- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,575
- Reaction score
- 6,767
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Re: ISTOOK: The blunt truth — White house drug czar contradicts Obama on marijuana
No offense, but your example also falls under that catagory. Hell, even my brother in law's story falls under that line technically.
Point being that cancer, like many things, isn't a "sure" thing and there are many many factors involved, not just one. Does one run the risk if they smoke anything? Yes. But it isn't a sure thing, nor should it be the business of the government to get involved in making something like this illegal. Just like New York has shown, when you get any government entity deciding "what is bad for you, hence illegal" you run the risk of draconian laws.
As much as I would hate the government to do it, if they government made alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, etc illegal (while draconian) that would make the only sense in making pot illegal. Since none of those things I listed except pot are illegal, it doesn't make sense to make pot illegal.
so she said
No offense, but your example also falls under that catagory. Hell, even my brother in law's story falls under that line technically.
Point being that cancer, like many things, isn't a "sure" thing and there are many many factors involved, not just one. Does one run the risk if they smoke anything? Yes. But it isn't a sure thing, nor should it be the business of the government to get involved in making something like this illegal. Just like New York has shown, when you get any government entity deciding "what is bad for you, hence illegal" you run the risk of draconian laws.
As much as I would hate the government to do it, if they government made alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, etc illegal (while draconian) that would make the only sense in making pot illegal. Since none of those things I listed except pot are illegal, it doesn't make sense to make pot illegal.