Sessions: Marijuana only slightly less awful than heroin

[Larry Gude]

Again, I wouldn't fight the crime anywhere near how it's done, so I can not compare

Feel free to share this less violence, less corruption way.

 

[This_person]

Yeah, well, there you have it.

Ok, let me try again:

It looks like alcohol. Period.

Would this be the case for every drug? If you're [of some minimum age, we can argue that point later], you can grab meth and morphine off the shelf next to the Cheetos?

 

[This_person]

So, legislating behavior is the answer? Then why not guns? Speech? Westboro members? Our media lying to us?

All of these things have been abused, resulting in harming others as well as self.

Of course legislation is the answer. We DO have restriction on gun ownership and use, and a portion of those restrictions are appropriate. NO restrictions would be Inappropriate. Same with speech, same with Westboro members, same with libelous/slanderous media.

 

[This_person]

Considering more than one state has recreational marijuana, has there been a substantial increase in people hurting others while high?

I emphasize "while high" because there's certainly stories that more people have marijuana in their system, but you'd agree that doesn't equate to impairment, right? Also consider the NHTSA study that found that after accounting for other factors (such as sex and age) there really isn't an increase in dangerous driving due to loosening of marijuana laws.

I am waiting for further evidence. I can not conclusively say one way or the other if DUI's have increased, or on-the-job accidents, or anything else. I don't know that anyone has done a conclusive study after such a short period of time.

 

[This_person]

Feel free to share this less violence, less corruption way.

We've talked about this ad nauseum. Go after the user, not the seller/maker.

 

[PsyOps]

Of course legislation is the answer. We DO have restriction on gun ownership and use, and a portion of those restrictions are appropriate. NO restrictions would be Inappropriate. Same with speech, same with Westboro members, same with libelous/slanderous media.

I thought this discussion was about making things illegal - banning them. You cannot legislate behavior. You can try to manage it with laws, but that fails. People will do what their will tells them to do. I personally don't think that law is intended to protect us from our own stupidity; it's there to protect others from your our stupidity. In so many ways we have allowed government to step in and tell us we are too stupid to be able to handle drugs, guns, the free exercise of religion, etc... Unless we tell our government to leave us alone, they will only encroach more and more into our lives; and don't think some don't want to manage every aspect of our lives: what we eat, the kind of house we live in, the type of appliance we MUST own, how much water or electricity we consume, what kind of cars we can own...

 

[Larry Gude]

We've talked about this ad nauseum. Go after the user, not the seller/maker.

On what grounds, in the US of A, do you claim the right to use the law against people getting high? Or drinking? Or their choice in movies or reading material? Make your case.

 

[Larry Gude]

I thought this discussion was about making things illegal - banning them. You cannot legislate behavior. You can try to manage it with laws, but that fails. People will do what their will tells them to do. I personally don't think that law is intended to protect us from our own stupidity; it's there to protect others from your our stupidity. In so many ways we have allowed government to step in and tell us we are too stupid to be able to handle drugs, guns, the free exercise of religion, etc... Unless we tell our government to leave us alone, they will only encroach more and more into our lives; and don't think some don't want to manage every aspect of our lives: what we eat, the kind of house we live in, the type of appliance we MUST own, how much water or electricity we consume, what kind of cars we can own...

Another good post. However, let's keep it in mind 'they' are WE, the people. We dig controlling one another be it guns, weed, cigarettes, speech or what have you.

 

[PsyOps]

Another good post. However, let's keep it in mind 'they' are WE, the people. We dig controlling one another be it guns, weed, cigarettes, speech or what have you.

Yup. We get the government we deserve. And there seems to be an insatiable appetite for more control; and we not only let it happen, we encourage it. Maybe I have it all wrong. Maybe the people, by and large, want to be controlled; they want to be told what to do. They don't want to live up to any personal responsibilities. When the government controls things, and things go wrong, we can always blame them;then look to them to fix it expecting different results. Insanity.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yup. We get the government we deserve. And there seems to be an insatiable appetite for more control; and we not only let it happen, we encourage it. Maybe I have it all wrong. Maybe the people, by and large, want to be controlled; they want to be told what to do. They don't want to live up to any personal responsibilities. When the government controls things, and things go wrong, we can always blame them;then look to them to fix it expecting different results. Insanity.

We wanna believe and we wanna belong. Be it religion, a team or a party. I suppose it's innate in us, as primates, to have some level of herding instinct? Yet, clearly, many of us have the hard wired need for a fair amount of individualism.

You know the example of the monkeys in a cage, the one where every time a monkey goes up the ladder to get the food they all get sprayed with cold water and, pretty soon, the stop one another. Then you sub out, one by one, new monkeys in and they monkey see/monkey do and join in in the control behavior, after awhile, none of the original monkeys are there and none of the new monkey's has any idea why they're stopping each new monkey from climbing for food. We're a half chromosome away so, perhaps way back in the day, controlling one another became a trait of survival. Non conformists were killed for the sake of the whole? Then, at some point, I suppose it occurred to enough of us, hungry enough, to say "Stop it. It's ####ing food you morons. let's give it a try." Or, the desire to explore, to seek, to inquire finally started to overcome the mob? I suppose the battle between the two has always been there?

In any event, this is the argument for logic and reason over mob behavior. People like jinx see a threat and revert to the 'good of the whole' thinking and want to stop the pioneers and risk takers, reflexively. Others say 'look, it's NOT doing the whole any good!"

So, the battle continues.

 

[Clem72]

Would this be the case for every drug? If you're [of some minimum age, we can argue that point later], you can grab meth and morphine off the shelf next to the Cheetos?

Showing your ignorance again. The morphine may be next to the Cheetos, but the meth would clearly be next to the monster energy drinks.

 

[This_person]

I thought this discussion was about making things illegal - banning them. You cannot legislate behavior. You can try to manage it with laws, but that fails. People will do what their will tells them to do. I personally don't think that law is intended to protect us from our own stupidity; it's there to protect others from your our stupidity. In so many ways we have allowed government to step in and tell us we are too stupid to be able to handle drugs, guns, the free exercise of religion, etc... Unless we tell our government to leave us alone, they will only encroach more and more into our lives; and don't think some don't want to manage every aspect of our lives: what we eat, the kind of house we live in, the type of appliance we MUST own, how much water or electricity we consume, what kind of cars we can own...

So, since Larry won't answer, I'll ask you - do you mean to suggest that no drugs of any kind in any way would require any kind of prescription? Would you find it acceptable to see Meth next to the Cheetos, strong anesthetics down the bread isle?

 

[This_person]

On what grounds, in the US of A, do you claim the right to use the law against people getting high? Or drinking? Or their choice in movies or reading material? Make your case.

I've said it previously - there are strong correlations in numerous studies between drug abusers and a series of things that harm others including increased crime, increased welfare usage, increased workplace accidents, increased child neglect, etc., etc. These are things that significantly adversely affect others, and therefore regulation (such as prescriptions being required for drugs based on a plethora of criteria) is reasonable.

 

[This_person]

We wanna believe and we wanna belong. Be it religion, a team or a party. I suppose it's innate in us, as primates, to have some level of herding instinct? Yet, clearly, many of us have the hard wired need for a fair amount of individualism.

You know the example of the monkeys in a cage, the one where every time a monkey goes up the ladder to get the food they all get sprayed with cold water and, pretty soon, the stop one another. Then you sub out, one by one, new monkeys in and they monkey see/monkey do and join in in the control behavior, after awhile, none of the original monkeys are there and none of the new monkey's has any idea why they're stopping each new monkey from climbing for food. We're a half chromosome away so, perhaps way back in the day, controlling one another became a trait of survival. Non conformists were killed for the sake of the whole? Then, at some point, I suppose it occurred to enough of us, hungry enough, to say "Stop it. It's ####ing food you morons. let's give it a try." Or, the desire to explore, to seek, to inquire finally started to overcome the mob? I suppose the battle between the two has always been there?

In any event, this is the argument for logic and reason over mob behavior. People like jinx see a threat and revert to the 'good of the whole' thinking and want to stop the pioneers and risk takers, reflexively. Others say 'look, it's NOT doing the whole any good!"

So, the battle continues.

I'm not sure that it is fair to suggest shooting heroin is akin to being a pioneer, though. I mean, really?

I agree the control should not be assumed in a vacuum of reason or logic. I do not think that the government has any reason to have a TSA, nor a law that says you must wear a seatbelt, nor a law that says you must buy a certain product because you exist, nor try to control what kind of vehicle I buy by having a "gas guzzler" tax on certain vehicles, nor control the Fleet gas mileage of a car-makers fleet, nor.....well, you get the point. But, I do think it is fair to say, "you can't publish lies that hurt people" - a clear violation of the first amendment, but a reasonable one. You see what I mean?

 

[This_person]

Showing your ignorance again. The morphine may be next to the Cheetos, but the meth would clearly be next to the monster energy drinks.

I was imagining the speed by Red Bull, but I'm not that informed on the characteristics of the various drugs. Thanks!