Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 1, 2022, 4:06 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
California is thinking about legalizing it
#31
RE: California is thinking about legalizing it
1) The current drugs wars are a mess and a statist ploy to gain even more control over the populace. Drugs should be legalised so that the market can make them safer, and so that people can smoke whatever the fuck they want.

2) It'll most likely have a legal age associated with it, as all these products should. It's not like "children" can't get hold of alcohol and drugs anyway.

3) I'm not sure about the public, but if I were in charge I'd make it illegal for people to smoke in public and in their cars. People should be able to do whatever they like in their own homes though. What if there are children? Well if a parent wants to smoke or take drugs in front of children, I have no problem with it. As long as they don't neglect the child, I see no reason for the government to get involved. People smoke cigarettes in front of their children, drink in front of their children, etc. Marijuana is provably less dangerous than both of those habits.

4) I'd guess it'd be an over the counter thing like cigarettes, and I don't see why people shouldn't be able to grow it either.

5) I don't see how changing a law concerning drugs has anything to do with how the border patrol works. Unless the border patrol are all stoned of course, which could be a problem. Then all you'd have to do was tell them they couldn't smoke on the job.
Reply
#32
RE: California is thinking about legalizing it
(April 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 1) The current drugs wars are a mess and a statist ploy to gain even more control over the populace. Drugs should be legalised so that the market can make them safer, and so that people can smoke whatever the fuck they want.
Are you kidding? What good, in terms of control, would banning the use of a certain drug do for the state? And given this is going to a proposition on the ballot, this is going to be a populace-defined law. You have to understand that street-level marijuana is a lot more dangerous than what the government studies. The "market" is created by people, not the government. So, if anyone can grow it, we'll have a new economy for the strong drug as opposed to the "over-the-counter" weak drug (if that made any sense).

(April 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 2) It'll most likely have a legal age associated with it, as all these products should. It's not like "children" can't get hold of alcohol and drugs anyway.
That's the wrong way of looking at it. Just because children have access to alcohol doesn't mean we should also give them access to marijuana, or make it easier for them to gain access.

(April 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 3) I'm not sure about the public, but if I were in charge I'd make it illegal for people to smoke in public and in their cars.
Agreed.

(April 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote: People should be able to do whatever they like in their own homes though.
Agreed.

(April 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote: What if there are children? Well if a parent wants to smoke or take drugs in front of children, I have no problem with it. As long as they don't neglect the child, I see no reason for the government to get involved.
Second-hand smoke can hurt the child (as it can anyone), and I would consider that child abuse. I'm not entirely certain, but I think California already passed a law banning you from smoking in the car with a kid.

(April 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote: People smoke cigarettes in front of their children, drink in front of their children, etc. Marijuana is provably less dangerous than both of those habits.
A good friend of mine gave a presentation to a local high school on the dangers of marijuana, and how the government studies are on a much lesser strength scale (given information from a local hospital). Tabacco is much less dangerous than street-level marijuana, and I would probably put alcohol just slightly above marijuana due to strong judgement distortion.

(April 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 4) I'd guess it'd be an over the counter thing like cigarettes, and I don't see why people shouldn't be able to grow it either.
The problem I see with growing your own is that you'll get an underground economy of stronger and much more dangerous marijuana.

(April 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 5) I don't see how changing a law concerning drugs has anything to do with how the border patrol works. Unless the border patrol are all stoned of course, which could be a problem. Then all you'd have to do was tell them they couldn't smoke on the job.
I was referring to California becoming an exporter (illegally) of marijuana if it was legalized. You would have an increase in immigration so that the drug can be trafficked back to another country at a higher cost, specifically Mexico. This is just a thought though, hence "this is a long shot."
Reply
#33
RE: California is thinking about legalizing it
I like you more and more Adrian.

Let the lemmings do whatever they want, leave us alone. Libertarianism. Mmmmmmm.
Reply
#34
RE: California is thinking about legalizing it
(April 11, 2010 at 12:09 pm)Pippy Wrote: I like you more and more Adrian.

Let the lemmings do whatever they want, leave us alone. Libertarianism. Mmmmmmm.
I thought you opposed my opinion on letting people have guns? If you want to be a Libertarian you have to oppose prohibition, and that includes guns.
Reply
#35
RE: California is thinking about legalizing it
(April 11, 2010 at 12:40 pm)Tiberius Wrote:
(April 11, 2010 at 12:09 pm)Pippy Wrote: I like you more and more Adrian.

Let the lemmings do whatever they want, leave us alone. Libertarianism. Mmmmmmm.
I thought you opposed my opinion on letting people have guns? If you want to be a Libertarian you have to oppose prohibition, and that includes guns.

Well I'm a Libertarian as well so of course I agree with you Adrian. You pretty much highlighted everything I was about to post, so now no one has to hear my babbling Smile
I don't smoke and nor am I interested, but I'm all for the legalization. The antithesis of prohibition is my comrade.
Reply
#36
RE: California is thinking about legalizing it
(April 11, 2010 at 12:09 pm)Pippy Wrote: I like you more and more Adrian.

Let the lemmings do whatever they want, leave us alone. Libertarianism. Mmmmmmm.

And this is how one tells they are going off the deep end - when a known nut agrees with them.
Reply
#37
RE: California is thinking about legalizing it
(April 11, 2010 at 5:56 pm)Synackaon Wrote:
(April 11, 2010 at 12:09 pm)Pippy Wrote: I like you more and more Adrian.

Let the lemmings do whatever they want, leave us alone. Libertarianism. Mmmmmmm.

And this is how one tells they are going off the deep end - when a known nut agrees with them.
People can be a nut and still have rational views on things. There are many Christians who accept Evolution for instance. I disagree with Pippy on a multitude of different things, but on small government and high levels of civil rights, I agree completely.
Reply
#38
RE: California is thinking about legalizing it
Yup, we do agree on that. It may be the sole example. Governments job is not to keep me safe from myself, nor is it to legislate everything. I mean a fishing license? Here you need a busking license. You can beg for money, but if you pick up a guitar you need to fill out the paperwork and pay the gummint.

I like a world with no guns, but if we have guns lets be as fair and intelligent about it as we can. I would also like a world with no drugs, but if we have to have drugs, lets not lock kids up with real criminals because they prefer a joint to a beer.

I have to go work on bending spoons with my mind.

Thanks,
-Pip
Reply
#39
RE: California is thinking about legalizing it
Adrian Wrote:3) I'm not sure about the public, but if I were in charge I'd make it illegal for people to smoke in public and in their cars. People should be able to do whatever they like in their own homes though. What if there are children? Well if a parent wants to smoke or take drugs in front of children, I have no problem with it. As long as they don't neglect the child, I see no reason for the government to get involved. People smoke cigarettes in front of their children, drink in front of their children, etc. Marijuana is provably less dangerous than both of those habits.

And I don't think even parents should have the right to fuck up 'their' children's lives. (@smoking/alcoholics) If someone has children, why would they be willing to subject the children to a substance that has already affected them in demonstrably negative ways that they are well aware of. And if they are not aware of the effects of their smoking/drinking... then what makes one assume that they have any right to protect and raise those children in the first place? Parenting needs much more regulation imo... as is parents simply have too much free reign to do what they will to children.

Other than that I wholly agreed with your 1, 2, 4, and 5 of your post, Adrian Smile
(April 12, 2010 at 3:20 am)Pippy Wrote: Yup, we do agree on that. It may be the sole example. Governments job is not to keep me safe from myself, nor is it to legislate everything. I mean a fishing license? Here you need a busking license. You can beg for money, but if you pick up a guitar you need to fill out the paperwork and pay the gummint.
It would be a poor ideal of the government not to keep its people safe from themselves... as what is a government to do if there are no more people to govern? Smile Keeping people alive and well is largely the point of legislation in the first place...

Quote:I like a world with no guns, but if we have guns lets be as fair and intelligent about it as we can. I would also like a world with no drugs, but if we have to have drugs, lets not lock kids up with real criminals because they prefer a joint to a beer.
I don't care much for a world with no guns or drugs... they are very useful tools in their own right that do a lot of good for societies and individuals within societies. IE: I wish I lived in a world where cars didn't crash... but I most definitely don't wish to be in a world with no cars Smile

Quote:I have to go work on bending spoons with my mind.

Thanks,
-Pip
How's that coming so far? Tiny Tiger
cppman Wrote:Second-hand smoke can hurt the child (as it can anyone), and I would consider that child abuse. I'm not entirely certain, but I think California already passed a law banning you from smoking in the car with a kid.

I don't disagree, but take you're average campfire, and stand in the midst of the smoke. That's pretty damn rough on your lungs too... Smile
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#40
RE: California is thinking about legalizing it
Hey,
Thanks for your reply. Out of curiosity, what is an SAE?
Quote:It would be a poor ideal of the government not to keep its people safe from themselves... as what is a government to do if there are no more people to govern? Smile Keeping people alive and well is largely the point of legislation in the first place...
Ahhh, I politely disagree. It is not the place of the government to keep me safe from myself. It is kinda the gummints job to keep itself safe from me. It is a Constitution, or a Charter between people and government. The people agree to allow a government above it, and the people are the ones in charge. It is not that government came first, and people second. Government is only a social contract, and if they don't do what the majority want, they lose the baility to hold their positions. So these days we have governments run by psychopaths trying their best to get the majority so stupid and unhealthy that they can coerce them into supporting whatever dangerous thing they want.

How does it serve me to fine me for not wearing me seatbelt? What if I crash, I could die. Not the police, or by proxy the governments problem. If I flew out of my car unrestrained, and my body hit some poor passer-by and killed them, that would be a tragedy. Should that random and unlikely circumstance be justification for them charging me (not with a crime, but with a bill) for failure to properly protect myself?

What about when I got busted for possession of Marijuana? How are they serving me (since that is their job) to charge me hundreds of dollars and try to put me in prison for having a drug problem. They never once asked 'do you want to be a drug addict?' they just assumed I was fully in control of what I was doing, and therefor fully responsible for breaking their rules. Did they offer me help? No. Did they try to solve my, and my communities problems? No. Did they try to make a buck and lock a kid up because it seems right to them? Yes. Is that their job, as a judiciary and as part of governance? I think not.

Anyways, I get going... I think government keeping me safe from myself can only be window dressing for the destruction of rights and freedoms. If it was so important as to have robot cameras giving out 2,000 speeding tickets a day, why not make cars that don't speed? Oh that would be effective problem solving, and red blooded americans would flip out. It it was so important to them that I wear my seat belt, why are they always so slow to react to a real threat... like... purple loosestrife.

Quote:I wish I lived in a world where cars didn't crash... but I most definitely don't wish to be in a world with no cars
Very well said. I like it.

Quote:How's that coming so far?
Hard work. I have magic powers, but spoon bending is not one of them. So I am trying to branch out a little.

Thanks, Smile
-Pip
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Whooping Cough Epidemic in California Eilonnwy 7 2637 June 24, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Last Post: Samson



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)