Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke9-05
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.
|
No false accusation to it at all, your premise that drug or chemical X is harmful and therefore should be illegal or banned because it harms the collective and is unnecessary is indeed very much a slippery slope argument, that very same argument can be used to ban or make illegal a whole host of other behaviors or acts using the same damn logic, hence the slippery slope. Then there's the utterly useless legal circular logic argument, non starter by default as far as this whole thread is concerned, see the title LOL. Some drugs are legal, some are not, but it has little to do with their real dangers or effects. All societies and states make these choices, some make alcohol illegal, some don't, same with all the other drugs. Some countries are more realistic about what is illegal than others. Ultimately that is what this whole thread is about. If the US was a bit more pragmatic and less prone to knee jerk reaction type legislation and wanted to ban the really dangerous drugs it would probably start with alcohol and have many prescription drugs banned too, marijuana would be way way down on the list if banned at all. Then again, rarely does this nation actually make a whole lot of rational decisions at the federal level, even expecting it to factor in the "collective" or even considering it these days is expecting more than it can deliver
Evidently based on you posts thus far you have an axe to grind against marijuana(my perception), and that is your prerogative of course, but to those that have actually used some of these drugs being discussed in prior posts it's quite humorous. To someone with actual experience with the side effects, some of which don't even exist, you keep harping on are soooooooooo over the top it's mind boggling. But, hey, that is your right and your viewpoint, just don't expect everyone to buy it.
Also, ultimately it is in the eye of the beholder, illegality sure has not stopped demand or usage of much of anything, but have you ever wondered why people in this country haven't turned into this anarchistic society you are concerned about? They can easily do as many and as much of pretty much any drug available, illegal hasn't stopped me from using drugs before, doesn't seem to have stopped anyone else either. Have you ever considered most people are capable of handling their own selves and deciding what's best and desirable for them? I think you will find many people have tried lots of different drugs and have had no trouble at all deciding what is ok and what isn't. Have a little faith in fellow man, even collectively we aren't as dumb as perceived sometimes, even when the laws might disagree.