Smoking

[PS]

You said it right here:

I said many drugs have addictive content in them. I used cocaine and ecstacy as examples because I know someone who's tried both and has never had any addiction to them, I left out heroin because obviously, it's very addictive. My point was that Marijuana is not addictive. Unless there is some foreign ingrediant/content in it.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I said many drugs have addictive content in them. I used cocaine and ecstacy as examples because I know someone who's tried both and has never had any addiction to them,

They could be lying about it...

I left out heroin because obviously, it's very addictive. My point was that Marijuana is not addictive.

It is addictive.

 

[PS]

They could be lying about it...



It is addictive.

No, I know first hand. I see them every day, I'm their best friend, I'm sure they wouldn't lie to me about something like that. Besides, if they were addicted I would definately know. Besides they're very open about what happens in his/her life, so it's all good. I know many people who can smoke weed and then quit it like cold turkey. And yes, heroine is highly addictive but I don't (thankfully) know anyone who's tried it.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

No, I know first hand. I see them every day, I'm their best friend, I'm sure they wouldn't lie to me about something like that. Besides, if they were addicted I would definately know. Besides they're very open about what happens in his/her life, so it's all good.

OK, then. I stand corrected. Doesn't mean the behavior is justified for everyone else.

I know many people who can smoke weed and then quit it like cold turkey.

Doesn't mean they don't go through withdrawal symptoms.

And yes, heroine is highly addictive but I don't (thankfully) know anyone who's tried it.

Hmmm... I wonder why that is...

Aside from the legality of the issue.

 

[PS]

OK, then. I stand corrected. Doesn't mean the behavior is justified for everyone else.



Doesn't mean they don't go through withdrawal symptoms.



Hmmm... I wonder why that is...

Aside from the legality of the issue.

Well, I don't have too many examples, but I know 2 people who testify that do not go through withdrawl symptoms for weed. And yes, I know that's hardly enough to create a statistical analysis, but it just gives you something to compare I guess.

[edit]

Hmmm... I wonder why that is...

Aside from the legality of the issue.

Well, that and the fact it's so blatantly stupid to do it.

 

[Anderton Prime]

We have no way to "proactively" protect someone from premeditated murder right? Can we agree on that or do we need to talk padded cells here? There is no way to "proactively" prevent a premeditated murder, yet people aren't out there doing it all the time. Why?

Umm, I'm pretty sure someone somewhere is being murdered right now in the U.S., and I'm pretty sure it's premeditated...

 

[PS]

Umm, I'm pretty sure someone somewhere is being murdered right now in the U.S., and I'm pretty sure it's premeditated...

Yup, I'm pretty sure it's something like every 9 minutes.

And Canada alone there are 45,000 deaths/year from smoking. Yet only 510 murders. Now I wonder what the heck USA's death toll is resulting from cigarette use is.

 

[Sage]

For having a STUPID opinion like that, saying that some people can drive drunk, you should have your drivers license revoked immediately.

Well too bad for you that at least 3 moderators here also have the same "STUPID" opinion, in addition to several other members. Don't be so damn rude. 👎

What I don't understand is that you people can't seem to see the correlation between drunk driving and reckless driving – within the scope of this society, drunk driving is a sub-category of reckless driving. If you're driving drunk, then you're probably driving recklessly. I'll say it again: Would you rather pull over and jail all the reckless drivers on the road (including drunk drivers, weaving 100mph idiots, "wanderers" on their cell phones, etc.), or would you rather pull over and jail just all of the drunk drivers?

Drunk driving is a form of reckless driving. Dan contends that reckless driving is much easier to police (and much more effective to police) than drunk driving, and I can't possibly see how you can disagree with that.

Anyway, sorry for spilling this in from the Libertarian thread, but it's driving (no pun intended) me up the wall.

Back to smoking! Erm, discussing smoking, that is!

 

[smellysocks12]

Well too bad for you that at least 3 moderators here also have the same "STUPID" opinion, in addition to several other members. Don't be so damn rude. 👎

Good captains never have to point at the stars on their sleeves.






Maybe I put it in a rude way, but I really don't agree with it. I think both drunk driving people and reckless drivers should be pulled over and awarded a fine. Actually the speed at which someone drives isn't even the danger, people who drive slow most of the time are often the first ones to forget paying attention and cause accidents that way. Just like drunk people might forget to pay attention at times. I don't know if you guys have ever been really drunk, I was, and I can tell that I wouldn't have been in the right state to step behind the wheel. People who think they can drink and drive and be fine overestimate their own capabilities.

 

[Omnis]

oh, i'm pretty late for this thread....but whatever.

anyway, please don't take offense to any of my opinions...
I hate cigarettes. I hate smoke. I don't like smokers.

i think that cigarettes are "feminine". it was a trend with women when they first came out. ever since i heard Sid Caesar joke about it, i haven't really gotten past that idea. lol. a casual cigar or etc. smoker is less iritating to me than an addicted cigarette smoker. this is partially because the scent agrees with me better, and cigar smokers are less common than cig smokers. basically what i'm saying is that, to me, the 2nd hand smoke of a cigar is excusible, whereas cigarettes just totally disagree with my system.

i think addiction is a form of weakness both physically and of one's will. so, i am naturally against addictive malicious substances.

 

[ledhed]

Well too bad for you that at least 3 moderators here also have the same "STUPID" opinion, in addition to several other members. Don't be so damn rude. 👎

What I don't understand is that you people can't seem to see the correlation between drunk driving and reckless driving – within the scope of this society, drunk driving is a sub-category of reckless driving. If you're driving drunk, then you're probably driving recklessly. I'll say it again: Would you rather pull over and jail all the reckless drivers on the road (including drunk drivers, weaving 100mph idiots, "wanderers" on their cell phones, etc.), or would you rather pull over and jail just all of the drunk drivers?

Drunk driving is a form of reckless driving. Dan contends that reckless driving is much easier to police (and much more effective to police) than drunk driving, and I can't possibly see how you can disagree with that.

Anyway, sorry for spilling this in from the Libertarian thread, but it's driving (no pun intended) me up the wall.

Back to smoking! Erm, discussing smoking, that is!

There is a difference. Reckless driving can happen when a person with little driving skill gets in over there head or you give your keys to a blonde women.
A DRUNK driver has INTENTIONALY impaired thier skills and PREMEDITATED the act of turning thier vehicle into a deadly weapon , insead of just a form of transportation . The fact they happened to drive reckless is a secondary effect . The true crime was in getting behind the wheel in an impaired condition thus putting at UNREASONABLE risk every other person on the same roads.
You want to drink ? Go right ahead drink youre balls off...just dont drive .

i think addiction is a form of weakness both physically and of one's will. so, i am naturally against addictive malicious substances.

I consider tofu a malicous substance but I will not interfere with your right to smoke / eat / drink it .
One mans malicous substance is another mans Beer so whats your point ? You runnin for pope ?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

There is an undercurrent of Libertarianism in this thread. I suggest we move it back there. Or at the very least, read the last post there.

 

[Danoff]

There is a difference. Reckless driving can happen when a person with little driving skill gets in over there head or you give your keys to a blonde women.
A DRUNK driver has INTENTIONALY impaired thier skills and PREMEDITATED the act of turning thier vehicle into a deadly weapon , insead of just a form of transportation . The fact they happened to drive reckless is a secondary effect . The true crime was in getting behind the wheel in an impaired condition thus putting at UNREASONABLE risk every other person on the same roads.
You want to drink ? Go right ahead drink youre balls off...just dont drive .

So I suppose the blond woman, knowing that she is a bad driver, has committed a premeditated act of turning her vehicle ino a deadly weapon (not that hair color o gender has any real bearing on driving skills)? What about a 16 year old who just got his/her license? They know they're going to drive fairly badly but they get on the road anyway to learn.

I would use your argument here to argue for higher penalties against drunk drivers who actually do some harm.

 

[PS]

There is a difference. Reckless driving can happen when a person with little driving skill gets in over there head or you give your keys to a blonde women.
A DRUNK driver has INTENTIONALY impaired thier skills and PREMEDITATED the act of turning thier vehicle into a deadly weapon , insead of just a form of transportation . The fact they happened to drive reckless is a secondary effect . The true crime was in getting behind the wheel in an impaired condition thus putting at UNREASONABLE risk every other person on the same roads.
You want to drink ? Go right ahead drink youre balls off...just dont drive .

I consider tofu a malicous substance but I will not interfere with your right to smoke / eat / drink it .
One mans malicous substance is another mans Beer so whats your point ? You runnin for pope ?

Um...hello...

There have been many tests which suggest that drunk drivers think they are fit to drive, simply because they dont know better. They don't have any premeditated thoughts or intentions of harming each other, they honestly think they can drive. And some of them can. But most, while under a substantial influence of alcohol, can not.

They swerve, they brake late, they speed, they can't control themselves. They're not quick enough to react, they can't keep a straight line and they don't realize they're unable to do so. Only when someone has enough of a sober thought can they recognise that they're unable to drive, but after they're full blown drunk they get cocky and over-confident and do stupid things. It's just the effect of alcohol. You can blame them for drinking, and then blame them for driving, but you can't blame them for what they do while they're driving, they're unable to control themselves. Ultimately, however, they are obviously responsible for their own and others' consequences should something go wrong, but there's still no premeditated intent to harm others.

They just want to get home, they don't want to leave theur car/truck behind an get it tomorrow, because like all of humanity, we are lazy and constantly looking for shortcuts. It's normal human mentality.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Ultimately, however, they are obviously responsible for their own and others' consequences should something go wrong, but there's still no premeditated intent to harm others.

Of course not, but that is beside the point.

They just want to get home, they don't want to leave theur car/truck behind an get it tomorrow, because like all of humanity, we are lazy and constantly looking for shortcuts. It's normal human mentality.

Which is exactly why drugs should remain illegal.

 

[standard235]

Well, my grandpa is dying after smoking since he was 13. My mom still smokes and complains when I ***** at her about quiting. Smoking is bad... enough said.

 

[Danoff]

Of course not, but that is beside the point.

No it's not, that was very much the point - that it was intentional.

 

[Swift]

Because I think going to church is stupid, and I don't think we should allow it. It's clearly unhealthy for the mental wellbeing of many people. I don't see how we can allow people to do this.

I was thinking about this statement for a little while this weekend. And if you want to just go on wellbeing. Then we'd better shutdown all the colleges, bars, and nightclubs. Because they all effect the mental wellbeing of a person in every bit of a demonstratable way as church. So, I really don't see you point there my friend.

 

[Duke]

I was thinking about this statement for a little while this weekend. And if you want to just go on wellbeing. Then we'd better shutdown all the colleges, bars, and nightclubs. Because they all effect the mental wellbeing of a person in every bit of a demonstratable way as church. So, I really don't see you point there my friend.

Actually, you do see my point, and you've just proved it perfectly. My point is that someone can define anything as a danger to the people who practice it. I'm sure that watching too many Shirley Temple movies can cause psychosis.

Living is bad for your health. Living is 100% terminal, so far. So how are we to set external standards on how people should be allowed to spend their lives?

If you say you have the right to tell people they are not allowed to smoke pot because they are wasting their health and time doing so, how do you logically stop at that point?

What's the logical difference between that and telling me I'm required to give up the cheese fries and Gran Turismo, because salads and jogging are what my current 50-pounds-overweight body needs in order to reduce my current level of health risk?

Once you step over the line of assuming you know what's best for everybody, you've got no logical way to set what constitutes an acceptable level of control and what doesn't.

[edit]

That's why we're so against dictating what is allowed and what is not - everybody has different priorities. Yes, if I have children, I have created an obligation for myself that I should be around to care for them and help them reach adulthood.

But what if I never want to have kids and take steps to make sure that doesn't happen? What if I want to live fast, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse? Are you telling me that my life is not my own property? Are you telling me that I am obligated to society and so I cannot set the terms of my own life and death?

That sounds a lot like fascism to me.

 

[Swift]

Actually, you do see my point, and you've just proved it perfectly. My point is that someone can define anything as a danger to the people who practice it. I'm sure that watching too many Shirley Temple movies can cause psychosis.

Living is bad for your health. Living is 100% terminal, so far. So how are we to set external standards on how people should be allowed to spend their lives?

If you say you have the right to tell people they are not allowed to smoke pot because they are wasting their health and time doing so, how do you logically stop at that point?

What's the logical difference between that and telling me I'm required to give up the cheese fries and Gran Turismo, because salads and jogging are what my current 50-pounds-overweight body needs in order to reduce my current level of health risk?

Once you step over the line of assuming you know what's best for everybody, you've got no logical way to set what constitutes an acceptable level of control and what doesn't.

[edit]

That's why we're so against dictating what is allowed and what is not - everybody has different priorities. Yes, if I have children, I have created an obligation for myself that I should be around to care for them and help them reach adulthood.

But what if I never want to have kids and take steps to make sure that doesn't happen? What if I want to live fast, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse? Are you telling me that my life is not my own property? Are you telling me that I am obligated to society and so I cannot set the terms of my own life and death?

That sounds a lot like fascism to me.

Ah, but I can prove that pot, smoking, drugs all that junk it detremental to EVERYONE'S health. You can't prove that everyone is going to be negatively effected, mentally or physically, by going to college, nightclubs, bars or church. That's my point.

for the edit: If our constitution is built around the principle of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Does the pursuit of happiness have priority in that philosophy? I would think that first, Life, is the most important. Then freedom in that life, then happiness in that life. Or do you see it differently?

 

[Zrow]

Ah, but I can prove that pot, smoking, drugs all that junk it detremental to EVERYONE'S health. You can't prove that everyone is going to be negatively effected, mentally or physically, by going to college, nightclubs, bars or church. That's my point.

for the edit: If our constitution is built around the principle of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Does the pursuit of happiness have priority in that philosophy? I would think that first, Life, is the most important. Then freedom in that life, then happiness in that life. Or do you see it differently?

What's wrong with people having the right to harm themselves if they so please? If I want to punch myself in the face, shouldn't I be allowed? I'm not punching somebody else. I'ts my own free will.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

What's wrong with people having the right to harm themselves if they so please?

That's not the point. You're not only hurting yourself when you smoke.

If I want to punch myself in the face, shouldn't I be allowed?

You know what... go right ahead.

I'm not punching somebody else. I'ts my own free will.

Freedom without certain restrictions is worthless.

...and if I was had more "FREE" time, I'd post some more... but I have economics work to do...

I'll be back later though. I'm not finished with Dan, yet.

 

[Danoff]

Ah, but I can prove that pot, smoking, drugs all that junk it detremental to EVERYONE'S health. You can't prove that everyone is going to be negatively effected, mentally or physically, by going to college, nightclubs, bars or church. That's my point.

You missed it. Cheese fries are bad for everyone. Alcohol is bad for everyone. Playing GT4 is wasted time spent only entertaining yourself.

I can prove to you that being 50 pounds overweight is bad for everyone, that doesn't mean it should be illegal - what gives you the right to dictate what weight other people should be, or what kind of tobacco they smoke, or alcohol they drink, or video games they play.

 

[Danoff]

That's not the point. You're not only hurting yourself when you smoke.

As I said before, if you can prove demonstrably that someone else caused you harm with their smoke, then you might have a case.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

As I said before, if you can prove demonstrably that someone else caused you harm with their smoke, then you might have a case.

Don't have time to get into details but I'll give you one example. The money you spend on cigarettes could go to charity, your kids college fund etc.

When you say "you" do you mean ME specifically?

Explain?

I'll have to explain later... work to do...

It doesn't matter though! It's your money! You're free to do whatever with it.

I know that! You're missing the point.

 

[Zrow]

That's not the point. You're not only hurting yourself when you smoke.

That's what I'm saying.

Freedom without certain restrictions is worthless.

Explain?

 

[Zrow]

Don't have time to get into details but I'll give you one example. The money you spend on cigarettes could go to charity, your kids college fund etc.

It doesn't matter though! It's your money! You're free to do whatever with it.

 

[Duke]

Ah, but I can prove that pot, smoking, drugs all that junk it detremental to EVERYONE'S health. You can't prove that everyone is going to be negatively effected, mentally or physically, by going to college, nightclubs, bars or church. That's my point.

If I stay in my home, smoke pot in my living room all by myself, and don't steal money from anyone, you're going to have a VERY difficult time convincing me that I'm harming anyone but myself in ANY way. Same with any other 'sin' that we're discussing. As long as I keep it to myself or among like-minded associates, and as long as I don't expect society to make up for the problems it causes in my life, I don't see how society has the right to tell me I can't live that way.

We're not talking about me being an alcoholic deadbeat dad who terrorizes his family and spends the grocery money on whiskey. We're talking about me making decisions that affect ME alone. I don't agree that I'm causing some perceived but non-specific damage to 'society as a whole' just by removing myself from it.

for the edit: If our constitution is built around the principle of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Does the pursuit of happiness have priority in that philosophy? I would think that first, Life, is the most important. Then freedom in that life, then happiness in that life. Or do you see it differently?

I'm sure you would think that, and so you're welcome to prioritize those three in that order to suit yourself. I wouldn't assume that the Founding Fathers had ANY particular priority in mind. If they did, the Constitution itself does not indicate it and so it seems clear that the Founders considered all three as vital and also all three as the rights of the individual to pursue as they see fit.

Some people may wish to live a long time and so are willing to give up a large number of freedoms and happiness in pursuit of that overall goal. That's their choice and they are within 100% of their rights to voluntarily do so. Some people may be willing to accept some risk of shortened life in exchange for certain pleasures that they enjoy now. I'm solidly in that category.

Then again, some people may elect to spend their lives quickly and deliriously. I don't see how anyone can presume to make that judgement for anyone else.

 

[Swift]

If I stay in my home, smoke pot in my living room all by myself, and don't steal money from anyone, you're going to have a VERY difficult time convincing me that I'm harming anyone but myself in ANY way. Same with any other 'sin' that we're discussing. As long as I keep it to myself or among like-minded associates, and as long as I don't expect society to make up for the problems it causes in my life, I don't see how society has the right to tell me I can't live that way.

We're not talking about me being an alcoholic deadbeat dad who terrorizes his family and spends the grocery money on whiskey. We're talking about me making decisions that affect ME alone. I don't agree that I'm causing some perceived but non-specific damage to 'society as a whole' just by removing myself from it.

I'm sure you would think that, and so you're welcome to prioritize those three in that order to suit yourself. I wouldn't assume that the Founding Fathers had ANY particular priority in mind. If they did, the Constitution itself does not indicate it and so it seems clear that the Founders considered all three as vital and also all three as the rights of the individual to pursue as they see fit.

Some people may wish to live a long time and so are willing to give up a large number of freedoms and happiness in pursuit of that overall goal. That's their choice and they are within 100% of their rights to voluntarily do so. Some people may be willing to accept some risk of shortened life in exchange for certain pleasures that they enjoy now. I'm solidly in that category.

Then again, some people may elect to spend their lives quickly and deliriously. I don't see how anyone can presume to make that judgement for anyone else.

Ah, but how many people, that do drugs do you know that just sit in their house and quietly do it? Or don't drive after they've had a few beers or whatever. For your example, that would be fine. But the challenge is that people take it out of the private realm and into the public. So you say, punish the offense. That's great, but I think that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is better then having to tell someone there husband/wife/daughter/son was just killed by a drunk or high driver. I think the point that I am making is that people don't keep things like this private. It always spills into the public eye. I mean, if we were really serious about drunk driving, we wouldn't let people drive to bars. You'd have to take public transporation or a cab(from your home). That would alleviate a lot of the drunk driving issues we have. But that's infringing on their rights, to accidentally kill someone after they leave the bar. Hmmm....well, considering the possible outcome, I'm willing to give up a bit of freedom to know that Joe Schmoe isn't coming at me at the wrong side of the road with no lights on.

 

[sn00pie]

Don't have time to get into details but I'll give you one example. The money you spend on cigarettes could go to charity, your kids college fund etc.

That's a pretty moot point though, because the money you spend on orange juice could also go to charity, your kids college fund and Peugeot 205 XRD's for the entire family.