Would you...
- Thread starter Gordon Gekko
- Start date
How exactly is selling a harmless natural substance such as marijuana to a consenting adult considered genocide?
I mean, I can understand saying that about selling crack to schoolkids, but by saying "drugs" you're making a broad generalization. There's more blood of the black man involved in the diamond trade than in the drug trade.
I mean, I can understand saying that about selling crack to schoolkids, but by saying "drugs" you're making a broad generalization. There's more blood of the black man involved in the diamond trade than in the drug trade.
Well if that's the case then why don't you go down to Walgreens and accuse the pharmacist of genocide for selling tylenol, which, i might add, kills more people every year than heroin. Or go down to Starbucks, and tell the broad behind the counter that she's a drug peddler because she's selling caffeine.
Ummm, I hate to break this to you, but smoking weed doesn't kill you. EVER. What kills you are the DEA agents kicking down your door WHEN you're smoking weed and shooting you when you move to grab your identification. That's what kills you. So you whole "anything you smoke can kill you" statement is bullshit. Nice try though.
Ummm, I hate to break this to you, but smoking weed doesn't kill you. EVER. What kills you are the DEA agents kicking down your door WHEN you're smoking weed and shooting you when you move to grab your identification. That's what kills you. So you whole "anything you smoke can kill you" statement is bullshit. Nice try though.
While there are harmful effects of smoking weed, and like Mcleanhatch pointed out, one must be aware of the consequences of getting high (i.e. risks of traffic accidents, etc), the fact remains that marijuana as a substance is not deadly. Which, when you think about it, is pretty rare. Every other chemical that we are exposed to in mainstream society (alcohol, nicotine, aspirin, tylenol, etc) have a fairly low toxicity level and if not used moderately, are very dangerous if not deadly. I can understand Mcleanhatch's reluctance to have intoxicated drivers on the road with him, but we must also keep in mind that people that are tired or angry are just as likely to get into a car wreck as someone who is intoxicated.
That's a legitimate concern.
It would be interesting to try to legislate the amount of marijuana allowed in an individuals system before they are considered guilty of a dui. Myself, I can drive completely blitzed, just because I'm a heavy smoker (all right, ABUSER) of pot so it doesn't effect me that much. But the next cat my just smoke a stoge and be out of their gullet and unable to operate a vehicle. It would be a difficult process to try to figure out what amount of THC in the system would be allowable. I doubt they could do it they way they do it with alcohol with the .08 law. Cops would probably have to do field sobriety tests rather than blood tests to get an accurate reading of someone's intoxication level.
It would be interesting to try to legislate the amount of marijuana allowed in an individuals system before they are considered guilty of a dui. Myself, I can drive completely blitzed, just because I'm a heavy smoker (all right, ABUSER) of pot so it doesn't effect me that much. But the next cat my just smoke a stoge and be out of their gullet and unable to operate a vehicle. It would be a difficult process to try to figure out what amount of THC in the system would be allowable. I doubt they could do it they way they do it with alcohol with the .08 law. Cops would probably have to do field sobriety tests rather than blood tests to get an accurate reading of someone's intoxication level.
