Marijuana?

[Rize]

even tho the law says its illegal, when i used to do pot, i had plenty of ways of getting something that was illegal. something being illegal doesn't stop people making a choice to consume it or not. if someone gets caught, the law has punishment for that. it doesn't stop anyone from doing anything

So far so good...

and it doesn't invade any human rights. just as everyone says, there is an effect for our actions. in america, if your caught consuming pot, you have an effect and that's punishment.

Here's where you go wrong. How is fining and/or jailing a person who makes the personal choice to smoke a bit of weed from time to time not an invasion of human rights? It is an invasion of freedom (something we should not do unless the criminal invades another person's freedom first).

As you so eloquently explained, drugs are widely available despite the war. Hence it is not a war on drugs, but a war on freedom.

this is another reason why i see the pointless of the legalizing it. the side of it being drug and compared to other drugs that are legal, makes more sense. but legalizing it doesn't give people the choice to consume it. of course it's not about money, but if pot was not being consumed, i would believe your argument, but since it is being used ALL THE TIME, i have no reason to believe it.

so are you wanting the law to take away the punishments for doing it?

Yes! Why should a person be punished for a victimless crime?

i don't believe the punishment should be severe for a drug user (of any type of drug.) i believe the law should give treatment for the first several convictions of drug use. not a fine/jail time. that does nothing. or putting a college pot smoker in jail with someone that has committed were crimes (crimes as described by the law.) and while i'm at it, it should be law enforced treatment, to where if the person doesn't go to treatment, they get into serious trouble. yes we have it, but it takes so many convictions of drug use to get to that phase. i believe treatment should be enforced on the first conviction if they are going to leave pot illegal.

And yet the punishments are extremely severe. For drugs like heroin and coke these punishments are the height of ridiculousness. The drugs themselves already have enough negative consequences to stave off reasonable people. As for forced rehab, you could make that argument (without infringing on freedom) when a person is addicted to a substance beyond their ability to control it (they become a slave to it and need to be freed from it themselves). However, the argument does not hold water in the case of marijuana which is not physically addictive. In very few cases should a pot smoker be forced into rehab.

Unless of course you don't give a rat's rear about freedom. Then you can believe what you want and support whatever laws you want.

 

[MQTA]

I thought the laws of this land were to protect me from you and you from me, not so others can go around busting people for living their life with nobody else complaining except for being observed by the wrong uniform

 

[Rize]

Matthew 15:10-12
(10) And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
(11) Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
(12) Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

Quite true. If drugs turn people into criminals, then we should arrest them when they commit criminal acts, not when they ingest or smoke the drug. Just as we do with the legal drugs (alcohol, prescription medicines of various forms, caffiene and tobacco).

 

[Martinez]

Moved to liberal theology per rule 4.2?

What does a discussion about pot have to do with liberal theology? Anything that some people consider negative or bad needs to get lumped in as liberal. I hate that.....

Because Liberal's obviosly smoke a lot of Pot!

 

[ottaia]

Because Liberal's obviosly smoke a lot of Pot!

Speak for yourself. I personally don't like the stuff.

 

[Im_A]

Here's where you go wrong. How is fining and/or jailing a person who makes the personal choice to smoke a bit of weed from time to time not an invasion of human rights? It is an invasion of freedom (something we should not do unless the criminal invades another person's freedom first).

As you so eloquently explained, drugs are widely available despite the war. Hence it is not a war on drugs, but a war on freedom.

first off, drugs isn't a huge issue for me to worry about with freedom. if one applies the issue of drugs as some pivatol moment to enhance the freedom of humanity? that's just sad.

ok so let's say human freedom is hampered. what is so wrong with that? what is so wrong with hampering freedom from inhaling substances that are harmful to our health and mental well-being? is that something to really complain about?

to me it sounds like too much conspiracy theories, which personally, conspiracy theories are all hypothetical and very speculative, cause there's no real reason to believe that our government is wanting to take away our freedoms.

it's just the established law. you do a drug, the government, for whatever reasons (ie conspiracy, or maybe the government wants to do a society a favor? can/does the government actually do some good out there and not about just taking freedom away possibly?) have laws. the laws give a punishment.

i obliged to the government for taking away my human freedom to punish me/people for taking/doing a drug that has the ability of stop having kids, inject myself with needles with a drug that can kill me, sometimes with one use, invert the pupils of my eyes to see stupid hallucinations, and which is known that some people don't come back out of the trip and can have reoccurance of other trips, puts holes in my brain, have detrimental effects that are lifelong when using (speaking about one a close friend of mine who used to do meth and now suffers from complications as panic attacks that cause a lot of problem) and the negative effects that pot can do to the brain. ROCK ON FOR SLAVERY!!!!

 

[Rize]

first off, drugs isn't a huge issue for me to worry about with freedom. if one applies the issue of drugs as some pivatol moment to enhance the freedom of humanity? that's just sad.

First they came for the potheads
and I did not speak out
because I was not a pothead.
Then they came for the smokers
and I did not speak out
because I was not a smoker.
Then they came for the strippers
and I did not speak out
because I was not a stripper.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

ok so let's say human freedom is hampered. what is so wrong with that? what is so wrong with hampering freedom from inhaling substances that are harmful to our health and mental well-being? is that something to really complain about?

Yes there is something wrong with that. Everything is harmful to us in some way. Whether or not an individual thinks the benefits outweigh the risk is for them to decide. As for the harmfulness of various drugs to health and mental well being, that is extremely debatable. Certainly if you over do any one of them, it will be harmful. But moderation is possible. The only thing the government should do, if anything, is to ensure that citizens can make an informed decision.

Since when did how we live our lives become uncle sam's business?

to me it sounds like too much conspiracy theories, which personally, conspiracy theories are all hypothetical and very speculative, cause there's no real reason to believe that our government is wanting to take away our freedoms.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's mild hyperbole. The people who started the war on drugs wanted to impose their idea of morality on the rest of society. They think of it as doing good, but from the perspective of a responsible user it is nothing more than taking our freedom away. They treat society like children. Parents have a right to restrict the freedom of their children as they see fit. Since when did government gain the right to treat its adult citizens like children?

it's just the established law. you do a drug, the government, for whatever reasons (ie conspiracy, or maybe the government wants to do a society a favor? can/does the government actually do some good out there and not about just taking freedom away possibly?) have laws. the laws give a punishment.

That's an apathetic way of looking at it. If that's how the founding fathers thought, then we wouldn't be here right now.

i obliged to the government for taking away my human freedom to punish me/people for taking/doing a drug that has the ability of stop having kids, inject myself with needles with a drug that can kill me, sometimes with one use, invert the pupils of my eyes to see stupid hallucinations, and which is known that some people don't come back out of the trip and can have reoccurance of other trips, puts holes in my brain, have detrimental effects that are lifelong when using (speaking about one a close friend of mine who used to do meth and now suffers from complications as panic attacks that cause a lot of problem) and the negative effects that pot can do to the brain. ROCK ON FOR SLAVERY!!!!

Well, apparently some people do want to be treated like children.

 

[Im_A]

rize, part of my post was complete seriousness/sarcasm.

drugs is not an issue of human freedom to me. when scientific tests can prove the harmfulness, then you know what, the government should govern, and that's what they do. they may have bad reasons for it, they may have good reasons. you don't know, i don't know.

all i know is for myself, the freedom to do drugs being confined is no big deal. i've done pot. the laws that were established didn't stop my freedom to do it. i knew where to find it. if you don't like our country on drug laws, go move somewhere else that allows it.

facts are, they don't control our freedom. they never stopped me from doing a bong, or lighting up a joint. the possible punishment never even stopped me from doing it. they dont' stop anyone from doing it, since the numbers are high.

the punishment didn't wake me up. the laws didn't wake me up to stop doing either. if your letting the laws stop your freedom from doing something "illegal", my opinion is your missing the whole point of the laws. the law even caught me one time. here's the story.

i was at a friend's house at the age of 19. the friends of mine didn't know i took a hit off the pipe when they all went to bed, but at the time, i was drinking as well...underage. the one girl with us, was stoned out of her mind that she kept yelling out from the porch that we're smoking pot. somebody called the cops, and they came in. it eventually came out that at the time, i was the only one not smoking pot, and that was true, cause it was early in the morning i took the hit off the bong and got nothing. but they also knew i was drinking. my eyes were watery. they had all the evidence. self admission because my friend stood up for me but admitted they were all doing it at that time, which they were and like i said, at that specific moment in time(no i'm not playing mr. righteous here ), i wasn't, zig zag wrappers, pot smell, bottles of beer everywhere, and all they had to say was, "what you do in the privacy of your own home is your buisness" and walked out. (it was in Toledo, Ohio if your interested, haha bad j/k sorry. something for a lighter note )

now is this going to happen everytime? of course not.

but you cannot convince me one bit, that the government is out to take away our freedom. the government doesn't say you can't do it . is there a law out there that says you can't do a drug? if there is, i've missed it. the law states if you do this, you get a consequence, nothing more. the freedom/choice is up to you, me and anyone else. sounds apathetic probably, but the use of drugs is not a means to happiness of humanity that i see any worth in standing up for. so if the poor pot head is so sad about not being able to smoke pot without consequence, i could really careless (no i'm not saying this is you btw ) i'd rather see the pot smoker get off of pot. rather he become a Christian, Muslim, Jew, atheist, agnostic, pagan, that's up to him/her. a plant and the freedom to inhale it, means nothing to me.

facts are, no matter how harsh the laws get against drugs, nothing stops you from doing it. if you do it, there's a consequence. if you don't like it, then picket with signs or fancy propaganda or move to another country, or complain. it's up to you, i really don't care. but if you want, all you have to do is find it. "Big Brother" is not out there to control us all. i can say for myself and probably many others, the laws had no help in getting us to stop, and the law didn't stop me from doing it (which btw, this was quite a few years ago, and i'm glad i'm off of it and things have changed for the better since then. btw, on a side note. i'm not trying to get into some cliched' testmonial. i don't know if it was quo say "God" that got me off of pot. i do know that i listened to a secular metal band called Soulfly, and their song "No Hope Equals No Fear" really struck a chord with me. now if God had that all planned for me to hear and touch me, that's cool, and i'm thankful, if it wasn't anything to do with God, and just a song that for some reason, at that time, did a lot of good for me, then i thank God anyways, and specifically thank Soulfly.)

God Bless you! <><

 

[MQTA]

and we wonder why Vermont wants to become their own country

 

[Rize]

We're going in circles here and neither of us is changing. I'm probably not going to respond to your next post as it would likely be redundent. If you cover some new terretory I'll respond. Cheers.

rize, part of my post was complete seriousness/sarcasm.

Really? I couldn't tell. Mind telling me which part(s)? Sarcasm doesn't look good on a Christian. And it is particulary unkind in an Internet debate where you can't pick it up by the tone of voice or facial expression. So I guess I wasted my time responding to part of your rant? I guess now you don't have to answer any of my objections? How nice for you.

drugs is not an issue of human freedom to me. when scientific tests can prove the harmfulness, then you know what, the government should govern, and that's what they do. they may have bad reasons for it, they may have good reasons. you don't know, i don't know.

Don't talk to us about freedom when you don't believe in it. You insist on treating your countrymen like children that need baby sitting.

And what does harmfulness have to do with anything? Would you like to start banning unhealthy food? It's harmful and isn't good for anything except the pleasure of eating it (and in your little world pleasure apparently counts for nothing).

facts are, they don't control our freedom. they never stopped me from doing a bong, or lighting up a joint. the possible punishment never even stopped me from doing it. they dont' stop anyone from doing it, since the numbers are high.

If religion was illegal and you weren't allowed to practice it in the open, but you could easily get away with it in private, would you have freedom of religion? Even if half of the people in jail are in jail for selling Bibles or preaching? You call that freedom? You don't know what freedom is.

i was at a friend's house at the age of 19. the friends of mine didn't know i took a hit off the pipe when they all went to bed, but at the time, i was drinking as well...underage. the one girl with us, was stoned out of her mind that she kept yelling out from the porch that we're smoking pot. somebody called the cops, and they came in. it eventually came out that at the time, i was the only one not smoking pot, and that was true, cause it was early in the morning i took the hit off the bong and got nothing. but they also knew i was drinking. my eyes were watery. they had all the evidence. self admission because my friend stood up for me but admitted they were all doing it at that time, which they were and like i said, at that specific moment in time(no i'm not playing mr. righteous here ), i wasn't, zig zag wrappers, pot smell, bottles of beer everywhere, and all they had to say was, "what you do in the privacy of your own home is your buisness" and walked out. (it was in Toledo, Ohio if your interested, haha bad j/k sorry. something for a lighter note )

If the cops didn't have a warrant they weren't allowed to enter the residence. If you didn't bring out any physical/visible evidence then there was nothing they could do afaik; doesn't matter what they smelled or what your eyes looked like. Even if they left you alone by their own decision, your anecdote is worthless (unless you were trying to entertain us). It doesn't matter what happens in your personal experience when it's quite clear that people all over the country are arrested every day for harmless drug use.

Although I might add that it is definitely reasonable to have an age separating children from adults, and certainly reasonable to keep drugs (and alcohol) away from kids. Whether the drinking age should be 21 or 18 is debatable, but I'm not interested in debating it.

now is this going to happen everytime? of course not.

So why'd you mention it?

but you cannot convince me one bit, that the government is out to take away our freedom. the government doesn't say you can't do it . is there a law out there that says you can't do a drug? if there is, i've missed it. the law states if you do this, you get a consequence, nothing more. the freedom/choice is up to you, me and anyone else. sounds apathetic probably, but the use of drugs is not a means to happiness of humanity that i see any worth in standing up for. so if the poor pot head is so sad about not being able to smoke pot without consequence, i could really careless (no i'm not saying this is you btw ) i'd rather see the pot smoker get off of pot. rather he become a Christian, Muslim, Jew, atheist, agnostic, pagan, that's up to him/her. a plant and the freedom to inhale it, means nothing to me.

No, the government is not out to take our freedom. They think they are trying to help and are taking our freedom in the process. They are treating us like children. And some of us won't stand for it.

facts are, no matter how harsh the laws get against drugs, nothing stops you from doing it. if you do it, there's a consequence. if you don't like it, then picket with signs or fancy propaganda or move to another country, or complain.

The founding fathers of this country would roll over in their graves if they could hear you.

But, why would you care about freedom. You've already submitted yourself to a figment of your imagination!

 

[DailyBlessings]

and we wonder why Vermont wants to become their own country

I occasionally wished, growing up, that California would come to it's senses and secede. Aside from the genocide, we did okay as an independent republic.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

I don't see a darned thing wrong with weed that is worse than legal things like tobacco and alcohol. It amazed me that people equate pot more with cocaine and heroin than with tobacco and alcohol.

 

[MQTA]

there's a stigma to it that I don't get either.. maybe it's better this way? on some level, I dunno

 

[Rize]

there's a stigma to it that I don't get either.. maybe it's better this way? on some level, I dunno

The stigma is artificial. It's there because of lies. Generally, lies are not better than truth. Because of these lies and in conjunction with a large portion of the population that doesn't believe them, a number of people try marijuana anyway. And after they experience it, they realize that they've been lied to. And that makes the truth about harder drugs a little easier to ignore. The lies told in service of the war on drugs are quite damaging.

 

[MQTA]

I couldn't imagine the TV commercials if they ever legalized it in the US

 

[corvus_corax]

but you cannot convince me one bit, that the government is out to take away our freedom. the government doesn't say you can't do it . is there a law out there that says you can't do a drug? if there is, i've missed it. the law states if you do this, you get a consequence, nothing more.

It's fundamentally the same thing
According to your logic, the government doesnt say you can't murder people. The law states that if you murder someone you get "a consequence", nothing more.

But the fact is, the government attempts to discourage murder via punishment just as they try to discourage marijuana use via punishment.
No, they never say "You cannot murder" or "You cannot use marijuana" or "You cannot commit terrorism", but the end result (and the intent) is the same.
Essentially, the government DOES say "You cannot use marijuana without punishment", which is as close as any society will EVER get to saying "You cannot do it, period".

 

[Im_A]

It's fundamentally the same thing
According to your logic, the government doesnt say you can't murder people. The law states that if you murder someone you get "a consequence", nothing more.

But the fact is, the government attempts to discourage murder via punishment just as they try to discourage marijuana use via punishment.
No, they never say "You cannot murder" or "You cannot use marijuana" or "You cannot commit terrorism", but the end result (and the intent) is the same.
Essentially, the government DOES say "You cannot use marijuana without punishment", which is as close as any society will EVER get to saying "You cannot do it, period".

i see your points, but do you think pot, murder and terrorism can be put into the same issue? sure they go hand in hand at times, that i will not deny at all.

but i guess my point with that is, let's say with pot and murder. one is a moral issue as well as an issue with the government/law. i don't believe it can be proven that pot is a quo say "moral wrong-doing." if that is the case, then eating at McDonalds would be a mortal sin. let's say terrorism vs. pot. same thing. the moral issues cause a problem in comparing this stuff.

plus i have a hard time seeing the co-relation with what your points and just the facts that, human freedom is not actually stopped because the government has a set of laws. if freedoms were actually being hampered by Big Brother, ok, i'd shut up. but when the drug use is up, i cannot be convinced that the government's main objective is to take human freedom away. and i see nothing actually stopping human freedom, cause of the use of drugs. until the drugs are gone, and there is no way to use drugs, then i will buy the government truly and radically doing stuff to stop human rights (i just probably wouldn't complain too much for them finally erradicting drugs out of the country.)

 

[Im_A]

We're going in circles here and neither of us is changing. I'm probably not going to respond to your next post as it would likely be redundent. If you cover some new terretory I'll respond. Cheers.



Really? I couldn't tell. Mind telling me which part(s)? Sarcasm doesn't look good on a Christian. And it is particulary unkind in an Internet debate where you can't pick it up by the tone of voice or facial expression. So I guess I wasted my time responding to part of your rant? I guess now you don't have to answer any of my objections? How nice for you.



Don't talk to us about freedom when you don't believe in it. You insist on treating your countrymen like children that need baby sitting.

And what does harmfulness have to do with anything? Would you like to start banning unhealthy food? It's harmful and isn't good for anything except the pleasure of eating it (and in your little world pleasure apparently counts for nothing).



If religion was illegal and you weren't allowed to practice it in the open, but you could easily get away with it in private, would you have freedom of religion? Even if half of the people in jail are in jail for selling Bibles or preaching? You call that freedom? You don't know what freedom is.



If the cops didn't have a warrant they weren't allowed to enter the residence. If you didn't bring out any physical/visible evidence then there was nothing they could do afaik; doesn't matter what they smelled or what your eyes looked like. Even if they left you alone by their own decision, your anecdote is worthless (unless you were trying to entertain us). It doesn't matter what happens in your personal experience when it's quite clear that people all over the country are arrested every day for harmless drug use.

Although I might add that it is definitely reasonable to have an age separating children from adults, and certainly reasonable to keep drugs (and alcohol) away from kids. Whether the drinking age should be 21 or 18 is debatable, but I'm not interested in debating it.



So why'd you mention it?



No, the government is not out to take our freedom. They think they are trying to help and are taking our freedom in the process. They are treating us like children. And some of us won't stand for it.



The founding fathers of this country would roll over in their graves if they could hear you.

But, why would you care about freedom. You've already submitted yourself to a figment of your imagination!

well first off, i wasn't trying to get out of not responding to your response. i just gave that sarcasm part first, and it was towards the end of just going overboard with what the drugs can do to the body and how i'm glad stuff like that is illegal.

two, you think sarcasm is a bad example of Christian? LOL. go and read Paul and the Gospels some more, you'll find sarcasm, and sarcasm is just a way of life, and don't go and judge me based on sarcasm, when i was having a discussion when sarcasm is a part of discussion and life with ALL CHRISTIANS AND NON-CHRISTIANS. don't even throw that on me, cause that's just funny, at least to me it is. and my sarcasm wasn't aimed at you personally, just towards drugs in general, so i dont' feel bad for using sarcasm in this discussion, so before you go and judge me, dont' judge me without asking first, instead of asking and still judging.

i dont' care if you do or don't change your mind on this. you are right we are going in circles here, cause you dont' want to chagne your mind, and i don't want to either. so be it, i could careless. but, having discussion for no point but to have it, that's fine by me, and i enjoy it. you've proved to me no reason to change my mind, and i've proven you no reason to change your mind. that's fine by me!

now to address your response here for what it is worth even if it is nothing it won't be in exact order of your response for i'm scrolling up and responding, so hopefully that is ok.

my imaginary world. hmm. i have to respond to that one.

reality is there is no true real freedom in this world. freedom is based on law and order, and hint at the word, "order." the government is to govern...period. to give freedom and to take freedom away when neccessary when somebody abuses that freedom. the forefathers i would have to say probably didn't have the escalated issue of drug use in the country at that time, cause the population was so much smaller, and the drug use that was around then, i would imagine was nothign compared to the problems we have now. the government adjusts to the issues of the modern times. so using the forefathers as a way of defense seems pretty futile to me and pretty illogical. when we have had to make adjustments and additions in the constitution time and time again. i support a government to govern it's citizens, not a government to give all their citizens the fullest extent of human freedom even if it means ruining their lives. all the drugs were at one time legal. but that's the beauty of science. to enligthen us, and i'm happy that the government has to treat its citizens as the ones that are getting governed.

well when people get so addicted to drugs that they do the things that addicts do(and i'm not talking about criminal actions here), sometimes people need to be treated like children. it's a reality.

i mentioned my situation because of the fact that you are accusing of the government of taking away our freedom, and i have to admit, the law didn't take any freedom of mine. the cops had visible evidence to come in, you weren't there at the time, so don't go and judge the lawfullness the officers had. they had every right to come in, with all the evidence. so my point is, the fact that there is inconsistancy in the way the law is given, i see no reason to go and make some wild eyed accusation that the government is treating us like children.

you know, if there are foods that would give the exact same effects of cocaine, heroine, or other drugs, then yes i would support a ban for it.

your comment about religion is not even comparable. religion is not something that is harmful. people use it for wrong/harming reasons, but it is not at its core harmful or even in its creation if there is such a time for religion of being created to being harmful. why are you even grabbing for straws here to prove me wrong? drugs immediately hurt the body and have an extremely high risk of hurting others in the immediate time. have you ever driven stoned or drunk? it's not a safe thing to do. religion tho? if one is going to use it bad, it takes years of indoctrination to get to that point. just look at the Radical Right Christian Groups, Radical Right of Muslim Groups, look at the Crusades, look at every other actions i'm sure you and i can think of. but that is severe indoctrination of beliefs and ideas that takes time and time to implant into somebody. if religion is being banned, i will stand by people against that (the practice of any religion btw.) because i believe in freedom of all religions to practice their religion in harmony. but drugs? drugs that can kill you at times with one take? that's not even comparable, and any fundamental comparision is flawed because of the two not even being able to mirror each other. dont' grab at straws, because it looks ridiculous.

i think i have touched every area of your response now. if i haven't, it is only because i've been scrolling up and typing to be sure i respond to everything of your response.

if you believe freedom is solely based upon that ALL should be able to practice and do as they wish, no matter the consequence that those actions have upon themselves or others, that is a fairy tale world. if you believe freedom should be more emphasized over the government governing, or controlling the issues the countries are dealing with, ie, drug use in this case, then you are living in a fairy tale world. that is not reality. reality is, a government must take control of its country, and when the issues come up that the government has to deal with, if people are acting like children, then the government has to treat people like they are children. a lot of the issues, i'm convinced that our forefathers never had to deal with at least either on the magnitude that we deal with, or deal with at all. i'm thankful for the forefathers for creating a Constitution that allows our law to evolve and change according to the needs and the issues, whether good or bad that our country is dealing with.

i think it would have been great to see E remain legal. it was at one time used for counseling purposes because of what the drug does to the brain, and to get a married couples to talk that don't talk anymore, and it was showing great signs of improving relationships. but now we know it puts holes in the brain. i'm glad it's illegal. and that's just one example that these drugs at one time, seemed to have great use and very positive effects for the life. but when scientific methods can prove their harm, i support the government governing its citizens, after proper scientific research and analysis has taken place, and not the some government wanting to be/act like fascist pigs.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I couldn't imagine the TV commercials if they ever legalized it in the US

There probably wouldn't be any- they outlawed commercials for tobacco, and marijuana is supposed to be more dangerous for some reason.

 

[Rize]

You may be doing this already, but may I suggest that you read all of my post before responding? Think about what I'm writing. Keep in mind the overall theme, which is that the government has gone too far, as you read and particularly when you read the conclusion.

-------------

About sarcasm, if you're going to use sarcasm, then it must be clear. I'm sorry but considering the range of Christians out there, you can't take anything for granted. One Christians sarcasm is anothers deeply held belief.

"cause you dont' want to chagne your mind, and i don't want to either."

Or perhaps one of us is right and one of us doesn't want to change our mind. If you admit that you don't want to change your mind, then perhaps I'm the one who is right!

Hmm, looks like you covered some new ground. You mentioned the lack of need to mention drugs in the constitution and near the end you bolded some stuff about the constitution which I agree with (exception of the lack of drugs when it was written). IIndians did plenty of drugs and of course there was plenty of alcohol when the constitution was written. Surely some people were becoming excessively intoxicated (drunk) from drinking. Yet alcohol was not mentioned, excepting the tenth amendment which reserves to the states any powers not reserved for the feds in the constitution. This is why an amendment to the constitution was needed to prohibit alcohol (for drugs they found a loophole having to do with interstate commerce if I'm not mistaken).

And I can't believe you mentioned science in the same breath with drug prohibition. If you knew anything about the research concerning the war on drugs, you'd be screaming for policy change like us.

"reality is there is no true real freedom in this world. freedom is based on law and order,"

There's no absolute truth. We can't even guarantee that we're not all in the matrix... All we can do is make the best of what we think we know. And the one thing most people, despite their differences can agree on, is that people should have freedom unless they represent a danger to the freedom of others. Once you agree on that, you can't make special exceptions for your personal moral or religious beliefs or else you'll bring the community into conflict. Which is exactly what has happened with drugs. That is why there is drug crime, gangs, the mafia during alcohol prohibition, mega cartels in south and central america and on and on. The government's attempt to invade personal freedom has been disastrous. No one is clamouring for the right to steal because we know we can't have that right in a free country. Ask yourself why so many people rebel against the prohibition of drugs, particularly cannabis? Because our freedom has been stolen, and we want it back.

"well when people get so addicted to drugs that they do the things that addicts do(and i'm not talking about criminal actions here), sometimes people need to be treated like children. it's a reality."

When. Not before. If I person can be demonstrated to have a serious heroin addiction for example, you could argue that we're right to force them into rehab. If they keep going back and getting addicted again, we might even have the right to throw them in jail for a while (after rehab again) for wasting our rehab money. But we have absolutely no right to throw people in jail before they get out of control. That would be like throwing black people in jail before they commit crime because statistically, particularly low income black people are more likely to commit crimes. We'd never do that. So why the hell do we throw cannabis smokers in jail? They never get addicted the way a heroin addict does. At the very worst they might become a little like the stereotypical cheech and chong. But that's their business not ours.

"the cops had visible evidence to come in, you weren't there at the time, so don't go and judge the lawfullness the officers had. they had every right to come in,"

I'm fairly certain that unless the cops actually SEE drugs (smelling them and seeing loaded people doesn't count) they cannot go into your house without your inviting them in. They can ask for your permission, but you can tell them no. If they bust in and start searching for some hidden stash because of what they smell and saw, anything they find will be thrown out in court due to unwarranted search and seisure. Ask a lawyer. Only you know what they saw, true. But I know what they had to see to bust into someone's house. Either a warrant or actual out-in-the-open drugs.

"you know, if there are foods that would give the exact same effects of cocaine, heroine, or other drugs, then yes i would support a ban for it."

What same effect? I know you mean intoxication. Well, there is coffee and alcohol. Ready to ban them? I rarely drink coffee. One time I was at a coffee shop which I later found is reputed to have particularly strong coffee. I ordered a 20 oz cappacino because I was thirsty and cappacino sounded like a cool word. I was trying to study with some friends. With about a 1/4 of the cup left, I realized I went a little overboard. I was literally wired for something like 6 hours. And people are addicted to coffee. They drink it every morning. They drink alcohol every week. Some people every day. If not all day long. These beverages also cause health problems if consumed in excess, much like their illegal counterparts. Yet they are an acceptable part of society. People use coffee in moderation. Alcohol is not always used in moderation, but we regulate it's sale, keep it away from minors as much as possible, don't let people drive drunk (that is reasonable because likelihood of a major accident while drunk is so high that you can be reasonably considered to be a direct threat to other people) and various groups run campaigns encouraging responsible drinking behavior. That is how potentially abusable drugs should be treated by society. Prohibition doesn't work.

You've also been complaining about all the health problems associated with drugs. It is pretty much a fact that various sorts of food are unnecessary to sustain life and are wholely unhealthy (fried foods for example). They taste delicious (creating a psychological addiction like marijuana) and inevitably lead to heart discease. Which we may have to pay for through government funded medical programs. Clearly we have an interest in banning fried foods. And people routinely cook them and feed them to others! Restaurants offer them on their menus! ***. We don't ban them because people have a right to eat whatever they want, regardless of how it affects their health. Not to mention there would be an uprising. Want to ban fried foods? Do you eat fried foods?

Similarly, people should have a right to smoke whatever they want regardless of health, mental or physical. The exception is of course people who don't have their full legal rights (criminals and children).

"your comment about religion is not even comparable. religion is not something that is harmful. people use it for wrong/harming reasons"

Which is exactly the case with drugs. It has been shown that reasonable (say once a week) use of cannabis has no significant long term side effects. It is harmful when abused. Just like religion.

"but it is not at its core harmful or even in its creation if there is such a time for religion of being created to being harmful. why are you even grabbing for straws here to prove me wrong?"

I hit you where it hurts now. Look at the history of every major religion. It is impossible to deny that religion can be the instigator to enormous societal harm. Just like drugs. But it can also be used responsibly. Just like drugs. You can't deny that there are similarities between drugs and religion. Sure one is composed of an idea and the other chemicals, but both can have an intoxicating effect on the mind and lead to destructive behavior when abused. And we let our children be indoctrinated! But that's the right of parents. So where's our right to smoke cannabis if we wish? You got yours, we want ours.

"drugs immediately hurt the body and have an extremely high risk of hurting others in the immediate time. have you ever driven stoned or drunk? it's not a safe thing to do."

Which is why it's illegal as I mentioned above. Driving a motor vehicle under the influence is akin to threatening people at random with a deadly weapon. The only issue with drunk driving is that the blood alcohol test is not entirely accurate. Drunkness wears off more quickly than blood alcohol decreases, and those who drink more often resist the effect of alcohol despite the high blood alcohol level. Which is why the legal limit is set it 0.08 and not 0.00. It is in fact legal to drive immediately after drinking as long as you aren't drunk.

I guess you want to ban all guns too? They are no longer necessary to eat. If you trust the government so much, then then keeping of arms is not necessary to a free country. If you don't care about people's recreational habits, then guns are good for nothing. And they have an extremely high risk of hurting others when abused as well.

"if religion is being banned, i will stand by people against that"

And so would I. Because we live in a free country and it is the right of people to believe what they want as long as they don't act on beliefs that require them to cause harm to other people. Now why don't you stand with us in defense of our liberty to use drugs recreationally as long as we don't cross the line and hurt other people?

"if you believe freedom is solely based upon that ALL should be able to practice and do as they wish, no matter the consequence that those actions have upon themselves or others, that is a fairy tale world."

When did I say people should be able to do anything regardless of the consequences on others? I said that people should be free to do whatever they want with their life (that includes ending it) as long as they don't infringe on the freedom of another person.

On ecstasy: "but now we know it puts holes in the brain."

Really, that's curious. Got any scientific research to back that up?

Conclusion:

You can't project the consequences of innocent actions forward in time and arrest people based on them. You can arrest drunk drivers because they are essentially brandishing a deadly weapon in public (a car) and are an imminent threat to other people. You can't arrest a drunk person standing next to a car. You have to wait until they get in, put the key in the ignition and turn it (well I suppose you could arrest them for public intoxication, but obviously that law is rarely enforced or bars would be out of business).

IMMINENT threat is the key. You can arrest someone *before* they hurt other people ONLY if they are an imminent threat to someone. A pot smoker is not an imminent threat to anyone. A heroin addict may well be (which is why I'd support changing heroin to a legal prescription drug intended for prescription solely to addicts who would be allowed a limited supply per day and would be encouraged to go into treatment with each legal purchase).