Skip to content

Marijuana tax revenue hit $200 million in Colorado as sales pass $1 billion

Political Discussion
115 15 2.3k
  • Look pot should be nationally legal. Anyone who's ever smoked pot and also gotten drunk can tell you in no uncertain terms which is more dangerous. Personally I consider alcohol the most damaging drug. Nothing fucks you up to the level alcohol does. Other drugs mess you up,acid and mushrooms and the like make you pretty crazy and opiates can easily kill you but nothing else makes you falling down, sloppy, puking , engaging in terrible behavior than alcohol. And it's proven to be as addictive as heroin to boot. Pot is none of those things. You might give yourself lung cancer but so what? That's called a personal choice. Republicans were supposed to be for that last I heard.

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    Look pot should be nationally legal. Anyone who's ever smoked pot and also gotten drunk can tell you in no uncertain terms which is more dangerous. Personally I consider alcohol the most damaging drug. Nothing fucks you up to the level alcohol does. Other drugs mess you up,acid and mushrooms and the like make you pretty crazy and opiates can easily kill you but nothing else makes you falling down, sloppy, puking , engaging in terrible behavior than alcohol. And it's proven to be as addictive as heroin to boot. Pot is none of those things. You might give yourself lung cancer but so what? That's called a personal choice. Republicans were supposed to be for that last I heard.

    But I'm tired as shit of hearing how it cures cancer. It doesn't cure cancer. It might have some treatment benefits, in certain forms, but a cure? No.

  • @the-cysko-kid said:

    Look pot should be nationally legal. Anyone who's ever smoked pot and also gotten drunk can tell you in no uncertain terms which is more dangerous. Personally I consider alcohol the most damaging drug. Nothing fucks you up to the level alcohol does. Other drugs mess you up,acid and mushrooms and the like make you pretty crazy and opiates can easily kill you but nothing else makes you falling down, sloppy, puking , engaging in terrible behavior than alcohol. And it's proven to be as addictive as heroin to boot. Pot is none of those things. You might give yourself lung cancer but so what? That's called a personal choice. Republicans were supposed to be for that last I heard.

    But I'm tired as shit of hearing how it cures cancer. It doesn't cure cancer. It might have some treatment benefits, in certain forms, but a cure? No.

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    But I'm tired as shit of hearing how it cures cancer. It doesn't cure cancer. It might have some treatment benefits, in certain forms, but a cure? No.

    Not only does it not cure cancer, evidence shows correlations of higher incidence of cancer in heavy pot users. Generally speaking, burning anything and inhaling the smoke would probably increase the chances of cancer. Just a morbid reminder. We all have cancer cells in our bodies. You get 'cancer' when your body fails to properly dispose of them, allowing them to grow.

    Even if it does cause cancer, the real argument in my mind is the total harm vs the total benefit. I would agree with Cysko's argument, alcohol's total harm (deaths due to accidents, deaths due to liver failure, positive and negative impacts on society and economy, etc...) is probably higher with alcohol than pot. I imagine pot has less collateral damage associated with it if it were made nationally legal.

    The biggest concern would be if it does cause harmful genetic mutations that can be passed down to children.

  • @boo-fagley said:

    I suppose we dont really know the effects of long term marijauna use on a grand scale until now. .

    Humans have known for thousands and thousands if years the long term effects of marijuana. Srsly, modern humans baffle me....its like humans living 5k years ago were borderline apes living in caves when in actuality they were already formulating the foundations of calculus. And ither shit like studying the effects of various plants on humans.

    Theres sophisticated chinese manuscripts from 5000 bc detailing marijuana uses, side effects etc, etc. But even in modern times marijuanas been studied for probably over a century

  • @boo-fagley said:

    Lets me rephrase.

    We dont know the long term effects of legalized marijuana until now.

    Ok ic what ur getting at my bad

  • @the-cysko-kid said:

    It's not.

    I didn't write it. It's the food for thought title of the link I posted...thought it was interesting.

  • @the-cysko-kid said:

    It's not.

    I didn't write it. It's the food for thought title of the link I posted...thought it was interesting.

    @calfoxwc said:

    I didn't write it. It's the food for thought title of the link I posted...thought it was interesting.

    You didn't write it but you posted it which implies you agree with it

  • I like it - makes sense, how am I supposed to agree with it?

    I've never smoked. It's just a different take - food for thought.

    You assume I implied. Wrong.

  • weed-alcohol-family-guy-weedmemes.jpg

  • I think this falls under the group of conservative viewpoints characterized as "this is bad because it's different!" See also, gay marriage. The next step, where you pull biased studies out of thin air, drags on the process.

    Those that want conservative financial views would be better off dropping these type of views.

  • I like it - makes sense, how am I supposed to agree with it?

    I've never smoked. It's just a different take - food for thought.

    You assume I implied. Wrong.

    @calfoxwc said:

    I like it - makes sense, how am I supposed to agree with it?

    I've never smoked. It's just a different take - food for thought.

    You assume I implied. Wrong.

    Did you even read any of that uncited horseshit? What am I saying of course you didn't. Digital cloward-piven!

  • Oh not cloward again, its almost as bad as the magnets please dont get him going

  • The Cysko Kid, on 13 Feb 2017 - 2:31 PM, said:


    Did you even read any of that uncited horseshit? What am I saying of course you didn't. Digital cloward-piven!

    **********************************************

    What, you want to be an asswhole too?

    I read it, thought it was interesting. That's why I posted the link.Want me to post a lot

    more of em?

  • U didnt read shit coatse. Some of ur paste jobs would take u a whole day to read so pls spare us

  • The Cysko Kid, on 13 Feb 2017 - 2:31 PM, said:


    Did you even read any of that uncited horseshit? What am I saying of course you didn't. Digital cloward-piven!

    **********************************************

    What, you want to be an asswhole too?

    I read it, thought it was interesting. That's why I posted the link.Want me to post a lot

    more of em?

    @calfoxwc said:

    The Cysko Kid, on 13 Feb 2017 - 2:31 PM, said:

    Did you even read any of that uncited horseshit? What am I saying of course you didn't. Digital cloward-piven!

    **********************************************

    What, you want to be an asswhole too?

    I read it, thought it was interesting. That's why I posted the link.Want me to post a lot

    more of em?

    I am what I am. If I'm an asshole then so be it, but don't post horseshit, say you don't agree with it and then get all hurt when I call it horseshit. And about this tactic of regurgitating Google results when you're disagreed with...What's the point? Do you think anyone is going to read that? They're not.

  • well, don't tell me how to post. You aren't the boss. I'm not giving you any crap,

    I just thought the flip side of the argument was relevant.

    You don't because you are fairly liberal.

  • The flip side would have been relevant if any of it had citations and wasn't just bullshit "well why do you think they call it dope herp de derp"

    I'm not telling you how to post you'll do whatever you want a bunch of these guys have already put you in ignore. Since I haven't I'm merely telling you how incredibly tiresome it is.

  • Basically the people you're trying to assail with this are already ignoring you.

  • I don't think they are...too bad. Wish they would. you think cleve's asswholish

    rambling is a good thing? you don't mind that, but you don't like links that

    contain contradictory information.

    The piece was opinion. but I have posted links from everywhere, you just hate them

    when they disagree with you.

    You libs always want to control the board. Not going to happen. Let me have my opinions,

    and STFU. Cleve won't, you know who has started leaving me alone again.

    Personally, I'd rather be able to just talk politics, but you liberals go apecrap like online

    political terrorists - making people afraid to disagree with you, or afraid to voice their

    conservative opinions.

  • Now when it's convenient I'm a liberal. When I'm supporting your point youve been known to jump up over my shoulder with a "yeah what he said!"

    I'm not a liberal Cal. I'm very moderately conservative but I know when the party line is crap.

  • I like the diversity myself and have never put anyone on ignore. If we only have one point of view we would just have posters preaching to the choir in every post. My posts would be considered hard to the right but I also like the other middle of the road posters and reading about the hard left point of view (I don't have to agree with it).