I think it is simply another step in an ever permissive culture where such actions will slowly but surely lead to the gradual decline of society. But that's just me.
Wow...do you remember the cultural revolution of the 60's and 70's Zen? People were saying the same thing and our parents all turned out OK.
Maybe your parents turned out okay. Mine sure as hell didn't.
As to the point, I'm anti-legal weed. I had a ton of friends who used to smoke it, this caused them to begin to crave the next high, so they started doing heavier and heavier drugs, which aren't so "safe" as weed.
But Pyro, you say, not everyone is like that! We're good, responsible, potheads! We would never do such a thing as start smoking crack because we needed to get high! Maybe you wouldn't, but there's a good enough percentage that would that this is a bad idea.
All that said, smoke weed all you want, it's your body. But don't expect those of us who get through life without needing drugs to back you.
Originally posted by Teala People were saying the same thing and our parents all turned out OK.
Yes, but their kids are all fucked up.
To that end, I would say compare society today to where it was about 50 years ago and things are much worse now. Except for the disappearance of racism, our society is coming apart at the seams today.
Why don't we legalize all crime. That way we could abolish every law enforcement agency in the country. Think of the tax dollars that would save. But seriously, Briansho was correct that the overall effect on the economy would be a negative, imo. If everyone showed up to work buzzed, productivity would plummet.
Self ownership is the foundation of property rights, which is the foundation of all human law. marijuana laws are in direct violation of that. If you do not have the power to decide what goes into your body, then the government is the defacto owner of that body.
Therefore it is the marijuana laws that are a violation of the very principle of Law. This is why it has failed just as badly as prohibition.
Sounds like you are in favor of suicide as well. If one chooses to ingest poison, why not?
I never said I was in favor of marijuana. I am not in favor of a great many things that I do not feel should be illegal.
If you own your life, you have a right to take it. That doesn't make me in favor of it.
I am not in favor of adultery but I do not believe that should be a crminal offense. I am not in favor of alcohol consumption but I do not believe it should be a criminal offense. I am not in favor of profanity but do not believe it should be illegal.
If we judged what should be legal or illegal by "what we are in favor of" we will have totalitarianism.
What should be legal or illegal should have little to do with what we favor. What is lawful has more to do with the proper role of government in our lives. This is where both conservatism and modern liberalism fail miserably. They both create 'wish lists," then seek to impose it on others, instead of grounding their beliefs in human rights and rule of law.
Originally posted by Teala People were saying the same thing and our parents all turned out OK.
Yes, but their kids are all fucked up.
To that end, I would say compare society today to where it was about 50 years ago and things are much worse now. Except for the disappearance of racism, our society is coming apart at the seams today.
In other words, prohibition has failed, and has seemed to make matters worse.
Originally posted by Sabiancym What the hell are you talking about? Hemp contains what? .3% THC. You would have to smoke a pound of it within an hour to feel anything.
I'm not speaking of THC. Let me rephrase - you know not of the chemical additives in marijuna. I'm not speaking of natural chemicals found within the plant.
Oh, you mean the stuff that sellers lace it with...because it's sold on the black market...and there's no way to regulate it. I see.
Why don't we legalize all crime. That way we could abolish every law enforcement agency in the country. Think of the tax dollars that would save. But seriously, Briansho was correct that the overall effect on the economy would be a negative, imo. If everyone showed up to work buzzed, productivity would plummet.
Self ownership is the foundation of property rights, which is the foundation of all human law. marijuana laws are in direct violation of that. If you do not have the power to decide what goes into your body, then the government is the defacto owner of that body.
Therefore it is the marijuana laws that are a violation of the very principle of Law. This is why it has failed just as badly as prohibition.
Sounds like you are in favor of suicide as well. If one chooses to ingest poison, why not?
I never said I was in favor of marijuana. I am not in favor of a great many things that I do not feel should be illegal.
If you own your life, you have a right to take it. That doesn't make me in favor of it.
I am not in favor of adultery but I do not believe that should be a crminal offense. I am not in favor of alcohol consumption but I do not believe it should be a criminal offense. I am not in favor of profanity but do not believe it should be illegal.
If we judged what should be legal or illegal by "what we are in favor of" we will have totalitarianism.
What should be legal or illegal should have little to do with what we favor. What is lawful has more to do with the proper role of government in our lives. This is where both conservatism and modern liberalism fail miserably. They both create 'wish lists," then seek to impose it on others, instead of grounding their beliefs in human rights and rule of law.
I didn't mean you personally in favor of it, poor choice in words. I meant be able to take your life with the state's blessing. And it was just an example.
My problem with the legalization of drugs is that it helps to create a pyschology among individuals that it's OK, that doing drugs has no negative consequences. Yes it's up to the individiual to be able to discern right from wrong or good from bad, but since our government is supposed to be a government of the people, then I think there are some things where there's nothing wrong with the people collectively saying that some things should not be done. For example, stealing. When I was a child I was taught by my parents that stealing was wrong. That's good. However, without the threat of the state throwing me in jail for stealing to back it up, I think I would have been much less likely to take my parents' message to heart. My parent's say, "don't steal" and I say, "well what happens if I do?" They say, "if you steal, you go to jail." As opposed to me asking, "what happens if I steal?" and they say, "nothing." I can tell you I would be much more likely to steal.
Even with the consumption of alcohol, there is an age limit placed on it and it's a very regulated substance, so it's not as though it flows freely in society. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my opposition to it is not nazi-like. Marijuana will probably become legal eventually and if that is the will of a majority of the people, so be it. But to me it's just another signal of the decline of our culture. Sometimes I wonder if it's even worth fighting for anymore or if I should just throw up my arms and say, "Whatever."
Why don't we legalize all crime. That way we could abolish every law enforcement agency in the country. Think of the tax dollars that would save. But seriously, Briansho was correct that the overall effect on the economy would be a negative, imo. If everyone showed up to work buzzed, productivity would plummet.
Self ownership is the foundation of property rights, which is the foundation of all human law. marijuana laws are in direct violation of that. If you do not have the power to decide what goes into your body, then the government is the defacto owner of that body.
Therefore it is the marijuana laws that are a violation of the very principle of Law. This is why it has failed just as badly as prohibition.
Sounds like you are in favor of suicide as well. If one chooses to ingest poison, why not?
I never said I was in favor of marijuana. I am not in favor of a great many things that I do not feel should be illegal.
If you own your life, you have a right to take it. That doesn't make me in favor of it.
I am not in favor of adultery but I do not believe that should be a crminal offense. I am not in favor of alcohol consumption but I do not believe it should be a criminal offense. I am not in favor of profanity but do not believe it should be illegal.
If we judged what should be legal or illegal by "what we are in favor of" we will have totalitarianism.
What should be legal or illegal should have little to do with what we favor. What is lawful has more to do with the proper role of government in our lives. This is where both conservatism and modern liberalism fail miserably. They both create 'wish lists," then seek to impose it on others, instead of grounding their beliefs in human rights and rule of law.
I didn't mean you personally in favor of it, poor choice in words. I meant be able to take your life with the state's blessing. And it was just an example.
My problem with the legalization of drugs is that it helps to create a pyschology among individuals that it's OK, that doing drugs has no negative consequences. Yes it's up to the individiual to be able to discern right from wrong or good from bad, but since our government is supposed to be a government of the people, then I think there are some things where there's nothing wrong with the people collectively saying that some things should not be done. For example, stealing. When I was a child I was taught by my parents that stealing was wrong. That's good. However, without the threat of the state throwing me in jail for stealing to back it up, I think I would have been much less likely to take my parents' message to heart. My parent's say, "don't steal" and I say, "well what happens if I do?" They say, "if you steal, you go to jail." As opposed to me asking, "what happens if I steal?" and they say, "nothing." I can tell you I would be much more likely to steal.
Even with the consumption of alcohol, there is an age limit placed on it and it's a very regulated substance, so it's not as though it flows freely in society. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my opposition to it is not nazi-like. Marijuana will probably become legal eventually and if that is the will of a majority of the people, so be it. But to me it's just another signal of the decline of our culture. Sometimes I wonder if it's even worth fighting for anymore or if I should just throw up my arms and say, "Whatever."
The purpose of government is not to foster any kind of psychology. It is to protect human rights. The moment it steps beyond that it has become in that small way tyranny. There is everything wrong with people "colectively" (there really is no such thing as anything being said "collectively") saying something is "wrong" and thus remove people's self ownership. That is if you mean the force of the State prosoculting people.
saying something is wrong is just that, opening your mouth and saying so. What YOu are advocating is pointing guns at people and saying they are not allowed to do this wrong thing while at the same time working to erode the very foundation of right and wrong.
Age limits exist because young people who have not reached a given age of maturity are not considered to have full rights. That is a completely different argument from whether people own themselves or not or whether "psychology" is a legitimate reason to remove their self ownership. At what age what rights should be recognozed is an entirely different discussion that whether humans own themselves or not.
It is an immoral fight you are fighting. In fact, you are fighting against the very foundation of morality.
Ok so tax it.....and if the tax is deemed to high then drug dealers will still be around selling it cheaper then the legal prices. Unregulated uncontrolled drugs.
Also stating they could give it a age limit so minors couldnt do it is pointless. Many minors do it now and its not like they can't get their hands on tabacco or beer without much trouble either.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Ok so tax it.....and if the tax is deemed to high then drug dealers will still be around selling it cheaper then the legal prices. Unregulated uncontrolled drugs. Also stating they could give it a age limit so minors couldnt do it is pointless. Many minors do it now and its not like they can't get their hands on tabacco or beer without much trouble either.
Why don't we legalize all crime. That way we could abolish every law enforcement agency in the country. Think of the tax dollars that would save. But seriously, Briansho was correct that the overall effect on the economy would be a negative, imo. If everyone showed up to work buzzed, productivity would plummet.
Self ownership is the foundation of property rights, which is the foundation of all human law. marijuana laws are in direct violation of that. If you do not have the power to decide what goes into your body, then the government is the defacto owner of that body.
Therefore it is the marijuana laws that are a violation of the very principle of Law. This is why it has failed just as badly as prohibition.
Sounds like you are in favor of suicide as well. If one chooses to ingest poison, why not?
I never said I was in favor of marijuana. I am not in favor of a great many things that I do not feel should be illegal.
If you own your life, you have a right to take it. That doesn't make me in favor of it.
I am not in favor of adultery but I do not believe that should be a crminal offense. I am not in favor of alcohol consumption but I do not believe it should be a criminal offense. I am not in favor of profanity but do not believe it should be illegal.
If we judged what should be legal or illegal by "what we are in favor of" we will have totalitarianism.
What should be legal or illegal should have little to do with what we favor. What is lawful has more to do with the proper role of government in our lives. This is where both conservatism and modern liberalism fail miserably. They both create 'wish lists," then seek to impose it on others, instead of grounding their beliefs in human rights and rule of law.
I didn't mean you personally in favor of it, poor choice in words. I meant be able to take your life with the state's blessing. And it was just an example.
My problem with the legalization of drugs is that it helps to create a pyschology among individuals that it's OK, that doing drugs has no negative consequences. Yes it's up to the individiual to be able to discern right from wrong or good from bad, but since our government is supposed to be a government of the people, then I think there are some things where there's nothing wrong with the people collectively saying that some things should not be done. For example, stealing. When I was a child I was taught by my parents that stealing was wrong. That's good. However, without the threat of the state throwing me in jail for stealing to back it up, I think I would have been much less likely to take my parents' message to heart. My parent's say, "don't steal" and I say, "well what happens if I do?" They say, "if you steal, you go to jail." As opposed to me asking, "what happens if I steal?" and they say, "nothing." I can tell you I would be much more likely to steal.
Even with the consumption of alcohol, there is an age limit placed on it and it's a very regulated substance, so it's not as though it flows freely in society. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my opposition to it is not nazi-like. Marijuana will probably become legal eventually and if that is the will of a majority of the people, so be it. But to me it's just another signal of the decline of our culture. Sometimes I wonder if it's even worth fighting for anymore or if I should just throw up my arms and say, "Whatever."
The purpose of government is not to foster any kind of psychology. It is to protect human rights. The moment it steps beyond that it has become in that small way tyranny. There is everything wrong with people "colectively" (there really is no such thing as anything being said "collectively") saying something is "wrong" and thus remove people's self ownership. That is if you mean the force of the State prosoculting people.
saying something is wrong is just that, opening your mouth and saying so. What YOu are advocating is pointing guns at people and saying they are not allowed to do this wrong thing while at the same time working to erode the very foundation of right and wrong.
Age limits exist because young people who have not reached a given age of maturity are not considered to have full rights. That is a completely different argument from whether people own themselves or not or whether "psychology" is a legitimate reason to remove their self ownership. At what age what rights should be recognozed is an entirely different discussion that whether humans own themselves or not.
It is an immoral fight you are fighting. In fact, you are fighting against the very foundation of morality.
Ok, then let's look at it from a human rights standpoint. Some drugs are hallucinagenic and some people who suffer from drug induced hallucinations have proven to be a danger to themselves and/or others. I've never done drugs, so I don't know for sure how this manifests itself, but would you not be in favor of keeping drugs illegal based on this criteria or simply try to keep them out of the hands of those who might suffer from them?
I know cigarettes don't cause hallucinations and I don't think alcohol does either.
Why don't we legalize all crime. That way we could abolish every law enforcement agency in the country. Think of the tax dollars that would save. But seriously, Briansho was correct that the overall effect on the economy would be a negative, imo. If everyone showed up to work buzzed, productivity would plummet.
Self ownership is the foundation of property rights, which is the foundation of all human law. marijuana laws are in direct violation of that. If you do not have the power to decide what goes into your body, then the government is the defacto owner of that body.
Therefore it is the marijuana laws that are a violation of the very principle of Law. This is why it has failed just as badly as prohibition.
Sounds like you are in favor of suicide as well. If one chooses to ingest poison, why not?
I never said I was in favor of marijuana. I am not in favor of a great many things that I do not feel should be illegal.
If you own your life, you have a right to take it. That doesn't make me in favor of it.
I am not in favor of adultery but I do not believe that should be a crminal offense. I am not in favor of alcohol consumption but I do not believe it should be a criminal offense. I am not in favor of profanity but do not believe it should be illegal.
If we judged what should be legal or illegal by "what we are in favor of" we will have totalitarianism.
What should be legal or illegal should have little to do with what we favor. What is lawful has more to do with the proper role of government in our lives. This is where both conservatism and modern liberalism fail miserably. They both create 'wish lists," then seek to impose it on others, instead of grounding their beliefs in human rights and rule of law.
I didn't mean you personally in favor of it, poor choice in words. I meant be able to take your life with the state's blessing. And it was just an example.
My problem with the legalization of drugs is that it helps to create a pyschology among individuals that it's OK, that doing drugs has no negative consequences. Yes it's up to the individiual to be able to discern right from wrong or good from bad, but since our government is supposed to be a government of the people, then I think there are some things where there's nothing wrong with the people collectively saying that some things should not be done. For example, stealing. When I was a child I was taught by my parents that stealing was wrong. That's good. However, without the threat of the state throwing me in jail for stealing to back it up, I think I would have been much less likely to take my parents' message to heart. My parent's say, "don't steal" and I say, "well what happens if I do?" They say, "if you steal, you go to jail." As opposed to me asking, "what happens if I steal?" and they say, "nothing." I can tell you I would be much more likely to steal.
Even with the consumption of alcohol, there is an age limit placed on it and it's a very regulated substance, so it's not as though it flows freely in society. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my opposition to it is not nazi-like. Marijuana will probably become legal eventually and if that is the will of a majority of the people, so be it. But to me it's just another signal of the decline of our culture. Sometimes I wonder if it's even worth fighting for anymore or if I should just throw up my arms and say, "Whatever."
The purpose of government is not to foster any kind of psychology. It is to protect human rights. The moment it steps beyond that it has become in that small way tyranny. There is everything wrong with people "colectively" (there really is no such thing as anything being said "collectively") saying something is "wrong" and thus remove people's self ownership. That is if you mean the force of the State prosoculting people.
saying something is wrong is just that, opening your mouth and saying so. What YOu are advocating is pointing guns at people and saying they are not allowed to do this wrong thing while at the same time working to erode the very foundation of right and wrong.
Age limits exist because young people who have not reached a given age of maturity are not considered to have full rights. That is a completely different argument from whether people own themselves or not or whether "psychology" is a legitimate reason to remove their self ownership. At what age what rights should be recognozed is an entirely different discussion that whether humans own themselves or not.
It is an immoral fight you are fighting. In fact, you are fighting against the very foundation of morality.
Ok, then let's look at it from a human rights standpoint. Some drugs are hallucinagenic and some people who suffer from drug induced hallucinations have proven to be a danger to themselves and/or others. I've never done drugs, so I don't know for sure how this manifests itself, but would you not be in favor of keeping drugs illegal based on this criteria or simply try to keep them out of the hands of those who might suffer from them?
I know cigarettes don't cause hallucinations and I don't think alcohol does either.
If you own your body, you own your central nervous system and you own your mind. Therefore you have the right to induce any mental state you care to within yourself. You are still fully liable for all actions while under that condition of course, just like anything else.
You are basically saying (or implying rather) that not only does the State own your body, it also owns your mind.
Thank you for showing us all where this has led in our society. We no longer own our bodies, our minds, or our property.
Well, in a democracy (we don't really live in a true democracy, we live in a representative republic), the will of the people is supposed to be the rule of law and as far as I know the majority of Americans are still in favor of keeping most drugs illegal and I have no problem with that. In fact, I am in the majority. If the majority of the populace becomes in favor of legalizing these drugs, then I, at that point, being a member of the minority would have to accept the will of the people. And we do know that in some places of the country, opinion is moving in that direction and we are starting to see marijuana legalized for medicinal purposes in some states (personally I think that's a croc, I think it's being done under the guise medicine in order to mainstream it and eventually make it legal for whatever reason).
But this is why I think you can make an argument that law and morality are tied together in a democracy. Without some sort of moral anchor, it is theoretically possible for some very abhorrant behavior to become legal. Let's say we live in a society that is 51% male and 49% female. And let's say that every male in that society believes that it's ok to rape women. If they took a vote and 100% of the men voted for it, the women in that society would have reason to fear. And that's why, ultimately our laws are rooted in God's law and not man's.
Well, in a democracy (we don't really live in a true democracy, we live in a representative republic), the will of the people is supposed to be the rule of law and as far as I know the majority of Americans are still in favor of keeping most drugs illegal and I have no problem with that. In fact, I am in the majority. If the majority of the populace becomes in favor of legalizing these drugs, then I, at that point, being a member of the minority would have to accept the will of the people. And we do know that in some places of the country, opinion is moving in that direction and we are starting to see marijuana legalized for medicinal purposes in some states (personally I think that's a croc, I think it's being done under the guise medicine in order to mainstream it and eventually make it legal for whatever reason). But this is why I think you can make an argument that law and morality are tied together in a democracy. Without some sort of moral anchor, it is theoretically possible for some very abhorrant behavior to become legal. Let's say we live in a society that is 51% male and 49% female. And let's say that every male in that society believes that it's ok to rape women. If they took a vote and 100% of the men voted for it, the women in that society would have reason to fear. And that's why, ultimately our laws are rooted in God's law and not man's.
Actually no. In a representative republic, human rights, property rights, and self ownership ARE the rule of law, not the will of the people. The will of the people is subject to and limited by the rule of law, which is subject to human rights.
Law and morality are tied together in any society. It is immoral to claim ownership to any human being. That is my point.
I also agree with the God part. God says He owns me. You say the state does. I disagree with you and have to go with God on this one.
There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana at any time in US history.
That's quite misleading. I've known one person who died from lung cancer and they only smoked pot.
I used to work in law enforcement. I've seen several deaths due to auto accidents which resulted from the person at fault being high on pot. That site is complete bullshit.
Originally posted by Fishermage I also agree with the God part. God says He owns me. You say the state does. I disagree with you and have to go with God on this one.
Not exactly. What you say is true only if God's law and the state's law are in conflict with one another. Since the state currently says it is illegal to use mind affecting drugs and God's law says (I believe) love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, there is no conflict. And that's why (or one reason why) I have no problem with the illegality of drugs.
Now, if the state ever passed a law requiring you to use drugs under some circumstance, then I would have a big problem with that because it would come in direct conflict with God's law.
There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana at any time in US history.
That's quite misleading. I've known one person who died from lung cancer and they only smoked pot.
I used to work in law enforcement. I've seen several deaths due to auto accidents which resulted from the person at fault being high on pot. That site is complete bullshit.
I'm not questioning you here ,but how did you know the driver was high? Did the car smell or something? I'm pro-legalizing it and I know something like this is likely. I think the deaths caused by it are super low but not zero.
Anyway...other coutries where weed is legal seem to be doing ok. I admit it will probably be bad at the start ,but it will become the norm soon and it will even out. Yes the fiends and low lifes will over do it so what else is new? If we legalize it, we will create jobs for good hard working people and tax those who chose to smoke. win/win for responsible smokers .
Originally posted by Fishermage I also agree with the God part. God says He owns me. You say the state does. I disagree with you and have to go with God on this one.
Not exactly. What you say is true only if God's law and the state's law are in conflict with one another. Since the state currently says it is illegal to use mind affecting drugs and God's law says (I believe) love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, there is no conflict. And that's why (or one reason why) I have no problem with the illegality of drugs.
Now, if the state ever passed a law requiring you to use drugs under some circumstance, then I would have a big problem with that because it would come in direct conflict with God's law.
They are in conflict. You are saying the State owns us. That goes directly against God's law.
Stop trippin OP, that's not going to to help the wound in the economy, not only that you might need to lay off that stuff, even though I know ya want it to be legal so bad. Ha ha ha. Legalizing a drug like that will not heal the wounds right now. In fact it might just raise abuse (and no I'm not saying everybody abuses it, but it does have bad effects on long term users).
How is saving 9 billion a year + gaining however many billions in tax revenue + creating jobs in a new industry not going to at least help some?
Long term coffee use is linked to type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. Make it illegal.
Why don't you think it will hurt more than it will help though? We got a lot of drugs out there that will kill you. Could make it all illegal if ya want, but many of these are controled.
Stop trippin OP, that's not going to to help the wound in the economy, not only that you might need to lay off that stuff, even though I know ya want it to be legal so bad. Ha ha ha. Legalizing a drug like that will not heal the wounds right now. In fact it might just raise abuse (and no I'm not saying everybody abuses it, but it does have bad effects on long term users).
How is saving 9 billion a year + gaining however many billions in tax revenue + creating jobs in a new industry not going to at least help some?
Long term coffee use is linked to type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. Make it illegal.
Why don't you think it will hurt more than it will help though? We got a lot of drugs out there that will kill you. Could make it all illegal if ya want, but many of these are controled.
Having marijuana illegal hurts far, far more than it helps, which is the point I think Sabian was trying to make. the point is the potential harm to the user is not relevant to whether something should be illegal or not. The question is, do people own their bodies? If not, then fine, the state may regulate what we put into them. If we DO own their bodies, then this whole system of reasoning that leads to certain things people freely choose to do to themselves being forbidden by the state is self-contradictory.
There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana at any time in US history.
That's quite misleading. I've known one person who died from lung cancer and they only smoked pot. I used to work in law enforcement. I've seen several deaths due to auto accidents which resulted from the person at fault being high on pot. That site is complete bullshit.
You knew ONE person. More of this "I once knew a guy" proof. You do know one person is not a bellwether, right? It's not likely you had complete access to their medical records, either. Even if you had, you cannot say prove that it was marijuana that caused him/her lung cancer. I know a couple people who died of lung cancer, and they never smoked! But unlike you, I can provide statistical proof by the government and plenty of other agencies to back my claim up here. Where's yours? Do me a favor and scan your eyeballs and import, so I can see it too.
There are many causes that people who don't smoke acquire lung cancer. Don't believe me? From an article from Medicine.net:
"While cigarette smoking is an undisputed cause of lung cancer, not all cases of lung cancer occur in smokers or former smokers. Each year, over 170,000 Americans develop lung cancer, and approximately ten per cent of lung cancers, or 17,000 cases, occur in non-smokers. Although not every non-smoker suffering from lung cancer will have an identifiable risk factor for development of the disease, a number of conditions and circumstances have been identified that will increase a non-smoker's chance of developing lung cancer".
Dude, plenty other factors that affect how people get cancer, way more than smoking joints.
Passive smoking (second hand smoke).
Radon gas.
Asbestos.
Air pollution.
Genetics.
You know, there's way more evidence of people NOT getting cancer from smoking doobies than smoking them. Do you know how many people admit to smoking marijuana daily since the 60's, yet they don't seem to be contracting cancers. Half or more of high school students smoke the stuff, and you don't see huge lines of people down the line laid up.
On the other hand, do you know how many people drink alcohol, which the government makes legal, and die each year NOT counting drunken driving stats? Thousands die just drinking alcohol without doing anything other than.. drinking it. All Uncle Sam does is slap a warning label on it. It should be taken away as it causes considerable more damage overall than marijuana by any statistical scale you want to pick. Go ahead and see if you find one. We will wait. (hint* check with Rush or Bill O'Reilly sites)
Conversely, how many people smoke weed and die each year NOT counting driving stats? Yeah, good luck finding that stat, because just smoking weed alone will not kill you.
This "law enforcement" work you did.. let me ask. You state "I used to work in law enforcement. I've seen several deaths due to auto accidents which resulted from the person at fault being high on pot".
So you are saying, that an official law enforcement agency where deaths occured while someone was high, refused to put in the OFFICIAL reports that cause of death was "smoking marijuana"? Law enforcement agencies have to put all those facts into the report by law. The reports are gathered and compiled, then sent to other agencies. Only places like the Skunkbelly Police Department don't send in official stats. State police, city police and even towns submit all facts as required to get funding. Hell, the NJ State Police have to include what color people are when they pull them over to get funds. You aren't the only one who worked with law enforcement, friend.
Not sure where you worked at. But if they wanted any federal and state monies, they have to submit real reports. So, I call bs on your calling bs. You personally witnessed (seen) this, and its not on any file, cause the government still says no marijuana deaths? When did you see this? This year? If you "saw" this earlier than last year, and you REPORTED it, it would be in a stat somewhere in someone's file as the first ever, which unfortunately you cannot provide. /yawn
Oh wait.. liberal U.s. government hiding marijuana stats so they can legalize it, right?
Parting shot from England:
Cannabis and Driving
A study performed for the UK Department of the Environment, Transportation and the Regions by the Transport Research Laboratory, "The Influence of Cannabis on Driving," is available for download in PDF format from this URL: http://www.trl.co.uk/detr/abstracts/477.htm
The study concludes that though cannabis does have an effect on driving ability, that alcohol is much worse, and that marijuana users notice their impairment and compensate by driving slower and more carefully.
The influence of cannabis on driving
by B F Sexton, R J Tunbridge, N Brook-Carter (TRL Limited), P G Jackson (DETR), K Wright (University of Birmingham), M M Stark (St George's Hospital Medical School) and K Englehart (Principal Police Surgeon) The results from a study of different doses of cannabis and the influence on driving and driving related skills are reported. The study required participants who were male, drivers and regular cannabis users to undertake a variety of different tasks.
Americans thirst for drugs is turning Mexico in to a narco state, fact. Amnesty's from mexico...thats police.government officials are at a all time high because of the drugs war in Mexico. for-sure drugs don't hurt nobody right. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4542
Everything you are showing shows the horrors of the war on drugs, not the drugs themselves. Prohibition kills, not the use of drugs.
The same thing happened under the prohibition of alcohol. It empowers criminals and makes the streets run with blood.
Thanks for more evidence that favors the decriminalization position.
Originally posted by frodus Americans thirst for drugs is turning Mexico in to a narco state, fact. Amnesty's from mexico...thats police.government officials are at a all time high because of the drugs war in Mexico. for-sure drugs don't hurt nobody right. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4542
This causes Mexico to be a narco state. Drug companies sell their drugs there for a tiny fraction of what it costs here, so Americans cross the border daily to get them. This was just 2001, I hate to see what it is now.
While families struggle to pay for medicine and deal with an increasingly bleak economic picture, drug makers prosper.
In 2001, as the economy tumbled and corporate profits sank for the average Fortune 500 company, drug companies on the top 500 list saw their profits soar by 33 percent from the previous year, Greider reports.
The nine largest pharma giants raked in $30.6 billion in 2001 profits. During the past decade, drug firms profits represented an 18.5 percent return on revenue or 5.6 times the median return (3.3 percent) of Fortune 500 companies. As the economy soured further in 2002, many drug companies continued to grow and thrive.
Marijuana is not causing the problem. Control of marijuana is.
From The Drug Project. Deaths in the United States in a typical year are as follows:
Tobacco kills about 400,000 Alcohol kills about 80,000 Workplace accidents kill 60,000 Automobiles kill 40,000 Cocaine kills about 2,500 Heroin kills about 2,000 Aspirin kills about 2,000 Marijuana kills 0
There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana at any time in US history.
All illegal drugs combined kill under 20,000 per year, or a small percent of the number killed by alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco kills more people each year than all of the people killed by all of the illegal drugs in the last one hundred years.
I am not arguing one way or another but
Marijuana 0....That ought to raise a flag. I don't believe that for one minute. Tobacco kills 400,000 and marijuana smoke going into the lungs does nothing! Not one incident of someone toking up, crashing and dieing!?
Comments
Wow...do you remember the cultural revolution of the 60's and 70's Zen? People were saying the same thing and our parents all turned out OK.
Maybe your parents turned out okay. Mine sure as hell didn't.
As to the point, I'm anti-legal weed. I had a ton of friends who used to smoke it, this caused them to begin to crave the next high, so they started doing heavier and heavier drugs, which aren't so "safe" as weed.
But Pyro, you say, not everyone is like that! We're good, responsible, potheads! We would never do such a thing as start smoking crack because we needed to get high! Maybe you wouldn't, but there's a good enough percentage that would that this is a bad idea.
All that said, smoke weed all you want, it's your body. But don't expect those of us who get through life without needing drugs to back you.
Now with 57.3% more flames!
Yes, but their kids are all fucked up.
To that end, I would say compare society today to where it was about 50 years ago and things are much worse now. Except for the disappearance of racism, our society is coming apart at the seams today.
Self ownership is the foundation of property rights, which is the foundation of all human law. marijuana laws are in direct violation of that. If you do not have the power to decide what goes into your body, then the government is the defacto owner of that body.
Therefore it is the marijuana laws that are a violation of the very principle of Law. This is why it has failed just as badly as prohibition.
Sounds like you are in favor of suicide as well. If one chooses to ingest poison, why not?
I never said I was in favor of marijuana. I am not in favor of a great many things that I do not feel should be illegal.
If you own your life, you have a right to take it. That doesn't make me in favor of it.
I am not in favor of adultery but I do not believe that should be a crminal offense. I am not in favor of alcohol consumption but I do not believe it should be a criminal offense. I am not in favor of profanity but do not believe it should be illegal.
If we judged what should be legal or illegal by "what we are in favor of" we will have totalitarianism.
What should be legal or illegal should have little to do with what we favor. What is lawful has more to do with the proper role of government in our lives. This is where both conservatism and modern liberalism fail miserably. They both create 'wish lists," then seek to impose it on others, instead of grounding their beliefs in human rights and rule of law.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Yes, but their kids are all fucked up.
To that end, I would say compare society today to where it was about 50 years ago and things are much worse now. Except for the disappearance of racism, our society is coming apart at the seams today.
In other words, prohibition has failed, and has seemed to make matters worse.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I'm not speaking of THC. Let me rephrase - you know not of the chemical additives in marijuna. I'm not speaking of natural chemicals found within the plant.
Oh, you mean the stuff that sellers lace it with...because it's sold on the black market...and there's no way to regulate it. I see.
Hey! DailyBuzz is back! Where ya been?
Self ownership is the foundation of property rights, which is the foundation of all human law. marijuana laws are in direct violation of that. If you do not have the power to decide what goes into your body, then the government is the defacto owner of that body.
Therefore it is the marijuana laws that are a violation of the very principle of Law. This is why it has failed just as badly as prohibition.
Sounds like you are in favor of suicide as well. If one chooses to ingest poison, why not?
I never said I was in favor of marijuana. I am not in favor of a great many things that I do not feel should be illegal.
If you own your life, you have a right to take it. That doesn't make me in favor of it.
I am not in favor of adultery but I do not believe that should be a crminal offense. I am not in favor of alcohol consumption but I do not believe it should be a criminal offense. I am not in favor of profanity but do not believe it should be illegal.
If we judged what should be legal or illegal by "what we are in favor of" we will have totalitarianism.
What should be legal or illegal should have little to do with what we favor. What is lawful has more to do with the proper role of government in our lives. This is where both conservatism and modern liberalism fail miserably. They both create 'wish lists," then seek to impose it on others, instead of grounding their beliefs in human rights and rule of law.
I didn't mean you personally in favor of it, poor choice in words. I meant be able to take your life with the state's blessing. And it was just an example.
My problem with the legalization of drugs is that it helps to create a pyschology among individuals that it's OK, that doing drugs has no negative consequences. Yes it's up to the individiual to be able to discern right from wrong or good from bad, but since our government is supposed to be a government of the people, then I think there are some things where there's nothing wrong with the people collectively saying that some things should not be done. For example, stealing. When I was a child I was taught by my parents that stealing was wrong. That's good. However, without the threat of the state throwing me in jail for stealing to back it up, I think I would have been much less likely to take my parents' message to heart. My parent's say, "don't steal" and I say, "well what happens if I do?" They say, "if you steal, you go to jail." As opposed to me asking, "what happens if I steal?" and they say, "nothing." I can tell you I would be much more likely to steal.
Even with the consumption of alcohol, there is an age limit placed on it and it's a very regulated substance, so it's not as though it flows freely in society. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my opposition to it is not nazi-like. Marijuana will probably become legal eventually and if that is the will of a majority of the people, so be it. But to me it's just another signal of the decline of our culture. Sometimes I wonder if it's even worth fighting for anymore or if I should just throw up my arms and say, "Whatever."
Self ownership is the foundation of property rights, which is the foundation of all human law. marijuana laws are in direct violation of that. If you do not have the power to decide what goes into your body, then the government is the defacto owner of that body.
Therefore it is the marijuana laws that are a violation of the very principle of Law. This is why it has failed just as badly as prohibition.
Sounds like you are in favor of suicide as well. If one chooses to ingest poison, why not?
I never said I was in favor of marijuana. I am not in favor of a great many things that I do not feel should be illegal.
If you own your life, you have a right to take it. That doesn't make me in favor of it.
I am not in favor of adultery but I do not believe that should be a crminal offense. I am not in favor of alcohol consumption but I do not believe it should be a criminal offense. I am not in favor of profanity but do not believe it should be illegal.
If we judged what should be legal or illegal by "what we are in favor of" we will have totalitarianism.
What should be legal or illegal should have little to do with what we favor. What is lawful has more to do with the proper role of government in our lives. This is where both conservatism and modern liberalism fail miserably. They both create 'wish lists," then seek to impose it on others, instead of grounding their beliefs in human rights and rule of law.
I didn't mean you personally in favor of it, poor choice in words. I meant be able to take your life with the state's blessing. And it was just an example.
My problem with the legalization of drugs is that it helps to create a pyschology among individuals that it's OK, that doing drugs has no negative consequences. Yes it's up to the individiual to be able to discern right from wrong or good from bad, but since our government is supposed to be a government of the people, then I think there are some things where there's nothing wrong with the people collectively saying that some things should not be done. For example, stealing. When I was a child I was taught by my parents that stealing was wrong. That's good. However, without the threat of the state throwing me in jail for stealing to back it up, I think I would have been much less likely to take my parents' message to heart. My parent's say, "don't steal" and I say, "well what happens if I do?" They say, "if you steal, you go to jail." As opposed to me asking, "what happens if I steal?" and they say, "nothing." I can tell you I would be much more likely to steal.
Even with the consumption of alcohol, there is an age limit placed on it and it's a very regulated substance, so it's not as though it flows freely in society. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my opposition to it is not nazi-like. Marijuana will probably become legal eventually and if that is the will of a majority of the people, so be it. But to me it's just another signal of the decline of our culture. Sometimes I wonder if it's even worth fighting for anymore or if I should just throw up my arms and say, "Whatever."
The purpose of government is not to foster any kind of psychology. It is to protect human rights. The moment it steps beyond that it has become in that small way tyranny. There is everything wrong with people "colectively" (there really is no such thing as anything being said "collectively") saying something is "wrong" and thus remove people's self ownership. That is if you mean the force of the State prosoculting people.
saying something is wrong is just that, opening your mouth and saying so. What YOu are advocating is pointing guns at people and saying they are not allowed to do this wrong thing while at the same time working to erode the very foundation of right and wrong.
Age limits exist because young people who have not reached a given age of maturity are not considered to have full rights. That is a completely different argument from whether people own themselves or not or whether "psychology" is a legitimate reason to remove their self ownership. At what age what rights should be recognozed is an entirely different discussion that whether humans own themselves or not.
It is an immoral fight you are fighting. In fact, you are fighting against the very foundation of morality.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Ok so tax it.....and if the tax is deemed to high then drug dealers will still be around selling it cheaper then the legal prices. Unregulated uncontrolled drugs.
Also stating they could give it a age limit so minors couldnt do it is pointless. Many minors do it now and its not like they can't get their hands on tabacco or beer without much trouble either.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
So what?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Self ownership is the foundation of property rights, which is the foundation of all human law. marijuana laws are in direct violation of that. If you do not have the power to decide what goes into your body, then the government is the defacto owner of that body.
Therefore it is the marijuana laws that are a violation of the very principle of Law. This is why it has failed just as badly as prohibition.
Sounds like you are in favor of suicide as well. If one chooses to ingest poison, why not?
I never said I was in favor of marijuana. I am not in favor of a great many things that I do not feel should be illegal.
If you own your life, you have a right to take it. That doesn't make me in favor of it.
I am not in favor of adultery but I do not believe that should be a crminal offense. I am not in favor of alcohol consumption but I do not believe it should be a criminal offense. I am not in favor of profanity but do not believe it should be illegal.
If we judged what should be legal or illegal by "what we are in favor of" we will have totalitarianism.
What should be legal or illegal should have little to do with what we favor. What is lawful has more to do with the proper role of government in our lives. This is where both conservatism and modern liberalism fail miserably. They both create 'wish lists," then seek to impose it on others, instead of grounding their beliefs in human rights and rule of law.
I didn't mean you personally in favor of it, poor choice in words. I meant be able to take your life with the state's blessing. And it was just an example.
My problem with the legalization of drugs is that it helps to create a pyschology among individuals that it's OK, that doing drugs has no negative consequences. Yes it's up to the individiual to be able to discern right from wrong or good from bad, but since our government is supposed to be a government of the people, then I think there are some things where there's nothing wrong with the people collectively saying that some things should not be done. For example, stealing. When I was a child I was taught by my parents that stealing was wrong. That's good. However, without the threat of the state throwing me in jail for stealing to back it up, I think I would have been much less likely to take my parents' message to heart. My parent's say, "don't steal" and I say, "well what happens if I do?" They say, "if you steal, you go to jail." As opposed to me asking, "what happens if I steal?" and they say, "nothing." I can tell you I would be much more likely to steal.
Even with the consumption of alcohol, there is an age limit placed on it and it's a very regulated substance, so it's not as though it flows freely in society. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my opposition to it is not nazi-like. Marijuana will probably become legal eventually and if that is the will of a majority of the people, so be it. But to me it's just another signal of the decline of our culture. Sometimes I wonder if it's even worth fighting for anymore or if I should just throw up my arms and say, "Whatever."
The purpose of government is not to foster any kind of psychology. It is to protect human rights. The moment it steps beyond that it has become in that small way tyranny. There is everything wrong with people "colectively" (there really is no such thing as anything being said "collectively") saying something is "wrong" and thus remove people's self ownership. That is if you mean the force of the State prosoculting people.
saying something is wrong is just that, opening your mouth and saying so. What YOu are advocating is pointing guns at people and saying they are not allowed to do this wrong thing while at the same time working to erode the very foundation of right and wrong.
Age limits exist because young people who have not reached a given age of maturity are not considered to have full rights. That is a completely different argument from whether people own themselves or not or whether "psychology" is a legitimate reason to remove their self ownership. At what age what rights should be recognozed is an entirely different discussion that whether humans own themselves or not.
It is an immoral fight you are fighting. In fact, you are fighting against the very foundation of morality.
Ok, then let's look at it from a human rights standpoint. Some drugs are hallucinagenic and some people who suffer from drug induced hallucinations have proven to be a danger to themselves and/or others. I've never done drugs, so I don't know for sure how this manifests itself, but would you not be in favor of keeping drugs illegal based on this criteria or simply try to keep them out of the hands of those who might suffer from them?
I know cigarettes don't cause hallucinations and I don't think alcohol does either.
Self ownership is the foundation of property rights, which is the foundation of all human law. marijuana laws are in direct violation of that. If you do not have the power to decide what goes into your body, then the government is the defacto owner of that body.
Therefore it is the marijuana laws that are a violation of the very principle of Law. This is why it has failed just as badly as prohibition.
Sounds like you are in favor of suicide as well. If one chooses to ingest poison, why not?
I never said I was in favor of marijuana. I am not in favor of a great many things that I do not feel should be illegal.
If you own your life, you have a right to take it. That doesn't make me in favor of it.
I am not in favor of adultery but I do not believe that should be a crminal offense. I am not in favor of alcohol consumption but I do not believe it should be a criminal offense. I am not in favor of profanity but do not believe it should be illegal.
If we judged what should be legal or illegal by "what we are in favor of" we will have totalitarianism.
What should be legal or illegal should have little to do with what we favor. What is lawful has more to do with the proper role of government in our lives. This is where both conservatism and modern liberalism fail miserably. They both create 'wish lists," then seek to impose it on others, instead of grounding their beliefs in human rights and rule of law.
I didn't mean you personally in favor of it, poor choice in words. I meant be able to take your life with the state's blessing. And it was just an example.
My problem with the legalization of drugs is that it helps to create a pyschology among individuals that it's OK, that doing drugs has no negative consequences. Yes it's up to the individiual to be able to discern right from wrong or good from bad, but since our government is supposed to be a government of the people, then I think there are some things where there's nothing wrong with the people collectively saying that some things should not be done. For example, stealing. When I was a child I was taught by my parents that stealing was wrong. That's good. However, without the threat of the state throwing me in jail for stealing to back it up, I think I would have been much less likely to take my parents' message to heart. My parent's say, "don't steal" and I say, "well what happens if I do?" They say, "if you steal, you go to jail." As opposed to me asking, "what happens if I steal?" and they say, "nothing." I can tell you I would be much more likely to steal.
Even with the consumption of alcohol, there is an age limit placed on it and it's a very regulated substance, so it's not as though it flows freely in society. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my opposition to it is not nazi-like. Marijuana will probably become legal eventually and if that is the will of a majority of the people, so be it. But to me it's just another signal of the decline of our culture. Sometimes I wonder if it's even worth fighting for anymore or if I should just throw up my arms and say, "Whatever."
The purpose of government is not to foster any kind of psychology. It is to protect human rights. The moment it steps beyond that it has become in that small way tyranny. There is everything wrong with people "colectively" (there really is no such thing as anything being said "collectively") saying something is "wrong" and thus remove people's self ownership. That is if you mean the force of the State prosoculting people.
saying something is wrong is just that, opening your mouth and saying so. What YOu are advocating is pointing guns at people and saying they are not allowed to do this wrong thing while at the same time working to erode the very foundation of right and wrong.
Age limits exist because young people who have not reached a given age of maturity are not considered to have full rights. That is a completely different argument from whether people own themselves or not or whether "psychology" is a legitimate reason to remove their self ownership. At what age what rights should be recognozed is an entirely different discussion that whether humans own themselves or not.
It is an immoral fight you are fighting. In fact, you are fighting against the very foundation of morality.
Ok, then let's look at it from a human rights standpoint. Some drugs are hallucinagenic and some people who suffer from drug induced hallucinations have proven to be a danger to themselves and/or others. I've never done drugs, so I don't know for sure how this manifests itself, but would you not be in favor of keeping drugs illegal based on this criteria or simply try to keep them out of the hands of those who might suffer from them?
I know cigarettes don't cause hallucinations and I don't think alcohol does either.
If you own your body, you own your central nervous system and you own your mind. Therefore you have the right to induce any mental state you care to within yourself. You are still fully liable for all actions while under that condition of course, just like anything else.
You are basically saying (or implying rather) that not only does the State own your body, it also owns your mind.
Thank you for showing us all where this has led in our society. We no longer own our bodies, our minds, or our property.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Drug Facts And Statistics
From The Drug Project.
Deaths in the United States in a typical year are as follows:
- Tobacco kills about 400,000
- Alcohol kills about 80,000
- Workplace accidents kill 60,000
- Automobiles kill 40,000
- Cocaine kills about 2,500
- Heroin kills about 2,000
- Aspirin kills about 2,000
- Marijuana kills 0
There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana at any time in US history.All illegal drugs combined kill under 20,000 per year, or a small percent of the number killed by alcohol and tobacco.
Tobacco kills more people each year than all of the people killed by all of the illegal drugs in the last one hundred years.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Well, in a democracy (we don't really live in a true democracy, we live in a representative republic), the will of the people is supposed to be the rule of law and as far as I know the majority of Americans are still in favor of keeping most drugs illegal and I have no problem with that. In fact, I am in the majority. If the majority of the populace becomes in favor of legalizing these drugs, then I, at that point, being a member of the minority would have to accept the will of the people. And we do know that in some places of the country, opinion is moving in that direction and we are starting to see marijuana legalized for medicinal purposes in some states (personally I think that's a croc, I think it's being done under the guise medicine in order to mainstream it and eventually make it legal for whatever reason).
But this is why I think you can make an argument that law and morality are tied together in a democracy. Without some sort of moral anchor, it is theoretically possible for some very abhorrant behavior to become legal. Let's say we live in a society that is 51% male and 49% female. And let's say that every male in that society believes that it's ok to rape women. If they took a vote and 100% of the men voted for it, the women in that society would have reason to fear. And that's why, ultimately our laws are rooted in God's law and not man's.
Actually no. In a representative republic, human rights, property rights, and self ownership ARE the rule of law, not the will of the people. The will of the people is subject to and limited by the rule of law, which is subject to human rights.
Law and morality are tied together in any society. It is immoral to claim ownership to any human being. That is my point.
I also agree with the God part. God says He owns me. You say the state does. I disagree with you and have to go with God on this one.
fishermage.blogspot.com
That's quite misleading. I've known one person who died from lung cancer and they only smoked pot.
I used to work in law enforcement. I've seen several deaths due to auto accidents which resulted from the person at fault being high on pot. That site is complete bullshit.
Not exactly. What you say is true only if God's law and the state's law are in conflict with one another. Since the state currently says it is illegal to use mind affecting drugs and God's law says (I believe) love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, there is no conflict. And that's why (or one reason why) I have no problem with the illegality of drugs.
Now, if the state ever passed a law requiring you to use drugs under some circumstance, then I would have a big problem with that because it would come in direct conflict with God's law.
That's quite misleading. I've known one person who died from lung cancer and they only smoked pot.
I used to work in law enforcement. I've seen several deaths due to auto accidents which resulted from the person at fault being high on pot. That site is complete bullshit.
I'm not questioning you here ,but how did you know the driver was high? Did the car smell or something
? I'm pro-legalizing it and I know something like this is likely. I think the deaths caused by it are super low but not zero.
Anyway...other coutries where weed is legal seem to be doing ok. I admit it will probably be bad at the start ,but it will become the norm soon and it will even out. Yes the fiends and low lifes will over do it so what else is new? If we legalize it, we will create jobs for good hard working people and tax those who chose to smoke. win/win for responsible smokers
.
Not exactly. What you say is true only if God's law and the state's law are in conflict with one another. Since the state currently says it is illegal to use mind affecting drugs and God's law says (I believe) love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, there is no conflict. And that's why (or one reason why) I have no problem with the illegality of drugs.
Now, if the state ever passed a law requiring you to use drugs under some circumstance, then I would have a big problem with that because it would come in direct conflict with God's law.
They are in conflict. You are saying the State owns us. That goes directly against God's law.
fishermage.blogspot.com
How is saving 9 billion a year + gaining however many billions in tax revenue + creating jobs in a new industry not going to at least help some?
Long term coffee use is linked to type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. Make it illegal.
Why don't you think it will hurt more than it will help though? We got a lot of drugs out there that will kill you. Could make it all illegal if ya want, but many of these are controled.
-In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08-
|
RISING DRAGOON ~AION US ONLINE LEGION for Elyos
How is saving 9 billion a year + gaining however many billions in tax revenue + creating jobs in a new industry not going to at least help some?
Long term coffee use is linked to type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. Make it illegal.
Why don't you think it will hurt more than it will help though? We got a lot of drugs out there that will kill you. Could make it all illegal if ya want, but many of these are controled.
Having marijuana illegal hurts far, far more than it helps, which is the point I think Sabian was trying to make. the point is the potential harm to the user is not relevant to whether something should be illegal or not. The question is, do people own their bodies? If not, then fine, the state may regulate what we put into them. If we DO own their bodies, then this whole system of reasoning that leads to certain things people freely choose to do to themselves being forbidden by the state is self-contradictory.
fishermage.blogspot.com
You knew ONE person. More of this "I once knew a guy" proof. You do know one person is not a bellwether, right? It's not likely you had complete access to their medical records, either. Even if you had, you cannot say prove that it was marijuana that caused him/her lung cancer. I know a couple people who died of lung cancer, and they never smoked! But unlike you, I can provide statistical proof by the government and plenty of other agencies to back my claim up here. Where's yours? Do me a favor and scan your eyeballs and import, so I can see it too.
There are many causes that people who don't smoke acquire lung cancer. Don't believe me? From an article from Medicine.net:
Dude, plenty other factors that affect how people get cancer, way more than smoking joints.
You know, there's way more evidence of people NOT getting cancer from smoking doobies than smoking them. Do you know how many people admit to smoking marijuana daily since the 60's, yet they don't seem to be contracting cancers. Half or more of high school students smoke the stuff, and you don't see huge lines of people down the line laid up.
On the other hand, do you know how many people drink alcohol, which the government makes legal, and die each year NOT counting drunken driving stats? Thousands die just drinking alcohol without doing anything other than.. drinking it. All Uncle Sam does is slap a warning label on it. It should be taken away as it causes considerable more damage overall than marijuana by any statistical scale you want to pick. Go ahead and see if you find one. We will wait. (hint* check with Rush or Bill O'Reilly sites)
Conversely, how many people smoke weed and die each year NOT counting driving stats? Yeah, good luck finding that stat, because just smoking weed alone will not kill you.
This "law enforcement" work you did.. let me ask. You state "I used to work in law enforcement. I've seen several deaths due to auto accidents which resulted from the person at fault being high on pot".
So you are saying, that an official law enforcement agency where deaths occured while someone was high, refused to put in the OFFICIAL reports that cause of death was "smoking marijuana"? Law enforcement agencies have to put all those facts into the report by law. The reports are gathered and compiled, then sent to other agencies. Only places like the Skunkbelly Police Department don't send in official stats. State police, city police and even towns submit all facts as required to get funding. Hell, the NJ State Police have to include what color people are when they pull them over to get funds. You aren't the only one who worked with law enforcement, friend.
Not sure where you worked at. But if they wanted any federal and state monies, they have to submit real reports. So, I call bs on your calling bs. You personally witnessed (seen) this, and its not on any file, cause the government still says no marijuana deaths? When did you see this? This year? If you "saw" this earlier than last year, and you REPORTED it, it would be in a stat somewhere in someone's file as the first ever, which unfortunately you cannot provide. /yawn
Oh wait.. liberal U.s. government hiding marijuana stats so they can legalize it, right?
Parting shot from England:
"TO MICHAEL!"
Americans thirst for drugs is turning Mexico in to a narco state, fact.
Amnesty's from mexico...thats police.government officials are at a all time high because of the drugs war in Mexico.
for-sure drugs don't hurt nobody right.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4542
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Everything you are showing shows the horrors of the war on drugs, not the drugs themselves. Prohibition kills, not the use of drugs.
The same thing happened under the prohibition of alcohol. It empowers criminals and makes the streets run with blood.
Thanks for more evidence that favors the decriminalization position.
fishermage.blogspot.com
This causes Mexico to be a narco state. Drug companies sell their drugs there for a tiny fraction of what it costs here, so Americans cross the border daily to get them. This was just 2001, I hate to see what it is now.
Marijuana is not causing the problem. Control of marijuana is.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I am not arguing one way or another but
Marijuana 0....That ought to raise a flag. I don't believe that for one minute. Tobacco kills 400,000 and marijuana smoke going into the lungs does nothing! Not one incident of someone toking up, crashing and dieing!?