11-04-2015, 11:16 AM
(11-04-2015, 11:09 AM)PDub80 Wrote: It is a substance ingested for chemical impairment. Medically, I get it. But, doctors have helped people abuse prescriptions and medically cleared things forever. I am all for medical drugs (even weed) for people in need... but that system gets abused. So much stiffer penalties need put in place for doctors who do so with ANY drug before I could be on board with legalizing something.
- You can have a beer or two and not be wasted.... You can smoke a single cigarette and have it not impair you.
- You can't smoke a joint or two and not be F'd up. Other than medically, the purpose of it is to get high. The purpose of alcohol is not to get drunk/wasted unless it's abused. ANYTHING can be abused, so lets not get into that as it's a circular argument. Where do we, as society, draw the line with recreational substances where their purpose is to impair?
Not physically addicting? There are a lot of studies out there with all sorts of different numbers on that. It is mentally addicting and this is something that I have found plenty of research validating. Before you jump in with the fact that lots of things can be mentally addicting... yes, but NOT things that are designed and sold for the purpose of impairment through singular use.
To reiterate, where does society draw the line on making impairing substances available for normal public consumption? Why should the pot smokers have a right to impair themselves, but the ecstasy crowd can't? What about the people who want to do cocaine? Or meth? What does society say to them when they point to cigarettes, weed, and alcohol as legal, viable ways to get F'd up and say that their personal vices and decisions should be allowed as well? A line has to be drawn (doesn't it?), and I am ok with that being at weed.
you are wrong about your assesment but carry on
