Should Marijuana be Legal?

[The Warrior Hearted]

And consuming drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, etc. in public can cause harm to people who made no choice to willingly harm themselves.

No it can't.

you've obviously never met an angry drunk.

[Wienholdland]

No it can't.

you've obviously never met an angry drunk.

I've never met an angry puddle of alcohol.

[The Islands of United Caribbean Colonies]

(Image)

Right, and when someone harms another person, whilst under the influence, they are responsible for that. There is a justice and civil court system in place to manage that after-effect of freedom.

Most people don't stop to ask a stranger's name or anything else if they are next to them when they're smoking.

You don't need to be exposed to one concrete person smoking over extended periods of time, they could be exposed to various people smoking over extended periods of time. Which happens quite often.

If you were in a restaurant, and the restaurant condoned smoking inside, sue them. If they didn't, tell the waiter to stop the person from smoking. This basic premise can be applied to any premises open to the public. As for smoking outside- tough shit. Don't sit next to smokers on a park bench- it's easy to avoid.

When do you hear of marijuana smokers beating their families/jumping off of roofs while high?

You don't, because marijuana is all around better for you than alcohol.

[Keronians]

(Image)

Right, and when someone harms another person, whilst under the influence, they are responsible for that. There is a justice and civil court system in place to manage that after-effect of freedom.

Most people don't stop to ask a stranger's name or anything else if they are next to them when they're smoking.

You don't need to be exposed to one concrete person smoking over extended periods of time, they could be exposed to various people smoking over extended periods of time. Which happens quite often.

If you were in a restaurant, and the restaurant condoned smoking inside, sue them. If they didn't, tell the waiter to stop the person from smoking. This basic premise can be applied to any premises open to the public. As for smoking outside- tough shit. Don't sit next to smokers on a park bench- it's easy to avoid.

How about the fact that I'm causing no harm, while you are, therefore, you shouldn't smoke in a public place?

As for restaurants condoning smoking inside, yes, I should be able to, but at the same time, it means that the law recognises that a restaurant shouldn't allow smoking in it.

[The Warrior Hearted]

you've obviously never met an angry drunk.

I've never met an angry puddle of alcohol.

There are drugs which DO change how you act. You can find someone who is the nicest guy on earth, but suddenly becomes an angry asshole after a few shots pretty easily.

[Biop]

Let's see sources. For all of them.


Gonna need 'em here too.


And here.


This counts as the Morality Police mentality.

Source for "drugs are addictive"? Are you serious?

Ya i think he is and Wikipeida isnt a viable source

[Biop]

Authoritarianism fails.

There is not a single (sane) person who believes there is nothing wrong with murder. There are people that are willing to do it, of course, for whatever reason. There is a difference.

There are quite a few people who believe that there is nothing wrong with murder.

I belive in self deence killing, Its not right but its the difference between you living and you not.

[Wienholdland]

I've never met an angry puddle of alcohol.

There are drugs which DO change how you act. You can find someone who is the nicest guy on earth, but suddenly becomes an angry asshole after a few shots pretty easily.

That's nice. I don't care. The alcohol is not responsible for an individual's actions.

[Keronians]

And consuming drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, etc. in public can cause harm to people who made no choice to willingly harm themselves.

No it can't.

Of course it can. Don't quite understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong.

A drunk will most likely cause harm he wouldn't do if his judgment weren't being clouded by the depressant. The cause of the harm can be traced back to the drug, so the drug does cause harm to others when individuals consume it.

[Sibirsky]

Right, and when someone harms another person, whilst under the influence, they are responsible for that. There is a justice and civil court system in place to manage that after-effect of freedom.


If you were in a restaurant, and the restaurant condoned smoking inside, sue them. If they didn't, tell the waiter to stop the person from smoking. This basic premise can be applied to any premises open to the public. As for smoking outside- tough shit. Don't sit next to smokers on a park bench- it's easy to avoid.

How about the fact that I'm causing no harm, while you are, therefore, you shouldn't smoke in a public place?

As for restaurants condoning smoking inside, yes, I should be able to, but at the same time, it means that the law recognises that a restaurant shouldn't allow smoking in it.

How about letting property owners choose what they do with their property? If they allow smoking, they allow smoking. If they don't, they don't. And if you have your panties in a bunch over some smokers, don't go to a smoking restaurant.

But no. The state must dictate everything for us. It must hold my pee pee because I might get some pee on the seat.

[Keronians]

There are drugs which DO change how you act. You can find someone who is the nicest guy on earth, but suddenly becomes an angry asshole after a few shots pretty easily.

That's nice. I don't care. The alcohol is not responsible for an individual's actions.

That's nice. And irrelevant.

[The Warrior Hearted]

There are drugs which DO change how you act. You can find someone who is the nicest guy on earth, but suddenly becomes an angry asshole after a few shots pretty easily.

That's nice. I don't care. The alcohol is not responsible for an individual's actions.

im sorry, but did you really just make that argument?

It is a major factor. Some drugs are proven to change how you think, ergo, it is partly the drugs fault.

[GreaterPacificNations]

And consuming drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, etc. in public can cause harm to people who made no choice to willingly harm themselves.

They don't have to. Tobacco only really harms others via second hand smoke. So as long as people aren't smoking inside, no problem there. Same with weed. Alcohol, and Crack and few others have higher secondary incidences of harm based more or less behavioural problems. People become dicks when they use them.

Not to mention that I still don't see why we should allow something which does nothing but cause net harm be legal, apart from the fact that it is impossible to enforce.

Because as Sibirsky said, use drops after legalisation. Also, a legalised problem is easier to manage. Because, as I said before, lots of things cause harm, like eating bacon, but we can't restrict people's freedom to force them to live an 'ideal' life. Society is just a whole bunch of us- all different- trying to find the best way to all get along while doing what we want to do.

In list format:
1)Impossible to enforce
2)Use drops with legalisation
3)Use can be managed and regulated to further reduce harm when legalised.
4)It is a basic freedom to do what you will with your body.

[Keronians]

How about the fact that I'm causing no harm, while you are, therefore, you shouldn't smoke in a public place?

As for restaurants condoning smoking inside, yes, I should be able to, but at the same time, it means that the law recognises that a restaurant shouldn't allow smoking in it.

How about letting property owners choose what they do with their property? If they allow smoking, they allow smoking. If they don't, they don't. And if you have your panties in a bunch over some smokers, don't go to a smoking restaurant.

But no. The state must dictate everything for us. It must hold my pee pee because I might get some pee on the seat.

Yes, stating clearly that this is a smoking restaurant will do.

[Wienholdland]

No it can't.

Of course it can. Don't quite understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong.

A drunk will most likely cause harm he wouldn't do if his judgment weren't being clouded by the depressant. The cause of the harm can be traced back to the drug, so the drug does cause harm to others when individuals consume it.

Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Quite easy to understand, really.

[Keronians]

And consuming drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, etc. in public can cause harm to people who made no choice to willingly harm themselves.

They don't have to. Tobacco only really harms others via second hand smoke. So as long as people aren't smoking inside, no problem there. Same with weed. Alcohol, and Crack and few others have higher secondary incidences of harm based more or less behavioural problems. People become dicks when they use them.

Not to mention that I still don't see why we should allow something which does nothing but cause net harm be legal, apart from the fact that it is impossible to enforce.

Because as Sibirsky said, use drops after legalisation. Also, a legalised problem is easier to manage. Because, as I said before, lots of things cause harm, like eating bacon, but we can't restrict people's freedom to force them to live an 'ideal' life. Society is just a whole bunch of us- all different- trying to find the best way to all get along while doing what we want to do.

In list format:
1)Impossible to enforce
2)Use drops with legalisation
3)Use can be managed and regulated to further reduce harm when legalised.
4)It is a basic freedom to do what you will with your body.

Essentially why I support legalisation.

[Keronians]

Of course it can. Don't quite understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong.

A drunk will most likely cause harm he wouldn't do if his judgment weren't being clouded by the depressant. The cause of the harm can be traced back to the drug, so the drug does cause harm to others when individuals consume it.

Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Quite easy to understand, really.

Indeed it is.

Pretty irrelevant to the post, though.

[Sibirsky]

Not to mention that I still don't see why we should allow something which does nothing but cause net harm be legal, apart from the fact that it is impossible to enforce.

Using this logic, nothing should be legal.

[Keronians]

Not to mention that I still don't see why we should allow something which does nothing but cause net harm be legal, apart from the fact that it is impossible to enforce.

Using this logic, nothing should be legal.

Provide examples.

[Sibirsky]

They don't have to. Tobacco only really harms others via second hand smoke. So as long as people aren't smoking inside, no problem there. Same with weed. Alcohol, and Crack and few others have higher secondary incidences of harm based more or less behavioural problems. People become dicks when they use them.

Because as Sibirsky said, use drops after legalisation. Also, a legalised problem is easier to manage. Because, as I said before, lots of things cause harm, like eating bacon, but we can't restrict people's freedom to force them to live an 'ideal' life. Society is just a whole bunch of us- all different- trying to find the best way to all get along while doing what we want to do.

In list format:
1)Impossible to enforce
2)Use drops with legalisation
3)Use can be managed and regulated to further reduce harm when legalised.
4)It is a basic freedom to do what you will with your body.

Essentially why I support legalisation.[/quote]

You strike out the main argument for legalization?

[Keronians]

Essentially why I support legalisation.

You strike out the main argument for legalization?

Yup.

[Sibirsky]

Using this logic, nothing should be legal.

Provide examples.

Name something that does not cause harm, or has potential to cause harm.

[Milks Empire]

Source for "drugs are addictive"? Are you serious?

Completely. Some are and some aren't.

[Sibirsky]

You strike out the main argument for legalization?

Yup.

Fascist.

[Keronians]

Provide examples.

Name something that does not cause harm, or has potential to cause harm.

I said net harm, not "no harm at all".