Quote:Bruh, you complain about other people being rude and then namecall constantly.
I don't even disagree with what GullLake said in premise, but for you to ask for studies then dismiss them, then ***** about how there are no thinking people here is just all over the map.
You are literally the stereotype of the worst people in political arguments then you turn around and complain about others.
FWIW I have never smoked pot in my life because of drug testing. I just don't pretend to know what's best for everyone. And I know plenty of people who have legitimately benefited from it. The characterization you bring to this board is basically from the "just say no" era-- propaganda and scare tactics.
I didn't namecall, I just said that people who think before they post on these topics are rare-read that anyway you like.
I've smoked pot, not a lot but enough to know that THC does not react the same way with everyone. It has a tendency to make some folks paranoid and can create visual effects on others. It's reaction is unpredictable, so those who claim it's just an 'innocent and controllable high' are simply wrong.
My argument is legalizing another drug which distorts perceptions IS going to have detrimental effects on our society, not the least being traffic accidents and fatalities. There is no question that is going to be adversely impacted, the other side may argue about the quantitative impact, but they don't argue with the basic premise.
Anyone who has been to Amsterdam 50 years ago and again recently can attest to what 'anything goes' has done to that city. Certainly rampant drug use has been a major detrimental factor. It's not responsible for everything negative, but certainly for large parts of it.
As for alcohol, you could ban it tomorrow and it wouldn't impact my lifestyle, I'm a teatotaler at the worst. I have a beer or glass of wine every few weeks and never drink hard liquor. It's bad for you, so why do it?