Legalize

Marijuana should be legalized and taxed. More money for the government and less money wasted (lol!)
on legal proceedings and housing inmates for pot possession seems to be a good incentive.
Just like certain prescription drugs, you shouldn't be able to drive or operate machinery while using.

Gay marriage should definitely be legal. I don't think the government should have any say in
who gets married, regardless of sexual preference.
I don't think of marriage as a religious matter, though. To me, it's a contract.
 
Legalize them both. I support the gays getting married and smoking pot on their honeymoons. Obviously only gay people smoke pot anyway.
 
Sali said:
No one should be driving under the influence of marijuana period imo. It does make your reactions delayed. I mean it probably won't matter most of the time but it sure will when a deer suddenly darts out in front of you.
Click to expand...
There are different levels of high. I mean, you can eat so much food it's difficult to drive and your reactions are delayed. Good, honest personal judgement is needed in both situations. I dont think we should ban driving under the influence of marijuana period, I think we should ban bad personal judgment. :rolleyes: lol
Seriously though, you're not always fubar'd when you take one hit of weed.
 
dream echo said:
Marijuana should be legalized and taxed. More money for the government and less money wasted (lol!)
on legal proceedings and housing inmates for pot possession seems to be a good incentive.
Just like certain prescription drugs, you shouldn't be able to drive or operate machinery while using.

Gay marriage should definitely be legal. I don't think the government should have any say in
who gets married, regardless of sexual preference.
I don't think of marriage as a religious matter, though. To me, it's a contract.
Click to expand...

This for me too.
 
Kmal said:
There are different levels of high. I mean, you can eat so much food it's difficult to drive and your reactions are delayed. Good, honest personal judgement is needed in both situations. I dont think we should ban driving under the influence of marijuana period, I think we should ban bad personal judgment. :rolleyes: lol
Seriously though, you're not always fubar'd when you take one hit of weed.
Click to expand...

3 to 5 shots won't get me drunk but it's still illegal to drive with that much in my system.
 
Sali said:
3 to 5 shots won't get me drunk but it's still illegal to drive with that much in my system.
Click to expand...
Right, so how would you test for marijuana levels in the blood stream like alcohol level? If you're doing something to get pulled over, you probably need to be checked for sobriety anyway (some people have this happen sober).
 
Sali said:
Yes I think gay marriage should be legal as long as churches aren't forced into preforming ceremonies against their will as I also respect their freedom of choice, I think it's crazy to not allow gay marriages to be performed though.

Pot should be legal, taxed, regulated the same way as alcohol and illegal to drive under the influence of the solution to the amount thing is to just not allow driving under the influence of it period rather than a set amount although I guess this would be a hard thing to test as it tends to stay in your system a long time I don't know the logistics.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%!! Good points... Take Care
 
yes to both
 
Sobriety test: Cop makes you listen to the cheesiest mainstream reggae evar, and if you start to bob your head within 30 seconds, you fail the test.
 
Agree to both. As for MJ, if they regulate it like tobacco, they could make a shit ton of money.
 
AhSver said:
Legalize it all..

Marijuana should be sold just like tobacco with an ID, but it shouldn't be taxed as such.. Tobacco kills, Marijuana doesn't. Alcohol kills, too. So taxes should be lower. Plus people should be able to grow it themselves with no penalties.

[MENTION=2259]Kmal[/MENTION], sobriety test is a good idea. I wonder how much you gotta smoke not to be able to pass it, haha.

However, I don't think it's going to happen, at least not in the U.S. Tobacco/liquor companies will be lobbying against it 'till the time their skulls explode from lies and greed. Unless people take the laws in their own hands and fuck the central government over and over, reduce it to some little office in the DC responsible for postal services and interstate highways.
Click to expand...

Too many rely on the money spent on the so called War on Drugs that they will fight tooth and nail to preserve their jobs, no matter how futile and wasteful their jobs are.

I am on the side of legalization.
Let me grow it in my back yard for my own use.
 
manatee said:
He voted against federal funding for same-sex couples adopting children - not the practice itself.
Click to expand...

Do different-sex couples get federal funding when they adopt?
 
88chaz88 said:
Do different-sex couples get federal funding when they adopt?
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm sorry, I read sloppily, it seems. If a couple adopts, the state they live in gets cash from the federal gov't, apparently (maybe some states give money to couples who adopt - I don't know!). I think the purpose of this is to motivate states' social workers to take kids away from their parents and spread them around a bit.

EDIT: Oh, also, adopters get $10,160 tax credits per child from the federal gov't for adoption expenses. Or something.​
 
manatee said:
Oh, I'm sorry, I read sloppily, it seems. If a couple adopts, the state they live in gets cash from the federal gov't, apparently (maybe some states give money to couples who adopt - I don't know!). I think the purpose of this is to motivate states' social workers to take kids away from their parents and spread them around a bit.

EDIT: Oh, also, adopters get $10,160 tax credits per child from the federal gov't for adoption expenses. Or something.​
Click to expand...

And Ron Paul voted to not extend this to same-sex couples?

He may as well have voted for giving homosexuals the death penalty in my eyes.
 
88chaz88 said:
And Ron Paul voted to not extend this to same-sex couples?

He may as well have voted for giving homosexuals the death penalty in my eyes.
Click to expand...
The vote was for amdt. 356 to H.R. 2587, the purpose of which was "to prohibit any funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage." So the language wasn't same-sex specific, but in practice I suppose it might hit them harder(?). But, if one wants to scrap the program altogether, not increasing it seems like the way to go.

I apologize for being a confused mess and would urge you to take nothing of what I've said as factually accurate, but I've tried to at least slightly sort out this hodgepodge. If you want to find the truth, utilize a search engine or something. If you're content with concluding that Paul is an evil, discriminatory homophobe, well, good for you, I guess.
 
manatee said:
But, if one wants to scrap the program altogether, not increasing it seems like the way to go.
Click to expand...

That's a retarded way to look at things. I don't believe in the death penalty but if I was given a choice between only giving it to women or giving it to everyone I'm hardly going to vote for the former.

Also "not related by blood or marriage"? What the hell? A brother and sister can recieve funding from adoption but a couple in a civil partnership can't?

All this and yet people are hailing Ron Paul as some kind of political messiah. It sounds to me like Americans would vote for Hitler if he promised less taxes.
 
88chaz88 said:
That's a retarded way to look at things. I don't believe in the death penalty but if I was given a choice between only giving it to women or giving it to everyone I'm hardly going to vote for the former.
Click to expand...
Really? Do you think that that is the majority opinion? 'Cause, personally, I'd unhesitatingly exempt any group of people from the death penalty no matter what the distinguishing factor is, even if everyone else would still face the risk of getting it. A situation where evil is equitably widespread doesn't strike me as preferable to one where it's less prevalent but bigoted, frankly, even though one where it doesn't affect anyone at all would obviously be the ideal. But I don't know, maybe I and/or my way to look at things am/are/is (right?) just retarded.
 
manatee said:
But I don't know, my way to look at things are just retarded.
Click to expand...

Fixed and yes.

Edit: Okay snide remarks aside in reality you shouldn't be voting at all. When both options go against your beliefs you should fight for the third option. If Ron Paul really voted against extending the federal funding of adoption to same-sex couples because he doesn't think it should be available at all, then it just shows he's all bark and no bite. Is this preferable to a homophobe? It still means he's clearly unfit as a politician even if he is more tolerable as a human being.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top