Schroeder, saying that a product/service needs some sort of positive effect to be legal is ridiculous logic. Infact, it's outright idiotic. Not only that, but you are trying to turn a subjective matter into black and white. Maybe I think that chocolate has no redeeming positive effects. Should it be banned soley on that ideal? Of course not. It's a matter of symantics; to some, the effects of using marijuana are positive.
A drug is considered a drug because our government, which is a very good government comparatively speaking, will NEVER admit it's wrong.
By legalizing marijuana, the government would be saying, "hey, we lied all these years by telling you how horrible marijuana is, but since you all saw through our propaganda ploy, I guess we'll admit defeat."
Hey Schroeder, how about you counterpoint any of our arguments with something other than with a PERSONAL, PETTY, INSIGNIFICANT, or FOOLISH comment. It's stupid to believe the propaganda served to you by DARE and tv. Do research, and I have the feeling that you will find that there are no significant negative affects to using marijuana aside from lung damage (which can be avoided very easily)
|