Thread for Things That Made You Frown Today

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

>I'm further saying that we as a nation don't take the position that anything that can cause death is more dangerou

No, only you take that asinine position.

---

I might be the only one who verbalizes it, but it is an accurate depiction of our drug policy and how people think. Aspirin can cause death, but aspirin is legal, and nobody thinks it shouldn't be. Nobody thinks GHB should be legal: 678 google results compared to 3,140,000 for legalize marijuana. The active ingredient (if you will) in legalization is not and has never been lethality. You claim to believe so because it's convenient for your rhetoric. That's it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

I might be the only one who verbalizes it, but it is an accurate depiction of our drug policy and how people think. Aspirin can cause death, but aspirin is legal, and nobody thinks it shouldn't be. Nobody thinks GHB should be legal: 678 google results compared to 3,140,000 for legalize marijuana. The active ingredient (if you will) in legalization is not and has never been lethality. You claim to believe so because it's convenient for your rhetoric. That's it.

---

Fast food can cause obesity. Obesity is an issue of national security. Should we ban fast food? Of course not. Stop being a stupid wanker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Yes.I'm not offering any logical arguments. I'm saying that a mature regulatory system has to take into account acute and chronic side effects, for example death and schizophrenia. I'm further saying that we as a nation don't take the position that anything that can cause death is more dangerous than anything that can't. I'm finally saying that the specific case of 5,000 per 1,000,000 risk of schizophrenia represents more of a danger than the specific case of 1 per 1,000,000 risk of death, and more of a danger than any currently legal substance (except nicotine, which I am also for banning).

Please note how nowhere in the above paragraph are the words therefore, then, thus, etc. I'm still not offering any logical arguments. Please, please don't say "well by that logic...". I have made three empirical claims. If you would like to dispute them, your only choices are to do so empirically or futilely.

---

Millions of people live perfectly normal lives with schizophrenia...not a single person has lived after contracting death. I'm shocked that you, as a scientist, would use the term "schizophrenia" as a catch-all for bad, completely ignoring the fact that there are different kinds. A lot of schizophrenics, like myself, don't even require regular treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

I might be the only one who verbalizes it, but it is an accurate depiction of our drug policy and how people think.

---

Our drug policy involves neither science nor logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

Our drug policy involves neither science nor logic.

---

Seriously. How can America still consider Marijuana a Schedule 1 drug?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackWhisper

Seriously. How can America still consider Marijuana a Schedule 1 drug?!

---

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0219073815.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taernath

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0219073815.jpg

---

dingdingding.

Taking non-violent offenders out of the private sector is big business for the public sector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taernath

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0219073815.jpg

---

Ben Franklin would have been all about legal weed. Weed, beer and a new wench every night.

No shit Ben Franklin would have been all about weed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXx2ROOa_ZQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Ben Franklin would have been all about legal weed. Weed, beer and a new wench every night.

---

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress...ge_and_ben.jpg