Should pot be legal? Yes or no. - Page 9 - Political Forum

Locke9-05 · #81 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedex

actually its just a continuation of the orwellian interpretation you have of the Constitution with respect to drugs

I understand your point completely, just pointing out how out of whack it is.

As it stands right now most drugs are illegal or semi-legal, I take it that isn't enough in your opinion? oh well, fortunately our country doesn't work like that

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will say this again, and put it to rest: such direct distortions of arguments/discussion comments will not be tolerated here. If you understood my point, then there would have been no need to attempt to completely distort it publicly would there? Did I ever say anything about "euthanization?" No. Did I make any such comments? No. Is this debate about life or death? No. It's about selfish pleasures that are unnecessarily risky in more ways than one--even to those around the user. Did I say anything regarding killing people? No. Ironically, those were your words not mine.

I didn't interpret the Constitution in any way. The language in the Constitution is very clear. Your general welfare doesn't include smoking weed does it? That's not something that's required for a person to be happy. However, by using such selfish pleasures (selfish by definition, mind you), users create an environment for nonusers that is unpleasant, unhealthy, unpredictable, and sometimes potentially dangerous. That is a violation in all contexts of the "general welfare," of the United States, and there's nothing to interpret there. I love how you're trying to twist my argument into some oppressive "Orwellian" style rhetoric. There's nothing oppressive about not being able to do drugs. Drugs are simple individualistic pleasures, nothing more..

They’re not needed for happiness, they’re not needed for any aspect of human life. That goes against every context of the term "oppression,” and it’s laughable that you would call my argument against drugs “Orwellian” simply because you think individuals should be able to individualistically indulge without thinking or caring about the negative effects on those around them. The government does care and has taken preventative action against such individualistic pleasures that also pose a risk to the well-being, health, etc. of people around the user and you’re calling my argument—which emphasizes that completely fair and reasonable government action—“Orwellian.” Interesting….

Slartibartfas · #82 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

Well hey, I don't even mind alcohol. I don't think there's anything wrong with alcohol in general. You're absolutely right, it should be considered a personal freedom. The problem is when people take such liberties too far and they interfere with the personal liberties of others. One can drink responsibly without getting completely bombed or drinking and driving. I don't think there's anything wrong with enjoying a cold one or having a sip or two I suppose. But most people have a hard time stopping with that. Self-control seems to be a trait that many lack, and unfortunately, it ends up hurting people besides just themselves. That's what I oppose, and that's the core reason for my being opposed to the extremes of these substances--and the ones that alter human cognitive abilities in general.

I cannot see how any society needs drugs. I socialize with my friends just fine without them. For fun, I lift weights, I exercise, I read, play occasional video games, etc. None of my interactions in any of those activities create an unpleasant, unstable or potentially dangerous environment for those around me, because I am fully conscious and alert when partaking in each of them, and my brain chemicals are naturally functioning. The same could not be said if I was drunk or high. Then I would be mentally unstable, unpredictable, I could be angry, I could be happy even--but there'd be no way to tell what I'd be--my cognitive skills would be impaired etc., but I wouldn't be able to make the distinction not to operate machinery or drive, because I would be under the influence of a substance that impairs judgment. So I would be a danger to not only myself but much more importantly those around me. That's what I have a problem with.

Your attitude towards drugs is honorable, but I can't follow some of your conclusions. Many people tend to drive too fast with their cars. I know cars have a very important use, but the solution can not be to punish those who drive correctly. Why is it the right way for lets say alcohol. If there are people who are not acting in a responsible way, why punishing all people for it?

People who drink and drive are punished heavily, when they harm anyone under alcohol influence its easily possible that they ruined their entire financial existence for ever and thats good.

I have been drunk already fair number of times, I dare to say that I have drinking "under control" though. Even when I drink more I usually give it a rest after 2 liter beer or so. That hardly can be called excessive, especially as that does not so often anyway. Mostly I will only drink a beer or two and then at least as much for the taste as for anything else.
I know that people react differently to alcohol, from myself I can not confirm that I am "mentally unstable" under influence of alcohol. I may be sedated, and may dare a bit more than without alcohol, but I am not suddenly Mister Hide. I have been never involved in a fight so far, nor harmed a fly anything.

Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against strict age controls, anti drink and drive campaigns and punishments etc. Even the more for initiatives that help alcoholics to get a life again without alcohol. But what about the mass that consumes alcohol responsibly, do they deserve to be thrown into one pot with the others?

Quote:

As for prohibition--prohibition didn't create or contribute to crime. I understand the argument there, but I would say to pin the blame of organized crime on a government that passed legislation in order to ensure that such a substance would not be found in our society a tad bit unreasonable. Did the criminals not choose to commit the crimes? Were they not responsible for committing the crimes you speak of? This is simply a matter of free choice here. Just because there was demand for alcohol didn't mean people had to exploit it. They chose to and who were they? Criminals. Not society. There will always be a black market, an underground supply system for products in demand that are either illegal or overly priced. Does there have to be? No. Will that stop criminals? It doesn't seem like it. But does that mean societies should simply roll over and concede to the criminal mentality every time? I would say no.

Did I blame one? No, I just said what happened and it will happen again if prohibition should be enacted again. Of course one can say its the bad criminals who exploit it (and you could probably to so justifiably), but that won't change the result.

If I remember correctly the prohibition did not only contribute to crime by criminalizing large parts of the society and filling prisons but also because it was the starter money for the Italian mafia to vastly expand over the country and build a basis on which it could operate well also after prohibition was abandoned again.

Its like driving with a Bentley into the Bronx. Of course you can say its the criminals fault that it got stolen, but its not like you couldn't expect it.

Locke9-05 · #83 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Your attitude towards drugs is honorable, but I can't follow some of your conclusions. Many people tend to drive too fast with their cars. I know cars have a very important use, but the solution can not be to punish those who drive correctly. Why is it the right way for lets say alcohol. If there are people who are not acting in a responsible way, why punishing all people for it?

People who drink and drive are punished heavily, when they harm anyone under alcohol influence its easily possible that they ruined their entire financial existence for ever and thats good.

I have been drunk already fair number of times, I dare to say that I have drinking "under control" though. Even when I drink more I usually give it a rest after 2 liter beer or so. That hardly can be called excessive, especially as that does not so often anyway. Mostly I will only drink a beer or two and then at least as much for the taste as for anything else.
I know that people react differently to alcohol, from myself I can not confirm that I am "mentally unstable" under influence of alcohol. I may be sedated, and may dare a bit more than without alcohol, but I am not suddenly Mister Hide. I have been never involved in a fight so far, nor harmed a fly anything.

Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against strict age controls, anti drink and drive campaigns and punishments etc. Even the more for initiatives that help alcoholics to get a life again without alcohol. But what about the mass that consumes alcohol responsibly, do they deserve to be thrown into one pot with the others?

No. You're absolutely right. That was an overreaction on my part, I will admit that much. I think we can agree on this. Responsibility and self-control is a virtue to be valued and there's no reason that those who drink responsibly should be punished for the irresponsible actions of others. That's nothing but unfairness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Did I blame one? No, I just said what happened and it will happen again if prohibition should be enacted again.

My apologies. I should have held my tongue and read deeper into your post before commenting on that part of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Of course one can say its the bad criminals who exploit it (and you could probably to so justifiably), but that won't change the result.

If I remember correctly the prohibition did not only contribute to crime by criminalizing large parts of the society and filling prisons but also because it was the starter money for the Italian mafia to vastly expand over the country and build a basis on which it could operate well also after prohibition was abandoned again.

Its like driving with a Bentley into the Bronx. Of course you can say its the criminals fault that it got stolen, but its not like you couldn't expect it.

Yes, I can see the logic in your argument, it's certainly full of truth. Too much truth, if you know what I mean...

--too much conflict and crime in this world, but I suppose there always will be. So yes, I can understand what you mean. And after thinking about it, I can definitely agree that those who drink responsibly should not pay the consequences for those who abuse alcohol.

pedex · #84 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

I will say this again, and put it to rest: such direct distortions of arguments/discussion comments will not be tolerated here. If you understood my point, then there would have been no need to attempt to completely distort it publicly would there? Did I ever say anything about "euthanization?" No. Did I make any such comments? No. Is this debate about life or death? No. It's about selfish pleasures that are unnecessarily risky in more ways than one--even to those around the user. Did I say anything regarding killing people? No. Ironically, those were your words not mine.

I didn't interpret the Constitution in any way. The language in the Constitution is very clear. Your general welfare doesn't include smoking weed does it? That's not something that's required for a person to be happy. However, by using such selfish pleasures (selfish by definition, mind you), users create an environment for nonusers that is unpleasant, unhealthy, unpredictable, and sometimes potentially dangerous. That is a violation in all contexts of the "general welfare," of the United States, and there's nothing to interpret there. I love how you're trying to twist my argument into some oppressive "Orwellian" style rhetoric. There's nothing oppressive about not being able to do drugs. Drugs are simple individualistic pleasures, nothing more..

They’re not needed for happiness, they’re not needed for any aspect of human life. That goes against every context of the term "oppression,” and it’s laughable that you would call my argument against drugs “Orwellian” simply because you think individuals should be able to individualistically indulge without thinking or caring about the negative effects on those around them. The government does care and has taken preventative action against such individualistic pleasures that also pose a risk to the well-being, health, etc. of people around the user and you’re calling my argument—which emphasizes that completely fair and reasonable government action—“Orwellian.” Interesting….

slippery slope argument, and it falls apart, where do you draw the line?, you say drugs , what you fail to recognize is others might take it a step further and be just as valid as you using the "general welfare" of the US as a reason even though it conflicts with other parts of the Constitution as does yours

unintended consequences of your argument, plain and simple, some may feel other steps would be right in line with your reasoning

then very next post you day "responsible use" of alcohol shouldn't be punished", oops, another chink in the argument

keep the govt out of my house, my bedroom, and my body thank you very much, it doesn't have the right nor should it

Slartibartfas · #85 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 04:38 PM

@Locke

Man, and how am I supposed to argue with you then?

jk

Shiva_TD · #86 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

Your general welfare doesn't include smoking weed does it?

YES IT DOES!!!!

You may have a different opinion but it is just your opinion.

Locke9-05 · #87 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedex

slippery slope argument, and it falls apart, where do you draw the line?, you say drugs , what you fail to recognize is others might take it a step further and be just as valid as you using the "general welfare" of the US as a reason even though it conflicts with other parts of the Constitution as does yours

unintended consequences of your argument, plain and simple, some may feel other steps would be right in line with your reasoning

then very next post you day "responsible use" of alcohol shouldn't be punished", oops, another chink in the argument

keep the govt out of my house, my bedroom, and my body thank you very much, it doesn't have the right nor should it

I'm sorry, do you need me to re-iterate things I've already said? Because I've already specified and clarified each of the things you "addressed" in that post. The drug usage I'm referring to that has no place in this society is the use of such drugs that have been shown scientifically to alter human cognitive abilities, and induce unstable side effects, unnaturally manipulating human brain chemistry even at low levels of use. I already said/specified that, but I sure don't mind repeating it for those who weren't paying attention. I then said that my viewpoint was consistent for alcohol, which I've now specified and clarified to be alcohol impairment. One can drink alcohol responsibly without experiencing any outward side effects that would put those around them in an unpleasant situation, or for that matter, a potentially dangerous situation. That's a matter of choice, like Slartibartfast said. Marijuana and other drugs that involve an immediate high--ones that impair judgment, cognitive abilities, in some cases induce side effects as severe as psychosis, hallucinations, etc. as was shown in the sources I already posted--are irresponsible, unpredictable, and at best unnecessarily risky. There is a difference, and do recall, the health of the user is not nearly as important as those people who are affected by the actions of the user.

As for the government's involvement in your personal life, I highly doubt the government would interfere with your personal life unless you gave them a good reason to, so that being said, yes--keep whatever it is you do in your own home with your own body to yourself--as long as it does not affect those around you. However that is why marijuana will not be legalized. Because those of us who do not want to have to deal with such unhealthy, distasteful, unpredictable, and in some cases potentially hazardous conditions of users experiencing the weird side-effects of such drugs simply take precedence... It's an indulgence, it's not a need. Do it in your own home, fine. That doesn't make it legal, but obviously that's not enough of a deterrent for some.

Locke9-05 · #88 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

@Locke

Man, and how am I supposed to argue with you then?

jk

Yeah I know, you brought up some good points that I had neglected to take into consideration at first.

Shiva_TD · #89 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 04:47 PM

I believe that I have a Constitutional right to smoke pot or endulge in any subtance or endeavor so long as I am not violating the rights of others if I so choose under the 9th Amendment.

Quote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Smoking pot is a right of the individual just like eating a grape.

pedex · #90 (**permalink**) 02-12-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

I'm sorry, do you need me to re-iterate things I've already said? Because I've already specified and clarified each of the things you "addressed" in that post. The drug usage I'm referring to that has no place in this society is the use of such drugs that have been shown scientifically to alter human cognitive abilities, and induce unstable side effects, unnaturally manipulating human brain chemistry even at low levels of use. I already said/specified that, but I sure don't mind repeating it for those who weren't paying attention. I then said that my viewpoint was consistent for alcohol, which I've now specified and clarified to be alcohol impairment. One can drink alcohol responsibly without experiencing any outward side effects that would put those around them in an unpleasant situation, or for that matter, a potentially dangerous situation. That's a matter of choice, like Slartibartfast said. Marijuana and other drugs that involve an immediate high--ones that impair judgment, cognitive abilities, in some cases induce side effects as severe as psychosis, hallucinations, etc. as was shown in the sources I already posted--are irresponsible, unpredictable, and at best unnecessarily risky. There is a difference, and do recall, the health of the user is not nearly as important as those people who are affected by the actions of the user.

oh please, now more slippery slope argument, get over it, marijuana is actually a very mild drug compared to alcohol

alcohol kills people all the time, its one of the most dangerous drugs on the planet, it alters all aspects of behavior you mention above yet it gets a free pass? is it the only drug that can be used "responsibly"? of course not

either your another person with the typical social stigma towards drugs and alcohol or you've never been a user of them, which makes you quite ignorant in this argument, at any rate your in a minority here, by the polll and opposing arguments