I appreciate your opinion, now let me tear it to shreds with logic.
Dave E said:Mate, can't agree here. Drug abuse is in most cases, not a victimless
crime. In the case of children and drugs, often their actions have a major
impact on their own families and certainly on their ability to develop
normally with balanced perspectives etc.
Often, a single psychosis event
(quite common amongst heavier weed smokers, esp. young ones) can damage a
young person's future beyond belief - sadly quite common.
Having worked in
this area, I'm of the view that often young people are not equipped with the
smarts to make a sensible choice - especially where there is considerable
peer pressure involved. Some form of guidance is often required. If I had
a dollar for every messed up teenager who had said "I wish someone had
stopped me from smoking pot" I'd be a very wealthy guy. Sad but true.
I agree with you on the freedom thing too. The challenge arises from
determining when kids are old enough/smart enough to make decisions now that
can have a massive detremental effect on them for the rest of their lives.
I wholeheartedly agree with you except for the "psychosis event" which
I've never heard of until you mentioned it. I know people who started
smoking pot when they were in junior high / high school and they are
STILL at a junior high / high school mentality across the board. It
has been shown that marijuana affects the DEVELOPMENT of the brain.
That being said, once the brain has fully developed, it doens't have
that effect. I know many people who started doing it later in life,
and they have no problems functioning as normal work-a-day citizens
some people call them "functional potheads". So what we've established
here is: Marijuana is not for children. The same is true for alcohol,
tobbacco, voting, and driving. There are ADULT activities, and some of
them are not for children. You're not saying that since kids have
trouble learning to make correct decisions that we need to reinitiate
prohibition and stop adults from smoking tobbacco, driving or owning a
gun are you?
Quoted message said:Another 'victimless' point - there are many birth issues resulting from drug
use, including pot. So freedom is certainly important, but so is the
freedom of a new child to have a start to life without the possibility of
complications arising from his/her parent's use of substances. Visit a
hospital and meet such kids/parents and see how you feel about the
victimless argument then.
They could be victimized by other legal drugs as well, and alcohol has
a much more profound effect on the development of a fetus than
marijuana. Also, you need to understand the REAL problem. You cannot
keep a person from getting high regardless of how much substance
control you have. If you don't believe me, take a huge breath, blow it
out and repeat 200 times. Now tell me how you can keep people from
getting high. It's the PERSON and not the drug that is responsible.
In the absense of marijuana (if it was extinct even) people would go
out and find SOMETHING to alter their feelings. You would still have
the "meth-lab babies" they would just be "gas-huffing" babies. Same
person, different drug. That person cannot be stopped from finding
something. When you are pregnant everything you do to yourself you also
do to someone else, which could be construed as victimization. I'll
agree that all women giving birth to children with birthdefects that
can be traced to negligence on the mother's part should be punished to
acheive justice for the children and to discourage the behaivor and it
is already done in the cases of alcohol and drug use by expecting
mothers. But again in this *special case* we've established we *do*
have a victim. The same would be true if they shot themselves in the
stomach. They've victimized another, but I disagree that substance
control would have prevented it.
Now that we've established that some personality types will do anything
to change the way they feel, what happens when we add substance control
to it? It automatically creates HUGE profit margin. Control has done
nothing to curb the demand, just dropped the supply to very low. We
all know from economics what happens when there is high demand and low
supply! Profit margins upward of 1000% can be attained. People will
KILL for this type of profit margin. People will commit other CRIMES
to attain this profit margin. The substance control itself CAUSES MORE
CRIMES AND MORE VICTIMS.
Most of your arguement was based on effects on children. Legalization
does not mean every kid in highschool is now free to smoke. Sensible
controls for ADULT activites are called for. It should be treated the
same as driving, voting, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. In this way
sure you will have a presence of abuse, (you could never get rid of
this regardless of the level of substance control,) but you will have
less victimizations because now it is not an underground business
profiting the unscrupulous who must commit MORE crimes and MORE
victimizations to deliver the wares, It profits those who are
upstanding citizens and the populous at large.
Quoted message said:Yes, these questions are always grey and difficult. I get [censored] about
draconian speed laws where I live (Sydney, Aust) - but I suppose there are
thousands of lives affected by speed related car accidents too who would
argue against my views! :-)
Look at this one my way: *IF* I could buy a permit to speed safely.
(perhaps take a high-speed driving test) I would buy one every year.
So in that regard, I just speed. If I get caught and get a ticket
(twice now in 10 years of driving) I consider that payment my buying of
my "permit to speed" and just go on my merry way, I'm sure I've saved
enough money with the time I've saved in the 10 years to pay the two
$59 dollar tickets. That is not to say I disregard the public safety,
but when its daylight, I can see down the road for 2 miles, and there's
nobody anywhere, sticking to the letter of the law doesn't make much
sense.
x1134x
