Weed

[T-Giv]

Won't be long before the state subsidizes low income households on their Marijuana. That burden will land on those productive, working, self sufficient individuals AKA the people in this forum.

[brokenscout]

Second hand smoke?

The way I wish all people would think. Also as long as it doesn't affect or hurt others...second hand smoke

[brokenscout]

Really? I do think they should test for Drugs and Alcohol before anyone gets assistance...

[SuperiorDG]

Wonder how long it will be before they are buying weed with EBT. 5 years? After all, we wouldn't want to discriminate against the impoverished and they all need their "medicine".

Careful what you wish for.

Next up: heroin, cocaine, meth in the next ten-twenty years. Did you guys know there are advocacy groups trying to get sex with children legalized too? Well, we'd hate to discriminate against that on the basis of "moral grounds". This is the road you are going down.

Classic example of the slippery slope fallacy.

In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also known as thin end of the wedge - or sometimes "edge" in US English - or the camel's nose) is a classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.^[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

[T-Giv]

Wonder how long it will be before they are buying weed with EBT. 5 years? After all, we wouldn't want to discriminate against the impoverished and they all need their "medicine".

Careful what you wish for.

Next up: heroin, cocaine, meth in the next ten-twenty years. Did you guys know there are advocacy groups trying to get sex with children legalized too? Well, we'd hate to discriminate against that on the basis of "moral grounds". This is the road you are going down.

Precisely!

[brokenscout]

Weed and Alcohol should be regulated the same...... That is all, look what the war on drugs is doing? Wasting tax money and creating criminals

[brokenscout]

Its all about the money

[SuperiorDG]

What I'm saying is thus: Your own arguments are easily used against you. You want to "pretend" to take the high ground, i.e. live and let live, but you all have a line. Tell me, should we take a moral ground and stop people from having "consensual" sex with minors? What age limit do you set? Should we stop the free sale and use of methamphetamine? Should you set an age limit? Should we stop people from walking around naked in schools? Why? Should we stop "post-birth" abortions, you know, say, twelth trimester abortions? After all, sometimes you don't know you don't want a kid until they reach the terrible toddler years.

Our society is gradually getting more and more "modern" liberalized. Some of you might view my examples above as sarcastic. Believe it or not there are legitimate lobby groups, scientists, modern liberals, etc. pushing for the legalization of each and every one. It's nice to imagine that we can have an i.e. fully responsible and true libertarian society, but the fact of the hand is you have to draw lines somewhere. And you better fucking damn well establish set lines somewhere or they will forever be retracting (as they have been the last 30-40 years). Thus is the "slippery slope". It is not a fallacious argument. A few years ago, we had medical marijuana under the guise that it would be used for medical prescription purposes. It easily passed, was abused, and became such a farse that now they just said screw it, legalize. What say you about harder drugs, incest, etc. etc.? Should we stay out of their business? Should parents have a right to get their kids high?

What I am saying is the arguments a majority are using here are the same arguments that support any of the above, and I sure hope that this forum isn't going to turn a blind eye and support those when the issues do come to head. And they will.....

You all want lines in our society, just many of you can't acknowledge it. If you had a live and let live society, talk to me once your kid or close family is abused by a stranger and you have no recourse. Mmmkay? Practically already is that way. Anyone with civil experience understands.

Excuse me while I jump right in. The part about comparing sex with children as being in the same class as legalizing weed is at the bottom of that slippery slope. A majority voted for weed, that will never ever happen with having sex with kids and probably not with other drugs.

[USAFGopherMike]

I have always said, I do not care what you do... I just don't want to have to support you or the habit.

I look at this like porn, guns, smoking, drinking, sex... Live Free.. just don't expect me to pay for your habits.

Wonder how long it will be before they are buying weed with EBT. 5 years? After all, we wouldn't want to discriminate against the impoverished and they all need their "medicine".

Careful what you wish for.

Next up: heroin, cocaine, meth in the next ten-twenty years. Did you guys know there are advocacy groups trying to get sex with children legalized too? Well, we'd hate to discriminate against that on the basis of "moral grounds". This is the road you are going down.

If it's legal, tough to make the argument for testing, but I agree. I don't want any government assistance going to someone who's on drugs.

Won't be long before the state subsidizes low income households on their Marijuana. That burden will land on those productive, working, self sufficient individuals AKA the people in this forum.

again... not on my dime..