October surprise - marijuana decriminalization?

Dutch Uncle said:
No doubt, but they're more interested in saving their own jobs. They don't give a shit about Duty, Honor, Country, but they most certainly give a shit staying in power. They'll go wherever the wind blows.
Click to expand...

It's not even "the way the wind blows". It's how much of a shithead they can be to advancing our economy and standing it the world. Sadly, they've embraced fascism. Democrats are our only hope to save our constitutional republic.
 
LurchAddams said:
It's not even "the way the wind blows". It's how much of a shithead they can be to advancing our economy and standing it the world. Sadly, they've embraced fascism. Democrats are our only hope to save our constitutional republic.
Click to expand...

If you think donkey brained leftists will fix anything you're a bigger retard than Brandon
 
LurchAddams said:
It's up to you.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's up to me. God bless America. :thup:

Disagreed on your party's agenda. They support banning shit. That's not freedom, that's authoritarianism.

3na1fc.jpg
 
Perry Phimosis said:
And you have documented cases where someone's driving was impaired 30 days after doing pot? (I'm genuinely curious. I live in a state where it is legal and frankly no one says anything like this.)

You see, it reads more like "fear literature" from the 1940's about demon lettuce and less like a rational appreciation of the impact of the drug. I would be very interested to read about these cases where driving was impaired 30 days later. Honest.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that a pack of lawyers wouldn't sue the living shit out of a trucking firm or airline if one of their trucks or airplanes crashed and the driver / pilot(s) were found with THC in their bloodstream, regardless of level? The 30 day thing creates a serious issue in legal terms. Presence would be used as evidence of impairment, regardless of level just as BAC is used now--regardless of level.

It is you that is being dishonest about this. There will be lawyers and law firms that will sue on that basis, if they haven't already. Once they win a few cases, it's over and the 30 day thing becomes the standard. There are already environmental laws and regulations that are used to the same effect: Any presence is prima facie evidence of a health issue and can be acted on for damages.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Do you really think that a pack of lawyers wouldn't sue the living shit out of a trucking firm or airline if one of their trucks or airplanes crashed and the driver / pilot(s) were found with THC in their bloodstream, regardless of level? The 30 day thing creates a serious issue in legal terms. Presence would be used as evidence of impairment, regardless of level just as BAC is used now--regardless of level.

It is you that is being dishonest about this. There will be lawyers and law firms that will sue on that basis, if they haven't already. Once they win a few cases, it's over and the 30 day thing becomes the standard. There are already environmental laws and regulations that are used to the same effect: Any presence is prima facie evidence of a health issue and can be acted on for damages.
Click to expand...

So I take it you have ZERO reality checks on your scare story. Got it.


If I were you I would DEFINITELY not do any drugs whatsoever! Stay pure!
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Like YOU have been editor of the Harvard Law Review. Or POTUS. LOL.

(I'm sure Obama is really sad that he hasn't achieved as much as I'm sure YOU have. :) )
Click to expand...

Obama, singularly, never published anything in the Harvard Law Review, a normal thing other presidents of that publication do. Obama got elected president, he also got elected a senator (both state and federal). But outside the failure of Obamacare, what did he accomplish? As a community organizer he might be best described between do-nothing, and failure. He was a failure in the civilian world as a lawyer. He was increasingly seen as a failure as a lecturer at the University of Chicago.

What he was successful at--incredibly successful at--was convincing people to vote for him.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Obama, singularly, never published anything in the Harvard Law Review,
Click to expand...

That's scarcely your call, is it? You surely aren't a Harvard law graduate.

But outside the failure of Obamacare
Click to expand...

I love how you CONSTANTLY just decree things without evidence. Love that about your posts.

What he was successful at--incredibly successful at--was convincing people to vote for him.
Click to expand...

I get it. You didn't like him. You liked Trump. You probably think Trump made everything great. LOL.
 
Life is Golden said:
I've smoked it before. Just don't take substances that dumb me down into a braindead flake.

Stoner is an apt term, for sure.
Click to expand...

You'd be shocked at some over-achievers who use weed. It's not the "devil's weed" like you and your fellow puritans make it out to be.
 
LurchAddams said:
You'd be shocked at some over-achievers who use weed. It's not the "devil's weed" like you and your fellow puritans make it out to be.
Click to expand...
I didn't say fuck-all about "devil" or any of your contrived bullshit.

People who smoke the shit long-term are burnouts. They are dumb and dull acting cuz their brains are fried.
 
Life is Golden said:
I didn't say fuck-all about "devil" or any of your contrived bullshit.

People who smoke the shit long-term are burnouts. They are dumb and dull acting cuz their brains are fried.
Click to expand...

Some certainly are. Why should you or I give a shit if an idiot ODs on fentanyl or meth? They're L-O-S-E-R-S. Fuck'em.

As long as they do it in their trailer and not my yard or the middle of the street, why should I give fuck-all about a loser drug addict?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top