Dells Extreme World operator charged in accident smoked pot three days earlier

So we're just blindly falling in line with an agenda set by some dude in the 30's? That explains it all!

My experience is currently colored by the fact that I know more people whose lives have been harmed by weed than I do alcohol, and considering the ratio of people I know who drink to people who smoke is staggering, I think that makes it pretty obvious why I don't favor legalization. If I approach it objectively, I can't rationally conclude that my experience is that unique (because I'm not really that special).

But you know, like the Cleveland Clinic, I wouldn't hire smokers either.

rollergator said:
However, we allow it in large part because it is heavily regulated and an enormous revenue-generator.

Indeed, when the temperance movement was gaining ground, they first pushed for the implementation of an income tax so as to lessen the government's reliance on alcohol for revenue. Of course, even after Prohibition was repealed, we were still left with said income tax. :)

Jeff said:
So we're just blindly falling in line with an agenda set by some dude in the 30's? That explains it all!

Despite your sarcasm, yeah, pretty much. :)

But your argument still rests on the premises that:
1) It is the individual's right to ignore a law prohibiting behavior that does not hurt other people.
2) It is the individual's responsibility to determine for themselves whether a behavior hurts other people.

You can call all your charts and wikipedia articles "objective" but you're still the one making the final determination about what research, history, and information is valid in determining the consequences of the behavior.

I'm sure people can produce similar "objective" research about everything from global warming to abstinence only sex education to evolution to whatever. In fact, by your logic, a whole lot corporations could find any shred of evidence that global warming is a fraud so they can claim "objectively" their pollution isn't hurting anybody and then ignore any laws or regulations against it.

(And just because some politician used some crazy anti-pot rhetoric to get elected, doesn't mean that every anti-pot statement is corrupted by his legacy.)

Really? You're making the leap from me smoking a doobie in my living room to industrial pollution? Really?

The amount of weed isn't bad for you (aside from carcinogens, of course) material out there far outweighs the weed makes you rape defenseless white women stuff. Modern research has been very consistent in finding that not only is weed not bad for you, but has legitimate health benefits as well.

I'm pointing out that your logic, consistently applied, takes us into anarchy.

Who gets to decide when one side of evidence "far outweighs" the other side? Is it the individual or the government?

Who gets to decide when something "objectively doesn't harm anyone else"? Is it the individual or the government?

ApolloAndy said:
Who gets to decide "far outweighs"? Is it the individual or the government?

Technically it's the individual. We have free will to do whatever we want.

That's why people still kill, smoke marijuana, speed, kidnap children, don't pay taxes or a plethora of other things that break laws.

If the individual goes against the established rules of the society then he has to deal with the effects of going against the established norm. (or not get caught :) )

The government sets laws (or guidelines or rules) and they should be making decisions that represent the collective choices of the people it governs.

But isn't the point of living in a democracy that while we have free will to do whatever we want, we intentionally set boundaries on our conduct through our representative government so that we don't get killing, smoking, speeding, kidnapping, tax evasion, etc. (most of which won't get caught)?

In theory.

But are you really telling me you don't kill people or kidnap babies just because the government says not to? Or that other people don't for the same reasons?

No, but then I don't smoke pot just because the government says not to either ;).

Well, appealing to morals isn't particularly objective, is it?

I may be out of line here, but how is lending support, no matter how insignificant, to an illegal drug trade absolutely not harming anyone else?

I'm not attacking dj here, as I'm no better. There are laws that I selectively bend that I see no harm in. I suspect most of us are like that. I am not, however, naive enough to maintain that there cannot be ill effects to others due to my actions.

It's not my fault the government feels the need to spend billions annually fighting a losing battle. Like I said, I'm doing my part to change the laws in this Country.

Besides... how do you know I'm importing? ;)

Are you willing to spend time in jail to effect changes to these laws? If so, then your act might be considered civil disobedience. Otherwise, you are just practicing self-gratification.

You know nothing about what I do to effect change in this arena, so you're totally off-base.

But thanks for playing. :)

So what do you do?

(Also, I would honestly like to hear your response to my questions about who gets to decide.)

obxKevin said:
I may be out of line here, but how is lending support, no matter how insignificant, to an illegal drug trade absolutely not harming anyone else?

I'm not attacking dj here, as I'm no better. There are laws that I selectively bend that I see no harm in. I suspect most of us are like that. I am not, however, naive enough to maintain that there cannot be ill effects to others due to my actions.

I don't agree with it, but I suppose the argument is that if pot were legal, the money and violence associated with the drug trade would disappear. Just like you don't see people sticking bottles of alcohol in their orificies to get across the border. (Well, maybe you do. I don't know. ;))

In no particular order, educate others, donate to the cause, interact with my government representatives & vote. You know, "typical" citizen stuff. :)

Historically speaking, the 'decider' follows the 'might makes right' principle.

But isn't the point of democracy to avoid that scenario completely? (Protecting the rights of the minority and such e.g. the bill of rights).