Thanks, Mr E - I thought it must be something like turning a blind eye if the purchase was 'for personal use'.
Printable View
Thanks, Mr E - I thought it must be something like turning a blind eye if the purchase was 'for personal use'.
Don't mention it, kasie; from what I understand, it is so in Greece at least, and in Portugal it's actually quite legal.
In response to Classic Charm: to legalise is not to hand out (I must admit I committed the same mistake in a post replying to PeterL). Of course there must always be restrictions to that sort of drugs, that's what prescriptions are for. To legalise drugs is not to put them up for sale at your local market, but simply not to prosecute those who use them.
It has never been proven that marijuana causes cancer. Yes, smoke inhalation is bad for your lungs. There are numerous other ways to consume marijuana without the necessities of smoke and thereby eliminating toxins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Endon
An acquaintance of mine had received news from his doctor that he had serious lung cancer and was not expected to live more than a few months. He immediately stopped treatment with the doctors and began a strict regime of smoking vaporized cannabis. He went back to the doctor two years later and his cancer had not spread. That was 6 or 7 years ago and it has still not spread. (I know, everyone has a "miracle story", and maybe that was an isolated case, but we can't really say for sure)
Secondly marijuana is NOT addicting. I was a user for over a year (morning, noon, and night; everyday) when I decided that I was tired of spending my money, I stopped. There were no withdrawals, no pain, and I wasn't moody. I just woke up and didn't smoke.
In fact during the year I was using, I found I could substitute marijuana for tobacco and not have cigarette withdrawals. Therefore I quit cigarettes thanks to marijuana. (and it wasn't just me, I don't have enough fingers to count how many friends have quit tobacco the same way and after years have not started again) I don't know anyone who has quit tobacco "cold turkey", with the patch, or the gum who have not had some sort of withdrawals.
I will bet my life's savings that he understood it much better than you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
I've spoken with lawyers and judges about this matter and they were of the opinion that it does. But they're no medics, so let's assume they don't know what they're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariamosis
While it's true that it may not cause lung cancer like as much as tobacco does (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...501729_pf.html), it is still carcinogenic (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4350642.stm) and two months ago a study suggested that it may also cause testicular cancer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7869709.stm).
Well, cancer or no cancer, let's agree on this much:
(This is in the abstract of a study in SpringerLink (http://www.springerlink.de/home/main.mpx), which, ask anyone, is an impartial and highly reliable source.)Quote:
Chronic daily cannabis use has been shown to have long term harmful health effects
The lawyers and judges I spoke with also here say it IS addicting. But don't take my word for it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariamosis
Quote:
A subset of marijuana smokers develop a cannabis use disorder and seek treatment for their marijuana use on their own initiative. A less well-known consequence of daily, repeated marijuana use is a withdrawal syndrome, characterized by a time-dependent constellation of symptoms: irritability, anxiety, marijuana craving, decreased quality and quantity of sleep, and decreased food intake.
Quote:
Conclusion Co-morbid psychiatric disorders are common among heavy cannabis users seeking treatment. Some psychiatric disorders occur more frequently in this group compared with users of other substances.
(More abstracts from SpringerLink.)Quote:
Neuropsychological deficits and differences in brain functioning are most consistently observed only among frequent, heavy users, who are those most likely addicted to cannabis. The dire impact of drug addiction on a person’s life and everyday functioning suggests that the large number of individuals addicted to cannabis experience substantial negative effects from its use.
I think it's terrific that you weren't addicted. However, (I don't want to come across feisty, but) the truth is that that proves absolutely nothing. That fallacy is known as "hasty generalisation"; it's like saying "well, that guy was shot in the head and didn't die, ergo getting shot in the head doesn't kill you".
Thanks for the links. I will view them later today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Endon
I am not going to argue much on the point of cancer, since I only have one source (an quite possibly an unreliable one) to back up my comment.
I can't speak for the tests that were done, but personal experience is hard to overcome. (although personal testimony from someone you met on the internet is hardly convincing, I am sure :) )
I am not a scientist, and I am therefore not going to say 100% that marijuana is not addicting. However, I have met hundreds of people (literally)that I have spoken with regarding their personal experiences with marijuana, and have never heard of one person claim withdrawal symptoms.
I will say that it seems to inhibit your mental processes a bit even between use, however, after a few months of non-using, people always seem to recouperate. (even users of 20 years)
I can't speak for your lawyers and judges either, and I must say I am a little skeptical about their opinion, since I have worked for lawyers and have seen their "so-called" research tecniques. I am not trying to slander your lawyers, however, we must remember that they are only human. You have to wonder where they get their information and you also have to wonder where these medics and scientists get their funding. :)
And I'd double up on that bet, if I could.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Al
I'm sure it is hard to overcome, and it's quite a reliable source of information, straight from the well, if you will. I'm only alerting to the fact that only studies using a reasonable sample can give us an accurate perspective on things like these.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariamosis
I believe you. I must say that I had no idea that cannabis was addicting (I've never done drugs, so I'm very naïve in that respect). It was only after talking with these people working in law that I was introduced to the idea. I'm starting to accept it as valid after having skimmed through a good deal of studies on the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariamosis
And neither did I say it's 100% addicting; you may notice my careful phrasing: "may cause cancer and be highly addicting". The thing is, even though some people are happily immune to its grip, we should always be careful about generalising that idea and thus incurring in the aforementioned fallacy.
Yes, I've heard of reports which described recuperations to that effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariamosis
Well one is a relative and the other is a friend, so I don't have much reason to suspect of them! (by the way, in my opinion you can count on the judges to be very sensible, it's the lawyers you must be careful with ;))Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariamosis
And sure, there's a lot of shady business going on, and as for bias, it's very hard to escape it: if you write "cannabis cancer" on google, most of the websites are blatantly either pro-legalisation or anti-legalisation, and there's no prize for guessing what kind of conclusions the "studies" they quote come to. That's why I try to stick to quality websites like JSTOR, SpringerLink, Project MUSE, Wiley, etc. No 'unbiased studies' guaranteed, I guess, but then again, is there such thing?
Your argument against drugs based on the idea that alcohol has been a part of culture for over ten thousand years is a bit compromising to your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Marijuana has been grown for fiber and used as a source of medicine for several thousand years.
Cannabis has been used therapeutically from the earliest records, nearly 5,000 years ago, to the present day and its products have been widely noted for their effects, both physiological and psychological, throughout the world.
Therefore marijuana has "been part and integral to culture" for over 5000 years. "It cannot be stripped out of the culture", but it has, just as alcohol has been in the past.
Mr. Endon, always keeping me on my toes! :)
I will get back to this conversation in an hour or so!
I'm not really going to discuss this much more because it hurts, but one guy very very close to me - well it caused a number of problems in his family. It's also physically affected him. He said it was a "social thing" that helped him relax; but it's even screwed with other friend's minds as well. It affects the way they think - not always in a positive way. It has different effects on people, you can't legalize it on the basis that "it didn't affect me badly so it won't affect anyone badly", and you can't make it illegal because "it affected them badly so it will affect everyone badly." It's too much of an individual thing, yet at the same time, it's a dangerous thing. Some people might take something every day for 50 years and be fine, someone might try it ONCE and die. Therefore, the people doing it can keep on doing it, obviously they know what they're doing and they aren't likely to stop if they feel they don't have to - regardless of it's illegal or not, however that fear that results with drugs being illegal might prevent some people from taking things. I'll admit that while I've been curious every now and again, I've never taken any illegal drugs, and never will. Why? Because they're illegal. If they weren't, I would have, I bet (then again books like Go Ask Alice and Anna's Story do put me off even being curious). And who knows what might happen to me, and who knows where it will lead. Some people do indeed use the logic that "well this is illegal and I'm okay, lets try something heavier!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Endon
I understand some people need illegal drugs for medical use. I don't think that that should allow everyone to use them.
People choose to do drugs, knowing that they are illegal, and that's their decision. I suppose a counter argument to what I previously said is that taking away the "illegal" status would prevent some people from taking drugs because the "danger" isn't there, it's not as "rebellious" or "exciting". However, the freedom that would come from drugs not being illegal would certainly result in an increase, would it not? People wouldn't get in trouble for it, and so it would become more widespread, become more advertised in a way, because people would be able to use freely without the fear of being fined or jailed etc. Therefore, a higher demand, and higher risk for more people, as it would become easier to obtain.
Oh, Mariamosis, not trying to put you in check or anything :) I think we actually agree in regard to the whole picture, it's the details that always give food for discussion.
sprinks, I agree with most of what you said. Your post summarises why this is such a hot topic. I'll just reply to two bits:
I'm very aware of the intricacy of the matter, yet one stance must be adopted. The government doesn't make things illegal because they think that "everyone will be affected badly", but because some (or most, or a few) will, and worse than that, because those that will be affected will in turn affect others. The solution in Portugal seems to be the best one: traffic is illegal, consumption is legal (but not entirely without restrictions).Quote:
Originally Posted by sprinks
That's what one would think. However, practical instances show that such speculations are ultimately foundationless. I suggest you to read the excellent article that Taliesin posted here, the Portuguese case study, where all drug use has been legalised for 8 years now and there are not yet any aggravations of any kind to speak of, in fact apparently only improvements: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...l?iid=tsmoduleQuote:
Originally Posted by sprinks
---
EDIT: On the top of this page: "Beat Your Addiction, free advice on the best treatment, discounts available". You gotta love the Google ad-sense. The wonders of technology!
You would probbaly lose them. Like all of his acolytes, Mill talks a lot about rights but seldom mentions responsibilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Al
This is a very good point. Much of the problem with milder drugs is too much trust on the part of the consumer and/or untrustworthy providers.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Not to mention the risk of reusing hypodermic needles. (eek!)
You know, no one is going to agree on this. But interesting debate nonetheless.
However, this curious concept keeps appearing at random stages throughout the thread. It appears in many different forms but basically seems to amount to this:
it is irresponsible to permit people to take responsibility for themselves
I've done some research and it appears to be an increasingly commonly encountered phenomenon known as the responsibility vacuum, a doughnut shaped device found in kitchen cupboards. The responsibility vacuum operates at night when it sneaks into bedrooms and sucks all the responsibility from the room, leaving the occupant slightly euphoric and totally incapable of making decisions for themselves.
Weird, or have I been watching too much Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
I noticed that problem also. I don't think that you idea of a vacuum was involved. I think that some people have been brainwashed into thinking that the so-called authorities actually know how they should live their lives, and they do not know how to live their own lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Mill writes extensively about responsibility, both in the final section of "On Liberty" and in another famous philosophical discourse of his entitled "Utilitarianism." It is Mill's assertion -- and my own -- that, in a free society, the government can only restrict the actions of an individual on if they infringe on the freedoms of another, each individual being responsible for his own behavior. If a person's action do not oppress or do harm to another, then on no logical grounds does the government have either the right or the responsibility to restrict his freedoms. However, in such a case where an individual's action does cause harm to a fellow human being, Mill affirmed the absolute responsibility of the government to step in and take direct action against him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Mill is only saying what any sensible person knows instinctively i.e. that individual freedom has its parameters. What those parameters should be obviously cannot be determined by the individual without them being called into question. Hence, the necessity for a legal framework to decide what they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Al
Certainly individual freedom has its parameters, and those parameters are the freedoms of others. Everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and so long as a man does not threaten the liberty of his compatriot, he should be free to do so in every instance; there can logically be no other limits in a free state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
It is a fine line which the governmening body must walk to craft and enact legislation, because every law must have two fundamental goals: to honor the beliefs of the majority (or those beliefs which either benefit or ensure the safety of the general populace), but to do so only insofar as the law does not infringe on the rights of the individual. When governments disregard the second goal, when they ignore the voice of the minority or disregard the right of the individual to do as he likes so long as he does no harm to his neighbor, the legal framework creates a state of oppression and injustice which has rationalized persecution, slavery, segregation and genocide, all because they were in accord with the will of the majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Al
Because the pursuit of happiness will often be carrried out at the expense of others, we have laws deigned to prevent such an occurence. Those laws are passed by the legislature in accordance with the will of the majority rather than the individual because it would be wrong to allow a minority to impose its will on the majority. The fine line that you mention between between honoring the rights of the majority and the individual is decided by the government and the courts who are the only bodies who have a legal right to make that decision, whether we agree with it or not.
Just because it happened like that in that country doesn't mean it will in all. Cultures are different, and will take to the matter different. Subcultures within those cultures too will take to it differently. I accept that perhaps in some places it could end up with improvements, but I still don't think that should allow the legalisation of drugs, because it certainly would not be positive for every person in every country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Endon
Yes, that is correct, and is, in fact, exactly what I have been saying in every post. And when happiness is pursued at the expense of nobody but the individual pursuing it, why is it the government's concern? Why is it your concern?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
In the United States until the 1960s, laws were passed which discriminated against blacks and kept them segregated into poverty and squalor. Was this right? After all, it was the will of the majority at the time. Would the government allowing blacks equal treatment under the law have been an example of the "minoirty imposing its will on the majority?"Quote:
Those laws are passed by the legislature in accordance with the will of the majority rather than the individual because it would be wrong to allow a minority to impose its will on the majority.
Instances like these are why a fair government in an egalitarian state absolutely cannot simply listen to the majority and ignore the minority, because it leads to minorities being discriminated against by the very law of the land. This is why governing bodies must realize that they can enact legislation only insofar as they do not infringe on the freedom of the individual. I fail to see how protecting minorities from majority prejudices and allowing them the basic freedom to do whatever they want in life as long as their actions do not harm others amounts to minorities oppressing majorities.
I am not arguing about the way things are; if that were the case, we would all be debating whether or not drugs are legal, an argument which really wouldn't last very long, for obvious reasons. I am arguing for the way things should be, ideally and necessarily, in a free nation, and just as we would never condone slavery or segregation -- actions of the government -- we cannot condone the idea of the government controlling our lives at the expense of personal liberty. If we do not agree with it, there are always alternative courses we can take; no human being ever has to sit back in complacency and say, "The government has robbed me of my freedom, but such is my lot in life."Quote:
The fine line that you mention between between honoring the rights of the majority and the individual is decided by the government and the courts who are the only bodies who have a legal right to make that decision, whether we agree with it or not.
Now explain this to me: explain to me why, if I do so without harming you or anybody else, I should not be allowed to smoke marijuana? Why do you feel the need for the government to control behaviors you dislike whether or not they infringe on the lives of others?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprinks
Absolutely, I agree, cultures differ greatly. But let's face it, no one solution can 'be positive for every person in every country'. It's definitely a case by case situation, and you'd me an injustice if you inferred from my statements that I'm suggesting a wholesale worldwide legalisation. What I am suggesting is,
1) just because [blank] seems the logical result doesn't mean that's how it'll necessarily turn out in real life. Here's a quote from the article:
2), and following from 1), it would be very foolish to turn a blind eye on the cases of Portugal and the Netherlands, the only two countries that I know of that do not criminalise drugs and none of which has had any problems because of it.Quote:
At the Cato Institute in early April, Greenwald contended that a major problem with most American drug policy debate is that it's based on "speculation and fear mongering," rather than empirical evidence on the effects of more lenient drug policies. In Portugal, the effect was to neutralize what had become the country's number one public health problem, he says.
The fact that you might wish to take drugs at nobody elses expense doesn't mean that others will act accordingly. In this country there have been a number of accidents caused by people driving while smoking marijuana and also killings by drug users due their being drugged at the time. The government has to take an overview of the problem and acting on advice from the medical authorities (BMA), prohibits the unnecessary use of drugs per se. It is also a personal concern because I don't want to attacked or injured in an auto accident because some people happen to feel that their personal freedom is being compromised by the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Al
As for slavery and segregation, it was governments that legislated to bring them to an end.
The below link is reason enough to keep drugs illegal even though it will never be completely enforced.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/27/wo...e-bizarre.html
I am reminded of a passage from "On Liberty":Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
If the government enacted drug legislation simply because of safety, then alcohol should not be legalized. After all, more people die in alcohol-related car crashes per year than marijuana or any illicit drug. Do you ever enjoy a drink, Brian Bean, or at the very least imagine a situation where a man may drink alcohol in moderation without commiting heinous crimes or smashing his car into an unsuspecting pedestrian? Do these instances represent the majority of alcohol drinkers, or a simple few? Is it fair to the majority to punish them because of the transgressions of the minority? Wouldn't that be an example of the government allowing the minority to indirectly oppress the majority, to take away the rights of the majority because a few are unable to handle the responsibility of freedom?Quote:
Originally Posted by John Stuart Mill
You cannot, I repeat, cannot restrict liberty in a free state based on the possibility that people may infringe on one another's liberty, because this amounts to punishing everybody for the transgressions of the few. The same applies to drugs, to guns, to anything; "he who would sacrifice his freedom for a little safety deserves neither freedom nor safety," and it is the complete antithesis of a free government which attempts to control behaviors which might, but are not necessarily or inherently, be harmful to others. After all, where do you draw the line? You are worried about being injured by a driver under the influence of drugs? I am constantly worried about being injured by any driver who may be sleepy, who may not be paying attention, or who may simply lose control of his vehicle for some reason or another. Therefore I say that cars are simply to great a danger for citizens to be allowed to own and drive them. And in case your counter-argument to this analogy is that drugs offer not benefit to society, then allow me to take preemptive action and disagree.
First, drugs have been shown to be enormously beneficial in numerous medical treatments from glaucoma to cancer, and they are an effective pain reliever. Second, the legalization of drugs would actually contribute to a safer, more ordered state with far less crime, as explained in an issue of "The Pragmatist":
The legalization of drugs would also help formally end organized corruption, would cripple the mafia and other organized crime syndicates, it would help control the spread of AIDS and other infectious diseases spread through unclean needles, it would help end prison overcrowding and unclog the courts, and it would free up billions and billions of dollars of public funds, a small fraciton of which could be used to fund free or inexpensive drug treatments for addicted users which have been shown to be exponentially more effective than prison sentences or conventional punishments.Quote:
As Jeffrey Rogers Hummel notes ("Heroin: The Shocking Story," April 1988), estimates vary widely for the proportion of violent and property crime related to drugs. Forty percent is a midpoint figure. In an October 1987 survey by Wharton Econometrics for the U.S. Customs Service, the 739 police chiefs responding "blamed drugs for a fifth of the murders and rapes, a quarter car thefts, two-fifths of robberies and assaults and half the nation's burglaries and thefts."
The theoretical and statistical links between drugs and crime are well established. In a 2 1/2-year study of Detroit crime, Lester P. Silverman, former associate director of the National Academy of Sciences' Assembly of Behavior and Social Sciences, found that a 10 percent increase in the price of heroin alone "produced an increase of 3.1 percent total property crimes in poor nonwhite neighborhoods." Armed robbery jumped 6.4 percent and simple assault by 5.6 percent throughout the city.
The reasons are not difficult to understand. When law enforcement restricts the supply of drugs, the price of drugs rises. In 1984, a kilogram of cocaine worth $4000 in Colombia sold at wholesale for $30,000, and at retail in the United States for some $300,000. At the time a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman noted, matter-of-factly, that the wholesale price doubled in six months "due to crackdowns on producers and smugglers in Columbia and the U.S." There are no statistics indicating the additional number of people killed or mugged thanks to the DEA's crackdown on cocaine.
For heroin the factory-to-retail price differential is even greater. According to U.S. News & World report, in 1985 a gram of pure heroin in Pakistan cost $5.07, but it sold for $2425 on the street in America--nearly a five-hundredfold jump.
The unhappy consequence is that crime also rises, for at least four reasons:
Addicts must shell out hundreds of times the cost of goods, so they often must turn to crime to finance their habits. The higher the price goes, the more they need to steal to buy the same amount.
At the same time, those who deal or purchase the stuff find themselves carrying extremely valuable goods, and become attractive targets for assault.
Police officers and others suspected of being informants for law enforcement quickly become targets for reprisals.
The streets become literally a battleground for "turf" among competing dealers, as control over a particular block or intersection can net thousands of additional drug dollars per day.
Conversely, if and when drugs are legalized, their price will collapse and so will the sundry drug-related motivations to commit crime. Consumers will no longer need to steal to support their habits. A packet of cocaine will be as tempting to grab from its owner as a pack of cigarettes is today. And drug dealers will be pushed out of the retail market by known retailers. When was the last time we saw employees of Rite Aid pharmacies shoot it out with Thrift Drugs for a corner storefront?
When drugs become legal, we will be able to sleep in our homes and walk the streets more safely. As one letter-writer to the Philadelphia Inquirer put it, "law-abiding citizens will be able to enjoy not living in fear of assault and burglary."
http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/12reason.htm
Only after they became worn down by the tireless efforts of civil rights activists, minorities whose rights had been trampled on by the majority and by the government for hundreds of years prior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
This economic rationale for legalizing drugs is, along with the tax revenues and decreased costs for police, corts, and prisons, the strongest argument. After what happened around alcohol during prohibition, one would have thought that the lesson had been learned, but it didn't sink in. Nearly all of the crime related to drugs is caused by the legal ban, rather than to the use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Al
The harm done by people using illegal drugs in the course of their intoxication is negligible, a small faction of the rate for people using alcohol or who are not intoxicated. If you worry about that, then you should also take precautions against meteors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
I could give chapter and verse to your arguments but it would be to no avail. You are obviously a libertine and I am obviously a conservative. {edit}I repeat, the law is the law by democratic acceptance and that really is it until you and your cohorts are able to change it by pleading your cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Al
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
The law is neither just nor fair because it is a law or because it is supported by the majority. Luckily there are plenty of "anarchists," such as Martin Luther King, who with his "cohorts" plead his cause and revealed to the world what oppression a democratic government could be capable of. Or perhaps you are in support of segregation? No matter either way as the government will eventually take the just path, right? Even if it takes a few hundred years.
But I suppose you could give "chapter and verse" explaining to me why every law enacted throughout history has, in fact, been just and worthy of unquestioning obedience. Some people simply cannot bow out of a debate with dignity and grace...
F i n a l 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.
Exactly, and that is why I support laws designed to keep it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Oh, and incidentally, the scientific community are doing quite a lot of work on trying to prevent meteors from striking earth.
OK, I was not aware that there were laws that encouraged people to get drunk and cause automobile accidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
The scientific community is looking for ways to detect large asteroids that might cause widespread damage. While considerable progress has made in detection, the plans for doing something about stopping them from doing great damage has not moved. I was referring not to the mountains but to the micrometeors.
I agree that there are many automobile accidents caused by drink driving but the anti-drug laws that we have, prevent a similar situation arising through people using drugs. If we have an accident problem because of alcohol, it is senseless to compound it by allowing further intoxicants to be taken?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
In what way would the legalization of drugs be "compounding the problem"? Under the influence of marijuana, and other hallucinogenic drugs people are usually very careful and drive cautiously. Under the influence of CNS stimulants people usually drive the way if they had not taken any drugs. CNS depressants have effects that are similar to alcohol, but people often drive while under the influence of legal CNS depressants now. Most of the people who drive while under the influence of drugs that are presently illegal are already driving under the influence of alcohol, so the net effect would be safer roads, because they would be using things that would have less negative effect on their driving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
That is not the view of the medical authorities, if it were, they would be recommending issuing marijuana and hallucinogenic substances to drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
You may be giving too much credence to the so-called "medical authorities". When you see an announcement from them, the medical part has been reduced so that it will fit what politicians want said. One example of that is the matter of alcohol consumption and heart health. The experimental results show that the more alcohol one consumes, the healthier the heart, but public is falsely told that moderation is best, even when heart health is involved. On the other hand, the experimental results announced are not always what actually happened in the experiment. One should be extremely careful about relying on the so-called "medical authorities".Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Al
I haven't quite bowed out of this thread although I may do after answering your last two posts.
1. Alcohol and tobacco are often cited as a reason for legalising other narcotics:
When the English colonists of Virginia introduced tobacco to Europe in the 17th century, they thought it was a good idea;we know now that it wasn't. After the link between smoking and health was made in the 1950s, the UK government didn't try to ban it as that would have led to a black market and cries of human rights violation. Instead, they chose to hammer home the heath risk for the next 50 years to the point where many people, myself included, gave up smoking altogether. A further extension of this tactic has been the recent anti-passive smoking campaign
It looks like alcohol will be next on the agenda and hopefully that will go the same way in due course, even though I drink quite heavily myself. If people can be persuaded to give up stimulants that are damaging to their health, not to mention their wealth, that must be more sensible than allowing them to continue regardless of the consequences.
2. I mentioned the medical use of drugs in my first post.
3. If the inclination to take illegal substances is tackled in the same way as that used for the elimination of legal drug use, in the long term the drug barrons will lose out to common sense, even though there will remain certain sections of the community who will still use to them. The bottom line is that
nobody, outside of medical necessity, needs to take drugs. For those who still insist on doing so, it should be done within democratically enacted constraints.
4. Obviously I dont know that every law that has ever been enacted throughout history has been just, but what I do know is that respect for the rule of law is the bedrock of civilisation and that its opposite is anarchy.
And what about people who realize its negative health effects and choose to drink or smoke regardless? We must not "allow" them to continue, to put their own health at risk if they so choose? I know many people who turn to cigarettes or alcohol (or bad food, or sex) as a means of, for one instance of a positive benefit, relieving stress. They understand that they are putting their health at risk, but it is a trade-off that they choose to make. I think that it is an excellent idea to encourage drug abstinence through non-coercive tactics. But freedom is ultimately about choice, and a free government should not be able to regulate such behaviors, because I don't think you realize just how murky the line becomes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Does the government have the right to pass a law forcing unmarried couples to abstain from sex until they are married? Certainly this would cut down on the number of STDs contracted, and also the number of unwanted pregnancies. You justify banning drugs on the grounds that they can be detrimental to one's health, and certainly an individual can contract STDs through sexual intercourse. Do you honestly believe that pre-marital relations ought to be outlawed? If not, how can you justify holding both positions without engaging in hypocrisy?
Another example: should homosexuals be allowed to even exist in society? No, I am not a homophobe. However, there are many (typically Christian fundamentalists) who believe that homosexuality is harmful to society, and even that the social acceptance of it precipitates deaths, natural disasters and terrorist attacks. Can you legally ban and restrict it on this basis? What if the majority in a democratic society believes so?
The first part of your arguments isn't really supported by...Well, anything, so I don't feel the need to argue with it. As for the second part: there are few things we do in life that we actually need to do. I don't need to eat an ice cream sundae to stave off my hunger, and you don't need to drink alcohol for nourishment. You also don't need to sit and post on an Internet message board; you do it (presumably) because you enjoy it, or because it provides mental stimulation, or because it helps you relieve stress, or because you find it exciting. That's the beauty of life -- it is not a monotonous parade of everything we must do or need do; to celebrate life we do things we want to do, and so long as somebody's purely unnecessary, possibly even irrational desires don't infringe on my or somebody else's rights, that is perfectly fine with me. The government certainly can't legislate "need," or ban ice cream sundaes for that matter.Quote:
3. If the inclination to take illegal substances is tackled in the same way as that used for the elimination of legal drug use, in the long term the drug barrons will lose out to common sense, even though there will remain certain sections of the community who will still use to them. The bottom line is that
nobody, outside of medical necessity, needs to take drugs. For those who still insist on doing so, it should be done within democratically enacted constraints.
The opposite took place in 1776 when a group of anarchists we Americans like to call the "Founding Fathers" defied the official law of Britain and formed a free, independent nation. "An unjust law is no law at all."Quote:
4. Obviously I dont know that every law that has ever been enacted throughout history has been just, but what I do know is that respect for the rule of law is the bedrock of civilisation and that its opposite is anarchy.
sex puts your health at risk?
You've obviously never tried to have physical relations with Brigitte Nielsen.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexar
Al:
I have not gotten into this debate because it is beyond my pay grade, but can say one thing.
Tobacco is losing the addiction game, and coming from me, this is a net win for the nanny state. Cigarettes not only kill their users, but those around them. I am a poor writer barely hanging on in public housing, and until recently, smoked a pack a day. There were three smokers on my floor, and the cigarette odor was distinct in my hallway. One of these smokers moved upstairs, one died, and I am in a major struggle to end my addiction, sucking fake cigarettes for dear life, one, because I have given myself emphysema, and puke up phlegm in cycles that can be agonizing, and two, because I am tired of feeling guilty about the air quality on my floor. Tobacco cigarettes may not quite be illegal yet in the U.S., but it will be, give or take twenty years.
Having said that though, not every dangerous behavior can be regulated, I agree, but tobacco smoke is a social health hazard which has no real justification in defense of personal autonomy. Even my maintenance man had issues with his boss, my apartment manager, about smoking in the front of the building--though the company backed off a little on that. They did not come after me, too many tenants here smoke, but pressure on negative behavior doesn't have to be official.
Another reason I am fighting with it now is direct injury. I lit my hair on fire and cost Medicare and Medicaid thousands of dollars for my medical treatment, and have burn scars, which, though I am not vain, have made me resign myself to the fact that I'll probably never make love with anyone again, since I was too disabled for the standard pressure shirt treatment, and don't have a Bill Gates to fund plastic surgery.