**GRAPHIC** Bath Salt Lunatic Tortures Dog in Jonesborough, TN

every time I go in to buy it, I have to wait in line.

 

It's a new high, and it's a cheap high. Look at the highest meth producing places in TN. Lower income areas that had a drug problem before meth was popular.

I don't see how it doesn't come about regardless of what happens with the war on drugs. As long as there are people who want a drug high and people who want to make money, its was going to happen.

 

there will always be some dumbshit who is out of money and decides to try to smoke or snort whatever is around the house. if it works people will do it. making it legal doesn't stop people from being idiots. also i bet legal drugs would be extremely expensive compared to this stuff.

 

Well, we can split hairs all day about the (admittedly) well-known differences in the effects of different drugs on the human body - but the end result of all drugs is the same, to get "high" (even if "high" is to numb / deaden / lessen physical / mental / emotional response), or to gain an "altered state", if you will.

So, while alcohol comes in a million flavors, and can have wide-range of effects on an individual (tequila effects some people differently than vodka may, or certainly a beer would), the reason that people drink is to get drunk. And as liquor is more potent than beer, it can get you more drunk, more quickly, with less.

And, drugs come in a million variations (flavors), and can have wide-range of effects on an individual (cocaine effects some people differently than oxycodone may, or certainly than marijuana would), the reason that people do drugs is to get high. And as cocaine / oxy / heroin / etc. is more potent than marijuana, it can get you higher, more quickly, and with less.

So, if all of this is true (it is), then it stands in stark contrast to the misguided assertion that the legalization of marijuana would somehow magically curb the use of other "harder" or "more potent" drugs, such as cocaine / oxy / heroin / etc. And we can see this in actual practice, insofar as their are unmistakable correlations between drugs and alcohol.

So, my point is that if the legalization of marijuana would truly curb the use of other drugs, then how to explain that millions and millions of people still drink liquor, despite the fact that beer is both perfectly legal, heavily taxed, regulated and easily available?

It wouldn't curb the use of other drugs, whatsoever, but would instead simply increase the total number of people who were using drugs, and in turn, would not only increase the already mountainous societal burdens that they already now cause to occur, but exponentially so.

It would mean more addicts, more drugged drivers, more healthcare costs, a less active and able *********, and any number of horrible outcomes that are - quite literally - too innumerous to conceive, nor certainly to count.

AND FOR WHAT, EXACTLY?

So that some people can buy / sell and smoke weed without fear of being cited by the police (unless you're running or distributing, you likely wouldn't even get that), or that they're made to feel as scofflaws while doing so? Medical reasons? First, the drug Marinol contains the exact same THC metabolite as does marijuana - and produces the vast majority of the "positive" effects as smoking weed causes to occur. Why isn't this an option? Because it doesn't get you high, that's why. Where studies have shown that the actual act of smoking marijuana can produce a greater medicinal effect than the simple oral ingesting of Marinol (and there are instances of this), it is almost universally agreed that it should be allowed. But, as it would only allow a very small percentage of people with the most serious and medically validated health conditions (most, in the final stages of a terminal illness) to actually smoke marijuana, in lieu of Marinol, it too is left unconsidered and largely ignored as a perfectly suitable position to take. And why? Because the legalization is not being driven by what is most medically efficacious, but (spoiler alert) by those who simply want to legalize it for no other reason than to be able to (legally) get high.

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to risk even the possibility of 1% of the bad things which could possibly occur, however implausibly, for that. The risk is too great, and the reward is too small.

 

Oh, your argument is with IP.

 

Like I said,

1) my argument is that illegalization led to the creation of harder substances. I didn't say there would be less hard drug use if we legalized marijuana, or that there wouldn't. My argument has been that illegalization is what brought us to where we are today with bath salts and shit. There's a big distinction between that and saying Marijuana will magically make all the nasty stuff go away and no one will eat anyone's face ever again.

2) I live in a state where Marijuana is legal, and the world has kept on spinning. The only side effects I know of are increased tax revenue and suffering terminal patients able to get relief from medicine-induced nausea. This is a real place in the real world where legalization of marijuana has been GOOD.

 

You got further than me. That article has more holes than a screen door. I quit when it only cited the amount of imprisonment of marijuana users as the "cost" of enforcement.

I went back and looked at a couple more paragraphs. This guy is wanting big brother to big time take care of you.

 

On the original post, it sounds awful, but it should be nothing more than a property issue.

I hate it that Honey died. I would beat the guy if he was mine, but it's a dog.

 

1. What are the holes, exactly? Maybe I missed them, but am open to where they may be.
2. What was the "Big Brother" aspect to his argument, exactly? Do you mean his assertion in the benefits of upholding the rule of law?

Barring specific examples, I'll assume that your argument centers around your dislike of it, and little else.

 

I'm glad that Honey died. Most unfortunate, but humane aspect of the entire story.

 

It's still irreplaceable property damage, if it is property damage.

And I do think the killing of someone else's livestock, if you want to think of the dog as property, is a pretty terrible thing that is a step removed from family.

 

Torturing animals for the hell of it should be punished more than stealing a pair of sunglasses. I'm not sure how anyone couldn't see the difference.

 

Pets are so loved because we project and imprint our own humanity on to the animals, and they reflect that back on us-- whether that is purely an adapted response to domestication or an actual reciprocity of emotion is a debate for another thread. Either way, torturing a pet is essentially torturing a source of comfort, affection, and companionship of human beings. It is most definitely a higher offense to a person, with far more damage than just a piece of property of the same monetary value would be.

 

It's pretty simple. Animals are property.

 

1. I wonder if your assertion could withstand tracing the lineage of drugs from inception to its common use use in this country. If the illegalization of marijuana has served to cause the inception of "harder drugs" - wouldn't that, by definition, mean that marijuana was first - then became illegal - and then we see a boom in the harder stuff. I don't know the answer, just wondering. And to your point....would you say that legalizing marijuana would lessen drug use - both of marijuana and other "hard drugs", cause it to rise, or have no impact on it?

2. I don't think that anyone believes that legalizing marijuana would interrupt the Earth's rotation, even in hyperbole. I don't know what Colorado's ROI will be long-term, but yes, I'd enjoy whatever surplus it will temporarily provide. I don't think that asking "What does it hurt?" is the best question, which may be "What does it help?", instead. If we asked what it has helped in Colorado (virtually no one opposes marijuana use for terminal patients, so lets set that one aside) - so far we have increased tax revenue, but what else has it helped, ostensibly, more than saving pot smokers from harassment (or as I call it "the only true benefit anyone cares about")?

 

your chair isn't sentient

 

Weird how folks will cry and cry over a dog or horse, but just replace a car.

 

Think you mean conscious

 

1. Looking at Colorado, legalizing marijuana would have no impact on harder drugs and a marginal increase in marijuana use in my opinion. But it would serve as a market placeholder, an impediment to the profitability of new designer drugs. Why would someone make "Spice" if pot is prevalent and cheap? They wouldn't.

2. Why would we set the use of terminal patients aside? The federal government DOES OPPOSE terminal patients and other medically deserving people from using it. They will prosecute anyone supplying it to them, although they don't have the balls to go after the patients themselves. It shifts the profits from illegal and nefarious groups such as Mexican cartels, gangs, etc. that commit acts of violence and are involved in other sorts of organized crime, to small business owners that are regulated and paying to the system. That's a big deal, imo.

 

brain fart