My deepest apologies, Mr. Endon. :)
Printable View
My deepest apologies, Mr. Endon. :)
If you want to keep your children out of bars when they are eight, but why should you impose your ideas on others? Do you think that you have the wisdom to know how everyone should live their lives. I doubt that you do, and I know that I don't. If people want to drink boose, that's their choice, and it is not my responsibility to restrain them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariamosis
No, that does not make you a moralist. That makes you someone who wantsto control the actions of others in areas where their actions have no impact on you. Some people would describe that as interfering in things that are none of your business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Endon
Your analogies were quite irrelevant.
Could you be more specific about how you think that I "backtracked"? I am still opposed to there being age restrictions on the sales of alcohol and drugs. If parents want to forbid their children from buying something, that's a completely different matter.Quote:
Also, the distinction must be made between parents allowing kids to have a sip and actually selling alcohol to kids. No problems with the former, a lot of problems with the latter. You seem to have backtracked on your very interesting and unusual views after your exchange with Mariamosis, and now I can't tell for sure where you stand on this. If you still stand by selling alcohol to 8-year-olds I'm sorry to have misinterpreted the last two posts.
Ah, but allowing a child to drink of their own accord? Children are very impressionable. If a parent drinks in front of a child (which is fine), the child begins to imitate the adult (which naturally children do), and children have free reign of alcohol... so how would we not be imposing our views on others?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Yes, I just remembered how much more closely children are being controlled by their parents these days. I think that children should be allowed to act as they wish within some reasonable restrictions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariamosis
In the last few years parents have been trying to dictate the activities of their children for everry minute of every day. If that's what you think is proper, then your dictatorial comments make more sense.
Mariamosis, nothing to apologise for!
Please consider analogies and "backtracked" comment withdrawn; let's agree to disagree with the former and I apologise for my misinterpretation regarding the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
How is it not my business? Do you think that just because I don't use drugs I have nothing to do with them? So I'm only allowed to have a say on that issue if a toxicodependent mugs me so that he can feed his addiction. Or when a cousin becomes addicted and makes my uncles go bankrupt. Or when my child ODs. Your idea of 'free for all so long as there's no interference with others' is fine by me, but for you apparently it's not my business if I don't use. If that's what you think, I must say you're wrong. It has everything to do with me as well.
I don't believe that pot necessarily sharpens yours senses (with the exception of your sense of taste :)), but it definitely had a relaxing effect when test time came, hence, I didn't let the stress overwhelm me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Endon
Regarding driving: I am sure that I was less aware than I believed myself to be, and would never do it again, but at the time it sure seemed like I was a better driver. :rolleyes:
There are several issues there, but you can make your statement on anything that you wish. The bankruptcy of your uncles would be caused not by addiction but by the illegality of the drugs to which your cousin became addiction, a cost that skyrocketted when the drugs were criminalized. The same would be true, if your were robbed by a "toxicodependent", assuming that means someone who is assisting a drug addict in gaining money although he or she is not also addicted. If your child OD's, that would be a personal tragedy, but it would not be an issue for me. You seem to think that the world should be set up to save you from any possible unhappiness, even at the expense of the unhappiness of many other people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Endon
It seems that you favor nanny government. I don't think that anyone has the wisdom to determine how others should live their lives.
Mr. Endon, are we about to practice Godwin's Law or utilize Occum's Razor with this one? (only kidding)Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Yes, parents are imposing more strict methods of restraint (all of which I do not agree with), but to use this as an argument for children consuming alcohol freely? Children have always imitated their elders regardless of how constraining the rules became for them.
Haha!, but wouldn't that be a shame, this discussion is so interesting.
No, I wouldn't like a 'nanny government'. But I would like some degree of regulation. Is regulating dangerous substances like drugs so as to protect children from them being a nanny? Then yes, I want a nanny government. I must say I don't understand the kind of world you want. Anarchy? I understand that personal choice and personal responsibility are important, but with no regulation at all (and I infer from your posts that that would be optimal to you) chaos would ensue. Like you said, history teaches, and I'm sure history says, that's just not viable.
[Thanks for the quotation marks, just done a quick search and realised that 'toxicodependent' exists in my mother tongue but not in English. You live, you learn!]
I consider the excessive restrictions on children to be a reasonable argument in this matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariamosis
Iagree that children tend to imitate their parents. Children also tend to rebel against their parents and against rules.
Just keep in mind that many people are quite cabable of living a perfectly good life without getting orders from some government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Endon
There is a huge distance between excessive government control and chaos. Governments have never been good at anything except negotiating differences between or among people. Governments get regulations of individual behavior and business behavior wrong every time, and gavernments always get war wrong. Remember that governments are run by people who aren't as bright as you, and they don't understand the information that they have, so they just do something, and that something is usually wrong.Quote:
I must say I don't understand the kind of world you want. Anarchy? I understand that personal choice and personal responsibility are important, but with no regulation at all (and I infer from your posts that that would be optimal to you) chaos would ensue. Like you said, history teaches, and I'm sure history says, that's just not viable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Children tend to rebel once puberty begins... at a more advanced age.
(okay now I am just splitting hairs)
So you waited that long before you tried getting away with breaking the rules!! You missed a lot of fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariamosis
PeterL, I'm honestly curious about the sort of society you envision. Apparently, it's one where people are absolutely free and there's no government in the modern usage of the word. Does it have a name, this theory, or is this just a vision of yours? Could you elaborate on your idea of what a government should do, or why there shouldn't be regulation at all?
Yes legislation - legislation giving full power of distribution to the government, as is similar to the laws here for distribution of cigarettes and alcohol. People will smoke and snort no matter what - if the government monitors it, a) crime will be shot in the foot, as there won't be any more drug smuggling or dealing, and b) the taxpayer will get a chop from the profits, instead of just some underground gro-ops making cash and not paying any taxes, or some thugs smuggling the stuff in through the borders.
This is getting a little off topic, however:Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I did break rules, but in elementary school and early middle school I was not getting drunk and handling narcotics. When hormones began pumping through my veins things became a little different.
I envision a society where people will live their own lives and let others live their own lives without interference. This is the traditional American ideal that has been around for hundreds of years. These days it is referred to as Jeffersonain Democracy. In the past it was called by a number of names, depending on who was talking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Endon
Has it ever existed? Pretty much in the early 1800's.
"The government that governs least governs best." The purpose of government is to do those things that individuals can't do for themselves and to adjudicate disputes.
Governments make big messes of little messes, as anyone who has studied history knows. It is nice to have people available to settle disputes, and to build and maintain roads, but governments waste little time in poking into things that do not need regulation.
Thomas Jefferson once famously stated 'my right to swing my fist ends at the other man's nose.' I paraphrase to fit this discussion: My right to impose my opinions ends where another person's life begins.
I am a little unsure of where I stand when separating mild drugs from harsh drugs.
I think everyone here agrees that marijuana would be considered mild. Where does everyone stand with heroine, cocaine, crack, crystal meth, ecstasy, PCP, mushrooms, & etc?
...and what about legal drugs such as salvia, red dawn, whip-its (nitrous oxide), & etc?
I don't see why any intoxicants should be treated differently from others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariamosis
Certain drugs have different health risks that are associated with them, and some are more likely to materialize into problems than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
The health risks vary as much from person to person as they do between substances. Cocaine is an excellent example: about 20% of people are not affected by it, but others are affected to a great degree. Tolerances to opiates and alcohol also vary widesly. What would get one person a minor buzz would kill others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariamosis
This, and the millions who use (or abuse) drugs would not have to be labelled criminals. I hope it can be true sometime, though it seems unlikely. Unless you go to Amsterdam of course...Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I completely agree with you here, but I have trouble grasping the idea of all narcotics becoming legal without any regulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I understand that people should have the freedom to do what they want with their body, but you have to sympathize with the teen and/or adult who wants to experiment and dies because the proper steps weren't taken to prevent a fatality.
There is a stigma that seems to be spreading here about tobacco smokers, and I am not speaking of impending laws regarding non-smoking restaurants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava
People are beginning to snub their noses at smokers in general; whether or not they are smoking in their vicinity. Strange.
It would be nice, if there would be regulation as to the purity of the substances. As far as dosage goes, people would decide for themselves. Fatalities happen now, but most of the fatalities now are from adulterated drugs. There are people who will killed themselves with drugs regardless of the regulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariamosis
Completely false, I see the analogy from a poetic point of view. But slaves were forced to work for nothing. Being free includes the option to kill oneself and become addicted. Sure you can argue that we're all slaves to an imaginary economy, but that's a bit far, I want tobacco, and so Philip Morris provides it for me. Supply and demand.Quote:
Originally Posted by amarna
Well, I think it's hard to tell who should handle freedom and who shouldn't. I guess the route which society has taken now is that of freedom for nobody, so that no one feels left out. I on the other hand want freedom for everybody, so that no one is left out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Endon
{edit}
Things like pot..no biggie. Even if you don't like it, it doesnt result in rehab and abandoned children and all that.
But when you look at something like speed, for example, that does result in all of those things.
True, it's not fair for anyone else to have to pay for treatment programs and jails and all that, but should we really make it a free for all?
And what about people who have made a mistake? Not all druggies are bad people. Some of them just made stupid choices they can't get out of. At least not without help. But I know and work with reformed addicts (both of drugs and alcohol) who are doing extremely well in life now after intervention and rehab programs
That's the biggest problem I have with legalization. Cocaine is just so damn addicting, for example in her younger years a friend of mine tried cocaine and liked it a lot. when you are on cocaine all you want is more cocaine. Now this friends was able to control the habit because of two things - lack of money and it was a little hard to get. Now, speed up 15 years and legalize drugs, both of those obstacles are gone. I would worry that my friend would become addicted the day after it became legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
For the most part I'm for legalization, but I would worry about the impact of anything other then marijuana and maybe I would even say just legalize marijuana and maybe mescaline (are the kids still doing that?).
{edit}
No I'm not for any decriminalization. None. We are trying to push cigarettes out of the culture and reduce alcohol and people are thinking of adding more harfmful products to the list? That's working toward the wrong direction.
How can a gov't allow harmful products out in the open market? We require people to wear seat belts and you want them to put those products on a supermarket shelf?Quote:
Things like pot..no biggie. Even if you don't like it, it doesnt result in rehab and abandoned children and all that.
But when you look at something like speed, for example, that does result in all of those things.
I have no idea what you mean for a free for all. I don't want to pay for anyone's stupidity. They get high and get their jollies and I can't afford certain things? I was raised right. I went to school and graduated, didn't get into trouble, got a job and get up at 4:30 AM every morning, and I have to pay for some punk? Sorry, that's not too cool in my book.Quote:
True, it's not fair for anyone else to have to pay for treatment programs and jails and all that, but should we really make it a free for all?
Well, good for them. I hope their paying society back somehow. But you said it best: they made bad choices. If drugs were legal, would it any longer be a "bad" choice? It's legal. It's becomes an option. Another choice. Any drug choice is a mistake. Any. Legality sets a line of demarcation of what is acceptable and what isn't. If it becomes legal, I definitely don't want to pay for it. That's their choice. My moral obligation is through.Quote:
And what about people who have made a mistake? Not all druggies are bad people. Some of them just made stupid choices they can't get out of. At least not without help. But I know and work with reformed addicts (both of drugs and alcohol) who are doing extremely well in life now after intervention and rehab programs
R e m i n d e r
Please do not personalise your arguments.
Posts containing such comments will be deleted without any further notice
and
lead to thread closure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
I've never heard of anyone doing mescaline. Aside from Hunter S. Thompson :P
Cocaine is a scary one due to it's extremely addictive quality. I don't think it would necissarily become easier to get as I think people would still operate illegally. They'd get more money that way. But with jail/prison overcrowding, having people in for drug offences fills up incarceration space/time/money and then violent offenders get out way too early and way too easily. An individual's addiction or potential for addiction (as cruel as this may sound) is thier own responsibility, or the parents in the case of minors. Government can't and shouldn't control that, nor should citizens be financially responsible for preventing/treating that. Outside of drug education, that is.
My crabbiness come through. :p Sorry. Some things hit a nerve. I have no patience for those who choose to do the wrong things in life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
It was popular in the late 80's.:alien:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stargazer86
I was speaking about legalization. I don't know if my friend would be able to walk in a store that had cocaine next to the marlboros. On the other hand I never thought in terms of decriminalization. Now that might not be a bad idea.... Ya know a while back there was in article in Atlantic monthly (and we've had this conversation before) about the war on drugs being 30 years old and the amount of drugs coming into this country are greater then ever before.Quote:
Cocaine is a scary one due to it's extremely addictive quality. I don't think it would necissarily become easier to get as I think people would still operate illegally. They'd get more money that way. But with jail/prison overcrowding, having people in for drug offences fills up incarceration space/time/money and then violent offenders get out way too early and way too easily. An individual's addiction or potential for addiction (as cruel as this may sound) is thier own responsibility, or the parents in the case of minors. Government can't and shouldn't control that, nor should citizens be financially responsible for preventing/treating that. Outside of drug education, that is
Why should it be the government's responsibility to educate minors about drugs, but they're not allowed to have any control over the substances? Seems like that's just pawning off parental responsibility a bit there (and I don't mean that as an accusation to you Star, just the general idea :))Quote:
Originally Posted by Stargazer86
If it's the government's job to teach minors that cocaine can have serious negative consequences, then they reserve a right to have some control over the availability of said substance.
Also, how far do we take this legalization? What about prescription drugs like painkillers or controlled drugs such as Ketamine? Are we just going to start handing those things out as well? In that case, prescriptions become irrelevant if you can get whatever you want over the counter and then who's going to bother to see a doctor anymore. The world would be overcome with self-medicators. That's no longer a healthy society.
So you're saying legalize it and let the parents and the druggie pay for it? Well, you know that won't happen. They can't afford it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stargazer86
And still, gov't mandates wearing a seat belt, and you're going to allow gov't to put out on the open market things that are directly harmful to people? What about the person that would never try drugs if they were illegal and now sees it on the supermarket shelf (or where ever it is) and says let me give it a try? Studies have shown (that I've read, and have no idea where they are so don't ask me to pull them out) that when you make something legal, more people will partake.
It is merely wrong from your perspective, which is based on your personal moral standard. Based on this view, it can be argued by some that living healthy is wrong too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Well, when drugs lead to job losses, bankruptcy (sp?), broken families, addictions, I think any moral relativism goes out the window. I think society has an obligation to set moral standards. I have no idea how living healthy can be viewed as wrong. Frankly like I said, if someone chooses to do the wrong things in life, don't come crying to me. I have a family to support.Quote:
Originally Posted by AimusSage
Government should always HELP people. Not take care of them.
We should legalize things for the fact that we want to HELP these people. Not to hand them drugs.
Everything should be taken in MEDIOCRITY. Should the government HELP them? Yes, I really think they should.
Should people be RESPONSIBLE? Yes, I really really think they should.
Will people always be RESPONSIBLE? No, sadly they won't.
Will people be willing to ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY? No, sadly they won't.
Legalization is about who we could blame: Is it the parents? Is it the abuser? Maybe it's the environment. Maybe God told me too. Who else, other than me, can I say gripped that red cup and poured it down my throat? Well, I didn't do it. I don't remember when I started drinking cause I was too drunk last night at Jeff's kegger. Woo!
Do you want to HELP me? No, cause I don't have a problem. It's just a drink, right? I can control myself. Just pour me another. Wait, can you get some of that coconut rum stuff? There's no kick to it so I can drink that ALL DAY LONG. 40% alcohol but I don't care about my liver, who needs a liver? I'm 20 years old gaddamnit and I have a full life to lead. My wife is pregnant and I finally got into community college. My life looks pretty good. Now hand me that cup filled with the golden-goodness, eh?
Who wants to take care of a lowlife junky/addict/sub-human? I don't. The parents should. Wait, the environment. Its their fault. They should pay for some of the rehab.
Humans are dumb.
I wish it was an analogy. Hampusforev, I was chainsmoker since I was 16 and smoked 50, 60 cigarettes a day for approximately 10 years. Smoking the very first package was my free choice, ok, but the other 10.000 packages were not. It was result of a neurochemical defect induced by nicotine. I gave 30.000 Euro (sure I was forced to work for the money) to the tobacco industry and got - a cough. :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by hampusforev
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I see what you mean about how we're trying to push out cigarettes and alcohol, but I doubt they'll ever be out completely. Is it really the government's right to control so many personal aspects? Don't you partake in the occasional drink or perhaps a cigar or cigarette? The government has no right to tell you not to. The issue comes in when people get hurt as a result of other's poor choices.
I meant free for all, not as in drugs actually being free for all, but as in legalizing all drugs and saying anything goes. I'm against that. Do I think pot should be legal? Yes. Do I think speed should be legal? No freaking way. I agree with your response on that. I think you misunderstood me. Or that I worded poorly. I'm operating on virtually no sleep and realize I am not writing very clearly.
Drugs are traditionally a "bad" choice regardless of whether or not they're legal. Unless it's used medicinally (and I don't mean smoke a bowl because you have a headache...I'm referring to terminal patients) it's not really a "good" choice as there are no actual benefits. I don't think anyone should be responsible for paying for anyone else's habits at all. Which is why I get ticked off when I'm in line at Food 4 Less and see someone buying a bunch of food on food stamps and then paying cash for thier beer and smokes. In a way, we're still paying for that habit.
But where do you draw the line between personal responsibility and what the government should control? You can't force people to be responsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Well not in that way exactly. I'm saying it's thier own responsibility to pay for it, or in the case of parents with minor children, to deter thier children from doing it through means of education.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the crime (or pay for it)
Classic (sorry, I still don't know how to quote more than one person in a message), I see your point, but I don't see it so black and white as that. I'm not saying make it a free for all or go handing out drugs, but decriminalize it and tax it. Prison overcrowding is overwhelming and expensive and a lot of these people are just in for possession. Because of overcrowding, people who are violent offenders are getting off way too easily and way too quickly.
As far as educating children, it doesn't hurt and isn't that expensive to have programs like Red Ribbon Week. Who knows how effective these are in the long run? A lot of the kids still end up using as they get older, but it does stick with some people. Better than ignoring the subject all together. And what about kids who are growing up in a household where the parents are substance abusers. Don't we want to stop, or at least try and stop the cicle?
You're never going to stop the circle. The best you can do is influence the people around you to make the right decision.
That's all.
But that's the thing when it comes down to it: legal and illegal. Black and white. If Alcohol and tobacco are legal, pot should be. Then if pot is legal, so should cocaine be. Then cocaine is legal, and if something as harmful is that is legal, we should have the right to narcotic painkillers. That's the problem. I'm not saying it would be a "free-for-all". I'm not saying we'll have people driving along throwing pills out to the general public. It would be as controlled as alcohol and tobacco are, but even with legal buying ages and penalties for misuse, there are still astounding levels of alcoholism and there would be astounding levels of drug misuse as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stargazer86
And I don't see the validity of your prison overcrowding argument either. If the prisons are overcrowded, the dealers end up back on the streets, correct? Either the dealers do it illegally and end up back on the streets, or they do it legally and never leave the streets in the first place. And I disagree- violent offenders aren't getting off easy because we don't have room for them, they get off easy because we feel the need to protect them from each other while they're in jail. People incarcerated because they're child molesters are kept separate from other convicts because they would be killed by the other convicts. I see that as being wasted space, but that's another argument altogether.
And I'm certainly not arguing against drug education! I think it's very valuable because for the most part as far as I've found, the schools do a better job of keeping up with what's currently popular than the parents do. I just think that if it is the government's responsibility to educate the children instead of the parents, it should to some degree be the government's right to impose restrictions.
I think that's the problem, though, Sheep. There's a lot of different people doing a lot of different influencing and there needs to be something to trump it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by aBIGsheep