• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Aaron, The "Pot smoking, sinner."

"Actually, if I understand correctly everything I've read, we don't need to consume pure sugar (cane sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc...). Our body does need glucose, but it makes that from foods we eat. So technically, they could ban refined sugar, and just tell everyone to eat more fruits and veggies."

If our bodies REQUIRED refined sugar, then our prehistoric ancestors never would have survived long enough to learn farming techniques, and then how to refine most of the nutrition out of our food so that it could taste good while contributing little to health.

But if we start banning everything that COULD be dangerous if overindulged, and is used mostly for fun or "just" pleasure, rather than required, we are going to be doing a LOT of banning, lol!
 
I can't believe that anyone would support alcohol prohibition after seeing its disastrous results the 1st time around. Alcohol is a poison, and terrible for your body. It is clearly addictive. Its use causes car accidents, domestic violence, and countless cases of poor judgment. But making it illegal CREATED organized crime in every major city. And it can be made at home rather easily. FWIW, I don't drink. At all.
Similarly, marijuana is a WEED! To try and ban something that grows naturally is insanity. To put people in jail for growing a plant is plumb crazy when you think about it. The libertarian side of me would extend this to meth and crack, but there would have to be some serious programs in place to deal with the users and addiction. I'm not going to proclaim I have all the answers, but I am certain that imprisonment is not one.
 
"The libertarian side of me would extend this to meth and crack, but there would have to be some serious programs in place to deal with the users and addiction."

If we (taxpayers) weren't spending zillions of dollars on the useless and never ending drug war, and we dedicated a tiny portion of that budget to treating addictions instead (and maybe on more anti drug education), can you imagine how many people could be treated? And if some of that money was freed up for other uses, think how much more effort we could put forth to protect CHILDREN from drugs, whether through education, law enforcement, or more treatment options.

If the war on drugs (or Prohibition) actually WORKED, at least proponents would have a logical argument (even though I still disagree that adults should be protected from themselves). But when this expensive war seems to mainly benefit drug lord profits and those invested in government, law enforcement, and the prison systems - while creating a richer and more violent criminal element, I certainly can't support this particular "war".
 
ZoologyGirl said:
Actually, if I understand correctly everything I've read, we don't need to consume pure sugar (cane sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc...). Our body does need glucose, but it makes that from foods we eat. So technically, they could ban refined sugar, and just tell everyone to eat more fruits and veggies.

I don't think alcohol is something that will do much damage in moderation. Not any more than bacon or sugar at least. I mean, I might have what amounts to 12 drinks a year. I'm not a big drinker, but I do enjoy some on occasion. I can understand a law on drinking and driving...but I don't think a law banning drinking altogether is necessary. Yes, people will go overboard, but it is like that when it comes to anything. People will go overboard on sugar, I don't think that's a reason to ban it.

Speaking of banning things...what's up with San Francisco banning toys in happy meals? Seriously?

I forgot where I was going with this.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if people go overboard with sugar they don't run the risk of hurting someone ELSE. Which is something that happens if you're drunk.

"To try and ban something that grows naturally is insanity" A lot of drugs come from the opium poppy. It grows naturally. (And yes you DO modify marijuana from it's original state to smoke it. You pick it, then dry it out. So technically it is processed.) Like I said, poison ivy grows naturally too! Doesn't make it safe. And elrojo, I don't think you completely read my post about banning alcohol. It was done extremely poorly in the past, and without tact. It would have to be done very carefully and slowly, with a support net for addicts as it happened.

"what you are not getting is that just because YOU think that something is dangerous or wrong or whatever is NO REASON to ban it or outlaw it!!" Starsevol, every law was made because SOMEONE thought "it's dangerous or wrong". I see no difference here. Murder is illegal because of people's morals, you can't really get around that.
 
But do you really think that if you introduced a prohibition of alcohol slowly, carefully, and with tact, that people would accept it? And should they, whether they have a problem with alcohol abuse, or not? I certainly don't think so - no matter how it is presented!

Murder is a crime that ALWAYS hurts somebody else. I guess the "muddy water" here is if you consider assisted suicide. Is it murder? Does it hurt - or help - somebody else? But murder in the usual sense ALWAYS hurts somebody else.

But does using / owning drugs, alcohol, sugar, bacon, guns, pythons, or anything else that can be abused ALWAYS hurt somebody else? Should those items be banned because they CAN hurt the user, or POSSIBLY hurt somebody else? Or should the BEHAVIOR of hurting somebody else be regulated / banned? I think you can guess my answer, lol! What is your answer?
 
"Yeah but if people go overboard with sugar they don't run the risk of hurting someone ELSE."

Not true! If you are addicted to sugar, you can significantly increase your risk of diabetes, obesity, and other diseases. If you can't get health insurance and you get sick, the taxpayers will have to pay for you, just like the junkie who overdoses. And of course, family members may have added burdens because of it.

Virtually all of our pleasures CAN be abused and hurt the user and / or others. So which ones should we ban and which should "we" (those upstanding Congress Critters who will make our decisions for us) allow citizens to choose from?
 
I personally think that we should be able to decide for ourselves. That is what this country was founded on, at least from my perspective, and if I wanted to smoke pot, drink 5 gallons of mercury, or douse myself in gasoline, I believe I should have the right to.
Not that I would do any of these. I just believe that I should be able to do what I want without someone trying to protect me from myself. That is the problem with the current python bans and stuff, Congress wants to protect us from ourselves, instead of letting us lead our own lives.
 
VickyChaiTea said:
Yeah but if people go overboard with sugar they don't run the risk of hurting someone ELSE. Which is something that happens if you're drunk.

"To try and ban something that grows naturally is insanity" A lot of drugs come from the opium poppy. It grows naturally. (And yes you DO modify marijuana from it's original state to smoke it. You pick it, then dry it out. So technically it is processed.) Like I said, poison ivy grows naturally too! Doesn't make it safe. And elrojo, I don't think you completely read my post about banning alcohol. It was done extremely poorly in the past, and without tact. It would have to be done very carefully and slowly, with a support net for addicts as it happened.

"what you are not getting is that just because YOU think that something is dangerous or wrong or whatever is NO REASON to ban it or outlaw it!!" Starsevol, every law was made because SOMEONE thought "it's dangerous or wrong". I see no difference here. Murder is illegal because of people's morals, you can't really get around that.
Click to expand...

Not EVERY law in place was made because someone thought it was dangerous or wrong...what about pit bull bans? Python bans? What about the ban on rabbits in West Warwick (did you even know there was such a law, and do you know WHY there is a law in WW against rabbits?).
Did you know that in Detroit Michigan it is illegal to own ANY reptile at all? Including leopard geckos. What is it about leopard geckos that is dangerous and wrong? Some laws are blatant power-grabs and some laws are enacted as power grabs disguised as being "for the greater good"....
 
kathylove said:
But do you really think that if you introduced a prohibition of alcohol slowly, carefully, and with tact, that people would accept it? And should they, whether they have a problem with alcohol abuse, or not? I certainly don't think so - no matter how it is presented!

Murder is a crime that ALWAYS hurts somebody else. I guess the "muddy water" here is if you consider assisted suicide. Is it murder? Does it hurt - or help - somebody else? But murder in the usual sense ALWAYS hurts somebody else.

But does using / owning drugs, alcohol, sugar, bacon, guns, pythons, or anything else that can be abused ALWAYS hurt somebody else? Should those items be banned because they CAN hurt the user, or POSSIBLY hurt somebody else? Or should the BEHAVIOR of hurting somebody else be regulated / banned? I think you can guess my answer, lol! What is your answer?
Click to expand...

It's all about the questions I asked earlier. Is it dangerous, if so to what extent, and is it necessary. Owning pythons is not generally dangerous to anybody. Neither is eating bacon. If you are high from smoking pot, or drunk from drinking, you are at that point a very real potential danger to yourself and others. That's the big difference there.

No, I don't think everyone would be ok with an alcohol ban. But not everyone is ok with every law that has been passed, it's just the way we are. We don't all see eye to eye.

"Or should the BEHAVIOR of hurting somebody else be regulated / banned?" Isn't that technically already in place? I mean, it's illegal to assault/kill someone.

On a side note, I am all for regulated assisted suicide. So long as the appropriate paperwork is filled out and all that. (and the death is painless)
 
By that logic you could ban all food except beans, rice, and a multi-vitamin.
 
Not really, that would be taking it to an extreme. Plus people NEED things other than beans, rice, and multi-vitamins in their diets. So even if the food was extremely dangerous, if it was NECESSARY then there is nothing anyone can do about it.
 
Outcast said:
I am currently being told that I am a pot smoking sinner, ...
Click to expand...
I have not read the entire threat except the first post.
To abuse any substance is bad. A religious following is a good thing because the scriptures try keep those interested in good standing before the maker. (generally)
Any substance that is illegal is automatically seen as a bad think. In my opinion do what makes you happy as long as it does not harm someone else and you do not abuse the recreation value.
 
Vicky, my point is missed on you. How "necessary" something is has NO bearing on whether an adult should be forbidden by LAW to do it! I ENJOY a ribeye. I ENJOY building/shooting a rifle. I ENJOY many adult pleasures that certainly aren't "needed." What would life be with only necessities? Not worth living, IMO.
 
Snakes Incorporated said:
I have not read the entire threat except the first post.
To abuse any substance is bad. A religious following is a good thing because the scriptures try keep those interested in good standing before the maker. (generally)
Any substance that is illegal is automatically seen as a bad think. In my opinion do what makes you happy as long as it does not harm someone else and you do not abuse the recreation value.
Click to expand...
Hunh??......

Long time, no see, Snakes, Inc.
I'm sorry I can't seem to remember your name, but I remember your job and your cool pics. Going back and reading the whole thread would probably be a good thing.



Note : And regarding all this banning of inanimate objects, so the responsibility and/or accountability and consequences will be a burden lifted off the shoulders of us poor ignorant, weak, don't-know-better, can't-do-better humans,..........working in management, one of the first rules of thumb is :
The more rules you make the more rules you have to enforce.
You can get carried away and paint yourself into a corner with this flawed theme very quickly.
In an office setting, or in the bigger picture of a country of socialism, or in a police state or dictatorship.
 
Give up, guys. VickyChaiTea prefers a high degree of safety over a high degree of freedom. Some of you prefer a high degree of freedom over a high degree of safety. There really isn't any way to persuade her to think differently.

Freedom x safety = constant

Edit: I am not criticizing either side here. I have my thoughts but everyone probably can figure them out without me reiterating them. This is one of the tensions inherent in a nation that is governed by laws created through some degree of "consensus" as expressed through our elected "representatives", that they respond to input from constituents who want high safety even at the cost of low freedom and other constituents who want high freedom even at the cost of reduced safety. Collectively the nation (not just the USA, applies to SA, hi SnakesIncorporated!) has to struggle to a "happy medium" that makes no one happy but splits the difference between the two viewpoints.
 
elrojo said:
Vicky, my point is missed on you. How "necessary" something is has NO bearing on whether an adult should be forbidden by LAW to do it! I ENJOY a ribeye. I ENJOY building/shooting a rifle. I ENJOY many adult pleasures that certainly aren't "needed." What would life be with only necessities? Not worth living, IMO.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!!

The real questions here are..Do you own yourself or does the government own you? Are you responsible for your own life, or is the government your parent that has to watch out for you every minute of your very restricted life?

Vicky appears to want to be owned by a larger entity, and have no control over her own life.

I can't live that way.

And Chip, I see you one ribeye and raise you a beer!! :)
 
The problem with having a lot of laws, especially if they are seen as unnecessary & or unfair, is that laws in themselves do not prevent "crime," whatever the crime is. All humans have free will & can & will do whatever they really want to. A law only gives a consequence to an action. And often enough that consequence is enough to deter someone from doing it. But if a person doesn't care, doesn't know about that law, etc. then having a law on the books doesn't magically do anything to prevent the crime from happening in the first place.
 
Being the Devils advocate here.
Because it’s a law does not mean it is right. As far as I can see there are worse things one can do legally to one’s body.
I remember there was a time in Germany around 1939-40 that the laws said that Jews were not people so it was legal to kill them.
The legal reasons outlawing Marijuana or pot is a joke. Alcohol is not illegal but see the damage it does where as pot share none of those violent side effects.:poke:
 
VickyChaiTea said:
Owning pythons is not generally dangerous to anybody. Neither is eating bacon. If you are high from smoking pot, or drunk from drinking, you are at that point a very real potential danger to yourself and others. That's the big difference there.
Click to expand...

Some people might perceive pythons as a danger.

Heck, put a knife in my hand and apparently I'm a danger to myself and others. I had to go to the emergency room once for an (accidental) self inflicted knife wound. Should knives be banned?

Pencils, too. When I was in Jr. High an unstable student stabbed a teacher with a pencil. So pencils can clearly pose a danger to others when put in the wrong hands (just like alcohol in the wrong hands...or mouth rather)

Driving, even when not drunk, poses an inherent danger to yourself and others.

Many things can pose a danger to others.

When I have a pencil, I don't stab anyone (on purpose :laugh:). When I drink, I don't drive. When I get high, I eat lots of cheetos (I don't really get high...). I don't see why I should be punished because of other peoples stupidity.

Even if alcohol was put on a slow, careful, tactful, etc... ban, I would fight it, despite not being much of a drinker myself. I see no reason why I can't have a few shots or bottles or glasses of alcohol or wine in my own home or restaurant if I so choose and I do so responsibly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top