#1, you'll notice I said I had no problem with legalizing marijuana, but other drugs are out of the question.
Originally posted here by BERBURT
no chsh the reason i said 25 cents
is because thats a figure i came up with that itr would cost
remember the cost of the chemicals are expensive now but if were legalized they would go down dramaticly
also people could afford it .
why make expensive? why even tax it ?
i dont believe there should be annyone making money off this
if the government did thats like passing the drug dealing torch to them
we all know making money off of peoples misery is illeagal
because the government does not like competition.
#2, If you tax the hell out of it, then it will discourage people from using/imbibing too much of it.
Yes. Please elaborate on your 'beneficial consequences' please, and then I will debate them. Overall, legalizing and cheapening drugs will only encourage more people to use them (I sound like a broken record here, don't I?), and I think that's the wrong message to send.
and as far as the government it is corrupt. need i expand on this!
also i welcome a debate. so are there any other areas that are debatable
if u can convince me that this will not solve anything than i
will accept, but i believe there are some beneficial consequences also
how about u can u honestly say there isnt?
That's an extraordinarily flawed view of what public healthcare would do. Perhaps you should do a little research on Canadian healthcare and see what you can derive from how our healthcare system works. What you suggest is rather amusing, and I take it that you don't wear seatbelts when you drive (a finable offence up here in Ontario)?
Originally posted by rcgreen:
I began to be concerned along these lines a few years
back when Hillary Clinton wanted to give the USA
free health care.
Think about it. If they pay the doctor bills, then they have
a right to see to it that you don't waste their money
by making unhealthy choices, like smoking tobacco, drinking
coffee, eating bacon and eggs.
In the past, our laws recognized the fact that your liberties
had to be compromised with the liberties and safety of others.
Today, the thinking is that you must be protected
from yourself, even when there is little plausible
threat to others.
What you will find about how Canadian healthcare works is that there are warning labels (big ones) on cigarette packages, and that cigarettes are taxed in order to cover the health problems they cause. You'll also no doubt read that out in western Canada, the provinces have successfully sued tobacco companies for health care money.
Public healthcare doesn't mean your liberties are taken away, just the opposite in fact. You are free to see a doctor when you like, and you're free to walk into a hospital when you like without being charged for it. Personally, as an asthmatic, I find that comforting.
Essentially he blew $2000 in one month on pot, was high the whole time, and then crashed hard. He began to have delusions about things, and was generally speaking mentally unwell. Before he smoked pot, he was perfectly fine, and he's on track to recover right now, but it was rough on him and his parents.
Originally posted by stflook:
Please elaborate on this a little. Exactly what did it do to him? There are some side-effects that come with marijuana usage, as with any other drug. Are the things it did consistent with what pot is known to do to people? Also, there are some other chemicals in the smoke, some of them carcinogens, that aren't good for you. Maybe he reacted to one or more of those?
We could argue about semantics about what the term 'physically addictive' might entail (chemically addictive might be a better term), but that's for another day. I don't disagree, I've seen the scientific evidence to base that statement on, and it' pretty convincing. I still don't think that it's mentally easygoing on someone to be high all the time, which is why I'd say tax the hell out of it. Cost is a very effective deterrent from my observations.
I never said marijuana wasn't addictive. There are ways in which it is addictive. I said it's not physically addictive, which is true. However, I also said that it's habit-forming, which is the same thing as a psychological addiction. Anybody who says it's not addictive at all is either horribly misinformed, or is just trying to justify it to themselves. I find it interesting that you said he became addicted to the high it provided, instead of simply saying he bacame addicted to it. It sounds to me like he is a perfect example of what I'm saying.