LEGALIZING DRUGS

Why do his clams have to have congruity, and what makes you think his bi-valve mollusks abuse drugs?

Quote:

Your bizarre, unsound and incongruous clams as per drugs are as equally without merit as is your above post specious.

It's rather easy to claim anything and everything if you wish only to attack a person. Do you wish to keep carrying on, or would you care to contribute to the topic?

As a general rule of thumb, as it's pointless debating with someone who doesn't want to debate the topic, but who seems only intent on attacking ther person, this will be my last reply to you (with the exception that if you do decide to contribute something of substance to the topic, then I am happy to debate such).

Good luck to you.

...poor clams

I wonder why so many people have trouble absorbing what appears to be the common sense realities of prohibition.

The term Prohibition, also known as Dry Law, refers to a law in a certain country by which the manufacture, transportation, import, export, and sale of alcoholic beverages is restricted or illegal. The term also applies to the periods in the histories of the countries during which the prohibition was enforced. Usually the term as referred to a historical period is applied to countries of European culture. In the Muslim World, consumption of alcoholic beverages has been forbidden by Islam.

In the early twentieth century, much of the impetus for the prohibition movement in the Nordic countries and North America came from Protestant wariness of alcohol.

The first half of the 20th century saw periods of prohibition of alcoholic beverages in several countries:

1920 to 1933 in the United States
1914 to 1925 in Russia and the Soviet Union
1915 to 1922 in Iceland (though beer was still prohibited until 1989)
1916 to 1927 in Norway (wine and beer also included in 1917)
1919 to 1932 in Finland (called kieltolaki)
1901 to 1948 in Prince Edward Island, and for shorter periods in other locations in Canada

puritanism Scrupulous moral rigor, especially hostility to social pleasures and indulgences: "Puritanism is the source of our greatest hypocrisies and most crippling illusions" Molly Haskell.

Vikorr you're being obtuse. The case against marijuana prohibition single-handedly demonstrates the folly of our current drug policy.
That you can't defend it surprises me not at all;

The case against marijuana prohibition single-handedly demonstrates the folly of our current drug policy. That you can't defend it surprises me not at all;

but where you get off suggesting others need to discuss it elsewhere to cover for your ineptitude I have no idea

If person A. states a reason to legalize marijuana; coherent members will view it as just that

Quote:

but where you get off suggesting others need to discuss it elsewhere to cover for your ineptitude I have no idea

and save your strawmen for someone who won't recognize them (nowhere did I suggest anything that even remotely resembles 'this occurs with this type of drug, therefore...').

That each drug should be considered on it's merits; provides no reason marijuana should be excluded from the discussion. Stop dancing and overtly abandon that silliness if you wish to be taken seriously.

Advocate's homosexual sex metaphor made more sense than this.

Many people use recreational drugs for pleasure, which is presumably the reason gays engage in homosexual sex. What realistic excuse could you produce for counterfeiting money in your home that is equally harmless to society at large? Whether I drank some Scotch, smoked a fat one or sniffed a few lines earlier tonight; why should that be anyone's business but my own? There would be Zero measurable effect on society, let alone harm.

Quite serious, Joe. Machine guns were designed and built for the sole purpose of hurting others. Hardly analogous to substances that are usually used for the sole purpose of entertainment. From one beer drinker to another; this shouldn't be difficult to get across to you.

What results that are undesirable by society? Scotch, Buds or Blow can all be used with Zero direct results that even affect society. Meanwhile, the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened... whether you approve of what he does with his freedom or not.

Your counterfeiting hobbyist is not a realistic example, Joe.

We've done this before, but for clarity:

Marijuana has not and can not be shown to be worse than alcohol in any meaningful way... and can easily be shown to be less harmful.

Prescription drugs? Personally; I see no reason for restricting those from adults either.

Yes, the State made a decision and IMO it was a bad one, but not one that can't be reversed. What say you about Walter's links about "Going Dutch"?

Even adults without prescriptions?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Yes, the State made a decision and IMO it was a bad one, but not one that can't be reversed. What say you about Walter's links about "Going Dutch"?

As I said, I'm not going to get into the specifics of any particular drug, or any particular drug policy for that matter. I find those topics tiresome. I'm much more interested in your suggestion that the government has no business regulating substances that have entertainment value.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I'd like to see ALL commercially available drugs go through the same scrutiny, but reduce the restrictions to something more inline with alcohol.

It isn't so much the entertainment value, per se... it is the erroneous assumption that I need to be held responsible for what I might do, rather than what I do in the case of drugs. I know of no drug that automatically makes a person go haywire and current laws already address what happens if someone does.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I'd like to see ALL commercially available drugs go through the same scrutiny, but reduce the restrictions to something more inline with alcohol.

So OxyContin and Vicodin should be sold over the counter along with Flintstones chewable vitamins?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

It isn't so much the entertainment value, per se... it is the erroneous assumption that I need to be held responsible for what I might do, rather than what I do in the case of drugs. I know of no drug that automatically makes a person go haywire and current laws already address what happens if someone does.

I'm just trying to understand your position. If a substance's entertainment value isn't the key to determining what substance may be banned and what may not, then what is? If you were made king tomorrow, would there be any substance that the government could prohibit?

To adults, yes. Along with penicillin, viagra, Cocaine and Heroine. Btw, Oxy and Vicodin are yours for the asking at an awful lot of walk-in pain clinics if you have decent insurance and the desire for such. You can even get the balance of the insured to subsidize your fix if you wish. Same goes for a wide variety of "prescription drugs". This form of prohibition is an unnecessary failure as well.

Not as far as drugs are concerned, no. Frankly; I think there ought to be a Kevorkian-pill for those adults who desire it. The folly of trying to protect people from themselves has gone on long enough. Last summer I jumped out of a perfectly good airplane for no good reason other than the rush. Would you prohibit this obviously dangerous activity as well?