| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/12/2013 07:22:24 PM · #26 |
So where would you like it to stop? What criteria should be used when a mayor wants to ban a food?
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I would bet you that more criminals drink Coke than shoot heroine. Plenty of people use heroine without becoming
criminals. We had no drug laws at all in the USA until 1906, shortly before we made alcohol illegal.
In the 1890s the Sears & Roebuck catalogue, which was distributed to millions of Americans homes, offered a syringe and a small amount of cocaine for $1.50. Heroine was outlawed in 1924 in the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. Before then it was largely a drug used by housewives for "female troubles".
If you feel that the government has no obligation to regulate commerce, if you get your wish, somethings you are not keen on will be for sale. Right next to the 64 oz soda, and there is no reason it shouldn't be a nice cheap fix of heroine in a ready to go syringe.
Shouldn't people have the right to whatever poison they like? |
|
|
|
|
03/12/2013 07:22:25 PM · #27 |
| Ray, illegality is the ultimate regulation. |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 07:30:36 PM · #28 |
Here's the fundamental question (and the uncomfortable follow up)
Does society ever "know better" than the individual?
If so, are you willing to accept it if they "know better" than you? |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 07:51:28 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does society ever "know better" than the individual?
|
yes, i dont care if you get want to get fat and are unhealthy, but when your fat ass and unhealthy lifestyle are driving up healthcare costs for me im all for an rules the help you out when you have no self control.
the only folks that really have a true problem with this law are those with financial interests in soft drinks.
Message edited by author 2013-03-12 19:53:08. |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 07:59:28 PM · #30 |
there are 2 things that dems do when there is a prob....Ban it or Tax it
Message edited by author 2013-03-12 20:01:12.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2013 08:01:48 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does society ever "know better" than the individual?
|
yes, i dont care if you get want to get fat and are unhealthy, but when your fat ass and unhealthy lifestyle are driving up healthcare costs for me im all for an rules the help you out when you have no self control.
the only folks that really have a true problem with this law are those with financial interests in soft drinks. |
That has to be the coldest, and most inhumane statement I have heard on this forum !
Edit to add; his second line was edited in while I was writing.
Message edited by author 2013-03-12 20:12:17. |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 08:18:52 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does society ever "know better" than the individual?
|
yes, i dont care if you get want to get fat and are unhealthy, but when your fat ass and unhealthy lifestyle are driving up healthcare costs for me im all for an rules the help you out when you have no self control.
the only folks that really have a true problem with this law are those with financial interests in soft drinks. |
That has to be the coldest, and most inhumane statement I have heard on this forum !
Edit to add; his second line was edited in while I was writing. |
how is that cold? that statement transcends to almost all personal freedoms. i don't care what you do so long as it doesn't affect me or others, when your lifestyle starts to infringe on others, government needs to step in to make sure we can all coexist properly.
Message edited by author 2013-03-12 21:00:52. |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 08:42:59 PM · #33 |
that statement transcends to almost all personal freedoms. i don't what you do so long as it doesn't affect me or others, when your lifestyle starts to infringe on others, government needs to step in to make sure we can all coexist properly.
I am in awe.. |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 09:06:34 PM · #34 |
so if someone wants to weigh 300lbs it should bother me? i should run out and preach to them about how being fat is unhealthy? no. i don't care, its your body do what you want, but when we have an obesity problems and people are suffering from heart disease and diabetes and all sort of health issue, burdening an already taxed health system, its a problem and SHOULD be addressed.
the same goes for religion or drugs, believe what you want but don't let your ideals govern my life or drink all you want but don't drive drunk and crash into me or anyone else.
does that make sense or are you still in awe of my lack of desire to control aspects of your life that don't affect mine.
Message edited by author 2013-03-12 21:07:24. |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 09:48:08 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
there are 2 things that dems do when there is a prob....Ban it or Tax it |
And what other possible recourse is there to ameliorate a problem? Can you cut taxes until it goes away? Do you let the "free market" poison their customers and kill off their market and cure the problem by invisible hand ?
If there is a problem that is only getting worse, you can choose to ignore it, or you can act. As a government, your only methods of action are to make the problem illegal, tax it heavily to defray the cost to society and deter the activity, or pretend it isn't really a problem. What would you choose? |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 10:03:48 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
there are 2 things that dems do when there is a prob....Ban it or Tax it |
I'm pretty sure this inst limited to just the D's. Ever hear of prohibition? |
|
|
|
03/12/2013 10:49:59 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ray, illegality is the ultimate regulation. |
OK... let me ask you that in another way. Why would you want to outlaw something that can be regulated and generate revenues... we do manage to generate substantial amounts of money on other mind altering substances... like alcohol and other forms of drugs.
I would be interested in your response.
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-03-12 22:53:13. |
|
|
|
03/13/2013 12:42:46 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ray, illegality is the ultimate regulation. |
OK... let me ask you that in another way. Why would you want to outlaw something that can be regulated and generate revenues... we do manage to generate substantial amounts of money on other mind altering substances... like alcohol and other forms of drugs.
I would be interested in your response.
Ray |
Boring territory. The analogy between pot and alcohol is played out. Our world is full of contradictions and thus it's a poor argument that we must "fix" something only because it contradicts something else. Alcohol is legal. Those three words do not make a compelling argument for the legalization of pot. And "generating revenue", i would think, would normally be reasoning anathema to things i know you to stand for. Anyway, I'm always more interested in the fundamental questions. Here's one that might be appropriate for pot or sugar. Should members of a society ever forsake a freedom because other members cannot handle that freedom themselves?
The vices of the world all have individuals who are immune to their ill effects. Personally I don't think that means we should necessarily accept something in society just because some may enjoy without ill effect. I'm more concerned about those who are greatly harmed because they have no ability to control it.
Message edited by author 2013-03-13 00:43:48. |
|
|
|
03/13/2013 01:12:21 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ray, illegality is the ultimate regulation. |
OK... let me ask you that in another way. Why would you want to outlaw something that can be regulated and generate revenues... we do manage to generate substantial amounts of money on other mind altering substances... like alcohol and other forms of drugs.
I would be interested in your response.
Ray |
Boring territory. The analogy between pot and alcohol is played out. Our world is full of contradictions and thus it's a poor argument that we must "fix" something only because it contradicts something else. Alcohol is legal. Those three words do not make a compelling argument for the legalization of pot. |
When alcohol was not legal, what was the result? Not countrywide sobriety; instead we had a significant rise of organized crime and near universal scofflawism -- Prohibition was widely ignored by all classes of society, particulalry the political class. There are 20 million Americans who use pot. Think we should just jail 'em all, eh? That will really "fix" things alright ....
As an MD, I presume you are familiar with the concepts of harm reduction and risk-benefit analysis. I defy you to come up with concrete and rational evidince showing that using marijuana -- either medicinally or recreationally -- is more harmful (to either the individual or socity) that the effects caused by its state of illegality (broken families, imprisonment/criminal records, cost of the criminal-justice system, increased insurance premiums, etc.). If nothing else, the idea of nearly ten percent of the population engaging in what the Feds term criminal activity should give one pause as to the rationality of any policy.
Remember, pot was only made illegal relatively recently, partly as a way of enabling control and persecution the growing Mexican-American and Black communities ("Reefer Madness", anyone?), and partly to promote the conversion to the (then) recently-developed artificial fibers (e.g. Nylon®) in place of the perfectly useful (and renewable/recyclable) hemp ... before that people had used it with relative safety for about 3000 years ... one of my favorite bumper stickers: God Invented Pot,
Man Invented Beer.
In Whom Do You Trust?
I can assure you that there are more documented cases of death due to the consumption of tobacco or alcohol (both regulated legal for adults) than from the use of marijuana. Can you offer any rational basis for allowing the use of these drugs and not marijuana?
Message edited by author 2013-03-13 01:13:38. |
|
|
|
03/13/2013 07:26:43 AM · #40 |
I think the General hit it here. Not everything is banned because is bad for us, there are underlying politics and persuasions that are the true reason behind it.
when we add regulations or ban it should go in this order:
identify a problem, propose a solution, regulate if need be.
not
have a solution (that benefits you financially or politically), present a problem, propose regulation if influence doesn't stick.
Message edited by author 2013-03-13 09:59:03. |
|
|
|
03/13/2013 09:35:59 AM · #41 |
| I didn't mean to change the topic to pot. I know we have a few skunk heads here with perhaps a vested interest. I see the detrimental effects of drugs in general at the mission. That, to me, is enough compelling evidence to give long pause to the idea of opening the gates. |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 08:29:38 AM · #42 |
| Let's be honest, Americans need all the assistance they can get to eat and drink healthier. For the (at my estimate) 1.5% of the country who are healthy it won't be a problem. The rest need to put down that burger, stop crying about not being able to eat themselves to an early grave and go for a walk. |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 08:40:33 AM · #43 |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 12:16:42 PM · #44 |
| Seems the Big Round Chancellor has become the Big Gulp Canceller. |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 03:35:06 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't mean to change the topic to pot. I know we have a few skunk heads here with perhaps a vested interest. I see the detrimental effects of drugs in general at the mission. That, to me, is enough compelling evidence to give long pause to the idea of opening the gates. |
Oh Doc. That's not 'compelling' evidence, that's anecdotal evidence and severely skewed anecdotal evidence at that.
Also, resorting to name calling? Really? |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 04:44:28 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't mean to change the topic to pot. I know we have a few skunk heads here with perhaps a vested interest. I see the detrimental effects of drugs in general at the mission. That, to me, is enough compelling evidence to give long pause to the idea of opening the gates. |
Oh Doc. That's not 'compelling' evidence, that's anecdotal evidence and severely skewed anecdotal evidence at that.
Also, resorting to name calling? Really? |
If you read my posts above where I ask the questions about society and members which cannot handle freedoms it's the perfect kind of evidence. I am concerned with those least capable of handling such freedoms. I see such people at the mission all the time and the detriment it is to their lives. It gives me pause over making such things even more accessible. Seems like completely rational thinking to me and one that I, personally, find compelling. Your usual fly-by reply is unimpressive.
The "skunk head" comment was really meant with a little wink. I'm sure your skin is thicker than that...
|
|
|
|
03/17/2013 04:54:06 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't mean to change the topic to pot. I know we have a few skunk heads here with perhaps a vested interest. I see the detrimental effects of drugs in general at the mission. That, to me, is enough compelling evidence to give long pause to the idea of opening the gates. |
... and of course, none of the detrimental effects would be attributable to legal products such as alcohol, prescribed drugs, glue, paint spray, shoe polish, vanilla and a host of other products that some poor souls use to get high.
Surely you aren't suggesting that we should outlaw all products that can alter a person's perception... are you?
I spent 30 years working in a police agency and would much rather see the current enforcement process scrapped in favor of a well regulated process, particularly when it comes to the medicinal use of marijuana.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 05:12:15 PM · #48 |
And that's an opinion you are welcome to based on what you see. But it's not one I need to share.
Medical marijuana, I can tell you, is a joke. It is only a thin veneer for legal marijuana and while there are individuals who are benefitted, the program (at least in this state) is completely overwhelmed by chaff.
But, again, this is such well worn territory. After all these years the "old" arguments we've all been through are just not worth investing too much typing into. |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 05:16:37 PM · #49 |
| Doc, are you saying we should only allow things that everybody can handle? Where would you draw the line? How much do I have to give up because it might harm somebody? What happened to personal responsibility? |
|
|
|
03/17/2013 05:56:40 PM · #50 |
| Well, I'm not actually saying that as much as asking the questions. I think the argument is often phrased from the angle of, "people can do this with no harm", but I'm flipping it and pointing out that there are people who can't do this without harm. It goes back to sugar and the question of whether society ever "knows better" than the individual. I can't say I know the answers, but at this time I do not feel that legalized pot is a compelling place I think we need to go. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 03:22:07 PM EDT.
