"potentially". You can choke and die on cheerios. They are potentially hazardous and thus I believe they should be illegal! When's the last time you read/heard about a baked guy/gal hurting anyone?


True, both are being civil and disobeying laws. Of course it's no more or less civil disobedience to make your own salt either.


I completely agree again, however I fail to see how it is ok for one substance to be legal and the other illegal. This confuses me more so when you take into account the relative effect each has on your ability to drive.


Would you campaign for an end to tea taxes if you didn't drink tea? Just because you're not part of a demographic does not mean that said demographic is self serving in fighting for what they want.


No. Less government = better government when it comes to controlling any individual life.


I believe it was a relative comparison and not a justification. That is to say that he admitted he was a bit of an ass when high but, that he was still better than the average asshole you may run across.


How can you be sure it's an addiction?


It doesn't really. Only one is cheaper and safer for you.


Again, how can you be sure it's addictive and furthermore why are people better off for it's illegality?


Again I don't believe that analogy was meant as a justification but, rather further information to you in regards to the state of his dickishness relative to what you may or may not find tolerable.

There is a large difference between a substance which chemically causes physical and or psychological damage to a person, and a substance which can be hazardous due to user error (eating malfunction).

I know a girl that has completely thrown away her life and everything she had going for her because she became addicted to marijuana and stopped caring about anything else in her life. Now she smoked 5 times a day and hardly ever leaves her house. She dropped out of college and is now in a dead end job living back with her parents. Even if marijuana doesn't lead to violence, it can be detrimental in other ways.



You can't really make that comparison because making your own salt is not illegal. You can't compare something with reprecautions to something trivial. Wanking off in public is offensive and illegal. Smoking is hazardous to your health and illegal.

If a petulant child throws a tantrum to protest cleaning his room, its not civil disobedience, its just disobedience.


This once again falls under the category of "wrong + wrong != right"
Just because one hazardous substance is legal, does not justify another hazardous substance to be legal.


Sure, I'm not gay yet I campaign for gay rights, that's simple.


Theoretically maybe, but if you really believed that you'd be a republican. If this were true, rape wouldn't exist, nor murder, or theft.


But why be an asshole at all when you can just smoke privately and avoid causing people trouble altogether?


I'm not, that's up to personal discretion. If you ask someone if they could quit if they wanted, their answer is always, of course i could but I don't want to.

Anything can be potentially addictive, even if not chemically. MMORPGs are prime examlpe. Explain to me why people are better off with it being legal. If fast food was illegal, would people be better off?

...

I know this guy that threw his life away for world of warcraft. Same sort of setup. People throw their lives away for all sorts of things.




It was for Ghandi when he lead the salt march. The whole definition of civil disobedience requires that something is being disobeyed.



Indeed that would be because he is throwing a fit. If he were to not throw a fit and simply not clean his room THAT would be civil disobedience.




How so? I think if we set some threshold of "badness" that is ok in society then anything less should be acceptable. This is again if you buy that weed is bad. Many don't see it as a bad thing at all and thus your evaluation of the substance as "wrong" holds no weight.



Would you campaign for straight rights if the gay-straight situation were reversed?



If I were a republican rape, murder and theft would not exist?



I'm sure he does more often than not. It was simply extra info about his state of being to enlighten you.



How do you know it's not the truth? I love curry and I could stop eating that if I want to but, I like it so I eat it.



Perhaps, but that would fly in the face of what our country was founded on which was the freedom to chose what is best for yourself. I think people are better off when they have the freedom to chose what they wish to do to their own bodies. That said I also think forthright and truthful education is essential as well as some sort of age limit since ignorance leads to bad choices.

Ok, but compare the number of people who play video games vs the number of people who's lives have been ruined by video games. Now compare the number of people who do drugs vs the number of people who's lives have been ruined by drugs. Which do you think yeilds the higher ratio.

And once again, why add another when there are already so many things to ruin your life with?



What ghandi was protesting was the british Tax on salt, not the legalization of the substance itself. This can be converted into a matter of equal rights, in that it is right for some people to make salt but not all. In this case, marijuana is not legal for anyone, so this argument is not valid.



Would you claim the child knows what is best for him?



By itself it holds no weight, however it does hold weight when you are the one comparing it to alcohol for "badness." You are claiming alcohol is bad and marijuana is no more bad than alcohol, so it should be legal. Therefore, you are the one labeling marijuana as bad, not I.



You question was would i campaign for something that doesn't effect me directly, and i answered you. If it effected me directly it wouldn't be the same question.


If you believed in that less government was better, you would be a republican.

People obviously need to be goverened because without laws rape/murder/theft etc. would be legal. If these things did not exist, then no governing body would be required. But obviously, since everyone does not act in the best interest of themselves and others, laws are needed to keep people in check. What you talk about is a Utopian society. Removing government does not create Utopia.




Lets let him clarify then.



As I said its up to personal discretion obviously. The question is rhetoricle. Do you think that people who are addicted always know when they are addicted? If that were true, there would be no need for interventions.



Perhaps you are right about this, but obviously you know that people do not always do what is best for themselves and even educated peopel don't always make smart decisions.

Also, let it be said, that my initial comment several pages back now was not "you shouldn't smoke marijuana" it was "you shouldn't smoke it in public."

I enjoy reading these debates. It reminds me of a time when myself and Jiggly took a Arugmental Debating class together at a community college.. ( about 8 years ago )

Anywho I agree with this:


Mainly because I have this thing for being the Devil's Advocate.. Things my parents told me not to do, I want to do, Bottons that say "don't push" I want to push. People who talk about God, I want to deny God. People who don't believe in God I want to promote God.. .etc It would be safe to say for myself that, I would be better off with freedom.. But sadly Ibelieve their are more idiots out there then decent people.. which brings me to this quote:



I have no right to judge who's an idiot and who's not but I will anyways. HA! That being said, I guess society would be "more safe" to have people govern then not. (despite it sacrificing the none idiots freedom)


I was waiting for this quote to come out sooner or later:


I was thinking about that the whole time.

Anywho, carry on.

Also, It would be nice if some of the people on this forum ( I say no names) can look up to these two. Not a single "FUCK YOU" or "SPAM BOT" or "SUCK MY LEFT NUTT" ..etc

well maybe a few here and there wouldn't hurt.

2.) I never said my driving was "impaired" . . . in fact i carefully stated that i had done nothing wrong wrt my "driving." by your logic i should only drive if I am at the peak of my driving performance, EVER. after that, my driving ability is less, therefore i am impaired and should not drive. no driving when you are tired, or when there is anyone else in the car, or even if your nose is itching. Sorry sir, thats just wildly unsafe.

3) even if i didn't use marijuana i would completely argue for it to be legal. Have you actually looked at this issue? There is absolutely no legitimate legal precedence for marijuana to be scheduled the way it is, etc. any common sense would categorize marijuana at its worst in a similar manner as tobacco or alcohol, although personally i'd put it inbetween caffeine and tobacco. Just because I care about the result doesn't mean I'm just selfishly trying to make the world better for ME and only ME, that is the worst logic i've ever seen.

4.) I dont think what "most" laws are about should have ANYTHING to do with how we consider any one law. Is there some accepted percentage of useless/wrong/hypocritical/tyrannical/discriminatory/etc laws that is safe, and as long as you stay below that threshold(hey, just make more legitimate but unnecessary laws and you're a-ok)? Uh, no.

5.) nothing of what you said here is relevant, nor does it have any significance in the way you think it does.

6) not dependent. I have and can quit at the drop of a hat . . . for like two days im bored, and the first night i might have trouble falling alseep, but after that its no problem. yes i prefer my life with marijuana as a regular part of it.

7) aside from having many legitimate medical uses (several of which i use it to help with), its perfectly valid etc as a legal recreation, like smoking or drinking or sky-diving, etc.

If you read what i wrote correctly, you can see that I never said I go out in public stoned to the point where im inconveniencing people, thats because like thoth said, its really rude.

----

ever consider the possiblity that she dropped out of college etc, and smokes every day because she's bored/depressed/etc


wrt to the "addiction" of marijauna, because of the brain chemistry of cannabinoids, a thc high is the RIGHT way to get high, just like exercise or excitement, it is not at all an abusive high like amphetamines, cocaine, opiods, etc. This is not speculation, this a scientific truth.

pretty sure its been done. pretty sure mj wins that anyway.

Would you claim the government knows what is best for me as an individual?

dude, im pretty sure his first question was just a setup for the second. the point is, you campaign for gay rights even though you arent gay, but if you were gay, it doesn't take away the significance of campaigning, or turn you into a bad person because you are defending something you like from tyranny.

the only reason smoking in public is illegal is because it imposes something upon other people, and not for any other reason (and in most places still, i would remind you, even that isn't a good enough reason.

How does this read to you? It reads to me, when you smoke you are slightly impaired and very high. Then you claim you drove somewhere after smoking a bowl. Putting 2 and 2 together, you were slightly impaired and you drove. Fair enough, people drive when they are tired, this also causes accidents, so it is equally irresponsible.



The fact is though you can't prove this, because you do enjoy smoking and so therefore it direcly pertains to you. You are campaigning for your way of life, not for a greater cause.

The thing is though, marijuana is bad for you, you know this, but you have deamed the risk acceptable. While there are other substances that are just as harmful that are legal, what would be the purpose of legalizing yet another one? It certainly doesn't do any good to give people one more way to shorten their lives. So what is the benefit? It makes some people happy? It gives people more control over their lives? Haven't we already established that people make poor decisions and so in their benefit we restrict the number of bad decisions they can make for the purpose of prolonging their lives? I don't see that as being immoral.


It is the most relavent statement I have made pertaining to my original argument actually, since my argument was never about the legalization of marijuana. I guess you failed to read my original argument?


Alright, then you're not addicted, but smoking something every day of your life gives the impression of addiction. If you say you are not though, I can do nothing more than take your word for it, since I have stated 3 times now, its personal discretion.


But you can't deny that even though it might be legitimate for medicinal use, it is also abused at least equally to the amount of people it treats legitamtely. I can name three people off the top of my head that get their marijuana via perscription and use it recreationally. You yourself claim you use it recreationally. Wouldn't that be abuse of a perscription drug?

Also, smoking, drinking, and skydiving are all LEGAL, that's what seperates them from marijuana when you are talking about recreation.




Quote by you from earlier. Easy solution, just don't do it.


She smoked occasionally before she dropped out. Hooked up with a guy who grew his own. Smoked his stuff, claimed that she had never smoked anything as amazing. I guess its just coincidence now that she went from smoking maybe twice a month to 5 times a day, and at the same time she decided to drop out of school etc. etc.



No, when you get "high" from exercise it is because your body is releasing endorphins to help dull the pain of the strain you put on your body from exercising. Prolonged exercise means prolonged exposure to these endorphins, hence "runners high." The two feelings are not remotely similar other than perhaps some slight light headedness.




Find me a statistic, because I would be extremely surprised. Considering the number of people who play video games is vastly higher than the number of people who do drugs.


Absolutely not, the government is not meant to govern individuals. It is meant to loosely govern society as a hole. If the government catered to everyone's needs, there would be an endless list of laws, and almost no freedom at all, or the opposite, no laws at all and the result equally detrimental.



I'm pretty sure it wasn't as the two questions have nothing to do with each other. One is asking if i stand up for things that don't directly effect me, the other question is asking if i stand up for things that do. Obviously the answer to the second is a given. The answer to the first is not.

You're right though, being directly effected by something doesn't reduce the significance of your cause. However, I don't feel the legalization of marijuana is a worthy cause to campaign for, if I did, I would be campaigning for it. That's not to say I am campaigning against it, it just means im not going to stand up and voice an opinion for it.



No, the reason that smoking in public is illegal is because smoking in general is illegal. It doesn't become less illegal when you do it in private, it is just less obvious and therefore you are less likely to be repremanded for it, hence it is the smarter way to smoke. This was my point from the beginning.

The first thing that I am curious about The Doc, is that did you start this post to get a good thread going? Or was it so your close-minded conservative views can judge everyone unequally and make them feel like their opinions don't matter in a public forum? From reading your replies the conclusion I derive is that your lack of real world experience (and an obvious lack of experience with a topic that you created) should be preventing you from judging people who are just trying to share a funny story, yet for some reason you take everything anyone is saying here and damning it with your close-minded views. Are you the son of a baptist minister? I just cannot comprehend why you invite people to share personal stories of past drug-related experiences and then just sit back and throw stones.

Have you ever been outside of texas before?

And on the topic of marijuana, your views are even more presumptuous (most likely from a lack of experience once again). Why do you even bother commenting on something that you obviously know nothing about except was you know as law and general stereotypical information.
Now coming from a recovered meth and mdma user and abuser, and current recreational bud smoker, marijuana use is the last thing you need to be worried about in this country. The only reason it's not totally legal in this country is because the greedy beaurocrats haven't found a way to make a dollar off of it without the genral public growing/selling their own. Besides an under the influence of marijuana driver is far safer than most people on the road as it is because of the paranoia effect of the drug, especially with all the drunk/geriatric/asian/cell phone users being a far more dangerous issue. (btw living in san jose,ca grants me the liberty of using the bad asian driver pun).

To be perfectly honest Doc, you really shouldn't have started this thread if you know nothing about the topic and then judge and put down those who post their opinions and thoughts.

have a nice day.

, Uh, no, it means I said i was "impaired" in YOUR use of the word, entirely not applied to my driving abilities. My driving was NOT impaired at all, but (according to you) my mindset was.

show me conclusive evidence that marijuana is actually NET bad for you, and ill consider what you are saying. show me that its net worse for you than most other substances we ingest on a regular/semi-regular basis, then you might be right. thing is, that isn't at all true. You can't count smoking the act because thats not the only way to enjoy marijuana.

what you said doesn't count because I DONT GO OUT IN PUBLIC "IMPAIRED" to the point of being inconsiderate of other people. Also, you didn't say it was about smoking in public, you said it was about being in public under the influence.

I don't have a prescription for marijuana. Even if I did, the fact that i use it recreationally doesn't invalidate my medical needs.

You don't seem to grasp the concept that LEGAL STATUS DOESN'T MATTER. Thats like saying back in 1850 blacks dont deserve a full vote because the law says they onyl get 3/5ths. Laws are supposed to be based on accepted behavior/etc not the other way around.

You fucking idiot, I was explaining why I DON'T do that. yes i HAVE done it before, but that doesn't mean shit now.

I know the chemical mechanisms of the euphoria obtained through physical and other means. OH, did you know that? THEY'RE CHEMICAL MECHANISMS, same as weed. I'm not talking either about achieving a similar high to a weed high, im talking about a "high" meaning any euphoric state.

When i say "smoking" i mean the act of smoking. that means smoking anything, weed, pcp, k, tobacco, cloves, or hay


if killing were legal would that make it ok? gay marriage is technically "illegal", does that mean its automatically wrong? NO!

tl;dr

My advice to you sean, is that instead of coming in here and accusing me of "judging without any real world knowledge" you should probably actually read at least part of the thread you are commenting in. Maybe then you would see I never condemned the use of marijuana and have actually used it on several occasions. Just because I don't choose to have it be part of my daily routine doesn't mean I don't know anything about it. Also, welcome to the forums.

I read the thread, which resulted in the post I made, is there a reason you cannot comment on my proposed questions? Or is it because I hit the preverbial "nail on the head"?

you wrote


Where in my post does it say that? Maybe The Doc you should read my post before commenting on my opinion. And anyone can see that you are blatantly judging people like Lostkittie when you said it was irresponsible and not smart to go into public place under the influence. Thats judging someone fyi.

And btw using marijuana a couple times is not nearly enough experience with it for you to make determinations on other peoples views and opinions on it. If I went to play miniature golf a couple times I wouldnt be trying to be Tiger Woods' caddy ffs, that would be ridiculous.