Aaron, The "Pot smoking, sinner."

[snakewispera snr]

:roflmao:
This post is but one of the many reasons we are and remain friends, Mike.

Cheers Eric...

Sorry, but this country was based on freedom, not your viewpoint on what is neccessary or dangerous or whatever. You might be just fine with Big Brother watching your every move, and telling you how to get your anti oxidents, or what kinds of animals you can keep....but most THINKING adults that are not robots will fight to the death for their freedom.

You CANNOT legislate morality, and that is just what you are proposing.

Sure murder and rape are against the law. But then why does it still happen? Why hasn't the law prevented rape and murder? Locking up killers and rapists is not only a punishment, it saves other potential victims. And you want pot smokers and wine drinkers in that same category? Are YOU serious?????

But hey, I hear Singapore is nice this time of year....

Agreed..
Crimes require victims in my book........ Without a victim it's just oppressed censorship in my book...

 

[VickyChaiTea]

Sorry, but this country was based on freedom, not your viewpoint on what is neccessary or dangerous or whatever. You might be just fine with Big Brother watching your every move, and telling you how to get your anti oxidents, or what kinds of animals you can keep....but most THINKING adults that are not robots will fight to the death for their freedom.

You CANNOT legislate morality, and that is just what you are proposing.

Sure murder and rape are against the law. But then why does it still happen? Why hasn't the law prevented rape and murder? Locking up killers and rapists is not only a punishment, it saves other potential victims. And you want pot smokers and wine drinkers in that same category? Are YOU serious?????

There are alot of things I hate, cigarettes being one of them. Yet I bristle at every single infrigement on a person's right to smoke wherever and whenever they please! Why? Because IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT ME!!!!!!

But hey, I hear Singapore is nice this time of year....

Is or is not murder illegal because it is morally wrong?

Again, please stop exaggerating my point lol.

 

[starsevol]

Now, Beth,...you know they love their caning over there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore

And then a few longitudes back to the west they just get all choppy-offy with the offending limb or organ.

But it is a utopia of no drugs, alcohol or freedom and the government owns you lock, stock and barrel. And you are healthy healthy healthy and untainted by any kinds of poison that you might wish to ingest, until they decide to cane you or lop off a hand!!
Gum chewing is forbidden.....yay for enforcement!!!

 

[starsevol]

Is or is not murder illegal because it is morally wrong?

Again, please stop exaggerating my point lol.

If I murdered someone, there would be a victim.
Where is the victim if I pour a glass of merlot or light up a dube?

I am not exaggerating your point at all!! You wish to criminalize something that has no bearing on you, you wish to take away people's rights and their ownership of themselves and want us all to be treated as children by a nameless faceless entity, just because it is how YOU feel.
You need to grow up and learn some tolerance.

 

[kathylove]

There are lots of very large groups who have, or would like to, pass laws based on what they "know" to be moral. Many religious people stand on moral grounds against gay marriage. Many animal rights groups would love to pass laws against eating meat or keeping pets, based on their morals. Those groups feel that gays living a normal life, or people eating meat poses dangers for society, although not necessarily dangerous to individuals. PLEASE save me from having to live by other peoples' morals - EXCEPT when those laws (perhaps based on morals) ALSO stand the test of stopping one person from harming another, such as murder. I don't want murder illegal because it is immoral - I want it illegal because it causes harm to another. THAT is the difference.

Once we start trying to figure out some complicated and elusive formula of just HOW "necessary" some activity is, and just HOW harmful it could be (maybe do a statistical analysis of how many people use alcohol, how much enjoyment each person gets from it on a scale of 1- 10, how many people are damaged a little, moderately, and a lot, compared to how many enjoy it but never notice any apparent damage to themselves or others...this will take a while!), we will find that the answers are variable, and much more subjective than objective. So then, of course, the special interest groups will throw money towards their own morally based laws, and their pet Congress Critter recipients will be happy to skew the results to agree with their own prejudices, or those of their paid sponsors. I don't trust them to do the right thing - I trust them to do whatever it takes to get votes, and lots of money for for their next election campaign.

NO THANKS! I'm with Chip - my morals DO NOT allow me to dictate what other adults do that might harm themselves. My morals allow me only to dictate that those adults are not allowed to harm somebody else.

 

[starsevol]

If I go into MY kitchen and pour a glass of wine, it is not your business, or the government's business. It hurts no one, and should not be a crime just because YOU say so!

People who think the way you do are very very dangerous.....

 

[starsevol]

There are lots of very large groups who have, or would like to, pass laws based on what they "know" to be moral. Many religious people stand on moral grounds against gay marriage. Many animal rights groups would love to pass laws against eating meat or keeping pets, based on their morals. Those groups feel that gays living a normal life, or people eating meat poses dangers for society, although not necessarily dangerous to individuals. PLEASE save me from having to live by other peoples' morals - EXCEPT when those laws (perhaps based on morals) ALSO stand the test of stopping one person from harming another, such as murder. I don't want murder illegal because it is immoral - I want it illegal because it causes harm to another. THAT is the difference.

Once we start trying to figure out some complicated and elusive formula of just HOW "necessary" some activity is, and just HOW harmful it could be (maybe do a statistical analysis of how many people use alcohol, how much enjoyment each person gets from it on a scale of 1- 10, how many people are damaged a little, moderately, and a lot, compared to how many enjoy it but never notice any apparent damage to themselves or others...this will take a while!), we will find that the answers are variable, and much more subjective than objective. So then, of course, the special interest groups will throw money towards their own morally based laws, and their pet Congress Critter recipients will be happy to skew the results to agree with their own prejudices, or those of their paid sponsors. I don't trust them to do the right thing - I trust them to do whatever it takes to get votes, and lots of money for for their next election campaign.

NO THANKS! I'm with Chip - my morals DO NOT allow me to dictate what other adults do that might harm themselves. My morals allow me only to dictate that those adults are not allowed to harm somebody else.

Kathy, you did it again. Thank you! ^^^^^^^^WHAT SHE SAID!!!

 

[vetusvates]

Vicky, I don't think many would argue the fact that there are,...(back several degrees from the philosophically difficult territory of cultural absolutes, absolute morality, and cultural relativism),...deeds and acts that are commonly against the law in most cultures. And on the law books in those countries. Murder, rape, theft, etc.

I am not arguing that. They are unlawful, in my eyes, because they obstruct the human race from peacefully propagating its next generation.
I believe the _origin_ ,...the _genesis_ ,...of all laws come from the need for cultures to insure the peaceful fluid propagation of the next generation.

The above is different than the infinite number of small things in the grey area...that may or may not obstruct the peaceful survival of the species.

I know this is a rather sterile description, but IMHO, when one strips an issue or issues to the bare bones, which includes removing, or the leaving off of, ALL socio-cultural-ethical-moral value overtones (that one reasonably can),...then and only then can one discuss whether an act or deed (and the need for a law on the matter) impedes or facilitates the peaceful continuation of the human species.
Or.............has no bearing on impeding nor facilitating.

Most people live in a house or apartment of some kind. But few are painted precisely the same.
I don't believe the color of your house has a bearing on the survival of the species.
Furthermore, lack of tolerance for houses of a different color than yours is illogical, frivolous, and a waste of time.

 

[Chip]

I'm not so sure about some of those, but I can believe others. But honestly, smoking pt can cause
lung cancer
throat cancer
a suppressed immune system
pulmonary infections
acute toxic psychosis
panic attacks
flashbacks
delusions
depersonalization
hallucinations
paranoia
depression
and increased heart rate

So it's still dangerous.

You haven't listed near as many as Shak did about sugar. :nyah:

And I can't find any scientific evidence of cancer risks from marijuana except from admittedly anti-drug websites. But any adult knows our lungs are not made for smoke.

And ya know, even if it had a 500 times greater cancer risk than working in a coal mine, IT ISN'T YOUR PLACE to tell other grown-up people what to do! I wasn't sure you really even believed what you were saying at first. Surely no educated person, outside of the Phelps family, in 21st century America would want prohibition reinstated. But you really do want to tell other people how to live their lives, and you break it down to your own system of "necessity" and "danger." We FOUNDED this country on these things called unalienable rights: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Well, working with reptiles is a "necessity" for my happiness. For someone else it might be a drink and a lid. If that's their thing, God bless 'em. I'm sorry for anyone who feels the need to dictate how other people are allowed to find a little happiness in this world.

 

[VickyChaiTea]

If I murdered someone, there would be a victim.
Where is the victim if I pour a glass of merlot or light up a dube?

I am not exaggerating your point at all!! You wish to criminalize something that has no bearing on you, you wish to take away people's rights and their ownership of themselves and want us all to be treated as children by a nameless faceless entity, just because it is how YOU feel.
You need to grow up and learn some tolerance.

YOU are the victim. People who smoke and get cancer are the victims. So yeah, there IS a victim.

Nameless faceless entity? I don't really know were you got that. And you are exaggerating my stance. I don't want people to be treated like children, I just want them to be safe. Even if that means protecting them from themselves. I believe in a balance between freedoms and restrictions. Is that so bad?

"You need to grow up and learn some tolerance."

I will not go out and hurt someone because they smoke pot. I will not call them names, I will not think of them as inferior. I will let them know my stance and leave it at that. If they continue to smoke after I've said my opinion, that's fine. It's their choice. I will not force my point of view on anybody. I will not force my beliefs on anybody. If people did not VOTE for a law banning pot, then that would be tragic but I won't go out and do anything about it. If they voted to legalize it, then so be it.

But we can agree that there are laws that exist because they are based on the MORALS of the people, right? So what I'm suggesting is really nothing new.

 

[vetusvates]

Vicky, we are in an ever present state of 'fixing' things. Polishing them.

Inventing the wheel
Domesticating animals
Language, spoken and written
The earth was 'flat' but now round
The universe once 'revolved' around our sun, now we know it does not
.
.
We once burned 'witches', now we don't
.
.
We abolished slavery
.
We withheld, then gave women the right to vote
.
.
We invented the car
We made alcohol illegal, then undid that having found it absurd
.
We withheld, then gave african americans the right to vote
.
We went to the moon
.
We demonized homosexuals,...now we are more accepting (in some ways and in some places)
.
.
We become less superstitious and more self-aware every day.
.
Human thought will (continue to) evolve...inevitably. Regardless of those who refuse to think or refuse to think in new ways.

 

[Tara80]

I love you Eric!!!

I can't give you rep.

 

[Gulf Coast Girl]

People who think the way you do are very very dangerous.....

I couldn't agree more! This goes way beyond the issue of marijuana.... people who think their morals should be forced on everyone and our personal freedoms should be strictly controlled via legislation, scare the hell out of me. These are usually the same people who think I shouldn't be allowed to own firearms.


I simply don't understand the thought process of people who think we need the fools running our government to control our lives.

 

[starsevol]

YOU are the victim. People who smoke and get cancer are the victims. So yeah, there IS a victim.

Nameless faceless entity? I don't really know were you got that. And you are exaggerating my stance. I don't want people to be treated like children, I just want them to be safe. Even if that means protecting them from themselves. I believe in a balance between freedoms and restrictions. Is that so bad?

"You need to grow up and learn some tolerance."

I will not go out and hurt someone because they smoke pot. I will not call them names, I will not think of them as inferior. I will let them know my stance and leave it at that. If they continue to smoke after I've said my opinion, that's fine. It's their choice. I will not force my point of view on anybody. I will not force my beliefs on anybody. If people did not VOTE for a law banning pot, then that would be tragic but I won't go out and do anything about it. If they voted to legalize it, then so be it.

But we can agree that there are laws that exist because they are based on the MORALS of the people, right? So what I'm suggesting is really nothing new.

What you want is the LAW to force your point of view on everyone else. There is no balance between freedom and restrictions, you are either free or you are not.

 

[starsevol]

I couldn't agree more! This goes way beyond the issue of marijuana.... people who think their morals should be forced on everyone and our personal freedoms should be strictly controlled via legislation, scare the hell out of me. These are usually the same people who think I shouldn't be allowed to own firearms.


I simply don't understand the thought process of people who think we need the fools running our government to control our lives.

repped you, great post

 

[oneirogenesis]

I will not go out and hurt someone because they smoke pot. I will not call them names, I will not think of them as inferior. I will let them know my stance and leave it at that. If they continue to smoke after I've said my opinion, that's fine. It's their choice. I will not force my point of view on anybody. I will not force my beliefs on anybody. If people did not VOTE for a law banning pot, then that would be tragic but I won't go out and do anything about it. If they voted to legalize it, then so be it.

While I strongly disagree with your stance, Vicky, and do not consider it logically sound (a bit frightening, even), I do have to give you credit. You've remained civil in spite of holding an opinion with which none else in this discussion agrees and you've been brave enough not to simply back away from the debate. I appreciate that you are capable of holding an opinion without forcing it onto others.

As many others have stated far better than I can, this issue for me is one of personal liberty. It is not simply a matter of whether or not I can ingest a certain plant. It is a matter of principle. I am responsible for myself. I hold authority over my own person, and no one should have the right to inhibit my freedom to exercise that authority. In turn, I do not have a right to inhibit the personal liberty of my fellow people.

 

[kathylove]

I think one of the reasons I like this community so much is that so many here value their freedom to pursue their own brand of happiness so highly (AND want the same for their fellow citizens, whether those alien brands of happiness seem silly or not). There are very few who feel the long arm of Big Brother should enforce some particular group's idea of what is necessary for the happiness of each citizen. It also makes for a very tolerant community who know that they must support others' needs in order to be supported in their own idiosyncrasies.

To those who want the government to decide for us - BEWARE! I believe that the love of freedom among this community is CONTAGIOUS! If you stick around here long enough, and become brainwashed with these messages of tolerance, love of freedom of choice, and distrust of Congress Critters and Big Brother in general, you, too, may become infected with this same perspective. But fear not - if you remain uninfected, even after long exposure, I will just try to vote for those who share my pursuit of freedom and personal responsibility. And I will keep trying to spread this "infection" of ideas as much as I possibly can.

One more thought - be careful what you wish for. It could easily happen that whatever makes you happy could be labeled by SOMEBODY as unnecessary and somehow possibly dangerous. That label could go on pretty much anything, depending on who is doing the labeling.

But these discussions are very useful in reminding me to keep spreading the word of freedom as reasonably, logically, and OFTEN as I possibly can.

 

[Tavia]

While I strongly disagree with your stance, Vicky, and do not consider it logically sound (a bit frightening, even), I do have to give you credit. You've remained civil in spite of holding an opinion with which none else in this discussion agrees and you've been brave enough not to simply back away from the debate. I appreciate that you are capable of holding an opinion without forcing it onto others.....

Ditto to this whole section.

 

[kathylove]

"While I strongly disagree with your stance, Vicky, and do not consider it logically sound (a bit frightening, even), I do have to give you credit. You've remained civil in spite of holding an opinion with which none else in this discussion agrees and you've been brave enough not to simply back away from the debate. I appreciate that you are capable of holding an opinion without forcing it onto others."

I AGREE! So many people devolve into name calling or running away when their ideas are unpopular. That doesn't make for an educational or interesting debate! I applaud you for "going the distance" - even though I think you are totally wrong, lol (IMHO, of course!)

 

[Outcast]

You know, when I think of the government telling me what I can and cannot do, I think back to Russification with the Soviet Union. It was "You will be Russian in every facet, or you will be exiled, or die."
That is NOT the place I want to live. I believe there are places for some laws, but there are many laws that can be done away with.

I believe I should be able to own whatever gun I want, If I wanted to smoke Mary Jane, I should be able to, If I want to drink Absinthe, I should be able to.


Kathy, I love your posts. I believe that our political ideals become closer and closer to the same the more I read them, do a little research, and see that you know your stuff....LOL