Breaking the Taboo

[NoIBnds]

I did NOT say legalizing them would not lead to the things I said. They would, alcohol does also, this would just compound the problems. Alcohol is bad, let make MORE bad things legal, and how exactly does that help??

You really do need to make up your mind.

Autos are not bad;
Guns are not bad;
it is what people do with them that is bad .......

....  but alcohol is bad; drugs are bad ......

You see no conflict in those arguments?

No it is when people consume those items that it is bad, and creates problems.
Like I said what they do in private in their own homes is their own business, when they create problems for others because of the drugs (alcohol is also a drug), THAT is bad. You can carry a gun and be in your right mind, but when you consume drugs, it alters the mind. Go back and I was ALWAYS talking about behavior and personal responsibility.

So, which is it to be then?
Legalize and regulate all the items just as guns, alcohol, and autos are presently, or criminalize all the items as drugs are criminalized presently?

Either, as you stated clearly, you believe those things to be BAD or you don't.

If you don't then they should not be criminalized, but legalized and regulated so that their ability to harm others is reduced to an acceptable level for society.

 

     Then when they abuse the legal drugs, then we punish them accordingly. If you abuse the auto and drive crazy, they take it away and charge you and sometimes send you to jail. If you abuse the gun, then they will send you to jail. So when they abuse the drugs, and use autos and guns or abuse family, enhanced penalties? Then it is a choice and to jail, not a hospital, as they willingly made these life choices?  See drugs and alcohol change the mind and behavior, the other things do not. There is the difference, when you use those things it CAUSES the problems. When you drive and auto, it doesn't cause the problem, the driver does. The gun does nothing, the person possessing it does. Drugs CHANGE people and behavior.

[NoIBnds]

They have all kinds of enhanced penalties -- main one, if you use a gun while committing a crime. Few states actually carry through with capital punishment.

[Jim Dandy]

They have all kinds of enhanced penalties -- main one, if you use a gun while committing a crime. Few states actually carry through with capital punishment.

What you said, in your post to me, was this:

"...Why stop with just marijuana? Isn't it all the same argument-- they have no right to dictate to me how I will live my life and they have no right to punish me or others if we have harmed no one else-- What happens when they harm others? What then, increased penalties, for being under the influence?"

It seems to me that you were asking me if I thought the penalties should be increased if they were using drugs. My answer is no, they should not be. The penalty should be for the action that harmed another, not something that may or may not have caused the action. Because they pass laws to increase penalties for this or that doesn't make it right. If the penalty is sufficient to deter then it doesn't need to be increased. And, as the man said in the video, even the thought of having their heads taken off doesn't deter everyone from using drugs. If it did they never would have had to do it but once but they do it every year. And America shouldn't have more people in prison than Russia and China put together for so-called "crimes" that had no victims.

[Just17]

I did NOT say legalizing them would not lead to the things I said. They would, alcohol does also, this would just compound the problems. Alcohol is bad, let make MORE bad things legal, and how exactly does that help??

You really do need to make up your mind.

Autos are not bad;
Guns are not bad;
it is what people do with them that is bad .......

....  but alcohol is bad; drugs are bad ......

You see no conflict in those arguments?

No it is when people consume those items that it is bad, and creates problems.
Like I said what they do in private in their own homes is their own business, when they create problems for others because of the drugs (alcohol is also a drug), THAT is bad. You can carry a gun and be in your right mind, but when you consume drugs, it alters the mind. Go back and I was ALWAYS talking about behavior and personal responsibility.

So, which is it to be then?
Legalize and regulate all the items just as guns, alcohol, and autos are presently, or criminalize all the items as drugs are criminalized presently?

Either, as you stated clearly, you believe those things to be BAD or you don't.

If you don't then they should not be criminalized, but legalized and regulated so that their ability to harm others is reduced to an acceptable level for society.

 

     Then when they abuse the legal drugs, then we punish them accordingly. If you abuse the auto and drive crazy, they take it away and charge you and sometimes send you to jail. If you abuse the gun, then they will send you to jail. So when they abuse the drugs, and use autos and guns or abuse family, enhanced penalties? Then it is a choice and to jail, not a hospital, as they willingly made these life choices?  See drugs and alcohol change the mind and behavior, the other things do not. There is the difference, when you use those things it CAUSES the problems. When you drive and auto, it doesn't cause the problem, the driver does. The gun does nothing, the person possessing it does. Drugs CHANGE people and behavior.

What is this emphasis on punishment about?

You seem obsessed with it.

The subject under discussion is whether or not the 'war on drugs' has been a dismal failure or not, and if there is an alternative .....  and if the alternative proposed by the mission statement is viable and well founded logically.

As to the extra costs in monetary terms to society, all indications are that the money saved from this phoney 'war' will be more than sufficient to cover any extra costs.

[NoIBnds]

I did NOT say legalizing them would not lead to the things I said. They would, alcohol does also, this would just compound the problems. Alcohol is bad, let make MORE bad things legal, and how exactly does that help??

You really do need to make up your mind.

Autos are not bad;
Guns are not bad;
it is what people do with them that is bad .......

....  but alcohol is bad; drugs are bad ......

You see no conflict in those arguments?

No it is when people consume those items that it is bad, and creates problems.
Like I said what they do in private in their own homes is their own business, when they create problems for others because of the drugs (alcohol is also a drug), THAT is bad. You can carry a gun and be in your right mind, but when you consume drugs, it alters the mind. Go back and I was ALWAYS talking about behavior and personal responsibility.

So, which is it to be then?
Legalize and regulate all the items just as guns, alcohol, and autos are presently, or criminalize all the items as drugs are criminalized presently?

Either, as you stated clearly, you believe those things to be BAD or you don't.

If you don't then they should not be criminalized, but legalized and regulated so that their ability to harm others is reduced to an acceptable level for society.

 

     Then when they abuse the legal drugs, then we punish them accordingly. If you abuse the auto and drive crazy, they take it away and charge you and sometimes send you to jail. If you abuse the gun, then they will send you to jail. So when they abuse the drugs, and use autos and guns or abuse family, enhanced penalties? Then it is a choice and to jail, not a hospital, as they willingly made these life choices?  See drugs and alcohol change the mind and behavior, the other things do not. There is the difference, when you use those things it CAUSES the problems. When you drive and auto, it doesn't cause the problem, the driver does. The gun does nothing, the person possessing it does. Drugs CHANGE people and behavior.

What is this emphasis on punishment about?

You seem obsessed with it.

The subject under discussion is whether or not the 'war on drugs' has been a dismal failure or not, and if there is an alternative .....  and if the alternative proposed by the mission statement is viable and well founded logically.

As to the extra costs in monetary terms to society, all indications are that the money saved from this phoney 'war' will be more than sufficient to cover any extra costs.

So you think, go look at the devastation of people on meth, heroin, crack, that has nothing to do with it being illegal. There ARE victims to it, go out in the real world and see. Freedom is never Free.

[NoIBnds]

Here is just one story, and this is with legal products.  http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/girlfriend_running_friends_belcher_OGIdPQMQWl3vKf4Jasj5EP
Lots of people think that legalizing means marijuana-- like the last elections referendums. Do you think if they had put ALL drugs on those referendums they would have passed?
Then just legalizing marijuana, that does nothing in saving money in the war on drugs, except to make it harder.
If you don't concern yourself with the other costs and punishments, you are only looking at a small portion of the problem/solution. Look at the costs to society of alcohol, then add another legal drug. Nothing is Free.
Look at the McAfee affair, drugs wacked his mind out.

[Jim Dandy]

"...Freedom is never Free."

And never lasts much longer than just enough time for the politicians to pass laws against it.

[NoIBnds]

"...Freedom is never Free."

And never lasts much longer than just enough time for the politicians to pass laws against it.

BUT without laws, there is no society or civilization, then it become the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. Darwin's Rules

[Jim Dandy]

"...Freedom is never Free."

And never lasts much longer than just enough time for the politicians to pass laws against it.

BUT without laws, there is no society or civilization, then it become the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. Darwin's Rules

Well, there are some laws that make sense but a lot more that don't. I think we could be just as civilized with a thousandth as many laws as there are on the books. Of course some of us could be civil if there were no laws on the books.

[ppiklapp]

"...Freedom is never Free."

And never lasts much longer than just enough time for the politicians to pass laws against it.

BUT without laws, there is no society or civilization, then it become the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. Darwin's Rules

Well, there are some laws that make sense but a lot more that don't. I think we could be just as civilized with a thousandth as many laws as there are on the books. Of course some of us could be civil if there were no laws on the books.

For every law, a freedom dies.  So at what point do we say enough with the laws because you are killing our freedoms.  I personally know of several people that use certain "illegal" substances and are causing no harm to anyone other than themselves.  I also know several people that are abusing legal substances and making everyone's life miserable.  Which is preferable? 

Let's do away with the idiotic laws, whether it is for drugs, cars, habitations, etc.  I once looked into moving closer to a job I held, but when I heard the ridiculous laws the small town had in effect, I decided I would rather drive a half an hour each way.  You basically had no control over your property.  The city had ordinances on what type of trees you could plant, how high you fence could be, what sort of decorations you could have in your yard and windows.  I told the person selling the house that I could not live there, because I like my freedom and my right to express myself.

I live in a state that is suing to keep the Affordable Healthcare Act from being enacted, the State Attorney states that the government cannot mandate people have to have insurance.  Meanwhile they are stepping up on car insurance enforcement.  Talk about being two faced.  Either you can't mandate insurance or you can.  If you can tell people they have to have one type of insurance, then you can mandate all types of insurance.

[Just17]

I live in a state that is suing to keep the Affordable Healthcare Act from being enacted, the State Attorney states that the government cannot mandate people have to have insurance.  Meanwhile they are stepping up on car insurance enforcement.  Talk about being two faced.  Either you can't mandate insurance or you can.  If you can tell people they have to have one type of insurance, then you can mandate all types of insurance.

There is a huge difference in those examples which you appear to have ignored.

On the one hand Health Insurance is something I pay for which pays out in the event I claim for illness or injury etc.
 

The legal minimum for car insurance here is what is called 'third party' .......  this insurance is to compensate people, other than the insurer, in the event of an accident/claim.
It is mandated in order to compensate others from the negative effects of my actions while driving.

I can of course up the insurance level to 'full comprehensive' which will provide compensation to me also for the negative effects of my driving.
That level is not compulsory ......  I can choose to insure myself or not!  The same applies to health insurance .....  I can choose to insure myself or not.

[NoIBnds]

"...Freedom is never Free."

And never lasts much longer than just enough time for the politicians to pass laws against it.

BUT without laws, there is no society or civilization, then it become the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. Darwin's Rules

Well, there are some laws that make sense but a lot more that don't. I think we could be just as civilized with a thousandth as many laws as there are on the books. Of course some of us could be civil if there were no laws on the books.

For every law, a freedom dies.  So at what point do we say enough with the laws because you are killing our freedoms.  I personally know of several people that use certain "illegal" substances and are causing no harm to anyone other than themselves.  I also know several people that are abusing legal substances and making everyone's life miserable.  Which is preferable? 

Let's do away with the idiotic laws, whether it is for drugs, cars, habitations, etc.  I once looked into moving closer to a job I held, but when I heard the ridiculous laws the small town had in effect, I decided I would rather drive a half an hour each way.  You basically had no control over your property.  The city had ordinances on what type of trees you could plant, how high you fence could be, what sort of decorations you could have in your yard and windows.  I told the person selling the house that I could not live there, because I like my freedom and my right to express myself.

I live in a state that is suing to keep the Affordable Healthcare Act from being enacted, the State Attorney states that the government cannot mandate people have to have insurance.  Meanwhile they are stepping up on car insurance enforcement.  Talk about being two faced.  Either you can't mandate insurance or you can.  If you can tell people they have to have one type of insurance, then you can mandate all types of insurance.

I agree with you to some extent-- it is a fine balance on laws.  No laws and it is the jungle, no civilization, too many and you have tyranny. The place you wanted to move with all the restrictions, the people there wanted those laws. That is the nice thing about local control, the closer to local, the more the people have input. I would not live there either, but the people there want it like that. You had a choice to live elsewhere
The difference on the Healthcare, is that it is mandated for being alive and breathing in this country. It is not like you can move to a different state, you have to give up your citizenship and leave the country-- not local control, but federal. Also there are huge tax burdens for the state if enacted. The Auto insurance, is only mandated if you drive a vehicle on the public way, and it is to protect others from the drivers actions. Driving is a privilege not a right, last I looked living was a right. It also has to do with the way the USA is set up as a Republic. Massachusetts enacted healthcare with mandates, if you didn't like it could move out of that state, yet still be a citizen of the USA. If you liked the idea you could move into that state. 50 states and each states citizens could decide which is best for them. Same thing with the referendums on the drug laws. The people get to decide and each state is a laboratory on what works. Yet with Federal Drug laws it overrides and thwarts the will of the people of that state. Same thing with Roe V Wade-- took that from the States and gave it to the Federal Government. Thwarts the will of the people in each state to decide. The further out the laws are made the less it is the will of the local people. If you live in a small town, the leaders are people you see all the time and can call if you like or dislike. Try that with a senator or the President. 

[The Chief]

Well, there are some laws that make sense but a lot more that don't. I think we could be just as civilized with a thousandth as many laws as there are on the books.

All criminal law and most civil law can be replaced with a single sentence:  "Thou shalt not use force nor fraud to impose one's will on another."

[Bald Brick]

Well, there are some laws that make sense but a lot more that don't. I think we could be just as civilized with a thousandth as many laws as there are on the books.

All criminal law and most civil law can be replaced with a single sentence:  "Thou shalt not use force nor fraud to impose one's will on another."

Well spoken. I couldn't agree more.

[dixonpete]

I just noticed this thread and would like to put my two cents in.

There's some things about MJ I find problematic. Firstly is that it's airborne. A mind altering drug that that can reach me without my consent I find intrusive. I find tobacco smoke similarly irritating not for the brain altering part but for the lung altering aspect. I feel that other people should have the right to damage themselves but not me.

Then there's the thing where embryos can supposedly be damaged in the womb by pot. Have their brains changed on them. Not cool.

And lastly there's the thing about people being impaired while driving and there is currently no level/test for that.

Overall though I feel pot is likely less troublesome than alcohol so by extension probably should be legalized and the risks minimized as much as possible. I'd also like to advocate for SOMA, that sci-fi drug of yesteryore that causes a nice high without causing any damage http://www.denofgeek.com/other/12573/top-10-sci-fi-drugs