Live above the influence

[h3g3l]

Originally Posted by ade
no one starts on murder.
legalize violence?

Set-up your strawmen somewhere else ade. Violence is inherently harmful to someone else and thus infringing on their rights.

We've covered this ground before, I think, in the thread that ranged from drug-use by student athletes to drug use by students on campus to drug use by students off campus to in loco perentis rights and duties of the school.

My stance was that the rights of the individual end at my nose--meaning that you can do what you like to yourself as long as your actions do not impact anyone else.

So it is here: frankly, I like the approach that responsible, controlled drug use and prostitution gives. People may want to do certain things, and if this can be done in a fashion that harms either (a) no one, or (b) just the user, then this is fine.

I think that ade was making the analogy that marijuana is to continued drug use what violence is to murder. That is, they differ not in type or kind, but by degree. That's how I'm reading his statement, at least.

If a user can do a drug--any drug--and pay for it out of their own money, and if the drug can be harvested without use of slave labor or other gun-point tactics, and if the user's actions do not impact anyone else, then it is my thought that this is a non-issue. As a matter of consequence, I also support licensing and regulation of the product--if I'm going to buy or use marijuana, I would much prefer if it weren't laced with PCP or something else, thank you. Just as I like my beef to not have metal shavings or rat-heads in it.

However, the model as it exists now does not seem to permit any illicit drug to meet the above requirements of "zero impact upon others." There are implications for people that you and I will never meet for every kilo of illicit drug on the street.

[tk7432]

Hey I try to not do drugs but I know that a little chronic ain't all that bad. Now to answer anything to market that crack is bad, watch some Chappelle's show. Tyrone Biggums.

[Mako]

Ade's analogy doesn't apply either way, it's a strawman, plain and simple.

H3g3l, your argument of a round about harmful effect can also be applied to Nike sneakers. Though the methods describe apply more to harder drugs grown south of america, something I'm not arguing for.

[h3g3l]

Ade's analogy doesn't apply either way, it's a strawman, plain and simple.

H3g3l, your argument of a round about harmful effect can also be applied to Nike sneakers. Though the methods describe apply more to harder drugs grown south of america, something I'm not arguing for.

Absolutely. I try not to buy things made in sweatshops, but it's difficult. This aspect is a human-rights issue.

The problem, however, with an unregulated market is that you've no idea what you're really getting. I see this as a larger--and more dangerous--issue than THC leading to blacks murdering whites (which I think was one of the arguments--if not in "Reefer Madness," I've seen it come up elsewhere [History Channel]), whites going insane, and white women getting all sorts of knocked up in the process. I'm referencing "Reefer Madness," lest anyone get the wrong impression If I think I'm just going to do THC, and I end up getting a snootful of something different entirely, this could go badly for all involved. And that's where the rest of my previous post goes.

I advocate for a regulated drug market. The proceeds can go toward health care offsets for the user and can slide based upon actuarial tables.

Only within this environment can we really definitively resolve the kind versus degree question.