Should Drugs Be Legal?

[JohnF]

unlike drugs, tho, theres no benifit to not wearing helmets.

 

Riding a motorbike without a helmet feels great; it really does. It sounds better too. When I got my first motorbike it was allready a requirement in th UK to wear a helmet so I had very little opportunity to ride without one.

 

Unlike drugs being illegal though I think that since the authorities give you the right to ride a motorbike on the public highways they can also choose how you exercise that right. A better comparison would be allowing you to ride a motorbike in the first place; which is a greater risk to your safety than driving a car. If however any medical treatment you received due to an injury caused by riding a motorbike was paid for by your insurance then your premium would reflect this and your choice of transport could not be considered a burden on society; helmet or no helmet.

[ParanoiA]

Riding a motorbike without a helmet feels great; it really does. It sounds better too. When I got my first motorbike it was allready a requirement in th UK to wear a helmet so I had very little opportunity to ride without one.

 

This is a great example of what I mean about rights that others don't understand or have an interest in. Notice how Dak has no issues with dictating your wearing a helmet. He believes his judgement of forcing you to wear a helmet is superior and should supercede your judgement of choosing to enjoy the helmet free effects in trade for extra risk.

 

But this isn't consistent. If we're going to outlaw stuff for people's own good - in the name of safety - then why is driving legal? Why is parachuting or flying legal? These things aren't needed - they simply desired. People inherently trade a little risk for the convenience of motorized transport.

 

The reason why is because those who advocate outlawing things, are outlawing things that don't interest themselves. It's easy to say "you have to wear a helmet" when you don't ride a motorcycle or go without a helmet yourself. Smoking bans, anti-drug advocates, fatty foods police - filled with people who don't have a genuine interest themselves - people who don't have to give up anything, or already gave up long ago for other reasons.

 

If however any medical treatment you received due to an injury caused by riding a motorbike was paid for by your insurance then your premium would reflect this and your choice of transport could not be considered a burden on society; helmet or no helmet.

 

I completely agree with this. Most want to point out that premiums are figured by pooling everyone together. So, even though that one guy pays more for his insurance, we all pay a little more regardless - due to guys like him that make bad decisions that effect my wallet.

 

But the insurance company isn't the government. They can figure premiums however they want. What if tomorrow they come up with a whole new scheme to figure premiums? What if some companies do and some companies don't? They're not government, so they can't be controlled on how to figure premiums. That would be a business decision left up to them.

 

So, basically, it's not the helmet-less guy's fault that the insurance company wants to pass off his extra costs to everyone else. Their practice, a private practice, shouldn't dictate my freedoms.

[JohnF]

The problem with rights is how they are interpreted by people.

 

Suppose you had the right to do anything you wanted in the privacy of your own home. This would effectively allow you to kill somebody. Once you stepped out of your home though you could be imprisoned for the act. The public places are effectively owned by the government and just as you can choose what happens in your home the government can choose what happens in public. Being a murderer in public would be deemed illegal. You could stay in your home but that would then become your prison.

 

So you could have the right to do whatever you wanted in your own home without causing people to start killing visitors.

 

But this is where the law on drugs falls down. You would be allowed to use drugs in your own home but not in public or be in a public place whilst under the influence of drugs. This seems reasonable and protects the public from drug abuse and it's consequences.

 

As it stands however just using the drugs in your own home is considered illegal; the law is no longer consistent. It should therefore follow that if you visited another country where the use of a drug was permitted and whilst there, you used it, the authorities at home should arrest you for the offence on your return; but they don't.

 

When it comes to the motorbike example I gave before you have to remember that the road is owned by the government and as such they can dictate how it is used, unlike your home where for the most part you are free to do as you choose. But you can dictate how visitors to your home make use of it. There are no laws in the UK governing the use of motorbikes on private property; as far as I know.

[JohnF]

A consistent law that couldn't really be argued with would be that you had the right to manufacture, buy, sell and use drugs in private property but it would be illegal to transport drugs in a public place. No rights would be infringed then, as any rights you have in public have to be given by the public/government. Under such circumstances most people wouldn't be able to get hold of drugs without someone breaking the law.

[ParanoiA]

A consistent law that couldn't really be argued with would be that you had the right to manufacture, buy, sell and use drugs in private property but it would be illegal to transport drugs in a public place. No rights would be infringed then, as any rights you have in public have to be given by the public/government. Under such circumstances most people wouldn't be able to get hold of drugs without someone breaking the law.

 

I don't get how you think this is consistent and can't be argued with. It's not consistent that you can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. You don't get to rape your kids, or kill visitors or any other violation of someone else's rights.

 

We have rights in privacy AND in public. There are rights associated with privacy that protect you on your turf, but that's it - no free for all behavior allowed privately any more than publicly.

 

If I can't transport my stuff from A to B, then that's an infringement on my rights. Rights come from the public / government and are applied to private and public property. I don't see the jurisdiction partition you're trying to use here.

 

When we talk about rights, civil rights, personal freedoms, we're talking public and private. The constitution gaurantees rights everywhere - they don't give the government this grand role of dictating all rights in public and nothing in private. The partition doesn't exist - and shouldn't exist.

[JohnF]

I don't get how you think this is consistent and can't be argued with. It's not consistent that you can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. You don't get to rape your kids, or kill visitors or any other violation of someone else's rights.

 

We have rights in privacy AND in public. There are rights associated with privacy that protect you on your turf, but that's it - no free for all behavior allowed privately any more than publicly.

 

If I can't transport my stuff from A to B, then that's an infringement on my rights. Rights come from the public / government and are applied to private and public property. I don't see the jurisdiction partition you're trying to use here.

 

When we talk about rights, civil rights, personal freedoms, we're talking public and private. The constitution gaurantees rights everywhere - they don't give the government this grand role of dictating all rights in public and nothing in private. The partition doesn't exist - and shouldn't exist.

 

It was supposed to be a 'What If' scenario. The idea being that if you did separate the public and private rights it would not necessarily lead to people committing crimes in their own home. And as for rights being guaranteed, that's not really true. Any person or organisation that has the power to restrict your rights can do so if they choose. A piece of paper will not actually stop them. You have to understand what a right is in the first place; it's something that has been given to you. Rights don't exist naturally.

[ParanoiA]

It was supposed to be a 'What If' scenario. The idea being that if you did separate the public and private rights it would not necessarily lead to people committing crimes in their own home.

 

But it would though. I guess I don't see how it wouldn't. I'm thick like that...

 

And as for rights being guaranteed, that's not really true. Any person or organisation that has the power to restrict your rights can do so if they choose. A piece of paper will not actually stop them. You have to understand what a right is in the first place; it's something that has been given to you. Rights don't exist naturally.

 

No, no. Our constitution was written with the intent that our rights do exist naturally. That it's the restriction of these rights that is the necessary evil for a society to function. That's why the legislative method is to open all behavior, and only restrict as necessary. At least originally it was that way.

 

The piece of paper will actually stop them as long as the government remains by the people. The force and will of the people will see it so. That's where rights come from - us.

[Pangloss]

This is why many people (and the state of Florida) draw the line at whether the motorcycle rider has insurance that covers them if they're not wearing a helmet. If they do, it's legal. If they don't, it's not.

 

Insurance is still a shared burden. But other insurance policy holders can then make a choice about whether they want to share in that culpability or not (i.e. take their business elsewhere).

 

Unfortunately it's almost impossible to tell if the motorcycle driving by has that kind of insurance. So they never get pulled over, which means they still get into accidents regardless of their insurance status, which is why I keep footing their bill.

[Royston]

Insurance policies for vehicles is actually a nice analogy to why drugs isn't a black and white area. You have a fast car, you need fast car insurance, if you're a certain age, or you have a certain history with your vehicle, be it a careful driver et.c these all effect the cost of your insurance.

 

Now take drugs...start with LSD, active at 25 micrograms, a hallucinogenic, so environment and mental health are paramount. Compare that with amphetamine sulphate, active at 10 milligrams (do the maths to see which is more potent) keeps you awake, can increase confidence. Heroin, active at 60 milligrams, physical dependency after prolonged use, strong depressant.

 

How can you possibly lump these chemicals into one basket. Each one requires a certain personality type to use them responsibly, any history of mental illness has to be accounted for et.c et.c This is why I was stressing controls earlier...while these substances are illegal, there are no controls on who takes them, the dose taken, and any contaminates.

 

Each chemical has to have separate legal barriers for legalization to work...it's all very well having the freedom to experiment with any of the above, but if you're obviously going to be a liability, and possibly a danger you simply should not be allowed access to these chemicals. Now, obviously you get under aged drinking et.c, so there's nothing stopping anyone passing on their purchase to somebody else, but regulations on how much you're allowed, no contamination et.c would surely help.

[ParanoiA]

Insurance policies for vehicles is actually a nice analogy to why drugs isn't a black and white area. You have a fast car, you need fast car insurance, if you're a certain age, or you have a certain history with your vehicle, be it a careful driver et.c these all effect the cost of your insurance.

 

Now take drugs...start with LSD, active at 25 micrograms, a hallucinogenic, so environment and mental health are paramount. Compare that with amphetamine sulphate, active at 10 milligrams (do the maths to see which is more potent) keeps you awake, can increase confidence. Heroin, active at 60 milligrams, physical dependency after prolonged use, strong depressant.

 

How can you possibly lump these chemicals into one basket. Each one requires a certain personality type to use them responsibly, any history of mental illness has to be accounted for et.c et.c This is why I was stressing controls earlier...while these substances are illegal, there are no controls on who takes them, the dose taken, and any contaminates.

 

Each chemical has to have separate legal barriers for legalization to work...it's all very well having the freedom to experiment with any of the above, but if you're obviously going to be a liability, and possibly a danger you simply should not be allowed access to these chemicals. Now, obviously you get under aged drinking et.c, so there's nothing stopping anyone passing on their purchase to somebody else, but regulations on how much you're allowed, no contamination et.c would surely help.

 

But you realize, despite all you've said, these drugs are available everywhere. Illegal as hell and a thriving black market - which is where the shooting, gangs and violence is located.

 

If we got rid of the drug dealers and violence associated with drug use, by restoring personal freedom, then you have a better off society - a safer society.

 

Right now the drug war is a joke. You're not controlling anything. All of these drugs are quite lumped together and being used at peak levels. Your scenario is in motion right now. Legalizing these things changes very little in that regard. The same addicts as before. The big change happens up high.

 

No matter how the black market gets around the law, no company can set up shop and just start making recreational drugs. When you legalize these things, that's the part that changes. Law abiding, regulated capitalists make the drugs and put the black market to shame. There goes your violent drug dealers.

[foodchain]

Insurance policies for vehicles is actually a nice analogy to why drugs isn't a black and white area. You have a fast car, you need fast car insurance, if you're a certain age, or you have a certain history with your vehicle, be it a careful driver et.c these all effect the cost of your insurance.

 

Now take drugs...start with LSD, active at 25 micrograms, a hallucinogenic, so environment and mental health are paramount. Compare that with amphetamine sulphate, active at 10 milligrams (do the maths to see which is more potent) keeps you awake, can increase confidence. Heroin, active at 60 milligrams, physical dependency after prolonged use, strong depressant.

 

How can you possibly lump these chemicals into one basket. Each one requires a certain personality type to use them responsibly, any history of mental illness has to be accounted for et.c et.c This is why I was stressing controls earlier...while these substances are illegal, there are no controls on who takes them, the dose taken, and any contaminates.

 

Each chemical has to have separate legal barriers for legalization to work...it's all very well having the freedom to experiment with any of the above, but if you're obviously going to be a liability, and possibly a danger you simply should not be allowed access to these chemicals. Now, obviously you get under aged drinking et.c, so there's nothing stopping anyone passing on their purchase to somebody else, but regulations on how much you're allowed, no contamination et.c would surely help.

 

I agree. Individual metabolisms, and or state of mind simply of the individual while on the drug will have an impact. Personally on a digit block for having a bashed finger nail removed that shots take quite a bit of time to take effect, and during a surgical operation I actually managed to wake up from the gas more then once, it will be somewhat dependent on the situation, or really on the user or the lifespan of that person choosing to be a user in the context of his or her or others environment really.

 

Now with that said, such really applies to anything really. Like the motor biking example. I have witnessed people crash on motorbikes in real life, and it could have easily lead to damage to other people. Automotive machines typically do this on a regular basis. Yet no one is prevented from say owning a monster machine with over 500 hp and some turbo configuration on it. You can really apply this to just about everything really.

 

Its as simple as alcohol. Its legal, but don’t get caught using marijuana! To compound on this issue as is very evident in this debate, its not some empirical issue such as 1 + 1 = 2 of course, yet we still have controls on what a person can do with there life in relation to any particular object.

[Royston]

But you realize, despite all you've said, these drugs are available everywhere.

 

Which was my point earlier, surely it's better that the availability of drugs (which won't change due to legalization) has controls on each substance.

 

If we got rid of the drug dealers and violence associated with drug use, by restoring personal freedom, then you have a better off society - a safer society.

 

Personal freedom within reason, why should somebody have the freedom to be a liability to others.

 

Right now the drug war is a joke. You're not controlling anything. All of these drugs are quite lumped together and being used at peak levels.

 

Which reinforces my point.

 

Your scenario is in motion right now.

 

No it's not, there's drug advice, and that's as far as it goes.

 

Legalizing these things changes very little in that regard. The same addicts as before. The big change happens up high.

 

I would hope it would be government controlled, you get your monthly ecstasy tablet from the local pharmacy, if you're silly enough to want to indulge in heroin, you have a limit to that dose.

 

There goes your violent drug dealers.

 

Hurrah !

 

during a surgical operation I actually managed to wake up from the gas more then once.

 

Believe it or not, during a hernia operation I slapped the surgeons hand and turned over...very vague recollection, but the surgeon found it very amusing.

[ParanoiA]

Which was my point earlier, surely it's better that the availability of drugs (which won't change due to legalization) has controls on each substance.

 

No, you're not getting what I'm saying. You said we NEED controls - and I'm saying but it's NOT being controlled and the sky ISN'T falling. So how bad then do we really need controls?

 

My whole point is that the things you are concerned about don't change whether it's legal or not. The things that do change upon legalization, improve things.

 

Personal freedom within reason, why should somebody have the freedom to be a liability to others.

 

A parachuter or hang glider can be a liability to me. The millions of cars on the road are a liability to me. Do I really need to go on here? All of us are free to do crap that has the potential to hurt everyone else. That's not realistic, to me.

[Royston]

No, you're not getting what I'm saying. You said we NEED controls - and I'm saying but it's NOT being controlled and the sky ISN'T falling. So how bad then do we really need controls?

 

My whole point is that the things you are concerned about don't change whether it's legal or not. The things that do change upon legalization, improve things.

 

And I agree with those points...I was merely stating that drugs are not a black and white issue.

 

A parachuter or hang glider can be a liability to me. The millions of cars on the road are a liability to me. Do I really need to go on here? All of us are free to do crap that has the potential to hurt everyone else. That's not realistic, to me.

 

Yes, but it can be improved...this is what I'm getting at, you have certain areas where you can hand glide (if you don't adhere to these areas you become a liability), you have insurance policies that restrict certain vehicle use. There are no constraints on the use of drugs, I'm not saying having fun should be controlled, but when it becomes a clear danger to somebody else, then it should be controlled.

[ParanoiA]

And I agree with those points...I was merely stating that drugs is not a black and white issue.

 

Yeah, I guess I lost my way. I don't think drugs themselves is a black and white issue, I just think that their legality is. Realistically, drugs cause a lot of problems. It's certainly the last thing our kids need to dive into at adolescence. I know a handful of people that have lost their life to meth. I don't mean death in the traditional sense, I mean dead people walking. So, it's not like I don't recognize issues with drugs. And in that sense, they most certainly aren't victimless. In a legal sense though, they are. And that's where it is a black and white issue to me.

 

Yes, but it can be improved...this is what I'm getting at, you have certain areas where you can hand glide (if you don't adhere to these areas you become a liability), you have insurance policies that restrict certain vehicle use. There are no constraints on the use of drugs, I'm not saying having fun should be controlled, but when it becomes a clear danger to somebody else, then it should be controlled.

 

I agree, when it's a clear danger. So far, the main scenarios involving drugs and danger is related to their illegality. I realize someone on LSD next door might make you wonder about your safety - but how many reports do we get on LSD nuts hurting people? Alcohol on the other hand...oh my...

[thechronic]

Many proponents for illegalizing drugs say that taking drugs impairs your judgment and you don't have control over hurting someone else. That is why it should be illegal...

 

In order for this point to have any bearing at all, you have to PROVE that legalizing drugs will sgnificantly cause an increase in usage, because the above opinion about drugs do NOT depend on whether the drugs are illegal or not.

[Phi for All]

In order for this point to have any bearing at all, you have to PROVE that legalizing drugs will sgnificantly cause an increase in usage, because the above opinion about drugs do NOT depend on whether the drugs are illegal or not.

Tough to do when people are going to lie about usage when it's illegal. Legalize it and there *will* be an increase in usage - at least when asked now that it's legal.

[Dak]

iirc, drug usage actually seems to have gone down in holland since legalisation?

 

This is a great example of what I mean about rights that others don't understand or have an interest in. Notice how Dak has no issues with dictating your wearing a helmet. He believes his judgement of forcing you to wear a helmet is superior and should supercede your judgement of choosing to enjoy the helmet free effects in trade for extra risk.

 

But this isn't consistent. If we're going to outlaw stuff for people's own good - in the name of safety - then why is driving legal? Why is parachuting or flying legal? These things aren't needed - they simply desired. People inherently trade a little risk for the convenience of motorized transport.

 

The reason why is because those who advocate outlawing things, are outlawing things that don't interest themselves. It's easy to say "you have to wear a helmet" when you don't ride a motorcycle or go without a helmet yourself. Smoking bans, anti-drug advocates, fatty foods police - filled with people who don't have a genuine interest themselves - people who don't have to give up anything, or already gave up long ago for other reasons.

 

well, for a start it's not just me dictating people shouldn't do something that doesn't interest me: i'm open to persuasion as to why i should change my oppinion, i'm not suggesting that it be illegalised merely because i dont think it should be allowed, and i dont even bother wearing a helmet when i ride my (pedal) bike.

 

secondly, i'm suggesting a balance between freedom, neccesity, convienience, and recognising that in some areas people make crap choices, not an absolute ban on anything unsafe that would result in banning driving, flying, and parachuting.

 

and thirdly, your still making the same mistake that i mentioned earlyer: the reason we forbid childeren from more than we forbid adults from isn't anything to do with 'rights', it's simply that adults are generally bettere at making choices than kids, so don't need the protection as much. adults aren't perfect, tho, so -- for exactly the same reasons that we don't allow kids to drink/smoke/drive/have sex/choose wether they go to school/etc -- we may be justified in not allowing adults to ride bikes without hemets/do drugs/etc.

 

iow, adults still make demonstratably bad choices in certain areas, so we're still justified in 'choosing for them', for the same reason that we're justified in choosing for kids re: alcohol etc.

 

I still think that current drug laws are screwy, but i'm against a blanket legalisation for the above reasons. if it can be demonstrated that enough people make stupid choices reguarding a particular drug (nicotine is actually the easyest to see this in), then it should be illegal imo.

[ParanoiA]

i'm suggesting a balance between freedom, neccesity, convienience, and recognising that in some areas people make crap choices, not an absolute ban on anything unsafe that would result in banning driving, flying, and parachuting.

 

I'm suggesting a balance between freedom and personal responsibility. Yes people make crap choices - but that's subjective. Real freedom means accepting the fact that people are free to be stupid and make crap choices. Otherwise you're cherry picking freedom. For some, freedom means living dangerously. For some, life is about risk, a little or a lot - who are you to deny me that? Who are you to judge me and decide I'm not allowed to risk my life a little? Who said life is supposed to be smooth sailing and risk-free for all? What a boring world that would be.

 

That's why I keep using mountain climbing and parachuting as examples. These things aren't needed - they are desired. And participants usually refer to the thrill and risk involved - it gives them the joy they're looking for in life. Drugs are similar in that we know there is risk in using, but we'd rather risk and enjoy the experience than to play it safe and dull. I don't force you to take risk, so why do you feel justified in forcing me not to take a risk?

 

and thirdly, your still making the same mistake that i mentioned earlyer: the reason we forbid childeren from more than we forbid adults from isn't anything to do with 'rights', it's simply that adults are generally bettere at making choices than kids, so don't need the protection as much. adults aren't perfect, tho, so -- for exactly the same reasons that we don't allow kids to drink/smoke/drive/have sex/choose wether they go to school/etc -- we may be justified in not allowing adults to ride bikes without hemets/do drugs/etc.

 

Not sure I agree. The reason we, as parents, forbid our children from such things is because we are shaping them as we want. They aren't old enough to be accountable for their own actions either, in terms of punishment. No, we don't believe they can make as good of decisions as adults, but it's more about "mental capacity" in my mind. If you aren't of the mental capacity to to fairly judge risk in your life, then we have an obligation to stop you. As a society we have agreed that magically at 18 years old, you suddenly have the mental capacity to be responsible for your own actions and held accountable.

 

I still think that current drug laws are screwy, but i'm against a blanket legalisation for the above reasons. if it can be demonstrated that enough people make stupid choices reguarding a particular drug (nicotine is actually the easyest to see this in), then it should be illegal imo.

 

Then why isn't sugar and starch banned or controlled? My country has demonstrated total stupidity to the point that drugs are the least of our problems. We are the most obese nation. Everyone is over weight. I walk around passing people like a car weaving through slow traffic, because they're mostly fat and slow with no intention of exercising or correcting their lifestyle. This is the epidome of stupidity.

 

But, hey, it's not a drug so it doesn't count?

[Dak]

I'm suggesting a balance between freedom and personal responsibility. Yes people make crap choices - but that's subjective. Real freedom means accepting the fact that people are free to be stupid and make crap choices. Otherwise you're cherry picking freedom. For some, freedom means living dangerously. For some, life is about risk, a little or a lot - who are you to deny me that? Who are you to judge me and decide I'm not allowed to risk my life a little? Who said life is supposed to be smooth sailing and risk-free for all? What a boring world that would be.

 

That's why I keep using mountain climbing and parachuting as examples. These things aren't needed - they are desired. And participants usually refer to the thrill and risk involved - it gives them the joy they're looking for in life. Drugs are similar in that we know there is risk in using, but we'd rather risk and enjoy the experience than to play it safe and dull. I don't force you to take risk, so why do you feel justified in forcing me not to take a risk?

 

yeah, but whenever i've made my point i've allways mentioned 'people regreting it afterwards' or their choices being 'demonstratably crap'. i.e., it's not just some people saying their judjment is off -- it the people who are in the situation that, later, come to the opinion that their choice was crap that makes me consider taking peoples right to choose away from them.

 

which is why i wouldn't dream of banning stuff like parachuting, or boxing. people, on the whole, seem to acknowledge that theres a risk and make the desision wizely. boxers who get really hurt usually maintain that they knew the risks they were taking, and often carry on boxing after they've healed.

 

people who get into crashes without wearing hemets generally start to wear helmets thereafter, somewhat indicating that their descision was stupidly made under an 'it wont happen to me' premice.

 

hence why i'd consider banning smoking -- not because it's unhealthy, or it can cause death -- but because most smokers want to give up but can't, somewhat validating the idea that people, in general, make stupid choices with reguards to smoking.

 

the same cannot, imo, be said about cannabis. the lack of 'regretful cannabis users' is what makes me unprepared to say it should be banned 'to protect the users'.

 

obvioulsy, theres a huge potential for argument over what constitutes an unaceptable rate of making bad choices, and no 'right' answre, but i still think the basic premice is valid -- if people, in general, demonstrate that they're crap at making a particular choice, then that choice should be made for them. hell, i even think that bannage could be justified even in the abscence of regret, but that's a very murky area (pretty much for the reasons you stated).

 

Not sure I agree. The reason we, as parents, forbid our children from such things is because we are shaping them as we want. They aren't old enough to be accountable for their own actions either, in terms of punishment. No, we don't believe they can make as good of decisions as adults, but it's more about "mental capacity" in my mind. If you aren't of the mental capacity to to fairly judge risk in your life, then we have an obligation to stop you. As a society we have agreed that magically at 18 years old, you suddenly have the mental capacity to be responsible for your own actions and held accountable.

 

as long as that last bit was sarcastic, you've pretty much stated my opinion. we have an obligation to stop people who cannot fairly judge the risk in a given situation; these situations are less likely after 18, but not non-existant.

 

Then why isn't sugar and starch banned or controlled? My country has demonstrated total stupidity to the point that drugs are the least of our problems. We are the most obese nation. Everyone is over weight. I walk around passing people like a car weaving through slow traffic, because they're mostly fat and slow with no intention of exercising or correcting their lifestyle. This is the epidome of stupidity.

 

But, hey, it's not a drug so it doesn't count?

 

well, if it's that much of a problem, then maybe govournment regulation would be in order? (tho i'd blame lack of exersize more than sugar intake)

 

of course, in all cases, a more eloquent (but less realistic) solution would be to just make it so that the majority of people weren't so stupid (says the non-hemet wearing smoker)

[ParanoiA]

Well, I won't waste any more web space repeating myself. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

I think it all comes down to the fact that I simply choose to err on the side of personal freedom whereas you choose to err on the side of personal safety. That's a fundamental thing that I doubt we're going to resolve on this thread.

 

Funny though, I'll bet we'd have a great time toking and joking...

[Dak]

I think it all comes down to the fact that I simply choose to err on the side of personal freedom whereas you choose to err on the side of personal safety. That's a fundamental thing that I doubt we're going to resolve on this thread.

 

fair enough; tho i actually think i err on the side of freedom, but look at this as not choosing for them, just making assumptions as to what their choice would be if they were more informed (eg, after having done it, and based on other people who have done it). which i guess could be called erring on the side of safety.

 

Funny though, I'll bet we'd have a great time toking and joking...

 

only till i whitied

 

which is why i don't smoke anymore :-(

[ParanoiA]

only till i whitied

 

which is why i don't smoke anymore :-(

 

Excuse my ignorance, but what is whitied?

[Dak]

smoking too much, and getting sick and turning visably pale/white.

 

not to be confused with the rarer 'greenying', which is the same, but where you go green.

 

I stopped smoking 'cos i smoked too much and couldn't control my intake (other than by stopping), then when i tried to restart about a year later in moderation, i found my tolerance level so shot that a few tokes would get me stoned, and then 15 hilarious minutes later, i'd whitey.

 

so i don't smoke any more. which i personally think sucks.

[Pangloss]

Whoa, that's bizarre, I don't think I've ever heard of that. Is it a very common problem for smokers?