|11-24-2012 04:19 PM|
|455olds||I am also in constant pain for the last 12 years. I am 43 years old and it severely limits your life. I lost my job of 13 years in July because my Dr limited my driving more than 2 hours a day. If pot helped pain like mine I think I could function better on it than pain killers. Chronic pain is terrible to live with and too many people "fake" it to obtain the meds. I have a spinal cord implant to manage the pain and it helps but not enough. I would gladly flush my meds if I could walk without them, I walk like I am 90 without meds and there is nothing more they can do for me. I would try pot if legal and have witnessed the destruction alcohol does. How many potheads run into a busload of school children? If they did they would be going 10 miles an hour in my opinion.|
|11-24-2012 03:23 PM|
|11-24-2012 08:46 AM|
|gearheadslife||I don't care what someone does on there time as long as come time to work your head better be clear..|
|11-24-2012 08:10 AM|
|bob70||My final thought: I'll opt for individual freedom so long as it does not infringe on the freedom of anyone else. I do not accept the common rationale that we have to bar this or that because some who misuse this or that may then do something which infringes on the rights or safety of others. Ban the specific behavior, not it's perceived precursors. Example: we don't ban drinking alcohol, although we rightfully ban drunk driving.|
|11-24-2012 06:37 AM|
but thats a whole other thread
|11-24-2012 05:45 AM|
|11-24-2012 04:20 AM|
|poncho62||My opinion........Some of us are smart enough to not smoke cigarettes, drink to excess. ..Adding pot to that for recreational use is just another thing for the stupid people.....Seems that the old saying is true..."You cant fix stupid".......Another wrong doesnt make it right.|
|11-24-2012 04:14 AM|
I want to be governed and regulated by people who actually live here in our State. How in the world could a Senator from Massachusetts know what's best for us Texans?
|11-23-2012 09:27 PM|
Finally a topic that my views are the ones of the majority. That gives me such a warm feeling.
Pot is considerably more benign than alcohol. The only reason it has a negative rep is because William Randolf Hearst, the owner of major newspapers and pulp mills didn't want to compete with the superior product that hemp was over pulp. He used his newspapers for yellow journalism to preach the evils of pot so that the government under pressure of the citizens would re-classify as a dangerous drug, and as most of you already know, is safer than asprin.
|11-23-2012 08:36 PM|
Thank you, Gearheads. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
A long forgotten and ignored part of our highest law of the land, but one that has never been rescinded and one we'd do well to rediscover and reapply.
|11-23-2012 08:28 PM|
on every issue.. not just this one.
|11-23-2012 08:26 PM|
The first definition of slacker in the Oxford College Dictionary is: a person who avoids work or effort.
That definition has nothing to do with obedience to laws. Sad to say, but in this day and age it's hard to get up, eat breakfast and go to work without breaking some law, so to equate illegal acts with being a slacker by the above dictionary definition is simply not accurate.
I do hope you're not trying to say that all laws are, by definition, just. We have, in this country, a rich history of overturning bad laws, alcohol prohibition being among the most well known and clearest parallels to drug prohibition.
|11-23-2012 08:13 PM|
|lakeroadster||Justify it any way you want, but in the end we are a country built on laws. Federal law trumps state law, and federal law says possesion of weed and smoking weed is illegal. This applies to "All" of us. If you are smoking weed and you know it is illegal you are by default, by most definitions, a slacker.|
|11-23-2012 08:09 PM|
|bob70||I have been drug tested on a regular basis for many years, also. However, there are many professions where drug testing is not a condition of employment. Also, drug testing has been in effect for only about 20 years in the trades with which I'm familiar. I'm sure many who made their living in those trades only gave up their dope smoking of necessity, not because they suddenly switched from being slackers to achievers. I don't believe one can make that correlation that drug users are slackers by definition. In fact, it seems to me that those who gave up their drugs of choice in order to maintain a livelihood prove the point that there is no correlation because they are obviously responsible citizens who made the decision to do what was necessary to meet the requirements of their trade.|
|11-23-2012 07:54 PM|
|bob70||He did use the word "all" but you're correct. He could have been referring only to those dope smokers who are slackers, as opposed to the high achievers. A few of our recent Presidents spring to mind! Actually, I think they would have made good candidates for relocation as well.|
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|