Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    I wouldn't prohibit the sale of any of them. However, users, not the state, must take responsibility for their actions.

    Freedom = Responsibility. True every time, regardless of other's dogma-tribes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jimjamesjames 2 weeks, 6 days ago
      " However, users, not the state, must take responsibility..." but what mechanism to hold them accountable, to make them to take responsibility is my issue. The "state," their own sense of morality, peer pressure?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jdg 2 weeks, 6 days ago
        By reducing or eliminating users' ability to pass the cost of treatment on to others afterward. For example, a druggie who overdoses and goes to a public hospital should get a bill afterwards.

        Of course this isn't a complete solution since the doper probably can't afford to pay, but some can (with or without buying insurance).

        But many kinds of harm "caused by drugs" (ranging from fake or impure drugs to bystanders getting killed in turf battles) are really caused by enforcement anyway, so legalizing is a good idea even if accountability is entirely or partly lacking afterwards.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 weeks, 6 days ago
        DUI - jail/lose license, compensate for damages
        Fat - shorter life
        Tobacco - shorter life, (I'd advocate for limited health care coverage in some areas...sorry Ayn)

        We should not presuppose damages. They are what they are. If your choices led to them, then you are responsible.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    Marijuana is the one drug that carries the least effect on impaired function, and is not as addictive as nicotine. However, where it's decriminalized, the cartels have an opportunity to offer a cheaper product, since they don't need no stinkin' licenses. Colorado and Washington state are noticing an increase in cartel activity. There's also the illegal private growers, who are having an environmental impact (weed is a very thirsty plant, and needs much herbicidal help). As a result of illegal activity, the tax benefits are lower than predicted, and the law enforcement costs have risen, negating the reduced cost of decriminalizing possession.

    Marijuana is now more available to teenagers, and schools are reporting more issues with neglected studies and lack of attention in class that coincides with the legalization of recreational marijuana. There's also been an increase in toxic medical issues with toddlers and pets who get into consumable marijuana products. These are just some social issues that should be of concern, as they have effects beyond the casual adult user.

    Because legal weed is still pretty expensive, cartels have begun "graduating" recreational users to heroin, as a cheaper product. Heroin use has risen significantly where recreational marijuana has been decriminalized as a result.

    Methamphetamine is a very dangerous drug, almost always instantly addictive, and a toxic product that affects health seriously. Meth should never be decriminalized. Cocaine, in a controlled environment, actually can be beneficial to some health conditions, but should be legalized only as a medical treatment.

    LSD is dangerous to mental health, as are a variety of psychogenic herbs. Some metropolitan governments are experimenting with decriminalizing natural psychogenics, which I think is a serious mistake.

    If I choose to drive at 200 mph on the freeway, why should the government restrict my freedom? Because of the danger I present to others, we've agreed that such behavior should be restricted. The same should apply to any who choose to use drugs.

    If I want to own an Abrams tank, and drive it and fire its weapons in a responsible manner, why should the government forbid me to own such a weapon? That's a little more difficult to answer, because if I can prove I'm being very careful not to endanger others, it becomes a discriminatory restriction because I present a challenge to government power and control.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 2 weeks, 6 days ago
      If the cartel can underprice the legal sellers of marijuana it simply means the taxes are too high. Washington made this mistake for the first year or two after they legalized. So is California. Eventually they'll figure that out and correct it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  3 weeks, 1 day ago
    We have some restaurants in our county that you can refill your plate ad infinitum. You ought to see the plates of some of our oil field workers! Wowie, can those guys eat! However, they work it off! But some of our restaurants who serve very fattening food, put too much on the plate and you can sit there and watch people come in who weigh at least 300 pounds. It is scarey! But there is a reason for it. The cost is minimal and the people can't afford the dainty foods that don't get you fat! They eat what they think they need.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 3 weeks, 1 day ago
      With the sugar and HFCS content of so many foods, people are being addicted to them without realizing it. Once addicted it's not easy to stop, especially when you are misled about the cause.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 2 weeks ago
        Perhaps it is time to go back to the first definitions of addiction where addiction was used to name something that was not just a habit, but an actual physical process where even when not conscious, the body would go through withdrawal without the substance, such as in dimorphine and alcohol withdrawal. All other other strong habits need to be just called habits. They are hard to break due to the pleasure that they give. Breaking them is like giving up some of one's self and changing into another person.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  3 weeks ago
        You are so right! We have two home-style restaurants in our town. My husband was a controlled Diabetic and he could eat at one and his blood sugar stayed stable. The other one it blew up. Same meal. I asked the owner of the good one and he said, "We don't add sugar to the food"!!! I just recalled that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by upston 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness AND TO BE STUPID.
    Is it smart to drink 10 cans of soda a day, eat 5000c a day, smoke 2 packs, drink a 1/5 before lunch, drive a giant SUV alone , bla bla bla, hell no.
    "Objectively" it makes no sense as many of you have opined very logically and if this was a high school poli si class I would commend you all or your comments BUT we are the sharp end of the spear on personal freedoms RIGHT.
    Your actions or moralistic opinions are not the issue, I have the right to be dumb until it causes others to be harmed or pay for my actions.
    If I drive drunk or while eating a cheese burger I should pay the price but I should be able to buy a bottle or a burger or whatever , the onus is on me. If you don't get that you are on the wrong forum.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 2 weeks, 5 days ago
    Problem is...I keep reading where daily, long time, use of pot has been definitely linked to a variety of mental issues. Large numbers of mental hospital patients have histories of long term marijuana use.

    That's enough proof for me to want it to remain a "controlled substance".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by starznbarz 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    With that platform, you would rocket to the top of the democrat presidential candidates club, all of whom say "prohibit" when they mean "tax". - or were you just reciting current law in NY?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    The more we control, the more we become controlled by big gov. However, I have seen drug impaired drivers weaving on the road, and it is scary if you are near. I have worked with drug impaired co-workers at a newspaper, who nearly missed deadlines. So, they end up killing someone, or they get fired. There has to be a better way to get people to rely on themselves, not substances. I do not like the idea of mayors deciding what you may drink, to save th planet, absurd. If people want to kill themselves without physical harm to others, so be it. My mom was an alcoholic who died at 46, by then also addicted to pills. She had no desire to change, to the end. That is life and death.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    You are missing out on the principle involved: does it impair one's ability to reason? If it does not and is simply a personal preference, the government has no authority or reasonable interest in regulating it. If it does impair one's reasoning faculties, however, then what one does while under the influence of such chemicals has an effect on that individual's interactions with other people - i.e. it becomes a societal matter at that point.

    On the radio a month or so ago, the host invited on a couple of individuals arguing in favor of recreational and medical marijuana use (which currently is illegal in my state but legal in several nearby states). One of the arguments given by a proponent was that his father suffered from chronic pain and marijuana use could be beneficial for that type of situation. Now unfortunately, I wasn't in a position to call in and point out that what he was actually arguing for there was medical marijuana use - not recreational use. The other thing I wanted to point out was that his argument was an appeal to emotion far more than a valid logical argument.

    Why? Because the counter-argument was from just a few months ago where someone high on marijuana killed four other people via an automobile accident in a nearby community. It was purely recreational use and had traumatic and irreversible consequences.

    I think a case can be made for the controlled and supervised medicinal use of certain compounds. The recreational uses for me are a much tougher sell because their primary objective is illusory - not reality.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Arthgallo 2 weeks, 6 days ago
      If it impacts another person, then there needs to be consequences and should apply to any substance. I was rear-ended by a man on medical marijuana, he was barely able to walk, couldn't put two words together, and I had to verbally direct him to put his car in park and turn it off as he kept trying to move. I wasn't necessarily injured, but, he could have easily run over somebody in the crosswalk that was only 20 yards away. Just saying, there needs to be consequences for one's actions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 2 weeks, 6 days ago
      It is outrageously presumptuous for anyone to judge whether another person has impaired his reasoning faculties. The law needs to simply say that unless you are dosed against your will or without your knowledge, you are responsible for your actions just as if you were completely sober, even when you're not. This includes behaviors such as saying yes to sex that you regret afterwards.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 2 weeks, 6 days ago
        Uh, so what about field sobriety tests? Those are remarkably accurate. I would also point out that when arguing with Progressives it is also fairly easy to determine impaired reasoning. We actually base our entire legal system on what someone else judges about our actions. In cases of negligence, that is precisely the standard: whether a reasonable person would have done x. I'm seeing a lot of actual, objective uses here in judging someone else's use of their rational faculties...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jdg 2 weeks, 6 days ago
          I don't see this as directly relevant -- one's driving ability can be impaired in various ways whether reasoning is or not.

          But FSTs are hogwash. You're also not required to do them in any state I'm aware of. If asked I will decline and tell the cop he's welcome to test my blood, breath, or urine instead.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 2 weeks, 6 days ago
            Your argument was that others' judgments about our sobriety and reasoning aren't relevant. I simply pointed out several instances which invalidate your claim - including our own legal system.

            The real question is whether or not someone else's mental impairment is cause enough for societal laws restricting such. Those in favor of recreational drug use are taking the stand that society should ignore voluntary, temporary, chemically-induced mental impairment and just accept the inevitable negative consequences from those actions of poor judgment. I object to this line of irrational argument. I want to be able to trust people to act in their own best interest and thus preserve my right to act in my own best interest. People with impaired judgment neither act in their own best interest nor are they capable of respecting mine. (I also fail to see how intentionally divesting one's self from an objective perception of reality through mind-altering drugs is consistent with an Objectivist mindset.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by jdg 2 weeks, 6 days ago
              I view such activities not as black or white, but as part of a whole spectrum of risk/reward choices. The person who gets intoxicated has, in effect, decided beforehand to do (or at least to risk that he may do) whatever he does afterward. This decision may or may not be well thought out, but rather than concern myself with what's happening in his head I just judge by the actual, or reasonably likely, results and by how responsibly he behaves toward other people.

              Thus for example I will go out and have a few drinks watching a ball game at the bar, but I'll take an Uber home after, and I'll plan so that I'm not required to make any hard decisions that day. It's worth it. For someone with a family who might be affected or who has a tendency to get in fights after drinking, it might very well not be worth it. I make the decision and I won't try to get out of paying for whatever happens afterward.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheOriginalBadBob 2 weeks, 6 days ago
      People are affected by everything from alcohol to emotion to poor discipline and commit offenses against society intentionally and unintentionally. We hold them accountable for those behaviors. We do not outlaw anything that may influence one's thinking. If even one person would be able to use responsibly and not risk others then how can you justify denying that person that RIGHT. Or are you just looking for the restrictions that remove the most risk from the most people.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 2 weeks, 6 days ago
        It is one thing to learn how to deal with powerful emotions and their effects on the mind when in possession of one's full faculties. It is impossible to do so when those faculties are chemically impaired. It is inducing an artificial dependency - an addiction - into the mix. To argue that a person can consistently make sound judgments when so impaired is to argue that one can see truth through a lens of deception. It's an inherently contradictory notion.

        Do people have a right to choose their own path? Certainly. But when those choices start affecting people around them, then those affected - society - get to have a say in what types of things are going to be acceptable. If you want to go sequester yourself away while you get high and not come back out again until you are a sane, rational human being, that may be one thing. The problem is that once one starts in with mind-altering substances, that individual loses the ability of self-control and self-constraint. A society which permits such accepts the inevitability of the resulting poor choices. And if they accept the inevitability of such, are they really placing accountability on the individual? No. They are saying that society is willing to accept those consequences - even though they may punish the individual later. How many other peoples' rights is one willing to trample upon to argue that people have a "right" to absolve themselves of reason?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo