Not I ..I am competent enough to know that everyone isnt competent
Is it time to legalize pot and reduce the death rate of tobacco and alcohol?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
494Replies
-
5KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
IMO...... you don't know what you're talking about.
Accountable
Well-Known Member
How do you prove who is competent and who isn't, in this context?
Common sense
Any one using an illegal drug for the purpose of temporary mental impairment ( escape from reality/recreation ) is also temporarily impaired in their abilities..and by definition, incompetent ( even if only temporarily) in the non legal context.
Common sense is obviously where libertarianism fails.
Generating fallacies becomes an unavoidable event.
'Freedom' becomes a point of view to impose upon others.
Like drug abuse.
Your argument is one for the freedom to abuse but impinges on the freedoms of others....ranging from avoiding fear, being safe to a host of social issues and economic pressures. If most taxation is stealing as libertarians project, you are a thief that imposes more taxation by way of increasing the drug related costs of those last two issues.
Your argument is incredibly selfish.
You should be thinking of how to improve society, not how to put it under more stress to meet your libertarian political objectives.
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe the meek
Active Member
Crap loads of people think of how they should improve society (particularly now that we have internet forums LMAO), but few actually get off their ass out of love for their fellow man to actually try to make a difference.
Call me a realist.
A lot of truth to that.
I always go to the polls to vote my opinion, but I do seem to be skipping more and more issues.
I've written my congressman, now and in the past but only my Dad got a response back in the early 1970's.
The closest thing to a response I've gotten was the recommendation to hire a lawyer and sue the FDA.
I and several thousand other people organized letters sent to the FDA commission on legalizing a certain type of medical therapy for allergy sufferers......I was bombarded with several hundred pages of transcript and documents that didn't seem to apply and wound up stating there would be no review.
It seems violent protestors get the attention and eventually get something of a desired result.
That's not me.
Joe the meek
Active Member
You should try heading up a non profit group in your spare time/area to try and make a change and see how much fun that is
[h=1]Is it time to legalize pot and reduce the death rate of tobacco and alcohol?[/h]I think we should legalize the public hanging
this will reduce the death rate of tobacco and alcohol as well
oh and add meth to the legalization as well
and the guillotine
this will reduce the death rate of tobacco and alcohol as well
oh and add meth to the legalization as well
and the guillotine
Accountable
Well-Known Member
That, and we need to be more specific than "improve society" since there is no consensus on what that even means.
Fits the logic of the thread very well
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
Stone
Having debated this topic with you for a long time I sense a bit of a change in your viewpoint.
You have been a staunch proponent of the dangers of acceptance of pot as a societal norm.
Does decriminalizing not do that?
Could you please state what your view of legal versus decriminalized is?
Having debated this topic with you for a long time I sense a bit of a change in your viewpoint.
You have been a staunch proponent of the dangers of acceptance of pot as a societal norm.
Does decriminalizing not do that?
Could you please state what your view of legal versus decriminalized is?
I've given the example of the Portugese model.
Decriminalization is taking drug abuse to the level of being a misdemeanor along with associating mental and physical health as avenues for addressing the individaul's personal welfare.
However, decriminalization of drug abuse does not reduce the criminality of the sale of these illegal drugs.
In our past debates about drug abuse at another forum, this seems to have always been your complaint about decriminalization. You simply don't seem to want access to these drugs being impeded by legislation.
This has been the downfall of your debates in the past. Obviously, your argument essentially undermines the concept of a safe and civil society for the selfish desire to satisfy the self.
You used to infer that same concept during the debates at TSG (edit) while calling me a neanderthal that never changes his mind.
I've been arguing the benefits of a decriminalization concept long before that loon alaskandad mistakenly presented the Portugese model a number of years ago at TSG, thinking he was reading 'legalization'. If you remember, and you were there...I commented that the Portuguese model was the concept I had been promoting.
Not just pot as a specific drug....any drug whose abuse causes societal disruption on a destructive level hazardous to the general welfare.
That's the reasoning behind coffee not being on a restricted list.
It's not a perfect solution as I've mentioned before, it's the one that offers the best results.
BUT...you already knew all that shit when you invited me into this web site to burn a few lefties on the topic of socialism in the OWS movement .
Did you not expect me to respond in the same manner to you on the topic of pot abuse as we have discussed over the past 5 or 6 some years of debating this topic?
You damn well know my position on decriminalization.
And you damn well know this thread isn't about the concept of 'use' versus 'abuse'......it's all about legalizing the abuse of illegal drugs to replace the abuse of legal drugs.
The thread starter really fucked that one up for you, didn't he
Have my views on pot changed over time....of course. Not much since I first met you that I'm aware of.
Have your views on pot changed over time? :24:
( admit it...that last line is a good one
)You've always loved it .......admit it
Last edited by a moderator:
Use some common sense
In the context of this thread, it means improving the the current situation concerning the abuse of drugs.
Joe the meek
Active Member
You're old enough to realize that with some people, no matter what you do, you can't save them from themselves.
And I'm old enough to realize that approving of drug abuse only promotes it..
And you're correct, there will be people that will abuse drugs no matter what is done and decriminalization is a more rational approach than either draconian laws with draconian enforcement.....or the promotion of drug abuse.....if the issue is to reduce abuse.
The activity of abusing drugs is likely to always be with us.....the issue is...do we allow the incidences of abuse to increase till the health of a society is negatively impacted to the point of it's viability?
And the answer is not an absolute for all societies.
Consider a primitive setting like the Amazon jungles. Would drug abuse on a large scale really make a significant difference in a primitive tribal setting?
Logically, no.
Would drug abuse in a highly technological society make a difference?
Of course. The issue is that impairment reduces the ability to make the necessary decisions over issues that are non existent in a primitive society.
The debate for impairment ( legalization ) winds up resulting in an argument supportive of a more primitive society.
Greatest I am
Active Member
Your logic is really sound here. Let's follow it.
We should outlaw fire crackers and make dynamite legal.
Regards
DL
Interesting....I was just reviewing this thread and noticed
that the news search has degraded to two links, but the same search terms in a general search brings most of them back
http://www.google.com/search?sclien...down+on+drugs+in+amsterdam&btnK=Google+Search
Greatest I am
Active Member
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members