• 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."

starsevol said:
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!! :)
Click to expand...

Well, that's a little unfair. I see the necessity of certain laws, and would like there to be a few more so people stop hurting themselves and others.

I don't want the government to have complete control over anybody, which is why I already said we have to balance laws that protect certain freedoms, and laws that protect us from ourselves and others. Doesn't mean I want someone to do all of my thinking for me. It doesn't mean I don't want to have control over my life. If I wanted to exaggerate your stance I'd say you were an anarchist who wants people to drive drunk and do meth. I know that's not true, but it just goes to show why you shouldn't be making statements like that. Because it's NOT what I believe, and NOT what I want.

And the necessity of something is CRUCIAL. If it's necessary but dangerous it's a must have. If it's unnecessary, but NOT dangerous then it's fine. If it's unnecessary and only a LITTLE dangerous then it's debatable. (aka bacon... which I love XD )
 
ZoologyGirl said:
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.
Click to expand...

See, to me there is no such thing as responsible drinking. Alcohol impairs you, and it damages you, even if only temporarily.

Like I said earlier, it's all about necessity and danger level. Pencils, in many cases are necessary. So are knives. Alcohol, pot, and cigarettes are not.
 
VickyChaiTea said:
See, to me there is no such thing as responsible drinking. Alcohol impairs you, and it damages you, even if only temporarily.

Like I said earlier, it's all about necessity and danger level. Pencils, in many cases are necessary. So are knives. Alcohol, pot, and cigarettes are not.
Click to expand...

But who are you, or government, to decide on what is dangerous or neccessary or whatever? That is for each of us to decide for ourselves.

And there is such a thing as responsible drinking, even if you don't see it.

IMO I think many things should be legalized. Just tax the crap out of it. Let THE PEOPLE decide, and own and run their own lives.

If you don't like alcohol, pot, cigarettes or whatever, then you can choose for yourself and decide not to do them. But you (or government) have no right to decide such things for free adults.
 
Just imagine the utopia that banning cigarettes and alcohol would be.
If you think the "war on drugs" is going well, then let's just take it further.
Gangs and druglords would have 2 brand new businesses they could break into and be guaranteed to get even stronger.
And more people would be criminals.

No thank you.
 
starsevol said:
But who are you, or government, to decide on what is dangerous or neccessary or whatever? That is for each of us to decide for ourselves.

And there is such a thing as responsible drinking, even if you don't see it.

IMO I think many things should be legalized. Just tax the crap out of it. Let THE PEOPLE decide, and own and run their own lives.

If you don't like alcohol, pot, cigarettes or whatever, then you can choose for yourself and decide not to do them. But you (or government) have no right to decide such things for free adults.
Click to expand...

The "war on drugs' is pretty lame, actually. They make pot out to be evil and something that automatically makes you a bad person.

Anyway, the government alone should not decide. That is what voting is for! Ah, the joys of living in a democratic country. Laws have to go through so many people's approval before getting made. If people voted against a ban, then so be it. You can't FORCE anything on people.

Snakes Incorporated, I agree and I don't agree with you. "Tolerance for what others do and say is the important catalyst for human happiness. " this is true. However, cigs/alcohol/pot really aren't necessary. Are they necessary as a stress reducer? Heck no. Are they necessary for our health? No, in fact with the case of alcohol/cigs they are the opposite of necessary.
 
VickyChaiTea said:
The "war on drugs' is pretty lame, actually. They make pot out to be evil and something that automatically makes you a bad person.

Anyway, the government alone should not decide. That is what voting is for! Ah, the joys of living in a democratic country. Laws have to go through so many people's approval before getting made. If people voted against a ban, then so be it. You can't FORCE anything on people.

Snakes Incorporated, I agree and I don't agree with you. "Tolerance for what others do and say is the important catalyst for human happiness. " this is true. However, cigs/alcohol/pot really aren't necessary. Are they necessary as a stress reducer? Heck no. Are they necessary for our health? No, in fact with the case of alcohol/cigs they are the opposite of necessary.
Click to expand...

Government has no business dictating to adults what they can and cannot do if they are not hurting anyone or infringing on anyone elses right.

You rule your tiny kingdom the way you see fit, and I will rule mine the way I see fit. In mine, no cigarettes or anything illegal (no matter how I feel about it). As far as alcohol, last holiday season I won 13 bottles of "holiday cheer" at various bazaars, had a few beers, and some delicious hard lemonade during the course of the year. 2 nights ago, hubby and I finished the last bottle I won last year....
Gonna go see if I can win a few bottles tomorrow!
 
"I don't want the government to have complete control over anybody, which is why I already said we have to balance laws that protect certain freedoms, and laws that protect us from ourselves and others. Doesn't mean I want someone to do all of my thinking for me. It doesn't mean I don't want to have control over my life. If I wanted to exaggerate your stance I'd say you were an anarchist who wants people to drive drunk and do meth. I know that's not true, but it just goes to show why you shouldn't be making statements like that. Because it's NOT what I believe, and NOT what I want.

And the necessity of something is CRUCIAL. If it's necessary but dangerous it's a must have. If it's unnecessary, but NOT dangerous then it's fine. If it's unnecessary and only a LITTLE dangerous then it's debatable."

I guess I just can't understand why you want to be protected from yourself. I can't understand why you think that some unknown, supposedly omniscient, "leaders(s)" in Washington (or Tallahassee, or anywhere else) can make better decisions for you than you can.

Yes, I want to have some amount of protection from others if they are doing something TRULY dangerous to ME (as opposed to something that just makes me nervous, but doesn't statistically rank as dangerous to others), such as driving drunk or high. But if they are driving around drunk on their own property without anyone else within their range, then I don't see it as my business, although I think it is a stupid idea. I don't want some idiot playing with his cobra, freehand, in his front yard - it might escape after it bites him. But if he wants to kiss his cobra on its head in a locked, escape proof room, then I think it is his right to remove himself from the gene pool.

I am afraid the logic of protecting adults from themselves is just totally beyond my understanding - let alone trying to rank every potentially dangerous thing (which could include almost anything I can think of in some way or another) as to their ratio of "potential danger vs. necessity".

Heck, my good friend just started roller skating lessons a couple of weeks ago. On her very first lesson, she fell down and got a multiple fracture of her ankle. She can't work or even put weight on it for a couple of months. Skating is far from necessary, and I can prove it is dangerous. So maybe it should be banned?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
 
Kathy, I just repped you, for this and other posts. Because 1) I still use it,...and 2) I want people to see that you got it and from me.

And I am trying to be practical. I _don't_ think I need anyone to protect me from myself,...and...I do believe that I do not have the exact or universal right to decide when I need to step in and protect people from themselves. All of this I mean in the academic, the theoretical.

I use my job, again, as an example. Being a substance abuse counselor and running a post-rehab halfway house...as much as I (or another counselor) might like the idea of controlling someone, or stepping in to make (our version of proper) choices for them when they seem unable to make the 'right' choices....it is not practical to spend a lot of time on or in this moral dilemma.
There is a point at which people have to make choices for themselves. The nature of the consequences (and the learning from them) in the real fact....can not be replaced by lecturing or restricting their freedom of choice.
 
It's also about the level of danger. A fractured ankle is bad, but it's not an every day thing. Most people skate their whole lives while only sustaining minor to moderate injuries. People who drink their whole lives, however, tend to create a lot of damage and harm to themselves and others.

I don't think all leaders can make better decisions than I can. Which is why all of this, my want of this law, my choice to not drink/smoke is based on what I feel. Me. Not some politician, not some pot smear campaign, it's based on conclusions that I have come to, that I would like to see enforced.
 
"There is a point at which people have to make choices for themselves." This is my point. And I think to be able to see that point, we have to look at whether things are dangerous, to what extent, and if they're necessary. Only when a certain amount of danger is involved does anybody need to step in.
 
"It's also about the level of danger. A fractured ankle is bad, but it's not an every day thing. Most people skate their whole lives while only sustaining minor to moderate injuries. People who drink their whole lives, however, tend to create a lot of damage and harm to themselves and others."

I agree that, in general, alcohol causes a lot more damage to a lot more people than roller skating. BUT - I disagree that most people (or even half of all who ever drink) cause a lot of damage to themselves or others by using alcohol.

Most of my friends drink at least a little now and then. But only a few of them have ever suffered (or caused) any damage that I know of. A few of my friends really should avoid alcohol for the rest o their lives. But I wouldn't deny my other friends their pleasure of an occasional drink just because one or two of my friends abuse it. That just doesn't make any sense at all to me
 
Haha, well, I don't know what the statistics are for deaths or injuries acquired while bungie jumping so I can't say. *shrugs*
 
Who CARES what the statistics are? I know you're joking (at least I hope), but you really are trying to weigh necessity vs. risk... for EVERYBODY! If I want to swim nude with great whites, that's my damn business! I'm an adult and won't take risks that aren't worth it to ME.
 
elrojo said:
Who CARES what the statistics are? I know you're joking (at least I hope), but you really are trying to weigh necessity vs. risk... for EVERYBODY! If I want to swim nude with great whites, that's my damn business! I'm an adult and won't take risks that aren't worth it to ME.
Click to expand...

At least she is basing all the things she wants to be illegal based on risk of bad outcome, instead of on some religious text the rest of us don't necessarily believe is Holy Writ. I object even more to people trying to cram their deity's moral rules down my throat than to someone cramming their assessment of risk down same. At least with risk we can talk about fatalities per 100,000 participants instead of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"
 
True dat, as the kids say. As this pertains to the original post's topic of marijuana, I'm pretty sure it has never caused a death. Outside of someone falling down a manhole while stoned, maybe. What I like about Kathy's position is fighting for some freedom that isn't necessarily "your thing." We in the herp/exotic pet community should heed this advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top