Doing Drugs is not a Victimless crime

[Arrian]

As for the ongoing argument... it all comes down to driving while impaired. Impaired by drinking alcohol, impaired while high (although I must say, having done that once or twice, I drove at the speed limit, totally paranoid, concentrating everything I had on driving well), whatever. I classify pot & booze in the same general category, and the reality is you shouldn't drive while "high" on either one.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
But I was so cool and hip because I was the man, money maker.

I am damned ashamed of myself is what I am

Now you need to forgive yourself. Live for today, not the past. The past will never change no matter how much you worry about it.

[snoopy369]

Gramps ... I'm really sorry to hear this Was really looking forward to meeting you, too ...

Imran/Berz/etc., the reason drugs (and frankly alcohol, but that's a different thread) should remain illegal, is that the consumption of drugs causes (and is generally INTENDED to cause) the user to lose some, or much, of his/her inhibitions, also known as judgement. Thus, a person who would normally say that driving while high/drunk is horrible, might well do so while high/drunk.

When you put yourself in a position to no longer be able to make sound judgements, such as when you are drunk or stoned, you are at a much greater risk of doing damage to others. That's what the State is there for - to prevent, as best as possible, individuals from damaging each other, either physically or otherwise. Saying otherwise is putting the good of the individual over the good of the society, which is quite simply a group of individuals. After all, what benefit does the society get from drug use exactly

[SlowwHand]

My oh my. Little heat generating.

[SlowwHand]

What have drinking but not being a drunk, smoking pot but not being a veg head, eating but not to obesity, and sleeping but not to the point of being a sloth have in common?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Berz?


Answer: Moderation.

[Arrian]

Moderation.

It's hard sometimes, though.

-Arrian

[Grandpa Troll]

Thanks one and all for your respones.

Again, I did this not for starting a fight with anyone.

I just got great news and wanted to shre, Pre-Op on Wednesday and Friday Morning Surgery.

Even in Pain and in a P!$$Y mood which I try to not be in..

from Slowwhand Answer: Moderation

which i try to watch so I stay in a decent to good mood most of the time.

Im tickled and if what they say is so, almost immediate relief

Ok

Ya'll be good just wanted to share update

[Kidlicious]

[Tattila the Hun]

I believe criminal code(s) have things like "criminal negligence" and "endangerment". Even if that guy had not hit Gramps or anyone else, he was still putting him, and everyone else on that road into potential danger. Same for the guy doing coke in his home. These things, like alcohol, weakens one's judgement. You might decide to head to the store hopped up, not even realizing the danger you pose to everyone around you.


Edit: Eh, what Snoopy said.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by snoopy369 Imran/Berz/etc., the reason drugs (and frankly alcohol, but that's a different thread) should remain illegal, is that the consumption of drugs causes (and is generally INTENDED to cause) the user to lose some, or much, of his/her inhibitions, also known as judgement. Thus, a person who would normally say that driving while high/drunk is horrible, might well do so while high/drunk.

When you put yourself in a position to no longer be able to make sound judgements, such as when you are drunk or stoned, you are at a much greater risk of doing damage to others. That's what the State is there for - to prevent, as best as possible, individuals from damaging each other, either physically or otherwise. Saying otherwise is putting the good of the individual over the good of the society, which is quite simply a group of individuals. After all, what benefit does the society get from drug use exactly

So you wish to ban alcohol? That didn't exactly work the first time. The reason is that society gets a benefit from it.. ie, people are freer and that makes them happier (well, so does the beer or pot or whatever ). Yes, alcohol and pot cause the user to lose some inhibitions. So what? Is the State supposed to protect individuals from damaging each other so much that any loss of inhibition is the target of repression?

Please. I like my government to be far less overbearing and far less "Big Brother".

The argument that the State is supposed to protect individuals from damage is used by a variety of groups who wish to ban things, such as anti-pornography groups. After all, demeaning of women by portraying them as sex objects damages all women does it not? How far does the ever reaching hand of government go?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
I believe criminal code(s) have things like "criminal negligence" and "endangerment". Even if that guy had not hit Gramps or anyone else, he was still putting him, and everyone else on that road into potential danger. Same for the guy doing coke in his home. These things, like alcohol, weakens one's judgement. You might decide to head to the store hopped up, not even realizing the danger you pose to everyone around you.


Edit: Eh, what Snoopy said.

No one gets charged for criminal negligence or endangerment for drinking until you puke at home.. in no Western society. People are a bit more sane with alcohol (realizing that simply drinking in your home causes no problems whatsoever) than they are with drugs like marijuana.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
What have drinking but not being a drunk, smoking pot but not being a veg head, eating but not to obesity, and sleeping but not to the point of being a sloth have in common?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Berz?


Answer: Moderation.

Wow. The first smart post you have ever made here in Apolyton OT.

[Berzerker]

Snoopy

Imran/Berz/etc., the reason drugs (and frankly alcohol, but that's a different thread) should remain illegal, is that the consumption of drugs causes (and is generally INTENDED to cause) the user to lose some, or much, of his/her inhibitions, also known as judgement. Thus, a person who would normally say that driving while high/drunk is horrible, might well do so while high/drunk.

Its now a crime to lose one's inhibitions? Punish the person who drives under the influence, not the people who dont. You're using collective guilt and I doubt you want to be blamed for the actions of others.

When you put yourself in a position to no longer be able to make sound judgements, such as when you are drunk or stoned, you are at a much greater risk of doing damage to others.

Lets see the stat that says I'm at a much greater risk of damaging someone. I'm sure the risk you pose to others increases when you've got a gun, bat or knife in your hand, or when you play sports, or when you're sleepy and driving, or when your adrenaline is pumping hard, or after being angered by an image or an offensive word, or... This would be hilarious if you weren't serious, you advocate damaging millions of innocent people in the name of protecting people from damage you cant even prevent?

That's what the State is there for - to prevent, as best as possible, individuals from damaging each other, either physically or otherwise.

But your "prevention" damages millions of innocent people based on the guilt of others, so will the state lock you up for all the damage you're doing? Hmm...if black males are more likely to damage others, can we punish them before they damage others? Lets see where your logic leads us, but I suspect women will be running everything since they commit fewer crimes than men.

Saying otherwise is putting the good of the individual over the good of the society, which is quite simply a group of individuals.

The drug war is good for society? You put society ahead of the individual, thats called fascism (see my sig). And since drug use seems largely unaffected by our laws, you haven't accomplished anything other than increasing crime and locking up millions of innocent people, is that good for society?

After all, what benefit does the society get from drug use exactly

Here's another gem from Benito:

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Notice how he also decided which of my freedoms are useless or "possibly harnful"?

Tat

I believe criminal code(s) have things like "criminal negligence" and "endangerment". Even if that guy had not hit Gramps or anyone else, he was still putting him, and everyone else on that road into potential danger. Same for the guy doing coke in his home.

Is he going to drive his sofa into my car?

These things, like alcohol, weakens one's judgement. You might decide to head to the store hopped up, not even realizing the danger you pose to everyone around you.

Dont even compare booze with pot or coke. It would be nice if y'all produced stats showing that I am this risk if you're going to use this alleged risk as an excuse to damage me in "self-defense". What % of traffic accidents are caused by people in their 40s while under the influence of pot or coke? Younger motorists are the biggest risk and alcohol is the biggest external factor, can we lock up young people before they have accidents? Hey, voters and policy makers who want young people to drive are damaging others because young people have more accidents, true? Can we punish all them?

Thats what we need, a Minority Report type machine that measures a person's "risk" of causing harm to others so we can cause them harm first...Brilliant!

[Grandpa Troll]

or maybe avaoid the fact that this case the man was high on cocaine and did total my truck, mess my back up knock me out of work and cause me hardship
theres one case Beserker

Oh yeah and another friggin night of pain and disconfort which hurts so bad I cant hardly see straight

Of course, if I hadnt been on the highway and been in this mans way none of this would have happened I supposse.

Beserker, I dont know how old you are.

I dont know if you have family or not
me I have a wife
a son and a daughter
and 2 grandchildren

I probably feel a little differently about people going out drunk or under the influence than others

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Snoopy
Dont even compare booze with pot or coke. It would be nice if y'all produced stats showing that I am this risk if you're going to use this alleged risk as an excuse to damage me in "self-defense". What % of traffic accidents are caused by people in their 40s while under the influence of pot or coke? Younger motorists are the biggest risk and alcohol is the biggest external factor, can we lock up young people before they have accidents? Hey, voters and policy makers who want young people to drive are damaging others because young people have more accidents, true? Can we punish all them?

There's plenty of evidence regarding the role of pot and cocaine in traffic accidnets, other accidents and violence. We've been down this road before beaucoup de temps. When confronted with cold facts that you can't refute you'll just get huffy about how mere facts are inconsequential when compared with your self-appointed rights.