4 ms·

I agree with you, but to play devil's advocate, how would you feel about me constructing a nuclear reactor in my backyard for fun? Or manufacturing a bomb or r

by runT1ME 16y ago

I agree with you, but to play devil's advocate, how would you feel about me constructing a nuclear reactor in my backyard for fun? Or manufacturing a bomb or rocket?

shod 16y ago
You mean like Mark Suppes does? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10385853 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10385853
king_jester 16y ago
Smoking marijuana isn't the same as building a bomb. If I accidentally light a joint, the people in my immediate radius aren't blown to pieces (although they might choose to get blown).
- Alex3917 16y ago
  "Smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during a hydrogen bomb blast." --Ronald Reagan
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  I think runTIME may be making a subtly different argument. Let's say I have a 1,000 acre ranch and I build a nuclear reactor on it. I go to extreme lengths to make sure it's safe and secure. As far as my neighbors are concerned my operating a nuclear reactor has no impact on them. However, now I have the potential, should I choose, to make nuclear weapons, radiological "dirty" bombs, or otherwise contaminate the general vicinity (for potentially very large values of vicinity) with radioactive byproducts. It is for this reason that the operation of nuclear reactors is highly regulated. One could imagine how this argument might apply to personal drug use. Drug use itself may not instantly impact anyone else but suppose that, as in personally operating a nuclear reactor, it enabled individuals to have a far greater negative impact on society than other normal human behaviors might. I don't buy it and I'm not sure if that's the argument that runTIME was making, but it's an interesting argument I think.
  - runT1ME 16y ago
    Yes. If it turns out that people on PCP or some other hard drug are more dangerous/quicker to violence, is there a limit of how much personal freedom we should grant if there is an increased risk of possible damage to society.
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      Do people on PCP commit a different class of crime if they kill, stab, or eat someone?
- runT1ME 16y ago
  Not even close. And Marijuana is less dangerous for society and individuals as alcohol, automobiles, etc. HOWEVER, if we say that anything should be legal as long as it doesn't encroach on someone else's freedom, where do you draw the line with hard drugs such as PCP/Crystal Meth that may increase violent tendencies with the user? I could potentially see many making the argument that legalizing certain things simply hurts the lower class or keeps them in poverty, such as crack, etc. Should there be rules protecting people who aren't educated enough to make good long term decisions for themselves?
ericingram 16y ago
I would feel okay with that, knowing logically that the likelihood of you successfully blowing anything up is extremely low, in your back yard. But if you did, my distant relatives would sue the crap out of your distant relatives somehow :) In any case, I'm more comfortable with these scary and unlikely exceptions than with the government arbitrarily trying to prevent criminal acts by criminalizing things they believe (without sound research) may potentially lead to some harmful side effects. That is much scarier than a nuclear reactor built in a back yard.
- runT1ME 16y ago
  Well said, and I agree with you.

by runT1ME 16y ago

I agree with you, but to play devil's advocate, how would you feel about me constructing a nuclear reactor in my backyard for fun? Or manufacturing a bomb or rocket?

shod 16y ago

You mean like Mark Suppes does? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10385853 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10385853

king_jester 16y ago

Smoking marijuana isn't the same as building a bomb. If I accidentally light a joint, the people in my immediate radius aren't blown to pieces (although they might choose to get blown).

Alex3917 16y ago
"Smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during a hydrogen bomb blast." --Ronald Reagan
InclinedPlane 16y ago
I think runTIME may be making a subtly different argument. Let's say I have a 1,000 acre ranch and I build a nuclear reactor on it. I go to extreme lengths to make sure it's safe and secure. As far as my neighbors are concerned my operating a nuclear reactor has no impact on them. However, now I have the potential, should I choose, to make nuclear weapons, radiological "dirty" bombs, or otherwise contaminate the general vicinity (for potentially very large values of vicinity) with radioactive byproducts. It is for this reason that the operation of nuclear reactors is highly regulated. One could imagine how this argument might apply to personal drug use. Drug use itself may not instantly impact anyone else but suppose that, as in personally operating a nuclear reactor, it enabled individuals to have a far greater negative impact on society than other normal human behaviors might. I don't buy it and I'm not sure if that's the argument that runTIME was making, but it's an interesting argument I think.
- runT1ME 16y ago
  Yes. If it turns out that people on PCP or some other hard drug are more dangerous/quicker to violence, is there a limit of how much personal freedom we should grant if there is an increased risk of possible damage to society.
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    Do people on PCP commit a different class of crime if they kill, stab, or eat someone?
runT1ME 16y ago
Not even close. And Marijuana is less dangerous for society and individuals as alcohol, automobiles, etc. HOWEVER, if we say that anything should be legal as long as it doesn't encroach on someone else's freedom, where do you draw the line with hard drugs such as PCP/Crystal Meth that may increase violent tendencies with the user? I could potentially see many making the argument that legalizing certain things simply hurts the lower class or keeps them in poverty, such as crack, etc. Should there be rules protecting people who aren't educated enough to make good long term decisions for themselves?

ericingram 16y ago

I would feel okay with that, knowing logically that the likelihood of you successfully blowing anything up is extremely low, in your back yard. But if you did, my distant relatives would sue the crap out of your distant relatives somehow :) In any case, I'm more comfortable with these scary and unlikely exceptions than with the government arbitrarily trying to prevent criminal acts by criminalizing things they believe (without sound research) may potentially lead to some harmful side effects. That is much scarier than a nuclear reactor built in a back yard.

runT1ME 16y ago
Well said, and I agree with you.