Gov. Stitt declares Oklahoma special election for recreational marijuana vote

[JEVapa]

amazing the length weed lovers will go to defend their position.

Don't assume I love weed toolbox. I have not promoted it in this thread at all. You asked a rhetorical closed ended question which was ridiculous in nature, and you received a like response in kind.

Now that you're just making sh*t up to make your point, I made up a fabulous story about a job interview with two potential candidates, and I chose wisely. I mean, would you take a liar or an occasional weed smoker who both have the same skillset?? You might be missing half your sh*t if you hire Choirboy because he's a proven liar.

 

[Camo]

Aye, and I can post exponentially more showing several legal substances are even more addictive.

Evidence for sugar addiction: Behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake - PMC

The experimental question is whether or not sugar can be a substance of abuse and lead to a natural form of addiction. “Food addiction” seems plausible because brain pathways that evolved to respond to natural rewards are also activated by addictive ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If addiction alone is your worry then you have some larger crusades to take on....

You could, that's why almost all of them are illegal drugs...

Drugs are bad.

 

[sklfco]

Drugs are bad.

Just as much as big government

 

[JoeUSooner]

So in your opinion we only have the rights specified in the constitution and all other rights are held by the state?

Not quite. Your 'either/or' presumption is invalid.

Yes, we citizens have all the rights specified in the Constitution, BUT the government (at all levels) has only and exactly the granted 'powers' [Government has NO rights at all! Ever.] that we citizens - either intentionally or by neglect - give it. Any unspecified powers remain with the citizenry.

Lots of difference, there.

 

[JoeUSooner]

Deal. What recourse do I have when you abuse weed and my tax dollars are used to remedy the decision you made?

Your 'remedy' will occur only when political leaders who 1) refuse to waste tax dollars addressing 'social issue' abuse, and 2) spend tax dollars addressing 'criminal' abuse... are placed in office.

Now... How important is that distinction to the public?

 

[JoeUSooner]

What's even funnier is to see all the Rhinos cherry pick their outrage under the guise of "morality" and call for the government to legislate said "morality."

The compartmentalized outrage that weed brings is one of the strangest and hypocritical things you see from those that claim to be on the "right." Some of y'all straight up turn to behavior that would make most modern day democrats blush with envy.

Wouldn't even come close to making Democrat leaders take any notice at all.

 

[JD8]

You could, that's why almost all of them are illegal drugs...

Drugs are bad.

Some of you boys obviously don't read. I posted a study on sugar. In which my point is that several legal substances are more addictive.

 

[JEVapa]

Some of you boys obviously don't read. I posted a study on sugar.

Nobody reads sh*t on this forum except maybe the first couple sentences, lol.

 

[Pstmstr]

Don't assume I love weed toolbox. I have not promoted it in this thread at all. You asked a rhetorical closed ended question which was ridiculous in nature, and you received a like response in kind.

Now that you're just making sh*t up to make your point, I made up a fabulous story about a job interview with two potential candidates, and I chose wisely. I mean, would you take a liar or an occasional weed smoker who both have the same skillset?? You might be missing half your sh*t if you hire Choirboy because he's a proven liar.

How is he a proven liar? Speaking of making up stuff…. I provided a simple question with simple parameters. Hire the weed smoker over the non weed smoker? You changed them to justify your decision. Love how some of you guys have to resort to name calling as well.

 

[JEVapa]

How is he a proven liar? Speaking of making up stuff…. I provided a simple question with simple parameters. Hire the weed smoker over the non weed smoker? You changed them to justify your decision. Love how some of you guys have to resort to name calling as well.

Apparently, you haven't read sh*t what I wrote. The funniest part is you are questioning my judgement on a fake character in a fake story with I filled with fake characters that I made up for my fake story. His name is Choirboy...he's not real. Weedman is not a real person either.

Your stupid question was simply stupid and close ended with zero context of any sort. You framed it to make the answer cut and dry and give legitimacy to whatever you were driveling and it's not.

Let me ask this question. If you owned a business and you had 2 applicants of equal skills, 1 smokes dope and 1 doesn’t. Would you consider that in your hiring choice?

I gave you an answer as ridiculous as your question, but I don't know if you have the capacity to get it.

BTW, you act like a toolbox. Are you sad? Don't be sad and bitter. Go outside and get some O2 and Vitamin D and realize you don't have to be sad and bitter and come in here and act like you actually know anything and fly around like a seagull squawking and crapping all over the place. LOL