Originally posted by AcolyteGood news for a friend of mine who gave me my first sample of the cheeba. With my encouragement, he will be applying to Oxford (for English) this autumn...
Apparently Oxford is quite another matter...
This is the second thread called 'cannabis', albeit the first to capitalize it. If all goes well, maybe the thread will capitalize on it too...someone pass Colin the bong 😛.
I am completely against the usage of any drugs, etc. Frankly, I find it funny that some justify the legalization with the argument that alcohol/cigarettes are just as lethal. If they are just as lethal/harmful then why not stop another before it goes through. The thing that makes me mad is when kids at my school think it's the greatest thing in the world talking about how much they drank and smoked the day before. If it were I would be ashamed of myself. It's illegal to drink, smoke, even cigarettes for that matter, at my age. That's like me bragging about robbing a bank to my friends, but since a larger percentage smoke weed, it's ok to talk about it. Some jerk at my lunch table drinks/smokes every night. It makes me sick. I seriously think the kid is an alcoholic and a pothead at the same time. He comes in all pumped and starts talking to others at my table about how his dad bought him a bunch of chewing tobacco to ease the tension of midterms. I was astounded by this kids dad. When parents support underage usage it boggles my mind even worse. This has turned into a huge, somewhat off-topic post but I'm glad I could get it off my chest! 😠😀😲🙄
Originally posted by !~TONY~!I don't morally object, I just think that those who are into escaping from the grind of life could instead get themselves some extremely strong, preferably detached, interest instead. For example, I think the original poster in this thread once referred (reefer-ed?) to maths as a potent intellectual drug, and that is absolutely right; particularly in comparison to the cannabis.
I am completely against the usage of any drugs, etc. Frankly, I find it funny that some justify the legalization with the argument that alcohol/cigarettes are just as lethal. If they are just as lethal/harmful then why not stop another before it goes through. The thing that makes me mad is when kids at my school think it's the greatest thing in the world t ...[text shortened]... turned into a huge, somewhat off-topic post but I'm glad I could get it off my chest! 😠😀😲🙄
Originally posted by royalchickenRoll a number and eat a pi?
I don't morally object, I just think that those who are into escaping from the grind of life could instead get themselves some extremely strong, preferably detached, interest instead. For example, I think the original poster in this thread once referred (reefer-ed?) to maths as a potent intellectual drug, and that is absolutely right; particularly in comparison to the cannabis.
P-
Leaving all the other arguments aside, people who occasionally smoke recreationally I have no problems with.
But I find hardcore stoners to be complete morons who bore me stupid because they have no subject of conversation except weed, and can rarely be roused to actually think about anything at all.
Several of my friends have turned from reasonably intelligent, outgoing people into stay-at-home vegetables. 🙁
Originally posted by rwingettMarijuana is de-criminalised (legal to possess up to four plants for personal use) in South Australia and Canberra (funnily enough where our federal parliament is!)
The difference is that someday it [b]will be legal for you to smoke and drink. It will never be legal for you to rob a bank. [/b]
Once a politician smart enough decides to cash in on it, they will make it a government monolopy and charge a heap for it.
Originally posted by nook7someone i saw in the mirror the other day smoked a joint standing on top of parliament house
Marijuana is de-criminalised (legal to possess up to four plants for personal use) in South Australia and Canberra (funnily enough where our federal parliament is!)
Once a politician smart enough decides to cash in on it, they will make it a government monolopy and charge a heap for it.
😏
Originally posted by !~TONY~!I agree, bragging about drug consupmtion is idiotic. Some kids have a warped sense of what 'grown-up' means, imitating people a few years older who still aren't very mature about these things. In the case of alcohol, many will even coninue with the 'lad(ette) culture' long after the age of 18, or will become alcoholics; that's sad. But it's still their choice. My primary argument is not in terms of lethality to the user, but personal liberty.
I am completely against the usage of any drugs, etc. Frankly, I find it funny that some justify the legalization with the argument that alcohol/cigarettes are just as lethal. If they are just as lethal/harmful then why not stop another before it goes through. The thing that makes me mad is when kids at my school think it's the greatest thing in the world t ...[text shortened]... turned into a huge, somewhat off-topic post but I'm glad I could get it off my chest! 😠😀😲🙄
We ban things for under-18s on the principle that minors are easily influenced and may not be able to assess what is good and bad; it sounds patronising, but you have to draw a line somewhere. In effect the state can only give parents/guardians a helping hand in this, however - I hope your acquaintance was lying about his dad buying him tobacco, I would find that pretty shocking if it was true. But adults are meant to be responsible individuals, hence the greater legal freedom to drink, smoke, watch 18 films etc.
Originally posted by AcolyteYou write: "But it's still their choice. My primary argument is not in terms of lethality to the user, but personal liberty."
I agree, bragging about drug consupmtion is idiotic. Some kids have a warped sense of what 'grown-up' means, imitating people a few years older who still aren't very mature about these things. In the case of alcohol, many will even con ...[text shortened]... nce the greater legal freedom to drink, smoke, watch 18 films etc.
If a person becomes ill after one or more years of marihuana or hasjies consumption, society has to take care of him. That will cause a lot of pain and grief to his relatives and friends and it will also cost a lot of money, certainly in the case of schizofrenia and related disorders. I therefore state that it is rather one-dimensional to focus the whole issue around personal liberty. We must be careful not to idolise personal freedom and neglect the responsibility a person has towards his social environment and society as a whole.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe same could be said of countless activities - this is why I would advocate taxing marijuana, similar to cigarette duty. I'm not neglecting the person's responsibility to society either - it is the person's responsibility to use drugs in moderation, if at all. I am not advocating excessive drug use, and people should by all means be warned away from it; I am saying that it is not the government's job to make sure people don't overuse them by banning them altogether. Banning them does not enhance personal responsibility; in effect it is an admission that the individual is irresponsible - "people don't know what's good for them, so we'll have to force them to do what's good for them." This is like the government treating adult citizens as if they were children. There is and should be a difference between good and obligatory, between bad and illegal, and this is where the individual's responsibility (beyond a catch-all 'upholding the law'😉 comes in.
You write: "But it's still their choice. My primary argument is not in terms of lethality to the user, but personal liberty."
If a person becomes ill after one or more years of marihuana or hasjies consumption, society has to take care of him. That will cause a lot of pain and grief to his relatives and friends and it will also cost a lot of money, ce ...[text shortened]... ect the responsibility a person has towards his social environment and society as a whole.
Acolyte: "Banning them does not enhance personal responsibility; in effect it is an admission that the individual is irresponsible - "people don't know what's good for them, so we'll have to force them to do what's good for them." This is like the government treating adult citizens as if they were children. "
does this then apply to all pharmaceutical or chemical substances ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes. The same arguments apply to any drug. Criminal law has proven an ineffective tool for dealing with substance abuse. To continue your analogy to seat belt laws, while the law requires you to wear one, if you dont you get a fine, not a criminal record.
Acolyte: "Banning them does not enhance personal responsibility; in effect it is an admission that the individual is irresponsible - "people don't know what's good for them, so we'll have to force them to do what's good for them." This is like the government treating adult citizens as if they were children. "
does this then apply to all pharmaceutical or chemical substances ?