| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
The Doctor 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
 Posted: November 04 2010 at 00:39 |
 The T wrote:
Textbook wrote:
T: Where am I "deciding" that people functioning poorly is a bad thing? Are you saying it's not?
And your example of the depression pills is embarrassing. Obviously the idea is that these people would be performing even worse without them. |
The example was not the best really, but it stands that you want people to function well. You're saying that high people function poorly and that's an argument against legalization. That's an argument against people using weed when they shouldn't be, for sure, but not a proper argument against legalization. If you say that people are not responsible if left to their own devices, you're arguing in favor of control, aren't you? |
That's a typical neo-con argument Teo. People are not responsible enough to make their own moral choices and decisions. However, miraculously, people's (especially the wealthy) financial choices are responsible and in the best interests of everyone. 
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
 |
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 00:43 |
The T wrote:
Textbook wrote:
T: Where am I "deciding" that people functioning poorly is a bad thing? Are you saying it's not?
And your example of the depression pills is embarrassing. Obviously the idea is that these people would be performing even worse without them. |
The example was not the best really, but it stands that you want people to function well. You're saying that high people function poorly and that's an argument against legalization. That's an argument against people using weed when they shouldn't be, for sure, but not a proper argument against legalization. If you say that people are not responsible if left to their own devices, you're arguing in favor of control, aren't you? |
On top of that, Textbook, don't you think its rather hypocritical of you to be putting your personal moral stances ahead of what is respectful to the secular nature of the documents that founded this country? Liberty for all men doesn't mean liberty for all men, except when enough of us personally disagree with another based on our own principles.
The only time somebody's personal freedoms should be held back or revoked is when that said person is causing harm to others and/or infringing on their rights as well. It goes back to the very beginning of what the USA was built on. The concept that personal freedoms would not be infringed, and the bureaucracies wouldn't try to run their lives. What people do on their own time or to their own bodies should not be the government, or anybody else's business unless harm is caused to others. When that happens, of course laws will be in place to punish and prevent. But don't act as if your own logic behind the matter somehow overrules or outweighs the constitution. It doesn't.
And don't say that simply because the possibility of harm to others stems from pot use excuses the drug war, because that is certainly not what this country should be about. If we were to pass laws that eliminated everything that could potentially be a hazard, we would have absolutely nothing to do. You're making an exception on this pot issue, and I'm interested in why you think the situation is so different that the exception should be allowed to stick.
Bottom line: even when (or especially when!) the actions of others don't make sense to your own outlook or approach to life, you still need to support their right to behave the way they want because tomorrow somebody else on the other side might just be trying to stifle your freedoms and hinder your way of life. If a bad law is causing more chaos than it is worth and is not doing its proper job, and especially if the law is unconstitutional, it needs to be eliminated. It's a bad law.
Sorry, I know I said I wasn't going to go over this earlier, but now I feel more willing to debate some more. 
Edited by JLocke - November 04 2010 at 00:53
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 01:53 |
|
The purpose of marijuana use is to alter your brain such that it doesn't work properly, that is why it is an exception. It is not a possible result, it's the explicit purpose.
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 02:50 |
|
One other thing: On the eve of a probable global water/food crisis, is it really wise to start devoting all this water and land to a pleasure crop?
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 03:01 |
Textbook wrote:
The purpose of marijuana use is to alter your brain such that it doesn't work properly, that is why it is an exception. It is not a possible result, it's the explicit purpose. |
Why should that make any difference? And by the way, many pot advocates (I dare say all pot advocates) would disagree with you on the point you made about the only use for marijuana being to alter your mind to the point of being high as a kite. Yes, many smokers do it for that very reason, but many more use it simply as a way to unwind, relax, treat certain ailments medicinally, etc.
It's the same situation with everyone across the globe who consumes alcohol on a semi-regular basis, as well. Many of them just like to get drunk, but many others enjoy socializing and relaxing with it, and a routinely practiced intake of a small amount of alcohol has been said to actually be helpful to one's health in specific cases. So, to act as if the only reasoning behind the desire to freely smoke pot is to get out of your head and irresponsible is a gross oversimplification, and frankly, disingenuous. I cannot believe you aren't aware of the other arguments for cannabis consumption, and it's dishonest of you to frame it in as broad and naive a way as you just did.
Setting all this aside, however, you still fail to make a point. Let's say I grant you the claim that pot only leads to high-off-their-asses individuals with improperly-operating brains and no sense about them. Let's say I concede to that notion, as incorrect as it is. I would still say it's unconstitutional to bar individuals from partaking of the substance in the privacy of their homes. It isn't the government's job to save people from themselves. It isn't the government's job to do anything that infringes on the rights and civil liberties of the American citizens.
All you have to do is read the first three words of the Preamble to the United States Constitution: ''We the people''. The country was built around the idea that the people come first, not the government. That does not mean the people's personal freedoms should be unjustly limited simply because the intentions are to keep them safe. The intentions could be noble as all hell, but it still wouldn't be a justifiable action under the laws the constitution set in place. It means the people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves, and the only time the government should step in is if obvious harm or infringement of freedom would be imposed on a person by someone else. All the real crimes that are justifiably punishable by law are included in this concept: murder, theft, rape, etc. To say that an exception should be made simply because there is a chance a person might be causing harm to himself by smoking or eating some plant is outrageous.
Edited by JLocke - November 04 2010 at 03:55
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 04:05 |
I really don't care what the constitution says. It's silly to be eternally beholden to a document. Do what you think is correct.
Secondly, respond to my point about water/land.
Thirdly, it's positively clownish to say that people getting high all around the show isn't going to negatively affect others. Of course it is. They will make poor decisions and cause problems that will affect other people.
|
|
Deleuze
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 02 2010
Location: Qc
Status: Offline
Points: 193
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 04:59 |
|
rofl, I can't believe California said no...huhu
|
|
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 05:06 |
Textbook wrote:
I really don't care what the constitution says. It's silly to be eternally beholden to a document. Do what you think is correct. |
I'm glad you've finally admitted yourself that you don't care what the constitution says. That explains everything to me, now. The mistake you seem to make, and I'm honestly surprised by this, is that you imply I'm dogmatically following a text simply because it holds a status. When in fact, all that any follower of the constitution says is that we are following the ideas and concepts that the document talks about and stands for. It's everything we are about as nation. We wouldn't be where we are today without those stances that were taken by the founding fathers. Same with the declaration of independence, obviously. Neither of these documents are mere pieces of paper full of empty words that could be interchangeable with anything else just as easily or have the same end result in the long run. No, these are concepts that have anchored our very culture and society with very specific principles. The idea that governments are put in place to serve their people and not the other way around is the core of what the founders fought for. It's an insult to wave it all away as if it's some outdated philosophy that should be disregarded in the face of political correctness or people's best interests. I don't care about running anybody else's life, I only care about the government butting out of mine.
I am doing exactly as you implore me to do; I am doing what I think is correct. Because I think what the constitution states is correct. Not just because ''it's the Constitution,'' but because of its relevance to modern society and how it speaks to me morally and logically. So I stand by what it says. The irony is that without our constitution, you and I wouldn't be able to openly express ourselves right now. You're acting as if what it talks about is somehow disposable or interchangeable with alternate philosophies you might personally deem to be more moral. You don't seem to realize that the very thing you ''really don't care about what it says'' gives you the right to say such a ridiculous thing to begin with. It's beautifully ironic, really. Even the ignorant are allowed to speak under the first amendment in the bill of rights. So, as I said, what I'm doing is what I think is right, because I'm standing up for the very foundations of my country. I don't know what else could be more important. The constitution covers the freedoms of all people. That's the most moral principle I could ever hope to support.
Certainly amendments are made, some of which have worked out better than others, and so forth, but you cannot simply throw the whole thing out and start nitpicking about what we should or shouldn't allow people to do. At least, you're not supposed to. Many modern laws push for such things to take place, however. Like making the total consumption of recreational drugs in any situation illegal. I don't agree with it. I think it's wrong. The moment you start sacrificing personal liberty in favor of anything else, even if the reasons behind the action are well-intentioned, you weaken the very concept of freedom. That's not me blindly reciting some rhetoric I've been programmed into trusting, that's me speaking very plainly about something I truly believe is correct and moral and just. That's it.
|
Secondly, respond to my point about water/land. |
That's an issue I'm not educated enough in to have a fully-informed debate about, but in the end I still say to let people do what they want. If the behavior would begin to infringe on others, then I would of course expect the government to put some sort of regulation in place, but how that would be determined and whom it would regulate, I don't have an easy answer to. I'm not going to pretend that I know a whole lot about it when I don't, to put it simply. Needless to say, one of the smarter board members will answer you in more detail, I'm certain. Bottom line, though: if it doesn't involve direct harm or infringement of rights being exchanged between people, it shouldn't be the people's bound-by-law responsibility to fix.
|
Thirdly, it's positively clownish to say that people getting high all around the show isn't going to negatively affect others. Of course it is. They will make poor decisions and cause problems that will affect other people. |
Well, as I already pointed out and you seem to be deliberately ignoring, people won't be getting high all around the show. It just doesn't work that way. People don't go shooting everything and everybody in sight just because guns are legally obtainable, and people aren't killing everybody else in drunken rages because alcohol is around. In both cases, of course, regulations are in place that make it difficult for just anybody to walk in and order a scotch or buy a pistol. You don't think a similar approach would be taken with pot? Certainly nothing nearly as severe, simply because pot smoking is the least dangerous of all three scenarios I've discussed. But restrictions of sorts will always be put in place to keep people as well-mannered and law-abiding as possible. If anything, making pot a legally-available drug would make it even safer, because we could regulate it and keep better track of who frequently smokes it. Children would find it much tougher to get ahold of it because store clerks and pharmacy workers tend to be much more concerned with seeing I.D. than the average dope dealer on the street corner.
And when those particular folks who do abuse the substance take it that far, they will be punished just like anybody else who commits a crime against somebody, or puts themselves in the position to do so. Just like when someone drinks and drives. If he or she is caught, action is taken. If he or she isn't caught in time and causes harm to another, even more severe action is taken. Until such an event occurs, we cannot simply start locking people up or fining them if they partake of the substance at all, in any capacity. That's insane. You're making criminals out of people who for the most part will never do such a thing in the first place.
Do you honestly think that somehow passing a bill to legalize pot will turn on some sort of end-of-the-world switch and everybody will just start getting high in public and act like maniacs? How little self-control do you think we humans have? Plenty of people already smoke pot outside the law. More than you might think. When was the last time you heard a news report involving someone getting hit by a driver high on pot? When was the last time you heard about a family quarrel ending in tragedy because someone had a little too much weed to smoke? So, somehow making it legal to smoke is suddenly going to change the effects pot has on people, change the behavior of those already smoking it, or even encourage others previously disinterested to change their personalities and toke up left and right? You're living in the land of oz if you believe that.
Edited by JLocke - November 04 2010 at 05:31
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 05:14 |
Textbook isn't American he lives on the island next to the land of Oz 
|
|
What?
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 05:32 |
JLocke: You are saying that people will behave as reasonably as they do now once they are given further exposure to a substance that impairs their ability to reason.
Listen to yourself.
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 05:39 |
Textbook wrote:
JLocke: You are saying that people will behave as reasonably as they do now once they are given further exposure to a substance that impairs their ability to reason.
Listen to yourself. |
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Human beings as a whole aren't rabid, illogical idiots just itching for the chance to cause chaos and harm others.
You are taking the position that simply because laws would be passed making pot legal to smoke, but monitored, regulated and taxed, that is somehow going to make people go after the substance and wreak havoc. All after I've already explained the illogicality and over-assumptive nature of that position.
Listen to yourself.
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 05:40 |
|
Alright, so the availability of guns does not result in any additional fatalities that wouldn't occur if guns weren't available. That's what you're saying.
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 05:43 |
Textbook wrote:
Alright, so the availability of guns does not result in any additional fatalities that wouldn't occur if guns weren't available. That's what you're saying. |
No, that's not what I'm saying. If you're unable to grasp the meaning of my arguments clearly, then don't bother debating me because my patience wears thin rather quickly and we won't get anywhere.
EDIT: I'm going to bed, but if you still wish to debate, I'm more than happy to pick this up again once I wake. Just please try to not stick words in my mouth in anticipation of some trite response you assume I will give so that you can make your point. I'm not saying it was intentional, but that is all I really ask.
Edited by JLocke - November 04 2010 at 05:51
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 05:54 |
|
Look, you know, if you need chemical alteration and unecessary consumption/production that wastes time, money, water, land, labour and brain cells to make your life tolerable because you're unhappy or at least less happy without it, that's your business but I'd probably go see a psychiatrist first before injecting poison into myself.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 06:08 |
Textbook wrote:
You are saying that people will behave as reasonably |
It is human nature not to behave reasonably, high or otherwise. 
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
The Tourist
Forum Groupie
Joined: September 15 2010
Location: NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 74
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 10:54 |
Textbook wrote:
One other thing: On the eve of a probable global water/food crisis, is it really wise to start devoting all this water and land to a pleasure crop? |
The obvious argument against this point is that the cannabis crop can be used for literally hundreds of other purposes other than its most popular one. In fact it was because cannabis is such a versatile crop that it posed such a threat to the corporations that lobbied to get it banned in the 1930s. Again Textbook, it would be great if you did some research before talking.
|
|
Vibrationbaby
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 10:59 |
|
I've never done the sh*t. But it's not a home wrecking drug like alcohol which is bloody legal.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 11:19 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Depends on what you mean by widespread availability, and this kind of thing is probably impossible no know, as reliable scientific methods only got into full usage right about when we made everything illegal, but if I had any reputation to stake I would stake all of it that if everyone over the age of 18 took psilocybin mushrooms or something similar once a year, our society would probably be a lot more open-minded, and very likely understanding, loving, and forgiving. I recognize virtually no net negative result form this scenario.
|
I'll admit that I've never experienced a hallucinogen, but I am pretty sure this is hippy bullsh*t. |
I don't think so. I'm not a hippie at all, but under supportive conditions hallucinogens have been described in studies as some of the most revelatory, euphoric, and wonderful experiences of the user's life, greater than any religious epiphany, or sexual experience. I walked away from it awe-inspired, and I don't see why almost everyone couldn't benefit from such an experience. It may be unfair to say it, but until you've experienced it yourself, you have no idea what you're talking about at all.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 11:32 |
TheTourist wrote:
Textbook wrote:
One other thing: On the eve of a probable global water/food crisis, is it really wise to start devoting all this water and land to a pleasure crop? |
The obvious argument against this point is that the cannabis crop can be used for literally hundreds of other purposes other than its most popular one. In fact it was because cannabis is such a versatile crop that it posed such a threat to the corporations that lobbied to get it banned in the 1930s. Again Textbook, it would be great if you did some research before talking.
|
Commercially cultivated Cannabis sativa (hemp) is low in psychotropic THCs and is useless as a recreational drug. The subspecies that is high in psychotropic chemical is pretty useless as a source of fibre or oil.
|
|
What?
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 11:34 |
Here's one area where our government is just being silly. There could be great utility in this crop, and as you said no one is going to try and get high off of it.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Should marijuana be legalized?
