88! Started with FedEx when I was 57.
Continuing Reagan’s failed War on Drugs.
- Thread starter El Correcto
- Start date
Well that's good because you sure didn't work it off.
Didn't say they would. They have isolated the other qualities that help, so IF they could isolate the properties of THC it would be good. Otherwise it should only be administered to those in need in a controlled setting IMO. Not just to get high.They do isolate THC it’s thethat takes you to the moon when you eat a brownie. I doubt they’ll make some miracle form of THC that doesn’t give people that high.
floridays
Well-Known Member
So you are that old pos, I've worked with you. BTW you left a 1/2 case of depends in your locker.
Should've seen the other half!
floridays
Well-Known Member
Quick wit for an 88 year old leaker.
oldngray
nowhere special
I've known the little
I don't like him.
I don't care if it helps or not ... this is the TROLLING forum and he does look like the Keebler Elf.
View attachment 174017
View attachment 174016
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
What are the positive effects of alcohol and nicotine that allow their legality in your twisted worldview?
newfie
Well-Known Member
is that the we've legalized other things that are bad for you so we should legalize more things that are bad for you argument?
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
I don't think the state should tell citizens they can't get high. If you're going to claim weed should only be legal for it's positive benefits what are the positive benefits of nicotine? Why is the state picking winners and losers in the getting high business?
I don't see a positive to nicotine at all but alcohol in moderation, particularly red wine, has been shown to have good effects too. I don't think intoxication for recreation is a good idea as it leads to numerous problems. If that's twisted to you so be it.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
So should nicotine be banned and alcohol only administered in controlled environments for its benefits?
newfie
Well-Known Member
you keep trying to make the argument that nicotine and alcohol justify pot. I answered that question early in this present discussion. I am for legalizing pot , I am against using it in any way while its illegal. we are a nation of laws, don't like the law get it changed.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
That's not what Van is arguing. He thinks the state should tell you what drugs you can use and how you use them and for what purpose. The people have clearly spoken as to what they want the law to be. At least medicinal use is legal in 29 states but the federal government is not following suit and enforcing their tyrannical viewpoint.
newfie
Well-Known Member
sure if someone wants pot legalized and they have a better chance of doing so through the state then they will argue that the state should decide.
and if he wants something else passed and the fed provides the best opportunity of getting it done then he will argue that the fed should decide.
Obama exercised lazy legislation with immigration and pot as two examples. he didn't want to do the hard work of getting the law changed so he decided he would not enforce those laws.
bottomups
Bad Moon Risen'
They did change the law - Prohibition. How did that work out for us?
newfie
Well-Known Member
We convince our selves that prohibition did not work and that somehow we are better off have legalized alcohol. anyone who has lost a family member to a drunk driver will disagree.
trump has lost a brother to alcohol and abstains from any drinking. you can call him whatever name pleases you but one thing he is very principled on is the fight against addicting substances. To him this issue is very personal.
newfie
Well-Known Member
ok , works for me, too many distracted drivers.
newfie
Well-Known Member
you must have blacked out then in your last post.
Similar threads
