BF2S Forums Marijuana is harmful

Bertster wrote:

That's really, really stupid.

Thats the best you've got?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Bertster wrote:

That's really, really stupid.

Thats the best you've got?

To your comparison of weed and machine guns?

That's all it deserves.

That's all it deserves.

I don't get it, I use all the same arguments you use, in relation to a pastime enjoyed legally and illegally but perfectly responsibly by many millions of people across the world, and it doesn't merit a response?

Dilbert_X wrote:

But heavy drinking is legal after 18, the law says you can drink just as much as you like.
The are medical reasons why people over the age 18-19 should have their drinking curtailed.

So you're saying you never got drunk until you were 25?

Dilbert_X wrote:

How does that impact on an 18 year olds ability to drink responsibly? How does that change anything about the example I've given of an 18 year old having a glass of wine with a meal?

A ten year old can drink responsibly, pretty sure a teaspoon of beer wouldn't do them a lot of harm.

Comparing a machine gun, a device that can be used to kill loads of people with relative ease and comparing a drug that only really has the potential to do minor harm to the user is exceptionally stupid.

Its about responsibility. It takes a person to kill someone, the gun itself is harmless, and can be used responsibly and safely.
Now please explain why I shouldn't have a machine-gun, I've already explained no harm will come from it.

(Not that I have the slightest intention of obtaining one).

And responsibility is about potential risk. Any potential risk of mass slaughter puts a machine on a totally different scale to any drug, unless you want to get started on chemical and biological weapons.

It's a stupid comparison and you know it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Any potential risk of mass slaughter puts a machine on a totally different scale to any drug, unless you want to get started on chemical and biological weapons.

I don't get your argument, machine-gun ownership is legal in some countries, therefore you're wrong.
For a long time they weren't even licensed in most countries, it was political agitation from vested interests which saw them restricted, therefore you're wrong.

There's a lot you don't get.

Bertster7 wrote:

My point there is that responsibility is about due care and diligence. Not legality. Whether something is legal or not bears absolutely no relation whatsoever to whether it should be irresponsible. If you go about taking drugs in a careful manner and make sure you are not causing any problems for anyone else, that is responsible. Legality is not a factor.

And my point is that choosing to engage in illegal behavior simply because you will have fun doing it is irresponsible behavior. If you take drugs/drink LEGALLY in a careful manner, then you are being responsible. Legality is absolutely a factor so long as you must make a conscious decision to break said law for no reason other than your own pleasure.

Bertster7 wrote:

Yet you repeatedly assert that drug use is irresponsible BECAUSE it is illegal.

No, I don't. The irresponsibility is in the choice to knowingly violate the law for no reason other than your own pleasure/convenience.

Bertster7 wrote:

You don't see how that is very self-contradictory?

It's not, because that's not the point I'm making. Perhaps it's simply too nuanced for you.

Bertster7 wrote:

I don't even agree with your underage drinking points (based on the drinking age in the US). There is no medical reason why anyone from the age of 18-19 shouldn't be able to drink. By your definition above, a 20 year old having a glass of wine with their meal is irresponsible. I think that's bollocks.

It is. It is the choice that is irresponsible, thus the behavior resulting from said choice is irresponsible.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Explain to me how knowingly violating the law is responsible. It simply isn't.

Look you're doing it again.

Look you're missing the point again.

You guys should close this thread. Otherwise I'm gonna keep coming back to it when I'm high and making a stupid post.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

they should be able to use a drug that is no worse to society than ones that are already legal

Its the 'no worse' argument I have a problem with.
Finding new ways to maintain the shitty status quo, or go backwards, is not progress.

Going backwards would be banning more substances.  Maintaining the shitty status quo would be keeping things banned.

Moving forward would be legalization and regulation.

So honestly...  why are you against legalizing pot if you are against "going backwards" and against the "shitty status quo?"

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-07-14 15:55:37)

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, going backwards would be allowing people to use a wider range of harmful substances compared with maintaining or cutting the number.

Banning more substances only creates more illegal markets.  See Prohibition.

Maintaining current bans only ensures a large portion of law enforcement resources go toward drug issues rather than murders or rapes.

Also, maintaining bans ensures that the values of these substances are much higher than they would be on the legal market -- perpetuating organized crime's participation.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-07-14 17:06:02)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Any potential risk of mass slaughter puts a machine on a totally different scale to any drug, unless you want to get started on chemical and biological weapons.

I don't get your argument, machine-gun ownership is legal in some countries, therefore you're wrong.
For a long time they weren't even licensed in most countries, it was political agitation from vested interests which saw them restricted, therefore you're wrong.

Owning a Machine Gun is legal in US with approval of Treasury Dept. (in some states, due to varying laws)

I think doing drugs of any kind (illegally) is stupid.

It can suck even if it's perfectly legal.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
My dad's on prescription antidepressants, and he's nearly bankrupted us. He's paranoid and we're now not even allowed to talk to his doctor, the guy won't respond. He steals our stuff, like my sister's iPod.

Prescriptions can have terrible effects as well. Especially if the doctor prescribing won't speak to those affected by changes caused.

Last edited by nickb64 (2009-07-14 17:34:24)

You are when you're drunk

nickb64 wrote:

I think doing drugs of any kind (illegally) is stupid.

It can suck even if it's perfectly legal.

Brain chemistry is just too complex to be messing with.

Turquoise wrote:

Maintaining current bans only ensures a large portion of law enforcement resources go toward drug issues rather than murders or rapes.

I'd argue the converse, it keeps lots of Police officers employed who are then available to deal with major events when they happen.
Rapes and murders get dealt with.

Banning more substances only creates more illegal markets.  See Prohibition.

Which brings us back to the 'legalise everything' argument, heroin, LSD, crack, crystal meth.