View Single Post
Old 04-05-2008, 02:27 AM   #297 (permalink)
Locke9-05
SPAM Canner Mod
 
Locke9-05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,444
Country:
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryDavidThoreau View Post
Just like marijuana. That's the idea here. Your neighbor lights up a joint or watches TV in the privacy of his own home and neither activity effects you in ANY way. Exactly what about the whole violence on TV leads to real life violence argument? My argument for marijuana decrim./legalization that punish those that harm others could apply here to, if someone harms another it was there conscious decision to do so and they will be punished for it.

There is no evidence that these side effects that effect a minority of users and effect a user for the deration of the high, will cause someone to murder or cause harm to their family or friends, it just is not going to happen. Despite what reefer-madness sensational yellow journalism of the 1930s may say.
There is evidence that marijuana use causes psychosis, impaired cognitive abilities, hallucinations, and even schizophrenia-like symptoms, and new research is becoming conclusively more and more negative in that mental aspect of the drug. That information doesn't come from "Reefer Madness," there are many legitimate points of reference that I've used throughout this debate for those side-effects (and you know this as much as I do). Television doesn't cause anything like that. At best, there are some people who have theorized that violent television might have some effect on what you're suggesting. But the most that comes out of that are theories. No real evidence or conclusive details.

Medical diagnoses, stats, charts, etc. on the other hand show marijuana as capable of inducing severely unstable, unpredictable mental side-effects, and that's added to the fact that it's inherently unpleasant and unhealthy to the user and those around the user without the side effects anyway. It's a selfish worthless indulgence yet it also impedes upon the rights of nonusers. The indulgence itself is fine. But part two of that equation crosses the line. It's no different with the speeding example.

Speeding can be seen as a "victimless crime" by the same damn logic. Someone speeds in a car is anyone getting hurt when they're speeding? No, but what's happening at the same time? There's a major increase in stopping distance and the vehicle they're driving becomes much harder to control. Unnecessary risk and potential hazard to those around them because of a selfish idiotic thing they chose to do. Someone smokes pot, is anyone getting hurt? Maybe not at the moment, but what's happening? God only knows what's going on in their brains. We haven't even mapped the whole human brain yet, so there's an additional factor to consider. What we do know is that it induces unstable and unpredictable side-effects such as psychosis, hallucinations, paranoia, impaired cognitive abilities, and even schizophrenia-like symptoms. Unnecessary risk and potential hazard to those around the user because of a selfish idiotic thing the user chose to do.

So in those cases is society going to wait for there to be a victim? No. Why not? Because that's ridiculous. Both scenarios are initiated by selfish, foolish actions--by people who don't seem to care about the consequences.
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke
___________________

Locke9-05 is offline   Reply With Quote