For many, Bob Chance has been the face of ecology in Harford County.

He taught earth science during a three-decade run in the public schools - and was named to the school system's Hall of Fame. He promoted recycling long before the government got involved. He wrote a nature column for the local paper, won election to public office, and showed countless youngsters the wonders of the great outdoors as Ranger Bob.

And now he is, at 62, a defendant in a drug case.

Authorities say he has been growing marijuana at the farm where he raises and sells Christmas trees. And they say they found enough of the drug, either in plant form or packaged in freezers, to roll thousands of joints - so they are taking steps to seize his farm.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/harford/bal-te.md.ha.chance10aug10,0,3922004.story

Protect us? From this guy? Gimme a break.

That really sucks!

Makes me ashamed to be a Marylander. Fuck the war on drugs, seriously!

I really wish someone had the balls to stand up and challenge every law against marijuana. It should be legal to use, buy, sell, and grow.

I really wish someone had the balls to stand up and challenge every law against marijuana. It should be legal to use, buy, sell, and grow.
NORML is doing that, but the problem is, this is the kind of issue that requires a lot of people to stand up and say that. One guy won't be able to do shit.

I'm going to the NORML convention in October!!:woohoo:

There's just so much wrong with drug laws.... First and foremost, the government shouldn't be able to tell adults what we can put in our bodies. If we can eat trans fats, smoke cigarettes, and drink alcohol, what's the point of preventing us from smoking a little pot?

Second, 60% of federal prisoners are in jail for drug offenses. That's .6% of the (adult) population, now that about 1% of American adults are supposedly in jail. Isn't that ridiculous? Why should our tax dollars go to keep a couple million potheads in prison? And that's not even taking into account the amount of money the government spends on anti-drug PSAs and school programs...

There's just so much wrong with drug laws.... First and foremost, the government shouldn't be able to tell adults what we can put in our bodies. If we can eat trans fats, smoke cigarettes, and drink alcohol, what's the point of preventing us from smoking a little pot?

Second, 60% of federal prisoners are in jail for drug offenses. That's .6% of the (adult) population, now that about 1% of American adults are supposedly in jail. Isn't that ridiculous? Why should our tax dollars go to keep a couple million potheads in prison? And that's not even taking into account the amount of money the government spends on anti-drug PSAs and school programs...
I couldn't agree more.

Speaking of marijuana...anybody got any? ;)

Uhh, nooooo.

x

I honestly feel drug laws are meant to protect us. No, I don't feel the punishments should be as extreme as they are and our government should focus more on rehabilitation and not incarceration. But one of the primary jobs of the government is to protect its citizens. If something is proven to be detrimental to our health and negative for society, it should be illegal.

There needs to be a difference between hard and soft drugs. Most consider marijuana, and I would agree, to be a soft drug. But drugs such as cocaine, heroine and meth are proven to destroy lives, families and are highly addictive. Yes, there is an inconsistency with allowing alcohol because that also destroys lives and families. But most would agree the fight to outlaw alcohol is pointless. Just because we allow one harmful drug to be used doesn't mean we should allow the use of other harmful drugs for the sake of being "consistent". That's a pretty weak argument at best.

Personally, the reason I haven't tried any mind-altering substances aside from marijuana and alcohol is because of the education I have received. This education has informed me that these other drugs are far more addictive and bad or your health than marijuana, and because they are illegal. More people would try hard drugs if they were legal, and thus more people would have a higher chance of becoming addicted to these drugs (and yes, I know, not everyone becomes addicted, but many do).

Choosing to use and become addicted to hard drugs affects more than the user. It hurts their families, friends, any children they may have, and puts their living expenses on other citizens to pay for -- either from family members or taxpaying programs. Those addicted to hard drugs are shown to not be nearly as productive citizens and thus puts the burden on us to compensate for their lack of productivity. If the government can require use to wear seat-belts for safety and the benefit of society, I think they have the right to outlaw hard drugs for the same reasons.

I honestly feel drug laws are meant to protect us. No, I don't feel the punishments should be as extreme as they are and our government should focus more on rehabilitation and not incarceration. But one of the primary jobs of the government is to protect its citizens. If something is proven to be detrimental to our health and negative for society, it should be illegal.
The problem with that is, who decides what is negative for society? The majority of American politicians these days seem to agree that homosexuality is negative for society. A bunch of these assholes also agree that belief in evolution is negative for society, or that atheism is negative for society. You can't define "negative for society" in any objective sense, and that's why I don't think that's a good litmus test for laws.
There needs to be a difference between hard and soft drugs. Most consider marijuana, and I would agree, to be a soft drug. But drugs such as cocaine, heroine and meth are proven to destroy lives, families and are highly addictive. Yes, there is an inconsistency with allowing alcohol because that also destroys lives and families. But most would agree the fight to outlaw alcohol is pointless. Just because we allow one harmful drug to be used doesn't mean we should allow the use of other harmful drugs for the sake of being "consistent". That's a pretty weak argument at best.
The fight to outlaw any drug is pointless. People who want drugs will always find a way to get them, period. I agree that plenty of drugs destroy lives, families, and are highly addictive. However, shouldn't the decision to destroy one's life, one's family, and gain an addiction be that of the person whose life it is?
Personally, the reason I haven't tried any mind-altering substances aside from marijuana and alcohol is because of the education I have received. This education has informed me that these other drugs are far more addictive and bad or your health than marijuana, and because they are illegal. More people would try hard drugs if they were legal, and thus more people would have a higher chance of becoming addicted to these drugs (and yes, I know, not everyone becomes addicted, but many do).
I'm not sure how accurate that argument is. I wouldn't touch meth with a ten-foot pole even if they sold it in grocery stores and at baseball games. Most of the people I know, including one or two chemical freaks (term not used pejoratively), are the same way.

A couple other, more specific points. You neglected to mention nicotine and caffeine in your list of mind-altering substances that you have used. Also, most hallucinogens (LSD and psilocybin specifically come to mind) are extraordinarily safe, especially given their potency, and are about as nonaddictive as recreational drugs get. I know, I'm quibbling, and my argument isn't about safety or potency. Just a sidebar.
Choosing to use and become addicted to hard drugs affects more than the user. It hurts their families, friends, any children they may have, and puts their living expenses on other citizens to pay for -- either from family members or taxpaying programs. Those addicted to hard drugs are shown to not be nearly as productive citizens and thus puts the burden on us to compensate for their lack of productivity. If the government can require use to wear seat-belts for safety and the benefit of society, I think they have the right to outlaw hard drugs for the same reasons.
I don't think the government should require the use of seat belts, either. An individual has a sovereign right over his body. Any substance an individual chooses to use is no business of the state.

The disagreement, I think, is how we view the purpose and scope of government. You claim the government is there to protect its citizens. I say the government is there to protect the rights of its citizens. I find your viewpoint somewhat scary, to be honest, but you usually defend it well. For one, I'm quite happy that you seem to have thought about that question. I think it's a topic few people ever bother to address, or perhaps it never occurs to them to ask the question. So, rational people may disagree and all that.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/harford/bal-te.md.ha.chance10aug10,0,3922004.story

Protect us? From this guy? Gimme a break.

Historically Pot is a peacknik drug.Not many violent crimes
associated with it's use,exclusively.Yeah,in combination with
Acid,and living on the streets { food poisoning form dumpster food}
it's a scenario for Charles Manson and Squeaky Fromm.But Manson
didn't do the Killings.He just brainwashed his flock.
It's also fact,that I belive only one death has been attributed to
maryjane.Which is absolutely astounding,given I've personally been
at enough Pot Parties,where Bongs and smoke was so plentifull that
it wasn't a stretch to compare to watchin those Atom Bomb tests
on TV.

The problem with that is, who decides what is negative for society? The majority of American politicians these days seem to agree that homosexuality is negative for society. A bunch of these assholes also agree that belief in evolution is negative for society, or that atheism is negative for society. You can't define "negative for society" in any objective sense, and that's why I don't think that's a good litmus test for laws.
There is no law against being gay, an atheist or believing in evolution. But there is laws against drug use. Why? Because statistically speaking those who use hard drugs are more heavily involved in crime and don't have jobs. They are not productive members of society and anyone with common sense can see that. But statistically speaking, there is hardly any negative correlation with being gay, an atheist or believing in evolution. Any negative correlations you may find with those are nowhere near the extreme negatives connected with drug use. Apples and oranges.

Furthermore, being gay is natural, and believing in evolution and atheism is a right we have. I don't think these freedoms extend to drug use.

The fight to outlaw any drug is pointless. People who want drugs will always find a way to get them, period. I agree that plenty of drugs destroy lives, families, and are highly addictive. However, shouldn't the decision to destroy one's life, one's family, and gain an addiction be that of the person whose life it is?
So if you can't eliminate all drug use, don't try and eliminate as much as possible?

And no, you don't get the decision to become addicted to drugs and then expect society (whether it be your family or us taxpaying citizens) to compensate your living expenses for a choice you made. If you are injured or disabled that's a different story. But these people are making a choice and I feel they should be punished for this choice. We are being punished by having to compensate them, whether it be by giving them food, shelter or paying for rehabilitation programs or incarceration.

I'm not sure how accurate that argument is. I wouldn't touch meth with a ten-foot pole even if they sold it in grocery stores and at baseball games. Most of the people I know, including one or two chemical freaks (term not used pejoratively), are the same way.
If illegal drugs are more readily available I can't help but feel people would try them at higher rates and use them more frequently.

A couple other, more specific points. You neglected to mention nicotine and caffeine in your list of mind-altering substances that you have used. Also, most hallucinogens (LSD and psilocybin specifically come to mind) are extraordinarily safe, especially given their potency, and are about as nonaddictive as recreational drugs get. I know, I'm quibbling, and my argument isn't about safety or potency. Just a sidebar.
I would consider nicotine and caffeine soft drugs and drugs that should be allowed. You don't see caffeine or nicotine ruining families etc.

I don't think the government should require the use of seat belts, either. An individual has a sovereign right over his body. Any substance an individual chooses to use is no business of the state.
The government has the obligation to protect us from our own stupidity. As much as people hate the government telling us what to do, sometimes it is necessary. Do you think we should allow some stubborn father the right to not wear a seat-belt? And then if he gets into a fatal accident, force us to compensate his death by having to give his family money and support? Any member of our society who dies will either directly or in-directly affect other citizens. It is the governments job to do as much as they can to ensure we don't have to bear the burden of others stupidity.

Why should his right to be stupid trump our right to be as safe as possible from having to bear the burden of his stupidity?

The disagreement, I think, is how we view the purpose and scope of government. You claim the government is there to protect its citizens. I say the government is there to protect the rights of its citizens.
Why can't the government protect us and our rights? Why does it have to be one or the other? Do you think we shouldn't have police?

The big difference is this: You should be allowed to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't affect others. Using hard drugs does affect others, and not wearing a seat belt highly increases your chances of being involved in a fatal crash which will negatively affect all those who rely on you (your employer, your family, children, friends etc.)

There is no law against being gay, an atheist or believing in evolution. But there is laws against drug use. Why? Because statistically speaking those who use hard drugs are more heavily involved in crime
When using drugs is a crime, of course the people who use drugs are more apt to be criminals. They're all criminals, and manufactured ones at that.
So if you can't eliminate all drug use, don't try and eliminate as much as possible?
Education, and I mean real education and not the "Reefer Madness"-type propaganda, would be far preferable to criminalization.
And no, you don't get the decision to become addicted to drugs and then expect society (whether it be your family or us taxpaying citizens) to compensate your living expenses for a choice you made.
Now you're thinking like a fiscal conservative! I'm so proud!

I think you're absolutely right. Taxpayers should not prop up drug addicts. Perhaps if society didn't, drug addicts would get the point and quit destroying their lives.
If illegal drugs are more readily available I can't help but feel people would try them at higher rates and use them more frequently.
Illegal drugs are readily available already. Criminalization hasn't made them any scarcer; it's just pushed them into a dangerous black market where purity isn't guaranteed, one's safety isn't guaranteed, and coke-smuggling murderers in Colombia can make millions of dollars in this manufactured black market (where the only way to solve disputes is with violence). Legalize drugs, this entire black market would vanish practically overnight, and gang activity would sharply decrease.
The government has the obligation to protect us from our own stupidity. As much as people hate the government telling us what to do, sometimes it is necessary. Do you think we should allow some stubborn father the right to not wear a seat-belt? And then if he gets into a fatal accident, force us to compensate his death by having to give his family money and support? Any member of our society who dies will either directly or in-directly affect other citizens. It is the governments job to do as much as they can to ensure we don't have to bear the burden of others stupidity.
I agree with your main point, just not your method. I think the government should do as much as it can to ensure we don't bear the burden of others' stupidity, by not paying for others' stupidity. Stupid happens, but that doesn't mean the government should toss some money in the direction of the stupid.
Why can't the government protect us and our rights? Why does it have to be one or the other? Do you think we shouldn't have police?
Of course we should have police. But their duties are only to protect our rights. Our rights not to be killed, assaulted, robbed, etc., in addition to the higher-sounding rights to speech, religion, a fair trial, and so on.

The big difference is this: You should be allowed to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't affect others. Using hard drugs does affect others, and not wearing a seat belt highly increases your chances of being involved in a fatal crash which will negatively affect all those who rely on you (your employer, your family, children, friends etc.)

I have to say,there are some,like you,who shouldn't be given as
mush a St.Joseph's children aspirin.
Yer so unable to use brain waves,effectively,with due dilligence,
there ought be a warning on all drugs.
WARNING ... OVERDOSE is Harmfull.

When using drugs is a crime, of course the people who use drugs are more apt to be criminals. They're all criminals, and manufactured ones at that.
Even if drugs were legal, drug users would still turn to criminal activities such as stealing, theft or physical violence. Why? Because if you are addicted to drugs it's hard to do any legal job when you're either high or going through withdrawals between highs.

Now you're thinking like a fiscal conservative! I'm so proud!

I think you're absolutely right. Taxpayers should not prop up drug addicts. Perhaps if society didn't, drug addicts would get the point and quit destroying their lives.
Don't be so sure I'm thinking like a fiscal conservative. Most conservatives don't support helping those who are disabled, I do.

Anyway, most drug addicts would die before giving up their addiction. That's why assistance by society is necessary. So are you suggesting we let these people kill themselves?

Illegal drugs are readily available already. Criminalization hasn't made them any scarcer; it's just pushed them into a dangerous black market where purity isn't guaranteed, one's safety isn't guaranteed, and coke-smuggling murderers in Colombia can make millions of dollars in this manufactured black market (where the only way to solve disputes is with violence). Legalize drugs, this entire black market would vanish practically overnight, and gang activity would sharply decrease.
If you choose to involve yourself with drugs and become an un-productive member of society, having to be involved in a dangerous black market is a consequence I'm willing to give them.

I agree with your main point, just not your method. I think the government should do as much as it can to ensure we don't bear the burden of others' stupidity, by not paying for others' stupidity. Stupid happens, but that doesn't mean the government should toss some money in the direction of the stupid.
So an innocent child whose father died in a fatal car crash because he didn't wear a seat-belt shouldn't receive support from society? Really?

Why not do as much as we can to ensure that the father does wear a seat belt and prevent having to make the decision of helping or not helping his child.

Of course we should have police. But their duties are only to protect our rights. Our rights not to be killed, assaulted, robbed, etc., in addition to the higher-sounding rights to speech, religion, a fair trial, and so on.
Why do our rights extend to drug use?

EDIT: Most of what you mentioned is to protect us from being harmed (assault, murder etc.) and yet illegal drugs, as the other things you mentioned, are shown and proven to HARM us. What's the difference?

Even if drugs were legal, drug users would still turn to criminal activity. Why? Because if you are addicted to drugs it's hard to do any job when you're either high or going through withdrawals between highs.
Depends on the drug, I'd say. There are plenty of functioning coke addicts, heroin addicts, etc. Meth might be the one where you can't really hold down a job and the addiction, realistically, but meth users are really the lowest of the low anyway.

As for coke, I know of at least one blog where the author is a lawyer and freely admitted to having used the drug for years, both in law school and while practicing law. Functioning addicts are everywhere; we just never notice them.
Anyway, most drug addicts would die before giving up their addiction. That's why assistance by society is necessary. So are you suggesting we let these people kill themselves?
I'm going to sound like a heartless bastard for this, but: Absolutely.
If you choose to involve yourself with drugs and become an un-productive member of society, having to be involved in a dangerous black market is a consequence I'm willing to give them.
Ah, but that black market doesn't exist in a vacuum. I mentioned gangs specifically because a lot of their activity is, indeed, pushing drugs. If you start selling 'em all in head shops and the like, all of a sudden, these gangs have no way of making money, no reason to get in wars with other gangs invading on their "turf", and so forth. And these gangs don't just kill each other. They scare a lot of innocent people. Occasionally, you'll read stories about little kids killed by a stray bullet in a turf war. And these guys are mostly fighting over turf, which is just the area where they sell drugs. Legalize drugs, and these assholes won't be shooting each other over drug-related disputes.
So an innocent child whose father died in a fatal car crash because he didn't wear a seat-belt shouldn't receive support from society? Really?
Not from the government, no. From Dear Old Dad's insurance policy, yes.
Why not do as much as we can to ensure that the father does wear a seat belt and prevent having to make the decision of helping or not helping his child.
Well, firstly, there's no evidence that "Click it or ticket" laws do anything to increase seat belt usage. Secondly, what about all of us without kids? Why do we have our rights restricted just because some idiot with a kid might not wear a seatbelt and splatter himself on the pavement? I mean, granted, the seatbelt thing is kinda silly (I've never not worn one), but it's a silly law for the government to pass, too.
Why do our rights extend to drug use?
Because the individual is sovereign over his own body and what he chooses to put in it.
Most of what you mentioned is to protect us from being harmed (assault, murder etc.) and yet illegal drugs, as the other things you mentioned, are shown and proven to HARM us. What's the difference?
Drug use is voluntary. There is no restriction on one's rights there. Being assaulted is not voluntary.

Depends on the drug, I'd say. There are plenty of functioning coke addicts, heroin addicts, etc. Meth might be the one where you can't really hold down a job and the addiction, realistically, but meth users are really the lowest of the low anyway.
My point is, statistically drug addicts are more involved in crime and it's harder for them to hold down jobs. Making drugs legal wouldn't make it any easier for addicts to hold down jobs and not delve into criminal activity.

As for coke, I know of at least one blog where the author is a lawyer and freely admitted to having used the drug for years, both in law school and while practicing law. Functioning addicts are everywhere; we just never notice them.
Yes, we have functioning addicts. Are they the exception or the rule?

I'm going to sound like a heartless bastard for this, but: Absolutely.
That's the fundamental difference between you and I. If you don't care to help a drug addict out of his addiction, I feel bad for you. The government has a responsibility to help its citizens and I feel I also have a responsibility to help my fellow citizens.

Not from the government, no. From Dear Old Dad's insurance policy, yes.
The list of people this man's death will affect are endless. His employer will be out of an employee, his daughter will never have a father figure, his wife won't have a husband and insurance policies don't compensate as well as they should. The point is, why should this man be allowed to recklessly put his life in danger for no good reason, when so many people rely on him? It is the governments job to institute laws to protect everyone and continue a productive society.

Well, firstly, there's no evidence that "Click it or ticket" laws do anything to increase seat belt usage. Secondly, what about all of us without kids? Why do we have our rights restricted just because some idiot with a kid might not wear a seatbelt and splatter himself on the pavement? I mean, granted, the seatbelt thing is kinda silly (I've never not worn one), but it's a silly law for the government to pass, too.
If you don't think more people wear seat belts for the fear having a hundred or two hundred dollar ticket, you're crazy. Anyone who use to live when seat belt laws didn't exist can attest to the difference in mindset.

Furthermore, your life is important to other people even if you don't have a child. For example: your family, a roommate you may have who is splitting the rent with you, an animal you may own or an employer you may work for will all be negatively affected. It is the governments way to try and protect everyone from stupidity.

Because the individual is sovereign over his own body and what he chooses to put in it.
Says who? If they choose to put something in their body that negatively affects numerous people, why should their right for instant pleasure trump our right to live in a productive society with productive citizens?

My point is, statistically drug addicts are more involved in crime and it's harder for them to hold down jobs. Making drugs legal wouldn't make it any easier for addicts to hold down jobs and not delve into criminal activity.
Actually, I think it would make it easier. Easier to hold down jobs because there would be one fewer reason for employee drug tests. Easier to avoid criminal activity because it wouldn't be intrinsic in their addiction.
Yes, we have functioning addicts. Are they the exception or the rule?
Good question. I don't know. Do you have any empirical evidence one way or the other?
The list of people this man's death will affect are endless. His employer will be out of an employee, his daughter will never have a father figure, his wife won't have a husband and insurance policies don't compensate as well as they should. The point is, why should this man be allowed to recklessly put his life in danger for no good reason, when so many people rely on him? It is the governments job to institute laws to protect everyone and continue a productive society
No, it's the government's job to protect people's rights. Again, I don't think we're going to have any common ground when we start talking about the role of government.
If you don't think more people wear seat belts for the fear having a hundred or two hundred dollar ticket, you're crazy. Anyone who use to live when seat belt laws didn't exist can attest to the difference in mindset.
When I put on my seatbelt, I'm not even thinking about the possibility of a seatbelt ticket. I'm thinking, "Do I want to be ejected from my car in case of an accident?"
Furthermore, your life is important to other people even if you don't have a child. For example: your family, a roommate you may have who is splitting the rent with you, an animal you may own or an employer you may work for will all be negatively affected. It is the governments way to try and protect everyone from stupidity.
Such a government would be continually ineffectual, as if there's one thing the human race is good at, it's having the bottom 10% act like complete morons. At some point, you have to ask how practical it is to police stupidity, and if it's just easier to let the stupid kill themselves and stop spreading their genes around.
Says who?
Says me. This is all opinion and philosophy, remember.
If they choose to put something in their body that negatively affects numerous people, why should their right for instant pleasure trump our right to live in a productive society with productive citizens?
Because we don't have a right to live in a productive society with productive citizens.

The government has the obligation to protect us from our own stupidity. As much as people hate the government telling us what to do, sometimes it is necessary. Do you think we should allow some stubborn father the right to not wear a seat-belt? And then if he gets into a fatal accident, force us to compensate his death by having to give his family money and support? Any member of our society who dies will either directly or in-directly affect other citizens. It is the governments job to do as much as they can to ensure we don't have to bear the burden of others stupidity.

The problem with that is that one person's stupidity is another's good idea. Some people would say mountain biking is dangerous and might result in injury, and thus should be made illegal to "protect" the mountain bikers. Others would call it excellent exercise. You make good points about how one person's stupidity can have bad effects upon others in society, but once you open the door and let others start dictating what you can or cannot do, you're in trouble. Because it won't stop at the obvious things like smoking. And I have to agree with Borg - it will become politicized and pretty soon some idiot's going to (inaccurately) argue that homosexual behavior is inherently dangerous.

The big difference is this: You should be allowed to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't affect others. Using hard drugs does affect others, and not wearing a seat belt highly increases your chances of being involved in a fatal crash which will negatively affect all those who rely on you (your employer, your family, children, friends etc.)

But everything we do affects others. Early morning jogs may benefit someone with increased health that allows them to live longer. It also increases your chances of being run over, suffering a knee injury that might affect your employment (depending on what you do), etc.

Ultimately, the person best able to decide what's best for me and my family is me. Not that I'll always do the right thing, but I'd still be right more often than would a bunch of strangers.

Actually, I think it would make it easier. Easier to hold down jobs because there would be one fewer reason for employee drug tests. Easier to avoid criminal activity because it wouldn't be intrinsic in their addiction.
We are not talking about recreational drug use, but those who are addicted to drugs. Most of the friends I know who are addicted to hard drugs cannot hold a steady job. I feel you are confusing recreational use with soft drugs and addiction to hard drugs. They are not the same.

When I put on my seatbelt, I'm not even thinking about the possibility of a seatbelt ticket. I'm thinking, "Do I want to be ejected from my car in case of an accident?"
When I drive around my city at speeds of 25 to 30 miles-an-hour, I don't know if I would always wear my seat-belt. But I do because it's against the law not to. The bottom line is, these laws give people more incentive to wear a seat-belt at all times and draws more awareness to the dangers of not wearing one.

At some point, you have to ask how practical it is to police stupidity, and if it's just easier to let the stupid kill themselves and stop spreading their genes around.
Then why have laws against drunk driving? It's their choice, right? They're being reckless and could kill themselves in the process. So just let them? But the reason we have laws against drunk driving is to protect the innocent. Just because there may be different consequences between drunk driving and not wearing a seat belt, the point is, innocent people will be negatively affected in both situations. That's the big-picture point I think you're missing.

It is the job of the government to make sure people fulfill their responsibilities. That's why if a man has a child and leaves his family, he is forced to pay child support. We all have responsibilities to others, and we should not be allowed to jeopardize our obligations to fulfill our responsibilities by putting ourselves in un-neccessary harm that has no positive benefit (be that drug use or not wearing a seat-belt).

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

The problem with that is that one person's stupidity is another's good idea.
I hate that argument because it doesn't make sense to me. There is a general conscious among many things and one is that wearing a seat-belt is beneficial. No one can argue against the statistics and if you choose to ignore these statistics and stick your head in the sand, face the consequences of a ticket.

For example: murder could be a good idea to some, but there is a general conscious that it's wrong. The same can be applied to seat-belts and I don't think we should ignore common sense for the sake of, "well, some people think not wearing a seat-belt is a good idea!". Anyone who thinks not wearing a seat belt is a good idea is wrong and that's a fact. Sometimes you have to put common sense based on facts above all else.

Furthermore, difference number one is that there is benefits to mountain biking but no benefit to not wearing a seat-belt. Difference number two is that the amount of deaths because of mountain biking isn't anywhere near the amount of deaths caused by not wearing seat-belts. When an issue starts affecting more than the few, and has ZERO positive benefit, I feel it is necessary to implement measures to protect people from themselves -- which then trickles down to protecting the innocent who may be harmed as a result of someone else's stupidity.

But everything we do affects others. Early morning jogs may benefit someone with increased health that allows them to live longer. It also increases your chances of being run over, suffering a knee injury that might affect your employment (depending on what you do), etc.
My point is, something that has no benefit besides hurting others needs to be outlawed. Morning jogs have a benefit and statistically people don't die frequently from them. When an activity has no benefit and statistically starts harming a large portion of our society, that's the point we need to take action. There is a direct correlation with not wearing your seat-belt and dying during a crash. There is hardly that same correlation with morning jogs and the like.

Ultimately, the person best able to decide what's best for me and my family is me. Not that I'll always do the right thing, but I'd still be right more often than would a bunch of strangers.
Then be prepared to face the consequences if you decide to engage in an activity that has no benefit and is proven to negatively affect your responsibilities to society and your familiy.

Drug laws were introduced during a very tumultuous time for this country. All at once rationality was disgarded over "morality" in poor, and sometimes racist, choices. The United States was slowly falling out of the Jim Crow law South and into rapid growth with immigrants coming from everywhere. The west was becoming civilized and the anarchy that existed throughout much of it was becoming apparent to the entire country. Morphine, frequently prescribed for anything from depression to alchoholism, was becoming an epidemic from abuse. Marijuana was associated with black Jazz and immigrant Mexicans, opium with the Chinese. But frankly, I don't think it was the drugs that was doping the country, it was the doctors. They gave the drugs a welcome face that was then vilified by politicians. Cocaine helped most of white homekeeping women America get by in that world. We made the same mistakes on a slightly different front at the same time with the prohibition. Everything fun for the nation was made illegal in a few short decades. And we saw what a dumb idea it was shortly after. Crime shot through the roof, murders and robberies on the street in "civilized" parts of the US. With illegal alcohol and drugs people could only turn to the criminals to get it to them. Law abiding citizens making deals with gangsters and murderers in order to get things that were just a short time previous had been avaliable at the corner store. No one can deny the terror that existed in the 30s. After alcohol was legalized again, the gangs all but dried up. You can't make as much money off of gambling and prostitution alone, the demand is lower. It's hard to claim that the Prohibition was a good idea, so why is it so easy to claim the war on drugs is a good idea? Do we forget the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, today? The 30s so much more romantisized than crack cocaine in the 80s? More accepted than heroin and pot in the 70s? Or is it that we don't want to think about the fact that this currently running war on drugs is significantly worse at fighting crime where it exists than fighting gangsters in the 30s was? The war on drugs is Bullshit.

While OD, I commend you for your thorough debating and I think your points are reasonable and well thought through, I think I'm going with Borg on this one. My original opinion still stands. :)

While OD, I commend you for your thorough debating and I think your points are reasonable and well thought through, I think I'm going with Borg on this one. My original opinion still stands. :)
Well I agree with allowing the use of marijuana, which is what you said in your original post. Trans-fats and cigarettes don't ruin lives and families the way hard drugs do, and usually a little marijuana doesn't either. There is also positive medical benefits to marijuana for those with chronic pain. This is why I feel there needs to be a distinction between hard and soft drugs. Yes, I feel alcohol is a hard drug...but just because we allow one hard drug doesn't mean we should allow all hard drugs for the sake of consistency. The problem is that hard drugs usually don't have any positive benefits and are shown time and time again to ruin lives. Hard drugs should not be allowed because they affect more than the user in all negative ways. The governments job is to not only protect our rights, but protect our safety from others and our own stupidity. There is a common sense conscious people must reach with certain issues, and the common sense in this instance is that hard drugs typically don't lead to anything productive and negatively affects innocent people connected to the user. We shouldn't condone that on a moral level nor on a level of protection ensured to us by our government.

I also agree with you on the incarceration issue. We shouldn't lock up drug addicts and over crowd our prisons, what we should do is get them into rehabilitation.

The only thing we disagree on is allowing all drugs or only soft drugs. Luckily, I don't think we'll ever allow hard drugs and thank god for that.

So many people do hard drugs without any negative consequences, but we're going to prohibit them because of the idiots who mess up their lives? Why don't we outlaw gambling, since some people lose all their money in casinos? Gambling is also a real addiction, so it's the same type of thing. Don't you care about the poor little children whose parents have gambling habits? :p

On another note, there is apparently a serious initiative going on in California, supporting the legalization of weed (http://laist.com/2008/06/30/california_to_legalize_weed_for_eve_1.php).
There is an initiative in the works that could end up on the November ballot that allows for marijuana to be sold to anyone, and anywhere that already sells alcohol. Its being called The Inalienable Rights Enforcement Initiative. From the full text of the measure:

This initiative will amend the Constitution of California to defend and safeguard the inalienable rights of the People against infringement by governments and corporations, providing for the lawful growth, sale, and possession of marijuana. Marijuana will be taxed through a system of stamps and licenses--a $5 stamp will be required for the sale of an eighth ounce of marijuana and a $50 annual license will be required for the growth of one marijuana plant. To protect participants and encourage participation in the system, such licenses and stamps will be available anonymously in stores where marijuana is sold.

My point is, something that has no benefit besides hurting others needs to be outlawed. Morning jogs have a benefit and statistically people don't die frequently from them. When an activity has no benefit and statistically starts harming a large portion of our society, that's the point we need to take action. There is a direct correlation with not wearing your seat-belt and dying during a crash. There is hardly that same correlation with morning jogs and the like.

Take abortion for instance. The split between people in favor and opposed is roughly (very roughly) even. I suspect those opposed to allowing abortion see absolutely no benefit whatsoever. I we open up the government to getting into controlling issues of personal choice (and we already have), I don't think it's safe to assume we as a society are going to stop at seat belts and helmets. And inasmuch as abortion foes are knocking themselves out thinking up new ways to ban it, I'm sure they'd be pleased at finding this as a potential new avenue.

Then be prepared to face the consequences if you decide to engage in an activity that has no benefit and is proven to negatively affect your responsibilities to society and your familiy.

I shouldn't have to fear my government dropping by my house and second guessing all of the decisions I've made up to that point, whether they be well-educated, but wrong, or simply an oversight on my part.

Take abortion for instance. The split between people in favor and opposed is roughly (very roughly) even. I suspect those opposed to allowing abortion see absolutely no benefit whatsoever. I we open up the government to getting into controlling issues of personal choice (and we already have), I don't think it's safe to assume we as a society are going to stop at seat belts and helmets. And inasmuch as abortion foes are knocking themselves out thinking up new ways to ban it, I'm sure they'd be pleased at finding this as a potential new avenue.
Well one may say that's why abortion went all the way to the supreme court because there is a 50/50 split among society and the supreme court had to determine if there was a positive benefit for society.

But hard drug use, murder, not wearing helmets or seat-belts are all pretty much agreed to not be beneficial. The only people who don't find outlawing hard-drugs acceptable and requiring helmet and seat-belt use are those who do so out of principle or those who are addicted to hard drugs. I don't think that's reason to ignore common sense and facts showing these measures protect us from our own stupidity and protect the innocent who may be affected by these negative actions.

You don't have the right to be reckless with something that is proven to have zero benefit when you are a member of society and people in that society rely on you.

Is this kid a dyed-in-the-wool democrat, or what?

You don't have the right to be reckless with something that is proven to have zero benefit when you are a member of society and people in that society rely on you.

OK, fine. Just realize that society most likely would have voted to put the kibosh on your late night partying at the dance club when you were in high school. I doubt many would have found any real benefit there.

OK, fine. Just realize that society most likely would have voted to put the kibosh on your late night partying at the dance club when you were in high school. I doubt many would have found any real benefit there.
Late night partying and clubbing doesn't have near the extreme and common negative consequences directly tied with using hard drugs and not wearing a seat belt.

However, one can argue that partying and clubbing improves your social life, as it did for me. It allowed me the opportunity to be around gay people, which would not have happened without this underage nightclub. I wouldn't be nearly as comfortable with myself now had I not gone out and been around that community.

But yes, drinking as a minor should be outlawed and curfew laws should be enforced. I don't disagree with that and what I did shouldn't be legal. But there is positive benefits to what I did, yet there is zero positive benefits to hard drugs and not wearing seat belts.

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." —On Liberty, John Stuart Mill

It isn't solely for their own good, but to protect those who rely on them.

Here is the big difference I see.

Yes, you can get run over by a car if you go jogging. But the act of jogging doesn't directly cause that potential negative consequence. That's simply human error that could not be prevented. But the act of hard drug use, at its core, directly causes negative consequences everytime you do them -- whereas jogging doesn't have any negative consequence at its core. This is why it's apples and oranges, and the same can't be said for jogging or any other act that can only potentially cause negative consequences, not always cause negative consequences like hard drug use.

As for not wearing a seat belt, that is the exception to the rule. Not wearing seat belts greatly increases your chances of death in an accident and has zero positive benefit, unlike jogging.

Why not require people to wear seat-belts to protect us from our own stupidity and others who may rely on us? We have responsibilities and we cannot put ourselves in unnecessary danger which has zero benefit.

Here is an example. Sky diving is dangerous, but because not very many people sky dive and people rarely die from it, that danger is acceptable. But since virtually everyone drives and car accidents are common, we must take steps to minimize that potential danger. When something crosses the line and affects more than a minor portion of our society, we have an obligation to implement measures to protect us, even if we take away some of our "freedom" in the process. We still have the freedom to drive, even though we have to wear a seat-belt, right?

I refuse to give up common sense for the weak argument that the choice to wear a seat-belt is essential to our freedom. Sometimes you have to give up what is important for what is more important, and I feel wearing a seat-belt is an instance where that's the case.

I refuse to give up common sense for the weak argument that the choice to wear a seat-belt is essential to our freedom. Sometimes you have to give up what is important for what is more important, and I feel wearing a seat-belt is an instance where that's the case.
This thread is not about seatbelts. It was a sidebar which was, at best, an analogy. It seems to have grown beyond that and has become the focus of this thread, while the far more important issue is starting to become ignored. When we're dealing with psychoactive drugs, what the government is controlling is far more important than seatbelts. Indeed, by definition, controlling psychoactive drugs means that the government is controlling the contents of one's mind. That isn't a trifling liberty; that is a fundamental one, from which all others flow. Beyond the practical aspects of reducing gang activity and violence (which has yet to be rebutted), the drug issue is one that involves fundamental liberty. One can't claim to live in a free society in which the contents of one's mind are policed.

I agree with borg. The government has no right to control what i do with my body. Regardless of whether its unhealthy, it's still my choice. It's not like nobody's not telling people what these drugs will do. They teach every child in school how these drugs are going to affect your overall health. If someone still choses to do them, knowing what the effects are going to be, then that should be up to them.

This thread is not about seatbelts. It was a sidebar which was, at best, an analogy. It seems to have grown beyond that and has become the focus of this thread, while the far more important issue is starting to become ignored. When we're dealing with psychoactive drugs, what the government is controlling is far more important than seatbelts. Indeed, by definition, controlling psychoactive drugs means that the government is controlling the contents of one's mind. That isn't a trifling liberty; that is a fundamental one, from which all others flow. Beyond the practical aspects of reducing gang activity and violence (which has yet to be rebutted), the drug issue is one that involves fundamental liberty. One can't claim to live in a free society in which the contents of one's mind are policed.
Who says we live in a completely free society? Why can't we put restrictions on people to ensure they fulfill their responsibilities?

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." —On Liberty, John Stuart Mill
::applauds:: That was possibly the most appropriate quote I can possibly think of for this situation.

They teach every child in school how these drugs are going to affect your overall health. If someone still choses to do them, knowing what the effects are going to be, then that should be up to them.
Good point. I definitely support education about the dangers of drugs, as well as restrictions on their use and sale (e.g. age requirements).

Who says we live in a completely free society? Why can't we put restrictions on people to ensure they fulfill their responsibilities?
We have a responsibility not to use drugs? Who says so?

Late night partying and clubbing doesn't have near the extreme and common negative consequences directly tied with using hard drugs and not wearing a seat belt.

However, one can argue that partying and clubbing improves your social life, as it did for me. It allowed me the opportunity to be around gay people, which would not have happened without this underage nightclub. I wouldn't be nearly as comfortable with myself now had I not gone out and been around that community.

I agree with both of those argument, actually, but the point I'm trying to get across is that it doesn't matter what you or I think is good or bad. It's going to be the collective judgement of society as a whole, and I guarantee you're going to lose the ability to do some things you like because the majority (or at least the majority of voters) doesn't see any value in it. Sadly, I suspect a lot of the activities enjoyed by groups disliked by a lot of people - the rich, gays, loudmouth Hollywood liberals, whatever - are going to be the first to be banned.

I agree with both of those argument, actually, but the point I'm trying to get across is that it doesn't matter what you or I think is good or bad. It's going to be the collective judgement of society as a whole, and I guarantee you're going to lose the ability to do some things you like because the majority (or at least the majority of voters) doesn't see any value in it. Sadly, I suspect a lot of the activities enjoyed by groups disliked by a lot of people - the rich, gays, loudmouth Hollywood liberals, whatever - are going to be the first to be banned.
Exactly! This is a great point... The more freedoms we let the government take from us, the more they'll continue to take them.

Exactly! This is a great point... The more freedoms we let the government take from us, the more they'll continue to take them.
What freedoms have been taken away as a result of the seat-belt laws? I doubt you'll find any with a direct connection.

What freedoms have been taken away as a result of the seat-belt laws? I doubt you'll find any with a direct connection.
Right, because this thread is all about seatbelt laws. Even if that was relevant, there needn't be a "direct connection". If we give the government permission to legislate morality by outlawing things that are more "morally wrong" than actually dangerous, then they can continue to use the excuse of immorality to outlaw basically anything that a lot of people think is "wrong".

Right, because this thread is all about seatbelt laws. Even if that was relevant, there needn't be a "direct connection". If we give the government permission to legislate morality by outlawing things that are more "morally wrong" than actually dangerous, then they can continue to use the excuse of immorality to outlaw basically anything that a lot of people think is "wrong".
In a nutshell...

well, holland/amsterdam has seen a major drop in drug use and use of "hard drugs" since they don't give a shit about it. less time and money chasing people down, filling up the courts, etc..

Right, because this thread is all about seatbelt laws. Even if that was relevant, there needn't be a "direct connection". If we give the government permission to legislate morality by outlawing things that are more "morally wrong" than actually dangerous, then they can continue to use the excuse of immorality to outlaw basically anything that a lot of people think is "wrong".
As long as it does not affect innocent people, they wouldn't have much of an argument to outlaw it.

For instance, jogging can have a negative affect on innocent people because you could get hit by a car, but there is no inherent negative affect with jogging. But there is an inherent negative affect with hard drug use. That's the difference between outlawing hard drug use --which always negatively affects its users-- and other activities that could only possibly negatively affect us when we do them.

Also, hard drug use not only affects the user negatively every time they use, but it also affects all of the people who are connected to the user -- whether it be an employer, a roommate, family member, child or any other responsibility they may have. We have the right to make laws to ensure, as much as possible, that people fulfill their responsibilities to society.

alright, from now on, greed is now against the law.

OD, where's your evidence that hard drugs always have a negative effect on their users? Could you prove that they're any worse for you than Tylenol, caffeine, alcohol, trans fats, etc?

As long as it does not affect innocent people, they wouldn't have much of an argument to outlaw it.
But it can hurt you, we have to make sure you don't hurt yourself. *Wets tissue with tongue and wipes your face*

For instance, jogging can have a negative affect on innocent people because you could get hit by a car, but there is no inherent negative affect with jogging. But there is an inherent negative affect with hard drug use. That's the difference between outlawing hard drug use --which always negatively affects its users-- and other activities that could only possibly negatively affect us when we do them.
Name the drugs that always negatively affect its users. Marijuana? Nope, no proven negative effects at all. LSD? Only if you have a bad trip. Psycobilin(shrooms)? Nope, also just with a bad trip. Cocaine? Only if abused excesively. Opium? Again, only if abused excesively. Same with morphine. The only drug that is inherently dangerous is heroin due to it basically being highly concentrated morphine, even then one hit isn't going to kill you. All those drugs also have positive medical benefits and frankly, people find them fun. This all falls into the posibility of abuse. Not every user abuses and not every person who tries hard drugs continues to use.

Also, hard drug use not only affects the user negatively every time they use, but it also affects all of the people who are connected to the user -- whether it be an employer, a roommate, family member, child or any other responsibility they may have. We have the right to make laws to ensure, as much as possible, that people fulfill their responsibilities to society.
Sadness is not a valid harm. Not every decision should be based on weighing benefits versus harms, this allows abuse of natural rights. Somebody has the right to their own body and any law that violates that right is immoral and against the principles this country was founded with. The right to take drugs was something considered a constitutional right into the 20th century. Modern drug laws don't ban use, they ban the right to sell and the right to possess. Any law that actually bans use is unconstitutional, as found in the early 20th century by the supreme court that deemed an old version of the drug law to be unconstitutional. Modern laws are just puritanical ways of getting around that right, and it's wrong. It's an abuse of our system.

Name the drugs that always negatively affect its users. Marijuana? Nope, no proven negative effects at all. LSD? Only if you have a bad trip. Psycobilin(shrooms)? Nope, also just with a bad trip. Cocaine? Only if abused excesively. Opium? Again, only if abused excesively. Same with morphine. The only drug that is inherently dangerous is heroin due to it basically being highly concentrated morphine, even then one hit isn't going to kill you. All those drugs also have positive medical benefits and frankly, people find them fun. This all falls into the posibility of abuse. Not every user abuses and not every person who tries hard drugs continues to use.
As a society we must determine if certain activities benefit us, either on a big-picture level or as individuals. If there is no benefit to an activity and this activity has way more negative benefits, I believe you have the right to outlaw that activity. Furthermore, if an activity is proven to highly increase your chances of death, along with having no positive benefit, that is even more reason to outlaw it.

Depressant Drugs include: alcohol, heroin, codeine methadone, barbiturates, tranquilizers and inhalants. Most have no positive benefit, unless they are used medically. I approve of them being used medically because the positive benefits outweigh the negatives. But for recreational use there are only negative benefits, some of which include death. Also, the word depressant should give you a clue that any high you may feel will result in a low. The difference with these drugs is how and why they are used. Yes, we should use them for some reasons, but that doesn't mean we should use them for any and all reasons.

Stimulant Drugs include: coffee, caffeine, cocaine and amphetamines. Coffee and caffeine are not shown to kill its users and ruin their lives. Any examples would be the exception, not the rule. While cocaine and amphetamines are shown to be highly addictive and are shown to ruin lives at high rates. As a society I don't think it is beneficial to allow drugs that have a high probability of destroying ones life and thus negatively affecting society as a whole. The bottom line is: when a stimulant reaches a point to where many people are dying from it, that's the point at which you must outlaw it.

Hallucinogens include drugs such as LSD and PCP. As you said, you can sometimes experience a good high and sometimes experience a bad high. They are unpredictable. The government shouldn't legally allow its citizens to take such a risky gamble, that could very well result in death. There are reasonable and healthy gambles we should be allowed to take, but not ones that are shown --at much higher rates than skydiving-- to result in death.

Marijuana and ecstasy aren't completely in either category, and as I said earlier --if you had read-- I think there needs to be a distinction between hard and soft drugs. I feel there are more positive benefits to marijuana than negative. There are also not high rates of people dying from its use, so yes, I would legalize marijuana.

I think there needs to be more research into all drugs because I'm not certain on which drugs I would allow and which drugs I wouldn't. But to say we have the right to use any drug is selfish, considering the negative impact many are shown to have on society.

As a society we must determine if certain activities benefit us, either on a big-picture level or as individuals. If there is no benefit to an activity and this activity has way more negative benefits, I believe you have the right to outlaw that activity. Furthermore, if an activity is proven to highly increase your chances of death, along with having no positive benefit, that is even more reason to outlaw it.

Depressant Drugs include: alcohol, heroin, codeine methadone, barbiturates, tranquilizers and inhalants. Most have no positive benefit, unless they are used medically.Outlawing drugs also has consequences.

We know, for example, that prohibition of alcohol is more destructive to society than allowing it's use.

Hallucinogens include drugs such as LSD and PCP. As you said, you can sometimes experience a good high and sometimes experience a bad high. They are unpredictable. The government shouldn't legally allow its citizens to take such a risky gamble, that could very well result in death. There are reasonable and healthy gambles we should be allowed to take, but not ones that are shown --at much higher rates than skydiving-- to result in death.
Name one death due to LSD or psilocybin. Just one.
I think there needs to be more research into all drugs because I'm not certain on which drugs I would allow and which drugs I wouldn't. But to say we have the right to use any drug is selfish, considering the negative impact many are shown to have on society.
Oh fuck off. Saying "I have a right" is selfish? Well, you must hate those Founding Fathers, the selfish pricks. Or Martin Luther King; what a selfish asshole! How dare they say that they have rights?

As a society we must determine if certain activities benefit us, either on a big-picture level or as individuals. If there is no benefit to an activity and this activity has way more negative benefits, I believe you have the right to outlaw that activity. Furthermore, if an activity is proven to highly increase your chances of death, along with having no positive benefit, that is even more reason to outlaw it.
So the argument is that for everything except drugs we don't ban because it's only the possibility of harm, but with drugs we ignore the fact that it's only a possibility of harm in order to "protect" ourselves. The fact is that people harm themselves, we only live once anyways. Frankly you are incapable of providing evidence that drugs--of any kind--only provide harm for the users and those around them. Why is personal choice not even in the list of benefits? The fact is that there is evidence toward the benefit of drugs, if only for entertainment, and there is no evidence that drugs are inherently harmful without abuse. Prohibition of drug use is unconstitutional; we needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol and we just decide to disregard that fact when it comes to recreational drugs. Prohibition of drugs creates more, and more dangerous, crime than what it was banned for. And even forgetting about the fact that it's unconstitutional it's against every principle this country was founded on. Drug use will not stop because it's banned, and banning it creates enormous financial opertunities for smugglers, with cocaine being sold at about a 300% markup and marijuana being the largest cash crop in the United States.

Blibblob?! Where the hell have you been?