Contact Your Senator - Stop New Drug Czar From Being Confirmed

[David Floyd]

Because most of the parents today are hardly more responsible than their children.

That's your opinion. Would you say that parents who let their children drink at home are irresponsible? Would you say that parents in Europe who let their kids drink in pubs are irresponsible?

Further, why is it any of your business? We've already established that the act of drinking doesn't hurt anyone. It can't. Obviously, what you do while drunk can harm people, and that's why we have laws against drunk driving. But saying that me having a beer hurts someone else is patently ridiculous.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, yes.

We've established that drinking doesn't hurt people? When? Alcohol causes liver damage (and IIRC brain damage).

[David Floyd]

Because the POINT of passing a law is to stop the activity you are making illegal. If you can't stop the activity anyway, why bother? You will expend effort to no gain. Save the effort for things that will work.

Laws against murder don't stop murder, unless you buy into the argument that laws are a deterrent. They really aren't, by and large. So by your argument, we shouldn't have any laws. Obviously the laws don't stop crime, because we still have a crime rate.

Now, you might argue that laws REDUCE the crime rate to some degree, but I'd turn around and argue that a law against alcohol would DECREASE the drinking rate to some degree.

[David Floyd]

We've established that drinking doesn't hurt people? When? Alcohol causes liver damage (and IIRC brain damage).

It can potentially hurt YOU, but so what? You can do any number of things that can put your life in danger. Excessive cholesterol can cause heart attacks. Sugar is very bad for you. Caffeine is drug like in its properties. These are just a few examples, and we aren't even getting into examples such as extreme sports.

The point is, what business is it of the government what you do TO YOURSELF?

[Pekka]

Exactly. David and I can legally go to gym and start kicking the living crap out of each other and no one can say anything to it. And if we decide to do it, it's our business and that's what we want, no matter that MOST people find it morally repulsive and disgusting. But we can still do it if we want to. And I bet if we lived closer to each other, we'd do exactly that .

[Kuciwalker]

In all of your examples, the substances have a far lower toxicity level than alcohol.

We're trying to do it because it could completely destroy our society. If we legalise all drugs like you say then within a generation 90% of middle-aged Americans will be drug addicts (hyperbole, yes, but not much).

[David Floyd]

Absolutely

[Jack_www]

THis guy sounds like he will crack down on drugs so its a good choice. As for those of you who approve of drug use you only hate the person because he wants to take your pot away. Drugs are harmfull to society and cause a lot of problems. THey are harmfull to your health, and cause harmfull addictions. Why do you want to say to people its all right to use this crap??

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Pekka
Exactly. David and I can legally go to gym and start kicking the living crap out of each other and no one can say anything to it. And if we decide to do it, it's our business and that's what we want, no matter that MOST people find it morally repulsive and disgusting. But we can still do it if we want to. And I bet if we lived closer to each other, we'd do exactly that .

The difference is, how many people are going to start doing that (and IIRC it is illegal btw)? Drugs are far more worrisome.

[David Floyd]

In all of your examples, the substances have a far lower toxicity level than alcohol.

Really? So heart attacks as a result of high cholesterol don't kill tens of thousands of people each year?

We're trying to do it because it could completely destroy our society. If we legalise all drugs like you say then within a generation 90% of middle-aged Americans will be drug addicts (hyperbole, yes, but not much).

That's incredibly wrong. 90% of the people I know wouldn't even TOUCH anything harder than marijuana, legal or not. In any case, even if your statistic is right, if 90% of the population is addicted to drugs, isn't that their choice? Why should the government step in and say, "Sorry, even though 90% of you want to do this non-coercive act, we're going to throw you all in prison for it."?

But seriously, man. 90%?

[Pekka]

skywalker, What has it got to do how many people do it?
And it is NOT illegal...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by DanielXY

Including medical marijuana of course...


Elitist

Golly! Wouldn't it be terrific if people started asking actual medical professionals about the legitimacy of the medical use of marijuana?

Regarding glaucoma, marijuana is inferior in results to every currently available anti-glaucoma drug. Using marijuana to treat glaucoma would be like giving St. John's Wort (which is about as effective as caffeine) to psychotically depressed suicide attempters.

Regarding lung disease it has been proven that smoked marijuana has 5 times the toxicity and carcinogenicity as cigarettes. Advocating marijuana to treat lung disease is similar the the old 1950s cigarette commercials claiming endosements from lung surgeons for particular brands of cigarettes. It's just wrong.

Regarding the use of marijuana to treat the nausea of chemotherapy it should be noted that we already have dronabinol, a derivative of THC which in comparative studies is actually more effective at reducing vomiting than marijuana. Dronabinol is THC with most of the "recreational" side effects removed. The drawback is its expense. IS there a campaign to have the government intervene and reduce the cost of dronabinol? Gosh no, why would anyone do that? Does the fact that it is superior to marijuana make a difference? Not if you actually don't give a rat's a** about sick people, but are instead just using them to push forth your agenda.

"Medical" marijuana should be left up to the medical professionals.

[David Floyd]

Jack,

Why do you want to say to people its all right to use this crap??

I'm not saying it's all right for people to do drugs. I'm saying it's not all right for the government to tell them they can't.

Skywalker,

The difference is, how many people are going to start doing that (and IIRC it is illegal btw)? Drugs are far more worrisome.

Sorry, this argument fails. Wrong is wrong is wrong. If something is wrong, it should be banned, right? Even if there was only gonna be 1 murder per year, shouldn't murder still be illegal?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Really? So heart attacks as a result of high cholesterol don't kill tens of thousands of people each year?

They have a lower toxicity level and a higher usage level. And they aren't addictive, unless you consider food an addictive drug

That's incredibly wrong. 90% of the people I know wouldn't even TOUCH anything harder than marijuana, legal or not. In any case, even if your statistic is right, if 90% of the population is addicted to drugs, isn't that their choice? Why should the government step in and say, "Sorry, even though 90% of you want to do this non-coercive act, we're going to throw you all in prison for it."?

But seriously, man. 90%?

First, notice I said hyperbole, and within a generation 90% of MIDDLE-AGED (i.e., the teenagers right now). I'm a member of that demographic. A lot of high schooler around here, a LOT, would use drugs if they didn't think they'd get in trouble. A lot DO use drugs. Luckily, I go to a science and tech magnet school, so drugs aren't a problem.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Jack,



I'm not saying it's all right for people to do drugs. I'm saying it's not all right for the government to tell them they can't.

Skywalker,



Sorry, this argument fails. Wrong is wrong is wrong. If something is wrong, it should be banned, right? Even if there was only gonna be 1 murder per year, shouldn't murder still be illegal?

Yes, because you can prevent that murder. If you couldn't prevent it anyway, why try?