Started By
Message
1
Posted on 3/10/15 at 9:17 pm to Rounder1
Thanks sweetie.
Posted on 3/10/15 at 9:27 pm to 870Hog
One of the biggest problems struggling alcholics describe is the ease with which they can get it. One can be putting gas into his car en route to his 80th consecutive AA meeting, go inside to pay, and walk out with a 12-pack before he's had time to analyze his decision.
Maybe we should legalize everything but make everyone apply for a permit to buy it. You want to drink? Pay the state $10 and fill out the form. You'll get your license in 10-14 days and you're good to buy booze for a year. Want to smoke weed? Pay the state $10, fill out the form. You're good to buy weed for a year. Want to do nose candy? It's going to cost you $100 and there will be an extensive background check. Angel Dust? Yeah, fill out the form, pay the $5000 and give us 6 months to get back to you. No refund if you're denied.
One's license would be electronically "stamped" with each purchase, in order to limit his ability to start a black market. In other words, you could buy only so much fill-in-the-blank per week. Also you might not be allowed to buy both alcohol and weed within 12 hours of the other. Drunk + Stoned = Stoooopid.
Maybe we should legalize everything but make everyone apply for a permit to buy it. You want to drink? Pay the state $10 and fill out the form. You'll get your license in 10-14 days and you're good to buy booze for a year. Want to smoke weed? Pay the state $10, fill out the form. You're good to buy weed for a year. Want to do nose candy? It's going to cost you $100 and there will be an extensive background check. Angel Dust? Yeah, fill out the form, pay the $5000 and give us 6 months to get back to you. No refund if you're denied.
One's license would be electronically "stamped" with each purchase, in order to limit his ability to start a black market. In other words, you could buy only so much fill-in-the-blank per week. Also you might not be allowed to buy both alcohol and weed within 12 hours of the other. Drunk + Stoned = Stoooopid.
This post was edited on 3/10/15 at 9:40 pm
Posted on 3/10/15 at 9:32 pm to Rounder1
quote:
U legalize everything and it's not like everyone is going to indulge on primo weed and clean cut booger sugar.
People that wanna take trips will pay the cheap fare if that's all they got.
People do it anyway. People drink Listerine/huff gas for Christ's sake. Making things illegal only pushes those to alternate means of distorting their reality, and they're usually much more dangerous.
This post was edited on 3/10/15 at 9:33 pm
Posted on 3/10/15 at 9:36 pm to the808bass
quote:
If yall wanna legalize drugs, fine.
Just take drug rehab off of health insurance.
If it's your business what you put in your body, don't ask me to pay for the aftermath.
I can go to rehab on insurance if I have a meth addiction, and it's not legal. What you're inferring is drug use would go up. Countries that have decriminalized are seeing the opposite. But regardless, the fat fricks that stuff their chubby faces/smoke legal cigs/don't get off their lazy asses and exercise cost us much more than an illicit drug user.
This post was edited on 3/10/15 at 9:38 pm
Posted on 3/10/15 at 9:41 pm to AUbagman
quote:
What you're inferring is drug use would go up.
I'm not inferring anything. You're inferring.
I'm asking people who argue for drug legalization on the basis that it's their body to be logically consistent. I realize that's asking a lot of potheads.
Smokers and fatties should pay more for their health insurance. Because I'm, you know, consistent.
ETA:
quote:
Countries that have decriminalized are seeing the opposite.
This just isn't universally true. And no one should expect it to be.
This post was edited on 3/10/15 at 9:48 pm
Posted on 3/10/15 at 9:43 pm to AUbagman
quote:
distorting their reality, and they're usually much more dangerous.
I'd like to see your data that supports this.
Posted on 3/10/15 at 9:49 pm to the808bass
quote:
I'm asking people who argue for drug legalization on the basis that it's their body to be logically consistent.
I agree. I think all drugs should be legalized with the proviso that users of hard drugs cannot qualify for any kind of insurance. Also, they should be charged a fee if they overdose and are resuscitated by publicly funded emergency personnel.
Posted on 3/10/15 at 9:56 pm to the808bass
quote:
I'm not inferring anything. You're inferring.
Then state that in your OP if that's not what you're inferring. Say rehab should be stricken from health insurance policies.
quote:
I'm asking people who argue for drug legalization on the basis that it's their body to be logically consistent. I realize that's asking a lot of potheads.
Yes, potheads have health care premiums skyrocketing.
quote:
Smokers and fatties should pay more for their health insurance. Because I'm, you know, consistent.
Fair enough, but doubtful that ever comes to fruition. Bleeding heart syndrome kills any chance of survival of the fittest.
quote:
This just isn't universally true. And no one should expect it to be.
The trend is in criminalized countries drug use has gone up, in decriminalized countries drug use has went down, but empirical data be damned.
Posted on 3/10/15 at 9:56 pm to AUbagman
I get ur point. It's a valid point. I did it.
At age 12 I inadvertently discovered huffing gas while trying to syphon some gas for my 4wheeler. I was fricked up every chance I had for the next couple of years... only quit cause the hallucinations turned bad.
Thankfully that was a long time ago.
But u can't completely decriminalize based on the logic that "the ones that wanna do it will still do it."
Hyperbolic but think of the activities that u could put on that type of list.
In any case, I do agree there are drugs that don't warrant being a crime.
Please forgive any spelling or grammar issues... on a phone.
Gnite all
At age 12 I inadvertently discovered huffing gas while trying to syphon some gas for my 4wheeler. I was fricked up every chance I had for the next couple of years... only quit cause the hallucinations turned bad.
Thankfully that was a long time ago.
But u can't completely decriminalize based on the logic that "the ones that wanna do it will still do it."
Hyperbolic but think of the activities that u could put on that type of list.
In any case, I do agree there are drugs that don't warrant being a crime.
Please forgive any spelling or grammar issues... on a phone.
Gnite all
Posted on 3/10/15 at 10:01 pm to Kentucker
quote:
I think all drugs should be legalized with the proviso that users of hard drugs cannot qualify for any kind of insurance.
Then at the base of your logic, neither should the morbidly obese individual. The insurance companies would price out risk of reckless individuals if given the opportunity, but that won't happen, especially now.
Posted on 3/10/15 at 10:01 pm to 870Hog
I think it's dangerous to make things like meth legal. They are extremely addictive and it will lead to deaths. Education and taxation can't fix that. Things that can be enjoyed in moderation without causing extremely dangerous chemical addiction should be legal, IMO. Marijuana, alcohol and LSD all fit that model. Not sure about amphetamines, as I've taken plenty of adderall in my day without the fear of addiction, but I've heard of anorexic girls going to rehab for that. Also never done LSD. Kind of want to.
Posted on 3/10/15 at 10:11 pm to AUbagman
Ultimately (and sooner than most of us think) all health insurance in America will be Federal Government Health and Accident. Not long after this becomes the case they'll be penalizing everyone for their lifestyle. They already have urine nicotine screens. They'll have urine Fried Food and Chocolate tests. Burger King blood tests. Red Meat hair screenings. Unless you're wealthy they'll be able to utilize fines and fees to effectively tell you what you can eat, drink, and not smoke. It will be glorious.
Posted on 3/10/15 at 10:13 pm to derSturm37
Did you know Hitler was a vegetarian who abhorred smoking.
Posted on 3/10/15 at 10:14 pm to TeLeFaWx
Almost anything can be enjoyed in moderation. Regardless, alcohol is almost as addictive as meth, while nicotine is more addictive, both kill far, far more people.
ETA: And do you honestly think people would rush out to score some meth? The vanity factor alone would keep the vast majority of people away from it.
ETA: And do you honestly think people would rush out to score some meth? The vanity factor alone would keep the vast majority of people away from it.
This post was edited on 3/10/15 at 10:15 pm
Posted on 3/10/15 at 10:14 pm to AUbagman
quote:
Then at the base of your logic, neither should the morbidly obese individual.
While I do think that obese, not just morbidly obese, people should pay much higher premiums for insurance, it isn't logical to compare the effects of drugs with being extremely overweight. Obesity is not a mind-alternating condition. Being drug addled is.
That's why I don't think insurance companies should have to do business with drug addicts. Mentally, they're not qualified to function normally in society.
Posted on 3/10/15 at 10:14 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
Did you know Hitler was a vegetarian who abhorred smoking.
Knew he was a vegetarian. He went like his last 20 years (or more?) without eating meat.
Didn't know he abhorred smoking. Knowing that Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin all smoked it doesn't surprise me.
Posted on 3/10/15 at 10:17 pm to AUbagman
quote:
Almost anything can be enjoyed in moderation. Regardless, alcohol is almost as addictive as meth, while nicotine is more addictive, both kill far, far more people.
ETA: And do you honestly think people would rush out to score some meth? The vanity factor alone would keep the vast majority of people away from it.
I think there are plenty of drugs we can let people enjoy and still keep meth illegal.
Posted on 3/10/15 at 10:18 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Obesity is not a mind-alternating condition. Being drug addled is.
BS. Binge eating is a mind-alternating condition. That's why they stuff their faces to the point they can't roll out of bed. Not trying to be a dick, but destructive addiction can rear its head in any form. The fact remains the empirical evidence suggests decriminalization lowers drug use, costs less many, and lowers crime. On top of all that, the War on Drugs has spawned a militarized police force for the sake of accomplishing nothing.
Posted on 3/10/15 at 10:18 pm to derSturm37
At one point Eisenhower was smoking four packs a day. He later quit cold turkey.
I don't know if packs had 20 cigs back then or how fast they burned but that is a shite ton of smoking.
I don't know if packs had 20 cigs back then or how fast they burned but that is a shite ton of smoking.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News