Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

You said choose two, so why not great friend and lover?

At this point in life, I have no desire to have children, so having a spouse who is a great parent wouldn't be too relevant.

Marijuana, like tobacco, causes cancer as it contains carcinogens.

In the quest to investigate the link between cancer and marijuana, research can be roughly divided into two categories: lab research and investigation of long term users outside of the lab. Yes, as an unfortunate amount of lab animal deaths can attest, cannabis does contain carcinogenic molecules. However, research involving actual users paints a rather different picture.

http://scienceblog.com/10660/study-finds-no-link-between-marijuana-use-and-lung-cancer/

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2012-01-10/Marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-says/52483604/1

There is some controversy regarding the efficacy of these findings. Because marijuana is illegal, it is difficult to find users to participate in these studies, particularly finding heavy long-term users. It has been argued that if it were legalized, it would be much easier to find participants from a wider range of the population, and the information gathered could prove to be more accurate. Still, working with what we've got, it appears that marijuana use not only does not have anywhere near the effect that cigarette smoking does in terms of carcinogenic properties, it even seems to lower rates of certain types of cancer.

Marijuana is also highly addictive.

Not highly. It is significantly less addicting than tobacco or alcohol, about on the same level as caffeine, but usually with less severe withdrawal symptoms. Pretty much anything that stimulates the reward centers of the brain will have some addictive qualities among a large enough sampling of users. But marijuana is very low on the totem pole compared to many legal and even non-regulated substances.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201012/is-marijuana-addictive

http://health.ezinemark.com/the-addictiveness-of-marijuana-or-cannabis-31e84cc7129.html

Studies have also shown that uses of marijuana usually lead to more dangerous drugs such as meth and cocaine.

Studies have also shown that most marijuana users drank alcohol before smoking pot. But alcohol is not considered a gateway drug. Why? Lower incidence of illegal drug use. But lets think about this for a second. As long as marijuana is illegal the people who use it can be classified as "people who are willing to break at least one law." Among adults, alcohol drinkers aren't classified that way. Some might be willing to, and those who are may end up using illegal drugs. Others will be totally law abiding, and since that is the majority of them, alcohol does not get considered a gateway drug. The only way to fairly compare the two would be to put them on the same legal standing and do studies at that point. Further, people who buy marijuana illegally have a greater exposure to other illegal drugs than those who don't since many dealers deal in multiple drugs. I suspect that the legal status of marijuana plays more of a role in its status as a gateway drug than any actual medical reason.

If you believe that marijuana does not kill people, try telling that to the relatives of the 30,000 people in Mexico that died due to drug violence.

The War On Drugs is at least partially to blame here. First, the strategy behind the WOD is to increase the cost. But since most drugs, marijuana included, are highly elastic commodities, this doesn't much reduce the demand. Instead it makes for wealthier drug lords, and competition between them leads to violence. The harder we crack down, the worse the situation gets. Also, we would make it less profitable for the drug lords by opening a legal channel of distribution and cultivation. Having marijuana as a legitimate source of retail would seriously reduce the number of people obtaining it illegally. It could also be regulated for quality and purity this way, which is currently not possible.

And because I am desperate and shameless....I will pimp my own soundcloud (sorry if it comes up really quiet, working on that)

http://soundcloud.com/omega-male

There you go Joe, now you're getting it. And you made me chuckle during your "epiphany". If only I could upvote twice on one argument :)

Because we are only united by a lack of belief in God or Gods. It is not a lifestyle, it is a lack of a stance on a particular issue, except for those strong atheists (who do have a stance), who are nearly as foreign to me as theists.

Besides, that building is more like a tribute to scientific discovery, not atheism.

Totally ignoring that the article itself states that Dawkins and Hitchens, two of the most prominent modern atheists, are/were opposed to this project. I don't think it would be too hard to track down a bunch more.

Nice one! :)

Exactly how do tax dollars pay for weddings? Are you talking about legislation?

Either way, I do agree that the gov shouldn't be involved in weddings in the first place. But as long as they are, I support gay marriage.

If the government does this then the government would have created a law that benefits a particular group of people (gays) and discriminates against the other group (heterosexuals) based on sexual orientation (which is unconstitutional).

Except that it does not discriminate against heterosexuals. Then they too would have the option of marrying someone of the same sex. Of course most heterosexuals wouldn't be interested in taking this option, but it would be an "option" for them the same way current marriage laws are an "option" for homosexuals. Meanwhile, not choosing to take the new option in no way diminishes the benefits or gains of those who take the original option.

Well think about it for a second...and your head will hurt ;)

If you find yourself having similar logic to Michele Bachmann, it may be time to think harder ;)

First off, your % is ludicrously unrealistic.

Second...hmmm...maybe many gays are liberal because many conservatives want to beat them up?