ok. and don't walk through a whole field of poppies. check

+1 for the Firefly reference :)

Poor guy. You are a dictator without a country to rule. I understand your rage now.

So how do these businesses pay their weekly or monthly deposits of payroll taxes and deductions?

The 40's were ruled by the progressives. They wreaked such "transformational change" on this nation that we still have not recovered. And may not without a total collapse of their system first.

Excellent comment.

So, you're trying to legislate a person's character then? Their intelligence? Good luck with that.

As much as I disagree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread, I think I've found one point of commonality between us. You're last paragraph about your drinking habits, or lack thereof, applies lockstep with me.

I don't know what else we have in common, but I understand your position on drugs better than you would imagine. What you are spouting off as good law/policy, is how I feel on a personal level. I don't use drugs, and I refuse to associate with people that do. I really don't like it when I see my friends drinking to excess, because I hate to think they could be as stupid/loud/obnoxious/whatever as they are when they're drunk. If/when it becomes an ongoing issue, I'm done with them.

The point that I am ultimately trying to arrive at is that while we probably agree with each other about drug/alcohol use on a personal level, where we disagree is in terms of policy/law. I am able to separate my personal opinion about what is right for me from what I think should be law applied with force to everyone else. You, on the other hand, seem to have no regard whatever to the liberty of others. You, on the other hand, seem to think that some bunch of arbitrary laws based on your opinion is the way to go, and the freedoms/liberties of others be damned. The comment you made below about castrating those idiots who wear their pants too low to your liking being a case in point.

If it's all the same to you, I don't care to have you or anyone else telling me how to live my life when none of my actions has a thing to do with you.

pant peeve

Factually: THC suppresses the immune system function. Anecdotally: I notice that my pot-smoking friends had, over time, a more difficult time dealing with change. (This could be self-selection, admittedly.) There are known detriments to a lot of things we consume (including the traditional and socially approved alcohol), but - shrug - you keep it in your own body and it is your decision what you take.

Jan

Harsh.

My dad died an ugly death from cancer a year ago, this month. He smoked 4 packs a day for 40+ years.

You said, "Tobacco use is down, because the ball-less wonders who hated their daddies for being men launched a campaign decades ago . . ." Am I supposed to take you seriously on any level when you say something like that? Are you suggesting that we should have more people puffing away on 4 packs a day so that tobacco use can go back up?

I agree with you that smokers should never have been treated like pariahs. I get that, I really do. Beyond that though, your entire post just came off as incredibly stupid.

By the way, how old are you? You sound like a grumpy old octogenarian know it all with your tired old arguments and your constant use of the word "moderns".

You are fine with tobacco but not pot because one has an abstract cultural value to you but the other does not?

Since when? I know you meant that as a rhetorical question, but let's take a look at it on a very literal level. Portugal decriminalized all of their drug laws 12 years ago, and the number of hard core drug addicts has been cut in half.

How's that for a real world example?

As far as your "gateway drug" argument, that, too, is little more than rhetorical nonsense. The nanosecond I see you lobbying for the criminalization of tobacco and alcohol, I might begin to take you seriously. Until then, the "gateway drug" argument is hypocritical at best.

As for your sex ed argument, I reject it completely. Believe it or not, people, young and old, are going to be interested in sex. They are going to have sex regardless of what the law or the Bible or you or me or anybody else has to say on the matter. We're hardwired from birth this way whether you like it or not.

Similarly, some people are just self destructive with addictive personalities. They are going to use drugs, "gateway" or otherwise, regardless of what the law says on the subject. On a personal level, I pity/loathe them. On a policy level though, I just don't see the point is having the federal government trying to legislate morality. It has never worked, and it never will. If anything, drug laws ought to be left to the states, in any case. Go reed the 9th and 10th Amendments if you don't believe me. I'm a big fan of liberty, and a big part of that means keeping the federal government as far out of my life, my wallet and my business as possible.

Umm.. One has nothing to do with the other. It's not even the same thought process or theory. I do apply that sex theory to gun safety in my house to reduce the curiosity about firearms, but it has nothing to do with the drug theory.

I was using her as an example, and not a shield. I was born in 75 in California. Of course she smoked pot.

Scream, make personal insults, and shake your fist at what you believe is morally wrong as if your morality should be everyone’s gospel. Your words are irrational and overly emotional, and if you think they will make me loose interest in continuing this conversation you are correct. Count it as another win for yourself, because I do not debate with the emotional arguments of those who would have the federal government dictate morality.

and the first darren was in reefer madness and he went mad with pain pills

go try on bras and girdles from the 40s first

zombies?