Legal Cannabis and Morality
#81
(03-25-2021, 02:17 PM)AlanK82 Wrote: Why do you want to promote fiction? Higher quality? A dope dealer had better be selling the good stuff or he might go out of business. Nothing is added? Again, there can be serious consequences if someone on the street sells something that has unwanted additives.

Stigma? Seriously? What does that even mean? Just because it's 2021 it does not mean marijuana has been judged safe by anyone competent to do so. In the US, the rates of accidents involving marijuana is a concern to the insurance industry. They don't want to pay out any money. "not really a street drug" according to who? Investors and growers who needed certain laws passed to make a buck? I don't buy it.

You are making statements of fact that cannot be made without personal experience on this.  Based on the statements you are making, you clearly don't have the personal experience.

Tl;dr you don't know what you're talking about.
Reply
#82
Personal experience does not count. Credible information does:

https://www.bjcl.org/assets/files/23.1-Sabet.pdf
Reply
#83
(03-25-2021, 01:19 PM)IudicaMe Wrote: The same is true of elephants: an elephant is an animal. It cannot be said that an elephant may or may not be animal; it must be said that an elephant is an animal. So too, a thing which is inherently sinful must be said to be sinful; not that it may or may not, under certain circumstances, be sinful.

I say that an elephant may or may not be animal. More specifically, it may be animal. It would be wrong to say that it may not be animal. But I say that an elephant may or may not be animal, in the same sense that I say that red is a colour or a fish. This is true whether "or" is taken to mean "exclusive or" or "inclusive or".

[Image: Logic-Gates-and-Truth-tables.png]

Even apart from the question of what "or" means, when we consider the verb "can", it can be said to mean the same as "is able to". But if A does B, then by that very fact we see that A is able to do B. Therefore, if A does B, then A can do B. Saying that A can do B does by no means imply that it would be possible for A to not do B. However, and I think this is related to your point: in a case where A certainly and obviously does B, it would seem most eccentric and unneccessary to state that A can do B. That I will concede.

I cannot quite admit that it must be said that an elephant is an animal. I am convinced there are many saints who have never said that an elephant is an animal, yet this did not prevent their canonizations. If it must be said that an elephant is an animal, then not saying that an elephant is an animal would be matter for confession. But this is absurd.
Reply
#84
The demographics have changed dramatically in the states with legalized marijuana. A lot of the poor folk south of the border smoke home grown marijuana, I mean, after all, marijuana is the Mexican name for cannabis, and you must keep the work force happy for an improved GNP. Bottom line: its political.

And as far as scrambling their minds, I doubt it. Most have just walked from Guatemala and can handle it unlike braindead American vidiots whom the government would like gone anyway. 

So a win win for the 1337 :(
Oh, where are the snows of yesteryear!
Reply
#85
(03-25-2021, 05:05 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(03-25-2021, 01:19 PM)IudicaMe Wrote: The same is true of elephants: an elephant is an animal. It cannot be said that an elephant may or may not be animal; it must be said that an elephant is an animal. So too, a thing which is inherently sinful must be said to be sinful; not that it may or may not, under certain circumstances, be sinful.

I say that an elephant may or may not be animal. More specifically, it may be animal. It would be wrong to say that it may not be animal. But I say that an elephant may or may not be animal, in the same sense that I say that red is a colour or a fish. This is true whether "or" is taken to mean "exclusive or" or "inclusive or".

[Image: Logic-Gates-and-Truth-tables.png]

Even apart from the question of what "or" means, when we consider the verb "can", it can be said to mean the same as "is able to". But if A does B, then by that very fact we see that A is able to do B. Therefore, if A does B, then A can do B. Saying that A can do B does by no means imply that it would be possible for A to not do B. However, and I think this is related to your point: in a case where A certainly and obviously does B, it would seem most eccentric and unneccessary to state that A can do B. That I will concede.

I cannot quite admit that it must be said that an elephant is an animal. I am convinced there are many saints who have never said that an elephant is an animal, yet this did not prevent their canonizations. If it must be said that an elephant is an animal, then not saying that an elephant is an animal would be matter for confession. But this is absurd.

I thought this was too much back when it only had a truth table in it.  The digital logic gates push it over the edge...  :P
Reply
#86
(03-25-2021, 05:05 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(03-25-2021, 01:19 PM)IudicaMe Wrote: The same is true of elephants: an elephant is an animal. It cannot be said that an elephant may or may not be animal; it must be said that an elephant is an animal. So too, a thing which is inherently sinful must be said to be sinful; not that it may or may not, under certain circumstances, be sinful.

I say that an elephant may or may not be animal. More specifically, it may be animal. It would be wrong to say that it may not be animal. But I say that an elephant may or may not be animal, in the same sense that I say that red is a colour or a fish. This is true whether "or" is taken to mean "exclusive or" or "inclusive or".

[Image: Logic-Gates-and-Truth-tables.png]

Even apart from the question of what "or" means, when we consider the verb "can", it can be said to mean the same as "is able to". But if A does B, then by that very fact we see that A is able to do B. Therefore, if A does B, then A can do B. Saying that A can do B does by no means imply that it would be possible for A to not do B. However, and I think this is related to your point: in a case where A certainly and obviously does B, it would seem most eccentric and unneccessary to state that A can do B. That I will concede.

I cannot quite admit that it must be said that an elephant is an animal. I am convinced there are many saints who have never said that an elephant is an animal, yet this did not prevent their canonizations. If it must be said that an elephant is an animal, then not saying that an elephant is an animal would be matter for confession. But this is absurd.
Someone's been smoking too much weed.  (Or...maybe not enough.)
:-) :-)
“But all will be well, and all will be well, and every kind of thing will be well.” ~Julian of Norwich

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug."~Mark Knopfler (?)

"No matter who you are somebody thinks you're a heretic. Wear it like a badge of honor........... :LOL:"~Silouan

The fact that I "like" a post is not necessarily an endorsement or approval of its content.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)