Posted on 01/09/2003 6:41:06 PM PST by Sparta
That could be repeated a hundred times.
In other words, you cannot hold your own in this discussion, so you'll call us names and stomp off. Yep, you're just like a liberal, they do the exact same thing when they get pounded in debates...
In other words, you cannot hold your own in this discussion, so you'll call us names and stomp off.
If nicmarlo called anyone names, I missed it---but otherwise you're right on the money, dirtboy.
Aw, I better move away from my desk so I don't short out my keyboard with my tears.
I've merely pointed out that sanity is lacking here, and common sense, amongst many of you.
If common sense to you is keeping alcohol legal while pot illegal, when pot is far less harmful than booze, then I really don't want a hit of your particular brand of common sense, thank you. Likewise, if common sense to you is to criminalize what I do in my home because someday, somewhere, someone intoxicated on pot MIGHT cause you a problem, whereas there is a much higher likelihood that a drunk will cause you problems and we have laws against that, then please keep your common sense to yourself.
There is nothing to talk about; we don't agree and nothing you say will change my mind, nor the other way around. There is no point to continue attempting to state anything on this thread; the environment is unreasonable and unproductive.
You got that right. You brought emotions to a logic battle. Now you know how the Republican Guard felt in 1991.
You are all incredible, absolutely incredible.
As in incredibly stupid or dense or whatever. The meaning was clear enough to me.
I'll take your word for that.
nor the other way around
Not if you won't answer the questions we ask you, no.
What you have done is present your personal opinion as self-evident truth, and then required agreement with it as a litmus test of rationality. It is dogma, and it has no place in the debate and free exchange of ideas, because it's purpose is to prevent it. Begone and good riddance.
You are all incredible, absolutely incredible.
As in incredibly stupid or dense or whatever. The meaning was clear enough to me.
I chose to take it as a compliment. ;-)
Most everything you people are saying here are attempts to justify drug use. For example, continual bringing up alcohol as compares to weed. This is like a childish argument of "Suzie gets to, why can't I," or similar to "why should I go to hell, someone else did something worse than me." It's all a rationalization of chasing after and prioritizing a person's own pleasure-seeking over and above the interests of society.
None of you have pointed to any studies which conclusively prove your points, yet you demand those who disagree with you to post them, ad nauseum. I have posted one, wherein it even stated there is NO CONCLUSIVE agreement among researchers as to the detrimental, long-term, effects of drugs because there have been little or no studies performed on longevity. I also posted the known acute and chronic detrimental effects and possible chronic detrimental effects. Yet, you all act like you have some hidden and superior knowledge that would supercede current knowledge and state that people should have the right to take narcotics/weed, that is has no effect on our society, and/or that it is safe and should be legalized and freely used in our society, unless and until the real experts come up with something to absolutely prove you wrong. I don't think this will ever happen for any of you.
Where is the attempt by any of you to "understand" or have a "meeting of the minds?" Ain't there.
And with all the caustic comments most of you are posting now, in addition to calling me names because I disagree with you, continue to prove me correct: your minds are made up and you have no desire to think contrary to how you've made up your minds, therefore, there is no point to any of this because, as I previously stated, there is nothing, then, to "discuss." I am more convinced by what I have experienced and seen personally and anecdotally and learned in my psychology courses while at college than anything you've rehashed here (all the excuses for why drugs should be legalized).
Good point.
Are you in favor of a return to prohibition?
Who claimed that? I didn't.
or our society.
Who claimed that? I didn't; I asked what those harms were and how they were any of government's business. (You never answered.)
Most everything you people are saying here are attempts to justify drug use.
Still telling this falsehood? We are defending the RIGHT to use, not justifying use.
For example, continual bringing up alcohol as compares to weed. This is like a childish argument of "Suzie gets to, why can't I,"
No, it's making the point that laws should have a rational basis, which stricter laws against the less harmful substance do not have.
chasing after and prioritizing a person's own pleasure-seeking over and above the interests of society.
Citizens are free men not tools of society; so long as they don't violate anyone's rights they have every right to prioritize their own interests above society's.
He was talking about KIDS. Do you think kids ought to be treated like adults when it comes to personal responsibility for their actions?
I don't attempt to justify vice, rather the point I make is the crime associate with the black market due to prohibition is in the long run worse than the negative effects of use. I don't think any reasonable person says that drugs, including alcohol, are anything but harmful, however, there is also harm caused directly from bootlegging as well as corruption, and the gradual curtailment of traditional noitions of privacy, search and sezire, and etc. My point is that, like alcohol prohibition, the cure is worse than the disease and that drug regulation is better than drug prohibition.
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.