Should Marijuana be Legal?

[Divine Unity]

Yeah, and part of that "helping" involves saying what they can or can't do.

Dude, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Our society is based on the idea that people should be free to make their own decisions.

Certainly enaging in recreational drug use increases your risk in a plethora of health problems- so what? Eating fatty foods does too. Not excersizing enough, living close to a nuclear power plant, not getting enough sun, getting too much sun, driving, eating too much meat, not eating enough meat, skydiving, travelling to India, living in India, all of these and more increase your chances of health problems and accidents.

It's not the place of the government to force us to live optimal lives. We are free to do what we will with our lives, so long as we aren't hurting others.

This!!

[Sibirsky]

Ad Hitlerum is in order here. No, Governments do not have any right to dictate any personal conduct of any individual. That's not what Government is there for.

Of course they have a right to dictate conduct. That is part of the State's job. There are people who believe that there is nothing wrong with murder. Still told that it's wrong, and punished for it, though.

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.

[Sibirsky]

Yeah, and part of that "helping" involves saying what they can or can't do.

Dude, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Our society is based on the idea that people should be free to make their own decisions.

Certainly enaging in recreational drug use increases your risk in a plethora of health problems- so what? Eating fatty foods does too. Not excersizing enough, living close to a nuclear power plant, not getting enough sun, getting too much sun, driving, eating too much meat, not eating enough meat, skydiving, travelling to India, living in India, all of these and more increase your chances of health problems and accidents.

It's not the place of the government to force us to live optimal lives. We are free to do what we will with our lives, so long as we aren't hurting others.

[The Warrior Hearted]

not really. Its the difference between hitting someone with a car while drunk and hitting someone with a car when not drunk, for instance.

The same as the difference between hitting someone with red shoes on and hitting someone with white shoes on.....

Irrelevant.

not really. this comes down to the point of "not hurting others".

let me be a broken record again, if you dont infringe on anothers rights while under a drug known to cause violence, then i dont care if you use it. If you do, then your no better then someone who got drunk then beat/murdered his/her wife/husband.

[South Benson]

Yes, but not for all this philosophical libertarian nonsense, but merely because legalization combined with health based treatment would likely make things much better, instead of this expensive drug war.

[Divine Unity]

Yes, but not for all this philosophical libertarian nonsense, but merely because legalization combined with health based treatment would likely make things much better, instead of this expensive drug war.

And not to mention the money to be made.

[Keronians]

Because they are all addictive and the vast majority are harmful.

Let's see sources. For all of them.

They cause damage to the central nervous system.

Gonna need 'em here too.

Many lower life expectancy, and increase the risk of various diseases.

And here.

Its promotion literally consists of encouraging people to harm themselves.

This counts as the Morality Police mentality.

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

How about basic biology? Recreational drug use is mainly for pleasure, correct? That means that they stimulate the production of chemicals which cause feelings of pleasure. Over a period of time, the brain becomes accustomed to this higher level of chemical stimulation, which means that it needs the drugs. Translation: addiction.

Again, source for the fact that they harm the central nervous system? Seriously? Well, how about the fact that the nervous system is dependent on the drug, and thus cannot function normally without them? This is the definition of harm. A once healthy nervous system now requires outside stimulation to function properly. Now you will say that drug use is not equal to addiction. And you're right, but that statement is irreleant to this point, since every consumption causes some harm, and lowers slightly the ability to function without the drug.

[Wienholdland]

The same as the difference between hitting someone with red shoes on and hitting someone with white shoes on.....

Irrelevant.

not really. this comes down to the point of "not hurting others".

let me be a broken record again, if you dont infringe on anothers rights while under a drug known to cause violence, then i dont care if you use it. If you do, then your no better then someone who got drunk then beat/murdered his/her wife/husband.

Yes. Violence is violence, whether or not the person initiating the violence is on drugs is irrelevant.

[Keronians]

Yes, but not for all this philosophical libertarian nonsense, but merely because legalization combined with health based treatment would likely make things much better, instead of this expensive drug war.

Now, this is why I support legalisation.

[JJ Place]

Ad Hitlerum is in order here. No, Governments do not have any right to dictate any personal conduct of any individual. That's not what Government is there for.

Of course they have a right to dictate conduct. That is part of the State's job. There are people who believe that there is nothing wrong with murder. Still told that it's wrong, and punished for it, though.

The Government might enjoy having you believe that. The legal system has the duty to protect individual rights and ensure justice. The Government does not have any right dictating personal choice on individuals. Infringing on your life and forcing decisions are not the right of the Government.

[Keronians]

Yeah, and part of that "helping" involves saying what they can or can't do.

Dude, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Our society is based on the idea that people should be free to make their own decisions.

Certainly enaging in recreational drug use increases your risk in a plethora of health problems- so what? Eating fatty foods does too. Not excersizing enough, living close to a nuclear power plant, not getting enough sun, getting too much sun, driving, eating too much meat, not eating enough meat, skydiving, travelling to India, living in India, all of these and more increase your chances of health problems and accidents.

It's not the place of the government to force us to live optimal lives. We are free to do what we will with our lives, so long as we aren't hurting others.

Many drugs can harm others as well.

Passive smoking comes to mind.

[The Warrior Hearted]

not really. this comes down to the point of "not hurting others".

let me be a broken record again, if you dont infringe on anothers rights while under a drug known to cause violence, then i dont care if you use it. If you do, then your no better then someone who got drunk then beat/murdered his/her wife/husband.

Yes. Violence is violence, whether or not the person initiating the violence is on drugs is irrelevant.

actually, it is very relevent. If it is a major cause of the issue then it is a cause to be dealt with for this individual and possibly others who look up to him so as to not allow it to happen again.

[Divine Unity]

Dude, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Our society is based on the idea that people should be free to make their own decisions.

Certainly enaging in recreational drug use increases your risk in a plethora of health problems- so what? Eating fatty foods does too. Not excersizing enough, living close to a nuclear power plant, not getting enough sun, getting too much sun, driving, eating too much meat, not eating enough meat, skydiving, travelling to India, living in India, all of these and more increase your chances of health problems and accidents.

It's not the place of the government to force us to live optimal lives. We are free to do what we will with our lives, so long as we aren't hurting others.

Many drugs can harm others as well.

Passive smoking comes to mind.

Then limit it to private home use. Solves just about eveything, yes?

[Keronians]

Many drugs can harm others as well.

Passive smoking comes to mind.

Then limit it to private home use. Solves just about eveything, yes?

Pretty much to the maximum extent can be done by a government, yes.

[Keronians]

Of course they have a right to dictate conduct. That is part of the State's job. There are people who believe that there is nothing wrong with murder. Still told that it's wrong, and punished for it, though.

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.

[GreaterPacificNations]

Many drugs can harm others as well.

Passive smoking comes to mind.

Ok, so deal with situations when they do. If I drive my car in a reckless way, I can hurt people. If I do that, I will get prosecuted. If I smoke my cigarettes in a reckless way, similarly I should expect civil prosecution. Of course, it has to be within reason. For me to do real harm to someone, they'd have to be breathing in my smoke for extended periods of time. So a guy couldn't sue me for smoking on the street while he walked past- but my housemate could if I smoked in the house while he was around- or teacher in the classroom.

Civil courts exist specifically to arbitrate this kind of problem. You don't need statute criminal law- indeed it doesn't work as well.

[Wienholdland]

Yes. Violence is violence, whether or not the person initiating the violence is on drugs is irrelevant.

actually, it is very relevent. If it is a major cause of the issue then it is a cause to be dealt with for this individual and possibly others who look up to him so as to not allow it to happen again.

Only humans can cause crime.

[Sibirsky]

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.

No, there aren't.

[GreaterPacificNations]

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

The law isn't built off belief. It exists to reduce harm. Murder is illegal not because most people think so, not because god says so, not because it is sad or evil, but because it infringes on another free individual's rights- in this case their right to life.

Pretty much all crimes can (or should) be able to be drawn back to a simple breach of a basic right. If not, then it is a 'victimless crime' and basically shouldn't be illegal.

[Keronians]

Many drugs can harm others as well.

Passive smoking comes to mind.

Ok, so deal with situations when they do. If I drive my car in a reckless way, I can hurt people. If I do that, I will get prosecuted. If I smoke my cigarettes in a reckless way, similarly I should expect civil prosecution. Of course, it has to be within reason. For me to do real harm to someone, they'd have to be breathing in my smoke for extended periods of time. So a guy couldn't sue me for smoking on the street while he walked past- but my housemate could if I smoked in the house while he was around- or teacher in the classroom.

Civil courts exist specifically to arbitrate this kind of problem. You don't need statute criminal law- indeed it doesn't work as well.

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.

[The Warrior Hearted]

actually, it is very relevent. If it is a major cause of the issue then it is a cause to be dealt with for this individual and possibly others who look up to him so as to not allow it to happen again.

Only humans can cause crime.

When a drug is changing your mental state of mind to become more aggresive, id say you are splitting hairs. Its there fault for being an idiot and it is there fault for committing the crime aswell.

[Keronians]

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

The law isn't built off belief. It exists to reduce harm. Murder is illegal not because most people think so, not because god says so, not because it is sad or evil, but because it infringes on another free individual's rights- in this case their right to life.

Pretty much all crimes can (or should) be able to be drawn back to a simple breach of a basic right. If not, then it is a 'victimless crime' and basically shouldn't be illegal.

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

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.

[Keronians]

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

No, there aren't.

People who don't ascribe to morality do essentially believe that there is nothing wrong with murder, even if they wouldn't do it themselves.

[GreaterPacificNations]

(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.

[Wienholdland]

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.