Smoking and Drinking... Still legal...

[RadicalActor]

We all know that smoking and drinking are terrible for everyone in the society. They cause harm to the users and the people around the users.

I think the citizens should do something to unlegalize these activities. These have been going on for too long without any moderation.

What are your thoughts?

[USMC the Almighty]

Absolutely not.

[Everylyric]

Absolutely not.

Why not??
.

[USMC the Almighty]

Why not??
.

There are a number of reasons. We've tried this before with Prohibition -- it hardly lowers the numbers of people drinking, it wastes government and police resources, it hurts the economy, and it elevates the power of gangs and black markets.

Watch that Milton Friedman video in the legalization of marijuana thread. That video single handedly convinced me that the legalization of marijuana would be the correct move.

[HighVoltage123]

Smoking and drinking should be banned on public places only but i think that it's OK to let anyone to decide for her/himself... :)

[USMC the Almighty]

I still disagree. I'm opposed to most forms of the expansion of federal government's power.

[vyo476]

Participating in activities that involve self-harm should hardly be illegal. They're not very smart and probably shouldn't be practiced by personal preference, but if it your preference to do so than the law should not have any right to restrict you in that regard. If you want to cut yourself, fine, go ahead, do it. If you want to drink and destroy your own liver or smoke and get lung cancer, fine, that is your prerogative. It is only when these activities begin to hurt other people that they become truly wrong and that's why we have laws regarding drunk driving and disorderly conduct. I'm not sure what legislation may or may not exist that pertains to secondhand smoke, but if there isn't one I'd be all for it. Actually outlawing drinking and smoking, though, would be a very bad idea.

Don't forget that Nicotine and alcohol are both addictive - laws that prohibit drinking don't take into account the fact that people who are addicted will get cravings that would influence them to commit what would then be crimes in order to obtain what their bodies need. You can offer all the rehab in the world for people who would then be guilty of Nicotine or alcohol-related crimes, but there's no way you'd catch all of them and you'd simply be increasing crime rates. Let people drink and smoke, so long as they're not harming other people with it, and once they start to harm others, arrest them. Attempts at preventive laws would most likely go too far and just create newer, bigger problems. Seriously, read about what Prohibition did to America the first time around - it'd probably be a whole lot worse this time.

Don't get me wrong, I hate alcohol on a personal level. I'm a teetotaller, have been my whole life and plan to remain so for the rest of it. I detest the drinking of alcohol and I wish that it would stop, but realistically there's no good way to eliminate it. For now, donate money to MADD, SADD, rehab centers, and Temperance Awareness groups out there that spread information on why alcohol and alcoholism is bad. If you can get the alcohol and Nicotine culture in America to slow down you might have an argument for banning the two. Until then you'd just be messing things up even worse.

[Everylyric]

Participating in activities that involve self-harm should hardly be illegal. They're not very smart and probably shouldn't be practiced by personal preference, but if it your preference to do so than the law should not have any right to restrict you in that regard. If you want to cut yourself, fine, go ahead, do it. If you want to drink and destroy your own liver or smoke and get lung cancer, fine, that is your prerogative. It is only when these activities begin to hurt other people that they become truly wrong and that's why we have laws regarding drunk driving and disorderly conduct. I'm not sure what legislation may or may not exist that pertains to secondhand smoke, but if there isn't one I'd be all for it. Actually outlawing drinking and smoking, though, would be a very bad idea.

Don't forget that Nicotine and alcohol are both addictive - laws that prohibit drinking don't take into account the fact that people who are addicted will get cravings that would influence them to commit what would then be crimes in order to obtain what their bodies need. You can offer all the rehab in the world for people who would then be guilty of Nicotine or alcohol-related crimes, but there's no way you'd catch all of them and you'd simply be increasing crime rates. Let people drink and smoke, so long as they're not harming other people with it, and once they start to harm others, arrest them. Attempts at preventive laws would most likely go too far and just create newer, bigger problems. Seriously, read about what Prohibition did to America the first time around - it'd probably be a whole lot worse this time.

Don't get me wrong, I hate alcohol on a personal level. I'm a teetotaller, have been my whole life and plan to remain so for the rest of it. I detest the drinking of alcohol and I wish that it would stop, but realistically there's no good way to eliminate it. For now, donate money to MADD, SADD, rehab centers, and Temperance Awareness groups out there that spread information on why alcohol and alcoholism is bad. If you can get the alcohol and Nicotine culture in America to slow down you might have an argument for banning the two. Until then you'd just be messing things up even worse.

I think we can do a better job of prohibiting cigs and alcohol this time, but I do agree with you that people will smoke and drink illegally.

[n0spam4me]

"I think we can do a better job of prohibiting cigs and alcohol this time, but I do agree with you that people will smoke and drink illegally."

Ya, this time for sure! ... it will be better, we have it all figured out!

With high taxes on tobacco, there is a thriving underground market!
What do you expect with total prohibition?

Society has a PROBLEM! In an ideal world, one could expect to walk into a pharmacy and buy a gram of COKE and pay cash and walk away and NOBODY has a problem with it. However, its a lot more complicated than that.

Right now, as a society, we are so up-tight that we can not even grow industrial hemp (ooooh, somebody may get stoned .... oops!)
WHAT A CROCK!

Huston
we have a problem........

[Rokerijdude11]

There are a number of reasons. We've tried this before with Prohibition -- it hardly lowers the numbers of people drinking, it wastes government and police resources, it hurts the economy, and it elevates the power of gangs and black markets.

Watch that Milton Friedman video in the legalization of marijuana thread. That video single handedly convinced me that the legalization of marijuana would be the correct move.

Agreed Prohibition dint work wit booze its currently not working with hemp and marijuana, and it wouldnt work with tobacco either

[Truth-Bringer]

We all know that smoking and drinking are terrible for everyone in the society. They cause harm to the users and the people around the users.

I think the citizens should do something to unlegalize these activities. These have been going on for too long without any moderation.

What are your thoughts?

We tried Prohibition once, and it failed miserably. Drinking and smoking are not positive, and I don't encourage anyone to start drinking or smoking, but I know I don't have the right to use force to restrict the peaceful behavior of other people.

I like the truth out commercials against smoking. We need more of that. Use persuasion to expose the health risks of smoking (and drinking) and the deception used to promote them.

But I am opposed to any government regulation of a peaceful activity. We are all self-owners, and we're all responsible for our own actions. Some people will do stupid things to their body that you don't agree with - but if they're not infringing on your rights, then you have no right to send the "guns of government" after them.

Second hand smoke and driving under the influence are obviously areas that pose a threat to others, so at that point there is an infringement of rights and I would support measures that protect the rights of other people in those situations.

But if someone is smoking or drinking or smoking pot in their home, then it's none of your business.

[Everylyric]

But if someone is smoking or drinking or smoking pot in their home, then it's none of your business.

No one just smokes cigs or pots or drinks in their homes alone. They usually do it with someone else and they tend to go outside and cause trouble for everyone.

[vyo476]

I think we can do a better job of prohibiting cigs and alcohol this time, but I do agree with you that people will smoke and drink illegally.

A better job? Okay, you've admitted that people will still do it illegally. By better job I'm assuming that you mean we'll do a better job of policing those now-illegal activities. One word: escalation. We get better, they get better. They make their money and can contribute most of their time, effort, and resources to improving their ability to disseminate illegal materials; the government that we expect to stop them is already stretched extremely thin trying to deal with other things. We'd do a lousy job at prohibition in this day and age.

[Rokerijdude11]

No one just smokes cigs or pots or drinks in their homes alone. They usually do it with someone else and they tend to go outside and cause trouble for everyone.

that is a broad general statement that bears little truth..it is what is known as opinion.your welcomed to it,but let it be known you are simply wrong in your assumptions...I smoke pot every day and have for over 30 years I RARELY go out afterwards and NEVER cause trouble for anyone else this is just wrong,on so many levels....as i say i almost NEVER go out after smoking.I dont ALWAYS have someone to smoke with. may i ask how old you are ? you views on prohibition seem limited,and i suspect it is because you are younger. just curious

[vyo476]

No one just smokes cigs or pots or drinks in their homes alone. They usually do it with someone else and they tend to go outside and cause trouble for everyone.

And how would you know about it if they were just smoking cigarettes or drinking in their homes? Looking through the news you'll find headlines like "Drunk Driver Hits and Kills 8-Year-Old Girl On Tricycle" but never "Man Drinks Socially At Home While Eating Dinner And Then Goes To Bed." Which of those do you suppose happens more often?

[drippinhun]

Watch that Milton Friedman video in the legalization of marijuana thread. That video single handedly convinced me that the legalization of marijuana would be the correct move.

Friedman convinced you? Now that must have been a trip. Was it Microdot or Owsley?

[steveox]

BRING BACK PROHABITION! And Make Cigarettes so expensive to buy only the rich can smoke em.

[vyo476]

BRING BACK PROHABITION!

Cause that worked so well last time...

[mustardayonnaise]

Prohibition has never worked, not in the 1920s with alcohol and not today with other drugs. How many millions of dollars are spent by the American government trying to stop the production and importation of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, crack, meth, etc.? Have they succeeded? I think not.
Personally I think all drugs should be legalised and freely available. That way you won't be putting people in jail for drug-related crime except DUI and public order offences, the entire criminal-run black market based on drugs would disappear, and the money saved on policing could be used to fund treatment centres for those who do go too far. Treatment and education are the only ways I can see of reducing drug use & dependency.

[mustardayonnaise]

Kind of got off point there, back to smoking and drinking....why should anyone else be able to tell me what I can or can't do to myself? Besides, alcohol and tobacco are both huge tax contributors which itself is a deterrent from prohibition by government. If you don't want to smoke or drink that's fine, but please just let the rest of us get on with it without interference from the Nanny State.

[9sublime]

If I want to kill myself with substances let me do it, just arrest me when I cause anyone else harm.

Bloody do-gooders, so concerned with what I'm doing.

[palerider]

If I want to kill myself with substances let me do it, just arrest me when I cause anyone else harm.

Bloody do-gooders, so concerned with what I'm doing.

You live in a country with socialized medicine right? If you want to kill yourself by stepping off of a tall building, and can be sure that no one else is below you, then you can do it and it does't really cost anyone else anything.

If, however, you choose a slow death from substance abuse, every bit of medical care you get is coming out of the pocket of someone who is paying taxes and since they are paying for your care, they have every right to restrict you from substances that are, in the end, going to cost them money.

The same is becoming true here in the US. Most abusers don't have their own insurance, and can't afford their own care, so the rest of us end up paying for it. Like I told my kids, they can do whatever they like when they are grown up enough to pay their own way but as long as I am footing the bills, I get to make the rules. In a socialist system, however, you never get to be grown up enough to assume complete responsibility for either yourself or your actions.

That is one of the problems with living in a socialist society. You don't have the freedom to do what you like and pay for your mistakes yourself. Everything you do has an effect on everyone else. Even if yours is the only body being hurt by substance abuse, someone else is being hurt monitarily.

[top gun]

Absolutely not.

I can't believe it... I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH the Almighty! :D

My position: The government wants it both ways by saying something is so wrong... while allowing it to be legal for the tax revenue.

What that tells me is two things.

#1) It's obviously not so bad that it needs to be outlawed & more importantly #2) It shouldn't be up to someone else to tell me how I must live my life.

Now there are modifications in my behavior that protect others that are reasonable to require... but the government seems to always want to kill cock roaches with shotguns, or so it would appear.

For instance smoking (note: I don't smoke)... I think it's perfectly reasonable to require smoke free sections in restaurants etc. but what I've seen happening are total bans even in bars and PRIVATE CLUBS. This is ridiculous IMO. They even almost passed a law here in Ohio that you couldn't smoke within 50 feet on the OUTSIDE of a building.

On drinking it's a similar revenue raising issue. You would think that the more drunk you are the harsher the penalty would be. That would seem logical to me. You become a greater threat to others... you pay a higher price when caught.

Not the case though. What has happened is the federal government has forced legal limits down which raises penalties at the lowest level and creates more fine revenue while doing nothing extra to the more for seriously impaired driver.
Here in Ohio, forever, the legal limit was .1 now it has been driven down to .08 just to continue to receive federal funding.

No one wants to have smoke blown into their face. No one wants drunk drivers endangering others. But if these products are legal (which in a free society they should be) they are to be expected to be used. Saying BAD don't use... GOOD give us your tax money... come on!

[drippinhun]

Kind of got off point there, back to smoking and drinking....why should anyone else be able to tell me what I can or can't do to myself? Besides, alcohol and tobacco are both huge tax contributors which itself is a deterrent from prohibition by government. If you don't want to smoke or drink that's fine, but please just let the rest of us get on with it without interference from the Nanny State.

I agree with two caveats. First, one should never be permitted to use as a defense being under the influence on any such substance for damages they cause. And secondly, the place where such products may be consumed should be restricted as to avoid the real possibility of others being harmed by another one's use.

[9sublime]

Tax the cannabis Palerider, tax the bongs, tax all the drugs,


but still sell them cheaper than the dealers.

You will be able to make drug users pay for their healthcare indirectly and completley breakdown the illegal side of weed.

[palerider]

Tax the cannabis Palerider, tax the bongs, tax all the drugs,


but still sell them cheaper than the dealers.

You will be able to make drug users pay for their healthcare indirectly and completley breakdown the illegal side of weed.


Even if you tax it at an exorbinant rate (which would encourage a black market) the taxes would not cover the associated health care costs.

[Abraxis Axis]

Even if you tax it at an exorbinant rate (which would encourage a black market) the taxes would not cover the associated health care costs.

Can you demonstrate that by figurative analysis?
can you demonstrate the data from Actual health care costs?
or is this a calculated assumption?

[palerider]

Can you demonstrate that by figurative analysis?
can you demonstrate the data from Actual health care costs?
or is this a calculated assumption?

Since you seem to believe that you are the smartest guy in the room, I would expect for you to provide a figurative analysis proving that I am mistaken. Can you or can't you?

[Abraxis Axis]

No no sir i simply asked you a question regarding your statement? How fair is to to answer a question with a question? I never claimed anything of the sort, as being the smartest guy in the room? so then it is safe for us to assume it was the latter?

that it is a "calculated assumption" rather than a factually based statement. thanks that what i asked about, and you answered it just fine.the problem is your theory is flawwed look at the Dutch model

[palerider]

No no sir i simply asked you a question regarding your statement? How fair is to to answer a question with a question? I never claimed anything of the sort, as being the smartest guy in the room? so then it is safe for us to assume it was the latter?

that it is a "calculated assumption" rather than a factually based statement. thanks that what i asked about, and you answered it just fine.the problem is your theory is flawwed look at the Dutch model

The dutch model is failing. That is why it is under a constant state of revisitation.

[Abraxis Axis]

The dutch model is failing. That is why it is under a constant state of revisitation.

Thats interesting as they havent changed a thing in the 17 yrs i have been going there for Holiday? It isnt failing at all the ONLY thing that has changed is the Government is now more conservative and has TALKED of POSSIBLY changing it


yet those TALKS have been occurring sinsce 1995 and yet NOTHING has changed. So now i am going to ask you for some verifiable TRUTH that the Dutch model is "Failing" as you purport..do you have statistical data for this assumption?


or are we again dealing greatly with your calculated assumptions and you Opinions? generally when one makes defenitive statements as you are doing here they provide some sort of verifiable data to support it.And im not talking about articles that suggest there may be a change


I am looking for hard numbers and supportive documentation to support your supposition that the Dutch Drug policy is Failing.....i would also like to see you substantiate the continual visitation of the policy if you are able otherwise we can just leave it as it is OPINION rather than factual things

[Rokerijdude11]

dont waste your typing this guy wont provide you with any substantiating data he will simply attack you like he did when you first asked him the question.I too am quite interested in the data that would supposedly lend credibility to his opinions


i wont hold my breath though...he has a history go read the marijuana thread and you will see what i mean in large he is of the belief that his opinions are enough to be considered factual hes to arrogant to actually support his views

yet he will crawl up one side of you and down the other if YOU dont PROVIDE HIM with data when you post

[Rokerijdude11]

besides which you will take note that the master has done another of his hallmarks.....he has COMPLETLY avoided your original requests for proof or supportive data...and has completly twisted the subject to an unrelated area that you posted

he ALWAYS does this as well you have NAILED him on your questions his inability to answer them is Glaringly evidentry by his total re-direction of the thread
Cmon pale do you have what you were asked about earlier?


never mind we already know that you dont and that we are dealing in calculated Assumption not fact

[palerider]

dont waste your typing this guy wont provide you with any substantiating data he will simply attack you like he did when you first asked him the question.I too am quite interested in the data that would supposedly lend credibility to his opinions

Feel free to revisit the drug thread roker. I provided an overwhelming array of credibile UP TO DATE data to support my argument as opposed to you who was providing some reference material as old as 100 years old and next to none that was less than 30 years old. And the word of an uneducated doper.

i wont hold my breath though...he has a history go read the marijuana thread and you will see what i mean in large he is of the belief that his opinions are enough to be considered factual hes to arrogant to actually support his views

I have a history of moping the floor with your sorry butt in any discussion we have.

yet he will crawl up one side of you and down the other if YOU dont PROVIDE HIM with data when you post

Provide some examples. Or admit that you have been caught in yet another lie.

[Rokerijdude11]

Feel free to revisit the drug thread roker. I provided an overwhelming array of credibile UP TO DATE data to support my argument as opposed to you who was providing some reference material as old as 100 years old and next to none that was less than 30 years old. And the word of an uneducated doper.

sorry pal no you didnt you provided alot of inconclusive crap

I have a history of moping the floor with your sorry butt in any discussion we have.
only in your mind friend


Provide some examples. Or admit that you have been caught in yet another lie.
I dont have to thyere obvious for any one to see

take the thread for example when you insulted the poster for not providing links that you found in 3 minutes you railed the poster

common knowledge commonplace


did you collect the money yet?

why is it after repeated requests you have failed to tell us what you have proven Jack Herer authored is "WRONG" and after repeated requests to justy show us the data and correspondence you sent to jack to substantiate your claims have you also FAILED to show us them



you havent even said what he wrote that you proved wrong its all heresay

who is the liar?

[palerider]

did you collect the money yet?

Nah. Your bud jack is a liar not that I am surprised in any way.

[Rokerijdude11]

so what part of what jack wrote in the book did you prove wrong again?
Have any correspondence, or transcripts of your proof?

specifically what did jack write verbatim?

I want the exact points you have proven wrong verbatim.........

that you believe you have proven wrong

PROVEN

can you?

[Rokerijdude11]

and back to the original question while we are at it

WHERE IS YOUR STATISTICAL PROOF THAT THE DUTCH DRUG POLICY IS FAILING?

[palerider]

so what part of what jack wrote in the book did you prove wrong again?
Have any correspondence, or transcripts of your proof?

specifically what did jack write verbatim?

I want the exact points you have proven wrong verbatim.........

that you believe you have proven wrong

PROVEN

can you?


He was dead wrong in is claim that pot is harmless. The fact that he used 100 year old data rather than modern research gave him away.

[palerider]

and back to the original question while we are at it

WHERE IS YOUR STATISTICAL PROOF THAT THE DUTCH DRUG POLICY IS FAILING?


The fact that they are constantly reconsidering their policy is evidence enough that it is failing. The junkies are wrecking the tourist trade and theft is through the roof.

[Rokerijdude11]

The fact that they are constantly reconsidering their policy is evidence enough that it is failing. The junkies are wrecking the tourist trade and theft is through the roof.

give me some proof of your inaccurate statements
you must also remember i dont rely on google i go there regularly
also id like you to DEMONSTRATE where they CONSTANTLY reconsider the policy?
you will notice we are right back to what i originally asked for
some sort of supporting evidence to suggest your theory is plausible
and yet you go in circles?

[browneuan025837]

My friend I believe, We don't discriminate against drinkers as much as we do smokers because there are more drinkers than smokers, which is BS if you ask me, because I can drive down the street smoking a cigarette without being a danger to society unlike somebody driving with a drink or two in their system, yet my secondhand smoke is somehow more offensive