I agree the same logic can be applied.

 

Government control and logic. It's already doomed.

 

Well if we're against government control, then awesome! Lets legalize the drugs, right? Less control.

And in the spirit of fairness, either alcohol should be illegal, or people should be able to choose which drugs they use, since few are more damaging than alcohol.

 

Well if we're against government control, then awesome! Lets legalize the drugs, right? Less control.

And in the spirit of fairness, either alcohol should be illegal, or people should be able to choose which drugs they use, since few are more damaging than alcohol.

 

never said it was safe- and I was including alcohol- any drug.

cigarettes are a different story all together, not even in the same category- because a cigarette smoker does not immediately directly effect another person like a drunk or a druggie. Pot can't be compared to cigarettes- pot effects the persons judgement or perception whereas cigarettes do not...

I agree that the smoke from a cigarette is dangerous to bystanders (and the smoker); but, You can stand there and blow smoke in my face all day long and it won't affect my judgement or ability to make decisions like "drugs" do- therefor, staying in context of "conscience / mind" altering drugs- cigarettes can't be included in this discussion.

 

A fine example of how the government perceives a statement and how the statement was actually intended.

Your hired. Provided you're a democrat.

 

isn't that the root of everybody's primary concern? how others are hurt? If you were guaranteed by the laws that govern the universe, that the actions and decisions made by anyone could never interfere with another human, then why would anyone care about what someone else is doing at any time? It's what's driving the entire "right to own a gun" debate...

99% of this worlds unrest can be directly tethered to people who are trying to control or decide how other people's actions & decisions effect every other human-

so, yeah- I would say that's my "primary concern" otherwise, who cares what you do?

 

Beergut, that is a pleasant way to look at the art of law making, I like it. I won't bother expanding on my understanding of it, since it is beyond the scope of this discussion.

A fair point on cigarettes, I will focus only on the potential dangers of a person experiencing an altered state of consciousness, rather than physical damage from the drug itself (such as liver damage, or second hand smoke).

Would it not make sense to legalize the drugs, but make public intoxication illegal? Laws are in place as it is to protect dependents from abusive situations at home, whether drug related or not. So really the laws regarding responsible use of drugs are already in place. The issue I have is that individuals aren't allowed to do with their bodies as they please.

I should clarify, I bring up alcohol as often as I do because it is a drug that is equally damaging as many opiates, more damaging than most hallucinogens, and yet is legal. I don't see too many complaints regarding its legality, which to me seems to be a double standard. If you would care to give me your thoughts on that, id enjoy it, thanks.

 

alcohol is treated like some OTC pain meds.
many otc pain meds and vitamin supplements are quite fatal in slight overdoses (like Tylenol, vitamin A & iron supplements for example).

I'm not really sure the reason why alcohol is treated differently than some "soft" drugs and pain meds- maybe because it's so deep rooted in many cultures around the word and also so easily produced in the home.

outlawing alcohol would simply move its manufacturing into homes, it's so easily made- plus billions upon billions of $$ would be lost as a result.

 

Small amounts of alcohol are safe and even beneficial. But what is a safe amount of cocaine or heroin, etc.? Is any amount good for you?