Posted on 10/09/2001 8:10:58 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
In a series tracing the history of drug use, we begin our trip tracing the rise of marijuana and synthetic amphetamines. Marijuana, from the Indian hemp plant, has been used worldwide as a source of rope, cloth, and paper; its medicinal qualities were first documented 4,000 years ago in China. But it's best known as the drug of choice of the 1960s. WWII U.S. troops were given an estimated 200 million amphetamines to fight drowsiness and battle fatigue and they're still used to fight depression.
Agreed, this would be the responsible thing to do, but since many people seldom want to be responsible, shouldn't we make that decision for them, and outlaw drunkeness?
Somebody can sip something or drink a little and there is no problem.
No difference between alcohol and other drugs there: a single quickly-exhaled puff of pot is equally unaffecting.
The big issue is: DO WE WANT TO GROW DRUG ADDICTS IN AMERICA? No we don't benefit from that.
No difference between alcohol and other drugs there: we don't benefit from alcohol addicts either.
With other substances you would like to legalize, you are in an altered state from the first puff or needle.
False. A single quickly-exhaled puff of pot is as unaffecting as a sip of alcohol.
And evern if this were not true, what business is it of your if someone is "in an altered state" but not violating anyone else's rights? People can and do get very "altered" from alcohol---would you support a law against being drunk?
I'm with you about drunks and all though. But I believe we have laws on the books to take away liberties if they break the law.
No difference between alcohol and other drugs there: we have laws on the books to take away liberties if drug users break the law.
You have still failed to support your claim that there is any sound reason to ban other drugs but not alcohol.
Just try and deal with staying sober. We don't need to grow addicts.
I haven't made any statements to agree with, and I didn't differentiate between public or private drunkeness. I'm just trying to determine how far you're willing to legislate people's behavior to insure that they only do what is, in your opinion, best for them.
O.K., now you have made me mad!!
Really? I don't have the right to get drunk?? Well guess again. I do. In fact, I think I will exercise my rights right now. If you don't think I have the right, you better call the cops now.
I especially would feel bad for the children of such people including those that would get drunk while in charge of children. Very bad! Selfish as well.
As far as other circumstances, have to look at your own state laws I guess.
You continue to use the word "we" as if America were founded on some sort of collectivist philosophy. Well thankfully it wasn't. America is founded on individualism. Therefore "we" are not growing anything. If an individual becomes an addict, that is his/her choice, and has nothing to do with you.
Hear! Hear!
Say it's OK to recreationally use drugs and you'll diminish society and grow vast numbers of drug addicts. We don't need to grow addicts, we have enough problems from the ones that exist already.
We were talking about legal drug use. Should getting drunk in the privacy of you own home be illegal?
The one that is illegal can finance people like Bin Laden and other terrorists who provides illegal drugs to our country in exchange for monies to fly into buildings that kill Americans!
Further more, most illegal drug users end up addicts that get diseases such as AIDS, cause all kinds of crime and often totally ruin their families.
No up side to addiction. Very un-American. Even costs our tax dollars to hospitalize them, rehabilitate them, cage them and of course burry them young.
We don't need to grow more addicts.
If that is the only tangible difference, then doesn't imprisoning, shooting, robbing and destroying the people and property associated with the illegal drug trade while helping those associated with the legal drug trade (booze, prozac, feelgood prescriptions) seem like some sort of ultimate hypocrisy which will only cause the millions persecuted and imprisoned to one day stop respecting Society and Law and to start Shearing Sheep instead?
I do know it is criminal if you have children at home who are minors. I know that many can drown in their own vomit while sleeping. Or burn themselves alive while intoxicated.
I would pray to God you are at least alone so you could only do damage yourself. It IS a risky behavior.
Also hope you do this while in property you own and don't damage anothers property.
Your thought process is amoral and I can't agree with it.
I am asking if you think that it should be illegal for a person to get drunk in the privacy of his own home.
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.