And you're mired in Quipsville.

stuck in reductionism = mired in quipsville

you said flint was...DAMN YOU"RE ON POT AINT YOU

Einstein,

"Case in point
These people were NOT crazy prior to use of the drug.
Ergo the science backs my observations"

Nor were they crazy after. I suggest they were unstable both before and after, but that has nothing to do with marijuana. Again I ask, how does this justify wasting trillions and getting tens of thousands killed as a result of enriching and empowering drug cartels? And why does a tiny minority's discomfort with using marijuana mean that others should have no right to it if they freely choose?

You're arguing that freedom should be limited. Where's your argument? 1% of people might feel temporary discomfort if they choose to use marijuana, so it should be illegal for everyone? Is that all you have? You keep ignoring my simple question asking for an explanation of how the facts justify such massive costs in trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, obviously, it seems to be, because you realize your case is laughable. It certainly cannot begin to justify the costs of the prohibition you support. Nevermind that you don't even make a case for justifying such an oppression of freedom.

"In any event I have claimed certain things and this supports with solid genetic proof I was correct on one."

You claimed that 1% of people may feel discomfort while smoking pot? We agree! Too bad this is insignificant data and means nothing to anybody but that tiny minority.

Be careful, logic like that will apparently convince Einstein to adopt such a position.

On the flip side, one issue I have always had with the pot debate, is how the same people that speak out against all the reasons pot should stay illegal will go nutso if you suggest that alcohol and tobacco should both be illegal.  Personally, I don't care about pot, aside from the fact that by legalizing it and properly taxing the distribution we could both decrease national spending, and increase national revenue by billions of dollars each year. 

My issue is, there are countless amounts of discussions like this one.  "Pot might make you crazy according to a recent study" "Pot might hurt your memory according do Dr. Pluto at the National Institute of Douchebaggery"  Well...a heck of a lot more research has been done in regards to tobacco products, and factually there use WILL shorten your lifespan, greatly increase your risk of lung cancer, cigarette will greatly depreciate the value of your home if used in doors, chewing tobacco makes you look like you're at least half retarded, and smoking will make you smell like shit. 

But let's keep pot illegal, because it might make us crazy.  There's no problem with tobacco, it only kills you.

Be careful, logic like that will apparently convince Einstein to adopt such a position. tongue

I won't lie. I would actually like to see that happen.

Simon wins by bringing pot to a pot debate

I don't actually smoke pot but...pot for us all, yay!

>>On the flip side, one issue I have always had with the pot debate, is how the same people that speak out against all the reasons pot should stay illegal will go nutso if you suggest that alcohol and tobacco should both be illegal.<<

Go ahead with tobacco, but you can make booze in a bathtub and get it halfass decent within weeks.  You can't ban water and fruit and yeast and stoves and copper pipes

> Mister Spock wrote:

> Nor can you stop people from growing and transporting marijuana, obviously.

Hey now, there is nothing wrong with having a law that has proven to be unenforceable!