View Poll Results: Would you legalize Marijuana in the United States?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hell yeah!

    27 67.50%
  • Hell no!

    13 32.50%
Page 12 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314151622 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 285

Thread: Drugs are bad, mkay?

  1. #111
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,338
    You are saying that the majority of people (if I had statistics on 'responsibility', I'd challenge this assertation) who don't have the personal responsibility to regulate their own consumption are an adequate reason for the government to ban drugs?
    What happened to giving people free will and letting them take the consequences of their own actions?

    Are you saying we should continue to let the fuckups kill themselves on booze and nicotine?
    ~
    Yes.

    Responsibility is not about fucking up, then falling over and dying because of it.
    No, but accepting the consequences of your own actions would mean you have the choice whether or not to do things that have a chance of hurting you. Your argument goes:

    Premise 1: Most people are irresponsible with their intake of harmful substances.
    Premise 2: People should be protected from the consequences of their actions.
    Premise 3: It is the state's responsibility to perform this role in protecting people.
    Conclusion: The state should ban harmful substances.

    Premise 1: I simply don't have the evidence to argue against it; I'll just say that sweeping generalisations regarding such things probably aren't a good idea.
    Premise 2: Why should people be protected from the consequences of their own actions?
    Premise 3: Why is this the responsibility of the state?

    It is not the responsibility of the state to stop people from killing themselves directly or indirectly. If you say it is, you're saying people should not be allowed to make decisions regarding their own life or death and that the state is the only one justified in doing so. You're literally saying that the state should tell people they are not allowed to die because it would be inconvenient to the state. Which sounds awfully Stalinist.
    Last edited by Delphinus; 02-08-2011 at 05:32 AM.

  2. #112
    Lucky Member Blue_Dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    A Champagne Supernovar
    Posts
    955
    I want to preface my response, by saying I'm not trying to be or sound rude. If I come off as such, I apologize. I'm just trying to get my point across the best way I can. I also am not trying to sound condescending, so if I do, again, sorry! This is just how I write when debating...it's nothing personal (also, it would be hard for me to really condescend anyway, cause I don't feel superior to anyone here. Just debating my point of view.)

    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    Not a good question. Cars are are main mode of transportation, and are essential in today's fast-paced world, not to mention essential to our economy. The government understands that, but also goes far, //far// out of their way to ensure the safety of the people, while not limiting their convenience to an extreme. Road signs, street renovations, state-funded driving schools, licensing procedures, the AAA; they all exist, you know. You can blame anything bad that comes out of it on the stupidity of the people themselves.
    I would disagree with some of what you're saying here. Yeah, the government does implement a lot of laws in an attempt to help sway improper driving, but this doesn't mean they actually enforce it. Do you see how many cops break the laws they are supposed to enforce? Or how many tickets are actually given out for tailgating (I've seen people get away with many offenses, right if front of police: who do nothing cause, they're lazy or don't want to deal with it. They might be going somewhere, but really, every cop too busy to ticket that?)

    Also, no. You can't blame anything bad that comes on the stupidity of people. Most cases, probably, but there are circumstances that are out of people's hands. Something unforeseen, or faulty with the car. A patch of black ice on an otherwise clear road. A stop light multifunction at inopportune time. Not everything can be blamed on the driver.

    Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the purpose of a government is to ensure the safety of its citizens.
    That's why congress wants to propose limiting the definition of forced rape. Yep, they care about their citizens. That's also why many states won't give two consenting adults the right to marry, even if it's harming NO ONE. That's why many in the government want to de-regulate and take funds away from the EPA (which is already not getting enough money.) If a person really cares about the people's health they'd stop wasting time debating the legality of marijuana (which is not even in the same league as something like heroine, meth, X, LSD, or cocaine), and start really regulating and lowering the amount of emissions from our cars, pollutants from factories, and chemicals sprayed on the food we eat (which, by the way, many of these chemicals are used to produce meth--tells you how smart it is to put it on our crops.)


    Are you saying we should continue to let the fuckups kill themselves on booze and nicotine? Or, better yet, other people? People don't magically come back to life, Delphinus. This is one of those problems that has to be nipped in the bud. A drug addict isn't going to Overdose, die, realize he's lacked self control and come back to life a better man.
    Are you still talking about pot? Cause...doesn't happen very often, if at all. And the reason isn't because "the government regulates it, so people can't smoke enough pot to kill themselves." Cause people do illegal crap all the time, even when it's regulated. They can do illegal crap their whole life, and get away with it. Hell, I don't have batteries in my carbon-monoxide detector, but I haven't been fined yet (and you better not rat me out! :P ) EDIT: Yes with alcohol and nicotine, there are harmful side effects, but hey: I don't drink and drive, why should it be taken away from me? I'm responsible. If I drink to excess at a bar, I set up a DD ahead of time, so I don't harm anyone with my drinking. Yes, certain uses of alcohol should be illegal, but not the substance itself, completely and utterly. And although I don't agree with smoking cigarettes (I think it's really quite stupid this day-in-age,) I don't feel it's my place to tell someone else what to do. If they told me to eat a big plate of meat because it has protein in it, I'd tell them where they could put it (in their own stomachs--what were you thinking!?)Edit


    That's like saying we should let forest fires burn until they ember out, then reflect on why shit died.
    You should go with a better argument, cause this is actually something that happens in nature that's good for the forest: in fact, some seeds can't germinate until they've been burned. Sorry to be nit-picky here, but just giving you a head's up. Shit would die, but it enables new shit to grow in varying successions.

    Long quote, so I'm putting it in a spoiler:
    SPOILER! :
    It's not the meaning of responsibility nor self-control by any stretch. Now, if it were the case that we DIDN'T have as many drug related deaths or injuries, DUIs or drug-related crimes, then okay, you make a valid point. But we do, and I'm glad the government isn't just sitting back saying, "Naw, it's fine, they'll learn eventually." It's quite apparent that people HAVEN'T learned, despite all of the government funded anti-drug propaganda, programs, all of the ad campaigns, tight regulations and taxes they push on vendors. People have already expressed a lack of responsibility and self-control, over the span of many decades, and the figures are just getting progressively worse. Isn't that more than enough reason to tighten regulation? Or should the government just sit back and wait for a better reason? Or, maybe, by some miracle, everyone will suddenly become "responsible". You know how ridiculous that is.
    I respect your argument that people need to take responsibility, and I agree that we do need the government to enforce laws and regulate things: otherwise, we'd be back where we were when Upton Sinclair was writing The Jungle. However, what the government regulates and how is important.

    What you are arguing is two different views on the same drug. In a different post that I'm not quoting, you were saying this is an argument between "why not legalize marijuana," and "why legalize it." And you admit that for medicinal purposes, it should be legal. But use for it amongst anyone else should be illegal. I see your reasoning, but I disagree. I mean, you're basically saying "people who want it legal, who aren't sick, are just a bunch of pot heads (something like that.) So why legalize it if you don't need it?" I mean, that's what I gleaned from your statements. You logic is basically: if you don't need it, it shouldn't be legal. Going off of this, you could easily take the argument further: "we don't need candy, it doesn't do anything for our health, and it's in fact bad for you, so it shouldn't be legal." You're treading a fine line. How far do you let the government control things? I don't need my literature because it really doesn't do anything for me physically, and I don't get exercise when I read, so I'll be less healthy if I'm sitting around reading all day. Let's make reading books illegal! I know that's an extreme example, but you yourself said people are stupid and don't know where to draw the line. Just because you think something has no value other than certain instances (here, marijuana has no value but for ill persons) doesn't mean it has no value, and shouldn't be legalized. I think country music has no value and says the same crap over and over, but I don't think it shouldn't exist (well...maybe I do;P .) Since marijuana over all has very few (if any) negative side affects, I'd say yeah--why not legalize it? Why make something illegal if doesn't have to be? And also, not everyone who smokes pot, smokes it into the ground. Most people I know only do it recreation-ally. Yes, there are people who abuse substances, but if it wasn't one thing, it would be another: this type of person often has dependency issues anyway--has nothing to do with marijuana, which is not addictive.


    I didn't realize that "lack of self responsibility" = "need for more regulation" was contradictory. I'm not sure if you have your head on straight. If you can't be responsible for yourself, you need someone to be responsible for you. Understand that the government has already given people an inch, and they fucked up--BAD. So why let them continue?

    One of the big problems I have with many of your arguments, is the constant dependency on the government. Which, don't get me wrong, I'm liberal, and do feel the government should play a role in many issues, but there are things I also feel are just archaic laws left over from a time when people didn't understand much about cannabis.

    Okay, so back to your argument. On one hand, you're saying, people aren't responsible, so someone needs to be responsible for them. But you're leaving an important thing out: the government is constructed of people. More often than not selfish people. Powerful selfish people. It's like, the way you're stating it (maybe not meaning it) is the government is infallible and needs to tell everyone what to do because they don't know what to do or how to do it. But if you're talking about the US, you're talking about a government who once protected the rights of slave holders. Who once said it was okay to implement laws which would limit who could vote, and at what age (Jim Crow laws and the time when you were old enough to die for America, but not vote for its leaders.) A government that once considered a married woman and any children to be property of her husband--and to be used however he willed it (child labor was okay and accepted--it was your right!) My point is, just because the government regulates something and makes a law of it, doesn't mean it's right and just. In this case, as well, I feel the law is unjust. You shouldn't go to jail just because you've smoked some marijuana. If you're a hard worker, and good at your job, you shouldn't be fired because you smoked at a party one weekend. Please tell me you don't want to give away all your freedom so someone else can tell you what to do in the case of something that isn't even harmful to you. Please tell me you're a little more into personal freedom than that.

    Responsibility is not about fucking up, then falling over and dying because of it. It's about fucking up, and realizing you fucked up and doing what's in your power to fix it. I just don't see that kind of promise in our people.
    Again, heavy drugs isn't the issue. You don't die from smoking marijuana.
    Last edited by Blue_Dragon; 02-08-2011 at 01:34 PM.
    Website!: www.ceruleandreams.org
    Updated 4/6/13: Please Critique

  3. #113
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Delphinus View Post
    You are saying that the majority of people (if I had statistics on 'responsibility', I'd challenge this assertation) who don't have the personal responsibility to regulate their own consumption are an adequate reason for the government to ban drugs?
    Uhm, yes, considering they are the ones responsible for the hundreds of thousands of alcohol related deaths a year. o_o

    Yes.
    I think you misunderstand the idea of a representative democracy. We elect people into office to decide what's best for us; that's how our government works. We see the candidates stand at their podiums and deliver their speeches, and say "hey, that guy knows what we want, let's put him in office." And I'm sure //what's best for us// is not dying.

    No, but accepting the consequences of your own actions would mean you have the choice whether or not to do things that have a chance of hurting you.
    I'm sorry, but people have had (albeit limited) choices to do drugs for decades and, as I cited, the figures are getting WORSE. You don't think the last 6 or so decades of worsening cigarette and alcohol abuse are enough reason to tighten up a bit on drugs? I know you're trying to be logical about this, but you are arguing against logic here. Like I said, if a person doesn't show promise of becoming responsible, then someone else has to be responsible FOR them. That's also how parent-child relationships work, ya know?

    It is not the responsibility of the state to stop people from killing themselves directly or indirectly.
    I'm sorry, what? You're saying people wouldn't throw a bitchfit if all road signs, traffic signals, the AAA, state-funded driving schools, the DMV all just up and disappeared? The Govnerment HAS been stopping people from killing themselves. Are you not living in America or something, dude?

    If you say it is, you're saying people should not be allowed to make decisions regarding their own life or death and that the state is the only one justified in doing so. You're literally saying that the state should tell people they are not allowed to die because it would be inconvenient to the state. Which sounds awfully Stalinist.
    Huge conclusion jump here, dude. Like I said: in representative democracy, we choose people to represent what we want. What //most// of us want, I guess, is not to die (actually, most candidates' platforms put huge emphasis on public safety). The candidate goes out of their way to make sure we don't die. Is that Stalinist?

  4. #114
    Princess of Default Victories pajamajam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NE KS
    Posts
    1,093
    Cyp, what I'm getting out of your argument is that people are retarded and the government is there to stop people from being quite as retarded as they want to be. Part of the government's responsibility is to keep people from putting things into their bodies that can potentially kill them. I agree, for the most part. But you can't regulate everything that could potentially harm or kill someone. My grandmother (the crazy one) is diabetic. She's lost one leg because of it, and last I spoke to her she was on the verge of losing the other. But she shovels sweets and starches down her throat daily. If you say anything about it, she gets defensive and shouts and cries, and then goes and eats more ice cream. She is very, very likely to die from this; you could almost call her behavior suicidal. Should the government, which is there to protect the people and steer them away from irresponsible behavior, step in and force her and others like her to regulate their diets? Or would you say that what she puts in her body is her own choice?

  5. #115
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,338
    Uhm, yes, considering they are the ones responsible for the hundreds of thousands of alcohol related deaths a year. o_o
    That is not proof of the majority being irresponsible.

    I think you misunderstand the idea of a representative democracy.
    I understand it perfectly, thanks. Decisions are deferred to experts to ensure the well-being of 'the people'. I also think democracy and most other political systems are bullshit.
    Regarding your actual argument: what's best for some individuals is not what's best for all individuals. In this case, I'd argue that banning alcohol etc. is an unnecessary and patronising step to take to protect those who can't exercise self-control and that ultimately it harms people who don't have those problems with moderation.

    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    I'm sorry, what? You're saying people wouldn't throw a bitchfit if all road signs, traffic signals, the AAA, state-funded driving schools, the DMV all just up and disappeared?
    That's not the same - road laws are primarily in place to stop people being killed through the actions of others. Not to protect people from themselves, to protect them from others. What you're suggesting is more like prohibiting people from driving go-karts on a stretch of land they own without having the go-kart first inspected and safety certified by a national authority on go-karts.

    Is that Stalinist?
    No, but the removal of basic liberties to protect a person from themselves when the person is aware of the potential consequences of their actions? That is.

    Most importantly: PROVE THAT MOST (OVER 50% OF) PEOPLE ARE AS STUPID AND IRRESPONSIBLE AS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR THE PROHIBITION OF NUMEROUS SUBSTANCES REQUIRES THEM TO BE.
    Last edited by Delphinus; 02-08-2011 at 05:43 PM.

  6. #116
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    Like I said, if a person doesn't show promise of becoming responsible, then someone else has to be responsible FOR them. That's also how parent-child relationships work, ya know?
    Okay. Good luck inventing a "responsibility-meter" to scientificaly calculate whether a person can make conscious decisions on their own. Or lets hire a panel to judge every single individual's capability to make right decisions. That quote of yours terrifies me, absolutely terrifies me. You are essentially making the claim that you know what's best for the majority of the nation better than they do, without any proof, and using that as reasoning to take away their right to choose for themselves.

    I'll say it one more time: if it isn't affecting anyone else, it is their choice. A better solution to this "problem" is to spend time and effort educating the public on alternate methods of leisure and providing alternate forms of recreation. The majority of people who OD or die while DUI have social and personal problems (sorry, no citation just my experience); the minority just were unlucky. Easily available and anonymous counciling and rehab, as well as parent lessons on prevention can help reduce the number of addicts.

    But for you to tell those who smoke/drink and don't hurt anyone else that you know what's best for them is extremely arrogant and, frankly, oppresive.

  7. #117
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Delphinus View Post
    That is not proof of the majority being irresponsible.
    I'm sorry, but at the point where hundreds of thousands of people are dying a year, I'm willing to draw the line short of a majority consensus. Are you saying that's not a good enough reason yet?

    I also think democracy and most other political systems are bullshit.
    That's your problem, bud.

    Regarding your actual argument: what's best for some individuals is not what's best for all individuals. In this case, I'd argue that banning alcohol etc. is an unnecessary and patronising step to take to protect those who can't exercise self-control and that ultimately it harms people who don't have those problems with moderation.
    So you're saying you'd protect the right to drink over the lives of 140,000 people?

    That's not the same - road laws are primarily in place to stop people being killed through the actions of others. Not to protect people from themselves...
    WHAT? lol. Are you saying drivers who get into accidents don't face the potential to die themselves?

    No, but the removal of basic liberties to protect a person from themselves when the person is aware of the potential consequences of their actions?
    Oh, I'm so sorry. I'd TOTALLY forgotten about the First Amendment right to get twisted.

    Most importantly: PROVE THAT MOST (OVER 50% OF) PEOPLE ARE AS STUPID AND IRRESPONSIBLE AS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR THE PROHIBITION OF NUMEROUS SUBSTANCES REQUIRES THEM TO BE.
    Oh, do I really even have to? All you have to do is Google. It's all right there for you. Unless, of course, the figures aren't staggering enough. Are you waiting until the casualties hit the million mark before you're convinced? At your proposed 50%, that would be over 150,000,000 people. So you're saying I have to wait until 150,000,000 people die a year from drug-related causes before I can say it's reasonable to prohibit them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenn View Post
    Okay. Good luck inventing a "responsibility-meter" to scientificaly calculate whether a person can make conscious decisions on their own.
    Lol, that was a joke, right. Because the fact that hundreds of thousands of people die a year due to the abuse of drugs is NOT already a great measure of how ir/responsible Americans are with drugs? Funny.

    That quote of yours terrifies me, absolutely terrifies me. You are essentially making the claim that you know what's best for the majority of the nation better than they do, without any proof, and using that as reasoning to take away their right to choose for themselves.
    I said that? I said I would give up my privilege to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol if it would save 140,000 Americans a year. And I didn't realize saving peoples' lives was less important than my GOD GIVEN RIGHT to get smashed. Sorry for my lack of priorities and values. /lol

    But for you to tell those who smoke/drink and don't hurt anyone else that you know what's best for them is extremely arrogant and, frankly, oppresive.
    So if I gave you an option to give up your right to drink and smoke, knowing that it would save thousands of people a year, you wouldn't do it? Your hyper-inflated sense of self-entitlement terrifies me. Brrrrr~ Besides, I'm sure smokers and drinkers also know what's best for them, which is to //not smoke// and //not drink//. That's not even an ethical issue; it's hard chemistry. There's really no point in debating that. Unless you have a grudge against your liver and brain or something.
    Last edited by CypressDahlia; 02-08-2011 at 07:20 PM.

  8. #118
    Senior Member PWhit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Go Away, China.
    Posts
    459
    So if I gave you an option to give up your right to drink and smoke, knowing that it would save thousands of people a year, you wouldn't do it?
    If one person gave up smoking, they would only be saving one person. That person is only himself or herself. Where do the 999 other people come from, public preaching? Last time I checked, PSA's made people more annoyed than informed.

  9. #119
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    That's not the point, PWhit. I meant if smoking were made illegal, lol. If you don't understand the argument, don't get involved. I'm already fending off 3 people who think the right to "get high, dude" is greater than the negative societal and structural impact that legalizing recreational marijuana has on America.

  10. #120
    Senior Member PWhit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Go Away, China.
    Posts
    459
    I just had a question about that one point you made, don't get too defensive. I practically have this argument every day, don't tell me I know nothing about it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •