1
38

[–] murraryrothbard 1 points 38 points (+39|-1) ago 

I don't understand the resistance to legalized weed from right wingers. Aren't we the side that believes in facts and limited govt? There is no fact that exists that places weed as more dangerous than alcohol and we plenty well tolerate that. The "gateway" myth needs to die already, wake the fuck up people!

1
39

[–] dirt-reynolds 1 points 39 points (+40|-1) ago 

It's not right wingers. It's the God Squad and old people. They are definitely part of the right but so am I and I say legalize the shit out of it.

2
24

[–] wahala 2 points 24 points (+26|-2) ago 

And cops. How else would they be able to use their BS line that we see all the time on Cops & LivePD, "I smell marijuana. I get to search everything you own now." Pot is a method for cops to illegally search and they don't want to give up that ace in their sleeve.

1
7

[–] Koalemos_Grottesco 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

No, there definitely is a new breed of younger right wingers that are against legalization and aren't overly religious. They are the ones that have lost themselves in the "muh degeneracy" spiral so that they are on the fast track to becoming the moral outrage npcs from the 50s where anything they don't like is "degenerate" and must be outrightly banned.

You see it on /pol/ and it is dangerous for the rise of the right because that spiral will lead to us losing the culture war.

0
4

[–] Robobob 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Not all old people either. I know a lot of old people who smoke pot. I am pretty old myself.

0
1

[–] saris 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I actually thought it was the weed growers themselves, they want to keep it illegal to keep competition low and profit(costs) high. Most old people now are hippies, and the God crowd have bigger things to worry about now, like Muslims being able to do things in their stores that Christians cannot. I don't think Christians actually care about marijuana nowadays

[–] [deleted] 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] Warmoose76 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Damn straight, that's why alot of pot growers are against legalization. Then big companies like Mos Santo will be growing it and they will make all the money, while the little guy can no longer compete, it will be harder for the little guy to get licenses but not the huge corporations.

0
0

[–] murraryrothbard 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The damage to civil liberties outweigh any negative by a mile. The power the war on drugs grants the police state is something on the scale of communist countries in the 1960s.

1
8

[–] tendiesonfloor 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

D.A.R.E. propaganda was extremely effective at brainwashing a lot of dull witted people.

0
3

[–] thrushlimberger 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It sure got a lot of kids to huff duster.

0
8

[–] badruns 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Obama specifically avoided the topic of legalization legislation when campaigning and when he was in office. It's not partisan.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] NicknameUnavailable 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It's partisan but it's old partisanship. Obama avoided it because it's a non-issue which polarizes people into fighting eachother instead of the leadership - those are valuable issues when you have an actual system of globalists vs nationalists. It allows you to separate the overwhelming majority who are nationalist (aka everyone who isn't rich and powerful enough to benefit from a board position on a multinational corporation) into "left" and "right" while still voting straight down the globalist ticket (spying, "free trade," etc) and pretending nothing people actually want to happen is because "the other side" just wouldn't reach an agreement. Millennials couldn't care less about pot and are starting to replace the boomers so it's easy to pick out tired old propaganda which tries to divide people along whether or not to legalize pot - neither "side" wanted to actual settle the issue one way or another because it wasn't an issue, it was a tactic.

0
15

[–] farthat 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago  (edited ago)

When you take away someone's choice to manage their own life, expect it to go badly.

The law should exist to stop people harming OTHER people, not themselves.

All that money that would have been spent on demonising these people, could be spent on helping these people (better mental health support would be a good start), with money from taxing the previously banned activities to spare.

3
1

[–] SHIVASHIVASHIVA 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago 

Thanks to feminism, subsaharrans and israel, our culture is one of cannibalism...

0
0

[–] NicknameUnavailable 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The law exists to keep a population of slave labor running at maximum efficiency - this includes convincing them they aren't slaves.

0
11

[–] RemoteViewer1 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,. its a secret. Don't get too loud the Pharmy-Kid Fucking Mafia that runs the US Gov'ment will silence you

0
8

[–] 0fsgivin 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I don't think most people realize that combined the medical industry is by far the largest donors/lobbyists in the country.

2
-1

[–] SHIVASHIVASHIVA 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

What’s the difference between an organization like the nazis and an organization like the pharmaceutical industry, both are saying we control the resources, you must do it our way... and yet jews are controlling the pharmaceutical industry, jews must be shallow and stupid not to see the irony.

2
1

[–] saris 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

WHy not make a super pac of your own, with millions of citizens donating like $20 a month and send your own lobbyists to washington. You guys gotta put in the work if you want things changed.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
5

[–] HorseIsDead 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

I say legal age of 18. While we're bullshitting and pretending you need to be as old as 18 to consent to sex, buy cigarettes, etc, alcohol was only set at 21 because it reduces drunk driving deaths supposedly, you don't really see a lot of "cannabis driving deaths". If an 18 year old can be tried as an adult they deserve all the rights a person any age above them has. Other than maybe the president at 35 thing.

1
2

[–] SHIVASHIVASHIVA 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

being high is not a crime, harming another is a crime.... unrelated.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] MedicalMountainGoat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

How high do you have to be at the time of arrest? Ate a brownie 8 hours before going to sleep last night enough? What if its a pothead who smokes 10 joins per hour and you cant even tell hes high because of a crazy tolerance? Its not really comparable to alcohol in terms of impairment either, so why should the punishment be the same. What we need is a test to determine whether you are competent at operating a motor vehicle. Rudimentary physical tasks and reaction times or perhaps do some futuristic shit where you get a vr headset and a steering wheel and have to do a driving course that simulates a regular drive.

4
-3

[–] CallASpadeASpade 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago 

Legal age of 21

I’d rather it be illegal BEYOND the age of 21. Under 21 OK as long as you don’t smoke too much.

0
2

[–] Hackerman 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

i'm pretty sure that it's been proven that marijuana fucks up your brain's development before it's actually settled down, in your mid-twenties. so... yeah, no

1
2

[–] tmlftw223 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

People keep shaming pot all the time, but it actually does good things.

1
-1

[–] Hackerman 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

all cancer patients need to be ingesting pot. there's also SO MANY different diseases that are brought under complete control by regularly ingesting CBD, replacing incredibly harmful pill cocktails. it's darn right irresponsible that weed is illegal, tbqh fam

0
2

[–] freedumbz 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Intriguing, but I want to see the white papers. Fuck you paywall.

1
2

[–] ToFat2Fish 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Yea weed is definitely going to be the cure to the opiate crisis. I don't even smoke anymore but I see the benefits of it. So long as people don't go overboard and stay in a perpetual state of the Highness there's really no ill effects

2
6

[–] ZYX321 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago  (edited ago)

there's really no ill effects

Let's not go crazy. You can still can get lung cancer.

There were 79 cases of lung cancer and 324 controls. The risk of lung cancer increased 8% (95% CI 2% to 15%) for each joint-year of cannabis smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking, and 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) for each pack-year of cigarette smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cannabis smoking. The highest tertile of cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer RR=5.7 (95% CI 1.5 to 21.6), after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking.

From their introduction:

Cannabis smoke is qualitatively similar to tobacco smoke, although it contains up to twice the concentration of the carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons.[1] Cannabis is less densely packed than tobacco cigarettes, and tends to be smoked without filters [2] to a smaller butt size,[3] leading to higher concentrations of smoke inhaled. Furthermore, smokers of cannabis inhale more deeply and hold their breath for longer,[4] facilitating the deposition of the carcinogenic products in the lower respiratory tract. These factors are likely to be responsible for the five-fold greater absorption of carbon monoxide from a cannabis joint, compared with a tobacco cigarette of similar size despite similar carbon monoxide concentrations in the smoke inhaled.[4] Several studies have demonstrated pre-cancerous histological [5,6] and molecular [7] abnormalities in the respiratory tracts of cannabis smokers, and the carcinogenic effects of cannabis smoke have been demonstrated in vitro [8] and in different in vivo animal models. Conversely, there is also evidence that delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol may have anti-carcinogenic effects.[11-13]

The meme that it's a plant and so is pure and good and Mother Earth will heal you for smoking it... Inhaling smoke is bad.

But I'm just salty because I get drug screened at work. Grrr.

0
6

[–] is_pepsi_okay 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Ive heard that vaporizers get you just as high but avoid some of the carcinogens because it doesn't get hot enough to burn.

So I bet the study would vary based on how the smoke was created.

1
3

[–] tendiesonfloor 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

You can still can get lung cancer.

From my tinctures and edibles? I'd be impressed to see that happen. When you legalize it, smart people choose other methods to consume besides smoking.

0
1

[–] AnarchicAlpaca 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

OK, sure any time you inhale smoke you will have adverse reactions... In that case weed can be anything. Fact is there's a hundred different ways to still benefit from cannabis and canabanoids that would severely undermine the place of the pharmaceutical fraud industry.

0
0

[–] UchihaMadara 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

But I'm just salty because I get drug screened at work. Grrr.

There are bags of fake urine you can use for that.

0
1

[–] knightwarrior41 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

druggies, always making excuses for their vice

load more comments ▼ (10 remaining)