to sell the plant as a fairly raw and unprocessed form? I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to weigh and sell the dried flowers and subtending leaves of the female cannabis plant as a method of regulating sale. That (back when I were a young lad and I did these sorts of things) was the preferred method of serving up ones weed.

Once again, suggesting it should be legalised, taxed and therefore made profitable to the government, whilst something I absolutely think should happen, is not something I believe will ever happen, nor is it something I'm going to go out and actively campaign for, so to that end I'm hardly going to bother looking at the details and logistics such a decision would entail.

I have assisted in the treatment of people who have suffered from the diseases of smoking. I met a gentleman who could barley speak and he can never ever again eat anything, the combination of the smoking, the cancer, and the treatment to remove the cancer before it killed him, completely destroyed his throat. If he ate anything, he'd instantly choke. He had a persistent and agonising cough as every time he swallowed the saliva went into his lungs.

I live in an old industrial town in Yorkshire with large amounts of traffic going through it and 3 coal power plants within 40 miles, A lot of kids I went to school with, and adults I know now, suffer from varying degrees of Asthma ...

So, should we ban cars and shut down all coal-fired power plants?

When I saw this and so many others I knew no one should be allowed to profit off doing this to someone. And nearly every shop in the UK still sells cigarettes.

I think that as long as people are honest about what they're doing, they should be able to profit from anything.

Some people sell windows zip files on eBay, some people sell chemical infused plants that people burn and inhale into their lungs.

You go to a hospital and you help with the people afflicted by the diseases of smoking, you'll see it's not slippery slope, it's no government control, it is a fundamental injustice to sell cigarettes which are ONLY for smoking.

I work in a job where people have to fill out no fewer than 4 different forms if they hurt themselves conducing Physical Training, or doing any other activity for that matter.

I have a friend who has recently been suspended from teaching because one of her primary school students broke his arm playing Rugby on the playground. This is a Yorkshire town where Rugby is pretty much the local religion - Kids play it, it's what they do - My friend was suspended because she was the duty teacher that playtime, and the school has banned all contact sports. These kids, instead of playing on the field (in view of the teacher), were playing on solid concrete in front of the school (where there were no teachers watching).

Now, thankfully the parents have gotten involved so she should be back at work, but she (as well as all the other teachers at the school), have recieved lengthy briefs on how important it is to enforce the schools stringent health and saftey rules.

...

Thats an anecdote, now go google 'Rugby player killed in game'. Or "List of Ice Hockey players who died during their Playing Career"... etc. etc. etc.

Thing is, these sports have evolved to become safer over the years (better equipment, rules within the games to help prevent players being injured/killed), but people still die, people are still injured, paralysed, etc. And those that don't still tend not to live as long as other people because of the toll that playing takes on their bodies.

So, should we ban contact sports?


I agree, smoking is bad. People shouldn't do it. However, it should not be the place of the government to decide what people can and cannot do with their own bodies.

 

[saruman31]

Let`s ban fastfood. McDonalds is by far more dangerous than smoking. And nothing is sadder than seeing people over 30y.o. there. It kills me inside.

 

[TheSapphireKnight]

Ideally we should. No one should smoke. That said cigarettes(and similar products) are not the kind of thing you can just ban. In theory you could probably pull off a ban in legislation but it will cause nothing but trouble. If people don't get there vices through legal means than they will find a way to get it and people will be there to fill that void.

A regulated vices cause a lot trouble in the long run. Information is the best weapon we have in this fight.

 

[Treblaine]

And your comedian contradicts you (you support ban of smoking in pubs) and supports my argument where he objects to the inconstancy in cigarettes still being sold. I'm saying that cigarettes should not be sold.

He does not support your argument at all. Through the medium of humour he does point out the current government reasoning behind smoking bans (i.e. Control over Health), that does not equate to supporting outright bans on smoking.

Do you want me to get Bill Hicks out next? He's a bit more vitrollic on the matter, although I find him a wee bit less funny, he also doesn't really approach smoking from a 'freedom of the individual' point of view as much as a 'fuck you you non-smoking ****' point of view. (No, pointing out he died of cancer related to his smoking will not help your cause.

Which is NOT the same as an outright ban like heroin is banned. You can own tobacco and smoke it where your habit cannot affect others, but you cannot sell it for profit. You can grow your own tobacco plant but you cannot sell it any more than you can honestly sell asbestos insulation: you are profiting off something that gives people cancer.

I think the only accountable way cannabis for recreational use could be legalised if the legalised sale was only of a food form where it is totally impractical to smoke - which hugely contributes to cancer and damaging the pulmonary system. Weed brownies and weed tea are a safe way of getting the recreational high from Cannabis. Enterprising individuals might smoke it, but some people might open their petrol tank and start huffing the vapours, you can't stop people using things against their intended purpose.

I'm well aware that cannabis would never be legalised. I don't get where you're coming from with your 'food form' argument though? Are you saying its unfeasible to sell the plant as a fairly raw and unprocessed form? I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to weigh and sell the dried flowers and subtending leaves of the female cannabis plant as a method of regulating sale. That (back when I were a young lad and I did these sorts of things) was the preferred method of serving up ones weed.

Once again, suggesting it should be legalised, taxed and therefore made profitable to the government, whilst something I absolutely think should happen, is not something I believe will ever happen, nor is it something I'm going to go out and actively campaign for, so to that end I'm hardly going to bother looking at the details and logistics such a decision would entail.

I have assisted in the treatment of people who have suffered from the diseases of smoking. I met a gentleman who could barley speak and he can never ever again eat anything, the combination of the smoking, the cancer, and the treatment to remove the cancer before it killed him, completely destroyed his throat. If he ate anything, he'd instantly choke. He had a persistent and agonising cough as every time he swallowed the saliva went into his lungs.

I live in an old industrial town in Yorkshire with large amounts of traffic going through it and 3 coal power plants within 40 miles, A lot of kids I went to school with, and adults I know now, suffer from varying degrees of Asthma ...

So, should we ban cars and shut down all coal-fired power plants?

When I saw this and so many others I knew no one should be allowed to profit off doing this to someone. And nearly every shop in the UK still sells cigarettes.

I think that as long as people are honest about what they're doing, they should be able to profit from anything.

Some people sell windows zip files on eBay, some people sell chemical infused plants that people burn and inhale into their lungs.

You go to a hospital and you help with the people afflicted by the diseases of smoking, you'll see it's not slippery slope, it's no government control, it is a fundamental injustice to sell cigarettes which are ONLY for smoking.

I work in a job where people have to fill out no fewer than 4 different forms if they hurt themselves conducing Physical Training, or doing any other activity for that matter.

I have a friend who has recently been suspended from teaching because one of her primary school students broke his arm playing Rugby on the playground. This is a Yorkshire town where Rugby is pretty much the local religion - Kids play it, it's what they do - My friend was suspended because she was the duty teacher that playtime, and the school has banned all contact sports. These kids, instead of playing on the field (in view of the teacher), were playing on solid concrete in front of the school (where there were no teachers watching).

Now, thankfully the parents have gotten involved so she should be back at work, but she (as well as all the other teachers at the school), have recieved lengthy briefs on how important it is to enforce the schools stringent health and saftey rules.

...

Thats an anecdote, now go google 'Rugby player killed in game'. Or "List of Ice Hockey players who died during their Playing Career"... etc. etc. etc.

Thing is, these sports have evolved to become safer over the years (better equipment, rules within the games to help prevent players being injured/killed), but people still die, people are still injured, paralysed, etc. And those that don't still tend not to live as long as other people because of the toll that playing takes on their bodies.

So, should we ban contact sports?


I agree, smoking is bad. People shouldn't do it. However, it should not be the place of the government to decide what people can and cannot do with their own bodies.

Bill Hicks is wrong in places because he is wrong. Him dying from cancer is only to refute the part of his arguments that depend on "well I'm doing OK".

My point of "cannabis in food form" is you can get the same recreational enjoyment of Cannabis by consuming it in drink or food form without the cancer causing and pulmonary damaging effects of smoking.

"So, should we ban cars and shut down all coal-fired power plants?"

When practical, yes, we should endeavour to do so but for other reasons than Asthma. Where is the scientific evidence linking increasing asthma with coal power plants or cars, that is an auto-immune condition that has in the past been extremely under-diagnosed. There is no major rush, banning cars and coal power plants overnight will cause economic disruption and poverty that will cost more lives. There needs to be a steady transition from coal to better energy sources, like Thorium nuclear power. The great thing about thorium is is utilises the same infrastructure of mining underground large volumes of material.

Petroleum Cars will likely never be completely banned but pedestrianisation of congested inner cities where smog can build up, park and ride schemes with electrified trams.

On contact sports, the balance must be struck between the occasional a broken arm - that is not generally lead to permanent disability - and the dangers of children not getting into a sport that keeps them active so fit and healthy. A broader and more responsible and accountable view must be taken. Sports is far more relevant to obesity than availability of high calorie food, as it burns calories, regulates appetite and is a check on obesity with direct physical test.

But some contact sports can go too far. Look at American football and the epidemic of brain injuries amongst players. That has gotten out of control and I think it was caused by the health and safety of requiring helmets and shoulder pads. They prevent broken bones, cuts and abrasions but that only encourages the player to hit harder and harder but they can't cushion their own brain. Rugby is a comparatively safer sport because if you play it too rough then you bleed, you bruise, and you break superficial bones. Rugby players may have utterly fucked up ear lobes but their brains are in tip top condition. Also the rules are much better at preventing high impact collisions.

Rugby is absolutely fine. Rules may need to be amended to reduce fractures but contact isn't the problem. It is good for the students to get fit doing what they love and teaching them to look after their body in close contact.

"However, it should not be the place of the government to decide what people can and cannot do with their own bodies."

Precisely! The government has no right to arrest someone for smoking. They CAN however arrest people for SELLING cigarettes as that is then no longer about their own body.

Committed smokers will get a greenhouse and start growing tobacco, just like committed weed smokers today as in fact there have been high court cases of people being allowed to keep their cannabis plant as they prove it is only for their personal consumption.

 

[k3v1n]

Most things nowadays are bad for us. Fuck, even a McDonald's hamburger has chemicals pumped into it. If you start forbiding things, the only thing you're going to manage is to increase it's illegal selling (not sure if that's the right expression).

Although, I partially agree with you, I see no value in smoking. It relieves stress you say? you might as well have a wank at a public toilet and, at least, you're not hurting anybody with your smoke.

 

[Jegsimmons]

Weed is less harmful than cigarettes.

Wrong, its inhaling the same amount of tar and smoke than 20 cigarettes, this is why its been linked to lung and heart illness.

At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette.

Except for the fact that most of those chemicals dont actually go in your body, those go in the filter that actually help clean it before it enters the lungs. With the exception of nicotine.
Also, there is NOTHING natural about inhaling paper smoke and plant smoke and cause a chemical imbalance in your brain. to say its more natural is like saying its more natural to die from getting ran over by a horse than a car.

And in what way does a cigarette help anybody.

relieve stress, employs tens of thousands of people (something weed can not do, because tobacco can be smoked in different ways and chewed, none of which make you high and impair your abilities to operate a car or other devices.)

If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.

wow, you could not come off more as a fascist than with that sentence. i am actually embarrassed i live on the same planet as you.
"ban what i dont like! Legalize what i do like!"
"i dont agree with it so it should be banned!"

Its literally the liberal logic meme you find on 4chan.


Also, how old are you? you cant be older than 16 judging by your wording. This is the reason why we continue to not legalize weed because no one can come up with a valid arguement backed up by science and logic to suggest it would be beneficial to society in anyway because no one wants to just say "Alright we just want to get high"
because lets be honest, getting high is pointless, getting drunk or impaired mentally will never benefit a society. especially an American society.

Note: i neither smoke nor drink.

 

[karcentric]

Personally I think people who smoke are better to talk to, that and I have no problems with people who smoke. It's normally people that INSIST things be illegal that are the boring up right twerps jumping on the political correctness train.

Cigarettes don't make people paranoid, hungry, lazy or boring to talk to. All things that weed does very well.

Either way banning something won't stop people who actually want it.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Oh man this again? If cigarettes are banned, then alcohol should be too.

 

[eevangoh]

Sorry, I can't be bothered to read all 550 posts, so I'll reply directly to OP: fuck no they shouldn't.

I'm a smoker. I smoke in my own house, sometimes on the balcony, in places where I'm allowed to (bars, for example), and if I do it outdoors, I make sure I don't blow smoke in someone's face and try too keep distance. I never throw out the butts anywhere except trash cans or ashtrays if I have a choice (because if there isn't a trash can in a 100 meters in any direction from me because of some stupid terrorist act that almost happened in my city, I'm not carrying it for ten miles just because the city council decided to go out of their way to strip me of the ability to properly dispose of garbage). I also live right next to a beer factory and a large-ish highway. Now, how exactly does my smoking affect anyone except me? And if it only affects me, then what right do you have to take the right to make stupid decisions away from me?

And really, "weed is less harmful"? Your point is "don't do this thing that is bad for you, do this other thing that is also pretty bad"?

In fact, as I've said in that Unpopular Opinions thread, I think all the drugs should be legalized and nationalized.

Alas, the world seems to agree with you, Link55, and I think smoking will be illegal in about 40 years, tops.

 

[CentralScrtnzr]

To echo some comments made by Frank Zappa on this issue, I will relate the following. Cigarettes, damaging as they may be from burning organics (which would be a similar problem with smoking marijuana) has for its active ingredient nicotine. While nicotine has been demonstrated to damage heart tissue, so has the same been demonstrated of many more powerful medications--particularly amphetamines like adderall--which actually sharpen the mind and produce performance enhancing effects. Simply put, cigarettes don't dull the mind. Even the famous Hunter Thompson said that the only drug he couldn't write on was marijuana.

Of course, I'm not actually opposed to the legalization of marijuana, but I wanted to speak merely of the dangers of advocating its legalization by advocating the outlawing of cigarettes.

Millions of Americans still smoke cigarettes; if you've ever been in the armed forces, odds are you came out a smoker; you can't drink on the job, but you can always smoke, and you mind will remain alert. Pretty much, if you've ever worked some high-stress occupation with long hours and with little respite, you will take up smoking; it's the only respite.

I'm lucky enough not to work a high-stress, long-hours occupation. I don't smoke. I have promised myself that, if I should ever become successful--and thus a point of pride, rather than shame to my parents--I will take up periodic cigar-smoking.

 

[Bassik]

Cigarettes are harmful to you, yeah. But weed is illegal because it puts you into a state where you are harmful to others. You can smoke twenty cigarettes and drive no problem. You smoke one joint and you'll crash your car faster than Spongebob.

And you drink a few, or are under heavy medication, or are distracted by your cellphone.

You know, some people do understand that driving under influence is a bad idea. When my friends come over to get stoned off our asses, they don't bring their cars.

In my opinion, your arguement is bollocks.

I don't come out in support or animosity toward marijuana. People ask why it is illegal, that's the reason why.

Yeah, Alchohol and medication do the same thing, as does a ringing cellphone. But in a lot of people, weed has a tendency to impair judgement in a different way.

Example. Someone who gets drunk and then thinks they're okay to drive a car, is probably a fucking idiot whether they're drunk or not. Someone who gets high can be put into a different state of mind than how they would react. They don't just behave differently physically, they behave differently mentally as well, to a more severe degree than someone does when getting drunk.

Now, that's all from my experience with people who like to get high. There is no scientific basis behind it, just my own observations. But the point is the risk is too high. I'm sure there are other reasons behind why weed is illegal.

But the fact remains that is IS ILLEGAL. Deal with it.

It's legal(ish) where I live, buddy. Holland!

Personally I've never experienced such a drastic impairment of judgement, and neither have I seen it happen to my friends.

Now, I am sure you know about people who smoke it to relieve their pain, but did you know a lot of autistic people smoke it as well? It helps with some of the worst aspects of that handicap, especially the rage is completely gone after only a small dose of THC.

Not to mention the camaraderie and tolerance it promotes in a group of friends that smoke.

 

[Kelgair]

We tried prohibition in the last century and it failed spectacularly. What makes people think trying it with a new vice this century would work better? I swear the Neo-Prohibitionist of this century are annoying as hell.