Wouldn't it make more sense to make abuse illegal and use as prescribed by a train professional legal?
I am against alcohol, weed, cigarettes, etc because they aren't well regulated enough. Just look at the weed thread at the number of children to say "weed isn't bad for you actually it's good for you if anything" or something equally as uninformed. Complete legalization is a bad move, but allowing professionals to prescribe them is fine.
I am against alcohol, weed, cigarettes, etc because they aren't well regulated enough. Just look at the weed thread at the number of children to say "weed isn't bad for you actually it's good for you if anything" or something equally as uninformed. Complete legalization is a bad move, but allowing professionals to prescribe them is fine.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
[QUOTE=ImmortalPig;7676680]Complete legalization is a bad move,QUOTE]
Not really. Colorado and Washington have already legalized weed, there are far more benefits then there ever could be negatives.
Recreational weed use in those states hasn't skyrocketed, the number of people using it after legalization is about the same as those before.
They are also pretty well-regulated. In Colorado you can carry 1 ounce, grow up to 6 plants, so long as only 3 of them are mature at a time. Washington does the same thing, only you can't grow yourself any.
On top of that, since it's legal, it's also taxed, and that money which before probably would've gone towards gangs or something, instead now goes towards paying for themselves.
Logically, you should say it's a good move. Considering the fact that they did it in Colorado and Washington and nothing happened; if anything good stuff happened. People calmed down, didn't have to worry about being arrested, and revune was generated and the majority of that was medical pot, not recreational. To say that they shouldn't legalize because it's a bad move goes against all data they've collected.
Illogical.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I am against alcohol, weed, cigarettes, etc because they aren't well regulated enough.
Not really. Colorado and Washington have already legalized weed, there are far more benefits then there ever could be negatives.
Recreational weed use in those states hasn't skyrocketed, the number of people using it after legalization is about the same as those before.
They are also pretty well-regulated. In Colorado you can carry 1 ounce, grow up to 6 plants, so long as only 3 of them are mature at a time. Washington does the same thing, only you can't grow yourself any.
On top of that, since it's legal, it's also taxed, and that money which before probably would've gone towards gangs or something, instead now goes towards paying for themselves.
Logically, you should say it's a good move. Considering the fact that they did it in Colorado and Washington and nothing happened; if anything good stuff happened. People calmed down, didn't have to worry about being arrested, and revune was generated and the majority of that was medical pot, not recreational. To say that they shouldn't legalize because it's a bad move goes against all data they've collected.
Illogical.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Wouldn't it make more sense to make abuse illegal and use as prescribed by a train professional legal?
How exactly would this work? What would be your model to realise this scenario? Also, I would still insist on segregated competitions: natural and with use of steroids. Competitions are not about results only. It's not about the times of your laps. Those 9.77s for 100m sprint does not really mean anything in se. It's just a number. What matters is that number compared to other people. To reach these astronomically good lap times, you need to train hard and devote your life to the sport. If a substance exists that drastically reduces the effort necessary to reach a <10s lap time, and is widely used, then a <10s lap time instantly loses a lot of its value.
f=m*a syens
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»