• 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."

So you wouldn't say that adrenaline junkies, or people who engage in extremely risky behavior are at fault or that their activities like equestrian sports (Georgina Bloomberg fractured her spine again last Friday) or Rugby are not dangerous enough to merit legal reconsideration, but that sitting at home with your smoke detector and your fire extinguisher and smoking a joint or drinking a glass of wine should be outlawed because it is dangerous and unnecessary.

I think you need to reevaluate your priorities. People trying to self-actualize in a modern society are going to need a crutch. We are not meant to live this way, so whether it is pot, alcohol, thrill seeking, exercising, animal collecting, religion, pill popping or just vegging out in front of the tube, people are always going to find "unhealthy" ways of relieving stress.

The endorphins released after extended exercise mimic the effects of MDMA, and exercise is highly addictive, so should we ban that too?

There is nothing in this world that doesn't have abuse potential, the point is that people need to be able to make their own decisions about what is right or "unhealthy" for them. So, some people might prefer a sober lifestyle, others the occasional indulgence, and still others might feel the need to push their body to the edge. Let them, it is only offending your sensibilities.

It is up to friends and family members of abusers to try to get them to seek help, and yes that sucks for them, but the world shouldn't suffer because a minority have poor judgement and impulse control.
 
Vicky, I have given you my best shot as have many others. This is something that I used to tell my daughter, and she never listened to me either, but when everyone you talk to says you are wrong, you need to reassess your position.
 
Leew said:
Vicky, I have given you my best shot as have many others. This is something that I used to tell my daughter, and she never listened to me either, but when everyone you talk to says you are wrong, you need to reassess your position.
Click to expand...

Haha, well, I have given the subject a lot of thought. And that saying is actually just as "oppressive" as my point of view on pot. The wright brothers were told flight was impossible, etc. See?

Anyway, I don't know the statistic of injuries or deaths when it comes to extreme sports so I guess I can't really say whether or not they're something that should be banned.

And yeah, people always will find unhealthy ways to cope. Does that mean it's ok? Certainly not.

Exercise is healthy, and would have to be taken to an extreme to become unhealthy. Recreationally using pot can give you cancer in the long run. Jogging every day does not.
 
Vicky, what you don't understand is the definition of "Free Will".

Free will: 1. a. the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined.

YOU are defending a position that takes away FREE WILL which is an UNALIENABLE right.

This is what people have been attempting to tell you throughout the last 14 pages.
You cannot use murder in comparison, which you keep doing.
Murder is someone using FREE WILL to take away another human's FREE WILL; this is the exception and where making laws should draw the line.
Just take some time to think about it, from an external perspective. If you take away everything YOU think is dangerous (for only themselves) from OTHER people, where is their free will?
 
Ok, the how about meth? Why is meth illegal? By using it, you're not hurting anybody. Only yourself. Yeah, there is a chance you'll hurt someone else too. But we should make it legal! Because some people like to use it. Let them make the decisions for themselves.
 
Leew said:
I am very glad that you are A) in the minority, and B) not in a position of power.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. I was actually discussing this with my sister earlier...the world would be in a terrible situation if the opposite were true.
 
"Vicky, I have given you my best shot as have many others. This is something that I used to tell my daughter, and she never listened to me either, but when everyone you talk to says you are wrong, you need to reassess your position."

This statement does not mean you should automatically consider your viewpoint / opinion WRONG. It just means that you should consider the POSSIBILITY that you may not have logically considered all angles, and that you MAY change your mind later. I don't know your age or experience, but if you are young, you are even more likely to change your mind as you gain more experience. If you are under 30 or so, you may change your mind later, once you have raised a family, been employed for many, many years, possibly in different types of jobs, of if you run your own business for a while, or have had many other life experiences that will likely come with age. Those will all tend to have their effect on your perspective. If you have already done many of those things, then you are a bit less likely to change your outlook, but even then, we all continue to grow and change with time.

Over the years, there have been many times when I found my opinion to be completely in the minority. That always made me stop and think, and try to search all facts and viewpoints in the most unbiased way I could. After that, sometimes I did decide my stance should change. And sometimes not. But I must say that I as got older, my trust in those in authority has very definitely eroded (to put it very mildly!). You may well find the same to be true for you - in time.
 
VickyChaiTea said:
Anyway, I don't know the statistic of injuries or deaths when it comes to extreme sports so I guess I can't really say whether or not they're something that should be banned.
Click to expand...

Well, when you break it down mathematically, without the need for statistics:

Necessity = N
Risk = R

N=0
R>0
Necessity for unnecessary activities is a constant, being 0.
Risk is not a constant, and can change based on the observer, but for all intents and purposes is greater than 0.

Using the law of substitution (or something) we find that:
N<R or R>N

In other words, necessity is always less than risk.

So then what it comes down to is Benefit (B). Benefit, unlike necessity, is not a constant. Benefit determines if Activity (A) is performed.

B >= (is greater than or equal to) 0

When B<R then A is avoided.
When B>R then A might be performed.
When B=R your head asplode.

Lets take 2 real life (fake) examples. That of 2 frienemies Pete and Kwyjibo. The activity (A) is: owning reptiles.

Pete: Enjoys keeping a variety of reptiles including Cornsnakes (C), Ratsnakes (R), Anoles (A), and Pythons (P). ("CRAP")
N = 0
R = bites, scratches, poop, being eaten alive by 500 foot python.
B = happiness, increased seratonin, ability to study anatomy from the inside of a 500 foot python.

For Pete, B>R, therefore Pete decides that reptile ownership is right for him.

Kwyjibo: PETA follower (coincidentally enough the symbol for this is also "CRAP", though for different reasons.)
N = 0
R = Eternal self-loathing and damnation for his soul, or something like that. And also being eaten alive by a 500 foot python and not enjoying the benefit of being able to study its internal anatomy.
B = Nada.

For Kwyjibo, B<R, therefore Kwyjibo decides that reptile ownership is not right for him. In addition, because Kwyjibo is a member of PETA ("CRAP") his MORALS dictate that reptile ownership (or in fact any animal ownership) is inherently WRONG and therefore should be BANNED and tries to enforce his views/morals on everyone around him by attempting to get the government to develop more laws against animal ownership.

I lost my train of thought.
 
As for meth - I don't know too much about it. If that is the drug that causes explosions when being made, then I would want the same sort of regulations that supposedly keep us safe from fireworks production (although a few people have been killed by that, too!). That is because innocent people could be killed in the explosion. I think it is really stupid for people to use hard drugs. But if they are adults and they are not harming others (driving high, committing robbery for drugs, etc), then I feel it is their right to remove themselves from the gene pool if they want to. However, I would not be willing to give them welfare benefits so they can slowly kill themselves.

I would rather spend our limited resources on protecting CHILDREN from their own stupidity. We obviously don't have enough resources to stop adults - or the drug war would have been "won" a long time ago!
 
ZoologyGirl... that was... interesting. XD I love it though! But Kwyjibo fails to take into consideration is that the risk of owning reptiles is not very high. Unless you DO happen to own a 500 foot python, or live in a universe were there are such snakes, in which case the ownership of 500 foot pythons (as pets) should probably be illegal. XD

And Kathy, I agree with you. My opinions and stances on many subjects has changed a lot over the years, and seeing as how I'm only 20 (HAH I almost typed 10... though I may as well have? XD ) my thoughts will most likely change. I also may be influenced by inexperience and just plain out "young stupidness."
 
kathylove said:
As for meth - I don't know too much about it. If that is the drug that causes explosions when being made, then I would want the same sort of regulations that supposedly keep us safe from fireworks production (although a few people have been killed by that, too!). That is because innocent people could be killed in the explosion. I think it is really stupid for people to use hard drugs. But if they are adults and they are not harming others (driving high, committing robbery for drugs, etc), then I feel it is their right to remove themselves from the gene pool if they want to. However, I would not be willing to give them welfare benefits so they can slowly kill themselves.

I would rather spend our limited resources on protecting CHILDREN from their own stupidity. We obviously don't have enough resources to stop adults - or the drug war would have been "won" a long time ago!
Click to expand...

I have seen someone loose 50lbs in roughly a week on meth. Unfortunately they also started loosing hair, their teeth started rotting out of their mouth, they started getting sores all over their body, and they started robing people for drug money.

I have also seen marriages destroyed because one of the people were using meth... But, that is what happens when you live in one of the many Meth capitols in a state.
 
I suspected you are very young. There is not really any way that you can understand the reasons for the opinions of those 15 or 25 or more years older than you are. It is just something you have to live through and experience, firsthand. But if you listen to (and even solicit) opposing opinions with an open mind, and are willing to revise your stance as new facts and experiences come to light, then that is all one can ask.

Just try to remember this thread 20 or more years from now as you are trying to explain your own views to an 18 or 20 year old - maybe even your own child, lol! You will have a real sense of deja vu!
 
"I have seen someone loose 50lbs in roughly a week on meth. Unfortunately they also started loosing hair, their teeth started rotting out of their mouth, they started getting sores all over their body, and they started robing people for drug money."

WOW! Is there any way to lose the 50 pounds, but not the teeth and hair, lol? (But I don't really want the sores, either!)
 
Not a whole lot, zoology girl. But people very regularly drink more than one beer, and get drunk. After that, they can really REALLY drunk. After that, alcohol poisoning. It's not THAT hard to do. Plus, there is the chance that if you drink you could start to become an alcoholic, and drinking regularly can cause a whole host of health problems.

And Kathy, yeah. I'll probably hate my point of view in a few years or so. XD
 
I believe a deciding factor for hard drugs, like meth, is the addictive properties which do, can and usually will result in harm to another person. Mostly because the user ends up valuing the drug over life and will do what it takes (robbery, assault, etc) to get their next high. Thus the term 'hard drug'.
Also, as Kathy said, the manufacturing of said drug/drugs such as meth utilizes deadly chemicals. The users/distributors almost always manufacture meth in their own houses; which more often than not have small children residing in them - resulting in the other members (like I said, often children) dying or having developmental disabilities due to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top