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

1. I only read to cost, so from my vantage point, it is one big hole. I should have phrased it differently.

2. When I went back and read the couple of paragraphs following the idiotically simple relationship of cost to imprisonment of marijuana users, I noticed that enforcement of use laws was to be paired with re-education (or treatment or whatever). Hmm, pick you up and teach you how to think. Sounds big brother-ish to me.

The whole thing was created to argue in favor of marijuana laws and enforcement. Do you honestly think it was going to provide a balanced, well thought out piece on the topic?

I admit. I should have read the whole article before figuring out that it was going to skew statistics for its own purpose, but it's my day off work. I have spent all week reviewing POS documents there, and I need a break.

 

not sure i agree. I can go down venice beach and currently get a pot perscription and go to a local pot club and get hooked up. Yes it's "easy," but it's a hell of a lot easier to go to the local 7-11 and the local 7-11 doesn't have my name in some database. i'd have to believe full on legalizing pot would make use significantly more common simply by taking away a lot of stigma. not that i give a crap though.

 

I would have thought the same, but here in CO anyone with a headache can get a prescription but only mostly the folks who were already occasional smokers have bothered. Number of users probably hasn't changed very much, aside from legitimate medical needs. Amount smoked has probably increased a lot.

Just my observation, I could be off or CO could be different than CA.

 

Tenny, could you give me a brief list of the main points as to why marijuana should be illegal? I.e., 1) gateway drug, 2) bad for health, 3) intoxicant, etc?

 

Freud may argue that claim.

 

it's the same in california, but you still have to go get that prescription and go to the club to buy it. i'm sure, as an example, if we restricted alcohol consumption to this type of legality we'd see a significant drop in both quantity and bredth. don't get me wrong, i'm 100% with you that it's a waste of money to not make pot legal, but i think it's a bit of an absurd argument to argue that pot use wouldn't go up. it's kind of like arguing burger consumption wouldn't go up if mcdonalds trippled their stores in new mexico or whatever.

 

If you own one, yes. It should be and is still against the law to torture animals whether someone owns them or not. So, whether property or not, it's still outlawed, and that's exactly the way it should be and is all across the country.

 

Like I said, I don't think users would go up much. Consumption, sure. That'll go up.

 

Why is it that it is as it should be (in your opinion)?

 

How much is a legal joint, and how much of an underground economy for it is there still?

As simple as it is to grow, unless you lay down hefty penalties, I can't see it curbing illegal use considerably.

 

To be clear, are you saying it should be of no concern of the law to torture an animal if it is un-owned or owned by the person doing the act?

 

Because I think it's inherently wrong to torture innocent animals for no reason, and apparently 50 states agree with me.

 

How can an animal be innocent? Can it be guilty?

 

If the animal is owned by the person or with their consent, then I don't believe so. For animals not owned by any entity, I don't know. I haven't really thought about it.

 

Is it so much more wrong to torture than to subject them to the unknown outcomes that come with product testing which is endorsed by the FDA?

 

Yes. You can cite the philosophical viewpoints all you like. I'm never going to agree. So, there really is no point in continuing this.

 

Those aren't pets that drug/product trials are run on, and the sort of testing they can do has greatly changed the last couple of decades.

Context is everything. I owned a pet ferret as a kid, and helped with caring for critters like that working as a vet assistant for years. I also have helped my father trap, kill, and skin mink and martin. They all 3 look pretty much the same, but if someone took someone's pet ferret, broke it's foot, smashed it's brains out, then skinned it they'd be one sick SOB in my opinion. Context. A pet isn't just what it is, it is what it represents for a person. [uck fay]ing a woman is no one's business. [uck fay]ing another man's wife certainly is.

 

I am not trying to come to an agreement. I am only stating my opinion and questioning the majority. There is a lot of hypocrisy concerning laws dealing with animals.

 

Is it context or chance for the animal? Most animals that are used for testing could have been someone's pet if born in other circumstances. As I see it, there should be no difference between laws concerning protection of these animals differ from laws protecting pets? Why should a corporation (or even the government) be able to potentially do more harm than a private citizen? Do those animals feel no pain?

As far as trapping mink and martin, tell me. Could someone argue that there is not much difference between what you did with those animals and what was done to the dog? Laws like animal cruelty laws are a slippery slope in my opinion. I used to hunt every day of the Fall and Winter as a kid. I just don't have time now. Is there much difference between killing an animal and abusing it? Some even hunt and kill simply for the sport. I don't agree with it personally, but I don't want to see a law against it.

 

It's not a slippery slope at all, imo.