Sorry for the late response, my internet was out yesterday.
If you cannot conclusively prove that each and every single smoker anyways uses a vaporizer and only smokes in their home, you have no point to begin with.
I don't have to. My argument is that smoking in and of itself doesn't effect anyone else but the smoker. Your point seems to be that it always effects everybody. By your logic, you could take anything, to include eating bologna sandwiches as having effects on society.
It's a controled substance which bars you from operating equipment or a vehicle while under the influence there-of. You really don't know much about this topic. Jesus dude get a clue and get back to me.
And? Why do you keep bringing up alcoholics in a debate about cannabis?
Well let's start with the fact that the government body which will be regulating weed is the same body which currently regulates alcohol, tobacco...and firearms.
So after I ask you why you bring up alcoholism in a cannabis debate, you quote the ATF? That doesn't even make sense.
Do you know the people I know? I could say anything and you have no way to verify it. Ask better questions.
Nope, and I don't need to. Nobody you know has lung cancer from weed.
So you agree that smoking pot affects other people.
No, it doesn't. Some idiots doing stupid things on it, just as with alcohol, huffing paint, or anything effects people. People's actions are people's actions. I swear, you're like one of those liberals screaming about how guns kill people and not the people themselves. Hypocrite much?
I'm in construction, I'm dead serious.
Guess you're opposed to grills, stoves, coffee pots, tv's, electricity, wool, matches, cigarettes, etc. for being fire hazards as well.
It's the business of every signing party on that contract. If you are on a shared policy, your smoking is affecting others by raising their premiums.
It's illegal, nobody puts it on their insurance questionaires.
Against what? Smoking pot? I said I'm all for it.
And yet you get angry and attack people who allegedly are on your side. Cute.
Your argument is just bull****. I fully support legalizing recreational pot immediately, but your argument is lame and pathetic.
****
You smoking pot will affect others....but that's OK. If you don't want to pay a higher premium while on a shared policy with a smoker, get your own policy. If you don't like a building full of smoke, don't do business there. Other people will be affected....but that's OK. Other people are affected when I open-carry a gun...and that's OK too. While other people are affected...they are not harmed...or they at least have the ability to remove themselves from a situation if they feel they are being harmed.
.....
I've heard that pot affects short term memory....you may want to lay off the puff-puff for 24-72 hours before coming here to debate me.
Really? You're the dick who jumped out of left field screaming about how I should "come off it" when I didn't even address you. I'm not sure why you're so angered by the concept that people's actions effect other people, smoking weed doesn't. There isn't anything about smoking, or drinking, or owning a gun, that inherently effects anyone else. If someone on the other hand decides to use one of those things against their fellow man, that is a separate instance altogether, and in that rare case is dealt with by the law.
Open carry would be the equivalent of smoking in public. A better parallel would be owning a gun and keeping it in your own home. After all, that gun could go off accidentally and start a fire, the insurance company knowing about it could theoretically charge the owner more, the owner could be playing with it while driving and get in a wreck, you're not supposed to be operating heavy equipment while playing with a gun, and it could hit you in the lung to cause lung damage.
If you can explain to me how simply owning a gun effects everyone else, I'll concede.
So let me know when you're ready to calm the **** down and produce some real evidence that all smoking effects all of society. "Some people who use weed could potentially do something to effect others" is not really a solid argument.