Study: Marijuana helps fight cancer

[GenSeneca]

What I have agreed with is the banning of smoking inside public establishments, which considering the dangers of secondhand smoke doesn't seem too much to ask.

What do you mean by "public"?

I don't think you have any right to tell a private citizen whether or not to allow smoking in his building just because its open to the public.

If you own a business, say a bar, shouldn't you get to decide if its smoking or non smoking? I think that should be a decision entirely left to the business owner and busy bodies need to mind their own business.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What do you mean by "public"?

I don't think you have any right to tell a private citizen whether or not to allow smoking in his building just because its open to the public.

If you own a business, say a bar, shouldn't you get to decide if its smoking or non smoking? I think that should be a decision entirely left to the business owner and busy bodies need to mind their own business.

And the way that worked, ended up limiting about 90% of restaurants, all bars, the bowling ally ( where she was on leagues) due to health issues. This of course meant that none of the rest of the family could go as well, unless we did not go with her. Also its nice to be able to go shoot pool and not come home smelling like a ashtray...so personally I could care less if people cant kill them self ( and others) at the bar or restaurant,

 

[Andy]

And the way that worked, ended up limiting about 90% of restaurants, all bars, the bowling ally ( where she was on leagues) due to health issues. This of course meant that none of the rest of the family could go as well, unless we did not go with her. Also its nice to be able to go shoot pool and not come home smelling like a ashtray...so personally I could care less if people cant kill them self ( and others) at the bar or restaurant,

So you are ok with denying other people their rights, as long as you don't lose your rights. Funny how you have a cow if a non-American citizen isn't given the legal rights of citizen, yet you have no problem whatsoever taking away the rights of the bar owner to determine if people can smoke in his bar, let alone the right of the people to use a legal product.

Hypocrite.

 

[Pandora]

So you are ok with denying other people their rights, as long as you don't lose your rights. Funny how you have a cow if a non-American citizen isn't given the legal rights of citizen, yet you have no problem whatsoever taking away the rights of the bar owner to determine if people can smoke in his bar, let alone the right of the people to use a legal product.

Hypocrite.

Priceless post!

 

[Chip]

Yeah......let's hear it, for the pharmaceutical-industry.

Wall Street WOULD appreciate it.

​

Here the pro-pot sympathizer, maybe even a druggie himself, does the absolute worse thing he can do to argue his cause: cite an anti-THC pharmaceutical reference from the number one pro-pot of, by, and for druggies site on the planet: Norml.

Norml's one and only agenda is the legalization of the addictive drug street-pot to thereby facilitate the compulsive abuse of its members.

Thus anything quoted from Norml is completely untrustworthy.

Here Norml slams good THC-based legitimate pharmaceuticals, saying, in effect, that they don't work ...

... Which, not only isn't true, but which really means: "Gimme my drug!!!"

Anyone who cites "Norml" to back their cause has lost from the get-go.

 

[Chip]

Maybe everyone-else needs to get-a-LIFE....and, quit worrying about what others are doing with their lives!!! (Most-of-us already HAVE Mothers. )

I realize that'll force everyone-else to start dealing with their OWN issues....but, you've gotta start doing that, some time. It's part o' the whole maturation-process. Try some.

​

Translation: "I don't care if I endanger the security and lives of others by advocating pot abuse, I don't care if pot-heads drive stoned or wield guns and injure and kill others as statistics show they do so often, I don't care that all the potential addicts become active addicts, creating a completely stoned world, all I care about is acting out my unresolved controlled-by issues, no matter who will most definitely experience direct cause-and-effect injury and death as a result."



Indeed, those suffering unresolved controlled-by issues, addicts, money-lovers, other utilitarians, care not about the obvious cause-and-effect damage and death that would permeate humanity from the legalization of the addictive drug street-pot.

They only care about acting out their unresolved dramas in a public forum.

The reality remains ...

... That there are already THC-derivative pharmaceuticals that work well for their intended purpose, and that more are being investigated for creation by legitimate pharmaceutical companies to satisfy additional medical needs.

There simply is no need to legalize street-pot for medical purposes, none at all.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Translation: "I don't care if I endanger the security and lives of others by advocating pot abuse, I don't care if pot-heads drive stoned or wield guns and injure and kill others as statistics show they do so often, I don't care that all the potential addicts become active addicts, creating a completely stoned world, all I care about is acting out my unresolved controlled-by issues, no matter who will most definitely experience direct cause-and-effect injury and death as a result."



Indeed, those suffering unresolved controlled-by issues, addicts, money-lovers, other utilitarians, care not about the obvious cause-and-effect damage and death that would permeate humanity from the legalization of the addictive drug street-pot.

They only care about acting out their unresolved dramas in a public forum.

The reality remains ...

... That there are already THC-derivative pharmaceuticals that work well for their intended purpose, and that more are being investigated for creation by legitimate pharmaceutical companies to satisfy additional medical needs.

There simply is no need to legalize street-pot for medical purposes, none at all.

And you dont care if you promote the loss or rights, and promoting violance with a failed drug war on pot...

 

[Chip]

And you dont care if you promote the loss or rights,

But I don't promote the loss of rights by opposing legalization of damaging and deadly street-pot.

I affirm the foundational right to life and the freedom-overriding right to security of those whom pot addicts historically guaranteed cause-and-effect injure and kill with cars and guns and etc. while stoned.

Be careful about screaming, "freedom, freedom, freedom!", Pockets -- if you aren't also going to equally give more paramount due to the rights of life and security, or you'll become noted for being an extremist.

and promoting violance with a failed drug war on pot...

Translation: "I choose the coward's way out -- let's just lie down and let these violent druggie soldiers do whatever they want to our children and the billions of potential addicts who would kill even more people in their cars, etc."

Really, Pockets, you would do well to look at the matter just a little deeper than the superficial.

The violence in the drug war is caused, not by the defenders, we who don't want the scourge of damaging and deadly drugs stoning our children and our entire society into a stupor, but by the druggie soldiers and their armed and violent invasion.

The drug war is succeeding in preventing the stoning death of our society, as, right now, only 1% -- that's 1% -- of the population abuses pot. If we who are defending just this country alone were to cowardly lie down and surrender to the druggie stoned soldiers, the over 90% potential addicts who are dissuaded by law from acting out their addiction would then become active, adding tens of millions of active addicts to our nation, thereby turning this country into a horror of tragedy.

So, you are wrong -- the drug war is not "failing", it is succeeding big time.

The original poster in this thread was simply trying to get street-pot legalized to support his drug addiction.

He could care less about those who might benefit from THC-based pharmaceuticals that already exist and are working just fine.

There are a number of THC-based pharmaceuticals out there already, and more are being investigate, obviously, for additional needs.

That in no way justifies the legalization of damaging and deadly street-pot.

Additional pharmaceutical needs are to be met by FDA-approved pharmaceutical companies functioning within the respected law.

We people who get that are not the problem.

The problem is the 1% pot-addict abusers and their extremist "freedom, freedom, freedom!" at any life-and-security price sympathizers who ignorantly support them.