I still don't understand marijuana legalization people.

[zapatos]

I don't know people who refuse to do drugs because they're illegal. They refuse to do drugs because they're scared of them, or don't even want to try - laws have very little to do with it.

That's interesting because I know a lot of people who don't do drugs because they are illegal. Myself included. If I do illegal drugs I have a good chance of being caught because of random drug testing at work. If it wasn't illegal I'd probably smoke periodically. I liked it in my younger days.

[Butters]

Skyhook, you seem to have a very all or nothing approach to this. Not just in terms of drugs all being the same generic 'immoral revenue' raisers.

 

I don't consider myself so deep into this or a part of the drug culture. I haven't done any drugs besides alcohol (literally none, I take no prescription drugs or antibiotics) for probably about five years. I still support the decriminalisation of most drugs and making legal some others.

 

You also seem to keep referring to 'you guys' as if everyone who disagrees is part of some organised counter-culture movement or something.

 

Personally, my point was not that all drugs should be legal and are good or vice versa. It was mainly that imprisoning people simply for using certain substances is ineffective and is often framed as a moral issue when it really should not be.

[Moontanman]

Surprise surprise surprise. I'm absolutely right about this mind altering drug alright. The thread starter didn't name names, you all came out and identified yourselves. I can't understand the logic you guys put forward. but I realised that it is of no use arguing about it with those deep in the culture.

 

well, there are people who refuse to do drugs because they're illegal ! When there is smoke, there is a possibility of fire, although we don't see the fire. The gov made the decision years ago, backed by medical advisers. Sometimes you don't need to do it to know if the result is true. Sure it doesn't kill out right, but like a virus, the most contagious virus doesn't kill the host, but weakened it , enabling the virus to spread. If it is bad for the government, usually in terms of economic considerations, the gov will take actions against it. Is it good or bad to do drugs in the first place ? If bad, surely good governments will say it is bad. Political parties that seek popular sentiments is pandering to the crowd. Logical thinking parties with sound policies are more worth supporting.

This situation the west is in now, is probably due to failure in drug policies, porous borders , which now they decided that they can't police it but put it on damage control.

Another thing that is odd is that you guys argued legalising drugs to stimulate the economy. In the history of the world, opium is traded to china. England sold india's opium to china, yeah it must be good for england's economy, ruining families elsewhere. The same is tobacco, medical people have established it as bad, but some countries are exporting it to developing nations, earning immoral revenues. I'm slightly naive for saying this. LOL..

You guys are so deep into this, that it has become the norm, and it mean nothing, So what ?? right ?

 

The pop/rock/etc bands popularied some cultures. Some fans of such entertainers probably take up their ways of life. Lots of news reports of entertainers going in and out of rehab, and some went away. Not marijuana, but other drugs. I'm saying the drug culture. You guys have lax views regarding drugs. Without the coorporation from citizens, the governments are fighting futile wars against drugs. Again is drug good or bad ? I've the feeling some of the more liberal guys here feel drugs is ok. You save money on jail maintanance, but spend more money building more rehab facilities. eh... save a penny but pound foolish..

 

I understand there is a international treaty regarding drugs. The countries that participated promised to criminalize perpetrators. If drugs are bad, you need deterrence. Without deterrence, does it even work ? maybe, maybe not. but , you can lower the sentences if it is too stiff, heroin and cannabis are different. or maybe some enforced social services.

 

However, I'll have to say that I've not encountered marijuana. On a movie, Drew Barrymore ate a special cookie at a party, and she went on stage dancing, and use a feather boa to do some unthinkable moves. I guess that is the popular perception. no inhibition. Those with daughters have to be worried.

 

 

Skyhook, are you trolling or do you really not see the differences between differences recreational drugs? Alcohol is probably the worst of all recreational drugs and i can buy it at the corner zip-mart! Alcohol and Tobacco kill far more people than all other recreational drugs put together many times over. Drew Barrymores problem was alcohol, she is an alcoholic, Cannabis was not the reason she went to rehab, it was alcohol. Marijuana is not completely benign but it is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, some studies actually show pot suppresses cancer. I wouldn't bet the farm on it but they have to dig pretty hard to show pot is harmful.

 

Alcohol, tobacco, opiates, coke, meth, are extremely addictive physically. Opiate addiction is a living hell, i know because I was addicted to medically prescribed pain pills, oxycontin, it is outrageously addictive and can kill you easily. Pot on the other hand cannot kill you, you cannot over dose on Maryjane, it does not make you feel bad the next day and it is a pretty good analgesic for some types of pain, now faced with intractable pain which would you take? something that is so addictive your body craves more and more till it kills you or incapacitates you or smoke pot which isn't addictive and cannot kill you?

 

I am not saying that marijuana is good for you or harmless but locking people up for it is just wrong, may as well lock people up for masterbation...

 

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/gen008.htm

 

Drug Facts And Statistics

From The Drug Project.

 

Deaths in the United States in a typical year are as follows:

 

•Tobacco kills about 400,000

•Alcohol kills about 80,000

•Workplace accidents kill 60,000

•Automobiles kill 40,000

•Cocaine kills about 2,500

•Heroin kills about 2,000

•Aspirin kills about 2,000

•Marijuana kills 0

There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana at any time in US history.

 

All illegal drugs combined kill under 20,000 per year, or a small percent of the number killed by alcohol and tobacco.

[Mr Skeptic]

That's interesting because I know a lot of people who don't do drugs because they are illegal. Myself included. If I do illegal drugs I have a good chance of being caught because of random drug testing at work. If it wasn't illegal I'd probably smoke periodically. I liked it in my younger days.

 

The government sure doesn't have any right to randomly test you, and companies have no obligation to enforce drug laws. So you don't take drugs because your company has a policy against them, not because they're illegal. Most places you're also not allowed to go to work drunk either, even though alcohol is perfectly legal, and people avoid that too.

[CaptainPanic]

That's interesting because I know a lot of people who don't do drugs because they are illegal. Myself included. If I do illegal drugs I have a good chance of being caught because of random drug testing at work. If it wasn't illegal I'd probably smoke periodically. I liked it in my younger days.

Weird idea to undergo a drug test at work.

 

I would only agree to such a test if I had a job which required me to be on stand-by 24/7. I don't really see the point of it in any other way.

Or is it perhaps just to ensure the continuity of the company - making sure their employees don't end up in jail? Then more tolerant laws or complete legalization would also instantly make the company less strict as a result.

 

I'm curious to find out why a private company would assist the state in upholding a law - do you have privatized speed cameras on your parking lot as well?

[zapatos]

The government sure doesn't have any right to randomly test you, and companies have no obligation to enforce drug laws. So you don't take drugs because your company has a policy against them, not because they're illegal. Most places you're also not allowed to go to work drunk either, even though alcohol is perfectly legal, and people avoid that too.

I don't take drugs because my company has a policy against them because they are illegal. My company does not test if I had a beer over the weekend because beer is legal, but they do test to see if I've taken cocaine over the weekend because it is not legal.

 

Weird idea to undergo a drug test at work.

 

I would only agree to such a test if I had a job which required me to be on stand-by 24/7. I don't really see the point of it in any other way.

Or is it perhaps just to ensure the continuity of the company - making sure their employees don't end up in jail? Then more tolerant laws or complete legalization would also instantly make the company less strict as a result.

 

I'm curious to find out why a private company would assist the state in upholding a law - do you have privatized speed cameras on your parking lot as well?

I know this cites an old study, but:

 

"Drug testing, legally required for many public employers, has become widespread in the private sector over the past two decades. A 2006 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 84 percent of employers required new hires to pass drug screenings, and 39 percent randomly tested employees after they were hired. In addition, 73 percent tested workers when drug use was suspected and 58 percent required testing after accidents on the job."

http://www.theledger.com/article/20070206/NEWS/702060387

 

Taking the test is a requirement of employment so not taking it effectively means I would have to quit my job. And severely limit the number of places I can work.

 

I wouldn't characterize it as my company assisting the state in upholding the law. If I test positive for illegal drugs they do not inform the state. They simply fire me.

 

In my case I work for a consulting agency where I am hired out to other companies. Their justification for drug testing is for my company to be able to assure potential clients that they have a better product (me) and to reduce liability. If I really screw up at work (at the client site) and it turns out I've been doing illegal drugs, my company is at higher risk of a lawsuit.

Edited December 23, 2010 by zapatos

[ParanoiA]

Surprise surprise surprise. I'm absolutely right about this mind altering drug alright. The thread starter didn't name names, you all came out and identified yourselves. I can't understand the logic you guys put forward. but I realised that it is of no use arguing about it with those deep in the culture.

 

Yeah this is only the umpteenth thread on this topic. You can browse through the threads and see us identify ourselves over and over again. You can always count on truly honest people to remain honest. And perhaps after soaking in those arguments, you might get the logic too.

 

Also, you might note how most of the posters in this thread that support marijuana legalization are *not* in the culture at all. Your confirmation bias apparently missed that. Culling contrary information is no way to build a belief system.

 

Sure it doesn't kill out right, but like a virus, the most contagious virus doesn't kill the host, but weakened it , enabling the virus to spread. If it is bad for the government, usually in terms of economic considerations, the gov will take actions against it. Is it good or bad to do drugs in the first place ? If bad, surely good governments will say it is bad. Political parties that seek popular sentiments is pandering to the crowd. Logical thinking parties with sound policies are more worth supporting.

 

So many directions to go here...I'll stick with personal liberty appeals for the moment. But you could really use some heavy doses of Robert Anton Wilson to shake up that certainty of yours.

 

Question: Why do you feel it's your place to deny people the right to do something that you sincerely believe is bad for them?

 

I sincerely believe that eating fatty foods, sugar cereals and high carb items are bad for people. Sure, it doesn't kill out right, but like a virus, the most contagious virus doesn't kill the host, but weakened it, enabling the virus to spread. But we still allow people to make these bad decisions. Why do we do that?

 

I once convinced myself my wife and kids were dead. I did this for artsy reasons that I'm sure you'd think is silly, but I got exactly what I was looking for out of the experience. I wanted to get as close to the anguish and despair and total loss of such a tragedy, to feel utterly hopeless and disconnected to current events and responsibilities - nothing anyone could see as positive or good for me. Should that be banned as well?

 

I went to the grand canyon earlier this year for family vacation. I am deathly afaid of heights, yet I could not wait to face it and be afraid. I wanted to feel that woozy, sickly, "oh my god I can't do this" feeling, and relish being irrationally frightened. (Well, not totally irrational because tens of people have died from falling in just this century.) Should that be illegal?

 

Eventually I want to jump out of a perfectly good airplane. I want to know how it feels to race to the ground, with a very real chance of dying. I need to know that I could die, even if it's somewhat a remote possibility. What is good about such a thing?

 

These are experiences I wanted to have. Experiences that you have no right to deny since they do not affect you. Neither does drugs. Doing drugs creates experiences, good and bad, that we have a right to experience for whatever edification we mistakenly believe we'll get out of it. We have a right to be miserable. We have a right to *not* like the stuff you like. We have a right to seek out anguish and despair. We have a right to determine, for ourselves, what we'd like to experience out of life.

 

You make a lot of assumptions, and you're very certain about them. But I doubt you've ever given any thought as to the implications of your assumptions. Your belief system appears to hinge on the idea that we all want the same thing out of life: to live as long as possible as healthy as possible. That's an *incorrect* assumption - grossly incorrect, in fact.

 

Many of us want to experience as much as possible regardless of cost to health and longevity, and are more than willing to sacrifice years of our life in order to enjoy them. I would rather experience intensely and evanescent than eternally cautious.

 

But you've decided that it doesn't matter what I want. You've decided that what you want for me is more important than what I want for me - without demonstrating any objective harm to anyone else. How does one become so certain of their interpretation of reality, that they would force their moral beliefs onto others? I'm sure you won't mind when I support banning fats, sugars, fiction based entertainment, driving, being in the cold without a coat,

 

You've demonstrated such a level of arrogance and disrespect for my one and only lifetime here, that I hope you understand when I vote to ban everything you love. I hope you have to visit your children in prison because they got caught eating cookies made from real butter - then maybe you'll have an idea how it feels to jail people for smoking plant matter.

 

 

 

Of course, I wouldn't really go along with such things. The government counts on that. They specifically want us to turn on each other, and it's exactly what we're doing. People run around *looking* for something to be offended by; *looking* for something they can outlaw and restrict. Look at E-cigarettes - completely solves the problem of smoke and therefore second hand smoke. Nothing but odorless water vapor - but they still want to ban them from being used in public places. Why? Capitalism answered the call for a solution to the problems of smoke and burning matter. The whole drive to ban smoking was specifically linked to the smoke from burning tobacco. In comes a remedy, but out goes common sense. Once again, a minority is denied equal rights and no one fights for them. Exactly how we do things in America...

 

No, I won't play that game, even though you will. I won't deny you the things you like just because I think they're weird and disgusting.

 

 

That's interesting because I know a lot of people who don't do drugs because they are illegal. Myself included. If I do illegal drugs I have a good chance of being caught because of random drug testing at work. If it wasn't illegal I'd probably smoke periodically. I liked it in my younger days.

 

Well, I did say laws have very little to do with it.

 

But let's examine this a bit. How does its legal status effect people? I see at least two types: One, people that are scared to break laws, to counter the government. Two, people who depend on government to tell them what is good or bad for them, based on their legal status.

 

You sound like that first type, and I respect that. After all, I would rather people just obey laws against murder and not try to reason around them.

 

Of the folks that refrain from doing illegal drugs because they're illegal, the second type is far more prolific in my opinion. I say that because that's the pyschology of the average american. How many times have you heard someone say (including yourself) "well the government wouldn't let them just screw me" just before signing that pile of paperwork to buy your house? How many times have you heard someone flippantly proclaim the need for a law when they discover something might be bad for somebody?

 

I do take your point, but it's still muddy to me since so many people look to the government to legitimate good and bad. This is, of course, egregiously wrong and frighteningly dangerous. Just imagine all the things people are doing because they think government regulates good and bad - like drinking. All of those poor people out killing themselves with alcohol, misled by their own mental inventions - when they could be enjoying something far more innocuous in comparison, like marijuana or a rainbow of pharmaceuticals.

Edited December 23, 2010 by ParanoiA

[swansont]

Of course, I wouldn't really go along with such things. The government counts on that. They specifically want us to turn on each other, and it's exactly what we're doing. People run around *looking* for something to be offended by; *looking* for something they can outlaw and restrict. Look at E-cigarettes - completely solves the problem of smoke and therefore second hand smoke. Nothing but odorless water vapor - but they still want to ban them from being used in public places. Why? Capitalism answered the call for a solution to the problems of smoke and burning matter. The whole drive to ban smoking was specifically linked to the smoke from burning tobacco. In comes a remedy, but out goes common sense. Once again, a minority is denied equal rights and no one fights for them. Exactly how we do things in America...

 

Nothing but odorless water vapor … and nicotine.

[Moontanman]

Nothing but odorless water vapor … and nicotine.

 

 

I had been wondering if that vapor contained any nicotine, makes sense that it would.

 

When I think of nicotine delivery systems that have been used I always think of the Simsons episode where Crusty the Clown is standing in front of a mirror naked trying to find a spot on his body not already covered by a nicotine patch....

[ParanoiA]

Nothing but odorless water vapor … and nicotine.

 

Not true. There are nicotine cartridges, and there are non-nicotine cartridges. Even for nicotine cartridges, actual nicotine delivery is in question, let alone any nicotine present in the expelled water vapor - not to mention how much could be delivered second hand if it even exists. I will concede that it likely does, however. Hard to see how it couldn't.

 

Even futher, e-cigs are not banned or even talked about being banned based on the type of cartridge. And mark my words, they never will either. This is the part that really pisses me off too...but I'll wait til my cynicism is validated before I actually turn red...but banning nicotine liquid use is 'really super duper hard' for the government to enforce, so they will ban e-cigs outright so they don't have to go to the trouble to figure out who's actually poisoning the air. They'll just ban it for the minority that uses them harmlessly too, without regard for their rights because the majority doesn't think it's a big deal.

 

We never think it's a big deal to ban stuff we don't engage in.

 

My boss uses an e-cig, and vaporizes cappucinno liquid with it - not a bit of nicotine present, and she uses it as a cessation device. It's just a matter of time until some idiot is offended by it and makes her stop. And why? For the same reason they're trying to ban them here in Blue Springs and Kansas City: Because of the ignorance of the offended, not by reality at all.

 

I guess we only defend the rights of minorites when it's romantic and fashionable. Since we don't have sob stories of wronged e-cig users smoking chocolate water then there's nothing to defend here that looks cool and enlightening.

 

A poem for my anti-personal-choice people, although I'm sure ya'll have read it before:

 

First they came for the Jews

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left

to speak out for me.

 

-- Martin Niemöller

 

When I think of nicotine delivery systems that have been used I always think of the Simsons episode where Crusty the Clown is standing in front of a mirror naked trying to find a spot on his body not already covered by a nicotine patch....

 

Yeah, for me, quitting smoking required quitting the whole bit. I've never bought into the whole nicotine delivery replacement mechanism to quit smoking. Patches, e-cigs, none of it.

 

But e-cigs are not marketed as a cessation device, though I'm sure they'd like to. Personally, I'd find it both amusing and depressing to walk around public places with one, infuriating moral busy bodies looking for something to complain and cry about.

 

Second hand smoke was the argument, not the reason for anti-smoking laws. If you understand that, you'll understand every silly excuse the anti-smoking crowd will now use to ban e-cigs - from the precious "children" to "toxins", your right to choose is an abomination to the professional my-problem-is-your-problem crowd.

Edited December 23, 2010 by ParanoiA

[swansont]

I had been wondering if that vapor contained any nicotine, makes sense that it would.

 

When I think of nicotine delivery systems that have been used I always think of the Simsons episode where Crusty the Clown is standing in front of a mirror naked trying to find a spot on his body not already covered by a nicotine patch....

 

And while nicotine patches in the US are no longer prescription items, they are still regulated by the FDA. There's a court battle in progress to see what their standing is in terms of the e-cigarettes. Tobacco, in general, has gotten a bit of a pass in terms of regulation, much like alcohol has. The one thing that seems to set these two apart is popularity, rather than any objective measure of addictiveness and harm.

 

Not true. There are nicotine cartridges, and there are non-nicotine cartridges. Even for nicotine cartridges, actual nicotine delivery is in question, let alone any nicotine present in the expelled water vapor - not to mention how much could be delivered second hand if it even exists. I will concede that it likely does, however. Hard to see how it couldn't.

 

IOW, there are nicotine cartridges. Which you didn't mention before. The issue isn't what is expelled, it is what is inhaled, as a drug delivery system. That was the FDA's objection.

 

Even futher, e-cigs are not banned or even talked about being banned based on the type of cartridge. And mark my words, they never will either. This is the part that really pisses me off too...but I'll wait til my cynicism is validated before I actually turn red...but banning nicotine liquid use is 'really super duper hard' for the government to enforce, so they will ban e-cigs outright so they don't have to go to the trouble to figure out who's actually poisoning the air. They'll just ban it for the minority that uses them harmlessly too, without regard for their rights because the majority doesn't think it's a big deal.

 

I would like something more than your say-so on e-cigs being banned or talked about being banned regardless of the cartridge. Especially in light of the ruling by Judge Leon almost a year ago, saying that the FDA cannot block the importation of them.

[mississippichem]

Yeah, for me, quitting smoking required quitting the whole bit. I've never bought into the whole nicotine delivery replacement mechanism to quit smoking. Patches, e-cigs, none of it.

 

But e-cigs are not marketed as a cessation device, though I'm sure they'd like to. Personally, I'd find it both amusing and depressing to walk around public places with one, infuriating moral busy bodies looking for something to complain and cry about.

 

Second hand smoke was the argument, not the reason for anti-smoking laws. If you understand that, you'll understand every silly excuse the anti-smoking crowd will now use to ban e-cigs - from the precious "children" to "toxins", your right to choose is an abomination to the professional my-problem-is-your-problem crowd.

 

Funny that you mention that. Yesterday, I heard an anti-smoking add on the radio. They were listing the various toxins found in cigarette tobacco. Everything sounded legitimate until they listed polonium-210!!! That is ludicrous. I guarantee that I can go out in my backyard right now, grab ten random soil samples and find an m/z=210 hit on a mass spectrometer from at least one of the samples.

 

I'm not defending cigarettes at all, they are health nightmares, but i hate the way these add campaigns are willing to deceive the public into quitting out of unfounded fears due to their lack of chemistry knowledge. It doesn't set a good precedent for an educated society either.

 

The CO present from incomplete burning of the tobacco is real and should be enough to deter people. People don't realize that a list of toxins is meaningless without concentrations, methods of analysis reported, and a control sample. Anti-tobacco campaigners complain about tobacco companies deceiving consumers with bunk studies. I guess they figured they would fight half-truths with more half-truths; not a respectable mode of operations.

Edited December 23, 2010 by mississippichem

[ParanoiA]

IOW, there are nicotine cartridges. Which you didn't mention before. The issue isn't what is expelled, it is what is inhaled, as a drug delivery system. That was the FDA's objection.

 

And that's part of my point, right there. Moving the goal posts (not you). State and local governments all over the country are banning cigarettes smoking in public places (restaurants and bars for instance) based on the second hand smoke claims, which I do not dispute by the way. Hell, I even support banning smoking in public places on public property, due to second hand smoke issues. I do not believe others have a right to poison me very slowly.

 

But e-cigs don't do that, and at the very least entirely depend on what you're vaporizing. The FDA's objection is actually a good one, or at the very least they're doing the job I expect. However, the FDA's objection has nothing in common with the ostensible reasons for banning smoking in public places by city and state governments.

 

Cigarette smoking bans are about what's exhaled, while the FDA's objection is about what is inhaled.

 

I would like something more than your say-so on e-cigs being banned or talked about being banned regardless of the cartridge. Especially in light of the ruling by Judge Leon almost a year ago, saying that the FDA cannot block the importation of them.

 

Well sure. Here's the first article I ran into a week or so ago. Stunning just how flippantly dissmissive they treat other's rights. They really haven't a care for you or your preferences. And notice how they don't even mention non-nicotine cartridges. They're entirely focused on the vaporizer delivery device, and there's a reason for that...

 

http://www.tobacco-facts.net/2010/12/king-county-wants-to-ban-public-e-cigarette-smoking

 

The 2006 state law banned smoking in bars and restaurants on the basis that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. But King Countys rationale for adding e-cigarettes also known as battery-powered nicotine-delivery devices to the list of forbidden acts is a little different.

 

Yeah...a little different...imagine that.

 

But public health officials say theyre so similar to the real thing that they make tobacco enforcement difficult and often prompt smokers to think its OK to light up in public. And that leads to second-hand smoke, health officials reason.

 

The idea is that even though theyre not exactly identical to cigarettes, people see folks using e-cigarettes, and they think somebody else is smoking, said Bud Nicola, a King County Board of Health member and affiliate professor with the University of Washington School of Public Health.

 

It makes it very difficult for inspectors.

 

Go ahead. Read that again if you need to. Lord knows, I had to. That last line is exactly the mentallity I was talking about above - because it "makes it very difficult for inspectors" to bust real acts of air poisoning, we're just going to have to deny the rights of a minority so it's not so 'hard' for them to enforce.

 

That's not freedom from harm, that's whimsical tyranny providing freedom at the expense of others. They actually advocate removing your right to do something because it might look like you're doing something else. Wow, I have to answer for other people's interpretations of my behavior? Seriously? Did someone fool me into reading an Onion article? No? How freaking depressing...

 

Although some e-cigarette makers say their products dont contain nicotine, the FDA says there is no way of knowing that for sure.

 

Ha! The FDA says there's no way of knowing if an e-cigarette product doesn't contain nicotine? Then how do they detect nicotine at all? This is a setup argument to frame the ban around the e-cig delivery device, to avoid the pain of enforcing a ban on nicotine cartridges - since that would make it harder.

 

That's like banning plastic cups for children because there's no way to know if there's alcohol in them or not. Or banning salt shakers since you can't be sure I'm not sprinkling crack on my green beans.

 

 

These are something that can potentially get kids hooked on nicotine, Nicola said. E-cigarettes have a high appeal to youth. They come in candy flavors.

 

Yeah. Kids might want to start vaporizing candy liquid. Then what's the problem? It's vapor. It's candy. None of this factually links nicotine to youth in the least. If anything, it could ruin the appeal of nicotine liquid since it isn't needed and has so many side effects. It might create the inadvertent effect of a mass exodus of carcinogen intake creating a whole new habit of harmless candy vaping.

 

But we won't know, because we're too scared of what people might choose all on their own.

 

 

I wish I could find some transcripts and articles from the radio and newspapers here locally, but I'm not finding them. The Kansas City star had a front page story on it, just last week I thought and I about read the whole article before I got checked out at the counter. I'll keep looking.

Edited December 23, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Marat]

All human liberty creates some elevation of the risk of harm to other people in the same society. The fact that we give people the freedom to drive cars on public streets kills 40,000 Americans a year, but we value that freedom sufficiently that we feel the freedom is worth it.

 

So when we look at the rationale for banning cigarette smoking in public places based on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke, we really have to ask whether the actual magnitude of the harm this causes is sufficient to justify banning it. The issue is more one of society officially hating tobacco use, the prohibition of which has become a new religious value of social conformity, so the benefit of the freedom to the minority who still smoke can be outweighed even by the small harm caused by second-hand smoke.

[ParanoiA]

All human liberty creates some elevation of the risk of harm to other people in the same society. The fact that we give people the freedom to drive cars on public streets kills 40,000 Americans a year, but we value that freedom sufficiently that we feel the freedom is worth it.

 

And that creates the problem right there; this two pan balance scale approach to state sanctioned behavior - this is the tyrannical majority in action. You might weigh freedom and risk of harm fairly, but that doesn't mean your neighbor does - it doesn't mean anyone does anything other than banning anything they simply don't like, themselves.

 

I prefer the direct harm model since it necessitates validating an interference based on some kind of observable damage. Even if my neighbor just doesn't like purple flowers instead of lawn grass, he has to demonstrate that my yard of purple flowers is causing direct, observable damage, that he has a right to be free from, in order to make a case to restrict my rights.

 

We should start every legal proposition with this: Is it really my place to judge?

 

Maybe follow that up with....Does this actually cause me personal harm? Do I have a right to not be harmed in this way? Something along those lines...

[swansont]

And that's part of my point, right there. Moving the goal posts (not you). State and local governments all over the country are banning cigarettes smoking in public places (restaurants and bars for instance) based on the second hand smoke claims, which I do not dispute by the way. Hell, I even support banning smoking in public places on public property, due to second hand smoke issues. I do not believe others have a right to poison me very slowly.

 

But e-cigs don't do that, and at the very least entirely depend on what you're vaporizing. The FDA's objection is actually a good one, or at the very least they're doing the job I expect. However, the FDA's objection has nothing in common with the ostensible reasons for banning smoking in public places by city and state governments.

 

Cigarette smoking bans are about what's exhaled, while the FDA's objection is about what is inhaled.

 

I wouldn't characterize it as moving the goalposts since, as you point out, the bans on public smoking and the attempted ban on e-cig sales are being put in place by different groups, for different reasons.

 

Well sure. Here's the first article I ran into a week or so ago. Stunning just how flippantly dissmissive they treat other's rights. They really haven't a care for you or your preferences. And notice how they don't even mention non-nicotine cartridges. They're entirely focused on the vaporizer delivery device, and there's a reason for that...

 

http://www.tobacco-facts.net/2010/12/king-county-wants-to-ban-public-e-cigarette-smoking

 

Thanks. I agree with you. The rationale for this sounds staggeringly weak.

[Moontanman]

I don't take drugs because my company has a policy against them because they are illegal. My company does not test if I had a beer over the weekend because beer is legal, but they do test to see if I've taken cocaine over the weekend because it is not legal.

 

Originally the idea was that doing drugs, even if you didn't do them at work or come to work under the influence they still affected your body is such a way that made you less able to do your job. The idea that drug users were somehow high all the time was the incentive to drug test the work place not the illegality of them. I worked for Dupont for 25 years and they never drug tested me, their take was that unless what you do off site affected your job it was none of their business, just don't bring it to work.

 

Sadly the idea that drug use was somehow harmful in some unique way that alcohol and tobacco were not is just government propaganda and this propaganda was used to convince employers, as part of the war on drugs, to test their employees, if I had a quarter for everyone I've seen come to work hung over and unable to do their job i would be rich but pot at least doesn't leave you with a hang over the next day and tobacco is not only used at work but special privileges were given to those who smoked to the point that many people actually started smoking so they could take smoke breaks like the smokers got.

 

Now days smokers are feeling the squeeze as well as every one else but alcohol is still tolerated and often used on the job.

 

I think it's interesting that some animals actually use drugs in a manner we would call recreational, elephants are famous as drunks, squirrels eat psychedelic mushrooms and retire to their hollow tree dens to sleep it off. There are lots of examples of at least self medication by animals if not actual recreational use of various materials we would call drugs, why do they do it? Could it be the same reasons we do?

[Moontanman]

More on animals using drugs recreationally.

 

http://www.pjonline.com/christmas/pj2010_723

[Marat]

Paranoia, you've independently hit on John Stuart Mill's famous 'harm principle,' which holds that in a liberal state, no one has the right to forbid anything unless it can be demonstrated to cause objectively real harm to someone else. Generally I find that an excellent starting point for attempting rationally to analyze any political issue.

 

England introduced 'closing hours' for pubs at 11 PM every night during World War I because it was feared that late night drinking would reduce the efficiency of workers in munitions plants and harm the war effort. These laws are still in place today, since no one seems to have noticed that the excuse for them disappeared.

 

But many things cause some degree of harm yet are not regarded as behaviors that need to be prohibited or criminalized. For example, the sociologist Max Weber has argued that Catholics are less effective in a capitalist world because they are too much oriented to their hopes for the next world to concentrate properly on issues relevant to this world. If this were true, then the state should ban Catholicism for the same reason it prohibits drug use, since both undermine worker productivity by inducing the wrong state of consciousness for efficient operation in a capitalist system. But instead the state makes religious belief a protected constitutional liberty, whatever its ill effects, while drug use is prohibited even if its ill effects are hard to demonstrate.

 

Clearly what is going on here is that majority simply prohibits what it doesn't like and then tries to invent sufficient reasons ex post facto.

[ydoaPs]

[swansont]

Paranoia, you've independently hit on John Stuart Mill's famous 'harm principle,' which holds that in a liberal state, no one has the right to forbid anything unless it can be demonstrated to cause objectively real harm to someone else. Generally I find that an excellent starting point for attempting rationally to analyze any political issue.

 

 

That assumes the principle is both true and applicable.

[ParanoiA]

Well, not to beat a dead horse or further derail the thread, but the e-cig banning apparently passed in King County...I didn't realize that at the time.

 

But the state's tobacco smoking ban, adopted in 2006, was based on the fact that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. The rationale behind King County's e-cig ban was a fear of eroding "social norms."

 

"By returning smoking to the public eye, public e-cigarette use threatens to undermine the social norming impact" of the smoking ban, testified Scott Neal, manager of the tobacco prevention program for Public Health -- Seattle & King County.

 

The Board easily passed those regulations, saying young people needed to be protected from the products, while the federal government figures out what to do with e-cigarettes. Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration lost a court fight to ban or regulate e-cigarettes as unapproved drug delivery devices.

 

Argh! I don't know what's worse...the clear dismissal of my right to choose inherent in the first quoted statement, the social engineering confession in the second, or the juvenile servitude of the last.

 

Young people need to "be protected from the products, while" mommy and daddy "figures out what to do with e-cigarettes". Yes, step in between the parents and the young people to protect them.

 

I wonder how long it will be before the first conversations about state child rearing being "optimal" become mainstream...

[Dak]

Argh! I don't know what's worse...the clear dismissal of my right to choose inherent in the first quoted statement, the social engineering confession in the second, or the juvenile servitude of the last.

 

The second (psychological tinkering). It makes it clear that what we think is only relevant because if we don't think what they think, then that's a problem that has to be fixed by altering what we think by any means possible.