Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Big Story)   California Uber Alles: Jerry Brown said he is not sure legalizing marijuana is a good idea in his state because the country could lose its competitive edge if too many people are getting stoned   (bigstory.ap.org) divider line 140
    More: Spiffy, Governor of California, marijuana, idea  
•       •       •

2368 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2014 at 6:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-03 07:44:04 AM  

Sgygus: The state exists for the good of the individual in these here United States, not the other way around.  You are speaking like a fascist, Governor Brown.


This seems to be lost politicians and big business. The population exists only as a pool of resources to them, and the idea people may not want to participate in their machine scares them. Marijuana poses no real threat in this regard, but it's funny how they squirm at the idea it might.

Furthermore, personal liberty should always trump what government believes is best for us, as it relates to our own personal choices and the risks we willingly expose ourselves to.
 
2014-03-03 07:45:33 AM  

jso2897: People who are single-issue on weed are as stupid and worthless as people who are single issue over guns.
Or anything else - single issue voters are a cancer on democracy.


As stupid as this sounds, I actually don't like pot. I just don't like being pushed around without reason. Come to think of it... I don't like being pushed around. Not saying you're suggesting it, but that's a multi-issue thing for me... :-)
 
2014-03-03 07:47:33 AM  

borg: RobSeace: borg: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Oh, him? He's harmless. Back in the sixties, he was part of the free speech movement at Berkeley

/I think he did a little too much LDS

Jerry Brown was never part of the free speech movement at Berkeley he graduated in 1961 and was long gone  not to mention  his dad was governor of California at the time and he would not have wanted to harm his father's chances for reelection or a run for president.  Brown is an out of touch moron who will sadly be reelected to a 4th term as governor. I'd rather see Gavin Newsome in that office.

*WOOOSH*

That was the sound of two humpback whales flying over your head...

I got it, I hate star trek other idiots might actually think Brown was some sort of hero at Berkley he was not.


I demand you change your login.
 
2014-03-03 07:49:21 AM  

Notabunny: I don't think Brown is the least bit disingenuous or insincere. My guess is that he'll watch Colorado and Washington for a couple of years before taking a firm policy position.


I agree.

However, no matter how rational someone tries to act, there will always be some knee-jerk ideologues that find exercising common sense to be anathema.

Since someone else (or in this case, 2 someone else's) have already legalized pot, it makes a hell of a lot of sense to see what goes down with them and then try to either do the same, or better.

Anyway, this is pretty typical for Jerry Brown. He's been labelled with the "moonbat" moniker for years (oddly enough for suggesting that California launch it's own communications satellites, which of course, it did years later). The man is nothing if not pragmatic. I think you can be liberal socially and believe in providing basic human rights and needs for citizens and basically be conservative in how you go about doing this. Difficulty: americans have to re-learn the meaning of the word conservative.

Think of it this way, he's using the scientific method and collecting empirical evidence before issuing another experiment. I think this is a smart thing to do.
 
2014-03-03 07:52:51 AM  

TwistedFark: Think of it this way, he's using the scientific method and collecting empirical evidence before issuing another experiment. I think this is a smart thing to do.


By parroting anti-marijuana sentiment like "everyone's gonna be too stoned to do anything?"

It's farking disgraceful. Stop defending these people. And yes, this is the second Democrat that's been caught talking this kind of shiat.
 
2014-03-03 07:53:19 AM  

shlabotnik: We have a competitive edge to lose?


Came in to say this. America is the world's Kip Kinkel.
 
2014-03-03 07:58:49 AM  

whidbey: borg: RobSeace: borg: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Oh, him? He's harmless. Back in the sixties, he was part of the free speech movement at Berkeley

/I think he did a little too much LDS

Jerry Brown was never part of the free speech movement at Berkeley he graduated in 1961 and was long gone  not to mention  his dad was governor of California at the time and he would not have wanted to harm his father's chances for reelection or a run for president.  Brown is an out of touch moron who will sadly be reelected to a 4th term as governor. I'd rather see Gavin Newsome in that office.

*WOOOSH*

That was the sound of two humpback whales flying over your head...

I got it, I hate star trek other idiots might actually think Brown was some sort of hero at Berkley he was not.

I demand you change your login.


Linda Ronstadt like typing detected.
 
2014-03-03 07:58:59 AM  

RockofAges: That's a WHOOOOOLE lot of sucking noises going on below the belt. Try slurping a bit less, it's at least moderately offensive.


You talk about giving men blow jobs a lot.
 
2014-03-03 08:00:12 AM  
Well, it stands to reason, why would the California government start making good decisions NOW?   Of course they will keep weed illegal.  Doing so hurts them economically.
 
2014-03-03 08:00:56 AM  

simkatu: shift_DAWG: When Washington's and Colorado's tourism numbers are crunched (I think a LOT of people will forego Amsterdam and Jamaica for the closer-to-home legal w33d), a LOT of states will put this issue to ballot.

Americans can not legally purchase mj in Amsterdam or Jamaica. It's freely available in every American city I have been to though in the last 25 years.


Where do you dopers get the pot when you visit a strange city? Just go to the 'hood and look for street dealers? That seems a good way to get mugged/caught in a drug buy sting. Or maybe "freely available" means something different.
 
2014-03-03 08:01:36 AM  
"the country could lose its competitive edge if too many people are getting stoned "

images.thehollywoodgossip.com
 
2014-03-03 08:04:00 AM  
Says the guy who used to do coke off of Linda Ronstadt's ass.
 
2014-03-03 08:08:21 AM  

whidbey: TwistedFark: Think of it this way, he's using the scientific method and collecting empirical evidence before issuing another experiment. I think this is a smart thing to do.

By parroting anti-marijuana sentiment like "everyone's gonna be too stoned to do anything?"

It's farking disgraceful. Stop defending these people. And yes, this is the second Democrat that's been caught talking this kind of shiat.


Many people (myself included) can support the decriminalization of drugs but be wary about how that gets implemented. The fact that you view this concern as propaganda isn't Jerry Brown's fault, but merely a side effect of your own narrow thinking.

There is a huge issue as to if our society can smoothly transition from criminalized drug use, to decriminalized drug use with an emphasis on harm reduction in communities rather than criminal enforcement. This is not something that is going to happen over night and if you can read context this is exactly what Governor Brown is citing as a reason for caution.

Just the logistical implications of this need to be considered - for instance look at the problems with the justice system in Colorado and the effort that needed to be put forth by the state and local municipalities in the court system to deal with pending cases, some of them quite complex and with multiple charges whereas marijuana possession was a factor. Also then there is the quantification of what will be considered "intent to distribute" and what that means in light of decriminalized marijuana. Re-writing a law isn't sufficient in and of itself when cases are already in process.

That's just one factor and doesn't address other immediate issues such as education and support services, community services and programs related to drug use. There are many people out there who are habitual marijuana users who want specialized services and support to kick their habit and it's likely we are already underserving them - what does this look like when access (and hence use) increases? Does the state have an obligation to provide services to help people quit pot? I think it does (and I also think it does in regards to smoking, alcohol use and to be super libby-mc-lib about it, overeating as well).

Anyway, suffice it to say, I'm fine with a wait and see approach.
 
2014-03-03 08:08:34 AM  
*reads thread*

Man, does anyone else remember when people in the US were focused on the issues and not on the political party?

/probably would be better off if he got stoned once in a while
 
2014-03-03 08:09:22 AM  
Has Jerry actually SEEN the numbers where we rank?  A little reefer's going to take the edge off and wind down the prison populations that have been.....

....waitaminit.  Who are Jerry's backers lately?
 
2014-03-03 08:16:19 AM  

TwistedFark: Anyway, suffice it to say, I'm fine with a wait and see approach.


I agree with everything you've said, which was brilliant, by the way... Except for one minor detail:

You gotta start somewhere. And this is pot we're talking about. If there's a more harmless psychoactive drug that should be legalized, I sure as hell can't think of it. People get thrown into prison... For that? You can at least make a case for something like meth (strung out guy mistakes his own son for a demon, and saws his head off... How do you live with that when you come to your senses? But I digress...)

Its been studied to death. For my money, its at least 1000 times safer than whiskey by weight. It's LD50 is hilariously high.

So what, exactly, is he waiting for OR talking about... Or is he just super unfamiliar with the drug (and, eye roll heavenward, MARK).

AAAAAAAAAccccck... Not a huge fan of pot... But I could probably use some right now.
 
2014-03-03 08:16:44 AM  

TwistedFark: Think of it this way, he's using the scientific method and collecting empirical evidence before issuing another experiment. I think this is a smart thing to do.


The evidence is in on marijuana and has been for a long time, it's not harmful by any quantifiable measure that would suggest government should even be allowed input on the issue, let alone be allowed to jail people for it.

Every day we allow minorities to be targeted for drug possession is another day of injustice.
 
2014-03-03 08:17:58 AM  

drivingsouth: Says the guy who used to do coke off of Linda Ronstadt's ass.


And what an ass it was.

www.ronstadt-linda.com

There. Now we can have an informed debate.
 
2014-03-03 08:18:39 AM  
Hey, 37 people died in Colorado the first day recreational sales were allowed.  Yeah, 37 in a row.  Study it out people.
 
2014-03-03 08:19:23 AM  
instead of california i guess i'll have to holiday in cambodia
 
2014-03-03 08:20:55 AM  
I heard recently that 120 people moved out of California for every 100 people that moved in. So eventually.....
 
2014-03-03 08:22:08 AM  

gfid: Hey, 37 people died in Colorado the first day recreational sales were allowed. Yeah, 37 in a row. Study it out people.


You know, if it actually was pot that killed them (which I doubt)... They died doing what they wanted to do...

If we're serious about safety, no one should ever leave their house or do anything, ever. That way, we can all live to be 200 years old. God, how awesome would that be? Just sit around every day and watch nature channels or something...
 
2014-03-03 08:24:28 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Delawheredad: Jerry, a huge portion of the population right NOW is stoned. Society functions well despite the stoners not because of it

California already has some of the most relaxed medical marijuana laws in the nation.  Pretty much anyone who wants it can get it, and can go to a walk-in doctor's office, say they have anxiety or something, and walk out with a marijuana card.  Legalization for recreational use probably wouldn't spike the actual use rate in CA much.

Plus, just like alcohol, most people who use it recreationally will do so in a manner that doesn't interfere with their work or personal lives.  Yes, some will abuse it, but the number who let it get in the way of their day to day lives will be so small it's not worth considering.


Just set aside part of the tax revenue for free treatment centers for anyone who gets addicted.
 
2014-03-03 08:26:24 AM  

RockofAges: he was quoting a satire article I believe


I figured... :-)

I need to lay off my drug of choice... Deadly caffeine... Which I'm sure has a much lower LD 50 than pot.

Where's the nearest caffeine treatment center? Oh my god, I just realized, I'm probably within a 1000 feet of a school...
 
2014-03-03 08:29:17 AM  

Destructor: Its been studied to death. For my money, its at least 1000 times safer than whiskey by weight. It's LD50 is hilariously high.


I don't think the lethality (non-lethality?) of it is in question. What I am merely pointing out is that just re-writing a law isn't enough to guarantee a positive outcome. I think you get that. I wish other people did.

MayoSlather: Every day we allow minorities to be targeted for drug possession is another day of injustice.


I 100% totally support this. I cannot even express in words how much I am in agreement with this. However, decriminalizing pot won't help here at all - in fact since pot is used so heavily by white folks, a conviction here is one of the least severe sentences you can get for a criminalized drug.

If we want fairness, we need to stop treating crack like it's worse then cocaine and heroin (both drugs that white people love). If you are using crack, chances are you are black. Chances are you will also do real time in prison compared to the stock broker next to you in the docket who's on coke or the hipster busted for heroin who will get probation and counselling (and probably cuddles and a cookie as well).

If I had to choose between decriminalizing marijuana and eliminating sentencing laws that obviously target minorities, I know which one I'd choose.
 
2014-03-03 08:30:14 AM  

TwistedFark: whidbey: TwistedFark: Think of it this way, he's using the scientific method and collecting empirical evidence before issuing another experiment. I think this is a smart thing to do.

By parroting anti-marijuana sentiment like "everyone's gonna be too stoned to do anything?"

It's farking disgraceful. Stop defending these people. And yes, this is the second Democrat that's been caught talking this kind of shiat.

Many people (myself included) can support the decriminalization of drugs but be wary about how that gets implemented. The fact that you view this concern as propaganda isn't Jerry Brown's fault, but merely a side effect of your own narrow thinking.

There is a huge issue as to if our society can smoothly transition from criminalized drug use, to decriminalized drug use with an emphasis on harm reduction in communities rather than criminal enforcement. This is not something that is going to happen over night and if you can read context this is exactly what Governor Brown is citing as a reason for caution.

Just the logistical implications of this need to be considered - for instance look at the problems with the justice system in Colorado and the effort that needed to be put forth by the state and local municipalities in the court system to deal with pending cases, some of them quite complex and with multiple charges whereas marijuana possession was a factor. Also then there is the quantification of what will be considered "intent to distribute" and what that means in light of decriminalized marijuana. Re-writing a law isn't sufficient in and of itself when cases are already in process.

That's just one factor and doesn't address other immediate issues such as education and support services, community services and programs related to drug use. There are many people out there who are habitual marijuana users who want specialized services and support to kick their habit and it's likely we are already underserving them - what does this look like when access (an ...


This is largely a giant equivocation trying to hide behind pragmatism.

This issue is hardly that complex that it requires years of thought. America has rarely moved this slowly in its history implementing change, and it's difficult to argue that most issues spewed by politicians are anything more than political moves. We fought an entire civil war and ended slavery in less time than it's taken to legalize gay marriage, implement the ACA, and end the war on drugs.

The ramifications for legalization are minimal to begin with, we have massive amounts of data to prove this, and again, throwing people in jail is a much bigger travesty than any potential implication of legalization.
 
2014-03-03 08:36:59 AM  

MayoSlather: This is largely a giant equivocation trying to hide behind pragmatism.


I get that you doubt my sincerity, but my points can't be so easily dismissed. I already said I support decriminalization, I just would like it to be done, oh I don't know, better than we usually do things - which is fark all thought into it and badly.
 
2014-03-03 08:43:38 AM  
How do these people come up with this garbage? The rants of the anti-pot crowd make the biggest stoner sound intelligent.
 
2014-03-03 08:44:05 AM  
 Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, his opinion, man.
 
2014-03-03 08:46:49 AM  
Yeah, what happened to that one loser stoner Jerry Brown ran against in the 90s?


i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2014-03-03 08:46:56 AM  

RockofAges: Funnily enough, I am an ex caffeine addict.

Every single person who drinks a serious amount of coffee / pop -- I ask them -- do you get headaches if you don't get caffeine every so many hours?

Yessssss.


Being serious for a moment. It really is a very potent drug. I'm actually sensitive to it (genetics), and I totally am addicted to it, in the sense that it's painful to withdraw from it physically (oh noes, headache!), but not so much mentally (no deadly sad depression, like you would expect with heroin... god help those poor farkers).

I've read that you can get addicted to pot... But that was the end of the story... Really? What are withdrawals from that like? Inability to eat Doritos? Hamburgers instead of burritos?
 
2014-03-03 08:48:30 AM  

TwistedFark: MayoSlather: This is largely a giant equivocation trying to hide behind pragmatism.

I get that you doubt my sincerity, but my points can't be so easily dismissed. I already said I support decriminalization, I just would like it to be done, oh I don't know, better than we usually do things - which is fark all thought into it and badly.


You are assuming that we do things poorly because of incompetence, which does happen...However things largely suck because the system itself is mired in corruption, and people in power with goals that have little to do with the good of the people they were elected to serve, and everything to do with getting reelected and gaining power for their respective political parties.
 
2014-03-03 08:49:48 AM  
Jerry Brown is alive?
 
2014-03-03 08:50:32 AM  

jso2897: Destructor: Nice to see everyone is so forgiving of Gov. Brown.

If it was Arnold that said something like this... I wonder if there would be the same reaction?

Well, he's an old school progressive, and has some backward notions. He's part of a political generation that is dying off as surely as the Teabaggers are. He's also the first governor we've had in a couple of decades who actually seems able to govern. I'll forgive him his foibles - it's not like he can hold back the inevitable anyway - for one thing, he will have to retire soon - he old.
I personally see no point in blowing shiat his way over this.


Hey I like moonbeam as much as the next guy, and voted for him. But let's not get out of hand here, how hard is it to govern with a supermajority on your legislative branch and a recovering economy that's driving the stock market to records, in a state that has a disproportionate percentage of ultra wealthy with most of their investments in stock portfolios.

Hell Facebook going public netted us like 200 million alone.

He's going in the right direction in general, but let's not act like he did it all with the brilliance and acumen. Circumstance has helped a lot.

Also we still have a huge pension problem, what's being done about that other than covering it up with all this nice temporary recovery revenue?
 
2014-03-03 08:53:12 AM  
The cocaine cartels would be pissed of pot became legal.
 
2014-03-03 08:57:16 AM  

TV's Vinnie: The cocaine cartels would be pissed of pot became legal.


Not nearly as much as the pharma cartel. What's that, you don't want to pay an arm and a leg, but need something to encourage eating, or for your vision, or for chronic pain, or for your "social anxiety?"
 
2014-03-03 08:58:03 AM  

MayoSlather: Sgygus: The state exists for the good of the individual in these here United States, not the other way around.  You are speaking like a fascist, Governor Brown.

This seems to be lost politicians and big business. The population exists only as a pool of resources to them, and the idea people may not want to participate in their machine scares them. Marijuana poses no real threat in this regard, but it's funny how they squirm at the idea it might.

Furthermore, personal liberty should always trump what government believes is best for us, as it relates to our own personal choices and the risks we willingly expose ourselves to.


Until it potentially has a negative impact on your fellow man, then there needs to be a collective discussion and decision about it because we are a society, not a landmass with 300 million individual states.

If your exposing yourself to risks by extension exposes ME to risks, don't you think I should have some say in the matter? If not why not?
 
2014-03-03 08:58:40 AM  

RockofAges: ou can easily become psychologically addicted to pot (as with anything that "helps you feel good"), but there is no physical withdrawal symptom. New stoners sketch out way more than the old guard when the green dries up; that's why you get so many "my buddy totally NEEDS / NEEDED it in college / high school" stories. It can be used to self medicate, and often is, particularly by the poor, infirm, unemployed, or generally stressed / depressed. I say, have at it -- better than hitting the bottle by several orders of magnitude.


That's interesting. So, there really is some abuse potential (sounds like mild depression--not that this is something to trifle with... Any form of depression really sucks). Doesn't sound as bad as nicotine (there we go, something far worse than caffeine).

Oh well. Still worth legalizing. "Live free or don't"
 
2014-03-03 09:01:02 AM  
How odd he go from governor Moonbeam to this?
 
2014-03-03 09:02:31 AM  
I have been a recreational smoker for about 20 years. I have held a full time job that required me to get up at 3:30am 5 days a week, raised three children and even help my wife (a non-smoker, although she has Crohn's and she could have a card) run a successful business.

Before I started smoking "the reefer" I thought that the "pot-heads" were do nothing losers; that was until I started working in bars as a DJ and a bartender. Being around drunks all night was an eye opener. I would much rather deal with smokers than drinkers any day of the week.

/been smoke-free for a month, have to "clean-up" for a new job. It sucks because they don't require the obvious drunks that work there to blow a breathylizer.
 
2014-03-03 09:03:16 AM  
If you're not free to put whatever you want in your body then you're not free at all.
 
2014-03-03 09:11:21 AM  
On an unrelated note; it took me forever to write that, and I wanted to type more but Fark HATES my ipad. Not everyone uses a computer, this format is very unfriendly. It makes me want to smoke
 
2014-03-03 09:12:25 AM  

Delawheredad: Jerry, a huge portion of the population right NOW is stoned. Society functions well despite the stoners not because of it


Want to see lowered productivity? Cancel the water.
 
2014-03-03 09:14:06 AM  
Sho' they got to have it against the law. Shoot, ever'body git high,
they wouldn't be nobody git up and feed the chickens. Hee-hee.
-- Terry Southern
 
2014-03-03 09:20:20 AM  

Triumph: Legalizing pot has never been on the liberal agenda, but it has been a libertarian talking point for decades.



What a joke, the states with the most sane pot laws are liberal states, NH, libertarian land, just recently finally passed an insanely restrictive medical law. When medical and decrim pushes first started the libertarian party only had a fraction of the  power they hold today and the power they hold today is almost nothing.
 
2014-03-03 09:21:23 AM  

PawisBetlog: MayoSlather: Sgygus: The state exists for the good of the individual in these here United States, not the other way around.  You are speaking like a fascist, Governor Brown.

This seems to be lost politicians and big business. The population exists only as a pool of resources to them, and the idea people may not want to participate in their machine scares them. Marijuana poses no real threat in this regard, but it's funny how they squirm at the idea it might.

Furthermore, personal liberty should always trump what government believes is best for us, as it relates to our own personal choices and the risks we willingly expose ourselves to.

Until it potentially has a negative impact on your fellow man, then there needs to be a collective discussion and decision about it because we are a society, not a landmass with 300 million individual states.

If your exposing yourself to risks by extension exposes ME to risks, don't you think I should have some say in the matter? If not why not?


There are no risks to which you're being exposed. No one here is condoning driving under the influence, which is the risk I assume you are referencing.

Responsible driving is a separate issue from someone's right to consume a drug, as there is nothing in marijuana that compels someone to get in a car and drive. It's just like any other prescription drug, alcohol, drowsy or distracted driving; they all fall under driving responsibly.

If there is another risk you're being exposed to when some guy gets high, eats doritos, and has great sex then I'd love to hear it.
 
2014-03-03 09:24:55 AM  

RockofAges: PawisBetlog: MayoSlather: Sgygus: The state exists for the good of the individual in these here United States, not the other way around.  You are speaking like a fascist, Governor Brown.

This seems to be lost politicians and big business. The population exists only as a pool of resources to them, and the idea people may not want to participate in their machine scares them. Marijuana poses no real threat in this regard, but it's funny how they squirm at the idea it might.

Furthermore, personal liberty should always trump what government believes is best for us, as it relates to our own personal choices and the risks we willingly expose ourselves to.

Until it potentially has a negative impact on your fellow man, then there needs to be a collective discussion and decision about it because we are a society, not a landmass with 300 million individual states.

If your exposing yourself to risks by extension exposes ME to risks, don't you think I should have some say in the matter? If not why not?

If there's no direct harm, no -- but that's my left-libertarianism coming through. If I accept your argument, we could start tearing apart everyone's vices pretty quickly -- fatties being the most obvious drain on our collective good. It also opens up an entire world of "STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE" moralism, which is really the foundation of "risks" when we're talking about most of life's choices.

Sex, for one, is very risky. Are we actually going to push into the bedrooms and gloryholes of the nation with rank authority, hoping to stamp out risk?

Education seems to work better than any iron fist legal beagling.


You're engaging in exactly what I proposed, a rational discourse to find the best solution. To your point, some of the time the answer may be do nothing. But other times, like in the case of methamphetamine use, where we've seen the destruction it can have on a community and individual people that those who are high may harm, the answer may be something else. I'm not advocating for or against anything other than an absolutist view of freedom, which IMO has more potential for harm than trying to strike a balance between individual freedom and societal guardrails.
 
2014-03-03 09:27:55 AM  

MayoSlather: PawisBetlog: MayoSlather: Sgygus: The state exists for the good of the individual in these here United States, not the other way around.  You are speaking like a fascist, Governor Brown.

This seems to be lost politicians and big business. The population exists only as a pool of resources to them, and the idea people may not want to participate in their machine scares them. Marijuana poses no real threat in this regard, but it's funny how they squirm at the idea it might.

Furthermore, personal liberty should always trump what government believes is best for us, as it relates to our own personal choices and the risks we willingly expose ourselves to.

Until it potentially has a negative impact on your fellow man, then there needs to be a collective discussion and decision about it because we are a society, not a landmass with 300 million individual states.

If your exposing yourself to risks by extension exposes ME to risks, don't you think I should have some say in the matter? If not why not?

There are no risks to which you're being exposed. No one here is condoning driving under the influence, which is the risk I assume you are referencing.

Responsible driving is a separate issue from someone's right to consume a drug, as there is nothing in marijuana that compels someone to get in a car and drive. It's just like any other prescription drug, alcohol, drowsy or distracted driving; they all fall under driving responsibly.

If there is another risk you're being exposed to when some guy gets high, eats doritos, and has great sex then I'd love to hear it.


I was responding to the personal liberty trumps government control comment, not the advantage or disadvantage of legalized pot.

Personally I support legalization even though I no longer partake.
 
2014-03-03 09:28:08 AM  

whidbey: /They're all high on POTpotted up on weed.


/preferred nomenclature
 
2014-03-03 09:28:43 AM  
Still waiting for Obama to apologize for directing the shut down of hundreds of dispensaries by threatening their landlords.
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report