Why is smoking legal?

damn-I-Suck

[12] Conqueror
Jorn: You have a sandy vagina
Dave has a hot raging dick - guess who's gonna get fucked? ;-)
Why do you think I'm this "jorn" guy?

Picture0009.jpg


This is me. Just so we're crystal clear.
 

Senzait

Steamed Buns!!
GTFO of the conversation. The words aren't being put in your mouth - they're in the thread you're participating in.

There is no argument about water being a filter. There is a discussion about cigarettes being more harmful than pot.

Do you normally take Ritalin? Did you miss it today? :\
Last time I checked this thread was about the legality of smoking not the difference in mortality between pot and tobacco. Our argument is just a by-product of this conversation. Dont be butt-hurt about being wrong. It happens.

And again insults will get you nowhere. Stop being a child and admit you are pulling arguments out of your ass.
 

Tanegashima

[09] Warrior
I now am a strong advocate of the "ignore feature". Last page and a half was nothing but ignored members....I LOL'd.


HRD

Tittysprinkles.


Anway it is kinda hypocritical to bash damn-I-Suck for his pot use when Lobo and several other members do the same thing. The way I see it if they aren't hurting anyone I don't really care.
 

Supa

[10] Knight
And again insults will get you nowhere. Stop being a child and admit you are pulling arguments out of your ass.

Communications often create sub-topics. The sub-topic you're jumping me over is water being a filter. You can go discover that on your own - it's not relevant to the sub-topic.

You are literally creating an argument about water being a filter to prove yourself right irrelevant to any current topic. Call me a child?
K.
 

JDub

Mmm. Pie.
For those who want to read up on studies pertaining to marijuana use the World Health Organization is an interesting place to start. But regardless of findings or facts people will do things they know are bad for them. I'd think the point of a governing entity would be to diminish the societal effects of it's citizen's chosen behavior while respecting the rights of it's citizens to chose said behavior. Our drug war does nothing but make a black market where American money is funneled out of our economy by the billions to cartels and shadow governments throughout the globe. On top of money being removed from our economy we spend billions on fighting drugs. Not only on the front end in prevention, policing and espionage, but on the back end with court costs, prison costs, and the lives of the innocent here and abroad caught in turf wars between rivals, the CIA, the DEA. Plus, who knows what other quasi-governmental/mercenary-type government contractors are financially exploiting the situation. I wouldn't put it past parts of our government like the CIA to sell or transport drugs to fund clandestine operations. If the money didn't come from Congress it wouldn't show up in any audits right? Point being, if drugs were legal the prison industry would lose money. The DEA wouldn't have much work and possibly be disbanded or incorporated into a regulatory body. Pharmaceutical companies would lose money. Alcohol and tobacco companies would lose money. And income from any recreational drug industry would be on the books. I don't think our government wants all it's income on the books. On the other hand, it would be it's own industry. It's product would be taxed. It would need to be packaged and shipped like any other product. We would be paying for a smaller prison population too. Despite spending billions over forty plus years to stop drug use it's actually increased. What sane person would keep throwing money at a problem that only increases the more you fight it?
 

JDub

Mmm. Pie.
The hypocrisy and irony of this statement coming from you is mind blowing.
Going back through the thread both sides have been a bit close-minded in accepting the other side's point. I'm pretty sure that common sense would dictate that making revenue off of something that people are going to do anyway by decriminalizing it would save money spent on enforcement and incarceration. It would also free-up law enforcement, courts and prisons to deal with more pressing matters. Not only would society save money on man hours for cops and courts it would save money on food and housing for inmates on top of bringing in additional tax revenue. If you need exact numbers to believe this equation I'm going to be skeptical of not only your logic but your objectivity.

Plus...what's wrong with a little darwinism infused into policy? I always wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle (motorscooter really) even if I'm in a state that doesn't require a helmet. Kansas (though known as an anti-darwin state) doesn't have a helmet law. I don't mind if you don't wear a helmet. Idiots dying as a result of their own stupidity is likely an evolutionary benefit to our species. Why is daddy dead? Daddy was stupid. Don't be stupid. I think the threat of a painful reality is better than religious threats of eternal damnation as a behavior modifier. Better than policy threats of imprisonment too. We need to allow people the freedom of being bad examples so other people can make informed decisions based on the world around them. Not based on political theory, or the lust for power of a parent state. Someone telling you that doing a certain thing is bad for you doesn't change most people's behavior. Riding without a helmet and passing the scene of a crash where a helmetless rider's brains are fused with asphalt or another vehicle might drive that point home.
 

Senzait

Steamed Buns!!
Communications often create sub-topics. The sub-topic you're jumping me over is water being a filter. You can go discover that on your own - it's not relevant to the sub-topic.

You are literally creating an argument about water being a filter to prove yourself right irrelevant to any current topic. Call me a child?
K.

If its not relevant than why did you bring it up? Lol.
My arguement ultimately is against people saying incorrect shit to support a claim. Which is relevant to any topic and its somethings you did.

Anyway I'm done with you. I feel like im talking to a brick wall. Keep on being a stubborn fool.
 

Supa

[10] Knight
My arguement ultimately is against people saying incorrect shit to support a claim. Which is relevant to any topic and its somethings you did.

Actually, it's not something I did. If you can bother to remember the original post you quoted.... it had "filter" in quotation marks. This doesn't suggest that water is not a filter, but that is the argument you invented from the beginning. Even after the clarification that it's not an adequate filter (in relation to making smoking safe) you still refused to come off of the argument.

Even with clarification you continued to make bizarre comparisons about C4 or whatever. At the end of the day, the point is that smoking is unsafe whether you're sucking it through water, ice, filters or animal orifices. The last one is probably especially not healthy.

Smoking being unsafe relates to pot and tobacco. That argument related to the original topic of "Why is smoking legal?" when someone introduced the question why marijuana was illegal if tobacco isn't. They proceeded to carry on about how marijuana is safer than tobacco - which is simply not true. If anything, they are equally just as bad.

Choosing a black and white vector of "I'm winning" when either party is completely disregarding the subject is only subterfuge. It isn't constructive. It isn't criticism. It is completely pointless and there is no "winner" regardless of how hard you try. I'll be happy to spam you just as hard as you spam me - but be warned, I type pretty fast and accurately.
 

Senzait

Steamed Buns!!
Actually, it's not something I did. If you can bother to remember the original post you quoted.... it had "filter" in quotation marks.

Water pipes do not remove a significant amount of carcinogens or even a comparable amount as fiber filters. It is not an acceptable filter.

... doesn't even bother to filter (water doesn't count) which ...

Ya, sure you didn't.

Even after the clarification that it's not an adequate filter (in relation to making smoking safe) you still refused to come off of the argument.

When was this clarified?. If making smoking safe is the measure by which a filter is defined there is no such thing as a filter.

I'll be happy to spam you just as hard as you spam me - but be warned, I type pretty fast and accurately.
Oh. Im terrified.
 

Supa

[10] Knight
Ya, sure you didn't.

Thanks for clarifying and supporting my point. What you quoted is, as I said it was, is not dismissing water as a general filter for anything. The topic was how much safer smoking pot was than cigarettes. An acceptable filter would make smoking safe - which it doesn't do regardless of what smoke it's filtering.

If your reflection of what I have said is that water is the best filter ever made for everything.... well, you should re-evaluate your point and why that contribution even affected the outcome of the conversation. If you inferred that an "acceptable filter" was anything other than something that makes smoking safe then we both had a communication failure that resulted in an abomination - the exact thing a mod would probably seek to avoid doing in not one but two different threads.