3 ms·

So passionate for your weed, as if its the most important thing there is. And yes I am in favor of more restrictions on both drugs and alcohol. I'm opposed to

by andyl 13y ago

So passionate for your weed, as if its the most important thing there is. And yes I am in favor of more restrictions on both drugs and alcohol. I'm opposed to the notion that drugs and alcohol are consequence-free substances. In the wrong hands, they kill and they destroy lives.

suby 13y ago
In the wrong hands, a vehicle can kill and destroy lives. I don't see how
Nursie 13y ago
>> So passionate for your weed, as if its the most important thing there is. If it's so unimportant, why should we spend billions combatting it, and give people prison time and criminal records for using it? >> And yes I am in favor of more restrictions on both drugs and alcohol. I'm opposed to the notion that drugs and alcohol are consequence-free substances. In the wrong hands, they kill and they destroy lives. And prohibition does nothing to keep it out of those hands.
nate_meurer 13y ago
It's interesting that you've singled out marijuana. You appear to be a bit obsessed with it yourself, clinging to your emotional appeals and repeating them like mantras. Why marijuana and not a really dangerous substance like alcohol, tobacco, or prescription painkillers? > "I'm opposed to the notion that drugs and alcohol are consequence-free substances." See this is what we call a strawman, and this is a particularly blatant example of one. Opponents of prohibition don't argue that drugs and alcohol are "consequence-free substances". They do argue that the consequences of prohibition are far worse than those of the drugs alone. If you are intent on making this personal, I can tell you that I haven't had a drink in over 12 years, and I remember the exact day of my last drink. If you can guess why I'll mail you a star sticker :). Oh and I don't smoke anything either. But although I personally can't be trusted with the stuff, I have the maturity to accept that other people can, and I'm not blind to the horrors of preemptively punishing everyone else in deference to my personal weaknesses. > "In the wrong hands, they kill and they destroy lives." Granted. But I don't understand how you get from there, to concluding that the solution is to criminalize everyone who uses a substance, regardless of whether or not they actually do something bad with it. Criminal records are pretty good at destroying lives too, and they do nothing to help actual addicts. Look, I realize you're probably immune to logic on this, and you seemed to acknowledge earlier that the evidence isn't on your side, so I'll spare you all that jazz and just issue a very basic rhetorical challenge: Tell me with a straight face that the drug addicts in my family (or anywhere else) are better off being treated like criminals, on top of or in lieu of whatever treatment they may receive. Then convince me that everyone else who isn't an addict should also be treated like criminals simply for possession, just so we can continue imprisoning the "wrong hands".

by andyl 13y ago

suby 13y ago

In the wrong hands, a vehicle can kill and destroy lives. I don't see how

Nursie 13y ago

>> So passionate for your weed, as if its the most important thing there is. If it's so unimportant, why should we spend billions combatting it, and give people prison time and criminal records for using it? >> And yes I am in favor of more restrictions on both drugs and alcohol. I'm opposed to the notion that drugs and alcohol are consequence-free substances. In the wrong hands, they kill and they destroy lives. And prohibition does nothing to keep it out of those hands.

nate_meurer 13y ago

It's interesting that you've singled out marijuana. You appear to be a bit obsessed with it yourself, clinging to your emotional appeals and repeating them like mantras. Why marijuana and not a really dangerous substance like alcohol, tobacco, or prescription painkillers? > "I'm opposed to the notion that drugs and alcohol are consequence-free substances." See this is what we call a strawman, and this is a particularly blatant example of one. Opponents of prohibition don't argue that drugs and alcohol are "consequence-free substances". They do argue that the consequences of prohibition are far worse than those of the drugs alone. If you are intent on making this personal, I can tell you that I haven't had a drink in over 12 years, and I remember the exact day of my last drink. If you can guess why I'll mail you a star sticker :). Oh and I don't smoke anything either. But although I personally can't be trusted with the stuff, I have the maturity to accept that other people can, and I'm not blind to the horrors of preemptively punishing everyone else in deference to my personal weaknesses. > "In the wrong hands, they kill and they destroy lives." Granted. But I don't understand how you get from there, to concluding that the solution is to criminalize everyone who uses a substance, regardless of whether or not they actually do something bad with it. Criminal records are pretty good at destroying lives too, and they do nothing to help actual addicts. Look, I realize you're probably immune to logic on this, and you seemed to acknowledge earlier that the evidence isn't on your side, so I'll spare you all that jazz and just issue a very basic rhetorical challenge: Tell me with a straight face that the drug addicts in my family (or anywhere else) are better off being treated like criminals, on top of or in lieu of whatever treatment they may receive. Then convince me that everyone else who isn't an addict should also be treated like criminals simply for possession, just so we can continue imprisoning the "wrong hands".