So now alcohol and cigarettes are the new standards

A basis for comparison is not a "standard". Try to address what I actually posted instead of beating straw men.

And when this was presented to Congress, they agreed

So why were you claiming otherwise?

marijuana produces the same mental debilitation as opiates without the immediate physical effects. [...] I am of the unalterable belief marijuana is more dangerous and destructive than heroin

So the less physically harmful the more "dangerous and destructive". Wow.

By that logic, shouldn't drugs with "immediate physical effects" be legal?

Someone can live in a dung pile and stay oblivious as long as he can light up another joint. That same person can obliviously require the people around him to live in the same dung pile while he lights up another joint.

How exactly do they "require" that and enforce that requirement?

RLK- The Analytic Papers

Here? theanalyticpapers.com/

Someone can live in a dung pile and stay oblivious as long as he can light up another joint. That same person can obliviously require the people around him to live in the same dung pile while he lights up another joint.

How exactly do they "require" that and enforce that requirement?

Ask the woman with one or two kids and trying to raise them married to a pothead for an answer.

"A basis for comparison is not a "standard".

Is that what it was? Here I thought you were arguing that if a dangerous substance is legal, a less dangerous substance should also be legal.

"So why were you claiming otherwise?"

All I claimed was that a tax stamp was required and if you didn't have one you were violating the law.

You're the one who expanded the argument from there.

more dangerous and destructive

the
... natives
are
restless

... swarming

pothead
... graveyard

Make
America
great
again

love
boris

Why do Republicans Respect Marijuana Prohibition Like it Came From Moses?"

Because legal weed is a (D) platform staple, dipshit. I've tried telling you a million times that most of what you desire IS FILTHY LIBTARDED.

Legal weed, fag marriages... cop hatred... ALL JANE FONDA SHIT.

Here I thought you were arguing that if a dangerous substance is legal, a less dangerous substance should also be legal.

Which comparison doesn't make the more dangerous substance "the standard" contrary to your feeble straw man.

All I claimed was that a tax stamp was required and if you didn't have one you were violating the law.

No, you also claimed that marijuana was nonetheless not illegal.

pothead ... graveyard

Booze is a much quicker trip to the graveyard.

Because legal weed is a (D) platform staple

So Republicans must oppose everything Dums support and thereby let the Dums set the Republican platform? Good strategy, dipshit.

The law is respected because it's the law.

You only address a majority of any legislation (51%) probably signed by a politically powerful ally that was paid for by lobbyists. That means it is bad law.

"So Republicans must oppose everything Dums support and thereby let the Dums set the Republican platform? Good strategy, dipshit."

There isn't anything on the libtard platform that's worth supporting

So that's a yes to letting the Dims set the Pub platform. Thanks, dipshit.

libtard platform

What the HeLL is that?

"we must stay vigilant. The al-Qaeda core may be on the path to defeat, but the organization and its affiliates remain active in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere. For that reason, we are committed to an unrelenting pursuit of those who would kill Americans or threaten our homeland, our allies, our partners, and our interests around the world."

libtard platform

What the HeLL is that?

The manifesto you live by.

I know of no evidence that "many, many" marijuana users have had panic attacks so bad that they qualify as "harm".

Perhaps you should do some actual research into the actual effects of marijuana then.

What the HeLL is that?

It means FireIsland needs his Depends changed.

Here? theanalyticpapers.com/

Don't know anything about it. I can't even get into the site.

The reference is to the last chapter of a proposed political textbook on political psychology of twelve to fourteen hundred pages to be reviewed for possible publication. It analyzes the 2016 presidential campaign from several aspects, including electorate life styles, of which the recreational drug based life style is one.

The last two sentences in the book propose a question:

Question: What do you get when you send a hyena to college?

Answer: A politician.

Perhaps you should do some actual research

Sorry, not doing your homework for you ... YOU make a claim, YOU supply the research. Put up or shut up.

"we must stay vigilant. The al-Qaeda core may be on the path to defeat, but the organization and its affiliates remain active in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere. For that reason, we are committed to an unrelenting pursuit of those who would kill Americans or threaten our homeland, our allies, our partners, and our interests around the world."

And don't forget Iraq, Lybia, and Turkey which have become transformed into jihadist islamic caliphates.

It means FireIsland needs his Depends changed.

He can't even handle his bladder anymore than understanding that some of us acually believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

some of us acually believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

You mean faggot bathrooms, open borders and heroin for children.

We aren't equal, suckhole... we never were.

All you have to do is a simple search on any search engine with the terms "marijuana" and "panic attacks."

Sorry, not doing your homework for you no matter how easy you claim it will be ... YOU make a claim, YOU supply the research.

You mean faggot bathrooms, open borders and heroin for children.

You do all that besides walking chidren across the street while wearing a whistle and holding a STOP sign? Good grief, man, are you all there?

"No, you also claimed that marijuana was nonetheless not illegal."

Marijuana was legal with a tax stamp. The law was broken by not having a stamp, not because you had marijuana.

"You only address a majority of any legislation (51%) probably signed by a politically powerful ally that was paid for by lobbyists. That means it is bad law."

The majority of states that passed medical marijuana laws did so exactly that way. You're saying those are bad laws?

"Which comparison doesn't make the more dangerous substance "the standard" contrary to your feeble straw man."

Alcohol and tobacco were the substances YOU cited for comparison to determine legality. This is totally different than the criteria set out in §811(c) of the Controlled Substances Act, thereby making it the new standard.

However ... if you're simply making a comparison but NOT advocating a legal change because of that comparison, then I retract my statement.

Alcohol and tobacco were the substances YOU cited for comparison to determine legality.

I noted the article's statement about them, and in reply YOU propped up straw men about legality and standards.

if you're simply making a comparison but NOT advocating a legal change because of that comparison

I note that the law is out of whack by regulating the more harmful drugs while banning a less harmful drug; there's more than one way to resolve that.

You're saying those are bad laws?

A bad law is a bad law is a bad law is a bad law.

Marijuana was legal

federally

with a tax stamp.

the paperwork for which would expose one to prosecution under state marijuana laws

The law was broken by not having a stamp, not because you had marijuana.

The law was broken by having marijuana and no stamp.

"I note that the law is out of whack by regulating the more harmful drugs while banning a less harmful drug"

Ever occur to you that the illegality of a recreational drug may be determined by more than "harm"?

"The law was broken by having marijuana and no stamp."

The law is broken by having a car and speeding. Are you ticketed for having a car?

"I noted the article's statement about them, and in reply YOU propped up straw men about legality and standards."

No. I simply commented on their relative safety. You turned it into a legality issue.

Ever occur to you that the illegality of a recreational drug may be determined by more than "harm"?

"Harm" is an argument often dragged out by anti-pot frothers, like the LFer whose still-unsubstantiated claims started this exchange - and even on those nanny-state terms the marijuana ban fails.

But what the hey, I'll play along: By what criteria is marijuana more worthy of banning than alcohol - and are any of those criteria the proper business of government?

I simply commented on their relative safety.

No, actually, you commented on absolute safety - "alcohol and cigarettes kill millions" - (without contesting the relative statement) and then in post #18 dragged in the straw man about "standards."

Get high on life, losers.

"By what criteria is marijuana more worthy of banning than alcohol"

For the third time, §811(c) of the Controlled Substances Act spells it out.

"and are any of those criteria the proper business of government?"

Protecting the people from the interstate transportation of a dangerous substance? What do you think?

"No, actually, you commented on absolute safety - "alcohol and cigarettes kill millions"

I said, "Given that alcohol and cigarettes kill millions, saying a drug is safer than them is hardly a ringing endorsement."

I made a relative statement about safety, not legality.

"and then in post #18 dragged in the straw man about "standards."

Legal standards, yes. Because in post #16 you stated that marijuana should have "no greater legal restrictions" than alcohol and cigarettes. How is that NOT setting a new standard for legality?

"why do hippy libtard assholes love weed so much?"

Especially when they're the same people trying to ban cigarettes. Marijuana contains four times the tar and twice the carcinogens as tobacco.

Yet these yahoos say, "Marijuana good. Cigarettes bad."

"Marijuana good. Cigarettes bad."

Deaths Per Year

§811(c) of the Controlled Substances Act

(6) IS about harm; (8) is inapplicable to either drug; (2) and (3) are not even criteria; and (1), (4), (5), and (7) weigh more strongly against the more addictive drug, alcohol, than against the less addictive drug, marijuana. Even on your own terms, you lose.

Protecting the people from the interstate transportation of a dangerous substance? What do you think?

It's not about harm but it is about danger? To call you a hairsplitter is an insult to hairsplitters.

Danger or harm one inflicts on oneself is not the proper business of government.

in post #16 you stated that marijuana should have "no greater legal restrictions" than alcohol and cigarettes. How is that NOT setting a new standard for legality?

Because it can be addressed by either of at least two quite different policy changes: legalizing (with regulation) marijuana; or banning alcohol and cigarettes.

Get high on life

That's as much an argument for banning alcohol (loved excessively by many) as for banning any other drug. Do you support banning alcohol?

"Because it can be addressed by either of at least two quite different policy changes: legalizing (with regulation) marijuana; or banning alcohol and cigarettes."

How about a third option -- people could stop using marijuana?