SagaLore
Elite Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 24,037
- 21
- 81
I can see your side of the argument, and it's a good one. However, here is my observation: Smoking cigarettes quite often infringes on other's rights. It's too uncommon I will be walking along a sidewalk and I'll end up downwind of a smoker. There have been great strides to segregate the smokers from the non-smokers - should the goverment be allowed to do this? Should restaurants be forced into having smoking sections? Should corporate buildings be forced to set aside a dedicated room for smoking, hooked into it's own ventilation system? It's not to protect people from themselves, but from others...
Now when pot is legalized, are were going to see a decrease in use, or increase in use? Will pot-smokers start smoking it publicly just like cigarettes? When I'm caught downwind of a tobacco smoker, my heart quickens and I become anxious - nicotine affects the system by releasing adrenaline and sugar stores, and altering some of the brain chemistry. It goes away in a short time. I have never been caught downwind of a pot smoker, but if I were, what affect would that have on me, on my brain? Apparently pot stays in your system for weeks? Cigarettes have a more physical affect on your body, whereas pot has a more mental affect. So do we setup pot-smoking section in the restaurant, and a seperate pot room for corporate employees? Will businesses have the right to deny the right to smoking pot during break hours, because of the affect it will have on their work?
Pot-smokers already smoke it in private places since it's illegal. When it is legalized, what steps do we make to protect the non-smokers? Will it be fair to treat pot-smokers any differently than tobacco-smokers at that point? When does the right of self-indulgence weigh out a right of non-participation, and vice versa? Will employers be forced to design employment forms that read "We cannot discriminate based on race, gender, sexual preference, religion, or drug habit"?
Do you think the goverment should be able to set age limits on tobacco and alcohol? What about driving age? (<--- based on your answer to this last one, I have a reply)
what are they?
right to free speech? not on anandtech or in any public forum. one can get you banned the other can get you arrested, labled unpatiriotic or a traitor.
right to remain silent when arrested? nope.
right to a fair trail? nope. look @ ed rosenthal with the oakland cannabis club he was in the news a few months back, the judge wouldnt allow the jury to see evidence that he was selling to legitmately sick people, in accordance with the proposition that the voters of california passed.
right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law? this one is going to be gone before you know it.
right to practice your religion? sure you can, but you might have to be comfortable being spied on.
life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? what if doing/selling drugs accomplishes all those for a person....do they have those rights?
what are some more rights you have?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,845
- 13,941
- 146
First off, the reactions you claim to have when catching whiffs of tobacco smoke are psychosomatic.
Secondly, the EPA report on the dangers of ETS is null. It's so poorly done and biased that it's been thrown out of federal court.
Smoking in public buildings (read: government buildings, owned by the public) is a choice for the public to decide. Smoking on private property is a choice for private property owners to decide. The government has no right to tell private business owners what they may, or may not allow on their private property. If they choose to allow smoking, you can choose to not go there.
There are many things in life I find distasteful. BO and strong perfume come to mind. However, you will not catch me trying to ban them, or concocting BS biased reports claiming they are harmful.
Penn and Teller have a series on Showtime called "Bulls!t." They did a really nice show on the ETS claims made by the EPA. It was hillarious how they completely shattered the claim that ETS is harmful... especially in casual, irregular contact situations.
how so? do potheads come up to and blow hits in your face?
can you not walk down the street without being accosted by a hippie tryin to sell you nugs and when you say "no" does he chase you down?
how does some dude chillin in his apartment smokin a bowl or some dude chillin in the park with a J infringe on your
"rights" in anyway shape or form?
dabuddha
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 19,579
- 17
- 81
In an earlier post you claimed:
What if for me (and millions of other Americans I might add) feel that getting rid of stoners would accomplish all this for us. Do we have those rights? According to your logic, we should. And if you'd pause to think about it, it does indirectly. You're not a child so I won't trace it out for you. Bottom line is that it is a circular argument. You claim to have the right to smoke. I claim to have the right to not have people around me smoke.
I think HappyPuppy said it best. Just let's us non smokers get ahead of the pack.
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: gistech1978
exactly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely.
-----------------
and for sure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: gistech1978
exactly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely.
-----------------
and for sure.
But to follow your argument thru You could ban PUBLIC use of MJ just like we ban PUBLIC use of tobacco but it still doesn't justify making MJ Illegal.
Alcohol has also been proven to impair people. Does that mean we should ban alocohol and go back to a past failed anti-drug intitiative, Prohibition?
You are using a flawed argument. We are not all about majority rules. If that was the case, only Christians would be allowed to practice their religion in this country, since they are the majority and according to your argument, what they say should go.
And throwing morality into a logical discussion, and talking about what is "just" and what isn't makes you sound like a Christian.
That's a scary thought, and unfortunately that is the trend our government is moving towards.
Gone are the days where an American has certain inalienable rights according to the Constitution. Nowadays, the government want to make you think they they are holding all the pupet strings, and whatever you can do is a "privelege" (given by them), not a right (given by the Constitution).
The structure of the government in the USA is people OVER the government. People are supposed to elect their officials, and they can remove those officials if they do not get served properly. Remember, we are supposed to have a government OF the people, FOR the people.
They are working for us... we are not working for them.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
Did you fail that class or something? You have so many logical errors and assumptions in there it's difficult to know where to start. You are taking their flawed arguments and creating your own flawed arguments based on the fact that the original arguements are wrong. Just because there is an error in reasoning in someone's arguement does not automatically make the opposite true. They should have taught you that in first grade.
That is some very poor logic and reasoning there. I'll allow others to tear it apart thoroughly.
If I smoke a joint in the privacy of my own house, does that infringe on your personal rights in any way?
Alcohol use resulting in higher crime rates has also been proven as well. Anything that impairs your judgement will lead to higher crime rates.
And the study you mentioned could be flawed. If mj use results in higher crime rates, are they only counting crimes committed after the act of smoking the mj, or are the counting the act of smoking it as a crime also, easily fulfilling their objective of throwing together a statistic to use as fuel in their anti drug war?
I'd be willing to bet that alcohol causes more crimes than marijuana use, since usually alcohol makes people rowdy, while mj makes people relaxed.
And as we all know, every study out there, especially government funded studies, are *always* objective, logical, and not slanted in any way.
Originally posted by: dabuddha
And with that I'm done with this topic. It's a never ending circular argument with both sides not agreeing on anything. Again HappyPuppy said it best
Isn't that the way all internet arguments end up?
Seriously, not much gets accomplished in an online argument, since nobody will ever back down or compromise.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter