And they say marijuana is bad.. .. Alrighty, some may not believe me on this but I'll say it anyway. I am a cop in a city of 300K (roughly). I don't have a problem with marijuana itself only the
x
Click to expand

Comments(416):

[ 416 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#70 to #33 - inertgas (04/24/2014) [-]
*******		 glorious.
******* glorious.
#49 - tyroneisanigger (04/24/2014) [-]
Alrighty, some may not believe me on this but I'll say it anyway.
I am a cop in a city of 300K (roughly). I don't have a problem with marijuana itself only the people that use it, I mean the hardcore stoners. These types of people only sell marijuana daily and that's how they pay their rent and bills and whatnot. I will admit, the people I usually arrest for marijuana are lazy people. They shout "It's not even that bad!" when getting arrested. Though I agree with that, that wont stop me from shoving you in the back of a car and taking you to a jail. They also smell awful, I literally use about 1/4 fabreeze in the back of the car I use when I am on duty to mask the odor.
Also, most stoners have the " **** the police" type of attitude which only makes cops want to arrest them a little more, perhaps add an extra charge of disorderly if they are yelling in public on the way to the cop car?
I believe it will be legal within my lifetime, but until then it;s still illegal, and I will not give any breaks for it.

pic related, Yfw reading my comment.
#258 to #49 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
nah im a stoner i agree with you since its illegal you have enforce the law you can't pick or chose if you dont like the law get it changed what ive been trying to do sure i want it legal for medical use but also want legal for peroanl use i aint going lie about that thumb for you
#313 to #49 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
I guess this is part of the reason the percentage of solved cases in police forces keeps going down. Thanks for being a part of the problem and wasting time arresting stoners.
#65 to #49 - dcj (04/24/2014) [-]
I can't even find it in my heart to disrespect you.

You're wrong. But goddammit, you're so awesome about it.

YFW.
#149 to #65 - dalgaard (04/24/2014) [-]
How is he wrong? He is only doing his job.. - or am i completely missing it?
#212 to #149 - terminalinfinity (04/24/2014) [-]
He's not wrong for doing his job. I know a few cops who only arrest people with pot because their superiors will bust their ass if they don't. He's a douche for wanting to jail people simply because he disagrees with their lifestyle and using his position of authority to take out personal vendettas on society.
#215 to #212 - dalgaard (04/24/2014) [-]
That's not what he's saying either...

Did any of you read it properly? Or are you all just against him because you ''420 blaze it'' yourselves?
#217 to #215 - terminalinfinity (04/24/2014) [-]
Thats exactly what he's saying. Did you read it? Or did you just jump to stereotype me and generalize my argument?

"I don't have a problem with marijuana itself only the people that use it, I mean the hardcore stoners.....(Marijuanas not that bad) Though I agree with that, that wont stop me from shoving you in the back of a car and taking you to a jail."
By his own admission, the reason he enforces marijuana laws is that, he, personally, does not like people who use marijuana "hardcore". He recognizes that marijuana is not very harmful, yet he continues to arrest because he doesn't like people who use it. Thats the definition of a personal vendetta.
#289 to #217 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
His personal views on pot don't matter, its illegal so he ******* arrests people for it. If he saw people smoking, and did nothing, wouldn't that just be the opposite of of deliberately targeting pot smokers? And even if he does have a personal vendetta, there is literally nothing wrong with a police officer ARRESTING SOMEONE FOR SOMETHING THAT IS ILLEGAL.
#296 to #289 - terminalinfinity (04/24/2014) [-]
There is absolutely something wrong with an arrest if the intentions were personal gratification. The law isnt the end, its the means to an end. That end is peace, which is what a police officer is charged with keeping. If his arrests arent for keeping the public peace, hes acting in bad faith, which is against the law, ironically.
User avatar #221 to #217 - dalgaard (04/24/2014) [-]
We see it differently.

The way I see it, the only thing he is saying is that he is doing his job by taking them to jail because of the fact that it is illegal, while he has no problem with the drug.

And the reason he doesnt have a problem by taking the ''hardcore'' stoners to jail is because of their usual attitude as he explains as well. But I guess if you find that offensive thats okay, i dont care much of it.
User avatar #51 to #49 - ReikoTheGreat ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
I respect that you are doing your job and I can't fault you for it. I respect the law, even though I sometimes disagree with it. You can't pick and choose which laws to follow, except with very radical cases like racial discrimination where civil disobedience could be considered as a viable form of protesting.
User avatar #192 to #51 - nimba (04/24/2014) [-]
'You can't pick and choose which laws to follow, except some'
gee how long did it take you to come to such a radical opinion
#141 to #49 - tjocksnorris (04/24/2014) [-]
this is the least beliveble thing i've ever read here

well atleast u made people reply
#298 to #49 - touchmyfunny (04/24/2014) [-]
I respect the police in general but you... you just made me think again about in what kind of obscure or subjective way some police men/women make decisions. "Also, most stoners have the " **** the police" type of attitude which only makes cops want to arrest them a little more".

Well their attitude is not nice but that should not influence you in your decision to "arrest them a little more" (or a little less). And also you sound a little selfobsessed and douchy in your comment but that's just my impression, no need to get mad Mr. I-am-the-law. And maybe you need to overthink your attitude. Maybe try to understand others when they shout "it's not even that bad!". Because if you think about it: What is worse? Destroying someones life "a little more" because you hate marijuana-consumers and because of the exaggerated punishments for smoking OR smoking a plant that isn't even turning you into an aggressive troublemaker like alcohol (which is still legal!). Btw if you are wondering, i only smoked few times in my life and never drink.

Pic only semi related because i only find it inhumane to destroy someones life because of "mild drugs" like marijuana. Goddamn even alcohol is causing more evil **** and death on this stupid earth. and please excuse my bad english, I'm from germany

#316 to #298 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
Because poking someone with a stick is a good idea right, and will of course net a positive response? I get where you're coming from, in that the police should be better than being personally biased. But if you honestly think ' **** the police' mentality is a legal reason to which people can and have been arrested for, you're wrong.

Also your pic is so painfully wrong. The police don't ruin your life, in fact the police really don't have much to do with 'ruining people's lives'. Do understand that it is a VOLUNTARY CHOICE to engage in those activities. You can and will be help fully responsible for doing so. Don't do something illegal if you're not ready to face the very real consequences. Which of course nobody does and so we get a whole bunch of ******** who go to prison. If you don't like the current situation on 'mild drugs', go vote to legalize marijuana instead of spewing silly string on FJ.
#320 to #316 - touchmyfunny (04/24/2014) [-]
You have no understanding for teenagers or some people. Sure, its stupid! But some people need time to grow up! Most teenagers did some stupid **** while growing up and if you ask me, I would rather hit someone and lecture him/her about it than RUINING his/her whole ******* LIFE because of one stupid choice. Forgiving and teaching > ruining someones life for one mistake. Or maybe punishing in a less future-destroying way?

And no, someones attitude should not influence a police (wo)man in his/her decision! Start thinking like a human!
#322 to #320 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
But this is precisely what I'm talking about, the police don't ruin people's lives. The police are enforcers of laws made by law makers. If you disagree with the laws, and that is fully within your right to do so. Then by all means vote to make your opinion heard. The police are basically tools to an end, you don't punish the hand for what the writer chooses to writes. Though I understand that the police are human and are something of a wildcard as well.

But ultimately the person responsible for ruining their someone's life is their own. You choose to take illegally take drugs. Why is it that many people uniquely persist that when it comes to drug usage that responsibility is not on the individual and instead on the popo? Really it's no different than blaming the police because some guy did a triple homicide. A rather extreme example I know, but again the point remains the same. Is the punishment arguably too much? I'd say so as well. So by all means vote to make marijuana legal.
#333 to #322 - touchmyfunny (04/24/2014) [-]
He is not acting like a tool. In his comment it clearly sounds like he let's his decisions get influence at some point if the person or it's attitude is unsympathetic for him "then want to arrest them a little more". So I assume he would make excuses for some people who lick his ass to become sympathetic for him. He does it in the one direction but it's not ok if he does it in the other direction? He is partisan, subjective and emotional about his actions from what i read. I got what you say but I also see hypocrisy and inconsistency, so sorry I can't value your substantiation after what i see.
#321 to #298 - tyroneisanigger (04/24/2014) [-]
I'm only going to address one thing. Right now, marijuana is a misdemeanor (unless it's in ridiculous amounts). I have seen many people that have been arrested for marijuana and they still have their jobs, that are decent jobs such as factory jobs. Yes those are actually good jobs, 401k, healthcare, vacation days, sick days, personal days, and starting pay is nearly double minimum wage. So no, marijuana conviction isn't devastating to one's life but it's still a misdemeanor.
#325 to #321 - touchmyfunny (04/24/2014) [-]
Hope this is true for all (normal) cases, well I will try to believe you.
However, if someones future chances in life will be decreased really a lot, just because of a smoke, then I wouldn't have the heart to put such huge obstacles in somebodies way just because of that. Sure, some are stupid as **** , but I think they should get a therapy instead of a serious punishment. Drunk drivers on the other hand are doing something seriously evil and should not get their license back for years and till they are tested and stuff.
#342 to #325 - forszhen (04/24/2014) [-]
Ah, a decent human being. Rare these days.
#354 to #321 - diddlydum (04/24/2014) [-]
Except getting a charge for marijuana automatically removes your possibility of getting financial aid in the future. Making it impossible for some people to go to college. Not everyone can afford it. Then they're stuck at your "amazing" factory job for the rest of their life, which yea, they make decent money, but not enough to do more than just live semi-comfortably. Believe me, my area thrives on factory jobs.....oh, and my area is mostly full of pissed off, unhappy tweakers and junkies. Coincidence? sure...


And before you say, "if they can afford weed, the government shouldn't pay for their college" The government seems to have no problem giving a credit card to every toothless methhead in the area because they don't have or want a job, but if a hardworking college student gets caught with a little weed, they can get ****** , right?

Yes, let's make it harder for people to go to college, because nobody wants an educated populace. Heaven knows why we would want that....


Btw, this is coming from a 19 year old college student. I work 30-35 hours a week, and have 18 credit hours this semester. I smoke pot every day......guess I must be lazy.
User avatar #367 to #354 - capslockrage (04/24/2014) [-]
Good.
#355 to #354 - tyroneisanigger (04/24/2014) [-]
Being arrested for marijuana doesn't disqualify you for getting financial aid. Though I haven't even smoked it but to the best of my knowledge it doesn't. I have went to college with a few stoners (who damn sure couldn't be there if it wasn't for FAFSA and financial aid).
#362 to #355 - diddlydum (04/24/2014) [-]
If you read through FAFSA's fine print. It's in there. if you get a drug charge while receiving aid, you can be barred from further aid and may have to repay any aid you have received.
#371 to #362 - tyroneisanigger (04/24/2014) [-]
I shouldn't tell you this but don't give them any reason to look further into your criminal background. When the question comes up, simply check "No" and that will be the end of it unless it is brought up and it's obvious you smoke marijuana.
#359 to #298 - shadowgandalf (04/24/2014) [-]
I dunno about in USA, but in Denmark, if you are acting like an arsehole toward the police, you get an extra ticket(it's called "forstyrelse af embedsman i funktion", which i can't tranlate properly right now) and most people will agree that you deserved it, because we know that the police is important to society.
User avatar #415 to #359 - kaisakuenkou (04/25/2014) [-]
Police being important to society implies criminals are important to society
#416 to #415 - shadowgandalf (04/26/2014) [-]
Ofc criminals are important to society, they need to be crushed/eleminated.
The police is the exact opposite of criminals, as criminals are nothing but detrimentals to the people.
#366 to #359 - touchmyfunny (04/24/2014) [-]
The right people have to become police. They don't make enough tests to decide which kind of people to take for this position, often i would rather see more decent thinking and acting people in the position of a policeman/woman. There are good and bad in every profession but especially in a position with power you need to wipe out the bad ones as much as possible and be more strict with your choice but the training is so poor for police (at least in germany) and most of them drink so much and acts like a douche (i had training there when i was still in school).

They are important for society but therefore it's important how and who they are.
#377 to #366 - shadowgandalf (04/24/2014) [-]
In DK, you have to
Be physically fit.
Never have had major health or mental issues.
Perfect eyesight, reflexes and not have problems with your body like joint damagde, weak knees or back and such.
Have fufilled highschool or similar with a certain threshold for grades.
Have drivers license, be a good swimmer and be able to perform first aid.
Have a certain hight(atleast 164 cm for women and 172 cm for men).
Have no criminal record at all. Not even juvenile crime.
Being a fast learner, and good analytically.
Also, visible tatoos and pircings are not allowed.

Also, serious allergies or chronic diseases are ofc also a no-go.

#383 to #377 - touchmyfunny (04/24/2014) [-]
I'm talking about the character and humanity + the ability to stay objective always. To be a decent person, not easy to get corrupt or do something because of wrong motivations..
#385 to #383 - shadowgandalf (04/24/2014) [-]
"I'm talking about the character and humanity + the ability to stay objective always"
Thats a paradox mate.
If you have to stay objective, then you can't allow things like feelings get involved in your jugdement.
It's also ALOT easier to not become corrupted, if people don't treat you like **** for doing your job.
User avatar #104 to #49 - reginleif (04/24/2014) [-]
>using weed to pay their rent...

cmon what the **** else are they supposed to do? Go to mcdonalds and earn minimum in a dead end job? 0.o Hell depending on your town that may not even be an option.

#232 to #49 - terminalinfinity (04/24/2014) [-]
So many things wrong with your statement, I don't even know where to start....
1) You are a police officer meaning you are an officer of the law given law enforcement power for the purposes of ensuring the peace and tranquility of the public. You are not a white knight charged with the task of cleaning up society. Your only duty is to keep the peace. By your own admission, you target and arrest stoners because you dislike them personally, nothing to do with the public good. You are using your position of authority to carry out a personal vendetta. You are the definition of corrupt.
2) EVERYONE has a screw authority attitude. Its human nature. Get over it. Children dislike their teachers, employees dislike their bosses, society dislikes police. Its not an excuse for you to abuse your authority and ruin someone else's life or tack on extra charges.
3) So what if they're selling weed? At least they have a source of income where the person paying for it is doing so voluntarily. They could become a burglar and take things by force or pop out some kids and get on welfare....but yet they choose to produce something society wants. IMO that makes them more productive than a corrupt cop who arrests stoners because he doesnt like them
4) You're assuming the chicken came before the egg here in that weed made them lazy and not the other way around. Its as bad as the argument that violent music makes people violent. Its more that violent people listen to violent music. Id be more surprised to find a serial killer's iPod full of Beethoven and Bach.

Your attitude is the exact reason I changed my degree path. I wanted to be a cop and even got my associates degree in Criminal Justice. But getting it showed me the entire system is filled with attitudes like this: a holier-than-thou group mentality that engages in self-pity and glorification to justify pointless arrests in the name of the public good without any understanding of why they do it to begin with.
#267 to #232 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
"EVERYONE has a screw authority attitude. Its human nature." that's about as true as saying "EVERYONE loves to stroke the shaft and swallow the gravy!"
User avatar #260 to #232 - therebemoose ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
Thanks for this, you get a thumb.
#284 to #232 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
"By your own admission, you target and arrest stoners because you dislike them personally"
Quote please. By my understanding, he arrests them because it's illegal. Him also disliking stoners is just a bonus. If you dislike child rapists would that stop you from arresting them?

"I believe it will be legal within my lifetime, but until then it;s still illegal, and I will not give any breaks for it. "

If you mean this quote:
"most stoners have the " **** the police" type of attitude which only makes cops want to arrest them a little more, perhaps add an extra charge of disorderly"
He's saying the " **** the police" attitude "makes cops want to arrest them a little more, perhaps add an extra charge of disorderly", not because they're stoners.

Of course, it doesn't mean he doesn't actually arrest them for personal reasons, but he never claimed to.
#292 to #284 - terminalinfinity (04/24/2014) [-]
Its somewhat implied, most mostly here:
"I don't have a problem with marijuana itself only the people that use it, I mean the hardcore stoners... They shout "It's not even that bad!" when getting arrested. Though I agree with that, that wont stop me from shoving you in the back of a car and taking you to a jail....but until then it;s still illegal, and I will not give any breaks for it"

Also there's the matter of officer discretion. Not only does he imply he has it by saying he's not gonna give breaks, I know he does from taking Criminal Justice in college. Officers have discretion in arresting for misdemeanors where the victim is the state. He has a choice and is choosing to arrest them, but not because they actually harm society, but simply because he does not like them or their lifestyle.
#327 to #292 - tyroneisanigger (04/24/2014) [-]
About the part on officer discretion. You're implying I have a choice to arrest people that are smoking marijuana / carrying marijuana? I really don't there isn't a "grey" area. It's either you are carrying and you are arrested, or you aren't carrying and you wont be arrested. I would be a corrupt cop if I gave a break for something that is illegal, and I am aware of it happening.
#369 to #327 - terminalinfinity (04/24/2014) [-]
FJ character limit cut me off but to some it up: No, you are not corrupt if you make judgement calls that your duty requires. Your duty is to preserve the peace, not blindly enforce any violation of law.
#372 to #369 - tyroneisanigger (04/24/2014) [-]
Part of preserving the peace is enforcing laws
#374 to #372 - terminalinfinity (04/24/2014) [-]
Yes, thats the reason your given law enforcement powers. But the application of the law was never intended to be blind, thus why there is a mens rea component to the commission of a crime.

The law was never intended to be a black and white arbitor of morality or peace, only a tool. This black and white thinking is what leads to stupid application of laws in situations they were never intended for like Police shutting down children's lemonade stands because they don't have a health permit from the city.
#368 to #327 - terminalinfinity (04/24/2014) [-]
Total garbage. First, as I already explained, the law is means to an end. That end is a peaceful public. Thats the reason most states give officers authority under "peace officer" articles of law. Your duty is to enforce a peaceful public and the law is your tool. There is NO law in any state that compels a Police Officer to arrest someone for a misdemeanor committed in his presence, only felonies. The only time an officer is required to arrest for a misdemeanor is when there is a victim (I.E. Simple Battery) and the victim wants to press charges.

Second, you should know, as a cop, that a simple violation of law does NOT necessarily constitute a crime. The act is only one part, the Actus Reus. There's also the Mens Rea, or guilty mind. Obviously most possession cases meet both but there have been cases I saw in my studies of case law where Marijuana charges have been thrown out for people using in for terminal illness in states where medical is not legal, because mindset of seeking relief from terminal pain can never constitute a criminal guilty mind.

Finally, officers show discretion on a daily basis about which laws to enforce, and with good reason. Take relic laws for example: Laws which still are on the books from previous eras that nobody took the time to do away with. In my state there are a few including the fact it is illegal to have any kind of sex except missionary vaginal and its illegal to sing in a bathing suit. These are actual laws that are still in place. If you served a search warrant and walked in on a guy getting consensual head from his adult girlfriend, would you arrest him simply because he's violating the law? Of course not. Im sure if you enforced EVERY law you'd find yourself in an awkward position.

And there are accepted laws that are selectively applied too. I've seen plenty of people let go when they're caught pissing in public (indecent exposure) or drunk on the street (Public Intoxication).
#370 to #368 - tyroneisanigger (04/24/2014) [-]
I'm not sure what the you've been reading but 90% of the officers I know will arrest someone for smoking marijuana blatantly in public, regardless if they are sitting outside their house.
#373 to #370 - terminalinfinity (04/24/2014) [-]
First, never said anything about where they were smoking it having anything to do with it. Second, never said most officers wouldn't arrest or cite for pot.
If you had asked, I would have gladly admitted most officers are horribly misguided about the effects of marijuana and the marijuana market. But thats the difference: most officers I know who bust for it are either 1) doing it because their supervisors tell them its a must-bust, usually because of federal drug war grant money or 2)They truly believe pot and pot users are some great harm/threat to society. So they are acting in good faith.

You, on the other hand, do so with (admitted) full knowledge that marijuana is relatively harmless to society. The arrests have no benefit to the end result of a peaceful public and often times have the opposite effect: turning a relatively normal, productive person into one with a criminal record or deferred prosecution who relies on criminal operations for income.
#376 to #373 - tyroneisanigger (04/24/2014) [-]
I arrest for marijuana because I don't want to lose my job? I've worked hard to be a Police officer and I want to stay as a police officer with a chance of promotion in the future. In all cases with drugs, there is usually guns and money involved too, and with those it can lead to violence. I've seen people shot over an ounce of the "harmless stuff". The drug itself is harmless, the people that use it and deal it aren't.
If pot users aren't off the street they could end up robbing places, breaking into houses just for money to buy more of the "harmless drug".

#378 to #376 - terminalinfinity (04/24/2014) [-]
If your department has a policy in place that mandates you arrest, then go for it. As I said, I have no problem with someone who is acting on orders from superiors.

But, everything you listed: violence, guns and money are all a product of the fact that its illegal to begin with, all products of the black market, like the prohibition of alcohol. First, there is a black market to begin with because it is illegal. Second, there is so much money because its value is artificially inflated from the market being suppressed. Violence, of course, follows the money because its the only way to settle disputes in a black market. Also, you provide a funding source for massive criminal empires to exist like the Mob did with alcohol or the drug cartel with weed. All of this goes away in a legal market. There are no drug cartels or marijuana disputes in Amsterdam.

Finally, your comment about pot smokers supporting their habit with violent crime is total garbage. You are lumping marijuana users (a drug less addicting than caffeine) in with hard drug users in a horrible stereotype. I literally dont know one person who robs to use marijuana. Everyone I know who smokes holds a regular day job. Regular marijuana use, unlike meth, cocaine and heroin, does not incapacitate or hinder someone from functioning normally in society, nor does it hook someone so hard they would commit violent crimes to obtain more.

Studies done where marijuana has been medically legalized has revealed no uptick in violent crime:
www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/03/27/Study-finds-no-link-between-medical-marijuana-legalization-and-crime/5511395935493/

Stop with the massive generalizations please.
#379 to #378 - tyroneisanigger (04/24/2014) [-]
I was saying if one doesn't have money for marijuana they will do anything to get money for it, such as robbing a store or burglarizing houses.
Violence is associated with drugs, all drugs
#382 to #379 - terminalinfinity (04/24/2014) [-]
And I was saying the idea that people would rob to get marijuana to support their "habit" (I use that term loosely when it comes to weed) is complete garbage.
If people have reached the point of committing armed robbery to support a habbit, they've moved far beyond marijuana. There is nothing strong enough about marijuana or its high that would compel someone to do something like that if they didn't already have the capacity to.

Alcohol is much more addicting than marijuana but we don't have significant problems with people stealing to buy booze.

And no, YOU have associated all drugs with violence. It doesnt make it correct in reality or an abstract sense.

If you dont believe me, take it from another cop, who saw things before and after prohibition. People werent even robbing to use the hard drugs, because they were so cheap. He also talks about the increase of violence after the drug war.
www.alternet.org/drugs/former-undercover-drug-narc-why-police-dont-bust-white-people-and-how-he-turned-against-drug

"The problem for most people is not the drug itself, but the lifestyle that comes along with the drug in an environment of prohibition. In the world of prohibition, the price of these drugs is hyper-inflated. Therefore, I must rob, I must deal, I must do whatever I can to support my addiction."
#404 to #382 - tyroneisanigger (04/25/2014) [-]
But people actually do steal to purchase alcohol.
#414 to #404 - terminalinfinity (04/25/2014) [-]
And I should elaborate: with illegal drugs you still have the addiction, + hyper inflated values. With alcohol sure there are a lot of washouts. But because beer is so cheap, many people just beg to support their habit. While not desirable, at least they are earning their income from people who give it voluntarily. Its hard to beg for enough money to pay for really expensive hard drugs.
#413 to #404 - terminalinfinity (04/25/2014) [-]
And........?   
1) Two drugs not comparable as Alcohol is way more addicting than Marijuana, which is less addicting than caffeine.  You dont see people stealing to buy energy drinks or coffee?  Its the ADDICTION, dumbass, that drives a person to commit crimes they would normally have inhibitions not to do.    
2)And DESPITE alcohol being as addicting as it is, people still saw during prohibition that the banning of the substance created more problems than the actual substance.    The problems of prohibition are still there, some of them have simply moved beyond the border to Mexico where 50,000 people a year are killed by the cartel, which is the modern mob - the group that supplied underground liquor during prohibition.  Guess what went away when alcohol was re-legalized?
And........?
1) Two drugs not comparable as Alcohol is way more addicting than Marijuana, which is less addicting than caffeine. You dont see people stealing to buy energy drinks or coffee? Its the ADDICTION, dumbass, that drives a person to commit crimes they would normally have inhibitions not to do.
2)And DESPITE alcohol being as addicting as it is, people still saw during prohibition that the banning of the substance created more problems than the actual substance. The problems of prohibition are still there, some of them have simply moved beyond the border to Mexico where 50,000 people a year are killed by the cartel, which is the modern mob - the group that supplied underground liquor during prohibition. Guess what went away when alcohol was re-legalized?
#357 to #232 - shadowgandalf (04/24/2014) [-]
1. He never said he targeted stoners, he said he didn't like the hardcore ones. I guess you are into selective reading?
2. Not everyone have such a stupid view of the world. Most intelligent people understand the necessity of the police, and will not resist in any way at all, and even talk nice to them/show appreciation of their work.
3. So what if they are smoking weed? They are breaking the law, thats what. He is a police man, and thus his job is to uphold the peace AND law of society. You are not exempt from the law, just because you do not agree wiith it...
4. You are exactly the kind of person, who creates a system with corrupt authorities...
User avatar #360 to #357 - therebemoose ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
Found the sheeple.
#375 to #360 - shadowgandalf (04/24/2014) [-]
Yourself?
Are you seriously so deluded, that you think that the police is against the people?
This isn't ******* north korea...
#387 to #375 - terminalinfinity (04/24/2014) [-]
Are you so deluded that you actually believe the police in a corrupt state enforce tyranny, because they themselves are against the people? LOL, the police in any such state are usually just puppets of the leaders in charge, like every police force on earth.

America is no different. Thus why Police in America have continued to wage an unattainable drug war on people. One that was started by Nixon, I might add, to have an excuse to arrest hippies in the Vietnam era since they couldn't bust them for simply protesting.
#391 to #387 - shadowgandalf (04/24/2014) [-]
The police have never waged a war.
The one who wage the war, is the politicans, who makes the law.
The police simply uphold it. Seriously, if you don't know the difference between politicans and police, then you need to stop commenting.

Also, the politicans are voted in by the people. So how your laws, your law makers and your law enforcers behave, is good reflection of how the people of the country behave.
The only "tyranny" existing in USA, is the tyranny of the peoples ignorance. If the people in a democracy are rotten, then the system itself will ofc become rotten.
#408 to #391 - terminalinfinity (04/25/2014) [-]
Except this isnt North Korea where police, like everyone, have no voice. While police may have not started the war on drugs, they are directly contributing to its continuation. If you think the police in America are simply mindless drones who have no influence in politics, YOU need to stop commenting.

Police departments and correction facilities don't want to the war on drugs to end because it means losing money in federal grants intended for the war on drugs, which will result in layoffs. And almost every law enforcement agency is part of a police association or union. These unions pump billions of dollars into lobbying, and so do the privately owned prison companies who standing to lose millions if their incarceration rate drops.

Thats why EVERY marijuana initiative is opposed with the money and political backing of these law enforcement unions and associations. My state, Florida, is trying for medical pot this year. The initiative literally was approved less than a month ago and guess who has already stepped up to oppose it?

www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-medical-marijuana-opponents-emerge-20140423,0,4576059.story

These agencies have a lot of political sway with voters too because people trust them to be impartial and serve the community good. So very few people question aletrior motives, like money, when they take a position on something.

This would be the equivalent of the US army protesting to continue the Iraq War simply because they dont want to lose funding and cut positions created out of need because of combat. While they didnt start, or run the war, they would be attempting to use their influence to continue it for their own selfish purposes. When you serve, you must consider the fact that eventually your service may no longer be needed. That isnt an excuse for you or your representing agency to try and screw everyone else over by greedily trying to hold on to old ways simply to preserve your own ass.
#386 to #357 - terminalinfinity (04/24/2014) [-]
1. Doesnt matter if he hates weekend smokers, stoners, hardcore stoners or only people who smoke everyday. If its influence they way he handles and treats people in his official capacity as a police officer, he has no business being one

2. Never said police werent necessary, nor did I say that most people didnt understand that fact. Most people understand taxes are necessary. Most people still bitch when they have to pay them. The human nature to object to authority or things pushed upon them is a readily observable thing in human psychology, like attraction to forbidden things or rooting for the underdog. The Milgram experiment is a great example of this, while most participants verbally resisted the instructions from the authority figure in the experiment, they still followed through with the commands

3. A violation of law should not be a clear cut, black and white arrest. Even the system recognizes this and has divided a crime into two parts: Actus Reus, the actual act or violation of law, and Mens Rea, which is the guilty mindset. I.E. a mentally disabled person can't be charged with stealing if his impairment prevents him from understanding the concept of money

Also, Police officers arent and were never supposed to be robots blindly enforcing the law as though it was the core of their job. The law is a tool police are given to ensure public tranquility and peace, that is the core of their job. A great example of how the black and white thinking could go wrong is relic laws, or laws that have remained on the books from previous eras. In my state there are a few, such as it is illegal to have any kind of sex except missionary vaginal or sing in a bathing suit. I sure as hell hope no cop takes the "its against the law" mentality and starts busting people for getting blowjobs and singing in a bikini.

4. You're exactly the type of person who generalizes someones statement and slings mud, but can't articulate a good counterargument of you own.
#389 to #386 - shadowgandalf (04/24/2014) [-]
1. There will always be people you dislike, thats what it is to be human.He also still never said or implied that he targeted stoners at all.
2. people still do not just automatically disobey or hate authority. Directly hating the police simply because of the nature of their job, is called being a douchebag.
3. It shouldn't, but it should be as close to as possible. A that iis vaguely defined to try and be fair to everyone, will only lead to useless burocracy, which is ten times worse than white and black laws.

4. Your the guy who used heavy generalization in 3/4 of his arguments...
#410 to #389 - terminalinfinity (04/25/2014) [-]
1. Not targeting like looking for them. Targeting as in allowing his personal feelings effect his judgement in his duties. Furthermore, he has replied to my post himself and said nothing to contradict what I said, or clarify his intentions.
2. No arguement about people being douchebags for hating people for doing their jobs but that was relevant to what I was saying. I was saying letting people's feelings about him as a cop effect his decisions is what was screwed up. A person's feelings about police are irrelevant to the crimes they've committed. Tacking on extra charges because of distaste for their opinion is petty and corrupt.
3. My argument wasnt that we should change the laws to effect policing, we should change policies in policing to allow officers to use discretion and consider context when applying a law, without fear of public backlash for selective enforcement. A great example of this is the many, many stories of kids trying to set up lemonade stands and being shut down by cops for not having a business or health permit. Obviously not what the permits were created for, or the context the law's creators were thinking of when they created it. Beyond being a piss poor application of law, it teaches kids that they shouldn't take initiative because someone is going to ruin it anyway.
4. I was talking about society in general in my first post, so of course my statements are going to have generalization qualities. You, on the other hand, generalized me and my individual statements and stereotyped me as an individual. Two totally different circumstances and applications
User avatar #388 to #386 - articulate (04/24/2014) [-]
I sling feces.
User avatar #271 to #232 - xyzlegend (04/24/2014) [-]
I wish you pursued your original career so that you could help change that 'attitude' you described it being and be the hero the system needs :>
#120 to #49 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
A stoner is the same thing as an alcoholic only their problem is with weed. I disagree with the argument that weed isn't addictive. It's not physically addictive but it's definitely mentally addictive.
#268 to #49 - macacobr ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
but you're talking about stupid people. Still, you're a cop. Cops tend to be violent and awfully righteous because of that "I'll follow dem rules" attitude. So that's why stupid people act like that. Just don't be like them, but on the other side.
User avatar #92 to #49 - divinecreator (04/24/2014) [-]
I **************** am a man of the law... what stop laughing why is no one taking me seriously.Your name along with your comment has just earned one **** da police reply
#417 to #92 - tyroneisanigger (05/08/2014) [-]
You're implying ' *************** " is my real life name sir.

User avatar #418 to #417 - divinecreator (05/15/2014) [-]
No i wasn't implying that *************** is your real life name i was stating that your choice in internet profile names slightly ruins your credibility amongst some members as it would lead one to assume that you have racist tendencies(regardless of whether you actually have them or not) Its a psychological factor you know, first impressions and whatnot.
#53 to #49 - ntobarrev (04/24/2014) [-]
Thing is though, people who are like what you describe (lazy, smelly, all that stuff) are usually stoners. But that doesn't mean all people who smoke weed are like them. I know lots of people who smoke weed, and most of them have day jobs, and only smoke on weekends. Me included. We treat it like anyone else would treat alcohol.   
We don't glorify it as this amazing thing that the world has to accept.   
   
To summarize, it's like all thumbs are fingers (lazy, smelly people smoke weed), but not all fingers are thumbs (not everyone who smokes weed is like that).   
   
   
Pic unrelated, but maracas.
Thing is though, people who are like what you describe (lazy, smelly, all that stuff) are usually stoners. But that doesn't mean all people who smoke weed are like them. I know lots of people who smoke weed, and most of them have day jobs, and only smoke on weekends. Me included. We treat it like anyone else would treat alcohol.
We don't glorify it as this amazing thing that the world has to accept.

To summarize, it's like all thumbs are fingers (lazy, smelly people smoke weed), but not all fingers are thumbs (not everyone who smokes weed is like that).


Pic unrelated, but maracas.
#148 to #53 - dalgaard (04/24/2014) [-]
He never said you were all the same. His comment was directed against the hardcore stoners that he arrests, as he said himself.
He never said you were all the same. His comment was directed against the hardcore stoners that he arrests, as he said himself.
User avatar #392 to #148 - ntobarrev (04/24/2014) [-]
I didn't say that he said that we were all the same.
User avatar #393 to #392 - dalgaard (04/24/2014) [-]
I feel like you mentioned something out of context then.

''But that doesn't mean all people who smoke weed are like them''.

He never said anything in that direction. Thats what i mean.
#394 to #393 - ntobarrev (04/24/2014) [-]
He made a post, I made a post, we're all making posts. I wasn't arguing with him, or even discussing with him. I was just posting.   
   
   
maracas
He made a post, I made a post, we're all making posts. I wasn't arguing with him, or even discussing with him. I was just posting.


maracas
#395 to #394 - dalgaard (04/24/2014) [-]
Hey.   
   
So did i.
Hey.

So did i.
User avatar #272 to #53 - orobas (04/24/2014) [-]
thumbs aren't fingers
#66 to #49 - souperior (04/24/2014) [-]
YFW you get arrested and put in the back of a marijuana van with reggae music playing in a alternate universe
#109 to #49 - nimba (04/24/2014) [-]
yfw making up charges for people you don't like
yfw making up charges for people you don't like
#353 to #109 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolls 7,400**

They can't just "make up" charges without too much hassle, the large majority of what you're talking about would be exaggerated enough to be legally prosecuted.

Also you have a really good chance of not being charged with an extra minor crime if they can't prove it beyond a doubt.
User avatar #205 to #49 - infinitereaper (04/24/2014) [-]
cops make me paranoid even though I never do anything wrong
User avatar #130 to #49 - duedum (04/24/2014) [-]
I think you're a good mang, my mang
User avatar #166 to #49 - kaisakuenkou (04/24/2014) [-]
It seems to me you enjoy power tripping on potheads. You're going to tack on extra charges because they don't like you? Seriously? You don't have a problem with the substance in question, the actual "crime" but instead, the people who use it? So because they're lazy, and have an odour you're not particularly fond of, means they should have freedom taken away? I disagree entirely.
User avatar #94 to #49 - SergeantPWN (04/24/2014) [-]
I tried explaining close to your exact viewpoint to one of my co-workers who isn't really a dumb pot-head, but a pot-head nonetheless. She kind of just got upset and still "hates cops."

You guys are just doing your job. It sucks that sometimes good people get arrested, but the law is still the law. The good thing is, the law can eventually be changed.
#222 to #49 - bongldr (04/24/2014) [-]
mfw i have a job and sell all dem drugs at the same damn time

what you gon do faggot cybercop
User avatar #62 to #49 - KazumaKyu (04/24/2014) [-]
Why would I have readied myself for your rage while reading your comment?
#63 to #62 - tyroneisanigger (04/24/2014) [-]
I actually realized that literally the second after I clicked the reply button.

Oh well.
#78 to #63 - fuckyallniggas (04/24/2014) [-]
"			***************		" A racist cop?! Holy 			****		 what is the world coming too!?
" *************** " A racist cop?! Holy **** what is the world coming too!?
#235 to #78 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
Deal with ******* all the time and you'll hate them too.
User avatar #311 to #49 - chiopet (04/24/2014) [-]
you're a cop named *************** . neat
User avatar #328 to #311 - nimba (04/24/2014) [-]
Somebody should le 4chun him and find his details. the newspapers would love this ****
#186 to #49 - ronnorc (04/24/2014) [-]
>making judgement calls on other people.

Bitch, you on a site like funnyjunk with the rest of us faggots and you've got the username *************** . You're just as bad in your own way,
User avatar #274 to #49 - dmoneys (04/24/2014) [-]
"Most stoners have **** the police type of attitude"

You ever think that these type of people are already doing something illegal, so why should they care about police? If it wasn't illegal, do you think as many people would have that attitude?
#300 to #274 - rainyeyes (04/24/2014) [-]
I'm guessing you've never met a stoner who called the cops on someone who stole their weed.
User avatar #384 to #300 - dmoneys (04/24/2014) [-]
What does that have to do with anything? I live in Colorado, so logically if someone stole weed from me would certainly call the cops on them.
User avatar #72 to #49 - TigerShark ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
I believe the problem is that it's mostly the stupid stoners that get caught.
User avatar #168 to #72 - kaisakuenkou (04/24/2014) [-]
That can be said for any crime
#251 to #49 - thedippestofshits ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
this is swiftly becoming my number 1 reaction pic.

though i would add this: any bit of unnecessary roughness on the part of the police will quickly gain you unpopularity. I hope you're not one of those cops that "shoves" people into cars even when they're cooperating kindly.
#323 to #49 - bobindun (04/24/2014) [-]
Even if you're not a cop. I love what you just typed.
#189 to #49 - xiled (04/24/2014) [-]
Aight nignogs let me break it down for ya. First of all we got two different kinds of weed: Sativa and Indica. This is similar to how coyotes and dogs are related. Indica generally provides a body high while Sativa is a mind high. Indica is usually for nighttime use only and Sativa is for the daytime as you can function normally on it. Within these categories, fall thousands of different strands than is similar to how there are many different dog breeds. Just as every dog breed has its own unique characteristics, so do all of the strains. These strains can be bred with each other to produce a new one that will have characteristics of both just as dogs are bred to achieve certain qualities. The effects you may experience vary with every strain and grower of the strain. These include feeling happy, creative, uplifted, euphoric, mellow, sleepy, lazy, etc..... Every person may have a different experience than another with the same strain. I do not believe for one second that it makes you stupid. Its only that stupid people are doing it and when they are medicated, they are still going to be stupid. It didn't make them stupid, that's just what they are normally. For my credibility, I am 19 year old student with a medical marijuana license going to CC with 3 jobs and will be transferring to UCI, UCSD, or UCSB next fall. And I smoke at nearly every opportunity I can , just not before the one job that matters, and rarely have an absence of weed.
User avatar #276 to #49 - hawaiianhappysauce (04/24/2014) [-]
For an officer you have an interesting username.
User avatar #157 to #49 - butiloveu (04/24/2014) [-]
There are and will be people who overdo it.
We should handle it the same way as ethanol.
Alcoholics are a problem like permanent stoners.
They both can cause accidents, criminality etc. and need help to get out of it.
And then there is the rest who can clearly handle legal drugs.
I don't think legalizing the drug would increase the stoner culture, because even in times of an alcohol prohibition there was still a lot of alcoholics and smugglers, making it legal only increase the income for the state and makes black selling nearly impossible doe the prices.

Also, why should it be my face reading your comment?!



#214 to #49 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
it's pretty descriptive of your character that you don't care whether marijuana is legal or not (and you seem to be leaning towards legality) yet you will still arrest people for laws against it.
User avatar #254 to #214 - broswagonist (04/24/2014) [-]
It's the very definition of "doing your job". What did you expect?
#96 to #49 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
> ***************
> cop
lol
#201 to #49 - drinpa (04/24/2014) [-]
You're a cop at 19? Everywhere I've seen you had to be graduating the academy after 21 to be able to handle your service weapon.
User avatar #85 to #49 - rota (04/24/2014) [-]
cops do their job, the law is just flawed imo
i smoke weed myself, but if you do it so much you get caught, you probably have a problem anyways (or bad luck, but bad luck is bad luck, whatcha gonna do)
User avatar #105 to #49 - serefth (04/24/2014) [-]
I don't really have a problem with it either, i mean maybe something once a month for a bit of laughs. but the people that do it everyday.. holy **** . have you ever spoke to someone more retarded it just cooks their brain so much and makes them slow as hell.
#69 to #49 - fecal (04/24/2014) [-]
While you are partially right, it is fair to say that you only catch the dumb stoners that don't do much else than smoke weed, and do it publically and noticeably.

I am doing very well in college, have a job on the side to pay for it, and smoke a lot of weed on the side to relax. this doesn't get in the way of anything, and I don't look like a hardcore stoner. I agree with you that people that actively profile themselves as stoners are idiots though, they just give normal smokers a bad name, as alcoholic bums give alcohol a bad name.
User avatar #102 to #49 - oaaaa (04/24/2014) [-]
i dont even have a problem with these people. i think the mainproblem is that it IS a gatewaydrug and bring people to harder stuff. i tryed pot when i was 16 and i tryed a lot of other stuff later. now i m 29 and think that if i have never took pot i might not have taken the other stuff. i maybe take e every 1-2 month to party and dont have a drug problem. still i am against drugs because some people **** their lifes up with them.
#124 to #102 - trustust (04/24/2014) [-]
I have to disagree. I know alot of people who smoke pot and only a few of them went to take harder stuff. It's not the drug that is a gateway to harder stuff, it's the kind of people you smoke with that can make you take harder stuff.
User avatar #133 to #124 - vaggay (04/24/2014) [-]
It certainly depends on the circumstances under which you smoked (who did you do it with, mostly) and while it doesn't mean that you'll try harder stuff for sure, it's easier for you to try them afterwards. (That can also depend on the views you had on weed before trying, ie. if you were "cautious" before using and then changed your mind saying "it's not so bad after all", you might just do the same with crack or some other drug).
#137 to #133 - trustust (04/24/2014) [-]
You are right, you explained it like ten times better than I. Thank you
User avatar #351 to #102 - lasmamoe (04/24/2014) [-]
******** .
You sound like you have a basic addictive personality.

Take my dad for instance. He's addicted to alcohol, cigarettes and all kinds of medicine he doesn't have to take.

I on the other hand, smoked cigarettes for 4-5 years and quit from one day to the next.
Same with alcohol.

My dad has an addictive personality.
I don't.
User avatar #364 to #351 - oaaaa (04/24/2014) [-]
i tryed a few drugs and i like e to party. but only once a month because i want to keep it special and dont want to end like some pople i see. when i go out i like to drink a lot but when i m at home i never drink because i dont have to drink my life good and i dont have bad memorys i want to forget.
#187 to #49 - desuforeverlulz (04/24/2014) [-]
That's a shameless excuse to persecute people you don't like. I don't care if they are smelly or stupid, I think you're a cruel person to enjoy 			*******		 someone over who wasn't hurting anyone, no matter who says you can.
That's a shameless excuse to persecute people you don't like. I don't care if they are smelly or stupid, I think you're a cruel person to enjoy ******* someone over who wasn't hurting anyone, no matter who says you can.
User avatar #256 to #187 - broswagonist (04/24/2014) [-]
Enjoy? I don't think this guy gets his kicks from arresting these people. It's his job to arrest them since they break the law in his state.
User avatar #407 to #256 - desuforeverlulz (04/25/2014) [-]
He's justifying the reasons why he won't leave them alone (as I know many cops will if you aren't bothering anyone), which practically means he enjoys it in a way.
User avatar #409 to #407 - broswagonist (04/25/2014) [-]
No, no it doesn't. His only justification is that as long as it's illegal he'll arrest them.
User avatar #411 to #409 - desuforeverlulz (04/25/2014) [-]
"I don't have a problem with marijuana itself only the people that use it, I mean the hardcore stoners. ... I will admit, the people I usually arrest for marijuana are lazy people. ... Also, most stoners have the " **** the police" type of attitude which only makes cops want to arrest them a little more, perhaps add an extra charge of disorderly if they are yelling in public on the way to the cop car?"

When I say "justification" I don't mean actual, validating moral concepts, I mean the kinds of things that just make you more okay with doing something hurtful to someone else.
#89 to #49 - holds (04/24/2014) [-]
i understand and respect your point of view
User avatar #106 to #89 - serefth (04/24/2014) [-]
dat mustache
User avatar #151 to #49 - mcbroseph (04/24/2014) [-]
I smoke weed regularly, but I shower often, have a clean haircut, work out and go to uni. If I want to smoke a doobie in the middle of the night with my friends in some park where there's nobody else and you decide to arrest me for that, you're an asshole and hiding behind the law makes you a coward.
User avatar #204 to #151 - andiminius (04/24/2014) [-]
For doing his job? You just sound hateful because the law doesn't let you do what you want to do.
User avatar #237 to #204 - mcbroseph (04/24/2014) [-]
I'm hateful because any idiot that's addicted to having power over people can just follow a 6 month course, be called a cop and now he can tell me what I can and can't do.
He still has the choice to arrest me and if he decides to do this when I'm doing no harm to anyone he's an asshole.
User avatar #310 to #237 - andiminius (04/24/2014) [-]
I'm a private pilot. I'm fully licensed to operate a single-engine aircraft. I would like to fly people from one place to another and be paid for it. But I am not a commercial pilot, therefore, it would be illegal for me to do so. So I don't.

See how easy that is? I would like to do something that the law won't allow me to do. But instead of doing it anyways and being a whiny bitch when I'm caught, I operate withing my legal ability.
#405 to #237 - tyroneisanigger (04/25/2014) [-]
Your comment got my attention. I feel as if you are implying I didn't work very hard to become a cop. That's not true in the littlest bit of sense. Police jobs are getting competitive, and though most departments only require a diploma there is many that prefer applicants to have 60+ college credits, and/or military experience equivalent to 2 years active duty. I have roughly 70 college credits and a AAS (Associate's in Applied Sciences) in Criminal justice, I work at steady 30 hours a week while in college, lived on my own, thankfully my FAFSA and Pell grant covered my schooling but it's still a lot of work for a guy that was a C average student in high school.
User avatar #291 to #237 - blargchikahonkhonk (04/24/2014) [-]
he dosnt make the the law he just enforces because thats his job. if you smoke weed in a country that has a law against weed then u have broken the law and are guna get arrested if you are caught deal with it
#303 to #204 - touchmyfunny (04/24/2014) [-]
The thing is, he still can decide if he wants to arrest them or not, nobody will fire him from his job or even notice if he says "Nah, i wont arrest this actually kind and proper teenager for smoking something actually less harmful than alcohol and therefore REALLY RUIN his life". But I dont expect that from anyone... it would be just a humane thing to do eventhough the law says something else.

(and just btw. in my opinion, this police guy sounds like he has fun arresting them, because he hates them and wants to "arrest them a little more")
#169 to #49 - fuckedbyapony (04/24/2014) [-]
Stoner's face when arrested
Stoner's face when arrested
#236 to #169 - eriko (04/24/2014) [-]
**eriko rolled image**

What a perfect image
User avatar #8 - wcpapier (04/24/2014) [-]
Randy Marsh talk about marijuana

my only problem with weed

#16 to #8 - xspencerxxx ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
that show could be pretty deep when it wanted to be
#90 to #8 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
Complete b.s.
User avatar #162 to #8 - cmilanes (04/24/2014) [-]
So pot is basically funnyjunk. Ok then might as well go smoke weed.
User avatar #306 to #8 - obsidicus (04/24/2014) [-]
time to get off funnyjunk and go play guitar, learn spanish, or study something
#308 to #306 - okappadesu (04/24/2014) [-]
and then 5 minutes later, remember why you're not doing that and go back to funnyjunk.
User avatar #309 to #308 - obsidicus (04/24/2014) [-]
i'm finishing my cup off coffee then i seriously am going to get offline and do one of those things. Probably study. Finals are coming.
#34 to #8 - icameisawilostit (04/24/2014) [-]
That's actually pretty profound.
#84 to #8 - okappadesu (04/24/2014) [-]
The problem with this being that it applies to almost all forms of entertainment.
User avatar #277 to #84 - undeadwill (04/24/2014) [-]
Well he's not wrong.
#307 to #277 - okappadesu (04/24/2014) [-]
It's a problem with unintended inclusion. What he says makes a lot of sense about weed, but the problem is that it also makes a lot of sense with regards to watching TV, playing video games or going to the bar with friends, things that Randy would probably not speak against so loudly.
User avatar #412 to #307 - undeadwill (04/25/2014) [-]
I was just saying he's not wrong and some people do apply it to everything.
User avatar #2 - TheHutchie (04/23/2014) [-]
This is probably the most effective pro-cannabis argument I've seen here yet.

It's shocking how much money it costs to prohibit a substance which is no more addictive or dangerous than eating breadsticks, just because "it's a gateway drug".
#13 to #2 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
The point isn't any of the bad side effects no matter how small or large. The point is, that if you aren't harming anyone else does the government have a right to police what you are doing?

Also it's been proven time and time again in other countries outside the US that prevention and rehab are much cheaper than policing a substance.
User avatar #14 to #2 - unusualember (04/24/2014) [-]
I agree with you completely. Instead of sinking ourselves further into debt by spending billions on maintaining the illegality of something that really shouldn't be illegal in the first place, we should legalize and tax weed to help pull us out of debt. I mean, can you imagine how much taxes the U.S. government would get from that kind of a massive market?
User avatar #43 to #2 - legolasor (04/24/2014) [-]
While I agree with your first statement, it's complete ******** that it's no more addictive or dangerous than eating breadsticks. The inhalation of the smoke can still cause lung cancer after prolonged use, and it does contain addictive elements.
User avatar #61 to #43 - pokemonstheshiz (04/24/2014) [-]
You can vaporize or ingest it, not necessary to smoke it. Even sitting around a camp fire is bad for your lungs, but let's not ban cub scouts just yet
#44 to #43 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
I've never injected so much as a single marijuana in my life, but vaporisers allow you to inhale it as vapor, meaning that you can smoke weed without the whole "smoke" bit. Also, I think that marijuana in and of itself is only addictive if you use it as a crutch, it doesn't contain **** that causes addiction such as nicotine, though I am by no means an expert so I could be wrong
#91 to #2 - notafunnyguy (04/24/2014) [-]
its not harmless. i smoked for about 3-4 months and it gave me anxiety and would give me mild schizophrenia while smoking (sketching out, seeing things move out the corner fo my eye etc). it also destroyed my lungs and it hurts to run long distances now.

its fun to smoke, and i liked being high, but please dont spread the "its harmless" propoganda around because you are encouraging people to smoke and disregarding the risks.
User avatar #170 to #91 - kilotech (04/24/2014) [-]
those are pretty much the same symptoms as heavy cigarette usage, yet its perfectly legal to smoke a whole ******* carton everyday
User avatar #163 to #91 - TheHutchie (04/24/2014) [-]
It's harmless in general. Typically, only predisposed individuals, or frequent tokers will be susceptible to these kinds of reactions.
#125 to #91 - trustust (04/24/2014) [-]
What you experienced depends alot on the person, I started smoking 4 years ago and I smoke almost everyday and this never happened to me. But I agree that it is not harmless, still it's not more harmfull than alcohol or other legal substances.
#150 to #2 - duopros (04/24/2014) [-]
Marijuana can trigger schizophrenia in certain predisposed individuals.
#220 to #2 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
It's also full of bad information.

The condition for that school funding was actually limited to 40 million. That is to say, any tax revenue generated past the first 40 is not required by law to go to schools whatsoever, where it goes to is actually chosen by the local governments. Additionally the 2013-2014 school budget for Colorado was 3.4 billion dollars. Meaning 40 million is only ~1.1% increase in the budget. Although I'll definitely concede that every little bit certainly.

Additionally that 20 billion isn't actually true, or I should say, is only half true. 20 billion dollars including actual prohibition, loss of potential revenue, taxes, etc. Essentially anything remotely related to marijuana and prohibition is thrown into that number. The actual amount is closer to 8 billion if you consider prohibition to be the amount of money used to actively regulate and restrict.

Sources:
Colorado Law Government Website
Harvard University
I'm from Colorado
#233 to #220 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
And just to be clear, 99% of the people here don't actually understand the laws regarding both medical and recreational marijuana in Colorado. Medical marijuana (M.M. for short) licenses requires that you have a reason that the chemical THC is known to ease like pain or epilepsy. The problem is that M.M. proscriptions are vague defined and anyone at/over the age of 21 is capable of getting a license for a small upfront fee. This is largely due to the people who proscribe it are very quick to do so (think ADHD medicine controversy) and the fact anyone can have pain - just fall down some stairs. Also just to be clear, it is FELONY to TRADE or RESELL M.M., and illegal to USE M.M. without a license.

Additionally recreational marijuana has a 25% tax. As a consequence a lot of people (I personally know several) who dodge high taxes by jumping on someone who buys with a license (M.M. is 2.9% tax). So revenue generated is actually much lower because of people dodging their associated tax.
User avatar #358 to #233 - TheHutchie (04/24/2014) [-]
It doesn't matter what I've said previously, because I'm just working on what people have been kind enough to tell me, but this is exactly the kind of debate that need to be done, in every day life and beyond.

You have forsaken personal opinion, and rightly so, to instead separate the facts from the ******** . That is how we must all learn to deal with problems.

Thank you.
User avatar #50 to #2 - hydraetis (04/24/2014) [-]
While marijuana itself may not be addictive, the high absolutely is, which is also part of what makes it serve as a gateway. I don't support its use (I'm generally against getting high/drunk) but I've learned to accept that society has become dependent on the availability and use of substances that put you into a state of impaired judgement, so now I agree with the idea of at least using that sort of **** to make money for the country.
User avatar #5 to #2 - timmity (04/23/2014) [-]
actually, the illegality makes it a gateway, if it was legal it would no longer be
User avatar #6 to #5 - TheHutchie (04/23/2014) [-]
Whether that's true or not, it's still a stupid reason to keep it illegal.
#11 to #6 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
It's illegal cause everyone who uses it has slower response times and is generally a faggot.
It's illegal cause everyone who uses it has slower response times and is generally a faggot.
#37 to #11 - Bforbacon (04/24/2014) [-]
Well I'm not sure about your response time but you seem like you smoke a ton of weed then
#67 to #37 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
the other anon is right, response is slowed marginally. however that's no reason to make it illegal. make it the same like with alcohol. you can smoke, but not drive while high
User avatar #24 to #11 - thewickedgoose (04/24/2014) [-]
Clearly.
User avatar #88 - turdmurpson (04/24/2014) [-]
we all know prohibition never works
User avatar #107 to #88 - nimba (04/24/2014) [-]
let's legalise heroin?
User avatar #185 to #107 - Lambda (04/24/2014) [-]
Legalize all drugs. Treat addiction as a public health issue instead of a criminal issue.
User avatar #188 to #185 - nimba (04/24/2014) [-]
That's a reasonable response I guess. The danger would be to go back to late victorian drug culture, which probably contributed to the start of WW1 seeing as everybody was seemingly on opiates at the time
User avatar #191 to #188 - Lambda (04/24/2014) [-]
Hopefully we as a society would learn from the mistakes of the past. There may be problems at first, but once the novelty of it wears off, things would normalize.
For the most part, everybody who wants to do drugs is already doing drugs. They're easy enough to get.
User avatar #119 to #107 - Ragumshnagum (04/24/2014) [-]
Why not? Let the heroin people have their heroin. Natural selection exists for a reason - don't **** with it.
User avatar #95 to #88 - certifiedidiot (04/24/2014) [-]
Sure ******* didn't work when they tried it on beer.
#253 - morelazors ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
These comments.
#12 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
Ah the classic, "Use the idiots for our own benefit."
#42 - soundofwinter ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
How about we also legalize more than just weed?
Why is it so simple for all of you to decide that weed is (mostly) safe and even if you think it isn't you still support legalization because the drug war is a sham. Yet, if someone brings up another drug (even one that's safer than cannabis i.e. MDMA or LSD) a large majority of people suddenly switch over to prohibition to "reduce harm" due to them already knowing that it doesn't work? Not to mention how well decriminalization has fared in Portugal.
#52 to #42 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
before you read my whole i would like to make clear i am one hundred percent against the prohibition of pot and alcohol. however if alcohol was illegal there would be significantly less bars. if there was less bars, there would be less DUI's (from alcohol). Although bars are not directly responsible for DUIs you could say that the amount of DUIs goes up as the number of bars goes up. That being said if you could go by acid at your local grocery store, more people would drive on acid. Now ask yourself, do you REALLY want a road full of people driving on acid?

Other drugs may be less harmful to your body, but that isn't necessarily the only concern. I think that doing drugs is fine as long as you're not hurting anyone or any animals. But the type of people who tend to do most other drugs are 1, not responsible enough to be accountable for other people's safety, 2 are not able to function as safely on equivalent amounts of other drugs to weed and alcohol.
User avatar #56 to #52 - soundofwinter ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
Well to address your initial point about alcohol, although your logic of making it illegal would logically seem to make the number of bars and drinking go down, it's not the case. The Eighteenth Amendment was passed in hopes of this and drinking on all levels went up and more bars were opened as speak-easies. We have a historical precedent that making something illegal causes its use to go up. So with your own argument, we should legalize acid to reduce the amount of people driving on it. Also, who drives on acid? I know it's a hypothetical situation but anyone who drops acid and then decides to drive obviously has no idea what they're getting into. What I want is a society where people are free to use substances (especially acid, it's extremely safe) as they wish as long they're in the right situations. Everyone is for legalizing DUIs because they put others in risk instead of just the individual.

1. Drug choice doesn't affect responsibility. I'd actually argue that alcoholics are some of the most dangerous people to be around. Alcohol is a horrible drug that rivals the dangers of heroin and crack cocaine. If you're an alcoholic and you just stop drinking, you will die. If you're a heroin addict and you stop shooting up, you will have bad withdrawls but dying isn't going to usually happen. Alcohol is a horrible substance that destroys judgement and due to cultural reasons it's approved while the majority of substances are shunned while being safer. I trust many a junkie before I trust an alcoholic.
2. That's not true. It's easier to function on heroin, meth, coke, MDMA, and most prescriptions. The only few cases in which this might apply is on a psychedelic but most people who use psychadelics are aware of this and make special plans to do so. Psychadelics have a very long history of use in human culture and have been safe for thousands of years, why should we turn against proven history?
User avatar #97 to #42 - divinecreator (04/24/2014) [-]
yea i know someone whos in a psych ward for taking acid he thinks hes a glass of orange juice and stands in the corner all day trying not to tip himself over hes been like this for 6 years acid isnt that safe ive tried it twice never again (1st experience was horrible second was really cool and enjoyable but extremely disorenting 3 days without sleep)
User avatar #167 to #97 - choobe (04/24/2014) [-]
And that is ******** . No psychic illness makes you think you're a glass of orange juice for years. The never-ending trip is a myth, there is like a 0,00~1% something chance of getting HPPD, but that doesn't affect the mind, only the sight.

And 3 days acid trip? Then you must have taken much, I have a friend who took ~700µg and I could reach him after 6, and the day after he was good.
User avatar #401 to #167 - divinecreator (04/25/2014) [-]
im sorry that i dont belive you what ive seen with my eyes says otherwise im sure youve convinced others though as the thumbs are in your favor
User avatar #403 to #401 - choobe (04/25/2014) [-]
Acid is actually pretty harmless, almost none physically. And mentally, no trace. All that happens after an acid-trip is your own mind at work. Your friend must have had some very big psychic problems before, and even more underlying, since acid can't create psychic illnesses (except HPPD), only make them break out (which a lot of things can do). That business with turning into a glass of orange juice sounds more like Salvia Divinorum, although that's over in ~15 minutes.

And absorbing 100+ doses. Let's see, I'm assuming 150µg, since that is a normal dose, that gives us 15mg, which is 5mg over LD50, so either he died, or he lost himself for a long time (but after a couple days "real time" he would come back, since the acid would go out the system).
User avatar #182 to #167 - divinecreator (04/24/2014) [-]
He was trying to sell a sheet at a concert and had 100plus doses absorbed through his skin my trip lasted about ten hours however I felt very strange/not right until three days later
User avatar #390 to #182 - soundofwinter ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
The worst thing acid can do to you is merely cause a mental illness you have dormant to appear sooner. Though, it's being used to test schizophrenia and may help find a cure. What you've said has no base in an medicinal evidence and is just as likely that a glass of orange juice caused him to become like that, if he actually is.
User avatar #400 to #390 - divinecreator (04/25/2014) [-]
its funny how im being thumbed down for simply sharing my experiences i also just learned of someone whos was reportedly a heavy user got admitted into a psych ward because he would constantly yell for his friends to stop calling his name when they wernt there
User avatar #402 to #400 - soundofwinter ONLINE (04/25/2014) [-]
Well I don't do that but on Fj people usually thumb down statements that they see as incorrect. Though, there is literally zero medical evidence that LSD can actually cause these things and the only evidence is that it can just speed up the onset of a disorder. Though, there are many other factors that people overlook just because of acid. For instance, it's very possible for a bipolar individual to suffer from hallucinations just as your example described but they may not decide anything is wrong about it until after they have taken the acid. Rates of mental disorders and psychosis are actually lower among heavy users which is a good amount of proof that acid is perfectly safe and might possibly be beneficial for the mind.
#54 to #42 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
(cont.)
I have driven high on pot, definitely too high to drive, however i was able to function enough to drive anyways (even through i was WAAAY to high to drive). The point i make with this is people driving drunk or stoned can function and react better than those on other drugs (i am in no way saying drunk drivers are okay to drive but i would give someone whos the drunk the wheel 10 times over again than ever let someone on acid, meth, heroine, etc drive). People who are drunk and stoned have a more correct perception of reality and what's actually happening than those on other drugs
User avatar #57 to #54 - soundofwinter ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
People can drive on heroin and meth better than weed/heroin. Acid isn't something you drive on. I also have already addressed the fact that psychadelics are not used in driving situations in my other reply. Besides, you're basing your argument on something that would be illegal under any situation.
#255 - heartlessstoner (04/24/2014) [-]
I smoke, Because I want to.   
And.   
I'm not pushing it on anyone.   
Let me be happy, doing what makes me happy.   
i'll do me,    
And you can do you.
I smoke, Because I want to.
And.
I'm not pushing it on anyone.
Let me be happy, doing what makes me happy.
i'll do me,
And you can do you.


User avatar #264 to #255 - dehnoobshow ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
I'll be watching you... Stalking you. Waiting for a mistake... And I'll be there...
I kid, I'm going to stalk you because I'll love you.
User avatar #266 to #264 - heartlessstoner (04/24/2014) [-]
Whatever makes you happy.
Do it.
#269 to #255 - ishfwilf (04/24/2014) [-]
I say, if people want to smoke then let them.
As long they keep the fumes away from me, i won't care at all.
There are alot of things that are bad for people that is legal anyway, because even trying to ban things like cigarettes and alcohol would easily kill a political career.
Politicians take advantage of the fear associated with drugs, and since marijuana is classified as one....They'll blow the negative sides of it out of proportions to make it seem like marijuana was taken from the lawn of satan or something like that.

Personally i'd never smoke it since for me the disadvantages outweight the advantahes....But that's something for each person to decide for themself, people should have the freedom to do that.
#273 to #269 - heartlessstoner (04/24/2014) [-]
Nobody is making you,   
And I won't be the guy to try and pressure you into it.   
Hate the people who do that 			****		.   
You make your own life choices.   
Not me.
Nobody is making you,
And I won't be the guy to try and pressure you into it.
Hate the people who do that **** .
You make your own life choices.
Not me.
User avatar #278 to #273 - capslockrage (04/24/2014) [-]
I don't want to hear people talking about it or posting stupid .gifs about it.

It's not a "cool" thing to do, and if you go out of your way to talk about it on things that are unrelated (people do that) it makes you look like a 12 year old.
#281 to #278 - heartlessstoner (04/24/2014) [-]
I'm on topic baby.   
What's_ not_ cool, is people like you trying to push YOUR opinion on the world.  I'm not forcing anyone to smoke, nor asking anyone to.   
What's not cool, Is you trying to tell me I shouldn't be doing it.   
It's Immoral.    
I should be free to do as I please.    
And I am.
I'm on topic baby.
What's_ not_ cool, is people like you trying to push YOUR opinion on the world. I'm not forcing anyone to smoke, nor asking anyone to.
What's not cool, Is you trying to tell me I shouldn't be doing it.
It's Immoral.
I should be free to do as I please.
And I am.
User avatar #283 to #281 - capslockrage (04/24/2014) [-]
I'm not saying you shouldn't do it

I'm saying I don't want to hear you bragging about "hurr durr i smoekd so much dank w33d las nite brooo"

(not saying you're like this but I do hear people like this and it's infuriating)
User avatar #287 to #283 - heartlessstoner (04/24/2014) [-]
Further apology. I read your first post wrong, Thought you said I was doing that kinda crap.
#286 to #283 - heartlessstoner (04/24/2014) [-]
I agree completely.   
Even If i hadn't used my only two smoking gif's.   
My name kinda gives it away.   
People shouldn't be like those dumb ass highschool kids who run around the school   
Screaming 			****		 like 4/20 blaze it fggt.    
None of that.    
That makes people like ME, get put into relation with people like that,   
Because they partake in one of my past times.
I agree completely.
Even If i hadn't used my only two smoking gif's.
My name kinda gives it away.
People shouldn't be like those dumb ass highschool kids who run around the school
Screaming **** like 4/20 blaze it fggt.
None of that.
That makes people like ME, get put into relation with people like that,
Because they partake in one of my past times.
User avatar #288 to #286 - capslockrage (04/24/2014) [-]
I mean I have smoked weed twice, I really don't care whether or not people smoke or not


But I don't think it's the best hobby to choose, and I don't think people should make it seem like it's cool for younger kids that haven't gotten into it yet

Weed isn't physically addictive but it's addictive in like the habit sense

it's addictive in the same sense that food or alcohol is addictive, and can lead to a less productive life.
#290 to #288 - heartlessstoner (04/24/2014) [-]
A well informed opinion,   
You're right.   
But it only leads to a less productive life, If you let it.   
As they said in "Invictus"   
"I am the master of my fate:   
I am the captain of my soul. "
A well informed opinion,
You're right.
But it only leads to a less productive life, If you let it.
As they said in "Invictus"
"I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul. "
0
#356 to #273 - ishfwilf has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #241 - heartbleed ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
Say, being a Canadian, could I go down to Colorado or Seattle When Seattle get's it's **** together. and try weed legally?
#302 to #241 - rainyeyes (04/24/2014) [-]
**rainyeyes rolled image**

Just go to Vancouver and blaze it there. The cops generally don't care and BC has the best weed anyway. All the weed stuff in the US is probably imported from BC anyway.
User avatar #315 to #302 - heartbleed ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
Although I live near Vancouver, I still don't really wana risk it.
#243 to #241 - repostsrepost (04/24/2014) [-]
Yeah as long as you don't take it out of COlorado
User avatar #244 to #243 - heartbleed ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
Ah, cool thanks.
#246 to #244 - repostsrepost (04/24/2014) [-]
I mean, I don't really know the law that well or live in Colorado, but I don't think a state can only allow residents of the state to purchase a particular product that doesn't seem very legal.
User avatar #252 to #246 - heartbleed ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
"It is going to take awhile for process to come into effect, paperwork has to be drafted, and regulations have to be developed. When it does come into full effect, people will be able to buy marijuana just like they buy alcohol. Stores will need licenses to sell it, and growers will need permits to grow it. When it is sold there will be an excise tax in Colorado that funds public schools. You must be 21 years old to buy it, but need not be a state resident. It cannot be transported across state lines. It is illegal to drive under the influence of it. Just apply all the rules for alcohol to weed and you will know what the rules are."
-Yahoo Answers
User avatar #248 to #246 - heartbleed ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
Well I'll Google it. Cause I think in Amsterdam anyways anyone can buy it but w/e.
User avatar #263 to #248 - MasterL (04/24/2014) [-]
In the Netherlands the government proposed the 'wietpas', a pass people are required to have to buy drugs in coffeeshops which you can only acquire if you're a Dutch citizen. They've debated the issue a lot because neigbour countries whine about their citizens traveling across the border (Schengen zone, hail the EU) to buy drugs that are illegal in their own country. Meanwhile cities and towns near the borders opposed this pass because it causes criminality to increase as foreigners will come anyway and instead of buying drugs from legal coffee shops they buy from junkies on the street. Also the citizens themselves didn't like the idea of the government knowing exactly which people have this pass and are thus drug users. In the end the government decided that you can only buy legal soft drugs as a Dutch citizen and you need to have an identification card with you as proof. But even then most local governments don't really enforce it so foreigners can still buy drugs, it's tolerated almost everywhere as far as I know.
Don't know how Colorado (and other states that legalized it) deals with people from other states and countries but I think you would be able to buy and posses it only in these specific states regardless of where you're from (just like with alcohol and guns).
User avatar #339 to #263 - nimba (04/24/2014) [-]
but isn't that essentially the only reason to go to the netherlands
User avatar #265 to #263 - heartbleed ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
Thanks for the information.
User avatar #240 - newsuperyoshi (04/24/2014) [-]
Every dollar spent on the war on drugs is a dollar not spent of developing & domesticating cat girls.
#299 to #240 - hybredmoon (04/24/2014) [-]
Best argument ever. Right here.
#129 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolled image** mfw smoking weed
**anonymous rolled image** mfw smoking weed
#301 - knightra (04/24/2014) [-]
There the analogy of the house cat being freed and able to go outside then quickly coming back in, I think the same applies to marijuana prohibition, the day it got legal in some places they were literally sold out but after a while people will get tired of the hype and see weed as they do beer.
User avatar #41 - bobthedilder (04/24/2014) [-]
Anytime somebody shows the potential benefits of legalization to law makers or conservative media and so on they wind up being dismissed as pot heads. Not everyone who wants it made legal smokes it. Every time you pay for that **** illegally chances are that money's going to a group that ******* murders people on a daily basis, that ruins peoples' lives. Do these people have any idea how bad you'd be hurting cartels and smugglers by taking away this cash crop? These ******* make 10s of billions of dollars off of marijuana alone. Prohibition didn't work, it made it worse for everyone, organized crime flurished throughout the states. Hundreds of politicians were bought with the money from alcohol sales along with illegal weapons, businesses, and even lives.
#257 - mastersaturday (04/24/2014) [-]
Yes, because that's why everyone wants weed to be legal.
User avatar #262 to #257 - listerthepessimist (04/24/2014) [-]
It wouldn't hurt
#138 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
Smoked weed for a while (8 months)
I still believe legalization would be damaging.

Let's put it this simple - People are too damn retarded and stupid to use things responsibly. There are too many examples for listing, look around.
If you don't realize that, you might be retarded yourself.

I am genuinely surprised people don't regularry drink themselves to death, just because water's freely available.
#142 to #138 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
If you want to make a stab at my persona
I can tell I smoked both heavy and purely for creative moods and eventually realized it's an illusory ******** that just drains your natural skill away.
So knowing first hand how supposedly good weed is, I can easily say, I haven't picked it up and don't give a **** about it for a long time already.

Try it, but remember - it starts to suck relatively fast. Unless your aim is to become a lowlife "lol lol blaze it" parody of a person, you ought to drop it eventually.
User avatar #3 - almightybenjamin (04/23/2014) [-]
you know there other issues to be concerned about with legalizing pot other than saving money.
User avatar #4 to #3 - godtherapist (04/23/2014) [-]
Such as?
User avatar #9 to #4 - fyaq (04/24/2014) [-]
12 year olds will have nothing to talk about
#17 to #7 - davyjoneslocker (04/24/2014) [-]
Half of those "side effects" are the reason that people smoke it
Half of those "side effects" are the reason that people smoke it
User avatar #18 to #17 - davyjoneslocker (04/24/2014) [-]
and the other half are the same side effects you get if you stand up too quickly
User avatar #19 to #17 - tomahawkkit (04/24/2014) [-]
Marijuana passes through the placenta and can slow the growth of the fetus. Marijuana use during pregnancy is also associated with childhood leukemia.
Heart disease: Marijuana might cause rapid heartbeat and short-term high blood pressure. A weakened immune system: Cannabinoids in marijuana can weaken the immune system, which might make it more difficult for the body to fight infections.
Lung diseases: Long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse. Regular, long-term marijuana use has been associated with several cases of an unusual type of emphysema, a lung disease Seizure disorders: Marijuana might make seizure disorders worse in some people; in other people it might help to control seizures
Surgery: Marijuana affects the central nervous system. It might slow the central nervous system too much when combined with anesthesia and other medications during and after surgery. Stop using marijuana at least 2 weeks before a scheduled surgery.


none of these seem fun at all; why on earth would anyone smoke somegthin to get half of those

click the ******* link next time.
User avatar #20 to #19 - thewickedgoose (04/24/2014) [-]
because tobacco and alcohols don't harm the body ether.

User avatar #25 to #20 - tomahawkkit (04/24/2014) [-]
im for it's legalization I just gave a reason why people would think is shouldn't be legalized
#93 to #20 - notafunnyguy (04/24/2014) [-]
they do. but the people who smoke/drink understand the risks and do it anyway. stoners seem to think weed is a harmless drug that cures cancer and use that idealogy to push non smokers into smoking
User avatar #21 to #19 - davyjoneslocker (04/24/2014) [-]
Marijuana passes through the placenta and can slow the growth of the fetus. Marijuana use during pregnancy is also associated with childhood leukemia.

Lots of things are bad for fetuses so I don't think this is marijuana specific necessarily. You shouldn't drink caffeine when pregnant either

Heart disease: Marijuana might cause rapid heartbeat and short-term high blood pressure.

Migh. Plus if you are reasonably healthy otherwise this shouldn't really be a problem

A weakened immune system: Cannabinoids in marijuana can weaken the immune system, which might make it more difficult for the body to fight infections.
Lung diseases: Long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse. Regular, long-term marijuana use has been associated with several cases of an unusual type of emphysema, a lung disease

These are all talking about making existing conditions worse, which is bad yes. But it can't make them worse if you don't have them

Seizure disorders: Marijuana might make seizure disorders worse in some people; in other people it might help to control seizures

This one seems to go both ways soooo....

Surgery: Marijuana affects the central nervous system. It might slow the central nervous system too much when combined with anesthesia and other medications during and after surgery. Stop using marijuana at least 2 weeks before a scheduled surgery.

Again it might cause a problem if mixed. So don't mix.



Tl;dr Don't toke if you have a baby, might make existing conditions worse or control symptoms, and don't blaze it before, after or during surgery
User avatar #23 to #21 - tomahawkkit (04/24/2014) [-]
is there anything wrong with marajuna? anything at all? you seem to know so much about it you should know atleast one downside
User avatar #87 to #23 - DaBullshiter (04/24/2014) [-]
Its clearly bad smoking it ,tho ciggs are worse.

Frequent use (depends on user) can cause one to get "burned",which is somewhat a constant state of high,tho not quite the same.Mostly keeping the laziness and impaired thinking parts.You will get back to normal after staying away from it.Time depending on how long youve smoked(The one and only time i did after a week of smoking,it took me about a couple weeks to get fully normal.Also read about a dude that smoked for a year and took him about over a year to get back to normal.)

It should absolutely not be used by underage people.Aside from the fact that its easier to get "hooked" in it through mental addiction ("oh i havent grabed boob yet life sucks,imma smoke feel better OR oh i got no iphone my parents are prick,imma smoke and drown my sorrow) it does damage brain cells,that even tho regenerate,cant regenerate fast enough when you smoke too frequently (thats how i assume you get burned) and its clearly bad when youre still developing.

What i say comes from personal experience and common sense while knowing the basics of the plant,so correct me if im wrong.

Just for the record,the or at least "some" of the side effects there are utter You need to login to view this link GF smokes to get rid of headaches and nausea from her period,as well the pains and we also smoke to **** .I dont know if it reduces the potency of the sperm,that might be possible,but if anything it helps with sexual arousal.
User avatar #26 to #23 - davyjoneslocker (04/24/2014) [-]
Inhaling smoke is inherently bad...
#28 to #7 - beren (04/24/2014) [-]
Hm. It appears that the risks are directly correlated to how you take it in. That being said, thanks for the link--I had always thought that injection was fine! Good thing I've never had the chance to try it . . .
#29 to #28 - tomahawkkit (04/24/2014) [-]
I don't know if trolling or...
User avatar #30 to #29 - beren (04/24/2014) [-]
Wait, what? Did they change the link or something?
#31 to #30 - tomahawkkit (04/24/2014) [-]
u trollin
User avatar #123 - localbees (04/24/2014) [-]
Shut up stoners, no one cares.
#330 to #275 - John Cena (04/24/2014) [-]
This is actually true, though it has absolutely nothing to do with cannabis... Pol Pot. Cambodia's version of Hitler/Stalin...
User avatar #332 to #330 - kanadetenshi (04/24/2014) [-]
That's the joke.
User avatar #326 - scowler (04/24/2014) [-]
How can you be sure it's even going into the schools?

Public organizations are obsolete. Much like everything political.
User avatar #331 to #326 - nimba (04/24/2014) [-]
so of the edges
User avatar #340 to #331 - scowler (04/24/2014) [-]
DAMN RIGHT.
#349 to #326 - gtfomylawnbish (04/24/2014) [-]
In my state they brought in lottery by saying like 95% of it would go to the schools. Almost none of it does.

Not that it matters, I'm glad to see a social injustice stopped in at least 2 states so far, and 14 before too long. Mine, not being one of them.
#361 to #349 - LewdFlapjack (04/24/2014) [-]
>social injustice

Shut the **** up.
#380 to #361 - gtfomylawnbish (04/24/2014) [-]
[a counter point calling you a ****** ]
[ 416 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)