4 ms·

Your welcome to believe that it is bad for you and that you don't want to do it, but I disagree that that should translate to you saying other people can't do s

Your welcome to believe that it is bad for you and that you don't want to do it, but I disagree that that should translate to you saying other people can't do something. We could easily replace pot with any number of substances, even legal psychoactive drugs. There are plenty of alcoholics in this world, does that mean that if I can enjoy alcohol occasionally and responsibly I shouldn't be able to? Many anxiety patients abuse their benzodiazapines, should patients that follow prescribed treatment and benefit from them also be made into villains? I'm sorry for anyone who becomes dependent upon anything and hope they get help, I have experienced it with members of my own family. I'd like to think that a legal structure and clear education would help (though I don't recall in High School ever being given any instruction on responsible drinking, which should happen in my opinion). But some of us benefit from smoking within reason, from indulging in the rare psychoactive break from reality, that some people have problems with these things - doesn't mean everyone does. Edit: I realize in the opening I use "you" saying other people shouldn't do it. In your comment, you don't make any explicit mention of supporting prohibition, and was using you there in the plural sense, apologize for the comment.

rick888 15y ago
I see the drug overlords have again down-modded me for not being a troll and merely stating my opinion on the matter. "Your welcome to believe that it is bad for you and that you don't want to do it, but I disagree that that should translate to you saying other people can't do something." I'm fine with it as long as users of these drugs have to pay higher medical fees (if we ever have government-run health care). The MJ bill in CA that didn't pass also would have made it difficult for an employer to fire an employee that uses regularly. This isn't okay with me.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  And to be consistent, I'm sure you'll endorse higher medical fees (and abridged employment) for users of other, more dangerous substances such as alcohol, acetaminophen, and redundant girlfriends, to name but a few.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  You don't get it, the MJ bill did not prevent employers from firing employees if they were not competent or able to keep up with their work or if they were impaired by their drug use. Again, you have the hand shaking, scary notion of marijuana, and it's frankly silly to the rest of us. People don't have higher associated medical costs because of marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, etc. It's a completely unfounded, fearful assumption on your part, frankly born of ignorance.
  - rick888 15y ago
    "People don't have higher associated medical costs because of marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, etc. It's a completely unfounded" proof? You can't honestly tell me that that nobody has higher associated medical costs as a result of MJ, LSD, and shrooms. Now who's being naive.. I actually might support MJ. However, my problem is that not only do you want it legalized, but you want to spread the false notion that it's actually ok (and actually has health benefits) to do these drugs.

rick888 15y ago

I see the drug overlords have again down-modded me for not being a troll and merely stating my opinion on the matter. "Your welcome to believe that it is bad for you and that you don't want to do it, but I disagree that that should translate to you saying other people can't do something." I'm fine with it as long as users of these drugs have to pay higher medical fees (if we ever have government-run health care). The MJ bill in CA that didn't pass also would have made it difficult for an employer to fire an employee that uses regularly. This isn't okay with me.

nate_meurer 15y ago
And to be consistent, I'm sure you'll endorse higher medical fees (and abridged employment) for users of other, more dangerous substances such as alcohol, acetaminophen, and redundant girlfriends, to name but a few.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
drivebyacct2 15y ago
You don't get it, the MJ bill did not prevent employers from firing employees if they were not competent or able to keep up with their work or if they were impaired by their drug use. Again, you have the hand shaking, scary notion of marijuana, and it's frankly silly to the rest of us. People don't have higher associated medical costs because of marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, etc. It's a completely unfounded, fearful assumption on your part, frankly born of ignorance.
- rick888 15y ago
  "People don't have higher associated medical costs because of marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, etc. It's a completely unfounded" proof? You can't honestly tell me that that nobody has higher associated medical costs as a result of MJ, LSD, and shrooms. Now who's being naive.. I actually might support MJ. However, my problem is that not only do you want it legalized, but you want to spread the false notion that it's actually ok (and actually has health benefits) to do these drugs.