Quote:
Originally Posted by pedex
there's the slippery slope argument in a nutshell
works both ways there Locke, give people an inch to ban whatever it is they "deem" harmful/illegal/ or unnecessary and its immediately a subjective slippery slope argument
what may be unneeded, unhealthy or damaging to the "collective" is in the eyes of the beholder
the circular logic of illegality has been mentioned a few times too, many legal drugs have been taken off the market due to them being lethal LOL, and you can get quite stoned on prozac  , lots of legal and dangerous drugs out there far stronger than marijuana |
Oh here we go again with the "slippery slope" argument--the one you falsely accused me of using a number of pages back. What's that called--the statement I made? It's called an
expression... Good lord, there's no need to excessively analyze it and take it so literally, but suit yourself. No, what is unhealthy, damaging, etc. to the collective is in the eyes of
society, my friend. This issue is within the context of society--a
collectivist society, this government and society has a context with which they measure and weigh these issues--it is not "within the eyes of the beholder"--that's anarchy, that's when man decides these ultimate things for himself; that's illogical.
There are drugs that are potent out on the market, yes. But that's why they're prescription based, they have a purpose that is intended for medical reasons, they have a beneficial purpose that is intended for
helping people. Recreational marijuana is selfish and it's unpleasant, unhealthy, and hazardous to those
around the user--so there is no reason in the context of a collectivist society that recreational marijuana should be allowed freely. Criminals will always commit crimes, yes. That doesn't mean they should not face the consequences of their actions. You can't blame society for the choices of the drug dealers. You can blame the individuals--who are ironically closely associated with the drugs.