New Study documents the brain damage caused by marijuana

[Dinwar]

Everything about that screams a failure of personal and governing responsibility. The fact that you take that and decide it's a point in your court is so sickening that I hate it.

This isn't an argument. It's not even rational. If that's the best justification you can provide for continuing a war--there's no hyperbole here, it's a war--that has killed thousands, if not MILLIONS, you've got nothing. Besides, why is it the government's responsibility to keep me from doing something stupid? Every pro-prohibition argument hinges on that, but no justification is ever given.

As for your new precedent, it amounts to nothing more than you--or someone else--deciding what's best for me. That's paternalism of the worst sort, and if you think it'll stop at the drugs you dislike you're delusional (and don't know much about history). It'll inevitably lead to controls on nearly everything we put into our bodies. We're already seeing that with New York's soda ban. I'd much rather make my own choices, thanks.

 

[Dinwar]

We already have a precedence with children, it's the adults that are the problem.

You know, you're right. Life would be MUCH simpler if our benign government, who NEVER does ANYTHING stupid, would take over for us and make our choices for us.

Because that's the reason why adults are a problem: they're capable of making their own choices. THAT is what you're arguing against, fundamentally--the right to make your own choices for your own life. You want adults to be treated as children, with the State as the parents.

 

[The Dark Lord]

To Dinwar and TDL both:

I'm arguing a new precedence: It if infringes on public health in a manner that cannot be ignored then it must be addressed through law.

TDL you've already said this:



I would say yes we should ban alcohol but the social backlash was dire. It's because people ignore the public health issue. So I propose we orient a new plan, one at aiming to reduce alcohol comsumption to a point where it has minimal impact to public health. I'm sure you'd agree, however the current implementation of the law doesn't do enough. Banning would be best however implementation of a banning doesn't work. If however there was a method to proper banning you'd have to agree unless you want to side with a personal freedom option in which your health is your choice; it's not sadly. If we could divorce the effects of personal health from public health we'd be for the better, but we cannot.



Everything about that screams a failure of personal and governing responsibility. The fact that you take that and decide it's a point in your court is so sickening that I hate it. I just want people to make an informed decision that's rational (ie don't smoke, don't drink, don't get stoned because it' actually bad for your health and the pieces are picked up by everyone not just you!) and justifying irrational policies because we have a right to be irrational doesn't click with me. Be glad I'm not a tyrant with power because God help you I'll make sure you eat your vegetables.

We already have a precedence with children, it's the adults that are the problem.

You're not going to get me to agree that the government has the legitimate authority to use violence to tell me what I can do with my own body in my own house. If I want to do drugs, legal or not, I will (and do).

 

[Lowpro]

You know, you're right. Life would be MUCH simpler if our benign government, who NEVER does ANYTHING stupid, would take over for us and make our choices for us.

Because that's the reason why adults are a problem: they're capable of making their own choices. THAT is what you're arguing against, fundamentally--the right to make your own choices for your own life. You want adults to be treated as children, with the State as the parents.

I'm not saying it should be the government that makes the choices. The fact that it could get that far is the problem Dinwar! The adults are the problem because they can legally stroke themselves off. Children don't get that because we actually already recognize that their diet and lifestyle can affect them to their detriment and that's not fair to anyone.

But then the @#(! dude, we should take a look in the mirror too.

I'm not arguing for a nanny state, I'm arguing for a personal nanny that holds every individual informed and responsible to the point that a consensus is reached on what's extremely retarded for the individual and for all. Drugs are high up on the list. If it gets to intervention by the state then that's a high sign of failure already! Who the hell could freakin' fix it?!

 

[Lowpro]

You're not going to get me to agree that the government has the legitimate authority to use violence to tell me what I can do with my own body in my own house. If I want to do drugs, legal or not, I will (and do).

It happened already. Jacobson V Massachusetts. Die with a rifle in your hands then, or rather not, don't and be personally responsible and stop letting yourself and others hurt themselves because they make really stupid decisions and try to hide it under personal freedom.

 

[Dinwar]

You're not going to get me to agree the the government has the legitimate authority to use violence to tell me what I can do with my own body in my own house. If I want to do drugs, legal or not, I will (and do).

It's not just your house. The argument presented here would also allow them to break into MY house, despite me never doing any illegal drugs. It also justifies A FREAKING WAR, with a body count that rivals any of our other wars and which includes all the normal nastiness that accompanies wars. It also justifies the rampant violation of property rights associated with drug law enforcement today, including things like ARRESTING PATIENTS FOR FILLING PRESCRIPTIONS.

Even if we all agreed that doing drugs is wrong--AND WE DON'T--the War on Drugs demonstrably does more harm than the drugs do.

Be glad I'm not a tyrant with power because God help you I'll make sure you eat your vegetables.

Here's the issue all of you petty wanna-be dictators forget: not everyone agrees with you. And once you open the door for people who would force me, at the point of a gun, to eat my vegetables, you also open the door for people to put a gun to YOUR head and force you to, say, work in a forced-labor camp. Violations of rights never stop where you want them to--as soon as you say "It's okay for you to trample on that person, because they're doing things I don't like" you all but guarantee that someone will eventually get into power who thinks that YOUR way of living is wrong, and decides to crush YOU. And don't say that relying on scientific studies will prevent that--that's not what scientific studies are for, and it's trivial to find some study, somewhere, that justifies any position at all.

Once you decide that you don't need to worry about rights, that you have a right to dictate how other people live, you may as well be putting a leash around your own neck and handing it to the worst thug that ever lived--because your system will find such thugs, or create them if there aren't enough running around.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm not arguing for a nanny state, I'm arguing for a personal nanny that holds every individual informed and responsible

The fact that you can't see the contradiction here disturbs me. Such a nanny CAN ONLY BE A NANNY STATE. There's no other option.

 

[The Dark Lord]

It happened already. Jacobson V Massachusetts. Die with a rifle in your hands then, or rather not, don't and be personally responsible and stop letting yourself and others hurt themselves because they make really stupid decisions and try to hide it under personal freedom.

I am aware that they can legally do it. It is still ******** and I will continue to simply ignore the law.

As for me dying with a rifle in my hands, well, I am not a drug dealer, so the chances the cops actually bursting into my house are pretty freaking small and I am not stupid enough to get into a gun fight with a swat team anyway.

And you have absolutely no idea if I am actually hurting myself with my drug use. Fact of the matter is that I am responsible with it so any harm I've done is minimal if even existent.

So I will continue to get high whenever I like, thank you very much.

 

[Lowpro]

This isn't an argument. It's not even rational. If that's the best justification you can provide for continuing a war--there's no hyperbole here, it's a war--that has killed thousands, if not MILLIONS, you've got nothing. Besides, why is it the government's responsibility to keep me from doing something stupid? Every pro-prohibition argument hinges on that, but no justification is ever given.

And again thanks for highlighting the failure here Dinwar. Again I am not arguing for a nanny state or a government that tells you what to do, I'm arguing for some goddamn personal responsibility and public responsibility working in tandem and progressing forward. Often times we think of public responsibility as being a state option and sometimes it is, but it doesn't have to be. I identify a state option as being a worst case scenario; a failure of both sides. Again I thank you for demonstrating this. I couldn't have asked for a better aide to my point.

As for your new precedent, it amounts to nothing more than you--or someone else--deciding what's best for me. That's paternalism of the worst sort, and if you think it'll stop at the drugs you dislike you're delusional (and don't know much about history). It'll inevitably lead to controls on nearly everything we put into our bodies. We're already seeing that with New York's soda ban. I'd much rather make my own choices, thanks.

Paternalism of an informed consensus then? Jeez, you're behind on public health then -.- if not that you're behind on progress itself. It's not that they are drugs that I dislike it's that the drugs have an adverse effect on public health and personal health both. AND EVEN THEN if it just harmed your personally do you think it's fair to leave you alone in that?! I Just cannot fathom that you and I could allow that. If it was anything other than drugs, if it was some cultists who had brainwashed a kid into harming themselves or others WE'D BOTH BE AGAINST it I'm sure. But here...just here you will stand on the other side?! I don't get it Dinwar. I am tired of seeing people who suffer. I'm tired of seeing the effects. I really am. I am so. goddamned. tired of the goddamned excuses we make. I'm tired of throwing responsibility to someone else, I'm tired of deferring rights away to people who go against personal responsibility man.

I understand the venom of leaving it to someone else to make decisions for us. I don't want that; I want every single goddamned one of us to throw what we've got in the ring, and I'm sure if we did justifying drug use because it's so goddamned hard and unjust to regulate broad spectrum; we'd find a better way. It'd be really goddamned cool if we could all share in the experience of the complete screw ups of drugs and not just heroine or marijuana but alcohol as well. It'd be cathartic to say the least. But we can't. We try, we even take it to our lawmakers but it fails there. The fact it does is the worst thing.

So yea, screw all of you all.

 

[Lowpro]

The fact that you can't see the contradiction here disturbs me. Such a nanny CAN ONLY BE A NANNY STATE. There's no other option.

Then you've given up too easily.

 

[Lowpro]

I am aware that they can legally do it. It is still ******** and I will continue to simply ignore the law.

As for me dying with a rifle in my hands, well, I am not a drug dealer, so the chances the cops actually bursting into my house are pretty freaking small and I am not stupid enough to get into a gun fight with a swat team anyway.

And you have absolutely no idea if I am actually hurting myself with my drug use. Fact of the matter is that I am responsible with it so any harm I've done is minimal if even existent. So I will continue to get high whenever I like, thank you very much.

Two things:. You don't know what's down the road as far as your drug use. Getting high now may hurt later. So don't be short sighted.

Secondly you don't live in a vacuum especially considering chronic illnesses in our current understanding.

I understand the sentiment however it's stupid. I tell you what, if you promise really really really never to get sick or hurt yourself I just might take you seriously.

It's a hard promise to keep -.-

 

[The Dark Lord]

I cannot predict the future but the chances that I am going to cause myself any real harm from smoking weed and occasionally taking other drugs are minimal. It is not like I am shooting speedballs everyday (or at all). I am more likely to get hurt in a car accident or something.

 

[Lowpro]

I cannot predict the future but the chances that I am going to cause myself any real harm from smoking weed and occasionally taking other drugs are minimal. It is not like I am shooting speedballs everyday (or at all). I am more likely to get hurt in a car accident or something.

Right and what do you think we should do with people shooting speedballs everyday? I mean after all, you don't and that means everything right?

But then again who are we to say anything right?! If we don't have a leg to stand on to denounce your here-and-there habit of toking a bit every week what fiends we are to wag our fingers to people who do speedballs every day.

This deserves the ultimate -________________- face

 

[manofthesea]

I suspect a fundie mennonite troll.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Right and what do you think we should do with people shooting speedballs everyday?

Personally, I don't really give a **** if people want to shoot up speedballs everyday as long as they don't hurt anybody else. If they do hurt other people, feel free to send them to prison and/or make them go to rehab.

I mean after all, you don't and that means everything right?

What? You're the one who was making completely unwarranted assumptions about me hurting myself with drugs. I am just telling you that I do not do things that are likely to cause myself harm.

 

[ehcks]

Two things:. You don't know what's down the road as far as your drug use. Getting high now may hurt later. So don't be short sighted.

Secondly you don't live in a vacuum especially considering chronic illnesses in our current understanding.

You never know what's down the road or what might hurt you later.

So what kind of dangerous things only capable of causing self-harm do we ban? Everything?

 

[Aber]

Should we ban alcohol?

Isn't that what a legal drinking age of 21 is doing?

 

[The Dark Lord]

Isn't that what a legal drinking age of 21 is doing?

No.

 

[Lowpro]

You never know what's down the road or what might hurt you later.

So what kind of dangerous things only capable of causing self-harm do we ban? Everything?

Nah, I vote we start with heroine.

Seriously I'd be all for coming together with the evidence but more importantly an understanding of the evidence to deciding a policy. It's not enough to say heroine is bad just because I said so. It'd be great if we all had an understanding of the effects of opiates of physiology with the heart and with the brain (heart being what kills you, brain being the addiction) because I feel with that we could all agree on not doing it without throwing it to the government to decide that. That's the issue I take, it's that we are so ready to throw something to the government to deal with when it's the public who sucks sooooooo goddamned hard at just evaluating things for themselves. We don't even understand alcohol; we're still surprised by crap about it but it's totally legal dude and we'll use that reasoning to justify legality for all kinds of other drugs ignoring the piles of corpses and I think we aren't really informed and that we don't have enough desire to be informed.

So I don't know all the problems down the road, I doubt anyone really knows. That doesn't mean it's a free-for-all until we find out too; that's stupid.

Oh also heroine friggin' kills you.

 

[Lowpro]

Personally, I don't really give a **** if people want to shoot up speedballs everyday as long as they don't hurt anybody else. If they do hurt other people, feel free to send them to prison and/or make them go to rehab.



What? You're the one who was making completely unwarranted assumptions about me hurting myself with drugs. I am just telling you that I do not do things that are likely to cause myself harm.

The highlighted part is exactly the problem. That reasoning is so goddamned divorced of compassion and consideration for everything from the spectrum of your family, your neighbor, your lifetime partner, or a guy you've just met but never knew beforehand. What you've just said is so wrong and so vile and yet you're so goddamned quick to say "throw em' in prison!" that it's just....DAMN dude! really?!?!? That's so sick that you should be ashamed. I mean let me put on my big boy ignorant Texan voice and maybe you'll understand the satire: "Hey who gives a !@#( if it hurts him as long as it dun't hurt anyone else then by all means let him totally get right tight with whatever he wants, after all @#(! em' right?!"