Smoking

[MrktMkr1986]

As an occasional pot smoker, I think that the American laws on pot smoking are extremely harsh. I don't smoke that often, maybe 2-3 times a month. I do think it is also a matter of maturity. There are people that I know that are extremely immature with it. They'll speed around in their cars smoking up, throwing beer cans out of their windows, and eventually crashing. This is one of the mains reasons that pot is illegal in the United States. People are far too immature to do it.

Just because you smoke 2-3 times a month doesn't make you "better" or "more mature" than the person that smokes and drives and throws beer cans out of windows. You are still doing something illegal no matter how you try to justify it. Knowingly (and continuously) breaking the law is anti-social according to the DSM-IV since certain people like to talk about "logic".

 

[Duke]

I disagree, there can be no price put on health for the sheer fact that we aren't able to cure and fix everything. Therefore, health is a priceless asset.

I disagree with your disagreement. Doctors are under no obligation to perform any services they won't voluntarily perform.

Here's the challenge with that line of thought. A lot of people DON'T think things through before doing them. Like smoking, drinking, drugs, bad eating habits and so on. Not to mention the amount of uniformed people out there.

That's right, there are. Why does that automatically make me their nursemaid and babysitter? As I said numerous times last night, ignoring your responsibilities doesn't stop them from being your responsibilities.

I can understand your thought. But it seems to let people just fall off or fall through the cracks. Not a very moral society.

We apparently disagree on the definition of 'moral'. I don't see why making me nursemaid for people who will not take care of themselves is moral in any way.

BTW, since when was morality ever fair?

Morality and fairness should be inextricably combined. I don't see how something unfair can be moral in any way and I don't see how something moral can be unfair.

 

[PS]

Just because you smoke 2-3 times a month doesn't make you "better" or "more mature" than the person that smokes and drives and throws beer cans out of windows. You are still doing something illegal no matter how you try to justify it. Knowingly (and continuously) breaking the law is anti-social according to the DSM-IV since certain people like to talk about "logic".

I can see where he's comming from. Here in Canada, pot heads don't do anything. Even the guys who are on it like 24/7. By then they're probably too retarded to anything more than lay around. But being Canadian, and in a "laidback" city, where something like 35% of the city has smoked weed, I too think it should be legalized-- in Canada.

It nearly is legal, but because it's Canada and pot is still basically illegal, the laws just aren't as harsh. Instead of having drug dealers on the streets selling it to kids (which doesn't really do much anyway), it will eventually be seen in stores that sell cigarettes -- at a ridiculously high price I hope. I'm talking like, 5-10$ per joint depending on where you live (lower in Ontario, higher in Yukon for growing costs etc., or vice-versa depending on which one has the highest problems with it).

If they could somehow manage to control it somewhere between alcohol and cigarettes, I think they'd be on the right track. No driving while under the influence of alcohol, and maybe something like only smoking it in certain places. No smoking it at work, or in public areas for the sake of others, and then there would be certain fines if you had too much of it or something along those lines.

I guess you just have to see what the populous is like when they use it. Certain races (not a generalization or stupid remark- eg. blacks with salt, native/aboriginals with alcohol etc) may be subject to different effects, and in higher concentrations of those particular races (ie. how many white people do you find in the middle of Africa? Or hispanics in the arctic?) they would charge that percentage higher for that whole district or city or something. I don't know whether it should be control on the federal, or municipal level or whatever, I suppose each has its' own benefits and drawbacks.

It will eventually become legal to a degree though. It's innevitable.

 

[Duke]

Just because you smoke 2-3 times a month doesn't make you "better" or "more mature" than the person that smokes and drives and throws beer cans out of windows. You are still doing something illegal no matter how you try to justify it. Knowingly (and continuously) breaking the law is anti-social according to the DSM-IV since certain people like to talk about "logic".

Actually, it does make him better, because he's seen the problems that a certain behaviour can cause for his fellow citizens, and he's voluntarily taking steps to make sure he doesn't do that.

In other words, for no other reason than it's the right thing to do, he's taking care to avoid infringing the rights of others. He's proving the system works.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Actually, it does make him better, because he's seen the problems that a certain behaviour can cause for his fellow citizens, and he's voluntarily taking steps to make sure he doesn't do that.

In other words, for no other reason than it's the right thing to do, he's taking care to avoid infringing the rights of others. He's proving the system works.

He's proving the system does not work because he's not looking at the long-term effects. He's only looking at the "here and now" -- instant gratification. Like retirement, if you think having $6,000 now is better than having $60,000 later then you have a serious problem. That is exactly what he is doing.

 

[PS]

He's proving the system does not work because he's not looking at the long-term effects. He's only looking at the "here and now" -- instant gratification. Like retirement, if you think having $6,000 now is better than having $60,000 later then you have a serious problem. That is exactly what he is doing.

Just because he smokes cigarettes or marijuana doesn't mean he's automatically condemned to suffer health defects for the rest of his life. Like I've mentioned before, my Uncle Mike has smoked since he was 5. 5!...5@!!1 And he was a star athlete all through school and still is (and he's lin his late 50's now)!

And just because he/she may/may not smoke marijuana 2-3 per month certainly doesn't mean that they're destined to have heart/lung/brain/liver problems. My grandma almost did pass away twice and she's 80 now, and has smoked since she was like 12. Still alive and kickin' though.

 

[Duke]

He's proving the system does not work because he's not looking at the long-term effects. He's only looking at the "here and now" -- instant gratification. Like retirement, if you think having $6,000 now is better than having $60,000 later then you have a serious problem. That is exactly what he is doing.

...that's his choice, though. And as long as he doesn't expect welfare to fund his retirement, that's just dandy. He doesn't appear to me to be the type who thinks the world owes him anything; on the contrary, he seems to be the type who is careful to make sure that his actions don't harm others.

You really just can't stand to see anybody that doesn't conform to your idea of 'correct', can you?

You are still doing something illegal no matter how you try to justify it. Knowingly (and continuously) breaking the law is anti-social according to the DSM-IV since certain people like to talk about "logic".

Speaking of logic, you've just proven our whole point. You've not only defined 'morality' by the content of the civil law, but now you've expanded that to include 'insanity' as well. He's 'antisocial' because he does not conform even when his behaviour harms no one but himself.

Amish people believe that using electricity and driving cars is against their moral law. So you're antisocial on their terms, by your own definition.

Are you even beginning to see the problem?

 

[slowman]

Just because you smoke 2-3 times a month doesn't make you "better" or "more mature" than the person that smokes and drives and throws beer cans out of windows. You are still doing something illegal no matter how you try to justify it. Knowingly (and continuously) breaking the law is anti-social according to the DSM-IV since certain people like to talk about "logic".

I understand where you're coming from and that is a good point.

But I am not trying to justify it (because it is illegal, and I realize this), I am simply saying that if people would use it like I do... it would probably be legal in the US. It's just that the majority of people don't. Being illegal and still doing it even though it should be legal doesn't justify it; I realize this. It would be similar to someone deciding that they shouldn't have to stop at a 4 way stop intersection, and with that logic, they run it. It's still illegal whether you or many other millions of people think that stop sign shouldn't be there.

I do realize that in the scheme of things it is a socially unacceptable activity, therefore I don't smoke and go to work, go to college classes, or go out in public for that matter. It is simply something I use and enjoy in the privacy of my own home. I don't encourage people to start doing it, I don't push it on people, and I WILL NOT provide it to people for free OR at their cost. They can get it for themselves. I keep it to myself.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

...that's his choice, though. And as long as he doesn't expect welfare to fund his retirement, that's just dandy. He doesn't appear to me to be the type who thinks the world owes him anything; on the contrary, he seems to be the type who is careful to make sure that his actions don't harm others.

You are taking "individualism" to extremes. That is what scares me about Libertarianism. What makes you think I was talking about effects on himself? I personally don't care whether he wants to kill himself, push the limits of his health, whatever. I care about society as a whole. His actions, everything he does, affects society as a whole. I don't want to get into too much detail, but there is a general consensus that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. If he plans on having children in the future, does he really want to risk smoking marijuana in there presence (assuming its still illegal in the future)?

You really just can't stand to see anybody that doesn't conform to your idea of 'correct', can you?

I like the way you worded that question. Whether I answer "yes" or "no" it's still in agreement to what you are trying to insinuate. Please rephrase the question and I would happy to answer the question you are really trying to ask.

 

[Swift]

I disagree with your disagreement. Doctors are under no obligation to perform any services they won't voluntarily perform.

I'm not talking about health in relation to treatment. I'm talking about being a healthy person. There is no possible price for that.

That's right, there are. Why does that automatically make me their nursemaid and babysitter? As I said numerous times last night, ignoring your responsibilities doesn't stop them from being your responsibilities.

We apparently disagree on the definition of 'moral'. I don't see why making me nursemaid for people who will not take care of themselves is moral in any way.

Morality and fairness should be inextricably combined. I don't see how something unfair can be moral in any way and I don't see how something moral can be unfair.

See, here's the thing. For your thought to be moral, everyone would have to be educated on just about every risk out there. But I'm sure that the Libertarian stance is that "Ignorance is no excuse" Man, really really really rough.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Speaking of logic, you've just proven our whole point. You've not only defined 'morality' by the content of the civil law, but now you've expanded that to include 'insanity' as well. He's 'antisocial' because he does not conform even when his behaviour harms no one but himself.

Amish people believe that using electricity and driving cars is against their moral law. So you're antisocial on their terms, by your own definition.

Are you even beginning to see the problem?

The Amish example does not work.

The avoidance of items such as automobiles and electricity is largely misunderstood. The Amish do not view all technology as evil. Technologies can be petitioned for acceptance into the Amish lifestyle. Twice a year the church leaders meet to review items for admittance.

Electricity, for instance, is viewed as a connection to the "English" (the outside world). The use of electricity also could lead to the use of household appliances that would complicate the Amish tradition of a simple life. However, in certain Amish groups electricity can be used in very specific situations. In some groups, for example, it has to be produced without access to outside power lines. Twelve-volt batteries are acceptable to these groups. Electric generators can only be used for welding, recharging batteries, and powering milk stirrers. The reasoning behind the twelve-volt system is that it limits what an individual can do with the electricity and acts as a preventive measure against potential abuses. Most twelve-volt power sources can't generate enough current to power worldly modern appliances such as televisions, light bulbs, and hair dryers.

 

[slowman]

I don't want to get into too much detail, but there is a general consensus that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. If he plans on having children in the future, does he really want to risk smoking marijuana in there presence (assuming its still illegal in the future)?

<><><>
1. I love it when people say that marijuana is a gateway drug. I've smoked marijuana (again, infrequently) for about 3 years. Not yet have I felt any compulsion or interest in trying any other drugs. Abusers seem to have the most problems, and there is a HUGE difference between use and abuse.

2. The day I plan to have kids is the day I stop smoking cigarettes and marijuana. It is proven that excessive consumption of cigarettes and also marijuana can cause birth defects. That would violate my personal rule of not pushing it anyone else. Having a child with birth defects as a result of cigarettes or marijuana would be just that... effectively pushing it on someone else. And people that do that are the very same people (abusers) I dislike.

 

[Swift]

<><><>
2. The day I plan to have kids is the day I stop smoking cigarettes and marijuana. It is proven that excessive consumption of cigarettes and also marijuana can cause birth defects. That would violate my personal rule of not pushing it anyone else. Having a child with birth defects as a result of cigarettes or marijuana would be just that... effectively pushing it on someone else. And people that do that are the very same people (abusers) I dislike.

You do realise that those chemicals stay in your body for months and even years right?

The very fact that you don't want your children effected by it says that you KNOW what you're doing is wrong. So, why keep doing it?

 

[Duke]

You are taking "individualism" to extremes. That is what scares me about Libertarianism. What makes you think I was talking about effects on himself? I personally don't care whether he wants to kill himself, push the limits of his health, whatever. I care about society as a whole. His actions, everything he does, affects society as a whole. I don't want to get into too much detail, but there is a general consensus that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. If he plans on having children in the future, does he really want to risk smoking marijuana in there presence (assuming its still illegal in the future)?

I hate to break it to you, but you appear to be the one taking things to the extreme. If every one of my actions affects 'society as a whole', I might as well just kill myself now rather than risk harming someone with an unintended side effect of my living.

I breathe a lot. That's removing precious oxygen from the atmosphere. I'm 50 pounds overweight. That's 50 pounds worth of calories I'm infringing away from somebody else who needs it more. I have 4 cars. I should get rid of two because I'm infringing on somebody else's right to drive them by parking them in my garage. And come to think of it, my back bedroom is empty... that's undoubtedly infringing on a homeless person's right to have shelter.

I like the way you worded that question. Whether I answer "yes" or "no" it's still in agreement to what you are trying to insinuate. Please rephrase the question and I would happy to answer the question you are really trying to ask.

There was no trap intended. I'm not sure how else to word it. I'll try:

Statement: You would prefer for society as a whole to conform fairly strictly to your particular image of what would be a good life for you. You believe that the majority has the right to enforce that conformity on the minority.

Question: True or false?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I understand where you're coming from and that is a good point.

But I am not trying to justify it (because it is illegal, and I realize this), I am simply saying that if people would use it like I do... it would probably be legal in the US. It's just that the majority of people don't. Being illegal and still doing it even though it should be legal doesn't justify it; I realize this. It would be similar to someone deciding that they shouldn't have to stop at a 4 way stop intersection, and with that logic, they run it. It's still illegal whether you or many other millions of people think that stop sign shouldn't be there.

I do realize that in the scheme of things it is a socially unacceptable activity, therefore I don't smoke and go to work, go to college classes, or go out in public for that matter. It is simply something I use and enjoy in the privacy of my own home. I don't encourage people to start doing it, I don't push it on people, and I WILL NOT provide it to people for free OR at their cost. They can get it for themselves. I keep it to myself.

I too understand where you're coming from as well -- though I do not agree with your conclusion.

<><><>
1. I love it when people say that marijuana is a gateway drug. I've smoked marijuana (again, infrequently) for about 3 years. Not yet have I felt any compulsion or interest in trying any other drugs. Abusers seem to have the most problems, and there is a HUGE difference between use and abuse.

One can draw the conclusion that because you are an infrequent user, you are less likely to have felt any compulsion towards other "harder" drugs. It is still a gateway drug.

2. The day I plan to have kids is the day I stop smoking cigarettes and marijuana.

Excellent. 👍

Not that I'm trying to start an argument or anything, but... what happens if you find the ability to suddenly quit so unbearable that either you go back to doing it again, or you find another means of "escape"?

 

[smellysocks12]

Do you think smoking should be banned in public places

Yes, it is air pollution and some people have allergic reactions to it. Why would people who are allergic to it or just don't like it have to avoid certain places just because some nicotine junkie has developed a nasty habit of inhaling smoke? I think if someone wants to smoke that bad that they are the ones who have to go out of their way to be able to do so.

Should smokers receive free medical treatment for smoking-related diseases

Yes, anyone has the right to get healthcare. Smoking is just part of their lifestyle. If anyone races cars for instance they will patch him up after a crash as well, you're not going to throw someone with a blocked cc # on the streets with a broken neck just because crashing is a risk that comes with car racing.

Do you think tobacco should be subject to the same laws as other drugs?

No, as a matter of fact I think many other drugs should be legal. Alcohol is a hard drug, while it is legal. This doesn't mean I think heroin should be sold in the supermarket next to the milk and butter, but it should be legally distributed to addicts in controlled dosages if they are willing to participate in a program to get clean. This will bring down the crime rate since they won't need to pay incredibly high amounts of money that drugdealers demand. Marihuana should have been legalized already in any country where alcohol is legal. Stoned people cause less trouble than drunkards. Banning it while allowing people to drink vodka is hypocrite, you don't have to use it if you don't like it. In the Netherlands where I live it is legal and I never used it because it doesn't appeal to it. If anyone else wants to I'm not stopping them.

 

[Swift]

No, as a matter of fact I think many other drugs should be legal. Alcohol is a hard drug, while it is legal. This doesn't mean I think heroin should be sold in the supermarket next to the milk and butter, but it should be legally distributed to addicts in controlled dosages if they are willing to participate in a program to get clean. This will bring down the crime rate since they won't need to pay incredibly high amounts of money that drugdealers demand. Marihuana should have been legalized already in any country where alcohol is legal. Stoned people cause less trouble than drunkards. Banning it while allowing people to drink vodka is hypocrite, you don't have to use it if you don't like it. In the Netherlands where I live it is legal and I never used it because it doesn't appeal to it. If anyone else wants to I'm not stopping them.

Or they would just rob the gov't stash that has the heroin...

Giving just a little bit of drugs to an addict is like giving a little bit of meat to a hungry pit bull. You're only making him hungrier.

 

[PS]

I like the alcohol example, it works very well. Alcohol is much worse in high amounts, it certainly harms a lot more people a year, people can get enraged on it, you fall into a stupor, you pass out, you can overdose easily, and it has damaging long term affects. And yet marijuana slows you down, is nearly impossible to overdose, rarely gets anyone killed, doesn't give you any extreme side effects, and isn't widely available in bars/stores all over the world. So what's the real problem here people?

You need to step outside what's legal and what isn't-- THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T ALWAYS RIGHT. You all need to see that. The constitution originally said that women couldn't vote- but is that right? No, of ****ing course it isn't. Blacks were also allowed to be used as slaves up until the civil war-- was that right? Hell no.

Just because the government allows or bans something, or makes a law yae/naye for something doesn't make it right, and that's where I stand on marijuana. Even in public, I've never seen someone get into a fight or cause problems over pot. Yet I've seen tor heard of thousands of deaths and fights from alcohol, including robberies. So think about it logically, which entails regardless of law, what do you see as logical? I see marijuana as being more legal than alcohol, and what's worse is that you're allowed to drive with alcohol in your system (the amount varying depending on state/province).

There's something wrong with all of this, that some of you have to realise.

 

[Duke]

The Amish example does not work.

Yes, it does; and perfectly. I'm well aware of the Amish lifestyle and the variations among different sects and even different families. I live directly between two large enclaves of Mennonites, and have for all my life.

The point is (and I believe you're missing it on purpose): your lifestyle is much more complicated than theirs. To them, you are unneccessarily complicating your life and affecting your spirituality (simplification of life to prevent distractions from pious living is a hallmark of Amish philosophy). Your quote there even proves my point: even among different folks within the Amish society, opinions vary upon what is proper and what is not.

For the sake of argument, assume that they wish to project that moral simplification onto you, and have the legislative power to do so. Yes, I'm well aware that's not how they behave, but lets not slide off on a tangent, shall we? Thanks.

I assume you believe that you are harming no one and are within your rights when using your computer, keeping your food cold in your refrigerator, and driving your car down to the grocery store.

Yet those actions would be deemed uneccessary complications and a danger to your moral health, and so to protect you, those civil liberties would be removed. You'd be expected to conform and accept it, even though you were a careful driver, never kept beer in your refrigerator, and stayed away from internet porn.

I don't think you'd be happy about that at all.

Is this even remotely getting through to you?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I hate to break it to you, but you appear to be the one taking things to the extreme. If every one of my actions affects 'society as a whole', I might as well just kill myself now rather than risk harming someone with an unintended side effect of my living.

That is not what I was trying to say.

I breathe a lot. That's removing precious oxygen from the atmosphere. I'm 50 pounds overweight. That's 50 pounds worth of calories I'm infringing away from somebody else who needs it more. I have 4 cars. I should get rid of two because I'm infringing on somebody else's right to drive them by parking them in my garage. And come to think of it, my back bedroom is empty... that's undoubtedly infringing on a homeless person's right to have shelter.

Again, that is not what I was trying to say. I'll try to run through a bunch of those, though.

1. There's more than enough oxygen in our atmosphere and it is a renewable resource. Your breathing is will have almost no effect on the atmosphere's 21% oxygen makeup.

2. Contrary to what many people believe, there is enough of a food supply in the world to feed everyone. The problem is DISTRIBUTION -- blame that on neo-imperialism.

3. Car companies project the amount of cars they think they can sell. Technically you are not infringing on someone's rights to drive them by parking it in your garage. If everyone were meant to drive, everyone would have a car.

4. It's your back room -- your property... one of the most important things to a Libertarian (economically-speaking).

There was no trap intended.

I didn't think so, but after I read it, I saw it immediately.

Statement: You would prefer for society as a whole to conform fairly strictly to your particular image of what would be a good life for you.

Absolutely not, as that would be selfish. If that were the case, I could "mold" my own society of 6.4 billion humans as I see fit. That is the mindset of a megalomaniac. I would prefer for society as a whole to conform fairly strictly to "a" particular image of what would be a good life "for everyone" -- an issue that Conservatism at least attempts to solve -- unlike Libertarianism.

You believe that the majority has the right to enforce that conformity on the minority.

It depends on the situation. This is where "logic" can supersede morals.

Question: True or false?

False based on the previous responses.

Is this even remotely getting through to you?

Yes, I understand. However, it's not reality -- as I tried to point out in the other thread.

 

[Duke]

Yes, it is air pollution and some people have allergic reactions to it. Why would people who are allergic to it or just don't like it have to avoid certain places just because some nicotine junkie has developed a nasty habit of inhaling smoke? I think if someone wants to smoke that bad that they are the ones who have to go out of their way to be able to do so.




Yes, anyone has the right to get healthcare. Smoking is just part of their lifestyle. If anyone races cars for instance they will patch him up after a crash as well, you're not going to throw someone with a blocked cc # on the streets with a broken neck just because crashing is a risk that comes with car racing.




No, as a matter of fact I think many other drugs should be legal. Alcohol is a hard drug, while it is legal. This doesn't mean I think heroin should be sold in the supermarket next to the milk and butter, but it should be legally distributed to addicts in controlled dosages if they are willing to participate in a program to get clean. This will bring down the crime rate since they won't need to pay incredibly high amounts of money that drugdealers demand. Marihuana should have been legalized already in any country where alcohol is legal. Stoned people cause less trouble than drunkards. Banning it while allowing people to drink vodka is hypocrite, you don't have to use it if you don't like it. In the Netherlands where I live it is legal and I never used it because it doesn't appeal to it. If anyone else wants to I'm not stopping them.

This is known as the "Dutch Treat", and it is an abject failure.

 

[PS]

Or they would just rob the gov't stash that has the heroin...

Giving just a little bit of drugs to an addict is like giving a little bit of meat to a hungry pit bull. You're only making him hungrier.

How would you know? Is meat addictive? No- it's filling. I can attest for that first hand.

Drugs however are an entirely different story. Even when people try cocaine or ecstacy, it doesn't mean they're instantly going to get hooked. That's usually a trait of that particular person's...personality. Addiction is personal trait, and while yes, some drugs do have addictive ingredients, many also do not.

This isn't true for marijuana. I don't know anyone that has ever been addicted, in fact, most of them just do it now'n'then and it has little to no effect on their surroundings. Even they're parents don't realise they're high when they come home sometimes, it's quite funny. I recall one time when I was out with a couple friends and we went back to one their places and his mom and dad were in the kitchen, and they were all asking him about his day and he's like "i dunno...oh man it was pretty crazy today...haha...yah, it was nice today...i'm kina tired, see y'all later!", which goes not only to show that you only get a bit wierd off of marijuana, but also that it doesn't have any harmfull (ie. violence, beligerence, disturbing peace) immediate effects. I can testify for tons of friend who've used it and never caused a problem.

Why don't I smoke it? I probably would, but I'm strongly against any form smoking so there goes that plan. I'll probably try a hashbrownie in my time though.

 

[PS]

Brian, can we drop the political jargon and look at this from a strictly social and personal opinion point of view? Thanks.

That is not what I was trying to say.

Explain then.

1. There's more than enough oxygen in our atmosphere and it is a renewable resource. Your breathing is will have almost no effect on the atmosphere's 21% oxygen makeup.

That wasn't his point. He was referring to how if everything he did had an impact on someone then he should stop doing everything in case someone gets hurt or disgruntled. You're solution however, simply proves his point. There enough oxygen to replenish itself and there's no impact on 6 billion people by 1 person breathing, the same can be said for two people laying in bed smokin' a doob before they fall asleep.

2. Contrary to what many people believe, there is enough of a food supply in the world to feed everyone. The problem is DISTRIBUTION -- blame that on neo-imperialism.

Refer to above post.

3. Car companies project the amount of cars they think they can sell. Technically you are not infringing on someone's rights to drive them by parking it in your garage. If everyone were meant to drive, everyone would have a car.

Once again, not his point. You are also not infringing on anyone's rights if you're smoking marijuana alone, or even in many places for that matter. Unless it's in a place that's No-Smoking/Smoking prohibited. And the only thing that's actually illegal about pot, is posession and trafficking.

4. It's your back room -- your property... one of the most important things to a Libertarian (economically-speaking).

Oy-vey....

It depends on the situation. This is where "logic" can supersede morals.

Am I even speaking? Hello? lalalalalalalala.

 

[Swift]

How would you know? Is meat addictive? No- it's filling. I can attest for that first hand.

Drugs however are an entirely different story. Even when people try cocaine or ecstacy, it doesn't mean they're instantly going to get hooked. That's usually a trait of that particular person's...personality. Addiction is personal trait, and while yes, some drugs do have addictive ingredients, many also do not.

This isn't true for marijuana. I don't know anyone that has ever been addicted, in fact, most of them just do it now'n'then and it has little to no effect on their surroundings. Even they're parents don't realise they're high when they come home sometimes, it's quite funny. I recall one time when I was out with a couple friends and we went back to one their places and his mom and dad were in the kitchen, and they were all asking him about his day and he's like "i dunno...oh man it was pretty crazy today...haha...yah, it was nice today...i'm kina tired, see y'all later!", which goes not only to show that you only get a bit wierd off of marijuana, but also that it doesn't have any harmfull (ie. violence, beligerence, disturbing peace) immediate effects. I can testify for tons of friend who've used it and never caused a problem.

Why don't I smoke it? I probably would, but I'm strongly against any form smoking so there goes that plan. I'll probably try a hashbrownie in my time though.

One of my best friends died from heroin. Is that qualification enough to know what's going on with addictions to drugs. Don't assume you know someone when you don't.

The other example you sighted was so isolated. What happens after you've been smoking for years and well, your memory lapses or you discover your lungs are black as coal or whatever.

Yeah, I must say that I'm a bit angry that you would just assume I didn't know what I was talking about especially when YOU didn't.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Explain then.

If he acts in a way that he knows is wrong (yes, I know, it is his choice, it is his "right") he can delude himself into thinking it is a "victimless crime". In REALITY, whether or not you are willing to accept it, your crimes have an impact on society. I am specifically referring to marijuana in this case since this is a thread about smoking and not about politics.

That wasn't his point. He was referring to how if everything he did had an impact on someone then he should stop doing everything in case someone gets hurt or disgruntled. You're solution however, simply proves his point. There enough oxygen to replenish itself and there's no impact on 6 billion people by 1 person breathing, the same can be said for two people laying in bed smokin' a doob before they fall asleep.

I'm not talking about AIR QUALITY my friend. There are OTHER SOCIAL/PERSONAL RAMIFICATIONS involved with smoking marijuana.

Once again, not his point. You are also not infringing on anyone's rights if you're smoking marijuana alone, or even in many places for that matter.

You're not looking at the big picture. What impact do YOU think propogating the ALREADY illegal drug trade will have on society?

 

[Duke]

That is not what I was trying to say.

Then what were you trying to say? You specifically stated that every individual's actions affect society as a whole. You are obviously extremely concerned about the health of society as a whole - and assume that society as a whole conforms to the status quo of your life.
Therefore any actions I take that do not conform to that status quo may endanger it, intentionally or not. From your post I originally quoted it is clear that's a bad thing.

2. Contrary to what many people believe, there is enough of a food supply in the world to feed everyone. The problem is DISTRIBUTION -- blame that on neo-imperialism.

That's not a particularly Capitalist thing to say. Then again maybe I'm mistaken in assuming you're a Capitalist. Besides, the quantity of food in the world is irrelevant and you are smokescreening. The salient fact is that I have more food than I need, and my gluttony is affecting society as a whole.

4. It's your back room -- your property... one of the most important things to a Libertarian (economically-speaking).

But not one of much importance to someone who believes that society has the right to infringe the rights of individuals who are causing no harm to other individuals.

Absolutely not, as that would be selfish. If that were the case, I could "mold" my own society of 6.4 billion humans as I see fit. That is the mindset of a megalomaniac.

Yet that's exactly what you're trying to do. I've demonstrated numerous ways that my morality causes no harm to anyone else, yet you feel it is too permissive and my civil liberties must be restricted in order to protect society. You've clearly stated this many times. Do not try to say that's not what you meant.

I would prefer for society as a whole to conform fairly strictly to "a" particular image of what would be a good life "for everyone" -- an issue that Conservatism at least attempts to solve -- unlike Libertarianism.

You're totally wrong here.

Libertarianism is the only method that can create a good life for everyone, by allowing each person who makes up that "everyone" to determine what best suits him, with the caveat that his good life may not interfere with anyone else's good life. It's solved, and perfectly.

Your brand of Conservatism, on the other hand, seeks a 'one size fits all' lifestyle, which may fit you and a few others like you but is guaranteed to fit almost noone else.

Show me the "particular good life for everyone" that would allow happiness for all of the following people: Baptist minister, an interacial family from Kansas, a Harvard sociology professor, me, Der Alta, an Impressionist painter, a gay couple with a monogamously committed relationship of 10 years' standing, and a Nebraskan corn farmer.

And that's leaving out the real toughies to integrate with the above group like Australian aborigines, the French, and the Japanese.

 

[Duke]

If he acts in a way that he knows is wrong (yes, I know, it is his choice, it is his "right") he can delude himself into thinking it is a "victimless crime". In REALITY, whether or not you are willing to accept it, your crimes have an impact on society. I am specifically referring to marijuana in this case since this is a thread about smoking and not about politics.

Are you familiar with Prohibition? Do you understand that organized crime exploded into power during the prohibition years, so much so that we're still not able to control it?

I'm not talking about AIR QUALITY my friend. There are OTHER SOCIAL/PERSONAL RAMIFICATIONS involved with smoking marijuana.

I'm under no obligation to socialize with anyone if I prefer to stone my braincells to death and fall asleep on my couch.

You're not looking at the big picture. What impact do YOU think propogating the ALREADY illegal drug trade will have on society?

Nor are you. What impact do YOU think LEGALIZING and already existing drug trade will have on removing the dangerous and violent aspects of it?

Nobody shoots at the Budweiser truck when it pulls up to the liquor store a block from my house. PLUS kids under 21 are prevented access to beer by a diligent clerk and licensing laws. Win-win!

 

[PS]

One of my best friends died from heroin. Is that qualification enough to know what's going on with addictions to drugs. Don't assume you know someone when you don't.

The other example you sighted was so isolated. What happens after you've been smoking for years and well, your memory lapses or you discover your lungs are black as coal or whatever.

Yeah, I must say that I'm a bit angry that you would just assume I didn't know what I was talking about especially when YOU didn't.

Where did I say anything about heroine or cocaine? This is strictly about smoking.

You're totally wrong here.

Libertarianism is the only method that can create a good life for everyone, by allowing each person who makes up that "everyone" to determine what best suits him, with the caveat that his good life may not interfere with anyone else's good life. It's solved, and perfectly.

Your brand of Conservatism, on the other hand, seeks a 'one size fits all' lifestyle, which may fit you and a few others like you but is guaranteed to fit almost noone else.

Show me the "particular good life for everyone" that would allow happiness for all of the following people: Baptist minister, an interacial family from Kansas, a Harvard sociology professor, me, Der Alta, an Impressionist painter, a gay couple with a monogamously committed relationship of 10 years' standing, and a Nebraskan corn farmer.

And that's leaving out the real toughies to integrate with the above group like Australian aborigines, the French, and the Japanese.

Almost makes him sound like he's a commie, eh?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Are you familiar with Prohibition?

Yes, of course.

Do you understand that organized crime exploded into power during the prohibition years, so much so that we're still not able to control it?

We're not able to control organized crime because after Prohibition ended criminals lost nearly all their black market alcohol profits, due to competition with low priced alcohol sales at legal liquor stores. Organized crime therefore adjusted by selling illegal drugs instead.

Do you understand that Prohibition reduced the consumption of alcoholic beverages by Americans by 50%, cirrhosis of the liver by 63%, mental hospital admissions for alcohol psychosis by 60% and arrests for drunk and disorderly behavior by 50%.

I'm under no obligation to socialize with anyone if I prefer to stone my braincells to death and fall asleep on my couch.

OK then, fine. You're no longer socializing. Family, friends etc. Abandon them too? Why can't people see that smoking cigarettes and marijuana has other ramifications? It doesn't have to be limited to the environment, the economy, society. There are plenty of other things that can be "destroyed" as well.

Nor are you. What impact do YOU think LEGALIZING and already existing drug trade will have on removing the dangerous and violent aspects of it?

Former drug traffickers will find a new way to exploit just as organized crime members did after Prohibition.

Nobody shoots at the Budweiser truck when it pulls up to the liquor store a block from my house.

I was going to say something in response to this, but I do not think it would have been appropriate for a place like this.

Let's just say that in a totally unregulated economy, money-making opportunities are endless.

PLUS kids under 21 are prevented access to beer by a diligent clerk and licensing laws. Win-win!

I repeat...

Let's just say that in a totally unregulated economy, money-making opportunities are endless.

Almost makes him sound like he's a commie, eh?

Libertarianism is nothing more than an "old-fashion" version of "Liberalism". That is how liberalism got its name -- from Libertarianism.

And Greg, I just realized where all of that aggression was coming from in the last post you wrote to me. I have just this to say: if you were a bit more compassionate towards him, he would not have reacted that way towards you.

That's not a particularly Capitalist thing to say.

I am fully aware of that. If you read my essay on what I believe to be this nation's foreign policy everything will "come together".

Then again maybe I'm mistaken in assuming you're a Capitalist.

It would be silly to assume otherwise. I am a Capitalist!

Again, read my essay on my view of foreign policy and it'll make more sense.

Besides, the quantity of food in the world is irrelevant and you are smokescreening. The salient fact is that I have more food than I need, and my gluttony is affecting society as a whole.

I am not being evasive. The quantity of food is relevant because is if supply was limited, ONLY THEN you would be considered a glutton. This, however, is not the case. Eating more food than you need is affeting society as a whole, but not in the way you're thinking (i.e. it has nothing to do with the supply of food).

 

[PS]

Yes, of course.



We're not able to control organized crime because after Prohibition ended criminals lost nearly all their black market alcohol profits, due to competition with low priced alcohol sales at legal liquor stores. Organized crime therefore adjusted by selling illegal drugs instead.

Do you understand that Prohibition reduced the consumption of alcoholic beverages by Americans by 50%, cirrhosis of the liver by 63%, mental hospital admissions for alcohol psychosis by 60% and arrests for drunk and disorderly behavior by 50%.



OK then, fine. You're no longer socializing. Family, friends etc. Abandon them too? Why can't people see that smoking cigarettes and marijuana has other ramifications? It doesn't have to be limited to the environment, the economy, society. There are plenty of other things that can be "destroyed" as well.



Former drug traffickers will find a new way to exploit just as organized crime members did after Prohibition.



I was going to say something in response to this, but I do not think it would have been appropriate for a place like this.

Let's just say that in a totally unregulated economy, money-making opportunities are endless.



I repeat...

Let's just say that in a totally unregulated economy, money-making opportunities are endless.



Libertarianism is nothing more than an "old-fashion" version of "Liberalism". That is how liberalism got its name -- from Libertarianism.

And Greg, I just realized where all of that aggression was coming from in the last post you wrote to me. I have just this to say: if you were a bit more compassionate towards him, he would not have reacted that way towards you.

The commie bit? That was just a joke; I just started getting from Duke this sense that he was trying to make you out to be a communist.

And in regard to compassion, do you mean to Swift? If he has some history or something I don't know about, sorry. I was unaware, didn't mean to offend.