Should they ban it? Yes, definately. It is really hard to come up with a vallid arguement why it shouldn't be. Any cry against freedom of choice is met with presedence of less dangerous and harmful materials already banned.
Can they ban it? Unfortunately no. It is so ingrained in our society at this point that to ban it would be met with such uproar. Slowly restricting and tightenning regulation on it however combined with better education of our people will lead to a gradual weaning of society. At some point we will either be able to ban it, or people will be smart enough that nothing will have to be banned at all.
*Sigh*
I will say it again. Unless you have the perfect lifestyle, and you eat a perfectly balanced diet, do not expose yourself to fumes from traffic, too much sunlight, Blah de blah.
Choice. People choose. Then they do. Are you going to argue that the government should chase fast food joints out of the country? Are you going to try to get them to end industrialization?
Things people do can and in some cases will be not good for them. Maybe some sort of device needs to be implanted into peoples heads that release the ingredients from happy pills just in case they get depressed (because they may make choices that are not good for them, like eating an entire large cheese pizza, or having a smoke, to killing them selfs). I absolutely hate the fact that tobacco prices are rising for no relevant reason. Just like in what i was mentioning above, by the same logic, lets make a happy meals $20, petrol like $500 dollars a L. Rising tobacco prices are a stupid, ignorant way to try and control peoples choice.
Do you honestly think that drug abuse contributed to his theories? Doubtful.
However, I'm curious - do you honestly believe that the world is better off because of drug abuse?
Possibly, many artists have been known to be in certain states of mind. What about musicians? Also depends how you define better off. And whether you are actually referring to the entire world.
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
Possibly, many artists have been known to be in certain states of mind. What about musicians? Also depends how you define better off. And whether you are actually referring to the entire world.
Art;s a luxury. The world doesn't really need art, artists, musicians, etc., just like the world doesn't need sugar, chocolate, tobacco :o, etc. I would argue that artists have not made the world a better place, so whether their drugs affected their painting is moot....but that's just me.
This thread's discussion is getting quite interesting
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
Art;s a luxury. The world doesn't really need art, artists, musicians, etc., just like the world doesn't need sugar, chocolate, tobacco :o, etc. I would argue that artists have not made the world a better place, so whether their drugs affected their painting is moot....but that's just me.
This thread's discussion is getting quite interesting
Agree with the art sentiment, nothing to add to that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
Art;s a luxury. The world doesn't really need art, artists, musicians, etc., just like the world doesn't need sugar, chocolate, tobacco :o, etc. I would argue that artists have not made the world a better place, so whether their drugs affected their painting is moot....but that's just me.
Uh-Uh...WOW that's 31 flavors full of f-up-ed-ness.
You realize that the idea of the internet and many advances in technology could be contribuated to artists right? Dreamers dream and their dream one day become reality, that whole thing.
Artistic expression is part of the connection that all human life relies so heavily on. It's piece of the communative process the human psyche is lost without.
I'm assuming that you have little or no understanding how artistic expression was key to advancements in writing and spoken language as well. I'm guessing that you not including poets and actors as artists or something?
Art;s a luxury. The world doesn't really need art, artists, musicians, etc., just like the world doesn't need sugar, chocolate, tobacco :o, etc. I would argue that artists have not made the world a better place, so whether their drugs affected their painting is moot....but that's just me.
This thread's discussion is getting quite interesting
Quote from Hodoku »
Agree with the art sentiment, nothing to add to that.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend, but what the **** is wrong with you two? Art is what separates us from the rest of the animals, our most profound method of expression, and in my opinion, the only worthwhile reason for humanity's existence. You know what the world really doesn't need? People! We are nothing but death and destruction for this planet and its trillions of less disruptive inhabitants, and to remove art from the list of things essential to humanity is to admit all that mankind has accomplished, all the technology and civilization and discovery, was solely in the service ensuring its continued ability to eat, sleep, and reproduce. Do you people have no appreciation for beauty, or ugliness, or any of the awesome things the world offers you in this little blink of an eye you call a life? Don't you savor the taste of a favorite food, or the sound of a favorite song, or anything like that? Are you robots, because I think that's a serious possibility here. I pity you two, for in my opinion, you are cursed with horrible dullness of the senses, an inability to perceive the beauty or ugliness around you, a half-life of mundane monotony. There are people with AIDS and starving Ethiopian children who have it better than you do. If I had whatever you misbegotten people do, I'd probably kill myself, though I guess if I'd always been like that, I wouldn't know what I was missing. Seriously, you guys need to re-evaluate your lives and/or ascertain whether you are or aren't robots.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself." - William Blake
I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend, but what the **** is wrong with you two? Art is what separates us from the rest of the animals, our most profound method of expression, and in my opinion, the only worthwhile reason for humanity's existence. You know what the world really doesn't need? People! We are nothing but death and destruction for this planet and its trillions of less disruptive inhabitants, and to remove art from the list of things essential to humanity is to admit all that mankind has accomplished, all the technology and civilization and discovery, was solely in the service ensuring its continued ability to eat, sleep, and reproduce. Do you people have no appreciation for beauty, or ugliness, or any of the awesome things the world offers you in this little blink of an eye you call a life? Don't you savor the taste of a favorite food, or the sound of a favorite song, or anything like that? Are you robots, because I think that's a serious possibility here. I pity you two, for in my opinion, you are cursed with horrible dullness of the senses, an inability to perceive the beauty or ugliness around you, a half-life of mundane monotony. There are people with AIDS and starving Ethiopian children who have it better than you do. If I had whatever you misbegotten people do, I'd probably kill myself, though I guess if I'd always been like that, I wouldn't know what I was missing. Seriously, you guys need to re-evaluate your lives and/or ascertain whether you are or aren't robots.
See, I would almost take this as a serious post,
I would almost NOT consider this spam,
I would almost actually take the time to reply,
To this post from a guy with "drugs are good" as his status
...or not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
I'm assuming that you have little or no understanding how artistic expression was key to advancements in writing and spoken language as well. I'm guessing that you not including poets and actors as artists or something?
This sounds quite interesting. Someone should start a thread about the merits of art in the world, and I'd like to know more about its effect on language. I wans't really thinking of poets pr writers as artists, either. I must consider this.
@EvilDuck: The natural world would likely be better off without people; no arguments there. The human part of the world doesn't require art to exist, though. Also, heck yes there are things I like to do. I like my favorite foods and novels and discussions and stuff like that. However, my existence as a human is not completely dependent on them. All I truly need in my life is food, clothing, shelter, and companionship. Art's a very nice thing, but it's hardly a necessity.
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
See, I would almost take this as a serious post,
I would almost NOT consider this spam,
I would almost actually take the time to reply,
To this post from a guy with "drugs are good" as his status
...or not.
Whatever. Enjoy robot-dom. And thank you for taking the time to reply.
All I truly need in my life is food, clothing, shelter, and companionship. Art's a very nice thing, but it's hardly a necessity.
See, there's where I'm going to disagree with you. Food, clothing, shelter, yes, but I consider the mental and psychological stimulation provided by art much more important to my well-being than companionship. I'm not saying art is necessary to human existence, but I'd say its a necessity to humanity. Your existence may not depend on art, but it would be dull as hell without it.
Okay, I'm going to start a topic on this subject, anyone who wants to argue about it, let's do it there.
Uh, smoking is t3h badzorz.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself." - William Blake
Do you honestly think that drug abuse contributed to his theories? Doubtful.
You are obviously a bit uneducated about Freud then... His interest in the meaning of dreams was first inspired by his cocaine-fueled dreams.:teach: And this isnt just speculation, he himself admited it. EDIT:completely and utterly sarnath'd by Mikey
Also in your post earlier you couldnt think of any drug user who had contributed to society....How about every musician ever? Or do you not consider the gift of music to be a contribution? I will not even get into the fact that the founding fathers of the United States were Hemp farmers, but Im sure you dont think the contributed much becuase they may have been :gasp: growing what is now an illegal plant!!!!
You are obviously right that drug users are complete wastes of space:rolleyes: Unfortunately from reading your previous posts, any attempt to point out the faults in your ideology won't result in much...
Demonize and hate mind altering substances all you want, but please be a bit more informed about drug users as a whole, and not just the crackheads and heroin addicts you see portrayed on television. Many drug users are competent, hard working citizens who provide for themselves and their families and chose to indulge in these substances responsibly.
Despite what may have been drilled into your skull by the D.A.R.E. program, there is such a thing as responsible drug use by adults...
Please, accept that Magic costs money to play, and drop it. A playset of Baneslayers>playset of duals. New Jace>Force of Will. Etc... Not to mention, Legacy is so wide open, that it's easy to build a deck that can perform reasonably well without very many "money staples" at all.
I'll agree that art is an important part of humanity. However, I will not agree that drugs make art any better than it would be otherwise. All the art I like best is far too complex and well-thought-out to have been created while high.
However, no art is worth a life. And the cost of drug usage is life, make no mistake. Even if you could successfully argue that drugs made an appreciably positive influence on the art of the world (and I don't believe you could), it still wouldn't be worth it, because for every Freud, you get a thousand (a million?) crackheads with enormous potential, but who do nothing with their life except die miserable and poor.
@Evilduck: appeals to intelligence are poor logic. Why bother telling people that you're smarter than them, when the only thing it accomplishes is to alienate yourself? I won't bother to comment on your intelligence, but your debate strategy leaves a great deal to be desired.
Despite what may have been drilled into your skull by the D.A.R.E. program, there is such a thing as responsible drug use by adults...
Oh yeah? Assuming that we're talking about recreational use, then no. Just no. Giving up your ability to make decisions based on anything but an artificial chemical influence in your brain for any length of time is the opposite of responsibility.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
And the cost of drug usage is life, make no mistake. Even if you could successfully argue that drugs made an appreciably positive influence on the art of the world (and I don't believe you could), it still wouldn't be worth it, because for every Freud, you get a thousand (a million?) crackheads with enormous potential, but who do nothing with their life except die miserable and poor.
The cost of using drugs is life?
Tylenol will kill me? What about Nyquill or Excedrin? Chocolate? cofee? tea?
All of these substances changes how the brain works and fall into the category of "drugs", but I fail to see how RESPONSIBLE use of any of these substances, to which you could add Cannabis, Alchohol, and many other recreational drugs, leads to a loss of life. Please note my emphasis on the word responsible.
Also, you must have very little interaction with the real world to make sweeping generalizations about getting thousands or millions of "crackheads" for every one briliant mind... Do you have any idea the number of people in the United States who are admitted daily users of Cannabis? Close to 1/3 of the population.....Up that number to 2/3 if you count those who have tried it. So by your logic the general majority of Cannabis users are useless to society, meaning that damn near 1/3 of our population are complete drugged out wastes.
However, many of the people in our highest professions choose to indulge...teachers, doctors, lawyers, musicians, actors, artists, scientists and countless other successfull professionals are not only regular Cannabis users but many believe so strongly in their right to do so that they join a little organization called NORML... Unfortunately your argument that use of drugs causes people to waste their potential is very very flawed. IRRESPONSIBLE use of drugs leads to that...
I really am losing my mind with the amount of ill-informed, sweeping generalizations being made by users in this thread. My guess is those of you arguing against personal freedom (and for some reason against ART for chists sake) are either: Young, not exposed to a diverse group of people, or simply misguided... To chose for yourself to not do drugs is fine, but to assume that drug use is causes waste of life is preposterous, especially when you (to the best of my knowledge) do not even have first hand experience with any type of drug use, making you not the best judge as to what drugs effects truly are.
I respect your choice NOT to do drugs....
Why can you not respect the choice of others to responsibly take them?
(this question is posed at ANYONE)
Please, accept that Magic costs money to play, and drop it. A playset of Baneslayers>playset of duals. New Jace>Force of Will. Etc... Not to mention, Legacy is so wide open, that it's easy to build a deck that can perform reasonably well without very many "money staples" at all.
Art;s a luxury. The world doesn't really need art, artists, musicians, etc., just like the world doesn't need sugar, chocolate, tobacco :o, etc. I would argue that artists have not made the world a better place, so whether their drugs affected their painting is moot....but that's just me.
This thread's discussion is getting quite interesting
Well well well.
The world does not need sugar then. So we all die. You're entire body's metabolism runs on sugar. I know its not what you meant, but i thought i would clarify.
Do not bring the innocent tobacco plant into this.
I think that art (to some people, not myself) is entertaining. So would you argue that that world does not need entertainment?
(this could get interesting)
The point in this case is not moot yet, so do not declare a preemptive moot.
Agree with the art sentiment, nothing to add to that.
Sentiment. Hmmm.... I will sentiment you in a minute (whatever that means?! I am just posting a pointless comment, which reminds me of what your post was, at least this pointless comment had slightly more legitimacy because it is in a post to another person and not wasting space in the aether :D).
I really am losing my mind with the amount of ill-informed, sweeping generalizations being made by users in this thread. My guess is those of you arguing against personal freedom (and for some reason against ART for chists sake) are either: Young, not exposed to a diverse group of people, or simply misguided... To chose for yourself to not do drugs is fine, but to assume that drug use is causes waste of life is preposterous, especially when you (to the best of my knowledge) do not even have first hand experience with any type of drug use, making you not the best judge as to what drugs effects truly are.
It is amazingly good to see a post that not only agrees with my sentiments, but reinforces them. (i am not only talking about this thread).
Oh, and Hodoku, this was not entirely pointless, i needed to finish a slice of cheese i was eating!
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
The world does not need sugar then. So we all die. You're entire body's metabolism runs on sugar. I know its not what you meant, but i thought i would clarify.
Do not bring the innocent tobacco plant into this.
I think that art (to some people, not myself) is entertaining. So would you argue that that world does not need entertainment?
(this could get interesting)
The point in this case is not moot yet, so do not declare a preemptive moot.
The body makes the sugar it needs to run from the other food you eat, and you know it.
The art debate is in the other thread, now. But my argument is that indeed, people don't need entertainment to survive. If nothing else, they can make their own if they're bored enough, so they at least don't need outside sources of it.
Oh, and @ConsumeSpirit: If the government had a licensing system so that drugs would only be available to licensed people, and you had to prove that you'd be responsible to get a license, then OK. Get stoned. I don't care. But having drugs available to the generally-irresponsible public is a bad idea.
And the cost of drugs can be life (as with nicotine) or it can be memory (marijuana, in large enough quantities) or it can be addiction....but there is often a cost involved with "free" pleasure.
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
What about if the machine was burning rainforests faster than any other industry, forcing people in poor areas to farm for some kind of herb instead of food and potentially dying of starving and hurting people near you?
In that case, yes, bring on the banhammer. Even though rainforests aren't the lungs of earth (The algae in seas and oceans is.) it is still important source for oxygen.
I can propably make an argument FOR it that hasn't been made before though: Because cancer is one of the main causes for mutation, and cancer is caused by radiation and chemicals, that are contained in tobacco, banning smoking would greatly reduce mutation and therefore reduce the amount of gene variety people have. That could potentially cause a bottleneck situation later on with people dying due to lack of different genes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I can propably make an argument FOR it that hasn't been made before though: Because cancer is one of the main causes for mutation, and cancer is caused by radiation and chemicals, that are contained in tobacco, banning smoking would greatly reduce mutation and therefore reduce the amount of gene variety people have. That could potentially cause a bottleneck situation later on with people dying due to lack of different genes.
You forget, everything in the ****ing universe causes cancer. Plus, if we want weird genetic mutations all we have to do is inbreed. So I'm not sure that this argument holds.
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
Smoking is, in general, an action that affects multiple people. Though some smokers are considerate and stay downwind of others or only smoke outside the restaurant, a large portion of them are not. Therefore, don't make the argument that smoking only affects one person, because as long as it's lega stupid people will smoke around nonsmokers, asthmatics, whatever.
I thought banning it in public buildings was a good move. It reaches a compromise between doing something drastic like banning a legal, popular drug (alchohol was banned... didn't end well), and being completely unsanitary and unhealthy. Also, there are a lot of inconsiderate people in the world- them being inconsiderate is the problem, not the cigarettes.
Most of the US has adapted to the fact that cigarettes are indeed not safe to be around, or create a good atmosphere for kids. Thus, you can't be within view of a school while smoking, MOST responsible people don't smoke in their house with the kids, etc. Of COURSE some people do, but people also drink and drive... Its the law that should get attention here, not the people who break it, and in that respect they've done everything expected of them. Just because some jackass father smokes right next to his kid doesn't make the cigarette the culprit. The idiot parent is at fault.
Anyways, I don't smoke, or drink. I don't understand why people would knowingly hurt themselves, but I imagine there are a lot of personal reasons for self-destruction. On the other hand, I would never ban any of this stuff- if people want to smoke, or drink, they will. People still do drugs... The laws have done everything they can to ensure that anyone that does do this stuff is knowingly aware of what they are buying, and I'm fairly sure that if you ask any smoker, they will admit its bad for them (unless they are ignorant or truly deaf, dumb, and blind).
Also, what the hell is with all the comparisons? It's not like we need weird examples to understand the situation at hand. It was a very simple subject- bringing art, entertainment, machines, whatever... It just shows a lack of understanding. Mutating? Umm... maybe drugs should be banned if they create thought processes like that. -_-
What about if the machine was burning rainforests faster than any other industry, forcing people in poor areas to farm for some kind of herb instead of food and potentially dying of starving and hurting people near you?
By all means, save the rainforest. Just do it with your own time and energy. If the drugs weren't grown there, they would switch to wheat. The rainforest situation isn't because of tobacco, it's because humanity is humanity. We take stuff from nature because we can.
And what's this about forcing people in poor areas to farm tobacco? If the tobacco warlord's forcing your family, then it's the warlord's problem and the government's problem. Again, even if tobacco was banned, they would be controlling the wheat production. The family starves either way until factors that are utterly unrelated to smoking are controlled for. Once they are, there's a simple reason why a family would grow tobacco instead of wheat. Tobacco sells for more. Families improve their situation by selling tobacco. Because it's a luxury good, people can pay more for it. More profits mean more people lifted out of poverty.
Because cancer is one of the main causes for mutation, and cancer is caused by radiation and chemicals, that are contained in tobacco, banning smoking would greatly reduce mutation and therefore reduce the amount of gene variety people have. That could potentially cause a bottleneck situation later on with people dying due to lack of different genes.
That's ********. We'll have all sorts of gene therapy by the time that sort of situation arises.
Your post highlights a common misconception that people have. Government doesn't solve problems. If you say: let's ban smoking and pass a law to that effect, you haven't actually done anything. Look at the drug war for a prime example. The actual manpower needed to completely ban smoking would be so incredibly large that the US would have to outsource enforcement to China. The best way to get things done has been and always will be getting a bunch of people to agree with you (preferably with their checkbooks). The beneficial side-effect of that particular way of doing things is that people that don't agree with you can go do their own thing. Everybody's happy.
I can propably make an argument FOR it that hasn't been made before though: Because cancer is one of the main causes for mutation, and cancer is caused by radiation and chemicals, that are contained in tobacco, banning smoking would greatly reduce mutation and therefore reduce the amount of gene variety people have. That could potentially cause a bottleneck situation later on with people dying due to lack of different genes.
OK, starters.
Cancer is caused by a mutation, not the cause of mutations (other).
Cancer is caused by a whole raft of things, obvious ones like smoking, sunbathing over prolonged periods of time etc. Then also by not so obvious ones, like specific carcinogens in food products, recombined chemicals as the result of a bunch of different additives in various foods. Exhaust emissions, wood smoke, various components that make up things you are around everyday, and a whole lot more.
The body makes the sugar it needs to run from the other food you eat, and you know it.
The art debate is in the other thread, now. But my argument is that indeed, people don't need entertainment to survive. If nothing else, they can make their own if they're bored enough, so they at least don't need outside sources of it.
OK, you got me with the sugar thing, but, in regards to entertainment, sure it is not a immediate survival issue. But methinks over time if people had no source of entertainment, it would effect them in an adverse mental way. Do you think that you would be sane, let say over a decade with no entertainment? Entertainment is a cause of joy. I am also thinking that if one is never entertained, what would ones life be? Just necessity? That would be unbearable.
First of: I don't smoke. I always get headache if someone smokes. I even get headache if I enter a room where someone has smoked before. I ALWAYS get headache if cigarette smoke is involved!
BUT I don't think that you should totally ban Cigerattes or make them illegal. I don't mind if someone's smoking at his home or somewhere in a nonpublic place. I only have problems with people who don't respect my health and smoke wherever they want too.
I totally hate the argument that's "their health" they're ruin by smoking...
I would like to ask you a clarifying question,
By 'public' do you also mean parks and outdoor environments?
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
OK, you got me with the sugar thing, but, in regards to entertainment, sure it is not a immediate survival issue. But methinks over time if people had no source of entertainment, it would effect them in an adverse mental way. Do you think that you would be sane, let say over a decade with no entertainment? Entertainment is a cause of joy. I am also thinking that if one is never entertained, what would ones life be? Just necessity? That would be unbearable.
Yu can substitute entertainment with communication with other people, as I said in the other thread. As long as you have people to talk to, you won't go nuts.
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
Smoking should be banned. You say its your life and not theirs. Well then I guess you shouldn't expect a firetruck if your in a house thats on fire should you? I mean, its your life, not theirs, why should they save you?
Someone has to be responsible for those who can't take care of them selves, how do you think we raise our children? How do you think we take care of the elderly?
Smoking should be banned. You say its your life and not theirs. Well then I guess you shouldn't expect a firetruck if your in a house thats on fire should you? I mean, its your life, not theirs, why should they save you?
Someone has to be responsible for those who can't take care of them selves, how do you think we raise our children? How do you think we take care of the elderly?
So, you're saying that people who smoke can't take care of themselves? That's just b-****. They can take of themselves perfectly. They just have a habit that is a bit bad for your health, but if they don't intend to run marathons in record time, or don't mind that they live a couple of year less, what's the problem?
Cancer is caused by a mutation, not the cause of mutations (other).
It's about half a dozen of mutations before you have a full-blown cancer, actually.
I thought banning it in public buildings was a good move. It reaches a compromise between doing something drastic like banning a legal, popular drug (alchohol was banned... didn't end well), and being completely unsanitary and unhealthy. Also, there are a lot of inconsiderate people in the world- them being inconsiderate is the problem, not the cigarettes.
I don't think it was such a good idea. Back when it wasn't banned yet, most restaurants had well ventilated smoking area's, don't see any reason why it was also banned in such places. They should've made a law about places where smoking is allowed and how they should be ventilated.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Yu can substitute entertainment with communication with other people, as I said in the other thread. As long as you have people to talk to, you won't go nuts.
But that would still be entertainment. So you mean active, 'lets do this' forms of entertainment. I was referring to any form of action or thing that could entertain. Including frivolous conversation.
Smoking should be banned. You say its your life and not theirs. Well then I guess you shouldn't expect a firetruck if your in a house thats on fire should you? I mean, its your life, not theirs, why should they save you?
Someone has to be responsible for those who can't take care of them selves, how do you think we raise our children? How do you think we take care of the elderly?
Yet again, i come back to the same point. So, lets ban fast foods, anything unhealthy, that at the moment is a persons personal choice.
In regards to the weed thing, i would be interested in knowing where he got his info from, just because i already knew this, but have not actually read the material myself. But, how does this relate to the rest of the world, in the countries where it is illegal?
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
Tylenol will kill me? What about Nyquill or Excedrin? Chocolate? cofee? tea?
All of these substances changes how the brain works and fall into the category of "drugs", but I fail to see how RESPONSIBLE use of any of these substances, to which you could add Cannabis, Alchohol, and many other recreational drugs, leads to a loss of life. Please note my emphasis on the word responsible.
Yes, let's look at your use of the word responsible.
Responsible means being accountable for all your actions. By their defined nature, habit-forming drugs change the way you behave to something that you would not deliberately do if you weren't taking them. That's why they say you're "under the influence."
Responsible recreational drug use is an oxymoron.
I want to clarify something. I am not arguing against medicinal drug usage (in fact, I'm studying to be a pharmacist), because then we're discussing cost/benefit and while there's a line to be drawn, the exact placement of that line is not the point of this thread. I am only discussing recreational usage.
Also, you must have very little interaction with the real world to make sweeping generalizations about getting thousands or millions of "crackheads" for every one briliant mind... Do you have any idea the number of people in the United States who are admitted daily users of Cannabis? Close to 1/3 of the population.....Up that number to 2/3 if you count those who have tried it. So by your logic the general majority of Cannabis users are useless to society, meaning that damn near 1/3 of our population are complete drugged out wastes.
However, many of the people in our highest professions choose to indulge...teachers, doctors, lawyers, musicians, actors, artists, scientists and countless other successfull professionals are not only regular Cannabis users but many believe so strongly in their right to do so that they join a little organization called NORML... Unfortunately your argument that use of drugs causes people to waste their potential is very very flawed. IRRESPONSIBLE use of drugs leads to that...
I really am losing my mind with the amount of ill-informed, sweeping generalizations being made by users in this thread. My guess is those of you arguing against personal freedom (and for some reason against ART for chists sake) are either: Young, not exposed to a diverse group of people, or simply misguided... To chose for yourself to not do drugs is fine, but to assume that drug use is causes waste of life is preposterous, especially when you (to the best of my knowledge) do not even have first hand experience with any type of drug use, making you not the best judge as to what drugs effects truly are.
I respect your choice NOT to do drugs....
Why can you not respect the choice of others to responsibly take them?
(this question is posed at ANYONE)
First of all, you may want to check your sources about the number of people who have tried cannabis. A quick search on google shows that the percentage is closer to 40% than 60%, and that the number of regular users is way, way down from that. Go here. The number of people who use cannabis at least once a month make up about 6% of the population, and I have little doubt that daily use would be something closer to 2-3%, if that.
Second of all, even by your own (flawed) definition of "responsible drug use," it should be very clear that the number of "irresponsible" users outnumber the "responsible" users by a vast amount. At what point does it start becoming acceptable? When merely 2/3 of recreational drug users are a drain on society's resources as a result of their drug use? How about half? Are you, as a "responsible" drug user, contributing enough to society to make up for the waste caused by the "irresponsible" ones? If so, are you willing to absorb the costs of supporting them?
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
First of all, you may want to check your sources about the number of people who have tried cannabis. A quick search on google shows that the percentage is closer to 40% than 60%, and that the number of regular users is way, way down from that. Go here. The number of people who use cannabis at least once a month make up about 6% of the population, and I have little doubt that daily use would be something closer to 2-3%, if that.
Second of all, even by your own (flawed) definition of "responsible drug use," it should be very clear that the number of "irresponsible" users outnumber the "responsible" users by a vast amount. At what point does it start becoming acceptable? When merely 2/3 of recreational drug users are a drain on society's resources as a result of their drug use? How about half? Are you, as a "responsible" drug user, contributing enough to society to make up for the waste caused by the "irresponsible" ones? If so, are you willing to absorb the costs of supporting them?
Remember, we aren't just talking about weed.
I want you to read your post again. The first and the second contradict each other.
1) Let's say 40% have used weed.
2) Let's say 2-3% use it daily.
3) Let's define irresponsible use as daily use.
4) See the problem with saying, "it should be very clear that the number of "irresponsible" users outnumber the "responsible" users by a vast amount."
5) A drug user, if he's not committing thievery or the like, is not a "drain" on society. Nobody owes this whole society complex anything.
I want you to read your post again. The first and the second contradict each other.
1) Let's say 40% have used weed.
2) Let's say 2-3% use it daily.
3) Let's define irresponsible use as daily use.
4) See the problem with saying, "it should be very clear that the number of "irresponsible" users outnumber the "responsible" users by a vast amount."
5) A drug user, if he's not committing thievery or the like, is not a "drain" on society. Nobody owes this whole society complex anything.
Again, please remember that we are not just talking about cannabis here. Even if we were, daily use is not a reasonable way to define irresponsible use. So no, I don't see a problem.
As to point 5, it should be pretty darn obvious that if you're going to take it as a given that "nobody owes this whole society complex anything," then you can't claim that this whole society complex owes you anything either. So why are you saying that society should be forced to bear the burden of all the deadbeat drug users in the world, when you are the people who cause and perpetuate their behavior by your attitudes?
Recreational drug users in general most certainly are a drain on society's resources. Everything from funding criminal organizations to unpaid hospital bills cost society untold amounts of money as a direct result of drug users' addictions. That money doesn't come from nowhere, and you can bet it doesn't come from all those "responsible" drug users, either.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
*Sigh*
I will say it again. Unless you have the perfect lifestyle, and you eat a perfectly balanced diet, do not expose yourself to fumes from traffic, too much sunlight, Blah de blah.
Choice. People choose. Then they do. Are you going to argue that the government should chase fast food joints out of the country? Are you going to try to get them to end industrialization?
Things people do can and in some cases will be not good for them. Maybe some sort of device needs to be implanted into peoples heads that release the ingredients from happy pills just in case they get depressed (because they may make choices that are not good for them, like eating an entire large cheese pizza, or having a smoke, to killing them selfs). I absolutely hate the fact that tobacco prices are rising for no relevant reason. Just like in what i was mentioning above, by the same logic, lets make a happy meals $20, petrol like $500 dollars a L. Rising tobacco prices are a stupid, ignorant way to try and control peoples choice.
Possibly, many artists have been known to be in certain states of mind. What about musicians? Also depends how you define better off. And whether you are actually referring to the entire world.
Art;s a luxury. The world doesn't really need art, artists, musicians, etc., just like the world doesn't need sugar, chocolate, tobacco :o, etc. I would argue that artists have not made the world a better place, so whether their drugs affected their painting is moot....but that's just me.
This thread's discussion is getting quite interesting
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
Agree with the art sentiment, nothing to add to that.
Uh-Uh...WOW that's 31 flavors full of f-up-ed-ness.
You realize that the idea of the internet and many advances in technology could be contribuated to artists right? Dreamers dream and their dream one day become reality, that whole thing.
Artistic expression is part of the connection that all human life relies so heavily on. It's piece of the communative process the human psyche is lost without.
I'm assuming that you have little or no understanding how artistic expression was key to advancements in writing and spoken language as well. I'm guessing that you not including poets and actors as artists or something?
I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend, but what the **** is wrong with you two? Art is what separates us from the rest of the animals, our most profound method of expression, and in my opinion, the only worthwhile reason for humanity's existence. You know what the world really doesn't need? People! We are nothing but death and destruction for this planet and its trillions of less disruptive inhabitants, and to remove art from the list of things essential to humanity is to admit all that mankind has accomplished, all the technology and civilization and discovery, was solely in the service ensuring its continued ability to eat, sleep, and reproduce. Do you people have no appreciation for beauty, or ugliness, or any of the awesome things the world offers you in this little blink of an eye you call a life? Don't you savor the taste of a favorite food, or the sound of a favorite song, or anything like that? Are you robots, because I think that's a serious possibility here. I pity you two, for in my opinion, you are cursed with horrible dullness of the senses, an inability to perceive the beauty or ugliness around you, a half-life of mundane monotony. There are people with AIDS and starving Ethiopian children who have it better than you do. If I had whatever you misbegotten people do, I'd probably kill myself, though I guess if I'd always been like that, I wouldn't know what I was missing. Seriously, you guys need to re-evaluate your lives and/or ascertain whether you are or aren't robots.
"Stoned players can't attack, block, or play spells or abilities."
See, I would almost take this as a serious post,
I would almost NOT consider this spam,
I would almost actually take the time to reply,
To this post from a guy with "drugs are good" as his status
...or not.
This sounds quite interesting. Someone should start a thread about the merits of art in the world, and I'd like to know more about its effect on language. I wans't really thinking of poets pr writers as artists, either. I must consider this.
@EvilDuck: The natural world would likely be better off without people; no arguments there. The human part of the world doesn't require art to exist, though. Also, heck yes there are things I like to do. I like my favorite foods and novels and discussions and stuff like that. However, my existence as a human is not completely dependent on them. All I truly need in my life is food, clothing, shelter, and companionship. Art's a very nice thing, but it's hardly a necessity.
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
Whatever. Enjoy robot-dom. And thank you for taking the time to reply.
See, there's where I'm going to disagree with you. Food, clothing, shelter, yes, but I consider the mental and psychological stimulation provided by art much more important to my well-being than companionship. I'm not saying art is necessary to human existence, but I'd say its a necessity to humanity. Your existence may not depend on art, but it would be dull as hell without it.
Okay, I'm going to start a topic on this subject, anyone who wants to argue about it, let's do it there.
Uh, smoking is t3h badzorz.
"Stoned players can't attack, block, or play spells or abilities."
You are obviously a bit uneducated about Freud then... His interest in the meaning of dreams was first inspired by his cocaine-fueled dreams.:teach: And this isnt just speculation, he himself admited it. EDIT:completely and utterly sarnath'd by Mikey
Also in your post earlier you couldnt think of any drug user who had contributed to society....How about every musician ever? Or do you not consider the gift of music to be a contribution? I will not even get into the fact that the founding fathers of the United States were Hemp farmers, but Im sure you dont think the contributed much becuase they may have been :gasp: growing what is now an illegal plant!!!!
You are obviously right that drug users are complete wastes of space:rolleyes: Unfortunately from reading your previous posts, any attempt to point out the faults in your ideology won't result in much...
Demonize and hate mind altering substances all you want, but please be a bit more informed about drug users as a whole, and not just the crackheads and heroin addicts you see portrayed on television. Many drug users are competent, hard working citizens who provide for themselves and their families and chose to indulge in these substances responsibly.
Despite what may have been drilled into your skull by the D.A.R.E. program, there is such a thing as responsible drug use by adults...
Banner By Erasmus @ Aether
TRADES
STANDARD
:symrg::symrb:JUND:symrb::symrg:
:symrb:RDW:symrb:
:symgw:G/W Tokens:symgw:
:symg::symb:Pox Rock:symb::symg:
:symg::symr::symw:Naya Zoo:symw::symr::symg:
:symrg:CascadeShift:symrg:
:symu::symg::symw:NextLevelBant:symw::symg::symu:
:symgb:G/b Pox:symgb:
:symw:TriniStax:symw:
9.29.09 - My Limited Rating finally breaks 1800!!:D
T8 @ Philly Open 3 with :symwg:G/W Lil Kid:symwg:!!!:thumbsup:
My MySpace
Listen to CKY!
"I'm sick of followin my dreams man...I'm just gonna ask where there goin and hook up with 'em later..."- Mitch Hedberg (RIP Mitch)
However, no art is worth a life. And the cost of drug usage is life, make no mistake. Even if you could successfully argue that drugs made an appreciably positive influence on the art of the world (and I don't believe you could), it still wouldn't be worth it, because for every Freud, you get a thousand (a million?) crackheads with enormous potential, but who do nothing with their life except die miserable and poor.
@Evilduck: appeals to intelligence are poor logic. Why bother telling people that you're smarter than them, when the only thing it accomplishes is to alienate yourself? I won't bother to comment on your intelligence, but your debate strategy leaves a great deal to be desired.
Oh yeah? Assuming that we're talking about recreational use, then no. Just no. Giving up your ability to make decisions based on anything but an artificial chemical influence in your brain for any length of time is the opposite of responsibility.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
The cost of using drugs is life?
Tylenol will kill me? What about Nyquill or Excedrin? Chocolate? cofee? tea?
All of these substances changes how the brain works and fall into the category of "drugs", but I fail to see how RESPONSIBLE use of any of these substances, to which you could add Cannabis, Alchohol, and many other recreational drugs, leads to a loss of life. Please note my emphasis on the word responsible.
Also, you must have very little interaction with the real world to make sweeping generalizations about getting thousands or millions of "crackheads" for every one briliant mind... Do you have any idea the number of people in the United States who are admitted daily users of Cannabis? Close to 1/3 of the population.....Up that number to 2/3 if you count those who have tried it. So by your logic the general majority of Cannabis users are useless to society, meaning that damn near 1/3 of our population are complete drugged out wastes.
However, many of the people in our highest professions choose to indulge...teachers, doctors, lawyers, musicians, actors, artists, scientists and countless other successfull professionals are not only regular Cannabis users but many believe so strongly in their right to do so that they join a little organization called NORML... Unfortunately your argument that use of drugs causes people to waste their potential is very very flawed. IRRESPONSIBLE use of drugs leads to that...
I really am losing my mind with the amount of ill-informed, sweeping generalizations being made by users in this thread. My guess is those of you arguing against personal freedom (and for some reason against ART for chists sake) are either: Young, not exposed to a diverse group of people, or simply misguided... To chose for yourself to not do drugs is fine, but to assume that drug use is causes waste of life is preposterous, especially when you (to the best of my knowledge) do not even have first hand experience with any type of drug use, making you not the best judge as to what drugs effects truly are.
I respect your choice NOT to do drugs....
Why can you not respect the choice of others to responsibly take them?
(this question is posed at ANYONE)
Banner By Erasmus @ Aether
TRADES
STANDARD
:symrg::symrb:JUND:symrb::symrg:
:symrb:RDW:symrb:
:symgw:G/W Tokens:symgw:
:symg::symb:Pox Rock:symb::symg:
:symg::symr::symw:Naya Zoo:symw::symr::symg:
:symrg:CascadeShift:symrg:
:symu::symg::symw:NextLevelBant:symw::symg::symu:
:symgb:G/b Pox:symgb:
:symw:TriniStax:symw:
9.29.09 - My Limited Rating finally breaks 1800!!:D
T8 @ Philly Open 3 with :symwg:G/W Lil Kid:symwg:!!!:thumbsup:
My MySpace
Listen to CKY!
"I'm sick of followin my dreams man...I'm just gonna ask where there goin and hook up with 'em later..."- Mitch Hedberg (RIP Mitch)
Well well well.
The world does not need sugar then. So we all die. You're entire body's metabolism runs on sugar. I know its not what you meant, but i thought i would clarify.
Do not bring the innocent tobacco plant into this.
I think that art (to some people, not myself) is entertaining. So would you argue that that world does not need entertainment?
(this could get interesting)
The point in this case is not moot yet, so do not declare a preemptive moot.
Sentiment. Hmmm.... I will sentiment you in a minute (whatever that means?! I am just posting a pointless comment, which reminds me of what your post was, at least this pointless comment had slightly more legitimacy because it is in a post to another person and not wasting space in the aether :D).
It is amazingly good to see a post that not only agrees with my sentiments, but reinforces them. (i am not only talking about this thread).
Oh, and Hodoku, this was not entirely pointless, i needed to finish a slice of cheese i was eating!
The body makes the sugar it needs to run from the other food you eat, and you know it.
The art debate is in the other thread, now. But my argument is that indeed, people don't need entertainment to survive. If nothing else, they can make their own if they're bored enough, so they at least don't need outside sources of it.
Oh, and @ConsumeSpirit: If the government had a licensing system so that drugs would only be available to licensed people, and you had to prove that you'd be responsible to get a license, then OK. Get stoned. I don't care. But having drugs available to the generally-irresponsible public is a bad idea.
And the cost of drugs can be life (as with nicotine) or it can be memory (marijuana, in large enough quantities) or it can be addiction....but there is often a cost involved with "free" pleasure.
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
What about if the machine was burning rainforests faster than any other industry, forcing people in poor areas to farm for some kind of herb instead of food and potentially dying of starving and hurting people near you?
In that case, yes, bring on the banhammer. Even though rainforests aren't the lungs of earth (The algae in seas and oceans is.) it is still important source for oxygen.
I can propably make an argument FOR it that hasn't been made before though: Because cancer is one of the main causes for mutation, and cancer is caused by radiation and chemicals, that are contained in tobacco, banning smoking would greatly reduce mutation and therefore reduce the amount of gene variety people have. That could potentially cause a bottleneck situation later on with people dying due to lack of different genes.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
You forget, everything in the ****ing universe causes cancer. Plus, if we want weird genetic mutations all we have to do is inbreed. So I'm not sure that this argument holds.
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
I thought banning it in public buildings was a good move. It reaches a compromise between doing something drastic like banning a legal, popular drug (alchohol was banned... didn't end well), and being completely unsanitary and unhealthy. Also, there are a lot of inconsiderate people in the world- them being inconsiderate is the problem, not the cigarettes.
Most of the US has adapted to the fact that cigarettes are indeed not safe to be around, or create a good atmosphere for kids. Thus, you can't be within view of a school while smoking, MOST responsible people don't smoke in their house with the kids, etc. Of COURSE some people do, but people also drink and drive... Its the law that should get attention here, not the people who break it, and in that respect they've done everything expected of them. Just because some jackass father smokes right next to his kid doesn't make the cigarette the culprit. The idiot parent is at fault.
Anyways, I don't smoke, or drink. I don't understand why people would knowingly hurt themselves, but I imagine there are a lot of personal reasons for self-destruction. On the other hand, I would never ban any of this stuff- if people want to smoke, or drink, they will. People still do drugs... The laws have done everything they can to ensure that anyone that does do this stuff is knowingly aware of what they are buying, and I'm fairly sure that if you ask any smoker, they will admit its bad for them (unless they are ignorant or truly deaf, dumb, and blind).
Also, what the hell is with all the comparisons? It's not like we need weird examples to understand the situation at hand. It was a very simple subject- bringing art, entertainment, machines, whatever... It just shows a lack of understanding. Mutating? Umm... maybe drugs should be banned if they create thought processes like that. -_-
Art Page
Alters for sale
By all means, save the rainforest. Just do it with your own time and energy. If the drugs weren't grown there, they would switch to wheat. The rainforest situation isn't because of tobacco, it's because humanity is humanity. We take stuff from nature because we can.
And what's this about forcing people in poor areas to farm tobacco? If the tobacco warlord's forcing your family, then it's the warlord's problem and the government's problem. Again, even if tobacco was banned, they would be controlling the wheat production. The family starves either way until factors that are utterly unrelated to smoking are controlled for. Once they are, there's a simple reason why a family would grow tobacco instead of wheat. Tobacco sells for more. Families improve their situation by selling tobacco. Because it's a luxury good, people can pay more for it. More profits mean more people lifted out of poverty.
That's ********. We'll have all sorts of gene therapy by the time that sort of situation arises.
Your post highlights a common misconception that people have. Government doesn't solve problems. If you say: let's ban smoking and pass a law to that effect, you haven't actually done anything. Look at the drug war for a prime example. The actual manpower needed to completely ban smoking would be so incredibly large that the US would have to outsource enforcement to China. The best way to get things done has been and always will be getting a bunch of people to agree with you (preferably with their checkbooks). The beneficial side-effect of that particular way of doing things is that people that don't agree with you can go do their own thing. Everybody's happy.
OK, starters.
Cancer is caused by a mutation, not the cause of mutations (other).
Cancer is caused by a whole raft of things, obvious ones like smoking, sunbathing over prolonged periods of time etc. Then also by not so obvious ones, like specific carcinogens in food products, recombined chemicals as the result of a bunch of different additives in various foods. Exhaust emissions, wood smoke, various components that make up things you are around everyday, and a whole lot more.
OK, you got me with the sugar thing, but, in regards to entertainment, sure it is not a immediate survival issue. But methinks over time if people had no source of entertainment, it would effect them in an adverse mental way. Do you think that you would be sane, let say over a decade with no entertainment? Entertainment is a cause of joy. I am also thinking that if one is never entertained, what would ones life be? Just necessity? That would be unbearable.
I would like to ask you a clarifying question,
By 'public' do you also mean parks and outdoor environments?
Yu can substitute entertainment with communication with other people, as I said in the other thread. As long as you have people to talk to, you won't go nuts.
Hey, is there anyone else on the forums going to Rice University in Houston? We could ALWAYS use more people in our Magic games. PM me if you want to play sometime
Someone has to be responsible for those who can't take care of them selves, how do you think we raise our children? How do you think we take care of the elderly?
On a side note...
I think some need to read up on the history of why weed was banned. http://www.mapinc.org/tlcnews/v07/n1238/a04.htm?116
So, you're saying that people who smoke can't take care of themselves? That's just b-****. They can take of themselves perfectly. They just have a habit that is a bit bad for your health, but if they don't intend to run marathons in record time, or don't mind that they live a couple of year less, what's the problem?
It's about half a dozen of mutations before you have a full-blown cancer, actually.
I don't think it was such a good idea. Back when it wasn't banned yet, most restaurants had well ventilated smoking area's, don't see any reason why it was also banned in such places. They should've made a law about places where smoking is allowed and how they should be ventilated.
But that would still be entertainment. So you mean active, 'lets do this' forms of entertainment. I was referring to any form of action or thing that could entertain. Including frivolous conversation.
Yet again, i come back to the same point. So, lets ban fast foods, anything unhealthy, that at the moment is a persons personal choice.
In regards to the weed thing, i would be interested in knowing where he got his info from, just because i already knew this, but have not actually read the material myself. But, how does this relate to the rest of the world, in the countries where it is illegal?
Just because you can, can you humor me, and tell me specifics. (in your words).
Yes, let's look at your use of the word responsible.
Responsible means being accountable for all your actions. By their defined nature, habit-forming drugs change the way you behave to something that you would not deliberately do if you weren't taking them. That's why they say you're "under the influence."
Responsible recreational drug use is an oxymoron.
I want to clarify something. I am not arguing against medicinal drug usage (in fact, I'm studying to be a pharmacist), because then we're discussing cost/benefit and while there's a line to be drawn, the exact placement of that line is not the point of this thread. I am only discussing recreational usage.
First of all, you may want to check your sources about the number of people who have tried cannabis. A quick search on google shows that the percentage is closer to 40% than 60%, and that the number of regular users is way, way down from that. Go here. The number of people who use cannabis at least once a month make up about 6% of the population, and I have little doubt that daily use would be something closer to 2-3%, if that.
Second of all, even by your own (flawed) definition of "responsible drug use," it should be very clear that the number of "irresponsible" users outnumber the "responsible" users by a vast amount. At what point does it start becoming acceptable? When merely 2/3 of recreational drug users are a drain on society's resources as a result of their drug use? How about half? Are you, as a "responsible" drug user, contributing enough to society to make up for the waste caused by the "irresponsible" ones? If so, are you willing to absorb the costs of supporting them?
Remember, we aren't just talking about weed.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
1) Let's say 40% have used weed.
2) Let's say 2-3% use it daily.
3) Let's define irresponsible use as daily use.
4) See the problem with saying, "it should be very clear that the number of "irresponsible" users outnumber the "responsible" users by a vast amount."
5) A drug user, if he's not committing thievery or the like, is not a "drain" on society. Nobody owes this whole society complex anything.
Again, please remember that we are not just talking about cannabis here. Even if we were, daily use is not a reasonable way to define irresponsible use. So no, I don't see a problem.
As to point 5, it should be pretty darn obvious that if you're going to take it as a given that "nobody owes this whole society complex anything," then you can't claim that this whole society complex owes you anything either. So why are you saying that society should be forced to bear the burden of all the deadbeat drug users in the world, when you are the people who cause and perpetuate their behavior by your attitudes?
Recreational drug users in general most certainly are a drain on society's resources. Everything from funding criminal organizations to unpaid hospital bills cost society untold amounts of money as a direct result of drug users' addictions. That money doesn't come from nowhere, and you can bet it doesn't come from all those "responsible" drug users, either.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia