Poll of the Day > ATTN: Pro drug legalizers

(+) Yeah! (+)

Zeus posted...

Erik_P posted...

Zeus posted...

J_Dawg983 posted...

Legalize weed and let the tax money roll in. It isn't like it's any worse than alcohol.

Saying something is less bad than alcohol is setting a pretty low bar. =p

Oh yay, @Zeus is here to promote his idiotic beliefs and show his support for Prohibition.

@Erik_P once again demonstrates his ignorance and disdain for sensible alcohol reform, despite the fact that it could save countless lives, greatly reduce violent crime, and reduce addiction rates.

Whereas if you legalized drugs like pot, fatal car crash percentages would skyrocket. Pot inhibits reaction time and motor skills.
---

TyVulpine posted...

Zeus posted...

Erik_P posted...

Zeus posted...

J_Dawg983 posted...

Legalize weed and let the tax money roll in. It isn't like it's any worse than alcohol.

Saying something is less bad than alcohol is setting a pretty low bar. =p

Oh yay, @Zeus is here to promote his idiotic beliefs and show his support for Prohibition.

@Erik_P once again demonstrates his ignorance and disdain for sensible alcohol reform, despite the fact that it could save countless lives, greatly reduce violent crime, and reduce addiction rates.

Whereas if you legalized drugs like pot, fatal car crash percentages would skyrocket. Pot inhibits reaction time and motor skills.

Imagine believing this
---

Muscles36 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

Zeus posted...

Erik_P posted...

Zeus posted...

J_Dawg983 posted...

Legalize weed and let the tax money roll in. It isn't like it's any worse than alcohol.

Saying something is less bad than alcohol is setting a pretty low bar. =p

Oh yay, @Zeus is here to promote his idiotic beliefs and show his support for Prohibition.

@Erik_P once again demonstrates his ignorance and disdain for sensible alcohol reform, despite the fact that it could save countless lives, greatly reduce violent crime, and reduce addiction rates.

Whereas if you legalized drugs like pot, fatal car crash percentages would skyrocket. Pot inhibits reaction time and motor skills.

Imagine believing this

You'd have to be an idiot to think it wouldn't.
---

No, you don't have to be an idiot to think that, weed will not cause fatal car crashes to skyrocket. Have you ever seen a high driver before? Because they drive super cautious
---

Muscles36 posted...

No, you don't have to be an idiot to think that, weed will not cause fatal car crashes to skyrocket. Have you ever seen a high driver before? Because they drive super cautious

Science has shown people on pot have slowed motor coordination and delayed reaction times. Not to mention that repeated pot use causes hallucinations and paranoia.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving
---

Muscles36 posted...

No, you don't have to be an idiot to think that, weed will not cause fatal car crashes to skyrocket. Have you ever seen a high driver before? Because they drive super cautious

And this is why I Google things before I make dumb fuck statements.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/10/news/stoned-driving-fatal-accidents/

That link was found on the front page of Google after less than 10 seconds of typing.
---

Lol a website called drugabuse.gov is totally not biased
---

Muscles36 posted...

Lol a website called drugabuse.gov is totally not biased

Doubling down on your stupidity is never a good idea.
---

lol Muscles v Erik, I don't know who to root for!
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

lol Muscles v Erik, I don't know who to root for!

Considering I posted facts as did someone else immediately disproving everything Muscles said you should go with the guy who provides facts over his feelings.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Lil69Leo posted...

I don't get how someone could be against it when the pros outweigh the cons many times over.

Smells bad tho.

So do fish and sewage treatment plants, but we allow both.

Will the government come to powder my work boots as well?

Will the government force weed smokers to hot box at a treatment plant?

Will the government blow on my soup to stop me from hurting myself by potentially putting something too hot in my mouth as well?
---

TyVulpine posted...

Whereas if you legalized drugs like pot, fatal car crash percentages would skyrocket. Pot inhibits reaction time and motor skills.

By all means show us the stats from states like Oregon, Washington, and Colorado that would support this idiotic claim.

Even drunk driving incidents are going down in these states because now a significant percentage of those that were going to bars and getting drunk then driving home are going down because they're staying home and getting stoned instead.
---

Erik_P posted...

Smarkil posted...

I want people to do whatever they want to their own bodies which is why I'm anti universal healthcare.

I'm fine with FDA regulations to make sure it's consumable to humans, but otherwise I really don't give a shit what they do.

Being anti universal health care because you want people to do whatever they want makes no sense. Were you drunk when you made that post?

So you think its fair to take money from somebody else to keep paying for the liver transplants of an alcoholic who refuses to change their lifestyle?

Or do you believe in incarceration for crimes of moral conscience? Oh yeah you do support hate crime laws and doxxing "nazis"... You know communists sent drunks to the gulag. If you were fine sending drunks to the gulags I might vote for universal healthcare, but I know a few posters here who would up a shit creek.
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Will the government blow on my soup to stop me from hurting myself by potentially putting something too hot in my mouth as well?

I would hope the government would stop other people forcibly putting hot soup in my mouth. Weed smokers can fuck themselves over all they like, I just don't want it effecting me too.
---

bulbinking posted...

Erik_P posted...

Smarkil posted...

I want people to do whatever they want to their own bodies which is why I'm anti universal healthcare.

I'm fine with FDA regulations to make sure it's consumable to humans, but otherwise I really don't give a shit what they do.

Being anti universal health care because you want people to do whatever they want makes no sense. Were you drunk when you made that post?

So you think its fair to take money from somebody else to keep paying for the liver transplants of an alcoholic who refuses to change their lifestyle?

Or do you believe in incarceration for crimes of moral conscience? Oh yeah you do support hate crime laws and doxxing "nazis"... You know communists sent drunks to the gulag. If you were fine sending drunks to the gulags I might vote for universal healthcare, but I know a few posters here who would up a shit creek.

They don't give liver transplants to alcoholics.

And what's your obsession with Nazis and Russia? Neither of those things has anything to do with what we're talking about.

Oh by the way, I provided evidence against your idiotic claim about Hillary selling uranium so I'm eagerly awaiting your stupid response to that.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Weed smokers can fuck themselves over

itp: weed is a dangerous, dangerous drug zomg!11!!11!

Erik_P posted...

I provided evidence against your idiotic claim about Hillary selling uranium

You provided exactly as much evidence that it didnt happen as the MSM provides evidence of trump colluding with russia.

None.

Why do you like to selectively insist you can make claims with no evidence then get upset when somebody else does it for something you disagree with?

I am trying to teach you and its like talking to a brick wall.
---

bulbinking posted...

Erik_P posted...

I provided evidence against your idiotic claim about Hillary selling uranium

You provided exactly as much evidence that it didnt happen as the MSM provides evidence of trump colluding with russia.

None.

Why do you like to selectively insist you can make claims with no evidence then get upset when somebody else does it for something you disagree with?

I am trying to teach you and its like talking to a brick wall.

I provided proof that your claim is bullshit. You just posted a Trump conspiracy theory in an attempt to distract from the real issues.

What are you trying to teach me? That you can make baseless accusations without proof?

As for Russia, there's plenty of evidence that supports collusion but you stuck your head in the sand and refuse to see it.
---

Erik_P posted...

What are you trying to teach me? That you can make baseless accusations without proof?

As for Russia, there's plenty of evidence that supports collusion but you stuck your head in the sand and refuse to see it.

I mean, like, wow.

Do people like you irl? Can you not understand the irony in your post? Do you feel its IMPOSSIBLE you can actually be wrong about things? Are you a literal narcissist?
---

bulbinking posted...

Erik_P posted...

What are you trying to teach me? That you can make baseless accusations without proof?

As for Russia, there's plenty of evidence that supports collusion but you stuck your head in the sand and refuse to see it.

I mean, like, wow.

Do people like you irl? Can you not understand the irony in your post? Do you feel its IMPOSSIBLE you can actually be wrong about things? Are you a literal narcissist?

You've got Trump's ability to deflect and change the subject down like a pro.

It's ironic you ask if people like me when you're probably the most hateful person I've ever seen. I wanna know how you managed to con some poor lady into marrying you.
---

Erik_P posted...

the most hateful person I've ever seen

Hateful of liars, bigots, the lazy, and hedonists? Guilty as charged.

EDIT: Oh, sorry, add idealists because literally idealistic policies always cause harm since, y'know, they never look at the harmful side of their actions because they are idealists.
---

Erik_P posted...

Zeus posted...

Erik_P posted...

Zeus posted...

J_Dawg983 posted...

Legalize weed and let the tax money roll in. It isn't like it's any worse than alcohol.

Saying something is less bad than alcohol is setting a pretty low bar. =p

Oh yay, @Zeus is here to promote his idiotic beliefs and show his support for Prohibition.

@Erik_P once again demonstrates his ignorance and disdain for sensible alcohol reform, despite the fact that it could save countless lives, greatly reduce violent crime, and reduce addiction rates.

Let's not forget that in your mind "reform" means a "complete ban."

No, reform doesn't mean a complete ban. I spelled out a number of measures in your other topic which you never responded to because they contradict your narrative.

Lokarin posted...

Erik_P posted...

Let's not forget that in your mind "reform" means a "complete ban."

Ya, what is it about that.

You say something like "Traffic Reform" and someone might respond "ugh, more parking tickets"

But you say something like "Gun Reform" and everyone responds" THEY WANNA TAK MA GUNS AWAYT FOREVER!!!!!!"

Because Erik is against any reform where alcohol is concerned and alcohol, unlike guns, is barely legislated and has only the smallest restrictions. People complain about gun shows being a loophole, but that's close to how all alcohol works, doubly so because there are no policies restricting alcohol from criminals who committed alcohol-related crimes in the same way we restrict gun-related criminals. People abuse guns, they go in a federal database which prevents them from owning guns. People abuse alcohol, no action is taken and they can buy even more, including guys who bought alcohol to sell it to kids since they can start to do it again the day they get out of prison. That's just one area in which we need critical reform. We also need to ban beer ads, just like we've banned cigarette commercials and companies refuse to run gun ads.

Alcohol use is rampant thanks to marginal laws and, as we know from history, alcohol was more effective than smallbox-infected blankets in reducing the Native American population.
---

Muscles36 posted...

No, you don't have to be an idiot to think that, weed will not cause fatal car crashes to skyrocket. Have you ever seen a high driver before? Because they drive super cautious

lol, anecdotal evidence. tbh, I've had friends who said that they were better drivers while high and, the few I've decided to put to the test, were more careless drivers compared to their usual driving. Not as dangerous as DUI (in that they weren't reckless, they just didn't seem as observant because they missed stop signs and almost got into a minor fender bender), obviously, but that sets a low bar. However, that's also anecdotal evidence. And, in general, the "more cautious" argument mostly seems to imply that they weren't speeding. My grandma didn't speed and she was an awful driver.
---

Zeus posted...

Muscles36 posted...

No, you don't have to be an idiot to think that, weed will not cause fatal car crashes to skyrocket. Have you ever seen a high driver before? Because they drive super cautious

lol, anecdotal evidence. tbh, I've had friends who said that they were better drivers while high and, the few I've decided to put to the test, were more careless drivers compared to their usual driving. Not as dangerous as DUI (in that they weren't reckless, they just didn't seem as observant because they missed stop signs and almost got into a minor fender bender), obviously, but that sets a low bar. However, that's also anecdotal evidence. And, in general, the "more cautious" argument mostly seems to imply that they weren't speeding. My grandma didn't speed and she was an awful driver.

Ok, you claim anecdotal evidence, but it sure as hell didn't hurt Colorado or Washington or anywhere else it's legal
---

As someone from Southern Oregon where weed is huge, I can testify that the only thing that has skyrocketed in my area since it's legalization is the amount of weed shops.
---

No, reform doesn't mean a complete ban. I spelled out a number of measures in your other topic which you never responded to because they contradict your narrative.

You're only now calling it reform because you realized how bad you looked when you kept promoting Prohibition as a good thing. You've just moved the goalposts so people will be more likely to agree with you.

Because Erik is against any reform where alcohol is concerned and alcohol, unlike guns, is barely legislated and has only the smallest restrictions.

If you want to know liquor laws in your state here's a link:

http://www.stateliquorlaws.com/map

These are all the laws in just Minnesota. There's plenty of laws regulating alcohol. Oh would you look at that? Once again you make a bullshit accusation that gets shot down immediately.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=340a

People complain about gun shows being a loophole, but that's close to how all alcohol works, doubly so because there are no policies restricting alcohol from criminals who committed alcohol-related crimes in the same way we restrict gun-related criminals.

I guess you've never heard of ankle bracelets that detect alcohol. Also, DUI's go on your record. I would also recommend clicking those links I provided above to find out punishments for breaking the law.

People abuse guns, they go in a federal database which prevents them from owning guns. People abuse alcohol, no action is taken and they can buy even more, including guys who bought alcohol to sell it to kids since they can start to do it again the day they get out of prison.

Once again, if you commit a DUI it goes on your record. Also, selling to a minor is illegal. How are you this fucking clueless about how things work>

That's just one area in which we need critical reform. We also need to ban beer ads, just like we've banned cigarette commercials and companies refuse to run gun ads.

There's no need to ban beer ads.

Alcohol use is rampant thanks to marginal laws and, as we know from history, alcohol was more effective than smallbox-infected blankets in reducing the Native American population.

Even if we increased laws people would still drink alcohol. Which of course you want banned.
---

Erik_P posted...

These are all the laws in just Minnesota. There's plenty of laws regulating alcohol.

There's a tonne of laws regulating cars, however there's relatively few to the user so it's very hard to call cars heavily regulated. The number of laws is irrelevant as what matters is their range.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Erik_P posted...

These are all the laws in just Minnesota. There's plenty of laws regulating alcohol.

There's a tonne of laws regulating cars, however there's relatively few to the user so it's very hard to call cars heavily regulated. The number of laws is irrelevant as what matters is their range.

its easiest to control a population by regulating against the tools and methods used by said population to give themselves autonomy than it is to target individuals within the group you want to control as it personalizes the issue and makes it easier for the group to fight against the desired effects of the law.
---

OmegaTomHank posted...

Please explain your poorly rationalized position to me so I can attempt to empathize. I cant lower my ability to think logically to understand your argument.



A: What exactly are you encouraging to be legalized? All drugs? Make it a total unregulated free for all?

B: Do you think drug abuse only affects the indivdual consuming the drugs?


C: Are you pro or against the FDA?

A. Only weed, 21+
B. No I do not think that, of course it impacts a lot of people
C. I have nothing against the FDA, it's useful
---

Muscles36 posted...

Zeus posted...

Muscles36 posted...

No, you don't have to be an idiot to think that, weed will not cause fatal car crashes to skyrocket. Have you ever seen a high driver before? Because they drive super cautious

lol, anecdotal evidence. tbh, I've had friends who said that they were better drivers while high and, the few I've decided to put to the test, were more careless drivers compared to their usual driving. Not as dangerous as DUI (in that they weren't reckless, they just didn't seem as observant because they missed stop signs and almost got into a minor fender bender), obviously, but that sets a low bar. However, that's also anecdotal evidence. And, in general, the "more cautious" argument mostly seems to imply that they weren't speeding. My grandma didn't speed and she was an awful driver.

Ok, you claim anecdotal evidence, but it sure as hell didn't hurt Colorado or Washington or anywhere else it's legal

Because most it's more likely to be minor fender benders than deadly crashes, for starters. Keep in mind the behaviors.
---

Erik_P posted...

You're only now calling it reform because you realized how bad you looked when you kept promoting Prohibition as a good thing. You've just moved the goalposts so people will be more likely to agree with you.

Except no, I literally called it reform in the last 5 or 6 topics INCLUDING the one discussing prohibition in general where I outlined things that need to be changed. It's literally not a new thing.

As for "moving the goalposts," my suggestions and general stances haven't changed. However, since we discussed this a year ago, I've started to use terms that you can understand and appreciate. This is also literally the tactic used by liberal advocates in general.





Erik_P posted...

If you want to know liquor laws in your state here's a link:

http://www.stateliquorlaws.com/map

These are all the laws in just Minnesota. There's plenty of laws regulating alcohol. Oh would you look at that? Once again you make a bullshit accusation that gets shot down immediately.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=340a

First off, those laws are like nothing and do very little to regulate it when it comes to the CONSUMER, which is the one area that truly matters. They're just tiny restrictions built around a federal guideline so it's like the wild west. Second, and more importantly, the current laws are inadequate so either need them replaced or additional legislation. So yeah, more of Erik's bullshit torn apart.

Erik_P posted...

I guess you've never heard of ankle bracelets that detect alcohol. Also, DUI's go on your record. I would also recommend clicking those links I provided above to find out punishments for breaking the law.

How about you find the law which bans people from ever drinking again and has systems in place to prevent them from purchasing? Oh, you mean there isn't one? Yet we have it for guns. So literally like I said, somebody who sells alcohol to minors can go to prison for it and, the same day he gets out, legally buy alcohol which he could then sell to minors.

Erik_P posted...

There's no need to ban beer ads.

There absolutely is. If you're trying to change the culture, you need to regulate ads. We've already decided to ban cigarette ads. Get with the times.

Erik_P posted...

Even if we increased laws people would still drink alcohol. Which of course you want banned.

While seeing alcohol gone is a noble endpoint, the real issue is reversing alcohol culture and curbing alcohol abuse. The provisions that I've suggested go a long way towards reducing DUIs, crime, etc, WITHOUT banning alcohol. These laws make everybody safer and allow people to enjoy alcohol more safely. Do you not want people to be safe, awful Erik?
---