NationStates

Keronians wrote:

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

Indeed it is.

Pretty irrelevant to the post, though.

No it isn't. You're trying to blame drugs for the actions of individuals. I'm pointing out to you that the individual is the only one responsible.

Drugs are not alive. Drugs do not have manual dexterity.

Lack of sleep does not break the alarm clock.

It is not hard to understand.

Keronians wrote:

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

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

Whatever. Provide a source that recreational drug use causes "net harm."

Biop wrote:

Keronians wrote:

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

Ya i think he is and Wikipeida isnt a viable source

Valid, you mean.

And, yes it is. You choose not to accept it is your own problem, not mine.

Wienholdland wrote:

Keronians wrote:
Indeed it is.

Pretty irrelevant to the post, though.

No it isn't. You're trying to blame drugs for the actions of individuals. I'm pointing out to you that the individual is the only one responsible.

Drugs are not alive. Drugs do not have manual dexterity.

Lack of sleep does not break the alarm clock.

It is not hard to understand.

Alcohol clouds one's judgement. It makes a person do something they wouldn't otherwise do. Thus, the origin of the crime they commit, can be traced back to the consumption of the drug.

Their own fault for consuming it, but still the drug causing harm.

Keronians wrote:

Wienholdland wrote:No it isn't. You're trying to blame drugs for the actions of individuals. I'm pointing out to you that the individual is the only one responsible.

Drugs are not alive. Drugs do not have manual dexterity.

Lack of sleep does not break the alarm clock.

It is not hard to understand.

Alcohol clouds one's judgement. It makes a person do something they wouldn't otherwise do. Thus, the origin of the crime they commit, can be traced back to the consumption of the drug.

Their own fault for consuming it, but still the drug causing harm.

No it doesn't make a person do anything.

Fionnuala_Saoirse wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:What danger is there?

Triggering mental illness in genetically vulnerable individuals

Source

Keronians wrote:

Wienholdland wrote:No it isn't. You're trying to blame drugs for the actions of individuals. I'm pointing out to you that the individual is the only one responsible.

Drugs are not alive. Drugs do not have manual dexterity.

Lack of sleep does not break the alarm clock.

It is not hard to understand.

Alcohol clouds one's judgement. It makes a person do something they wouldn't otherwise do. Thus, the origin of the crime they commit, can be traced back to the consumption of the drug.

Their own fault for consuming it, but still the drug causing harm.

No, it isn't. Plenty of people can drink plenty of alcohol and not commit any crime at all.

Fionnuala_Saoirse wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:What danger is there?

Triggering mental illness in genetically vulnerable individuals

Do you have a source proving this isn't individuals who are predisposed to mental illness aren't also predisposed to using pot to self-medicate?

I used to be extremely opposed to the issue, but I've managed to get around some of my opposition.

I believe that marijuana should only be smoked in the privacy of a home or in a designated establishment, such as a marijuana bar/cafe. I'm completely fine if THC pills (I don't know about the evolution of said pills), brownies, etc. or other means of consumption besides smoking/vapor are used in public.

I'm not aware if marijuana can be used in moderation (at one dose, not daily moderation) like alcohol can, but if one hit causes a driving hazard, I believe that it should be illegal to drive while high.

Again, my marijuana knowledge isn't to the full capability it can be, so forgive me if I acted without forsight on issues such as driving or public consumption.

Nicotine/tobacco is legal and it can cause cancer and death, alcohol is legal and it can cause massive intoxication and heart disease. There's no reason for marijuana to be illegal.

Vitius wrote:I used to be extremely opposed to the issue, but I've managed to get around some of my opposition.

I believe that marijuana should only be smoked in the privacy of a home or in a designated establishment, such as a marijuana bar/cafe. I'm completely fine if THC pills (I don't know about the evolution of said pills), brownies, etc. or other means of consumption besides smoking/vapor are used in public.

I'm not aware if marijuana can be used in moderation (at one dose, not daily moderation) like alcohol can, but if one hit causes a driving hazard, I believe that it should be illegal to drive while high.

Again, my marijuana knowledge isn't to the full capability it can be, so forgive me if I acted without forsight on issues such as driving or public consumption.

One hit wouldn't impair driving, and even a highly intoxicated individual is likely to have less impact on their performance than a drunk driver would.

what law "should" be based on preventing is thoughtlessness and aggressiveness.
while many people do behave inappropriately, sometimes to the extent of becoming a danger to themselves and others, under the influence of mind altering substances,
banning them is not a way of dealing with the issue, but of avoiding it.
there are at least two very good reasons why banning the possession of anything is a very bad idea.
to list them succinctly, they are the creation of opportunities for political harassment, and the creation of markets for organized crime.

marijuana specifically is less addictive then tobacco and less life and behavior threatening the alcohol.
it only becomes a "gateway drug" do to its illegality. precisely as alcohol did and was when it was prohibited.

this is NOT an endorsement of chemical substitutes for imagination, which, ultimately, result in its atrophication.
nor would they posses the attraction they do, were not imagination culturally repressed.

Sibirsky wrote:

Keronians wrote:
Alcohol clouds one's judgement. It makes a person do something they wouldn't otherwise do. Thus, the origin of the crime they commit, can be traced back to the consumption of the drug.

Their own fault for consuming it, but still the drug causing harm.

No, it isn't. Plenty of people can drink plenty of alcohol and not commit any crime at all.

And when they do, the drug is partly at fault.

Keronians wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:No, it isn't. Plenty of people can drink plenty of alcohol and not commit any crime at all.

And when they do, the drug is partly at fault.

Nope.

Soviet Haaregrad wrote:

Vitius wrote:I used to be extremely opposed to the issue, but I've managed to get around some of my opposition.

I believe that marijuana should only be smoked in the privacy of a home or in a designated establishment, such as a marijuana bar/cafe. I'm completely fine if THC pills (I don't know about the evolution of said pills), brownies, etc. or other means of consumption besides smoking/vapor are used in public.

I'm not aware if marijuana can be used in moderation (at one dose, not daily moderation) like alcohol can, but if one hit causes a driving hazard, I believe that it should be illegal to drive while high.

Again, my marijuana knowledge isn't to the full capability it can be, so forgive me if I acted without forsight on issues such as driving or public consumption.

One hit wouldn't impair driving, and even a highly intoxicated individual is likely to have less impact on their performance than a drunk driver would.

Ah, then forgivie me.

Perhaps they would have less impact on performance than a drunk driver would, but would they still be dangerous (actual question)?

It's kind of like saying 'well, stabbing someone in the leg would be less dangerous than shooting them, so you're being a hypocrite if you support guns'. Not trying to be cocky or anything, but it doesn't matter if it's less dangerous than drunk driving if it still causes harm.

Wienholdland wrote:

Keronians wrote:
And when they do, the drug is partly at fault.

Nope.

What was their reason for committing the crime? Was it perhaps a drug alterating their mental state?

Keronians wrote:

Wienholdland wrote:Nope.

What was their reason for committing the crime? Was it perhaps a drug alterating their mental state?

I'm not exactly for 'full' marijauna legalization (explained in my first post), but if a person committed a crime while under the influence of a drug, they would probably commit a crime while not under the influence of any drug.

Keronians wrote:And when they do, the drug is partly at fault.

So if you had the resources, everyone should be denied the privilege because there's some stupid and irresponsible people?

Vitius wrote:

Soviet Haaregrad wrote:
One hit wouldn't impair driving, and even a highly intoxicated individual is likely to have less impact on their performance than a drunk driver would.

Ah, then forgivie me.

Perhaps they would have less impact on performance than a drunk driver would, but would they still be dangerous (actual question)?

It's kind of like saying 'well, stabbing someone in the leg would be less dangerous than shooting them, so you're being a hypocrite if you support guns'. Not trying to be cocky or anything, but it doesn't matter if it's less dangerous than drunk driving if it still causes harm.

They'd be impaired, no question. One major difference is pot makes people paranoid and less confident, alcohol tends to make one over-confident. Stoned drivers tend to drive slowly and cautiously, from my observations (I don't drive stoned anymore, but I have, friends and siblings have or do as well so I've seen it...). It's not a good idea, but it's hard to compare directly to drunk driving.

Keronians wrote:

Wienholdland wrote:Nope.

What was their reason for committing the crime? Was it perhaps a drug alterating their mental state?

No. Perhaps it was another motive, depending on what the crime was.

Hippostania wrote:Absolutely not! Marijuana is a dangerous drug that should never be legalized. Instead, we should be talking about outlawing alcohol and tobacco!

My good sir, if you could provide a list of pros and cons, nay... Simply a single con involving marijuana, I would be much obliged. I would love to have a discussion concerning your naive and mislead views. If you can show me any proof whatsoever that marijuana is a dangerous drug I will most certainly entertain your biased and purely hypocritical ways. However I must agree on the alcohol, but not so much the tobacco. Tobacco, much like marijuana, is simply a plant. Unfortunately a whole load of deadly chemicals has been added to it to make cigarettes. I would also like to know if you have ever tried marijuana, and if so what was your experience.

Sibirsky wrote:

Keronians wrote:


What was their reason for committing the crime? Was it perhaps a drug alterating their mental state?

No. Perhaps it was another motive, depending on what the crime was.

In the meantime, 60% of all murders in the US and the majority of all fatal vehicular accidents involve a perpetrator who is heavily intoxicated. The vast majority of suicides as well.

Aerowick wrote:

Hippostania wrote:Absolutely not! Marijuana is a dangerous drug that should never be legalized. Instead, we should be talking about outlawing alcohol and tobacco!

My good sir, if you could provide a list of pros and cons, nay... Simply a single con involving marijuana, I would be much obliged. I would love to have a discussion concerning your naive and mislead views. If you can show me any proof whatsoever that marijuana is a dangerous drug I will most certainly entertain your biased and purely hypocritical ways. However I must agree on the alcohol, but not so much the tobacco. Tobacco, much like marijuana, is simply a plant. Unfortunately a whole load of deadly chemicals has been added to it to make cigarettes. I would also like to know if you have ever tried marijuana, and if so what was your experience.

Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.

Soviet Haaregrad wrote:

Aerowick wrote:My good sir, if you could provide a list of pros and cons, nay... Simply a single con involving marijuana, I would be much obliged. I would love to have a discussion concerning your naive and mislead views. If you can show me any proof whatsoever that marijuana is a dangerous drug I will most certainly entertain your biased and purely hypocritical ways. However I must agree on the alcohol, but not so much the tobacco. Tobacco, much like marijuana, is simply a plant. Unfortunately a whole load of deadly chemicals has been added to it to make cigarettes. I would also like to know if you have ever tried marijuana, and if so what was your experience.

Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.

Sigging this. It's the truth if anything ever was.

New England and The Maritimes wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:
No. Perhaps it was another motive, depending on what the crime was.

In the meantime, 60% of all murders in the US and the majority of all fatal vehicular accidents involve a perpetrator who is heavily intoxicated. The vast majority of suicides as well.

Alcohol and drugs also cause pregnancies, so it evens out.