60 replies to this topic

[Chancellor Gunn]

NASCAR NANNY 2014

[Alyster]

NASCAR NANNY 2014

You do know there's a show results button.

[Chancellor Gunn]

NASCAR NANNY 2014

You do know there's a show results button.
 

Yes. But I get tired of having to click that

[Jon32492]

We tried to prohibit alcohol once, it didn't work. It was then legalized again. We've prohibited weed, people still do it everywhere. Might as well help out the small businesses by allowing them to sell it.

My point is, people are gonna do it anyways, why bother trying to stop them? Only thing we can do is try to educate our youth on the dangers and then let them choose for themselves. Other than that, fuck it.

For the record, I do not smoke weed or do any illegal drug. I'm starting to drink more now that I'm 21 but I've still not gotten drunk. But I'm not gonna try to stop someone from doing it if they know and understand the risks behind it already. As long as they are not putting anyone else in danger by doing it, who cares?

I know, I know, people do put people in danger like drinking and driving, well guess what. That's illegal and people still do it.

[Redezra]

 

D:
 
Well you know my stance. Likely severe mental damage, dangerous to community, psychologcial community says "Don't fucking do it".....
 
 
I'm against it. And no, you won't change my mind.

Are you in favor of banning alcohol, then?

 

I would be. Tobacco too. People are too stupid on their own, we need a nanny state.

 

I am in favor of banning alcohol. It just won't happen. If I can somehow help stop another retarded decision being made, then I'll do what I can to stop it.

[*Anastasia]

Fair enough; at least you're consistent. Guess I'm just used to living around people who let their 12-year-old kids have a beer but would beat the shit out of them if they ever touched "drugs".

[PrinceVegeta]

Just drink the stuff responsibly. That's what I do, and I'm not suppose to either. However I prove myself to be able to drink it and not be stupid with it. Age range to me is moot, it's how smart the person is at what they're doing. Alcohol isn't the bad thing here, it's the people who use it irresponsibly. Same goes for weed. If you're gonna smoke a joint, be sure you're either at home or someone who isn't high will drive you home. Don't be around small children or elderly people. Don't over smoke and really fuck yourself up. Know what you're smoking. Have someone there who isn't high not only to drive you home if you're not home, but to make sure you won't do anything stupid.

 

Stop blaming the object and blame the person using it. Weed won't get you high if there is no one to roll it up and light it. Alcohol won't get you drunk unless you drink it. 

 

People just need to be aware of what they're about to do, and the consequences of not being careful. 

[Manoka]

 

 

 

Are you in favor of banning alcohol, then?

 

bite your tongue, leave the great juice out of this  
 

 

That "great juice" has caused more death, violence, dysfunction, social chaos, and medical harm than marijuana ever has. I'm just pointing out the double standards and illogical thinking that people who support cannabis prohibition on any of these grounds have if they do not likewise support prohibition of alcohol.

 

But raw volume isn't the same as the potential for death.

 

Car accidents have caused more deaths than all wars combined and yet would you ban them before guns?

[Redezra]

Just drink the stuff responsibly. That's what I do, and I'm not suppose to either. However I prove myself to be able to drink it and not be stupid with it. Age range to me is moot, it's how smart the person is at what they're doing. Alcohol isn't the bad thing here, it's the people who use it irresponsibly. Same goes for weed. If you're gonna smoke a joint, be sure you're either at home or someone who isn't high will drive you home. Don't be around small children or elderly people. Don't over smoke and really fuck yourself up. Know what you're smoking. Have someone there who isn't high not only to drive you home if you're not home, but to make sure you won't do anything stupid.

 

Stop blaming the object and blame the person using it. Weed won't get you high if there is no one to roll it up and light it. Alcohol won't get you drunk unless you drink it. 

 

People just need to be aware of what they're about to do, and the consequences of not being careful. 

 

I'm not blaming the object, I'm just being a good parent and not letting the child play with scissors. He is too immature to understand the consequences of his actions.

[PrinceVegeta]

Then teach him how to properly use them.

[Jon32492]

Just drink the stuff responsibly. That's what I do, and I'm not suppose to either. However I prove myself to be able to drink it and not be stupid with it. Age range to me is moot, it's how smart the person is at what they're doing. Alcohol isn't the bad thing here, it's the people who use it irresponsibly. Same goes for weed. If you're gonna smoke a joint, be sure you're either at home or someone who isn't high will drive you home. Don't be around small children or elderly people. Don't over smoke and really fuck yourself up. Know what you're smoking. Have someone there who isn't high not only to drive you home if you're not home, but to make sure you won't do anything stupid.
 
Stop blaming the object and blame the person using it. Weed won't get you high if there is no one to roll it up and light it. Alcohol won't get you drunk unless you drink it. 
 
People just need to be aware of what they're about to do, and the consequences of not being careful. 

 
Thank you.
 

 
I'm not blaming the object, I'm just being a good parent and not letting the child play with scissors. He is too immature to understand the consequences of his actions.
 

That's a good thing. Yes, the substance should only be used by those mature enough to know what they are using and know what the consequences are. I feel if they are mature enough to know all that, then they should be responsible enough to take the blame when something goes wrong and accept the consequences for it.

Either way, the point is still moot. No matter what we do, people are still gonna do it. Hell, my 14 year old cousin is a pothead now. Think he knows what the fuck he's getting into? I doubt it. His parents have no idea, he buys it at school and smokes at a friend's house.

[Haflinger]

Yeah let's be clear. The reason I'm in favour of legalizing pot is not because I'm a huge fan of marijuana, it's because I hate biker gangs. Red, you live in a place that doesn't have nearly as many of these problems, but over here bikers are a serious threat to public safety.

 

Depriving bikers of their primary cash flow strikes me as being better for the public than any possible benefits from outlawing a recreational drug that most of the population has fairly easy access to anyway, and would probably require us to bankrupt the state hiring police officers to successfully outlaw.

[Redezra]

 
I'm not blaming the object, I'm just being a good parent and not letting the child play with scissors. He is too immature to understand the consequences of his actions.
 

That's a good thing. Yes, the substance should only be used by those mature enough to know what they are using and know what the consequences are. I feel if they are mature enough to know all that, then they should be responsible enough to take the blame when something goes wrong and accept the consequences for it.

Either way, the point is still moot. No matter what we do, people are still gonna do it. Hell, my 14 year old cousin is a pothead now. Think he knows what the fuck he's getting into? I doubt it. His parents have no idea, he buys it at school and smokes at a friend's house.

.... aaand you missed it.

 

I've basically said "If you want to smoke weed cause it 'feels good', you are too immature to be left in the room with it. Give to mama 'Dezra. There go. Was that so hard?"

 

Also, why don't you just... oh, I dunno... get your ludicrously large army to round up those biker gangs?

[*Anastasia]

Also, why don't you just... oh, I dunno... get your ludicrously large army to round up those biker gangs?

 

The last time our "ludicrously large army" of just over 65,000 active personnel, barely larger than your own and responsible for more people and much more territory, rounded up anyone, it was 500 Francophones, artists, and gay civil servants. The thought of martial law isn't exactly a popular one, you know. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure in some cities (Montreal) biker gangs probably have access to more firepower than our crippled military would like to think about.

[Redezra]

Oh sorry, was referring to the USA.

[*Anastasia]

Ah, my mistake. I still don't think the idea of martial law is necessary a great answer, but it's at least a lot more viable stateside.

[Alyster]

I don't think the army with it's standing personnel of just over 25 000 men would have that much of a problems with bikers. The army has coordination, tactics, training for a full scale battle, they're supported by heavy machine guns giving fire support over 700m away, 155mm howitzers, armour, tanks, mines etc. 

 

Even if the bikers have some automatic riffles their effective fire would be something like 300m, with the lack of proper machine gun, it won't be that effective either. Not to mention they have nothing against armour, while the army can blast all of the punkers the bikers occupy with their Carl Gustav's (it has anti bunker ammo), or something else. 

 

 

Personally if I was a canadian I'd be looking forward to such fire works. The issue however is to find a law to rightfully convict the bikers I believe.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Everybody hates America; no one hates a friend with a bag of weed. 

[Manoka]

Yeah let's be clear. The reason I'm in favour of legalizing pot is not because I'm a huge fan of marijuana, it's because I hate biker gangs. Red, you live in a place that doesn't have nearly as many of these problems, but over here bikers are a serious threat to public safety.

 

Depriving bikers of their primary cash flow strikes me as being better for the public than any possible benefits from outlawing a recreational drug that most of the population has fairly easy access to anyway, and would probably require us to bankrupt the state hiring police officers to successfully outlaw.

 

But does this make any sense?! O_o?

Edited by Manoka, 07 April 2013 - 11:12 AM.

[Manoka]

Yeah let's be clear. The reason I'm in favour of legalizing pot is not because I'm a huge fan of marijuana, it's because I hate biker gangs. Red, you live in a place that doesn't have nearly as many of these problems, but over here bikers are a serious threat to public safety.

 

Depriving bikers of their primary cash flow strikes me as being better for the public than any possible benefits from outlawing a recreational drug that most of the population has fairly easy access to anyway, and would probably require us to bankrupt the state hiring police officers to successfully outlaw.

 

Organized crime gets almost as much money from illegal arms sales as drugs, and exotic animals are pretty close up there.

 

Do we legalize all these things, too?