You're right and I respect that. It would be your individual sense of welfare. There's nothing wrong with that, believe me I'm not saying there is, but when a group of people want something for "recreation" that they consider to go towards their "welfare" but it conflicts with the welfare and actual peaceful, happy living conditions of those around them who are not a part of that group, it seems fairly apparent which group takes precedence. Not the group that wants the government to legalize something purely for individualistic enjoyment. This is not an anarchical society, remember? For government to function, the people cannot demand and get everything they want without consequence. Then there's no need for government in the first place. No one needs marijuana for a peaceful happy natural standard of living. But you're demanding additional comfort/welfare at the expense of the comfort/welfare, not to mention health and possibly even safety of others. And that can't happen. That's the root of this issue.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"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

The "typical social stigma" towards drugs and alcohol? If by that you mean I see no reason why people should succumb to pathetically weak mental and physical addictions while putting other human beings around them at risk purely for their own mindless idiotic pleasures because they're apparently too simple to look elsewhere for the natural joys in life, then yes. You would indeed be correct.

You're right, there's really no reason for any of them to be legal is there? But like I said, I'm not going to go lobbying to congress about alcohol, but if there was legislation brought about to prohibit it, I would definitely think long and hard and probably end up voting yes. I don't drink. I never will drink. I've never smoked, I'll never do drugs. I lift weights, I get out in nature, I do natural things for fun, natural things that every human being should do.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"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

oh come on! your promoting your own lifestyle as being examplary. isnt it a big part of a free society that everyone can decide for himself how to live their lives? what do you know about the benefits something simple as a bit of marihuana can bring to someone, just like he's not supposed to correct your lifestyle?

ease down. live and let live.

I thought that I had established plenty of reasons that were beyond personal enjoyment for why marijuana should be legalized in my last post on the decrim (part 5) thread. A link to that post is in my signature if you’d like a refresher. There are easier and more fiscally sound ways to control marijuana manufacturing and use than simply prohibiting it.

__________________

I have never endorsed the infringement of the rights of others. I don't believe people should get loaded or drunk and drive their cars but if they want to sit at home, not bothering anyone, and get drunk, loaded or whacked out on heroin I don't believe the government has the right to intervene.

I am totally opposed to the government dictating what the people may or may not do so long as they aren't endangering others. The last thing I will agree to is government mandated social engineering.

Because I know firsthand what marijuana does to people, and I know firsthand what effects it has on those around them. It may be irrelevant to those here, but I remember when my brother used marijuana for a long period of time and it practically tore my family apart. I've talked to people who quit who have said it wasn't worth it, I've talked to marijuana users now who do nothing all day but sit and waste theirs and everyone else's time with the drug. This society is not built upon principles of lazy self indulgence. It's built upon hard work and being rewarded for that hard work. I get my high from finding something that needs to be done--say outside (shoveling snow, hiking, camping, planting trees, etc...), isolating a task and goal in nature that I want to achieve and working at it. That's how progress is made.

There's nothing unnatural about any of that--my brain isn't getting screwed up, and better yet, no one around me suffers either. I suffered plenty when my brother was on pot, I know plenty of families that suffer equally when their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, daughters, sons, etc. use marijuana. with milder side effects like impaired cognitive abilities, complete exhaustion, and apathy, and moderate ranging side effects like psychosis, hallucinations, etc. how the hell could you logically claim that marijuana doesn't negatively affect people around the user? You can't. Not logically.

Ironically we as a society and nation are supposed to be working together towards collective progress. How can we possibly be working towards progress advocating a drug that is counter-productive by it's very nature? We can't.

The "liberal" ideology claims to be all about "progress," yet apparently the liberal-minded ideology also advocates things that inspire mental fatigue and apathy--obviously counter-productive side-effects induced by a drug that unnaturally screws with brain chemicals. That makes no sense.


I am doing that. I'm not negatively impacting anyone else's life around mine, and if I do, I expect to pay the consequences for it... I guess recreational marijuana users feel they should be exempt from that... I guess recreational marijuana users feel that they deserve more comfort than others (according to their own individualistic sense of the word) at the expense of the comfort, security, stability, and sometimes safety of those around them... I'd say that's negating you're little "live and let live" theory. You see, I respect the libertarian philosophy, but drugs do not logically fit within that philosophy, it's a fallacy to promote drugs with the "live and let live" philosophy. Most drug legalization advocates who want it for recreational purposes (the majority of them) live by a "give me more so that I can continue to take more" philosophy without any care of who is affected or who gets hurt around them. Is that fair? Is that right when recreational marijuana is nothing but a simple individualistic pleasure? No. It's not right at all.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"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

Sorry, Shiva, but government requires a balance. You say that, but heroin users experiences side-effects that do endanger others. So do people who get drunk. So do marijuana users, even on occasion. Enough so to raise question. If the government doesn't have any authority than there's nothing to stop people from "endangering" each other anyway... That's what so many people seem to not understand. Without government, the people would have no way to solve disputes, and there would be nothing to prevent chaos. So it's fine and good that you don't think the government has the right to intervene in people's lives unless they're endangering each other, but ironically, intervening in their lives is the only thing that will allow the government to exert its necessary image of authority so that it can then enforce your "so long as the people don't endanger each other" ideal. You can't have one without the other, and you can't have one heaped up over the other either...

That's not how it works. If the government were to lose its authority, there would be nothing to prevent chaos and your whole "so long as the people don't endanger each other" theory wouldn't mean anything anyway, because there would be no consequences for anything people would do to each other, take from each other, etc. Continually demanding more for selfish reasons will not make things better for this nation, it will not create a better environment for the collective, it only inspires an anarchical and chaotic mindset. I've thought about these words a lot recently, and I'm certain this great man was thinking along these same lines when he spoke them:

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

So what'll it be? Continuing demands of this nation? Or final acceptance of the reality that so many people around the world have to live by daily: "you can't always get what you want." There must be a compromise and without that compromise, people would not hesitate before recklessly or even purposefully endangering the lives of others.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"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

Make money off of something with negative and harmful potential? I sure can't agree with it. You may know I'm a socialist--I believe in human social compassion and the "utopia" (as it's so conveniently referred to) of a socially equal society. So fiscal benefits mean little to me, and they certainly don't outweigh the cons of marijuana in the context of this society. I do remember your post, Seer yes, it was well done, and I have nothing wrong with marijuana for medicinal use as long as it's strictly regulated. However, for recreation, with something that has the list of cons as previously mentioned, by far the most beneficial thing to do for a society such as this one is to outlaw it.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"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

There are laws against endangering others such as driving under the influence laws. A person can get drunk off their ass so long as they don't drive or create a public nuisance. There are laws against speeding but a person can drive 200 mph on a race track. There are laws against flying an airplane too low over a city but you can skip the grass when flying over the country.

The government has the duty to legislate reasonable laws that protect the public from the acts of the individual but we don't ban alcohol or automobiles or airplanes.


This was probably the stupidest statement made by Kennedy and maybe of all time. The government is the servant of the People, the People are not the servants of the government.

The prohibition of any action that does not directly infringe upon the rights of others violates the liberty of the people. Social engineering, such as the banning of drugs is not only unconstitutional but a violation of the liberty of the people to pursue life as they see fit.

I can assure you of this fact, I am a far better judge of what is good for me and you are a far better judge of what is good for you than the federal government.

Reasonable laws? So am I to understand that other laws are unreasonable? Well once again, this is all as stated by your terms, but that doesn't make them so. That's the whole idea. Your individualistic interpretation does not equate what is best for this society, Shiva. This is not "every man for himself land" so people don't get to do whatever they want without consequence. I believe that's called anarchy... Yeah... It's no fun. This nation's government was created with an establish balance between the government and the governed.
No, Kennedy was a patriot, and just like the framers of the Constitution who fought for this nation, Kennedy also fought for this nation. Kennedy knew exactly what he was saying, but it seems you don't understand that a society cannot exist without a government, Shiva. Likewise, a government cannot exist without the governed populace. Without the other factor, each becomes useless and no longer retains any value.
I've already addressed this. It's no different than speeding in an automobile. It's illegal because it's unnecessarily risky. The government makes decisions like these because as the central authority and the only true preventative against anarchy, the government is also the only thing that can enforce and protect your "unalienable" rights. Shiva, without government authority, your "unalienable rights" mean nothing because there's no one to enforce them but you. Likewise there would be no one to enforce the "unalienable rights" of anyone else without a government. Therefore what would "unalienable rights" be? Nothing more than two meaningless words that people would trample over. That's the root of anarchy and that's not how this society works. If that's what you're looking for, frankly you're in the wrong country.
I can assure you that as long as you live in this American society, you must give authority to the government or else your rights will not be enforceable anyway... That's one of the primary purposes of government. So you may disagree with the government's ideas, you may balk at their legislative decision on simple selfish indulgences that have no major effect on life (by definition), but unless you have the desire and finances to start your own commune, or unless you wish to start living a very anarchical and blatantly illegal life, you're going to have to accept--just like the rest of us--that the balance between the government's authority to protect the people's rights and to determine what the people have as rights must be maintained, or else there will be nothing to prevent chaos--in which case your "rights" won't mean anything anyway. Shiva, this is something you will not be able to win. We do not need drugs for survival. Drugs negatively impact the lives of those around those who use them--therefore violating their rights as given to them by this government, and by the context of this society, that's more than enough to make a firm case against them.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"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