|
As someone in NYS who sells security cameras for a living, I have one thing to say: Hurry the hell up and legalize it, so I can sell to grow-ops. 
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
You're all forgetting that you can buy this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/IMI-Corneli...=item4ad3ea1cbf For the low cost of only $200, you can have your very own soda fountain! Let's see how much soda costs when you're just buying syrup and CO2. You can get 5 gallons of Dr. Pepper syrup for $82. At a 6:1 ratio, that's 30 gallons of soda, or 48,000 calories! Most homebrew supply stores will refill your CO2 tank for about $1 per pound. A 20 pound CO2 tank should last about a year with normal use. So with a minor upfront investment, you can get more soda than anyone can possibly drink for the cost of a gram of coke. Alternatively, you can wait until 2 liters are on sale for $1 at Walmart.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Cache Cab posted:Illegal doesn't mean there has to be jail time. I think the way it works now is good, in that usually if the cop can tell it's a good kid and not some kind of thug or big dealer, they can just let them off with a warning. This way my kids know there is a scary threat of jail, so they will take it seriously, but if they slip up they can get just a slap on the wrist...but hopefully some sense scared into them as well. This is such a kneejerk response. You're doing a disservice to your kids by lying to them (yes, you're lying to them). You're telling them that all illegal drugs are bad, and by your own admission that legal drugs aren't. Caffeine, Nicotine, Alcohol. Do you know what these have in common? They're all legal to buy and consume in any amount, and they all have far, far worse side effects than Marijuana (and they're all highly addictive!). To address your specific point, you can't imagine what weed does to your brain with regular use because you're not a toxicologist. You don't know, but they do. And the answer is nothing. There is no reliable evidence that it has a negative effect at all. But Alcohol and Nicotine have terrible, well documented affects on your body. They're addictive, and dangerous. You should be teaching your kids to understand the effects of what they put into their bodies and know their limits. If you're not completely honest with them, they are going to end up killing themselves binging on alcohol. I would MUCH rather see kids smoke weed than drink alcohol. Why? because alcohol kills. Weed doesn't. In case you need this point driven further home, do you know what's also legal? Prescription opiates. If your kid (god forbid) gets into a bad accident and needs medicine to manage the pain, their doctor will prescribe them opiates. Because they spent their whole life learning "Illegal drugs are bad, but legal drugs aren't," they won't think twice about taking them. Hell, maybe if the pain is really bad, they'll take 2 instead of 1, or take them 3 hours apart instead of 4. I mean, they're legal, so they can't be bad, right? Think about it. You're setting them up for opiate addiction. Do you know what people do when they can't get their opiate fix? They buy loving heroine from a street dealer. Heroine that is made in a basement lab that isn't sterile, isn't pure, and isn't safe. I hate to beat a dead horse, but you have to see what you're doing. You think you're protecting them, but by not telling them the whole truth and being open and honest, you're setting them up to make bad decisions. They may be kids now, but they will be adults. They will probably have kids of their own, and they need to know what's safe and what's not to keep their kids safe. They need the truth, because if you lie to them now, they will always believe the lies. Own up to it. Tell them you haven't been entirely honest, and treat them like intelligent beings that need all the correct information to make correct decisions. Disclaimer: Caffeine isn't bad for you. Studies show that it actually helps both your heart and your brain. It's also really hard (impractical) to overdose on. It is still addictive, and does have more side-effects than marijuana, however. NEVER mix it with alcohol.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
forgot my pants posted:Wow, I see 23 new posts and figure there's been news, but instead it's just a bunch of people taking the bait from an obvious troll. Sadly, I doubt Cache Cab is trolling. People actually think that lying to their kids protects them. They don't even think of it as lying, because they don't know any better. It's what they were taught. Even if he/she is trolling, it's still common enough that it needs to be addressed.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Cache Cab posted:Thanks for the well thought out points. I will seriously re-evaluate how I've been communicating with my kids about drugs...and I'll think more about other things that are illegal but maybe shouldn't be. It's really nice to be on a forum where you can discuss stuff like this and come away learning something... even if it's hard for me to admit (to myself) that I was wrong and didn't think this through all the way. Thank God. You're not a bad parent for wanting to protect your kids. You just need to remember that they won't always be kids, and you won't always be there to make decisions for them. This is something to remember not just about drugs - every hard decision they will ever make will be made easier with correct, factual, unbiased information. Trust that your kids want to do the right thing for themselves. They just need to know what it is.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I was the first to bite, but now, looking at his history in other threads, I suspect he might be trolling. Actually it's also possible he's practicing to be one of those get-paid-$0.04-per-post-on-facebook people. Trolls don't typically concede the point.  Anyways, anything interesting happening with the MJ discussion? I'm at work, so I can't watch it.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Anecdotally, my worst alcohol experience (outside of a scattering of instances of just simple excess) was when I was working a late shift covering a foreign election and in late evening chugged like 3 or 4 of those 5hr Energy things since I didn't fell they were kicking in. Got all wired up and swung by a bar before closing to try to chill out with 5 or so beers. Went home and lay in bed for about three hours completely awake but jittery, sweating and nauseated with the constant feeling the bed was rotating. While not an LSD freakout or anything, it was a pretty drat uncomfortable night and I shan't repeat it. The problem is many people assume a stimulant (like caffeine) and a depressant (like alcohol) cancel out. In reality, you get the side-effects of both, and it can be an extremely dangerous situation. Especially if you pass out - a caffeine overdose plus alcohol poisoning puts a ton of stress on your heart and breathing becomes extremely erratic. It's a great way to end up in the hospital or dead. Just another reason why people shouldn't make assumptions about drugs. You need to go on real research, not gut instinct for these things.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Did you read the PDF that you linked? I can see why they'd argue the point, though. "Addictive" has very serious negative connotations. Caffeine is absolutely addictive, but since it's not actually bad for you (that we know of), it doesn't really matter all that much. It's like when they tried to say "Cigarettes aren't addictive, they're merely habit-forming." 
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:While psychedelics are certainly abusable to some extent, they mostly cause extreme levels of tolerance after only a single use that takes weeks or months to go away. It's nearly impossible to be "addicted" to psychedelics in any meaningful sense because they just stop working after the second or third dose. Speaking from experience, I find the idea of tripping daily or even weekly pretty harrowing at worst and boring at best. It's really ridiculous to have them included in schedule one besides heroin, meth, and crack. Crack and meth are both Schedule II.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
The bigger factor here is that a "race to the bottom" is unlikely for weed. There will probably be tiers of weed, just like there is for alcohol - ranging from dirt made as cheaply as possible to expensive low-yield strains. You can buy a hell of a lot of Natty Ice for the price of a bottle of 1926 Macallan. I don't see either losing money.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Well one major difference is that the pro life side of the abortion debate isn't saying that abortion is mostly ok and should be legal, just regulated. And pro choice people aren't asking for unregulated abortion. Unregulated abortion sounds like the name of a (really bad) punk rock band.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
It's pretty obvious how things like that happen. Just think about the average 'think of the children' thought process. "Crack is way worse than cocaine because (reasons that definitely have nothing to do with racism) and should carry harsher penalties. Hash is way worse than pot for (same reasons - again, totally not racist), and should have the same penalties as crack." It's brilliant.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Why the hell are people being admitted to the emergency room for "cannabis-related" anything? They aren't. They're being admitted for other things that are totally unrelated, and the doctor happens to note they are high. Under DAWN, this has to be reported. It's like if you made a law saying every car accident involving a minority has to be reported. Then the IIHS could publish ridiculous papers that seem to imply that car accidents are caused by being black, but are still technically factual.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:People were on about there being laws requiring that doctors ask what drugs you've been taking, implying that the only reason these laws exist at all is because the evil doktors want to rat YOU out to the pig cops and ruin your life. I assume you're referring to me, and that is not true. I was, in fact, on about the requirement that all illicit drug use has to be reported by doctors to a group whose explicit purpose is to crack down on illicit drug use. And that they then use those reports to publish misleading statistics that have absolutely no relevance. Nowhere did I say that doctors shouldn't know what's in your system when you go to the ER. Jeffrey posted:Ahh yes, because a doctor noting what medications you are on when you visit the ER is exactly the same as noting your race when you get in a car accident, yep, mmhmm. Read it again. I said nothing about the doctor noting what you're on other than that it happens (and I furthermore said nothing positive or negative about this fact). What I did say was that these reports are being used to make statistics that are deliberately created to mislead. Saying that any emergency room visit where someone is under the influence of pot is "marijuana related" is functionally the same as saying any car crash involving an African American is "black related." I chose that because it illustrates how little sense the concept makes and how the implication is obviously a non sequitur. Since that wasn't as obvious as I had intended, how about I use a real example: Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. It says the same thing - "We're not claiming that [being gay/using pot/being black] causes [AIDS/ER visits/car crashes], we're just saying they're (circumstantially) related and letting you come to that conclusion yourself." It's a classic logical fallacy, and it works on laymen who just read a headline and draw conclusions. It's also blatantly obvious that it's being done on purpose. Edit: Reworded to be less insulting. KillHour fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Can you show that DAWN's explicit purpose is to crack down on illicit drug use? Because according to what I have been able to find: "DAWN collects detailed drug data, including illegal drugs of abuse, prescription and over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, and non-pharmaceutical inhalants." quote:In 1974, DAWN was designed and developed by the scientific staff of the DEA's Office of Science and Technology. It was jointly funded with the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA). Yep, no ulterior motives, here. No Siree. Edit: Also, congratulations on finding a straw man to attack instead of addressing my original point. Which makes me wonder why the hell you're even debating this (I mean obviously besides this being the debate forum). Are you white-knighting the DEA here, or just trying to prove me wrong? Because if you'll remember, my original point was that people aren't being admitted to the ER for smoking pot and that claiming they are is misleading (which you appear to agree with). I'm not trying to argue that DAWN is run by Snidely Whiplash, and I'm certainly not trying to play King of Pedant Hill, here. KillHour fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Way to quote about the part about it being funded by HHS for the last 22 years... Also, it's run and managed by a private corporation whose Wiki article reads like it was written by their PR department. Who the hell knows what their motives are other than to convince Uncle Sam to keep paying them to crunch numbers? It still has nothing to do with my original point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Are you saying that drug abuse does not exist and that there is no point in trying to prevent or mitigate it? Because that is what I am seeing from you. All you seem to have here is allusions to insidious ulterior motives, on the other hand we have the DAWN themselves criticizing other organizations for misusing their data. Tell me, what part does DAWN saying "Hey, that data does not mean what you guys are saying it means." play in their evil quest to imprison every person who uses weed? What part does DAWN's collection of data regarding prescription, OTC and supplement abuse play in their nefarious plot? You sure do love straw men, because I never said any of that. I merely stated that their reporting is inherently misleading, which you then agreed with and proceeded to argue with me anyways. Go ahead, tell me what part of this isn't misleading. Then remind me what the gently caress we were arguing about, because I must have forgotten.  quote:In 2011, there were 402.0 ED visits that involved illicit drugs for each 100,000 persons in the U.S. population (Table 5). The highest rates were found for cocaine involvement (162.1 ED visits per 100,000 population) and marijuana (146.2 visits)...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Uhhh, it's not misleading. All it says is that per 100k visits to the ER there were x, y, z, etcetera, number of people who used those drugs, anything else is reading more into that data than it actually says. That is completely false. Here's another excerpt: quote:Drug-related ED visit: This category includes any ED visit related to recent drug use. To be a DAWN case, the ED visit must have involved a drug, either as the direct cause of the visit or as a contributing factor. They are specifically claiming that the drug use is a factor in ED admission in all of these cases. Also, I think you need to look up the definition of misleading: quote:Adj. 1. misleading - designed to deceive or mislead either deliberately or inadvertently; "the deceptive calm in the eye of the storm"; "deliberately deceptive packaging"; "a misleading similarity"; "statistics can be presented in ways that are misleading"; "shoddy business practices" If it is easy for someone to "[read] more into that data than it actually says," then it is misleading. It doesn't have to be purposefully deceitful to be misleading. If you can't see how it would be easy to misinterpret that data, then I don't know what to tell you. KillHour fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Wrong, wrong even according to your own definition. "misleading - designed to deceive or mislead either deliberately or inadvertently" Designed to. Show proof that the data is designed to mislead, not just that it could mislead. Hell, I refuse to accept your definition, how could something be inadvertently designed to mislead? The word "designed" implies a willful act, but inadvertently implies that the act of misleading was not willful, that does not make any sense. Okay, now I'm positive you're trolling. That's not even my definition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misleading I'm sorry you disagree. Take it up with Princeton and Farlex Inc., I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Well I expect a strong grass roots effort to get circa-1994 Winona Ryder on my junk, and by sheer coincidence here's https://www.get1994wi-ryonttfasjunk.com You're loving welcome. 
KillHour fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:I notice that little tirade conveniently omits how many people die from weed a year. I'll post victims I know of here: http://www.wnd.com/2000/10/6324/ We need a smiley that's a combination of  and 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Well, the theme of the piece is really that we can't view it (or substance abuse in general) as a law enforcement problem. That's pretty impressive progress. By making it illegal you make it a law enforcement problem. It's mostly a bunch of doublespeak to handwave the status quo. "The system we have is bad, but there's no hard proof another system will be better, so we'll just keep thinking really hard about the issue." Saying something is a health issue but making it illegal anyways is about as effective as making the flu illegal.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:This is loving fiction. I've been high as the goddamn Goodyear blimp and I've never left my pug in the car. There's no loving way an adult forgot he had a goddamned child. People do that sober. It's not a huge leap to think people would do it high, too. The issue is that it's turning a story about "Careless Parent Leaves Kid in Car" into "Pot Will Make You Endanger Your Kids' Lives!" https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=leaves+kid+in+car&tbm=nws
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
site posted:I have no idea if it'll fit, but may I repost your commentary on my Facebook? I'm an Alaskan. There is one thing I have to nitpick about his commentary, if you're going to do that: quote:Marijuana-related exposures for children ages 0-5 increased 200 percent to 12 per year from the four per year in the early years of medical marijuana availability, 2006-2008. (I'm no mathemagician, but 12 is not 200% of 4 and I'm not sure where they're even getting these numbers because there were 14 total accidental marijuana exposures to children between 2006 and 2011 in Colorado.) They were actually correct on the math, here. 12 is a 200% increase over 4. "Increase" means that you add it to the original number, so 4 + (4*200%) = 12. It's a minor thing, but you have to make sure you're not making any mistakes in your arguments when you're attacking something like this, or people will use that to discredit the entire thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
lil mortimer posted:This hot ad keeps playing on my TV: I like how they don't even say what the caregiver clause is, they just tell you it's bad.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Spoondick posted:Yep, not a mathemagician. I couldn't figure out where they were getting the children under 5 accidental marijuana exposure data from, but it definitely wasn't Colorado. I have a feeling that's a statistic representing the national population misrepresented as a Colorado number to make things there look worse than they are, but I couldn't find anything conclusive. The first number is from accidental marijuana consumption leading to an ER visit (kid found a dimebag/pot brownie and went to town). The second number is from marijuana-related exposure in general, meaning they could be including instances where people were smoking weed in front of their kid. Or the kid touched some weed. Or the kid saw some weed. They don't really define "exposure."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
A Time To Chill posted:Sometimes the smoking itself is part of the fun though. I enjoy the act of smoking, but don't enjoy tobacco. It is sometimes annoying when I want to chill and smoke a whole joint but the only semi-legal weed I have access to is ULTRA MEDICAL GRADE 9000% THC. The option of crappier corporate weed is one of the "downsides" of legalization I'm actually looking forward to. Have you tried cigars? I know it's tobacco, but it's not really the same.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Man not only is that terrible numbers for Oregon and Alaska, that's a terrible infographic too. Why the hell is the "Not Sure" piece on the right instead of in the middle? It just makes it look like the initiatives are doing worse than they really are. Oregon actually has more 'yes' votes than 'no' on that, but it doesn't look like it. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_D.C._Marijuana_Legalization,_Initiative_71_(November_2014)quote:Regulation of sales
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Cuomo has outright said no to legalization, so nothing will happen while he is in office, and he just got re-elected. Cuomo wouldn't have a say if it became a constitutional amendment, but fat chance of that happening. NY doesn't have voter initiated amendments. It has to get a majority of votes in two consecutive sessions of state legislature. If both of those pass, then it gets put on a referendum during the next election.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:If I own a property in DC, and the law is enacted, and I have tenets living in that property who want to grow marijuana, is there any legal mechanism by which I can say "I will not rent to you if you grow marijuana"? Additionally, if I have executed an existing lease with such tenets for a period of time, in advance of the law being a reality, and the lease makes no mention of this, is there any mechanism by which I could evict people who are growing weed? So you're a tenant that wants to grow weed and you're worried about your landlord kicking you out?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It doesn't take hours of fact checking, any minimally reasoned analysis of the facts of prohibition is plenty to come around to legalization. Someone who is pro-prohibition for racist reasons, whether underlying and unrealized or outright and unrepentant, is at least is logically consistent regardless of whatever pejoratives you may attach to a racist. So it's better to be a racist than have cognitive dissonance? Get real.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
If people in this thread seriously think that being intellectually consistent is more important than not being racist, those people need to seriously reevaluate their priorities.  Also, having cognitive dissonance does not mean you're stupid. People do it all the time, and everyone has done it. Yes, even you. It's what lets people deal with life without breaking down and crying. Get the gently caress over it. KillHour fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No it isn't. If you want a justification for why minors can't smoke weed, it's the same reason that they're not allowed to drink. Children aren't known for making sound decisions. This is why they are not allowed to agree to legally binding contracts, and cannot consent to sexual activity. Adding psychoactive drugs to the mix is not going to make them make better decisions. 90% of the stupid stuff I did when I was underage, I did drunk.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:Did the fact that you weren't allowed to drink alcohol influence your decision to drink? It really didn't. I didn't stop drinking alcohol when I turned 21. SedanChair posted:Alcohol will kill you, either with pure toxicity or by making you do stupid things. How much stupid (truly life-endangering) things did you do while high? I climbed up the side of a drawbridge while drunk. I had sex with someone I shouldn't have while high (without protection). The first is more immediately life-endangering, I think, but the second was just as stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:Without wanting to come off as disrespectful, I think this is a case of correlation != causation. How do you think would the second situation have been different if you weren't high? Having age limits on psychoactive substances does not preclude proper drug education. And certainly, rules don't stop teens from breaking them, but they still need to exist, if only as guidance. I would be okay with marijuana laws for teens being similar to alcohol laws - a slap on the wrist, in most places.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:How about video games? I would argue they are as addictive and potentially bad-habit-forming as pot. Video games are just as addictive as pot - that is to say, pot is not chemically addictive in any way. I never claimed it was, and the fact that it isn't doesn't invalidate my arguments. That being said, I fully admit that marijuana has the lowest medical risk of any commonly used recreational substance (caffeine, nicotine and alcohol are all chemically addictive). How about I rephrase my argument to be more clear? I believe that it should be illegal to sell or give items that are addictive AND/OR psychoactive to minors unless it is for a medical purpose and prescribed by a doctor. And minors in possession of these items should have them confiscated. Illegal does not mean criminalized. We can have our cake and eat it too, guys.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I love that AYC and KillHour have completely ignored me calling them out on their claim that it is illegal to consume alcohol as a minor, despite it only being true in 5 (12 if I am being super generous) states at most. I didn't ignore you. I was at work, and didn't have time to write a more thorough post on the matter. According to Wikipedia, your numbers are low: quote:As of January 1, 2010, 15 states and the District of Columbia ban underage consumption outright, 17 states do not ban underage consumption, and the remaining 18 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their underage consumption laws. So, the majority of states ban consumption of alcohol by minors (with about half of those states having exceptions, but this is still true in a general sense). I think, in principle, I don't have a huge objection to exceptions to underage bans. In practice, however, any law that lets a minor smoke pot is going to be a non-starter, politically.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:If you believed that banning alcohol entirely would reduce traffic fatalities by a statistically significant amount, would you also support that? No, because the prohibition of alcohol (as we have seen) leads to much worse consequences than drunk driving. The ends aren't worth the means, in that case. The only negative thing banning underage drinking leads to is 17 year olds that think they're cool 'cause they stole a light beer out of dad's fridge or gave 20 bucks to a homeless guy to buy them a 6 pack of Smirnoff Ice. I'm not in favor of legalizing weed because I give a poo poo about your rights to smoke it. I'm in favor of legalizing it because the effects of prohibition are a horrible blight on society.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
KingEup posted:Democracy is ordered liberty and must be restricted in some ways. However liberty must be protected equally, or at least roughly equally. Where the law creates a presumption of liberty, each person has a vital interest in not having his liberty denied while others are allowed an equal or more harmful liberty. Drug prohibition violates this principle. It has less to do with the liberty to do whatever the gently caress you want and more to do with protecting equal liberty. The cannabis user poses no greater harm to legitimate state interests than does the boozer or tobacco user and yet the cannabis user is punished more harshly than the former. This presumes that I believe that liberty, in itself, has inherent value. Nearly all people will say that they believe this, but my experience shows otherwise. People only appreciate liberty inasmuch it matches their social moores. The prevalence of blue laws proves this. Arguing the personal freedoms angle will only get you anywhere with libertarians.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 14:38
|
|