I was just wondering what everyone's view was on certain drugs. For instance Marijuna or coke or stuff like that.
I for one think Marijuna should not be ileagal in the states cause it really is not as bad for you as drinking or smoking for that matter and is alot better then any other drug out there. But I think coke or crack or stuff like that should be. What do you people think?
ID:274582
 May 12 2002, 9:04 pm
|
|
|
May 13 2002, 4:36 am
|
|
JordanUl
 |
Ah, the mis-understood message. Do you know that the mary jane stays in yourbody for up to a month and will weaken your memory greatly during that time?
|
JordanUl wrote:
Ah, the mis-understood message. Do you know that the mary jane stays in yourbody for up to a month and will weaken your memory greatly during that time? You do realize he said, "is not as bad for you as drinking or smoking..." That's not the same thing as saying that marijuana is harmless. In fact, the statement is pretty much subjective... is measurably weakened memory spread over a long period of time worse than, for instance, a complete mental blackout of one night? The question here isn't whether or not marijuana is good for you. It's whether or not the government is serving a legitimate need by forbidding its use. If it is, then why doesn't it have a legitimate reason to forbid alcohol consumption? Why is there an age at which we are assumed to be responsible enough to drink alcohol, but not one at which we're assumed to be responsible enough to smoke marijuana? Understand that I'm not advocating one side or the other... only consistency. | |
The question here isn't whether or not marijuana is good for you. It's whether or not the government is serving a legitimate need by forbidding its use. Actually, the real question is generally whether or not a certain view will get a politician elected/re-elected. See below. If it is, then why doesn't it have a legitimate reason to forbid alcohol consumption? Why is there an age at which we are assumed to be responsible enough to drink alcohol, but not one at which we're assumed to be responsible enough to smoke marijuana? This reminds me of the classic question of why one can be considered mature enough to kill in the service of the government, but not matire enough to imbibe fermented barley (IE be drafted but not drink). I don't believe it was answered with anything other than, "Because the government says so." Remember also that almost all drug laws and agencies are the product of executive order. For a pesident to rescind them would probably be political suicide. Understand that I'm not advocating one side or the other... only consistency. An admirable view (and one held by many citizens, I might add!), but one that is largely untenanable with our current government. Remember all those checks and balances? They not only work to break up power (in theory), but also make sure nothing gets passed without extensive compromise. An amendment here, a rider there and VIOLA! a horribly inconsistent system of regulation that offers stiffer sentences to a kingpin's girlfriend than to the guy himself (check out the federal sentencing guidelines if you don't believe me on this one). -James (with an increase in wisdom comes an increase in sorrow.....) | |
I know all that. The question, though, is not whether marijuana will be legalized or alcohol will be criminalized... it's whether they should be.
| |
The sad thing is, I think that if you're stupid enough to smoke it, then your mind must contain decent amounts of those "slow" cells. I don't really care if people do it, it's just I think they shouldn't. Oh well, no loss for me.
| |
Lesbian Assassin wrote:
I know all that. The question, though, is not whether marijuana will be legalized or alcohol will be criminalized... it's whether they should be. I know I'd be happier in an illicit-drug-free, cigarette-smoke-free, alcohol-free world, but I can think of plenty of people who might have committed suicide if they didn't have a bottle or drugs to turn to. Note the use of "illicit". I believe any drugs that substantially alter your body's performance for the sake of simple pleasure ought to be removed. Drugs that alter your body's performance for the purpose of therapy ought to be made completely legal. | |
Note the use of "illicit". I believe any drugs that substantially alter your body's performance for the sake of simple pleasure ought to be removed. Isn't substantially altering the body's performance pretty much the definition of a drug? A drug that doesn't do anything is a placebo! And for that matter, who gets to decide whether it's pleasure or therapy? Some smarty-pants doctor somewhere, I bet, to which I say: phbbbt! | |
Isn't substantially altering the body's performance pretty much the definition of a drug? Yes, but I added the qualifier "for the sake of simple pleasure", which makes it a descriptive sentence rather than redundant. ;-) | |
I personally believe anything found on this earth, not man-made should be free to use. Who the hell's business is it what I consume and put into my system anyways? Thats totally mind control to have me believe otherwise. The Matrix really seems to come alive with today's mind control of using media and hype, and the way the governments are heading. I'm soo surprised not more people are revolting or uprising for a revolution.
LJR | |
Time have changed, but what the hell is going on hasn't.
Then: 15th Century Spain - Inquisition Now: 20-21st Century US - Drug on Wars I see them both related. If you have no idea what the Inquisition is/was read up on it here and educate yourself. http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Things/inquisition.html LJR | |
LordJR wrote:
I personally believe anything found on this earth, not man-made should be free to use. Who the hell's business is it what I consume and put into my system anyways? Thats totally mind control to have me believe otherwise. The Matrix really seems to come alive with today's mind control of using media and hype, and the way the governments are heading. I'm soo surprised not more people are revolting or uprising for a revolution. Well if there was a revolution on drugs then i would call it the 60's. | |
haha everyone has brain cells that die off and a lot of them. drugs arent the only that that kill brain cells
| |
The 60's were cool, but totally misguided. It was like handing out guns without teaching people how to use them.
I don't personally use any of the drugs we're talking about, but I AM about Natural Freedoms, which some governing body seems to assume they have the right to control what I think and do on a personal level. Old wise saying that goes well here: Might doesn't make Right! Which the US government loves to abuse both in and out of country. LJR | |
You know when people bang their heads up against something? Just the slightess bit of jarring of the head will kill off brain cells. When some who has never used drugs tell me how bad they are, without any personal experience. I'm reminded of the Christian who tells me I'm going to hell because I don't believe the way they do, who have never actually seen or conversed with their god either.
LJR | |