Coming To A State Near You

[Texas_tea]

How is it a good thing that alcohol and prescription medications are legal?
You answered your own question...

Prescription medication is not legal in the same way alcohol is. And alcohol is a tightly controlled substance as well .... at least it is here in Texas. Sorry, I don't see your point.

 

[GenSeneca]

To point at another faulty policy as justification for a new faulty policy seems to be somewhat disingenuous to me.

Are you saying the legalization of alcohol and prescription drugs is a faulty policy? Would we be better off with all of it being illegal? Nicotine, Caffeine... are there any drugs you think should be legal?

So long as you're not breaking my leg or picking my pocket, I don't care what you choose to do with your life. If you're not violating my rights, I have no Right as an Individual to use force against you, or otherwise coerce you to act against your will. Do you believe yourself to have such a Right?

 

[GenSeneca]

Prescription medication is not legal in the same way alcohol is. And alcohol is a tightly controlled substance as well .... at least it is here in Texas. Sorry, I don't see your point.

You just agreed they are legal, you didn't answer the question as to why it's a good thing they are... Is the Black Market a good thing? That's what you create when ban something, a market that exists outside of the law, where buyers and sellers have no legal rights or protection. How is that a good thing?

 

[Texas_tea]

How is that a good thing?

Because the controlled substance is bad .... it is a poison that breaks down our society and you are in favor of this why?

 

[Texas_tea]

So long as you're not breaking my leg or picking my pocket, I don't care what you choose to do with your life.

To believe this is absolute pure ignorance ....

To believe that this would never effect you is even more ignorance ....

Sorry Gen ..... can't go there with you!

 

[dogtowner]

While there us norhing good about drug abuse, people are going to do it. There can be no acceptance of actions abusers take while they ot stoned (or not stoned) making the drugs thems3lves illegal dies little to. Curb use.
I want legitimate drugs to be safe and effective so i think fda has a role to play.

 

[GenSeneca]

Because the controlled substance is bad .... it is a poison that breaks down our society and you are in favor of this why?

So all medications are bad poison breaking down our society.... Then I guess you don't take any prescription medication.
As dog and I have pointed out, no matter how "bad" you think something is, banning it doesn't make it *poof* out of existence ensuring that others can't get their hands on it. So again, all those horrible nasty drugs you personally feel people shouldn't use, your feelings, wishes, and government edicts will never make it go away... people are still going to use everything you think they shouldn't, even though you banned it. Where are they going to get their drugs? On the Black Market, a market that has zero legal protections for the individuals who participate.

Go find all those horrible stories about the crazy things that get put into black market drugs, they're the same stories you've been reading that say it's the drugs breaking down society. Collectivism is destroying society. The belief you can avoid reality by government edict is destroying society. You've already banned them, are you planning to double ban them? Triple dog ban them?

Instead of avoiding reality, accept it. If it's legal, we know exactly what goes into the drugs, where they came from, there's a paper trail from every supplier to every buyer, everyone who participates in the legal drug market would have legal protections, eliminating the violence and brutality that criminals use to carve out and control whole swaths of cities from rival gangs.

 

[steveox]

 

[GenSeneca]

To believe this is absolute pure ignorance ....

It's a moral precept of the Enlightenment era... Made famous by Jefferson. It's the idea that you, as an individual, are neither slave nor master to any other individual. Each one of us is created with Rights as individuals equal to the Rights of every other individual. Government was created to protect those rights, in hopes of preventing us from becoming a Collectivist society of masters and slaves. Belief in the Rights of the Individual wasn't always considered pure ignorance, but in today's Collectivist society it certainly is.

To believe that this would never effect you is even more ignorance ....

I never claimed that it wouldn't. If my rights are being threatened or violated, it does effect me, and I'll act accordingly.

Why do you care if some person you've never met, and never would meet, died from taking drugs? I'm betting your answer is Collectivist in nature... You're being forced to pay for it, or maybe you just feel bad about it and think you have a responsibility to violate the rights of others to stop them from making poor decisions in life. The reality is, individuals are created with equal rights, and the free will to choose how to live their lives. You can't wish the free will and rights of others into non-existence through the power of government without destroying your own in the process.

Sorry Gen ..... can't go there with you!

Reality isn't for everyone, but it is the only place to get a decent meal.

 

[Texas_tea]

It's a moral precept of the Enlightenment era... Made famous by Jefferson. It's the idea that you, as an individual, are neither slave nor master to any other individual. Each one of us is created with Rights as individuals equal to the Rights of every other individual. Government was created to protect those rights, in hopes of preventing us from becoming a Collectivist society of masters and slaves. Belief in the Rights of the Individual wasn't always considered pure ignorance, but in today's Collectivist society it certainly is.

I never claimed that it wouldn't. If my rights are being threatened or violated, it does effect me, and I'll act accordingly.

Why do you care if some person you've never met, and never would meet, died from taking drugs? I'm betting your answer is Collectivist in nature... You're being forced to pay for it, or maybe you just feel bad about it and think you have a responsibility to violate the rights of others to stop them from making poor decisions in life. The reality is, individuals are created with equal rights, and the free will to choose how to live their lives. You can't wish the free will and rights of others into non-existence through the power of government without destroying your own in the process.

Reality isn't for everyone, but it is the only place to get a decent meal.

Are you saying there should be no regulations, no laws, no enforcement?

 

[dogtowner]

I think it might help to thinknthat it us possible for a thing to he legal but also objectionable. Many find boize objectionable others when moderation is lacking or harm is caused as a result.

Any entity can set rules stating that othetwise legal actions are grounds for expulsion. Those employers wjo have risk to mitigate do and they would continue to do so.

Studies show that legalization causes a brief period of experimentation fplliwrd.by a return to prior rates of use. We are.seeing this in CO.

My goal is primarily crime reduction which is why i favir giving it away (perhaps just the hard stuff as a compromise). Organized crime is huge in relative terms and all we.do is ignore it.

thats jit acceptable to me.

 

[GenSeneca]

Are you saying there should be no regulations, no laws, no enforcement?

There are no regulations, no laws, no enforcement in a Black Market... Which is what you create when you BAN something people want to have.
You seem to be the one who thinks that's a good thing, that there should be no regulations, no laws, no enforcement when it comes to the sale of certain drugs.

 

[GBFan]

Are you saying the legalization of alcohol and prescription drugs is a faulty policy? Would we be better off with all of it being illegal? Nicotine, Caffeine... are there any drugs you think should be legal?

So long as you're not breaking my leg or picking my pocket, I don't care what you choose to do with your life. If you're not violating my rights, I have no Right as an Individual to use force against you, or otherwise coerce you to act against your will. Do you believe yourself to have such a Right?

Obviously you are trying to provoke a "collective rights vs. individual rights" discussion, rather than a discussion about the pitfalls of legalized marijuana. So, I'll give you your wish ...

No one disputes your individual rights ... AND no one takes them away (however, we seem to be exceedingly prone to GIVING them away). The purpose of the government is to allow you to exercise your individual rights, while I exercise mine, without interference. However, when the exercise of YOUR rights interfere with the exercise of MY rights, the government must get involved (via laws) and manage the interface. (Mind you, I'm not saying the Government DOESN'T interfere with your practice of individual rights, but they SHOULDN'T). Notionally, you can do anything your little heart desires inside your little box as long as it doesn't interfere with my little box.

You speak of 'common defense', and things like law enforcement, traffic control, etc. as an impingement on your individual rights. They aren't - you haven't lost any rights. You have merely abdicated some of your responsibility (defense of the nation, personal delivery of your mail, etc.) to the government so that they can do it more efficiently and effectively. There is a significant difference between 'rights' and 'responsibility'. I think you are grouping them into a single entity -- and call them 'individual rights'.

There is no such thing as 'collective rights' - only the collection of individual responsibility in order to more efficiently perform that action. (You will note that 'responsibilities' are all active voice, while 'rights' are all passive.)

So, nobody should care if you smoke weed, or mainline heroin, marry a gay man, or drive 100 mph - all things within your box - unless, of course, they interfere with MY box. God wish that were only true ... it is the interference of other individuals that create the impingement on your individual rights. It is those who think they know better what's good for you than you yourself know that create the interference. The far left, with their inherent elitist snobbery, are most prone to this.

From my point of view - I don't care if you smoke, shoot dope, carry a gun, or stick gerbils up your ... well, you know what I mean ... as long as it doesn't interfere with my exercise of MY individual rights. Of course, some will immediately holler that, as a conservative, I have positions that interfere with YOUR box ... but I don't. I oppose abortion, for example, because I believe it interferes with the baby's individual rights. I do not oppose gay marriage, UNLESS it interferes with the practice of my religion (in short, get married in somebody else's church!) Hell, you can marry your dog if you want - just don't ask me to sanctify it.

As the original post clearly illustrates, the legalization of marijuana here in Colorado has significantly interfered with MY box ... and you can expect the same when it comes to your town, as it most assuredly will.

(As a side note, here in Colorado, they are constantly showing the latest development, the latest store, the latest argument, hte latest crime, or the latest recipe about recreational use of marijuana on the nightly news. It's interesting to note that, based on that limited exposure, there is not a single intelligent person in Colorado who smokes marijuana. There are some real idiots - there are some socially disconnected - there are some mentally defective - but not a single person I would hire to cut my lawn - much less my grass. Apparently, the real requirement here is that you must be 21, have poor personal hygiene, not be able to put together three words to make a sentence, and totally incapable of coherent thought)

 

[GBFan]

While there us norhing good about drug abuse, people are going to do it. There can be no acceptance of actions abusers take while they ot stoned (or not stoned) making the drugs thems3lves illegal dies little to. Curb use.
I want legitimate drugs to be safe and effective so i think fda has a role to play.

I interpret your position to be ... 'they're going to do it anyway, so we should make it legal so that we can control it.'

That's not really what you meant, is it?

After all, no matter what the law says, people are going to drive 100 mph ... so we should make that legal? Murder - no matter what, somebody is going to do it.

We have a responsibility to establish appropriate societal mores and limits, and to enforce them accordingly.

 

[GBFan]

I think it might help to thinknthat it us possible for a thing to he legal but also objectionable. Many find boize objectionable others when moderation is lacking or harm is caused as a result.

Any entity can set rules stating that othetwise legal actions are grounds for expulsion. Those employers wjo have risk to mitigate do and they would continue to do so.

Studies show that legalization causes a brief period of experimentation fplliwrd.by a return to prior rates of use. We are.seeing this in CO.

My goal is primarily crime reduction which is why i favir giving it away (perhaps just the hard stuff as a compromise). Organized crime is huge in relative terms and all we.do is ignore it.

thats jit acceptable to me.

The answer to crime reduction is not to make more objectionable actions legal ... the answer is to enforce the sanctions against objectionable actions (something we seem unable to do).