Only losers smoke pot, right?

Remove all ads!

It was once popular to beat your wife too. So it must be such a disgrace to see so many husbands thrown into jail for something they choose to do.

"The best thing about quotes on facebook is you can make them up" - George Washington.

 

I heard a rumour somewhere that Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett murdered some people once.

And Superman once punched Batman so hard he had a bad bruise for several days.

And if you go swimming in the sea when lobsters are spawning, you might get pregnant with mutant lobster children.

It's not really news that Abe was a bit stoned. In .jJust about every historically accurate recreation of him in shows like "The Simpsons" and "Bill and Ted" its been pretty clear the guy was high on the wacky weed. Dude!

 

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ... can't get fooled again!" - Thomas Jefferson

 

Well he was a National Hero, not the Average 'hobby stoner' Joe!

Gives him some extra brownies!

 

LOL 8people, that's a hoot. I'm putting in a friend request to old George ASAP.

In a more serious vein, smoking pot may not make one a loser, but in my book breaking the law without a really dang good reason is. Fact is, pot is against the law where I live. Those who use it are not doing so as a great protest against an evil repressive government. These guys have no idea how truly repressive a government can be -- I advocate sending them to a truly repressive country and then see how quickly they want to come home crying.

They don't use because there are no better pain meds out there. I don't buy that argument and never will. There are plenty of high powered pain meds out there.

They use because they are self-indulgent lawbreakers. They don't care about the law, they don't care that crime cartels fund it, they just don't care. The sad thing is that there are so many of these selfish imbeciles around that it becomes the most logical, pragmatic thing in the world to legalize it, which I advocate. Legalize it, and the first piece of <snip> who uses "I was stoned" for why he ran over a little kid and killed her in a clearly marked crosswalk dies a painfel death, for being stoned is no <snipping> excuse.

 

American drug laws (and the war on drugs) is a monument to the stupidity of big government. When conservatives speak of the "big nanny government," I can't think of a better example of the overreachng effects of government in people's personal day-to-day lives. They have used it as an excuse to expand the role of the police, our courts, our prisons and the overall force of government acting on its citizens in a way that difies all rational thought -- IF freedom and limited government are the ulitmate goals. If you you need the big nanny government to tell you what you should or should not be doing, then you are welcome to it. But what a incredible waste of people's freedom and tax dollars this has been for the nation.

 

Here, Here.

I believe it is California that has a referendum on the ballot to completely legalize pot and tax the **** out of it. It will be very interesting to see what the Feds will do if it passes as there is historical precident. Apparantly during Prohibition NY passed their own law allowing the sale of alcohol and the Feds didn't do anything about it. This is one of the reasons why all the great gang stories during Prohibition are from Chicago and not NYC.

 

I don't think anyone who advocates for the legalization of marijuana is actually suggesting that you wouldn't still be responsible for your actions while using the drug. Heck, if you get behind the wheel when you're drunk and kill someone, you're going to jail. I don't see why marijuana use would be any different.

And all laws are not created equal. While you may have never smoked pot, I find it hard to believe you've never broken the law. Ever receive a parking ticket? Get pulled over for speeding? Roll through a stop sign? You broke the law in that case. So in your words, anyone who has ever been pulled over for a traffic violation who didn't have a really good reason for it, is a loser? That's rather draconian, don't you think?

 

Given the legal laxity I see all around me, maybe a little draconian influence wouldn't be such a bad thing.

I have broken driving laws, and I have to tell you, if I were got, I would take my medicine like a man. If I killed someone while doing something really stupid, I would take whatever punishment that came my way and be focussed on the victims. I have found that the "he was drunk" defense is seen as a mitigating factor ("if it was really dangerous, it'd be prohibited!" sort of logic) and it makes me sick. I do not agree with its use for alcohol, and I sure as hell don't want it extended to pot users or users of other drugs, be that use recreational or medically prescribed.

 

Well I don't know about you, but in the UK drivers under the influence tend to get much harsher sentences than those who weren't under the influence of anything. Any other legalised drug would probably be covered under similar laws as alcohol. Even mobile phone use can get you a worse punishment but proving it can be a right pain

 

Perhaps in Canada, but I agree with 8people. Just as in the UK, in the US, you tend to get a stiffer sentence if you were under the influence.

 

I always wondered why you couldn't use some variation of the temporary insanity defense for drunk driving ... How was I to know any better? I was drunk.

 

But I never intended to get drunk when I started drinking. Only after I had the first drink did I begin to lose my discretion due to the alcohol, which led to me have another drink, and then lose more discretion, and so on. Clearly the alcohol was at fault, or maybe the bartender for so recklessly serving me, but not me. I would never have done something so irresponsible in my right mind.

If I die from food poisoning, am I responsible for that because I ate?

 

Poison is not an inherent quality of food. You state that the very first drink you take impairs your judgment, causing you to lose discretion and consume more alcohol. Therefore, we must come to the conclusion that every single alcoholic drink has the inherent quality of impairing the discretion of the consumer. Once we have assessed this, we must conclude that the person was well aware of the fact that alcohol impaired their judgment, and therefore was under full control of their action to take the first drink.

One does not say, "I did not intend the bullet to kill a person when I shot the gun. The bullet is clearly at fault, or perhaps the gun for so recklessly containing a bullet. I would never have done something so irresponsible if I had known shooting someone would kill them."

 

But alcohol is a legal subtstance, served in a legitimate establishment! And it's even licensed and taxed by the government, so they have a stake in it. You might even say they sponsor it. Also, I really had no idea that I was going to get drunk by drinking it. I certainly never planned to. So why am I suddenly held responsible for any adverse effects brought about by it? There should have been some governmental entity in place to prevent it.

The bartender here is clearly the gun, and the alcohol is the bullet. I'm just an innocent bystander.

 

Why doesn't this apply to a woman who has sex?

 

Please elaborate. Why is a woman not held responsible for her actions after having sex? Seriously - I'm not being a smart ass - I just don't see the connection you're trying to make.

Please tell me you're playing devil's advocate here...

 

Yes, just trying to see if I could take it through to any extent that left me at all intact.

I do find it surprising though that that defense has never been used (that I've heard of), given the many other creative defenses that are attempted in court.

Yes. It's just easy for me to imagine some sad sack standing before a judge with a sorry look on his face while his attorney tries to make the case I was making.

Drunken people who cause serious auto accidents do seem to frequently wear a look that says "I'm sorry, I'm actually a good guy when I'm sober and I never wanted this to happen. I am clueless! Mercy!" I would hope that if I ever did that (I wouldn't, because I'm not a drunk and/or irresponsible), I'd have the integrity and determination to wear a look that said "just kill me and transfer all my assets to the victim's family" instead.