ADVERTISEMENT

Pot and gay marriage

Drop.Tine

Drop.Tine

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2013
3,257
19
38
I grew up in a Irish Catholic household. Just to preface this.


Why do people care whether or not a man/man or women/women want to marry? I'm so dang tired of this being a topic. It kills any chance at a real conversation on **** that matters. If it doesn't align with your religious views, why do you care? Will it sadden you that these people will go to hell? But other than that why do you care? Get over it. Some dudes like dudes, some women like women.


Secondly, pot is no different than alcohol. This war against weed is getting ridiculous, and is a complete waste of time and resources. Drop the legal age of alcohol to 18 and legalize pot for those 18 and older. No smoking pot in public, outside of designated locations(like a "coffee shop").


If people started worrying about themselves and their own interest this country would be a lot better place.

I still go to church once in a blue moon, but the irony of the catholic church or Christians in general telling other people what is right or wrong when it comes to homosexuality is pretty funny.
 
Only problem I have with your post would be dropping the age for use. I think there is enough scientific evidence out there to support 21 over 18.
 
While gay marriage likely won't have a direct affect on me legalizing pot most certainly could. Just because alcohol is legal is a horrible reason to make pot legal. Alcohol creates a ton of problems. Why make something else legal that can do the same thing or worse? There's enough people driving cars under the influence of something now. Legalizing pot will just add to that. And it's a well know fact that many hard drug users got their start with pot. Making it legal just makes it easier for people to get started down that road. I realize a lot of people already smoke pot. But they have to go out of their way to get it and use it. That in itself holds some limits on who does it. Making it readily available down at the corner store will only encourage others to try it and the problems it creates will just increase. And those problems can most definitely have a direct affect on me.

That's my opinion.
 
Drop,
I think some might say that a moral decline preceeds a national decline. Not specifically just the two items you mentioned, but those along with a "whatever i want to do is ok" attitude. If you look at the Roman empire, they got to a point where the type of thinking you describe was the norm. Anything was ok in Rome, and the empire fell. I think looking historically at it, some feel this is contributing to the demise of our nation.
 
Originally posted by oldroundballer:
While gay marriage likely won't have a direct affect on me legalizing pot most certainly could. Just because alcohol is legal is a horrible reason to make pot legal. Alcohol creates a ton of problems. Why make something else legal that can do the same thing or worse? There's enough people driving cars under the influence of something now. Legalizing pot will just add to that. And it's a well know fact that many hard drug users got their start with pot. Making it legal just makes it easier for people to get started down that road. I realize a lot of people already smoke pot. But they have to go out of their way to get it and use it. That in itself holds some limits on who does it. Making it readily available down at the corner store will only encourage others to try it and the problems it creates will just increase. And those problems can most definitely have a direct affect on me.

That's my opinion.
Click to expand...
So now we're in the babysitting business? If you want to smoke pot, you can readily get it, it's not hard. It's a complete drain of our tax money to fight this fight.

"X" creates a ton of problems. Does not make for a good argument. "Guns" create a ton of problems. "Obesity" creates a ton of problems.

There is a long line of things that our society has issues with outside of pot. The fact that it "can create problems" so it should be illegal is not exactly a good defense.

You're a smart man, you understand statistics. Of course there are going to be people who use Meth AND smoke pot. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have started using meth without smoking pot first.
 
Originally posted by Bearcat-time:
Drop,
I think some might say that a moral decline preceeds a national decline. Not specifically just the two items you mentioned, but those along with a "whatever i want to do is ok" attitude. If you look at the Roman empire, they got to a point where the type of thinking you describe was the norm. Anything was ok in Rome, and the empire fell. I think looking historically at it, some feel this is contributing to the demise of our nation.
Click to expand...
The demise of our society starts at home.
 
Originally posted by Bearcat-time:
Drop,
I think some might say that a moral decline preceeds a national decline. Not specifically just the two items you mentioned, but those along with a "whatever i want to do is ok" attitude. If you look at the Roman empire, they got to a point where the type of thinking you describe was the norm. Anything was ok in Rome, and the empire fell. I think looking historically at it, some feel this is contributing to the demise of our nation.
Click to expand...
The Roman empire did not decline due to morals about sex or drug use. Come on now.
 
Originally posted by Black&Gold82:
Originally posted by Drop.Tine:


If people started worrying about themselves and their own interest this country would be a lot better place.
Click to expand...
Isn't that anarchy?
Click to expand...
No, anarchy is about denial of governmental authority, not about the government regulating fewer things.
 
Originally posted by oldroundballer:
While gay marriage likely won't have a direct affect on me legalizing pot most certainly could. Just because alcohol is legal is a horrible reason to make pot legal. Alcohol creates a ton of problems. Why make something else legal that can do the same thing or worse? There's enough people driving cars under the influence of something now. Legalizing pot will just add to that. And it's a well know fact that many hard drug users got their start with pot. Making it legal just makes it easier for people to get started down that road. I realize a lot of people already smoke pot. But they have to go out of their way to get it and use it. That in itself holds some limits on who does it. Making it readily available down at the corner store will only encourage others to try it and the problems it creates will just increase. And those problems can most definitely have a direct affect on me.

That's my opinion.
Click to expand...
http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/15/5717074/no-marijuana-isnt-a-gateway-drug

Marijuana as a gateway drug argument is a classic example of people confusing correlation for causation.
 
From my post earlier: " Not specifically just the two items you mentioned, but those along with a "whatever i want to do is ok" attitude."
 
Originally posted by Bearcat-time:
From my post earlier: " Not specifically just the two items you mentioned, but those along with a "whatever i want to do is ok" attitude."
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with why Rome fell. Again, come on now, no one can take you seriously when you claim that.

Empires do not fall because men sleep with men or because they allow a lot of individual freedom; they fail because their enemies advance faster than they do or they implode through a civil war for power or poor governance.

In the case of Rome, its failure has a lot to do with the split into two - the Eastern empire based in Constantinople was much better equipped to survive on its own.

Also, you do realize Rome fell AFTER it became Christian, right? The rise to power of Rome was led by pagans with a different set of morals. It was the Christians who led Rome into decay! The adoption of Christianity was arguably a cause of the fall of Rome; a mandated change in the religion of its people is the sort of thing which causes instability.
 
If the arguement is that it doesn't affect me then why is pot considered different than other drugs? No drug use affects me. Do they affect societal decay or advancement? That is the pertinent question. The same applies to homosexuallity.

While I would not advocate making "sins" illegal (drug use or homosexuallity) I also would oppose the government sanctioning any activity detrimental to society. The governments role should be to encourage desired behavior ant discourage undesired behavior.
 
I oppose all taxes not just the ones that affect me.
Cigarettes are a detriment to ones health not society. I've never had a smoker affect me any more than an annoying personality.
 
Smokung doesnt affect the cost of health insurance for every single adult in this country?
We all share the cost.
 
Once again. Sugar can be used in moderation by millions without an issue.
Cigarettes can not. Raising taxes on cigs reduces the number of smokers
significantly. I know you believe in this. Its ok.
 
Originally posted by runyouover:
Once again. Sugar can be used in moderation by millions without an issue.
Cigarettes can not. Raising taxes on cigs reduces the number of smokers
significantly. I know you believe in this. Its ok.
Click to expand...
That's the best you got?
Define moderation! There are as many occasional smokers as occasional sugar users (very few of either).
 
Originally posted by millerbleach:

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/

Which one affects more people directly or has the bigger impact on healthcare costs?
Most insurances have higher rates for smokers.
Click to expand...
Some do, some don't; a lot of private employer insurance plans don't charge more for smokers yet. Premiums set by the government for Medicare Part A and B also don't vary by smoker status.

Obesity is coming as a health cost issue. It is very, very expensive. Think type II diabetes as an archetype of this.

The biggest challenge with obesity is its not a disease caused by a single factor. It's very easy to tax tobacco to lower the rate of smoking. But, you can eat terribly on occasion (or even regularly) and not get fat - diet, exercise, stress, genetics, sleep patterns, etc. all affect your weight.

I think obesity is something which requires societal attention, but I don't think it is as simple as taxing sugar and what not. For example, I think the push for healthier school lunches are a good idea - diet is a behavior which is heavily learned in childhood. If we're going to buy millions of kids two meals a day, we shouldn't be buying them crap.
 
Originally posted by millerbleach:
Originally posted by runyouover:
Once again. Sugar can be used in moderation by millions without an issue.
Cigarettes can not. Raising taxes on cigs reduces the number of smokers
significantly. I know you believe in this. Its ok.
Click to expand...
That's the best you got?
Define moderation! There are as many occasional smokers as occasional sugar users (very few of either).
Click to expand...
I don't believe that to be the case.

Further, there is no such thing as a safe level of cigarette use in any peer-reviewed study. Being an occasional smoker significantly increases your risk of lung cancer an other diseases. That's not the case for other items - you can occasionally eat badly and be fine. You can occasionally drink alcohol (especially wine) and have no measurable health impact.
 
Miller you do understand that opposing all taxes is a rather ridiculous thing to say.
 
Originally posted by Neutron Monster:

Further, there is no such thing as a safe level of cigarette use in any peer-reviewed study. Being an occasional smoker significantly increases your risk of lung cancer an other diseases. That's not the case for other items - you can occasionally eat badly and be fine. You can occasionally drink alcohol (especially wine) and have no measurable health impact.
Click to expand...
Where did I say otherwise?

Do you believe there is a "safe" level of pot use?

This post was edited on 1/17 6:03 PM by millerbleach
 
Originally posted by Neutron Monster:


Originally posted by millerbleach:

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/

Which one affects more people directly or has the bigger impact on healthcare costs?
Most insurances have higher rates for smokers.
Click to expand...
Some do, some don't; a lot of private employer insurance plans don't charge more for smokers yet. Premiums set by the government for Medicare Part A and B also don't vary by smoker status.

Obesity is coming as a health cost issue. It is very, very expensive. Think type II diabetes as an archetype of this.

The biggest challenge with obesity is its not a disease caused by a single factor. It's very easy to tax tobacco to lower the rate of smoking. But, you can eat terribly on occasion (or even regularly) and not get fat - diet, exercise, stress, genetics, sleep patterns, etc. all affect your weight.

I think obesity is something which requires societal attention, but I don't think it is as simple as taxing sugar and what not. For example, I think the push for healthier school lunches are a good idea - diet is a behavior which is heavily learned in childhood. If we're going to buy millions of kids two meals a day, we shouldn't be buying them crap.
Click to expand...
If you buy health insurance as an individual and smoke, you will pay a higher premium. Group rates are just that.....an average of the groups health.

Sugar and Obesity are not absolutely joined but you'd be hard pressed to find an obese person who doesn't abuse sugar.
That same arguement could be used for tobacco. Not all smokers die from smoking and not all lung cancer is from smoking.
 
The distinction you are making about group vs individual is meaningless; the "individual" rate is the average of the individuals making up a public market group. The substance of charging a tobacco surcharge is the same in both situations.

Technically, they are tobacco surcharges, not smoker surcharges. They are supposed to apply if you dip or use cigars or pipes. So, yes, they do cover all tobacco users.

The fact is the average smoker sees a significant decrease in their life expectancy from smoking although with significantly higher health care costs, on average, during their lifetime.

No one is talking about charging people more for developing lung cancer if they didn't smoke. But the fact is that about 90% of the lung cancer cases in the US are from smoking. Not to mention COPD and other long-term health issues that are very expensive.
 
I would ask you to quit using our roads or anything else that tax money is used for. Drop off the face of the earth and quit paying taxes! That's not the lib in me but just a guy trying to help you with your hate issues
 
I'm sure Miller can give us very good explanation as to how we can operate our cities, counties, states and the country with NO taxes collected.
 
While revenue is needed to pay for things we all use, taxation affects people who don't use the service. User fees are a better way of paying for usage.
If all gas tax went to roads it would be an effective user fee....but they don't.
If a school tax was paid by those who use it it would be fair. As is, senior citizens are paying for our schools.
If there was a charge for fire and police use it would more effectively determine how much we want and also aid in preventing need.
If we paid for things as we used them we would use less and waste much less. The system we have now is so impersonal there is little way to affect the vast waste that occurs.
 
The tobacco tax is a use tax that isn't used to cover the cost of use. It is used as a deterrent to use rather than cover the cost of use. Behavior control taxes are immoral in nature. If an activity is undesired it should be either made illegal or, considered the cost of freedom. In free societies there are things done by people that aren't liked. That brings us back to pot (you never said what the safe usage level was) and gay marriage. Neither should be prohibited in a free society. Neither should be endorsed in a free society. The government is wanting to endorse both.
 
So you think because I have not had a "personal need" for the City Police, County Sheriff or State Patrol that I shouldn't have to pay anything to keep them in existence? Do you think criminals would not commit as many crimes because only the people they rob will have to pay the police to show up? Do you think because I don't have kids in school now that I shouldn't have to pay anything to keep our schools open? How much do you think it would cost per family if they were the only ones paying for the school system? If you have kids in grade school does that mean you should not pay anything to keep the high school open until your kids get there? How much would your "user fee" be for having the fire department come because your house is burning? How much would your "user fee" be for a business that has a fire? Do you really think you could keep a city fire department up and running on a "user fee" only?
 
Exactly 3R it would never work.

That also ignores a host of federal programs like unemployment, Medicare, etc that can never be funded by user fees.

and it ignores the incredible bureaucracy you would need to create to collect and manage these fees. You want to complain about the size of government now...wait until you see one that has to collect 5.50 per person for the NIH, 10 per worker for unemployment, 80 dollars per child for the lunch program, 300 for enrolling in Medicare, etc.

Use fees work well for many services, and we should use them where we can. Like, taxing gas is a good idea. Charging people for a passport is a good idea. the core idea is that when the value of these services is only accrued by the user, the cost is easy enough to measure, the cost is not an undue burden at the time of collection, and there's not a need for everyone to use the service, a user fee is a good way to directly raise the necessary revenue.

This sort of logic doesn't work for schools, police, military, Medicare, etc.
 
No one is arguing a tobacco tax is a use tax. It is a sin tax.

Sin taxes are not "immoral". They are effective deterrents to bad behavior and efficient ways to raise revenue. They are especially useful in preventing smoking by teens. There is a direct relationship in the US between cigarette taxes in a state and the decline in use of cigarettes among teens.. The taxes work exactly as intended. They have prevented many young Americans from becoming regular tobacco users. They promote a healthier society and raise revenue from a "bad" behavior instead of a "good" one (like income.) that is a very good outcome.

There's a limit to how far they can be taken, but sin taxes have functioned very well here and abroad.

You are making stuff up about pot; no government in the world is endorsing the use of pot.

And lol at behavior taxes being immoral they are the exactly opposite of immoral. There's no way you said that with a straight face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bullitpdq68

UnitedHealth Group CEO concedes health system 'does not work as well as it should' following shooting backlash

Replies
10
Views
833
KANSAS CITY/POLITICAL CRAP BOARD
revno
revno
bullitpdq68

Trump supporters Questions.

Replies
6
Views
499
KANSAS CITY/POLITICAL CRAP BOARD
r14veer
R
Expect2Win

Trump's Cabinet

Replies
18
Views
602
KANSAS CITY/POLITICAL CRAP BOARD
r14veer
R
P

Another case for public/private split (part 3 or 4)?

Replies
12
Views
1K
FOOTBALL
freezeoption
F
Toots_mcgee

Smooth transition

Replies
1
Views
286
KANSAS CITY/POLITICAL CRAP BOARD
r14veer
R
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back