I don't always agree with you, but that doesn't matter (no one is right 100% of the time). You make your arguments well and you are entertaining as hell. You contribute to the world of ideas, and even if you aren't always right (as I contend), you advance the ball!
@davidpakman, I think libertarians would be more happy if Vermont didn't regulate access to plant matter. In Britain people need a license to own, operate, and watch TV, that's a good example of stupid legislation. Just as it's stupid to regulate what plant products people choose to consume.
You also claimed that Jeff Sessions liked the KKK, before he realized they smoked pot. Do you have proof of your claim that Jeff Sessions liked the KKK or are you just making things up to smear him?
The facts alone, or his stance on the drug war alone is enough to make him look bad. No need to fabricate, or summon the whole racist viral mind meme. It's tired, and played out, and unless you can prove it, it just speaks volumes about your character and intentions.
Far too often, the mainstream media has used anonymous sources as a weapon in order to cast aspersions onto their political opponents. The trick isn't working anymore. They don't realize it, but the people using these techniques are steadily destroying their collective reputations, and credibility. Just look at the viewership of the Grammy's from last night as they quoted from that garbage book, written by Wolff.
Real people who know how to think, they're quite sick of the crap, and BS claims. They want substance, not non-sense, lies, rumors and innuendo. When I was watching your video I was like, wow I can finally agree with this guy on something, but then you polluted it with the Sessions claim.
Companies like CNN who have weaponized themselves for their masters fail to realize that it's a double-edged sword. They've destroyed themselves completely and don't even know it. Many other outlets are following suit. To be quite frank, it's a pleasure watching them destroy themselves.
Im not full out libertarian - but id support legalisation of all drugs for recreational use. Well, all which arent potent enough to be more likely used as a chemical weapon than for recreational purposes anyways. Heroin definatly, fentanyl is pushing it, carfentanyl (which is far more potent than fentanyl) definatly not.
I agree with you about fentanyl, and carfentanyl, as they can be a danger to non drug users by simply coming into contact with it. Heroin on the other hand, if they legalized that, then survival of the fittest would take hold. Instead of cops conducting no-knock raids and hurting innocent bystanders, or putting people in cages. Addicts could safely be addicts, wherever they choose. Insurance companies though, they ought to have the right to not cover health issues arising from the voluntary use of heroin, or whatever drug they list in their contract.
Yeah i think it would actualy reduce ODs as well. At least unintentional ODs, thats usualy related to usualy having an impure product and when you have a purer product using the same amount as before. As for coverage, i think it should be covered but this coverage financed by taxing it. To the degree it actualy leads to more costs. For instance, if it has some costs but like tobacco removes primarily the last few years of your life which would otherwise be quite expensive, both should be taken into account.
Yes you can argue that not all people would let it come to any healthproblems, but in the end i think that makes the most sense. After all, espacialy if you are still young, you being more productive might in the end bring more money back in than the therapy required for that to happen. I dont think other people should have to cover that though so taxing it for that purpose makes the most sense to me.
Of course, all drugs should be legal, it's the choice of every individual what they put in their body. Additionally to that, the war on "drugs" or rather on liberty was already lost before it started, people who want to do drugs, do drugs. People who don't do them, just don't, it's statistically proven that legalizing or decriminalization of a certain drug doesn't produce more drug users, no matter where this has been done in the world.
Why would it just be an assumption? What you put in your body is your thing. Driving on opioids is another thing, because you could seriously hurt or kill others, but that's not the point bc these are two different things.
You can't "legalize" marijuana, because that would imply that the government is granting you a right. They have merely repealed an unjust law that prohibited you from trading and consuming marijuana.
They're not GIVING you a right, they're still taking your rights away. You should frame it this way.
Wow, an organized crime syndicate was nice enough to stop threatening humans with extortion, kidnapping, and murder (if they resist) for growing/consuming a plant that has existed for millennia before the concept of "government"... So generous of them...
It’s a step forward, the place that really needs to legalize is Chicago, or rather shitcago. The amount of increasing taxes is driving so many people out of the state 😂 Vermont is smart! Keep the people and the tax dollars.
i think thats a super wrong policy for drugs in all over the world.
im agree with some special use like parkinson persons or ...
but for everybody i find it so un-safe and wrong decesion...
Yes, this is a smart move on Vermont's part. It increases the amount of tax that the state receives and it also minimizes the amount of people that are incarcerated do to drug related crimes. Which in turn also helps the state because they do not need to maintain those inmates
This seems like only a half step. While people are able to posses up to an ounce legally, the only way to get it legally is to grow it. it still allows gangs to control sales on the black market for those who don't want to go through the hassle of only being able to have two mature plants and 4 immature plants.
Si es para mejorar y aliviar la salud, buenísimo. Mientras mas se prohiba el consumo de esta planta, la gente se incita a hacerlo. Que quede a criterio y responsabilidad de la persona, si la quiere consumir para recrearse.
Let's legalize recreational marijuana and medical marijuana in every state and be done with this debate. In states such as Arizona where only "medical" marijuana has been legalized, it opens the door to bogus treatments for bogus illnesses, just so that users can get obtain it. We don't need a medical card for a gin and tonic! Let's legalize it for recreational use first, and as scientific research becomes more conclusive as a genuine for of treatment for genuine medications, let's expand it as a medical substance in its unadulterated, natural form (herb like mint or sage or valerian root) and find a way to prevent big pharma from getting their dirty hands and their nasty patents on it.
It isn't if you use a vaporizer and are mentally healthy, but even if it were indeed unhealthy (at least more unhealthy than junk food or whatever comparison you'd like to make), it's the decision of the individual what he puts into his body. So the discussion if it's healthy or not isn't relevant on this topic.
The government should not be regulating the consumption of a plant. The plant was here before the government and will be here after it.
I happen to agree with you
I don't always agree with you, but that doesn't matter (no one is right 100% of the time). You make your arguments well and you are entertaining as hell. You contribute to the world of ideas, and even if you aren't always right (as I contend), you advance the ball!
@davidpakman, I think libertarians would be more happy if Vermont didn't regulate access to plant matter. In Britain people need a license to own, operate, and watch TV, that's a good example of stupid legislation. Just as it's stupid to regulate what plant products people choose to consume.
You also claimed that Jeff Sessions liked the KKK, before he realized they smoked pot. Do you have proof of your claim that Jeff Sessions liked the KKK or are you just making things up to smear him?
The facts alone, or his stance on the drug war alone is enough to make him look bad. No need to fabricate, or summon the whole racist viral mind meme. It's tired, and played out, and unless you can prove it, it just speaks volumes about your character and intentions.
Far too often, the mainstream media has used anonymous sources as a weapon in order to cast aspersions onto their political opponents. The trick isn't working anymore. They don't realize it, but the people using these techniques are steadily destroying their collective reputations, and credibility. Just look at the viewership of the Grammy's from last night as they quoted from that garbage book, written by Wolff.
Real people who know how to think, they're quite sick of the crap, and BS claims. They want substance, not non-sense, lies, rumors and innuendo. When I was watching your video I was like, wow I can finally agree with this guy on something, but then you polluted it with the Sessions claim.
Companies like CNN who have weaponized themselves for their masters fail to realize that it's a double-edged sword. They've destroyed themselves completely and don't even know it. Many other outlets are following suit. To be quite frank, it's a pleasure watching them destroy themselves.
Im not full out libertarian - but id support legalisation of all drugs for recreational use. Well, all which arent potent enough to be more likely used as a chemical weapon than for recreational purposes anyways. Heroin definatly, fentanyl is pushing it, carfentanyl (which is far more potent than fentanyl) definatly not.
I agree with you about fentanyl, and carfentanyl, as they can be a danger to non drug users by simply coming into contact with it. Heroin on the other hand, if they legalized that, then survival of the fittest would take hold. Instead of cops conducting no-knock raids and hurting innocent bystanders, or putting people in cages. Addicts could safely be addicts, wherever they choose. Insurance companies though, they ought to have the right to not cover health issues arising from the voluntary use of heroin, or whatever drug they list in their contract.
Yeah i think it would actualy reduce ODs as well. At least unintentional ODs, thats usualy related to usualy having an impure product and when you have a purer product using the same amount as before. As for coverage, i think it should be covered but this coverage financed by taxing it. To the degree it actualy leads to more costs. For instance, if it has some costs but like tobacco removes primarily the last few years of your life which would otherwise be quite expensive, both should be taken into account.
Yes you can argue that not all people would let it come to any healthproblems, but in the end i think that makes the most sense. After all, espacialy if you are still young, you being more productive might in the end bring more money back in than the therapy required for that to happen. I dont think other people should have to cover that though so taxing it for that purpose makes the most sense to me.
Of course, all drugs should be legal, it's the choice of every individual what they put in their body. Additionally to that, the war on "drugs" or rather on liberty was already lost before it started, people who want to do drugs, do drugs. People who don't do them, just don't, it's statistically proven that legalizing or decriminalization of a certain drug doesn't produce more drug users, no matter where this has been done in the world.
Free to put whatever you want in your body, assuming it doesn't hurt others, right?
Why would it just be an assumption? What you put in your body is your thing. Driving on opioids is another thing, because you could seriously hurt or kill others, but that's not the point bc these are two different things.
You can't "legalize" marijuana, because that would imply that the government is granting you a right. They have merely repealed an unjust law that prohibited you from trading and consuming marijuana.
They're not GIVING you a right, they're still taking your rights away. You should frame it this way.
ding ding ding!
Wow, an organized crime syndicate was nice enough to stop threatening humans with extortion, kidnapping, and murder (if they resist) for growing/consuming a plant that has existed for millennia before the concept of "government"... So generous of them...
@kennyskitchen lol, nice comment.
Well said @twkaiser!
.
marijuana a racist word? as in latin terminology racist?
It’s a step forward, the place that really needs to legalize is Chicago, or rather shitcago. The amount of increasing taxes is driving so many people out of the state 😂 Vermont is smart! Keep the people and the tax dollars.
i think thats a super wrong policy for drugs in all over the world.
im agree with some special use like parkinson persons or ...
but for everybody i find it so un-safe and wrong decesion...
Yes, this is a smart move on Vermont's part. It increases the amount of tax that the state receives and it also minimizes the amount of people that are incarcerated do to drug related crimes. Which in turn also helps the state because they do not need to maintain those inmates
recreational sales are still not allowed so there will be no tax revenue going to the government.
I knew not all Republicans sucked on this issue!
Yes I am, more states should legalize it preferably new york :).
marijuana is very much its benefits, just we are wrong to use it.
That goods, thanks for sharing the information to us
This seems like only a half step. While people are able to posses up to an ounce legally, the only way to get it legally is to grow it. it still allows gangs to control sales on the black market for those who don't want to go through the hassle of only being able to have two mature plants and 4 immature plants.
Next PA
TIME TO SMOKE UP, DAVID!
Si es para mejorar y aliviar la salud, buenísimo. Mientras mas se prohiba el consumo de esta planta, la gente se incita a hacerlo. Que quede a criterio y responsabilidad de la persona, si la quiere consumir para recrearse.
Let's legalize recreational marijuana and medical marijuana in every state and be done with this debate. In states such as Arizona where only "medical" marijuana has been legalized, it opens the door to bogus treatments for bogus illnesses, just so that users can get obtain it. We don't need a medical card for a gin and tonic! Let's legalize it for recreational use first, and as scientific research becomes more conclusive as a genuine for of treatment for genuine medications, let's expand it as a medical substance in its unadulterated, natural form (herb like mint or sage or valerian root) and find a way to prevent big pharma from getting their dirty hands and their nasty patents on it.
Hey, David Pakman! Why every of your posts mentions Steemit? Does it filter up your OP and attracks more attention? Steemit Steemit Steemit xD
We're definitely happy. A move in the direction of freedom? That's always nice.
We should make politicians illegal and have a war on politicians.
These can come as a good, but isn't it unhealthy?
It's not physically addictive and is healthier than legal drugs like beer, cigarettes and coffee.
I think the jury is still out. You might be interested in this article in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease (I hope the link works, I'm not too sure if I entered it correctly on this forum).
https://www.j-alz.com/content/new-study-shows-marijuana-users-have-low-blood-flow-brain
Even if it was, I think it's people's right to do with their bodies what they wish. Let the free market do as it will.
It isn't if you use a vaporizer and are mentally healthy, but even if it were indeed unhealthy (at least more unhealthy than junk food or whatever comparison you'd like to make), it's the decision of the individual what he puts into his body. So the discussion if it's healthy or not isn't relevant on this topic.