Ban Sugary Drinks but Legalize Pot?

[Papageorgio]

Can't help noticing- you pretend to start out evenhanded, and then blast on the one hand government for sugar, but on the other hand the end users for cannabis. Even though there's a million times more gummint regulation on the latter and really nothing on the former. Not a word about the judgement of sugar users, yet cannabis users get "stupid" four times, while all the government gets is an invitation to "tax the hell out of it".

Interesting double standard. And transparent.
Rhetorical air ball.

Again, the government has no business banning pot, legalize it and tax it.
Government has no business regulating sugar.
Very consistent.

As far as sugar, you shouldn't put a lot of process crap in your system, that is stupid.
Inhaling smoke into your lungs is stupid.

Got it, am I clear enough?

Oh you were clear enough the first time. No need for a spin cycle.

Glad you can justify inhaling crap into your lungs. You are also transparent as hell.

As far as the claim that smoking pot is enlightening, you sure prove that wrong.

 

[dblack]

The main thing is, we need to tell everyone how to live. And kill them if they don't abide.

 

[Pogo]

Again, the government has no business banning pot, legalize it and tax it.
Government has no business regulating sugar.
Very consistent.

As far as sugar, you shouldn't put a lot of process crap in your system, that is stupid.
Inhaling smoke into your lungs is stupid.

Got it, am I clear enough?

Oh you were clear enough the first time. No need for a spin cycle.

Glad you can justify inhaling crap into your lungs. You are also transparent as hell.

As far as the claim that smoking pot is enlightening, you sure prove that wrong.

And who claimed anything like that, Saran Wrap Man?

Ah, here we go... another four-day runaway. Nothing like "think before posting"...

​

 

[Papageorgio]

Oh you were clear enough the first time. No need for a spin cycle.

Glad you can justify inhaling crap into your lungs. You are also transparent as hell.

As far as the claim that smoking pot is enlightening, you sure prove that wrong.

And who claimed anything like that, Saran Wrap Man?

Ah, here we go... another four-day runaway. Nothing like "think before posting"...

​

Wow, to the name calling. Show me where I didn't respond to you for four days.

I stand by my claim, idiots inhale smoke into their lungs, and pot is not an enlightening drug.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Pogo]

Soda is worse than marijuana. Countless studies prove that.

Really?

I know people who recognize that their marijuana use impaired their judgment;
and one artist gave it up after it caused her to lose a major project because
she was high and wasn't focused. I have friends who did not improve from their constant paranoia and negative attitudes until after they quit pot, where there are studies cited as it causing longterm paranoia and personality changes that soda does NOT cause. I understand there is research that the chemicals can even affect the person's DNA which I don't think you can say for soda.

I've never known someone's judgment and personality to be affected that way by soda.
But I have many friends whose relationships have been severely impaired by pot smoking.

And given the poor judgment shown by Amanda Knox and her boyfriend who had been smoking pot, do you think the same mess would have happened if they had been drinking soda?

P.S. Again if anyone else out there can please enlighten and help me in my struggle to understand this weird justification that sugar is more deleterious to one's health than pot,
PLEASE help me get this.

Am I not smoking the same crack that these other people are on?
Is it the sugar in my soda I am drinking?

If I started smoking pot, where I can't work a regular job anymore if I can't pass a drug test, would that help me to empathize with people who blame the govt for their problems?

Can anyone help me out here, please? I still don't get this, please
explain how sugar is more dangerous than pot or if these people
are just joking with me or what!

Emily if you're still here, I meant to address this yesterday and got onto other things...

Nobody should be allowing themselves to be drug tested for employment, period. It astounds me that some of the voices protesting government "intrusions" in the form of banning a Big Gulp (or other things) turn around and just roll over for such a blatant violation of civil liberties as this.

Personally I've never taken an employment drug test in my life and when I've been asked to I told them to take a hike (and yes, they backed down). I find it appalling that anyone rolls over for this, and thus Big Brother crapola enables this kind of lunacy. I won't even patronize a store that has the balls to announce "we drug test our employees", though I'll go in and let them know my objections.

Stand UP for yourselves, folks. If you don't have enough self-worth to do that, then stand up for the rest of us. Just. Say. No.

(/rant off)

 

[Pogo]

Glad you can justify inhaling crap into your lungs. You are also transparent as hell.

As far as the claim that smoking pot is enlightening, you sure prove that wrong.

And who claimed anything like that, Saran Wrap Man?

Ah, here we go... another four-day runaway. Nothing like "think before posting"...

​

Wow, to the name calling. Show me where I didn't respond to you for four days.

I stand by my claim, idiots inhale smoke into their lungs, and pot is not an enlightening drug.

Prove me wrong.

No, you throw your claim into Reverse, and I quote from directly above:

>>

As far as the claim that smoking pot is enlightening, you sure prove that wrong.

<<

Didja catch it? Now where did I claim that "smoking pot is enlightening"? Where did anyone?

But wait, there's more...
>>

Glad you can justify inhaling crap into your lungs. You are also transparent as hell.

<<

Where did I say anything about what's in my lungs? Where?

Now you'll proceed to make post after post trying to weasel your way out of this one too. It's what you do. Because you're a coward who can't own up to his own rash statements.

 

[Papageorgio]

And who claimed anything like that, Saran Wrap Man?

Ah, here we go... another four-day runaway. Nothing like "think before posting"...

​

Wow, to the name calling. Show me where I didn't respond to you for four days.

I stand by my claim, idiots inhale smoke into their lungs, and pot is not an enlightening drug.

Prove me wrong.

No, you throw your claim into Reverse, and I quote from directly above:

>>

As far as the claim that smoking pot is enlightening, you sure prove that wrong.

<<

Didja catch it? Now where did I claim that "smoking pot is enlightening"? Where did anyone?

But wait, there's more...
>>

Glad you can justify inhaling crap into your lungs. You are also transparent as hell.

<<

Where did I say anything about what's in my lungs? Where?

Now you'll proceed to make post after post trying to weasel your way out of this one too. It's what you do. Because you're a coward who can't own up to his own rash statements.

Did I say you made the claim? I said the claim has been made, you simply prove it wrong. Nice try of twisting.

As far as the second statement that infers you smoke pot, like I said, you are transparent as hell.

Now about my not responding to you for four days, since you can't prove anything else, can you prove that?

Or are you going to continuing lies? I think the later.

 

[Pogo]

Wow, to the name calling. Show me where I didn't respond to you for four days.

I stand by my claim, idiots inhale smoke into their lungs, and pot is not an enlightening drug.

Prove me wrong.

No, you throw your claim into Reverse, and I quote from directly above:

>> <<

Didja catch it? Now where did I claim that "smoking pot is enlightening"? Where did anyone?

But wait, there's more...
>>

Glad you can justify inhaling crap into your lungs. You are also transparent as hell.

<<

Where did I say anything about what's in my lungs? Where?

Now you'll proceed to make post after post trying to weasel your way out of this one too. It's what you do. Because you're a coward who can't own up to his own rash statements.

Did I say you made the claim? I said the claim has been made, you simply prove it wrong. Nice try of twisting.

Yeah? Where? When? By who? Link? Quote? Hallucination?

As far as the second statement that infers you smoke pot, like I said, you are transparent as hell.

A statement can't infer. Are you trying to say imply? In any case, you haven't answered jack shit about my lungs.
Link? Quote? A vision perhaps? Did God speak to you from a burning bush with my voice? If so what did the bush smell like?

Weasel words. Exactly as I predicted.

Now about my not responding to you for four days, since you can't prove anything else, can you prove that?

Or are you going to continuing lies? I think the later.

Yeah, I think it's five days at this point. Hence, "the later".

SMH...

 

[Michelle420]

You don't have to smoke it, you can eat a cakepop or a brownie

Sasquatch Deliveries | MMJ Menu - Flowers, Medibles, & Concentrates

 

[Harry Dresden]

Over use of anything is bad and can have damaging effects.

The soda size ban is absolutely ridiculous and should not go into law. Government is being overbearing.

Smoking pot is just plain stupid, for anyone to think inhaling smoke into one's lungs can result in a positive, is stupid, you have have to be brain dead to think it otherwise.

All that said, let government legalize pot and tax the hell out of it, just like nuts who smoke tobacco. Let the idiots pay for their stupidity. Make people pay for being just plain stupid.

Can't help noticing- you pretend to start out evenhanded, and then blast on the one hand government for sugar, but on the other hand the end users for cannabis. Even though there's a million times more gummint regulation on the latter and really nothing on the former. Not a word about the judgement of sugar users, yet cannabis users get "stupid" four times, while all the government gets is an invitation to "tax the hell out of it".

Interesting double standard. And transparent.
Rhetorical air ball.

Again, the government has no business banning pot, legalize it and tax it.
Government has no business regulating sugar. They can tax refined sugar.
Very consistent.

As far as sugar, you shouldn't put a lot of process crap in your system, that is stupid.
Inhaling smoke into your lungs is stupid.

Not a double standard, more bias, I just think cigarette and pot smokers are disillusioned into thinking that inhaling smoke into your lungs can't be that bad.

i did not know anyone like that.....they all knew being a heavy smoker was doing some damage.....they also knew one is Physically addictive the other could be Mentally addictive.....but when you are doing laps on the football field and you see the Cig smokers dying 40% of the way around the field and the guys you know smoke Pot making it all the way around .....it kinda gives you the impression that one is somewhat harder on the lungs than the other..... and i witnessed this many a time during PE classes at Fullerton J.C.....

 

[JWBooth]

A drugged society is an easily manipulated society.

As opposed to the current norm?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfGYSHy1jQs]Mothers Little Helper Rolling Stones (w/ lyrics) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ScienceRocks]

I believe both should be legal. Personal freedom is good.

 

[emilynghiem]

Again, the government has no business banning pot, legalize it and tax it.
Government has no business regulating sugar.
Very consistent.

As far as sugar, you shouldn't put a lot of process crap in your system, that is stupid.
Inhaling smoke into your lungs is stupid.

Got it, am I clear enough?

Oh you were clear enough the first time. No need for a spin cycle.

Glad you can justify inhaling crap into your lungs. You are also transparent as hell.

As far as the claim that smoking pot is enlightening, you sure prove that wrong.

Soda is worse than marijuana. Countless studies prove that.

Really?

I know people who recognize that their marijuana use impaired their judgment;
and one artist gave it up after it caused her to lose a major project because
she was high and wasn't focused. I have friends who did not improve from their constant paranoia and negative attitudes until after they quit pot, where there are studies cited as it causing longterm paranoia and personality changes that soda does NOT cause. I understand there is research that the chemicals can even affect the person's DNA which I don't think you can say for soda.

I've never known someone's judgment and personality to be affected that way by soda.
But I have many friends whose relationships have been severely impaired by pot smoking.

And given the poor judgment shown by Amanda Knox and her boyfriend who had been smoking pot, do you think the same mess would have happened if they had been drinking soda?

P.S. Again if anyone else out there can please enlighten and help me in my struggle to understand this weird justification that sugar is more deleterious to one's health than pot,
PLEASE help me get this.

Am I not smoking the same crack that these other people are on?
Is it the sugar in my soda I am drinking?

If I started smoking pot, where I can't work a regular job anymore if I can't pass a drug test, would that help me to empathize with people who blame the govt for their problems?

Can anyone help me out here, please? I still don't get this, please
explain how sugar is more dangerous than pot or if these people
are just joking with me or what!

Emily if you're still here, I meant to address this yesterday and got onto other things...

Nobody should be allowing themselves to be drug tested for employment, period. It astounds me that some of the voices protesting government "intrusions" in the form of banning a Big Gulp (or other things) turn around and just roll over for such a blatant violation of civil liberties as this.

Personally I've never taken an employment drug test in my life and when I've been asked to I told them to take a hike (and yes, they backed down). I find it appalling that anyone rolls over for this, and thus Big Brother crapola enables this kind of lunacy. I won't even patronize a store that has the balls to announce "we drug test our employees", though I'll go in and let them know my objections.

Stand UP for yourselves, folks. If you don't have enough self-worth to do that, then stand up for the rest of us. Just. Say. No.

(/rant off)

Hi Pogo, I appreciate you standing up for your principles, and even thanked posts on here I didn't agree with because I respected that people were sincere in trying to enforce consistent principles as with you and your intention.

However, I know too many people who are in stages of addiction and denial who would not have been forced to take responsibility except it affected their freedom and ability to support themselves. I agree that people addicted to drugs should be screened in applying for welfare benefits so they can get help and not jsut be a drag on the system. They do need to be encouraged to work to become independent, so I agree with the push for mental health and drug courts that help people address their issues so they can work.

A distinction must be made for people who are caught in unhealthy addiction that otherwise puts a financial drain on the criminal justice, health and welfare systems where they are not sustainable. If people are financially responsible for their decisions, such as microlending where they work or volunteer in community service to earn credits back, this could be made sustainable and reward people for being productive.

There are people like you who obviously are opposed due to principle and I do believe there is a way to set up the system where it does not punish or burden the law-abiding citizens trying to take responsibility. But we do have to start screening and diagnosing those are AREN'T being fully responsible, and/or are in denial about addiction and abuses preventing them from being productive law-abiding citizens instead of a drain on the system at the expense of people who DON'T agree to pay for that. If you agree to pay for these folks, that's fine, we should have a way to hold parties responsible for the policies we believe in enforcing, without taxing or burdening others with different standards they are willing to pay for. Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I believe these issues need to be addressed with the immigration reform and how to hold the lawbreakers accountable without harming the lawabiding citizens who are either burdened by overly broad restrictions or too little instead of writing legislation where it addresses wrongdoers and does not create undue burden on others who have no criminal intent. Very similar issue!

Thanks Pogo Yours truly, Emily

PS this is another reason I push for medical research and access to spiritual healing to address and treat addiction abuse and criminal illness at the root, so the problems caused by untreated addiction or abuses do not entangle the system with undue bureaucracy to regulate that imposes unfairly on the rights, freedom and resources of lawabiding citizens.
our whole system is backlogged because we chase after the myriad of symptoms of problems after the fact instead of investing in programs that prevent, correct and deter.

 

[emilynghiem]

A drugged society is an easily manipulated society.

As opposed to the current norm?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfGYSHy1jQs]Mothers Little Helper Rolling Stones (w/ lyrics) - YouTube[/ame]

The current norm IS to over-medicate people pushed by media propaganda to believe if your life is not one constantly happy coca cola commercial then something is wrong. I used to take for granted that people knew not to believe commercial hype; but when i saw whole websites of people dying of eating disorders from phobias about food and fat, where they cant see any images or it will trigger their addictions to relapse, I must acknowledge the problem is real.

 

[FA_Q2]

since Juvenile Diabetes has increased tremendously since the time we were kids its probably both.....also some schools have either gotten rid of PE or dont have the kids running around for an hour a day....it is to strenuous for the little tykes i guess.....some cereals today are more than 50% sugar ......when i was growing up we had Sugar Frosted Flakes,Sugar Pops,Sugar Smacks and Trix and there might be a few i cant remember.....today go down the Cereal isle and check out how many different Sugar Cereals they have now.....tell me the tykes of today are not being poisoned?....

So true, and it's a lot more than cereals. I used to enjoy tomato soup. Can't even buy it any more without ridiculous amounts of sugar. It's been insidiously injected into everything, so much so that you can't even find an alternative product without it. It's enough to make you wish for ....... gummint intervention.

But nooooo, we'd rather lock people up for toking.

It's like ethanol in gasoline. Those who want to sell themselves a story of an alternative biofuel, fine, let 'em have it. Just stop forcing me to use it too. Leave us a choice.

yea but sadly our Govt aint doing shit about it.....and 90% of the food companies aint doing shit about it......and this sugar fix is getting out of control.....there is some form of sugar added to just about everything.....

Good. I don’t want either to do shit about it. You know who I want to fix it – ME!

If you have a problem with sugary items, try not purchasing them. I know that such a concept is very tough but there is an entire section at the market devoted to fresh produce. It has zero added sugars and is actually really quite easy to prepare. Remove from fridge – eat.

It is not difficult. The government is not going to fix this no matter how many regulations that are passed. If people want sugar, they are going to pour it on themselves or eat a candy bar. It is up to us to make decisions that affect our lives and the choices are out there, even if you refuse to see them.

I believe this is all part of some grater illness that we are facing as a people. The illness of someone else. Too much sugar in the shit we eat, someone else will fix that. The evil food corporations should be taking care of my eating habits for me, making sure that the food I buy is healthy. If not, the government should intercede on my behalf forcing them to do it. That is nuts, We are smart individuals and we can make those decisions ourselves. We, as a whole, need to stop looking to others to save us from ourselves.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Legalizing marijuana in Washington State had been nothing but a good thing. I'm confused how or why anyone could be against something that gets innocent people out of the criminal system and generates revenue on the local level?

 

[emilynghiem]

Wow, to the name calling. Show me where I didn't respond to you for four days.

I stand by my claim, idiots inhale smoke into their lungs, and pot is not an enlightening drug.

Prove me wrong.

No, you throw your claim into Reverse, and I quote from directly above:

>> <<

Didja catch it? Now where did I claim that "smoking pot is enlightening"? Where did anyone?

But wait, there's more...
>>

Glad you can justify inhaling crap into your lungs. You are also transparent as hell.

<<

Where did I say anything about what's in my lungs? Where?

Now you'll proceed to make post after post trying to weasel your way out of this one too. It's what you do. Because you're a coward who can't own up to his own rash statements.

Did I say you made the claim? I said the claim has been made, you simply prove it wrong. Nice try of twisting.

As far as the second statement that infers you smoke pot, like I said, you are transparent as hell.

Now about my not responding to you for four days, since you can't prove anything else, can you prove that?

Or are you going to continuing lies? I think the later.

Hi Papa and Pogo: I appreciate your blunt honesty and passionate concerns about this issue. After moving past the namecalling and jabs at the person, I am more interested in the underlying points issues and research on the harmful effects and damages and whether this can better be addressed in direct ways instead of contested legislation. it seems to me that if consumers and citizens dont take full responsibility by educated choices then we all suffer consequences collectively by either rampant problems not being checked or by overregulated legislation to counteract that similar to contested gun laws not directly related to newtown as an emotional response to send a message of public disapproval.
we need to address problems at the source as directly as possible not get sidetracked by personal politics or we will continue to suffer from deadlock and misdirected laws.

if we can pinpoint which issues are most vital to resolve and address can we take those into a bullring type of debate minus any superfluous namecalling and side jabs back and forth. i appreciate your sincerity and commitment to principles you defend and dont want that lost in personal arguments or backlash which distracts from your content. thanks and i hope these exchanges shed some enlightenment on the whole process leading to solutions!

yours truly, emily

 

[emilynghiem]

You don't have to smoke it, you can eat a cakepop or a brownie

Sasquatch Deliveries | MMJ Menu - Flowers, Medibles, & Concentrates

Dear Drifter: The people I know who have solved their internal conflicts through spiritual healing and forgiveness don't have any need to take intoxicants. The ones who were previously addicted have reported either losing their cravings immediately where they stopped cold turkey (including smoking, alcohol or heroin with no withdrawal symptoms) or gradually wean themselves off over time by making a commitment to follow a more healthy regime (such as some of my friends who require longer to get past addictions step by step daily).

I agree people should not be criminally penalized for having emotional mental or mood disorders that are better off treated medically; but better choices, information and access to free treatment should be equally available instead of limiting people's choices to self-medication using means that do have side effects including psychological and physical addiction. That can't be people's only choices, which I believe it borders on negligence since spiritual healing is free, natural, and without side effects and has long been used and proven in studies and practice to cure the cause of physical diseases and mental addictions.

To deny people access to this knowledge and process of treatment could even be criminal in cases where people went untreated and unsupervised to harm themselves or others.

I'm not saying all people who smoke or consume pot are addicts, and certainly not dangerous criminals, but it is wrong to promote that as safe while denying the reality of addiction and also access to free and natural therapy that has freed people from denial and addiction as well as the harmful effects of both the causes and symptoms of addictions. I'm concerned people have fully informed choices so they make the best decisions for them.

 

[FA_Q2]

Legalizing marijuana in Washington State had been nothing but a good thing. I'm confused how or why anyone could be against something that gets innocent people out of the criminal system and generates revenue on the local level?

C S Lewis stated it best:

“"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience."

They do so because they are moralists attempting to impose their moral obligations on others.

 

[emilynghiem]

Legalizing marijuana in Washington State had been nothing but a good thing. I'm confused how or why anyone could be against something that gets innocent people out of the criminal system and generates revenue on the local level?

Yes and no, BB.

I agree with de-criminalizing pot and drugs, while still having some alternative such as the drug courts and mental health courts that address the addiction with rehab so people can become functional and keep working to support their families instead of backlogging jails.

If we don't address the addictions then the health and behavior problems end up costing taxpayers in terms of our backlogged mental health and prison systems which could be used to expand medical education, treatment and service programs to revamp health care.

If the same process of legalizing marijuana by promoting more natural herbal medical useage were also used to promote natural and free spiritual healing to cure diseases and addictions and to cut down on medical expenses so more resources can help more people then I would not object. But if people keep depending on placating symptoms instead of solving the real cause of health problems then we still are putting bandaids on wounds instead of healing them at the source, so I do have a problem with that. If people want different policies, they should have the freedom to fund the costs themselves; so people who believe in free spiritual healing can have access to the system and resources freed up by using those methods, and people who want to smoke pot can pay for any health problems, side effects, or problems not solved by using that system. And let people have an educated choice which approach is more natural and cures more diseases and addictions. i believe the spiritual healing will prove more cost-effective and medically effective, and will eventually end the need to turn to alcohol, smoking etc. because it cures the addition itself. so we will save more lives and resources both immediately and longterm, once it is medically established that spiritual healing is natural and effective and can also cure conditions where medicine alone has failed but only placates symptoms at a higher cost.