Is it time to legalize pot and reduce the death rate of tobacco and alcohol?

[The Man]

As a matter of fact Stone has been asking you a simple question

"Would you like to see all of Western society destroyed?"

Why is it so difficult for you to answer?

I also want to see a response as well

 

[Greatest I am]

Pot is not a substitute for nicotine addiction.

Correct. Once addicted to that harmful substance, it is carried by that same substance.

You forget that nicotine was selected from whatever was around on the drug menu at that time.
With pot on the menu beside nicotine and knowing that pot is less addictive and harmful, only the less caring will choose nicotine. Remember that those who want any drugs will be well informed by the system.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Not at all.
IMO Stone has been rather tolerant of the garbage you post for rebuttals

He is lucky I respond to any of his garbage and efforts to change what I say.
You may have noted I only respond to about one in 10 of his ramblings.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

As a matter of fact Stone has been asking you a simple question

"Would you like to see all of Western society destroyed?"

Why is it so difficult for you to answer?

I also want to see a response as well

I guess you both like to ask really stupid questions but if you need an answer then, no.

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

Correct. Once addicted to that harmful substance, it is carried by that same substance.

........................................
DL

You just negated your own argument!

Would you like to see all of Western society destroyed? http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...-and-alcohol&p=2248053&viewfull=1#post2248053

 

[Stone]

He is lucky I respond to any of his garbage and efforts to change what I say.
You may have noted I only respond to about one in 10 of his ramblings.

Regards
DL

Would you like to see all of Western society destroyed? http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...-and-alcohol&p=2248053&viewfull=1#post2248053

 

[Stone]

I guess you both like to ask really stupid questions but if you need an answer then, no.

Regards
DL

So....It's only the US of A you want to destroy.
Why only the US?

 

[The Man]

Correct. Once addicted to that harmful substance, it is carried by that same substance.

You forget that nicotine was selected from whatever was around on the drug menu at that time.
With pot on the menu beside nicotine and knowing that pot is less addictive and harmful, only the less caring will choose nicotine.
Regards
DL

That would only work if nicotine was removed from the menu ..and someone chose pot as the nicotine wasn't available.

But lets apply your wild logic for a moment shall we....Since cigarettes are legal then why do we have problems with alcohol?
Since salad is available why do we have overweight people?
Since knives are available why do people shoot people with guns?

 

[The Man]

Hell since coffee is available then why do we have meth?
Come on GIA....drop the "acting dumb" act as people will begin to think its true

 

[Stone]

I hope no one here at OTZ works for Homeland Security......
my afternoons would turn to boredom.

 

[Stone]

Hell since coffee is available then why do we have meth?
Come on GIA....drop the "acting dumb" act as people will begin to think its true

Interesting analogy.....indeed.

 

[The Man]

It appears as GIA as scatted off giving new meaning to the phrase "when the going gets tough the tough get going"

 

[robdawg1]

What protection are you giving them now?
Can you prevent them from getting whatever they want?
No you cannot because you have no control of the pushers.

The pushers aren't going to go away just because drugs are legal. ciggarrettes and alcohol are still pushed onto children and used by children.

Has prohibition worked? No it has not.

regardless of the law, people will still break it. this is why we use other laws such as murder and theft...it doesnt matter that people break the law, the law exists to protect society, and law enforcement exists to enforece laws! you will always have law breakers that doesnt mean we should disolve all laws...what does that instigate?

Did the repeal of prohibition with alcohol help us? Yes it did.
How, by control of supply.

It did not help us protect children from the effects of alcohol. kids still drink and are abused and neglected by parents who abuse alcohol. what is your response to this?

Who, if not the pharmaceutical companies, would control supply?
Who, other than the medical side, could prescribe any of these drugs?
No one to both questions.

Come on!!! we have enough with pharmacueticals pushing "legal" prescription drugs to people who don't need them and become addicted to them. They are a BIG part of the problem

This would cover our bases and give us the moral position to then treat pushers even more severely than today. We could basically prove that they target children and we then have the moral right to get them hard.

Do the math.

We already have the moral right to hit them hard. Thats why the laws exist! thats why they are sitting in prisons now!!

 

[robdawg1]

What the experts are thinking. You should do some reading.
Then again, they are not as expert as you are.

Regards
DL

You aren't posting any of your "readings" to back up your claims....where is your research because we can provide ours!

 

[Accountable]

Robdawg, are you advocating "protecting" the public from all addictive drugs? Alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, etc? Meaning allow addictive drugs only by a doctor's prescription?

 

[robdawg1]

Well?.....Would you like to see all of Western society destroyed?

come on guys...this is obviously sophistry. don't play his games by twisting his words

 

[robdawg1]

Robdawg, are you advocating "protecting" the public from all addictive drugs? Alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, etc? Meaning allow addictive drugs only by a doctor's prescription?

No, I was arguing that doctors and pharm. companies already abuse their power by prescribing uneccessary narcotics that are highly addictive to people who become addicted and keep coming back for more...legalized "drug pushers" ..
this is in reference to GIA's argument that we legalize ALL drugs because dr's and pharm companies will then be able to regulate them.....like they do now(sarcasm)

 

[The Man]

No, I was arguing that doctors and pharm. companies already abuse their power by prescribing uneccessary narcotics that are highly addictive to people who become addicted and keep coming back for more...legalized "drug pushers" ..
this is in reference to GIA's argument that we legalize ALL drugs because dr's and pharm companies will then be able to regulate them.....like they do now(sarcasm)

Thats isnt GIA argument...he merely wants it legal...in other words skip the Dr....and get it at the local store.
The regulation comes from the doc not the pharmacy...BTW

 

[Accountable]

No, I was arguing that doctors and pharm. companies already abuse their power by prescribing uneccessary narcotics that are highly addictive to people who become addicted and keep coming back for more...legalized "drug pushers" ..
this is in reference to GIA's argument that we legalize ALL drugs because dr's and pharm companies will then be able to regulate them.....like they do now(sarcasm)

My mistake. I thought I remember you arguing against legalizing drugs.

 

[robdawg1]

That is an argument against legalizing drugs. GIA wants all drugs legalized and regulated by docs and pharm co. I am saying they already are abusing the LEGAL drugs, why give them power over ILLEGAL ones as well....