Reganomics

**bobbarkerissatan** · 11-23-09, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by [SWC

Erik Thorsen ]
If you really care about kids (And I honestly know you do, which is awesome) you would be for legalization. Why? Because as long as drugs are illegal, criminals will sell them, and as long as criminals sell them, they will sell to anyone. You think drug dealers care if a little kid asks them for weed? No, they'll sell it, they don't care. But what if you go into a liquor store and try to buy a pack of smokes at 15 years old? Much harder to pull off.

For several years now teens have reported illegal drugs being easier to obtain than alcohol and cigarettes. Because the government regulates the latter, and your corner dealer regulates the former.

I really find it interesting that most of the people that will argue against a nany-state and are pro free market and personal responsibility are the same people that will tell you the government needs to protect its citizens against the "evil" MJ and will be hypocrites with alcohol.

**Potemkine** · 11-23-09, 11:53 AM

Everyone, TTP has a 0 tolerance policy when it comes to illegal drugs. I would ask that you please steer this conversation away from the topic of illegal drugs and more towards the topic thread of Reaganomics. This is so we can keep TTP accessible to those at work/school with strict filters.

**Veovis** · 11-23-09, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I think you have me confused with someone that actually cares wether or not an adult wants to ruin their life. My point as i have said from the begining is about kids. If this country spends billions on an attempt to keep as many drugs as possible out the hands of kids then its money well spent.

The argument isn't about adults ruining their life. It's about adults exercising free will (with their own bodies) in a free country.

There are a lot of things we could remove from our society to save children's lives. Guns, cars, airplanes, to name a few. Are you in favor of banning them? Limit the freedom of adults, to save children?

None of the stats even matter because unless you can compare them to stats from an otherwise identical sample group (with only one variable - legality - changed) they prove nothing for either side of the argument. Bottom line, some kids can get access to very dangerous chemicals. Some can't. This is WITH prohibition. After prohibition, would those numbers change? Neither side knows for sure... I don't really think they'd change much. It's not the central issue anyway, it's a diversion.

**Panic** · 11-23-09, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Well lets put it this way not any of those numbers are at 100% so i guess we must be doing something. I know i didn't type this big long ass post for you to read but it only took i sentence to blast your down. So much for the critical thinker.

Forgot to put in your lack of understanding when it comes to critical thinking. You say mj is less harmfull than alcohol and tobacco. Sorry but you are miss guided. Tobacco doesn't really do much of anything. It's the chemicals added to tobacco products that cause almost all of the damage.

Alcohol in moderation is actually good for you. When it is abused it becomes harmfull.

However mj isn't good for you from day one. It has characteristics that make it usefull medically. However there isn't one that is usefull nonmedically.

Is there anything else you would like to add critcal thinker?

This is beyond obscenely wrong. Tobacco is hilariously addictive and harmful for your health, it is, even without the added chemicals, bad for you, chocked full of carcinogens and whatnot. Alcohol has health benefits in small doses, but in the long run and in larger doses is toxic. Plus in the short term would you rather have 1000 drunk college kids fighting each other or 1000 high college kids sleeping?

MJ is, and I will repeat this, non-toxic. Like those markers you drew with in school, non-toxic. You can't overdose on it- if your argument is health based, then its immediately void. Even if you smoked joints (the most combustible e.g. most unhealthy method) all everyday, the cancer causing agents in MJ are insignificant, and has actually shown to prevent cancer and other drugs. You can die from drinking too much water, you can not die from smoking too much MJ.

Even if you don't want your kids to use MJ, legalization is STILL the best way to keep it out of their hands. I can tell you right now it is easier for me to go to school and buy an 8th then it is for me to buy a 6-pack. Bar none. And that is because of the prohibition. If your argument is centered around keeping crime down, look at alcohol prohibition; Al Capone made all of his criminal empire off of the illegal trade of alcohol. The Mexicans and gangs are now doing the same. No one is going to fight over control of the drug routes if I can walk to the corner store and buy a sack. Just like no one murders to control the "alcohol routes".

Environmentally hemp (male MJ plants) makes 10 times as much paper per acre then trees do, and grows in a couple months, as opposed to decades. Hemp is the most versatile plant on earth, its uses range from fabrics, ropes, papers, oils, lubricants, to even food staples.

Economically the taxing of MJ would create huge revenues for the government, while instantly eliminating the laughably large budget we have for fighting MJ (%98 of plants removed by the DEA last year were male, and thus unsmokable plants, planted during WWII by the government to manufacture hemp for the war effort) our prison system is something like %70 drug related (with %85 being MJ) costing billions per year. Even if you just look at arrests, the average arrest costs the tax payers 15 grand, multiply that by the 723,627 arrests for just POSSESSION from 2001 and you get $10,854,405.

Addiction wise, MJ is non-addictive. It, like spring water, can be mentally addictive- but every addiction statistic you have ever seen sprouts from the following system. When an arrest is made the defendant gets the chance to go to jail and pay fines, or go to rehab for their "addiction". They obviously choose rehab and get entered in as an "addicted" statistic.

**Veovis** · 11-23-09, 03:09 PM

Panic, you obviously aren't thinking of the children.

**deathgodusmc** · 11-23-09, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

A quick note,

I have seen in this thread and heard in real life, that many believe smoking tobacco is OK for your health, it is just the chemicals they use in the tobacco that are bad for you. That is 100% not true. Inhaling smoke from anything is carcinogenic and generally deleterious to health. Concentrating and inhaling the smoke is even worse. Further, concentrating and inhaling the smoke as often as a cigarette smoker might is greatly amplifying the carcinogenic effect of the smoke. And the tar (sticky black stuff that accumulates... not the same as road tar) created by burning pure tobacco, sage brush, or construction paper still accumulates and is the major point of concern. The belief that additive free tobacco is OK to smoke is rubbish. Further, many cigarettes have reduced or no longer contain additives due to the myth I see put forward here.

As it turns out green plants are far more carcinogenic to smoke. The chlorophyll has not been metabolized and contains some noxious compounds when it burns. The curing process used in tobacco gets rid of all those high energy pigments and makes a much "smoother" smoking experience. But the quantities in which people tend to smoke green uncured plants to smoking tobacco is very small.

Smoking anything is bad for your health... but smoking cigarettes is usually done in a very large quantity which means that they end up doing more damage.

Who said inhaling smoke was ok for your health? What myth are you reffering to about tobacco products containing chemicals?

**Veovis** · 11-23-09, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Who said inhaling smoke was ok for your health?

YOU did. From the previous page:

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Tobacco doesn't really do much of anything. It's the chemicals added to tobacco products that cause almost all of the damage.

Let me guess, you were referring to the other common use of tobacco, eating it? Snorting it?

**deathgodusmc** · 11-23-09, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by bobbarkerissatan

Originally Posted by [SWC

Erik Thorsen ]
If you really care about kids (And I honestly know you do, which is awesome) you would be for legalization. Why? Because as long as drugs are illegal, criminals will sell them, and as long as criminals sell them, they will sell to anyone. You think drug dealers care if a little kid asks them for weed? No, they'll sell it, they don't care. But what if you go into a liquor store and try to buy a pack of smokes at 15 years old? Much harder to pull off.

For several years now teens have reported illegal drugs being easier to obtain than alcohol and cigarettes. Because the government regulates the latter, and your corner dealer regulates the former.

I really find it interesting that most of the people that will argue against a nany-state and are pro free market and personal responsibility are the same people that will tell you the government needs to protect its citizens against the "evil" MJ and will be hypocrites with alcohol.

I hope this wasn't a round about way to say that i'm a drinker.

Originally Posted by Veovis

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I think you have me confused with someone that actually cares wether or not an adult wants to ruin their life. My point as i have said from the begining is about kids. If this country spends billions on an attempt to keep as many drugs as possible out the hands of kids then its money well spent.

The argument isn't about adults ruining their life. It's about adults exercising free will (with their own bodies) in a free country.

There are a lot of things we could remove from our society to save children's lives. Guns, cars, airplanes, to name a few. Are you in favor of banning them? Limit the freedom of adults, to save children?

None of the stats even matter because unless you can compare them to stats from an otherwise identical sample group (with only one variable - legality - changed) they prove nothing for either side of the argument. Bottom line, some kids can get access to very dangerous chemicals. Some can't. This is WITH prohibition. After prohibition, would those numbers change? Neither side knows for sure... I don't really think they'd change much. It's not the central issue anyway, it's a diversion.

Free will in a free country huh? Let me know when that really exsists then we can debate it.

**Veovis** · 11-23-09, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Free will in a free country huh? Let me know when that really exsists then we can debate it.

In other words, if the direction our country is taking has changed from the vision of its founders, then all arguments to try to restore that vision are null?

How do you figure?

When women couldn't vote, would you have said, get back to me when blacks can vote? Two wrongs don't make a right...

**bobbarkerissatan** · 11-23-09, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by bobbarkerissatan

Originally Posted by [SWC

Erik Thorsen ]
If you really care about kids (And I honestly know you do, which is awesome) you would be for legalization. Why? Because as long as drugs are illegal, criminals will sell them, and as long as criminals sell them, they will sell to anyone. You think drug dealers care if a little kid asks them for weed? No, they'll sell it, they don't care. But what if you go into a liquor store and try to buy a pack of smokes at 15 years old? Much harder to pull off.

For several years now teens have reported illegal drugs being easier to obtain than alcohol and cigarettes. Because the government regulates the latter, and your corner dealer regulates the former.

I really find it interesting that most of the people that will argue against a nany-state and are pro free market and personal responsibility are the same people that will tell you the government needs to protect its citizens against the "evil" MJ and will be hypocrites with alcohol.

I hope this wasn't a round about way to say that i'm a drinker.

No.