View Full Version : Marijuana: Your Opinions
"A recent study of patients in a shock-trauma unit who had been in traffic accidents revealed that 15 percent of those who had been driving a car or motorcycle had been smoking marijuana, and another 17 percent had alcohol in they’re system” (Trebach 68 )
2% difference. Legalize it, and I wouldn't doubt for a second the % would rise 3x.
Cases of cancer, including cancer of the mouth, tongue, larynx, jaw, head, neck, and lungs have been reported in young marijuana smokers. Our immune system protects the body from many diseases, when marijuana is smoked it impairs the ability of T-cells in the lungs, causing someone with a disease more susceptible to other illnesses or diseases. Continued use of marijuana can lead to abnormal function of the lungs or airways. Scientists have found signs of lung tissue injured or destroyed by marijuana smoke. Marijuana and tobacco both cause many of the same breathing problems, both of them are addictive. While not everyone who uses marijuana becomes addicted, when a user begins to seek out and take the drug frequently they're known to be dependent on the drug.(Like many of you here who must smoke every day multiple times).In 1995, 165,000 people entering drug treatment programs reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse, showing they needed help to stop using. MJ is the gateway to entering the drug realm.
azamber
10-17-2004, 08:25 AM
*sigh* I can tell you're new to the drug disinformation campaign. Marijuana is not a gateway drug and it was disproven as such years ago. (If I MUST dig up proof, I will, but I'm sure you can find it just as well. )The War on Drugs perpetuates that myth, along with many others, including many "scientific" studies which have been unable to be replicated, the basis for considering something "fact". Actually, it has been shown that if anything is a "gateway" drug, it is nicotine, as most hard drug abusers began smoking cigarettes before anything else. Bet they forgot to teach you that in DARE class.
In reference to your first statistic, there is nothing to conclude that marijuana was the CAUSE of the traffic accidents. What if 15% of the population smoked marijuana, wouldn't the percentage of people with THC in thier bloodstreams be similar for any random grouping?
And in refernce to your second paragraph, no one denies that inhaling any kind of smoke damages tissues and cells. But there is not enough definitive evidence to attribute these conditions directly to marijuana. Chocolate is addictive, so is gambling, sex, and masturbation. Your point? Should we criminalize all acts which could be overused and abused?
If I want to destroy my lungs, I should have that right. And you don't have to agree with it, nor should you care what I put into my body, as it has no effect on you.
I highly recommend you watch a documentary narrated by Woody Harrelson titled Grass: The History of Marijuana. It may help clear up some of the misconceptions you have about this relatively harmless substance, which, I might add, can be rendered almost, if not completely harmless by ingesting it.
AinNY
10-17-2004, 08:41 AM
After reading all this shit i forgot what the original question was...
But anyway...my opinion....
Pot, like cigarettes....should be illegal.
I have used it....for a week when I was in Jamaica....other than that, no i dont use it.
I'm probably going to get hated on for this, but I believe pot is just a "crutch", much like people use alcohol. People who use it to forget about things...or to deal about things...like some people said in this thread....it helps them act a certain way or make them feel a certain way. I just dont like that. I can act and feel however I want....you dont need pot or anything else to do that. If you do "need" something...see a phyciatrist(lets not get into the perscription drug arguement). If you "need" pot....that is a weakness IMHO.
Even if it wasn't illegal and there wasn't a chance i could go to jail, lose my job, mess up my lungs, etc...etc...etc...i still wouldnt use it. I dont need things to make me happy or feel better about myself.
Just my thoughts...dont shoot me.
MojoJojo
10-17-2004, 08:45 AM
....and the reason cigarettes should be illegal would be......?
azamber
10-17-2004, 08:47 AM
AinNY, I respect your opinion and am not attacking, just debating a topic, but I disagree that because you think it's harmful to the individual, that gov't should regulate or prohibit it for everyone. Why not live and let live? I don't support a nanny state, where gov't can tell us what we can and can't do based on what's "good" and "bad" for us. NOT their place IMO, and I would hope you can be open to it. I dislike the attitude you expressed because it's the same as, "Strip clubs are harmful to society, let's ban them." I detect a hint of hypocrisy in your philosophy. I am open to your response.
AinNY
10-17-2004, 09:12 AM
....and the reason cigarettes should be illegal would be......?
any reason why they should be legal? Give me a reason as to how they are good for you....
MojoJojo
10-17-2004, 09:14 AM
They're not good for me. Neither are doughnuts.
The implication you just made is that anything that is not good for you should be illegal. Your turn.
AinNY
10-17-2004, 09:15 AM
AinNY, I respect your opinion and am not attacking, just debating a topic, but I disagree that because you think it's harmful to the individual, that gov't should regulate or prohibit it for everyone. Why not live and let live? I don't support a nanny state, where gov't can tell us what we can and can't do based on what's "good" and "bad" for us. NOT their place IMO, and I would hope you can be open to it. I dislike the attitude you expressed because it's the same as, "Strip clubs are harmful to society, let's ban them." I detect a hint of hypocrisy in your philosophy. I am open to your response.
I understand...and its a tough situation when someone has to decide whats good/bad right/wrong....but someone has to...im sorry...there are too many people in the country to let everyone decide whats best for them.
Too many 12 year olds smoking cigarettes, pot, drinking, doing coke(yes i know of middle schoolers doing coke)....
So everything should be legal then? Coke? Heroin? How about machine guns? Why not even Nuclear Weapons? Biological Weapons? I know thats a little absurd...but where does it stop? When it effects one person? two? 10? 1000? 1 million?
Strip clubs to not physically harm anyone. Therefore it should never be an issue.
Just my thoughts
AinNY
10-17-2004, 09:18 AM
They're not good for me. Neither are doughnuts.
The implication you just made is that anything that is not good for you should be illegal. Your turn.
No...doughnuts at least have a nutritional value :P
When something like cigarettes which not only kill YOU, but kill ME too....then yes they should be illegal.
Not everything thats not good for you should be illegal...but maybe things that are blatantly bad for you should be.
Like I said in the other post its hard to decide where to draw the line.
There's a difference between a doughnut and a cigarette tho...a very big one. One is not as bad for you, and one is not addicting(i know some people are addicted to eating...but cigarettes are much mroe addictive)
MojoJojo
10-17-2004, 09:21 AM
So everything should be legal then? Coke? Heroin? How about machine guns? Why not even Nuclear Weapons? Biological Weapons? I know thats a little absurd...but where does it stop? When it effects one person? two? 10? 1000? 1 million?
Your statement is just as extreme as saying that nothing that is bad for you should be legal. 0% is as ridiculous as 100%
MojoJojo
10-17-2004, 09:24 AM
When something like cigarettes which not only kill YOU, but kill ME too....then yes they should be illegal.
I disagree with half of that. I have the right to kill myself. I should NOT have the right to kill you. Which is why I agree with the concept of having establishments that are non-smoking. Similarly, I agree with seatbelt laws.....because if you don't have your seatbelt on, then you might come flying through your windshield and propel into me. As for YOUR personal safety, it doesn't really matter to me.
One is not as bad for you, and one is not addicting(i know some people are addicted to eating...but cigarettes are much mroe addictive)
Ah....so now it depends on how much more or less addictive something is?
Jay Zeno
10-17-2004, 09:28 AM
Well, if we were consistent in the way we regulate drugs, cigarettes would be illegal. Toxic and addictive carcinogens with no substantive benefit. The tobacco companies treat them to make them worse than they are. Tobacco consumption has killed millions, helped none.
I'm not advocating making cigarettes illegal. Just making the logical observation.
As far as not being in a nanny state, that's a traditional libertarian stance, and it's worthy of debate. My observation is that society runs to a median of moderates, and libertarianism represents a certain level of extremism, touching on no regulation.
I suspect that, as average moderates, most people like their government regulation in moderation. They don't mind the concept of the FAA regulating aircraft maintenance, EPA regulating emissions, FDA establishing water quality levels, and consumer protection agencies slamming scam companies. Of course, not all that is entirely effective, but the general public goes along with the concept.
Personally, I don't mind adults in my family and friends not being tempted by a neighborhood heroin shop, even though they would be considered, as adults, to merit being in control of their own lives. It's just not a good thing to have around, and if government interference is required at some level to disallow them, that's OK with me. But I'm up for debate on it.
AinNY
10-17-2004, 09:29 AM
I disagree with half of that. I have the right to kill myself. I should NOT have the right to kill you. Which is why I agree with the concept of having establishments that are non-smoking. Similarly, I agree with seatbelt laws.....because if you don't have your seatbelt on, then you might come flying through your windshield and propel into me. As for YOUR personal safety, it doesn't really matter to me.
Ah....so now it depends on how much more or less addictive something is? Yes....like i said...its a touchy situation...its hard to decide whats ok and whats not...i cant offer you a solution to that...but i know saying "its up to you to figure out whats ok" is not safe for the majority of society....therefore i cannot agree with saying do whatever you want.
And I care about your personal safety....b/c you dont realize that when you die...you dont just effect you....you effect a lot of other people....not just emotionally...sometimes not everyone who dies can afford their health care bills they racked up b/c they smoked for 30 years and then they died and left the debt for me. ...its a very complicated situation....it goes very far beyond "its my body i can do what i want"....that just doesnt always work :-\ And you should not have the right to kill yourself...b/c someone has to clean up your dumb ass...and once again...that effects me
AinNY
10-17-2004, 09:32 AM
Your statement is just as extreme as saying that nothing that is bad for you should be legal. 0% is as ridiculous as 100%
Exactly...where do you draw the line?
They are both ridiculous, as I noted....saying that we should be able to do whatever we want b/c its our life is ridiculous also...thats what 100% is...
MojoJojo
10-17-2004, 09:32 AM
And on those points, we agree.
Now go vote for what kind of beer I should make.....cuz it has nutritional value ;)
If I had the attitude of its my life, FU and screw everyone else, my mother would bitch slap me back to kingdom come. That's being selfish.
VADEN
10-17-2004, 09:49 AM
And on those points, we agree.
Now go vote for what kind of beer I should make.....cuz it has nutritional value ;)
"Vaden's Brew" ;) LOL
AinNY
10-17-2004, 09:57 AM
And on those points, we agree.
Now go vote for what kind of beer I should make.....cuz it has nutritional value ;)
On my way...just dont drink and drive...lol:D
A_Guy
10-17-2004, 10:05 AM
Legalize it, tax it, sell it, whatever - the same as alcohol and tobacco.. I believe legalizing MJ would have a much more positive impact than a negative one.
and who said there is plenty of money for education? ... visit Cleveland, and I'll show you some dilapidated schools ... I also read in this thread something along the lines that the media is distorting the disrepair of our economy? was it Gabe? ::) again, child, visit Cleveland where 30% live in poverty, and 50% of children live below the poverty level.
Rhiannon
10-17-2004, 10:06 AM
I wanted to Thank You all for keeping this civil. It's definitely a heated topic, but you are all keeping the gloves up, and I appreciate it. Healthy debate is good thing.
I'm all for banning alcohol. Hell, I'm even for banning fast food, doughnuts, and all that other crap. None of it's good for you.
But what it all comes down to, is we're all adults. We can make our own decisions. We know the consequences of our actions. It's also up to us to educate our children about things like pot, cigarettes, drinking, and all that other crap.
(Oh.. For the record.. I made doughnuts for 3 years. Trust me, there's nothing nutritional about them.. LOL)
A_Guy
10-17-2004, 10:12 AM
I'm all for banning alcohol. Hell, I'm even for banning fast food, doughnuts, and all that other crap. None of it's good for you.
how about banning drunken donuts coffee? ;D
Blade
10-17-2004, 10:25 AM
So everything should be legal then? Coke? Heroin? How about machine guns? Why not even Nuclear Weapons? Biological Weapons? I know thats a little absurd...but where does it stop? When it effects one person? two? 10? 1000? 1 million?
Just my thoughtsNot to go too far off topic but technically for now anyhow machine guns are legal.....the ban on assualt rifles was lifted I believe on the 1st of Oct.Nuclear weapons only seem to be illegal if you are a 3rd world country and we decide you can't have them like we do........
Rhiannon
10-17-2004, 10:52 AM
how about banning drunken donuts coffee? ;D
LOL hey woah woah.. There's no need to take such drastic measures!!!
:laughing:
The Original Babygirl
10-17-2004, 10:58 AM
all i know is that if i smoke a few one hits before i get on stage...it will be a very very good performance.
AinNY
10-17-2004, 10:58 AM
Not to go too far off topic but technically for now anyhow machine guns are legal.....the ban on assualt rifles was lifted I believe on the 1st of Oct.Nuclear weapons only seem to be illegal if you are a 3rd world country and we decide you can't have them like we do........
That is true....So fully automatic guns are legal now? Or just assualt rifles?
I guess its necessary people have fully automatic assault rifles in their homes...you know in case a group of 50 people try and break into your house :-\
threlayer
10-17-2004, 11:14 AM
....and the reason cigarettes should be illegal would be......?
Cigarette consumption makes my health insurance and taxes for Medicaid go way up. Further, secondary smoke causes 'innocents', including infants, to have to take risks involuntarily.
However, it employs people and allows other financially rewarding transactions to occur. But if illegal, cigarette consumption would cause a new black-market operation to exist.
It probably will never happen.
Chani_Fremen
10-17-2004, 12:22 PM
Well I have news for you guys, obesity is soon (if not already) going to be the number one preventable cause of death in the United States. http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/0304/131300.html and http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43253-2004Mar9?language=printer
Obesity affects "innocents" as well including children who are getting type II diabetes at unheard of rates.
Because of obesity, the next generation of children actually has a LOWER life expectancy than the previous generation, this has never happened in the history of the United States that people actually had a LOWERED life expectancy than previous generations. Not to mention the amount of money we have to pay to insurance companies to deal with the effects of obsesity.
Junk food is killing people everyday so maybe we should ban cheetos and McDonalds.
Chani_Fremen
10-17-2004, 12:32 PM
Gabe, any type of smoke has the potential of damaging lung tissue. So it's not weed that is the issue, it is smoke.
If a 12 year old is doing coke something is wrong with the parents for not monitoring their children. Don't blame the government for that.
Most people who smoke weed never get the urge to stick a needle in their arm and shoot up. Actually alcohol has been proven to be more of a gateway drug. Most people who are heroin addicts are also alcoholics, but alcohol is not listed as a "drug" in this society.
The way I see it, if you are an adult and you know the risks of what you are doing, go for it. This is supposed to be a free country and we should have the right to do what we want with our bodies.
azamber
10-17-2004, 03:36 PM
I go to sleep for a few hours and look at all that I've missed!
I understand...and its a tough situation when someone has to decide whats good/bad right/wrong....but someone has to...im sorry...there are too many people in the country to let everyone decide whats best for them.
Wow, it's jarring to hear people say that. Can anyone say, "dictatorship". Maybe we should revisit the definition of freedom for a moment, so we can all remember what this great country was founded on.
freedom:The condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints I got that from WordWeb
You say "someone has to" yeah, that someone is me. I make my own decisions for myself.
Too many 12 year olds smoking cigarettes, pot, drinking, doing coke(yes i know of middle schoolers doing coke)....
That's the parent's job to keep kids away from things they feel are harmful.
So everything should be legal then? Coke? Heroin? How about machine guns? Why not even Nuclear Weapons? Biological Weapons? I know thats a little absurd...but where does it stop? When it effects one person? two? 10? 1000? 1 million?
Where does it stop? At the point when what I am doing is directly affecting you and your freedom to live your life the way YOU choose. When my actions cause another harm. And I don't think you can validly argue that one person's death or suicide affects you. Unless it's a friend or family member, and still, if that person is an adult, then they are free to make their own decisions.
Strip clubs to not physically harm anyone. Therefore it should never be an issue.
Yes, but my point in brining it up, is that it can be argued, albeit not very effectively, that strip clubs harm society. If someone thinks it harms someone, then it should be illgel, no? I keep hearing that opinion in this thread. Let's discuss it for a minute.
EVERYTHING can be argued to be indirectly harmful to another at some point. I can argue that TV, radio, dancing, religion (or lack of), foods and additives, drugs, and even certain forms of thought, can all be dangerous. Has anyone in this debate read Orwell's 1984? If not, now's the time.
I, and many others feel that the line can EASILY be drawn when my actions affect another directly or interfere with another's ability to live life as one chooses. It's far simpler than any other system.
Then there is no room for people imposing upon my free will and my ability to make decisions for myself, which, I might add, many people are not happy knowing there are some out there who feel, for one reason or another, that adults are incapable of making decisions for themselves. I am one of these people. I resent the opinion that someone else thinks they know what's best for me.
Let's pretend for a minute that everyone worried only about themselves and their children. So that means that I do not care what you do as long as it doesn't affect me or my ability to live my life the way I choose. Why should I care what you are watching on TV or putting into your body when MY health/life/financial situation can be improved if I direct that energy toward myself? I do not know a single person who can say they have given themselves enough attention and they have grown to the point that they can now focus on the actions of others. Now if we all shared that attitude, how much progress could we make individually and as a whole?
I read in here that this opinion may be considered selfish. How is it selfish if I want to direct my attention toward myself, becoming all that I can be in my opinion, and experiencing life as I see fit? After all change begins with the individual. Whether or not you think my actions will better myself is really irrelevant. I feel the benefits of my actions and know that I have grown as a result.
Also, how is it selfish when I want EVERYONE to have the rights I have described? This isn't so much about me, as it's about what I think would be best for humanity individually and collectively. No one likes being told what to do, and once it's accepted that we have the right to tell others how to live their lives, when their actions cause no other harm, nor interfere with another's ability to live life as one chooses, where does THAT stop???
I also read here that Libertariansim is extremism. Only as much as Republicanism, or any other "ism" when you get too close to the edges. Yes there are many anarchists/extremists who can be considered Libertarians, however loosely, but they are the same (in extremism) as the Right Wing Nut Jobs and the Liberal A**holes Who Blow Up Abortion Clinics.
Is this society ready for what I have described? No, because we are being conditioned to believe that we can not make decisions for ourselves, as this thread has so clearly shown.
A_Guy
10-17-2004, 05:38 PM
Well said azamber :great:
Blade
10-17-2004, 05:44 PM
Wow! She's hot AND smart! You go Ambs!
azamber
10-17-2004, 05:45 PM
:blush: Aw, thanks guys
Then there is no room for people imposing upon my free will and my ability to make decisions for myself, which, I might add, many people are not happy knowing there are some out there who feel, for one reason or another, that adults are incapable of making decisions for themselves. I am one of these people. I resent the opinion that someone else thinks they know what's best for me.
EVERYONE in their lifetime had to obey by someones rule. But for arguments sake, lets stick with a subject we all know. Stripping.
When you are a dancer at the strip club not only do you have to OBEY the RULES of the strip club but ALSO the RULES of the STATE and COUNTRY. Like it or not, twist it or not, they are taking away YOUR free will to simply start banging customers right up on the stage whenever you feel like it and getting away with it.
Your argument about free will is nill, no one has total freedom, EVER.
I do not know a single person who can say they have given themselves enough attention and they have grown to the point that they can now focus on the actions of others.
What exactly are you trying to say? Nobody cares about others actions?
What about firemen? Police men? Who i might add get paid way to little to run into a burning building to make sure everyone is out safe, putting their LIVES, their FAMILIES aside and saving a TOTAL STRANGER. Possibly the most unselfish job in the universe.
I read in here that this opinion may be considered selfish. How is it selfish if I want to direct my attention toward myself, becoming all that I can be in my opinion, and experiencing life as I see fit?
Thats saying "I'll do what I want, where I want and when i want." Never gonna happen. Just because its your life, doesn't mean you can go down the block and rob a bank. Just cause its your life doesn't mean you can drive drunk. If you only care about your self, thats selfish.
self·ish
1. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself.
Jay Zeno
10-17-2004, 07:08 PM
I also read here that Libertariansim is extremism. Only as much as Republicanism, or any other "ism" when you get too close to the edges.
.....
Is this society ready for what I have described? No, because we are being conditioned to believe that we can not make decisions for ourselves, as this thread has so clearly shown. Well, I didn't exactly say that. I nuanced my statement for a reason. I said:
"My observation is that society runs to a median of moderates, and libertarianism represents a certain level of extremism, touching on no regulation." Clearly, in our society, "no regulation" would represent a certain level of extremism, at least in terms of how our society is presently constructed.
I also stated that the libertarian point of view was worthy of debate. I wasn't speaking of my personal disapproval, just why the majority of society isn't buying into it.
I also gently raised the issue of regulations that the people perceive does quite well for them.
Here's a conundrum. If I choose to shoot up heroin, I am affecting no one but myself, right? (Well, let's assume I have no obligations to anyone else.) But the producer of the heroin is affecting others. Thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions. Should the producer then be prosecuted for injuring others? But then wouldn't that be affecting the right of the heroin consumer to what the consumer wants?
I don't think that people want government to do their thinking for them. However, people do want government to protect them from harm. Different people will draw that line different places. A socialist will want that line far on the government side. A libertarian will want that line far on the individual side.
azamber
10-17-2004, 07:38 PM
Geez, where do I begin. How 'bout here, it's easiest to address.
What exactly are you trying to say? Nobody cares about others actions?
What about firemen? Police men? Who i might add get paid way to little to run into a burning building to make sure everyone is out safe, putting their LIVES, their FAMILIES aside and saving a TOTAL STRANGER. Possibly the most unselfish job in the universe.
No, you missed the point completely. I am saying people care too much about other's actions and not enough on their own. *Ahem*
Your first paragraph is so poorly constructed/argued, it may take a minute to disect. First of all, I am arguing that adults should be able to do as they please, so long as no one get's hurt or their free will impinged upon. Furthermore, in the case of a private business, yes, the business sets the rules, and if the customer/employee disagrees with that, they are free to go to another business, or start their own with whatever rules they please. So in that scenario, we are all still truly free. (And this argument can be used AGAINST anti-smoking ordinances.) There will always be businessess that offer what you want. That's the law of supply and demnd.
And yes, there are clubs that let you f**k on stage, but they are called social clubs or swingers clubs. If I wanted to do that, I would go there. (I use I in the general sense) I, as an enlightened consumer/employee am aware that this behavior is not appropriate/allowed in a SC environment. If I were to attempt to break the rules, then I am guilty of doing exactly what it is I argue against, which is, for those of you who need it spelled out, and if you can follow a sentence with more than one comma, :) imposing upon the free will of those in the establishment, who wish to patronize/work in an environment with agreed upon rules.
Just because its your life, doesn't mean you can go down the block and rob a bank. Just cause its your life doesn't mean you can drive drunk. If you only care about your self, thats selfish
Once again, Gabe, you COMPLETELY miss the point. Had you even thoughtfully read my previous arguments, you would know that I have said numerous times in different ways, intentionally even, "the line can EASILY be drawn when my actions affect another directly or interfere with another's ability to live life as one chooses." Key parts of the philosophy, again, for those who need clarification, We should not be free to harm another, or interfere with another's free will. Bottom line read it again and again if you can't see how to apply it to your examples.
Thats saying "I'll do what I want, where I want and when i want." Never gonna happen.
Happens all the time, honey. It's just a matter of what it is one "wants". Just having the ability to make choices does not guarantee a negative choice will be made. If I were free to do heroin, would I? Never. I doubt anyone who wouldn't try it already would run out and slam dope, just because it was legal.
And finally, to wrap up this baseless sub-argument, had you even bothered to read my full argument, you'd already know that it wasn't selfish. I addressed that point in the last several paragraphs.
Casual Observer
10-17-2004, 07:43 PM
That is true....So fully automatic guns are legal now? Or just assualt rifles?
They've always been legal in the US. You simply have to have a federal permit to own one since 1932. They're $200. Sadly, you generally can't own any full-autos that were produced after 1986, with some exceptions.
And assault rifles have also always been legal, and you don't need a permit. The recently-sunsetted law only banned certain cosmetic features of assault rifles, not any actual operational features of rifles.
Then there is no room for people imposing upon my free will and my ability to make decisions for myself, which, I might add, many people are not happy knowing there are some out there who feel, for one reason or another, that adults are incapable of making decisions for themselves. I am one of these people. I resent the opinion that someone else thinks they know what's best for me.
This oversimplification erroneously presumes there are no externalities related to your given choice of personal freedoms; rare is the case where this is true regarding drugs. Localized quality of life issues, narcoterrorism, destabilization of national governments, currency trafficking, money laundering, organized criminal elements, et al--all these events are inextricably tied to drug use in some fashion or another, not just from user behavior but from the seeming inflexibility and lack of innovation in government policy designed to combat the negative elements of drugs.
Let's not pretend that just because you smoke a joint or do a line or spike yourself in the privacy of your own home that it happens in a vacuum. It's just intellectually dishonest. You can rationally discuss drug policy and its societal effects without a naive view of Libertarianism.
azamber
10-17-2004, 07:49 PM
Jay Zeno, you're mostly right, but, if I choose to MAKE a product, I am not harming anyone. If I choose to SELL that product, I am not harming anyone. If the BUYER decides to harm him/herself, then that it THEIR decision. Same with cigs, knives, guns, pesticides, whatever. See, we are all still free, and no one is directly harming another/imposing on free will. BUYER BEWARE is the philosophy I espouse. And in agreement with your last paragraph, I believe that is one of gov't ONLY functions, to protect us from harm, but gov't should not attempt to protect us from ourselves.
Anyone want to form a truly Libertarian society with me after the election??? LOL We can buy a nice island somewhere...
Jay Zeno
10-17-2004, 07:53 PM
Well, Amber, that leaves a thousand dangling pieces of bait. But I'll pass on 'em and just say it's been a nice discussion. Good luck with your society. :)
azamber
10-17-2004, 07:54 PM
This oversimplification erroneously presumes there are no externalities related to your given choice of personal freedoms; rare is the case where this is true regarding drugs. Localized quality of life issues, narcoterrorism, destabilization of national governments, currency trafficking, money laundering, organized criminal elements, et al--all these events are inextricably tied to drug use in some fashion or another, not just from user behavior but from the seeming inflexibility and lack of innovation in government policy designed to combat the negative elements of drugs.
Let's not pretend that just because you smoke a joint or do a line or spike yourself in the privacy of your own home that it happens in a vacuum. It's just intellectually dishonest. You can rationally discuss drug policy and its societal effects without a naive view of Libertarianism.
Well, this is much more along the lines of response I was hoping to hear. Now I have to think. I'll write more after work. I guess I just don't understand why Libertarianism isn't more mainstream, more widely accepted. Thanks for the discussion those who participated. I'm going to start a thread on Libertarianism after work if anyone would like to discuss it further with me. Maybe I can get a greater understanding of all it's many aspects, and help others think about what it means to be free. Yes, I am an idealist. I admit it.
No, you missed the point completely. I am saying people care too much about other's actions and not enough on their own. *Ahem*
Wow, now doesn't that make a lot more sense then writing out 6 paragraphs trying to make yourself sound smart?
Get to the point.
Happens all the time, honey. It's just a matter of what it is one "wants".
Not true, Im sure you and I both want many things we cannot have.
You have the entire "Hippy" outlook on life.
Lets make peace, love and spread flowers around the world. Lets start our own society where everyone can do whatever they want!
Not being realistic.
azamber
10-17-2004, 08:12 PM
Not exactly Gabe, hippies are closer to socialists than I. And I made my points, sorry it bothers you I pointed out that you skipped over them entirely. K, I'm done in this thread. Any further discussion of this topic should be done in political poo, right? I'll start a thread after work where I'll respond to casual observer in the hopes he will engage me in some thoughtful discussion. Same to you Jay Zeno, you both have a lot of great opinions and insights.
Not exactly Gabe, hippies are closer to socialists than I. And I made my points, sorry it bothers you I pointed out that you skipped over them entirely. K, I'm done in this thread. Any further discussion of this topic should be done in political poo, right? I'll start a thread after work where I'll respond to casual observer in the hopes he will engage me in some thoughtful discussion. Same to you Jay Zeno, you both have a lot of great opinions and insights.
Sorry it bothers you to just give up. Another hippy quality.
azamber
10-17-2004, 08:23 PM
Is moving the discussion to a more appropriate forum giving up? I don't think so. You obviously skim read the posts. If you'd like to continue this discussion with me, we can resume later on when I get out of work. Let's see if you make it onto my thread later. Then we'll decide who's giving up, k, kid?
azamber
10-17-2004, 08:35 PM
^WTF? Hey mods, this thread is going nowhere. Gabe, let's stop wasting space now, (both of us) and meet later in political poo if you have anything even halfway intelligent to say, which I haven't seen so far.
Rhiannon
10-17-2004, 08:38 PM
I'm on it, Amber.. I've been keeping an eye on this one lately. It's turning ugly despite my hopes that if I left it, the healthy debating would continue.
I think everything that needed to be said on this issue, has been. So, we're now locked.
I only ask that whoever chooses to bring this over to PP doesn't cause problems there. Keep the gloves up.
*muah*