Posted on 11/01/2020 7:02:56 PM PST by dynachrome
Nope. And don’t care to.
sorry- but they victimize the working class too-
How?
And what should we do about alcohol addicts' alleged victimization of others? Ban that drug?
Nobody here has made that argument; my point is that those who hold that such negative effects justify a ban on other drugs need to explain why they don't also support a ban on the drug alcohol, which is also implicated in those effects.
Lessons have to hurt, a LOT, if they are going to be remembered. And they are not embedded if the pain isn't repeated.
You can't spank a puppy once and call it good. And puppies are brighter than Democrats.
I'll bet what they actually think is that self-professed "conservatives" need to nut up and join them in opposing taxpayer funded welfare.
Yeah, and? Are they using? Are they a drain on the system?
You don’t want to get started on the marijuana thing right now. In the beginning I was not sure whether legalizing it in Washington State would make much of a difference because users had been ignored by law enforcement for decades anyway. I realize that perception varies a bit by location, but it has been nothing short of a nightmare where we live. Legal marijuana is now outselling booze and tobacco combined in our state. And it is causing huge problems especially for kids and young people whether or not advocates want to admit it... which they will not.
In 2019 Washington State collected $395 million in taxes on marijuana sales... so it will never go away. The impact on society is in the billions, and the most devistating effects cannot even be measured in any reliable form.
I knew many potheads when I was growing, up many in my extended family and some extremely close friends. Some of them eventually gave it up or kept it kind of under control. But many others have wasted lives with issues that can be directly attributed to their marijuana use. I did not realize the actual scope of the problem until I joined the fire department.
“what destroyed the entire rural part of the state was the spotted owl”
Leftardation is a terrible disease. Everything they have done needs to be undone, from the spotted owl to freon.
“Faith in the fantasy of utopianism slash anarchy slash aggro attitude is no way to go through life.”
Some people think addicts should be given rudimentary food and shelter, and all the drugs they want, until they OD and die.
I don’t think that would be pleasing to Our Lord.
Government is a necessary evil so long as the mankind isn't perfectly responsible and rational, and so long as individuals are incapable of keeping the consequences of their actions to only affect them.
The lines at which some things are drawn are ultimately value judgments rather than purely theoretical. Some of those value judgments may not appear and may in fact not be totally rational.
Alcohol causes plenty of suffering. Most agree that we don't need to add to it ESPECIALLY with opiates and some others that are much, much, much more powerful.
Since this area of legislation that involves costs/benefits rather than purity of philosphy, I am arguing with you on cost/benefit grounds rather than pure theory.
You seem to think your argument is new to me. It is not. I have already considered it and find it to be a legitimate argument, hence I have told you 3 times now 'I get it', but just because something portion of a broader argument is legitimate doesn't mean it therefore overtakes every other point.
So I'm not going to try to crush you here on theorectical grounds, for the 4th time, I GET it. And I say 'TOO MUCH' non-individual consequences that the individual can't control.
It WOULD add to the sum total amount of suffering from non-participants, in my judgment. Am I saying Oregon can't do this? Of course not. I'm criticizing it.
Do you get that I get it, and that we disagree on the cost and that this is a cost/benefit analysis rather than a theoretical one?
I don't see, then, that there is anything more to talk about.
I may, or may not, have reason to know more about the costs than you do. That is the only point that would be left to debate if you agree, and I don't see how you can't, that the scope of this question is ultimately one of cost (to the non-participants).
But I'll say it one last time: I get your direction, I know! Alcohol directly or indirectly kills and causes misery all over the place. LSD taken safely may or may not be extremely harmful in many cases. I get it.
Opiates though -> sorry kiddo, no way. Benzos too.
I get your direction, I know! Alcohol directly or indirectly kills and causes misery all over the place.
So do you also support a ban on the drug alcohol? If not, why not? How does alcohol pass the cost/benefit analysis but other drugs fail it?
I don’t think that would be pleasing to Our Lord.
Does it please Our Lord to lock them up?
“Does it please Our Lord to lock them up?”
Lock them up for what, and on what authority?
For the 11th time, these things do not break down along theoretical lines. You are attempting to beat me on a playing field where we are not standing, or at least I am not standing there, and don't intend to, and I've said that.
For example, theoretically, you can never walk from your house to your car, because first you have to go halfway, then halfway again, then halfway again. THEORETICALLY you'll never get there.
No I don't support a ban on alcohol, which doesn't mean I think it's a net positive for individuals or society.
Humans in general have decided the cost/benefit is worth it, for whatever reason, but in large enough numbers. So they have legislated it, controlled it in certain ways.
Opiates and Benzos is a problem for almost anyone.
And Oregon can do what it wants. And I don't think it will work out well.
But that's my last answer. It's not going to fit your theoretical framework, so we're done, mostly because I don't find this very interesting. We disagree on question of judgment. If you are arguing that all legislative choices of a country must be on theoretical rather than judgment grounds, then you are living in a Morally Theoretical world. Your style suggests you are more attached to 'being right' (theoretically) than doing what works. I live in the world of 'What Works.' But I understand the 'I'm Right' world. It's a wonderful world. I hope you like it.
Oregon can do what it wants, I can say it won't work, and you can say it's great and will work because alcohol is legal. The definition of 'work' can be argued ad nauseum.
Very exciting! Perfectly Fine! Stay off my property when you're high (and/or very drunk) - otherwise you are welcome :-) but please call first.
This is an excellent article.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/marijuana-mental-illness-violence/
Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence
“When do you call porn “porn”?”
Any video on hunter’s laptop.
[[sorry- but they victimize the working class too-
How? ]]
I explained i n my followup post to you-
Excellent article and completely in line with my experiences. When I first started working for a big city fire department most of the street people were abusing alcohol. Over the course of my career marijuana became the substance most abused by street people and their numbers doubled, then trippled, then quadrupled. It has gotten so bad that the city is now building “tent city” type shelters for them.
Humans in general have decided the cost/benefit is worth it, for whatever reason
Apparently you agree with their decision, since you don't support a ban. What is YOUR reason for deciding the cost/benefit is worth it?
you can say it's great and will work because alcohol is legal.
No, I never said that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.