I don’t really see how making children pay for the crimes of their parents reinforces personal responsibility. Rather the opposite, actually.
For those of you on the “legalism all” team, may I ask if you believe an adult should be able to purchase fruit flavored tobacco cigarettes and smoke them in his own home?
I lean towards the “legalize much or all, and regulate and tax it appropriately” camp. This has to do with both a lack of fundamental moral objections, and the natural desire for profit.
Hell, California cigarette tax revenue comes to…what, a couple of billion, annually, if my sources are right? That’s over a tenth of NASA’s yearly budget, or a couple of B-2s. If you could start to expand that to other drugs…
Well, I could certainly use some more NASA; or maybe 25,000 new Javelin missiles. 
Please read previous posts again. I already answered your questions. I said," …alcohol and tobacco are bought with a driver’s license OR a valid photo ID. "
I said the qualifications of my pot license(s) is, “- The physical exam would have to show there is no current physical condition that could/will become fatal if the approved drugs are used. (In other words, you got lung cancer, you can’t buy smokable marijuana, but you could buy edibles (brownies, ganja butter, lollipops, tongue strips, etc.)”
The other point of having the license is just like I mentioned with a driver’s license or ID card— YOU GOTTA PAY MONEY FOR ONE!
CA is basically destitute. So if one person wants weed, they pay for a license AFTER the physical exam permits them. Just like if a person wants to drive, he PAYS for that license too only AFTER they take THREE exams (Eyesight, written, driven.)
Again, I feel that the only main differences are (from previous post) "…you can’t sell alcohol to anyone who is intoxicated at a store or restaurant. Same with weed. The only difference I see between legally buying alcohol and legally buying weed is that I’m not allowed to share my weed with those unlicensed, BUT I can share any booze I want with my friends AS LONG AS THEY’RE OVER 21. Both licenses share similar restrictions. Can buy weed/liquor in public, can’t USE it in public. Has to be at home or at a bar / smoke shop. "
Your answers are already posted. Now… excuse me while I crank my sitar music.
But why are you trying to draw a parallel between driving and weed?
You don’t need a license to buy alcohol or tobacco, you just need to be over a certain age. The license (or other id) is a convenient way of proving that you are that age, but the law doesn’t require a license to buy alcohol or cigarettes.
Why should buying weed be like driving? Shouldn’t it be a lot more like buying alcohol or tobacco?
Also, you didn’t answer why your friend who tries to buy black market weed doesn’t count as someone you know who buys black market weed.
I assume that alcohol users are included in your plan – how could they not be? Of course, it’s at that point that your idea takes up permanent residence in Crazy Town, as before long 10% of population will be serving life sentences. I assume you’ve seen a bar fight at some point in your life, yes? Was your reaction honestly: “You know what would be good? If both of those guys spent the next 50 years in jail.”
There are scores of other problems with the plan, of course, even if you exclude alcohol use.
You’ve just driven the vast majority of heroin users back to the black market. Also, forbidding them to drive is pretty pointless, as those who’ve taken enough heroin to impair their driving will generally have no interest in leaving the house.
I don’t get it. Is this about lefty antipathy towards tobacco?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites
*For those of you on the “legalism all” team, may I ask if you believe an adult should be able to purchase fruit flavored tobacco cigarettes and smoke them in his own home?
*
Sort of. But it’s more a question of freedom. As an adult you can no longer buy fruit flavored cigarettes. If you agree with this, why do you think then you should be able to have whatever intoxicating drug you want? Why do you accept tyranny on one thing yet expect freedom on the other?
I don’t think this is true. Tobacco companies are very limited in how they can market fruit-flavored products, but are you sure there is a blanket ban on selling them?
Ah, apparently the FDA plans to ban flavored cigarettes in the near future, nvm.
Why do you preach family values while running off to Argentina to fuck your mistress behind your wife’s back? When you answer why you believe that’s okay, then you’ll have the answer to your question.
I’d be surprised if anyone here advocating for the complete legalization of drugs supports the ban.
Conversely, I get the impression that you’re in favor of drug prohibition. If so, why is a ban on fruit-flavored tobacco “tyranny” while a ban on cocaine is acceptable?
Not sure about benzos, but I know opioids and marijuana can be safely mixed. In fact, they’re said to have a good synergy. On the other hand, opioids and benzos are both CNS depressants and are not safe to mix. Someone mixing oxycodone and alprazalam is likely to stop breathing.
Ecstasy is more comparable to cocaine than the other stuff you’ve mentioned. It’s one of the more dangerous drugs. I’d rather smoke some heroin than mess with ecstasy.
The punishment doesn’t fit the crime. If someone does something while drunk or high, punish them the same way as if they were sober. You’re just punishing people indirectly for getting drunk or high.
Yes, I do, assuming there are no minors around. Minors don’t exactly have much say-so in where they live and who they live with.
Please forgive the** high**jack (haw haw, y’geddit?), but…
With all due respect, you probably wouldn’t be saying that if you had much experience with people who like their speed or their coke. There’re speedfreaks and there’re coke fiends; a devotee of one is very unlikely to have much use for the other – they are two entirely separate branches of the drug culture, who hold each other in mutual distrust and disdain for the most part.
Although I agree that Airman Doors’ suggestion is excessive, he is only “punishing people for getting drunk or high” because they have deliberately rendered themselves incapable of providing the duty of care owed to the rest of the population. I would support harsher penalties for crimes committed out of negligence when this negligence is the result of intoxication, as it indicates a wilful disregard for your victims.
This is the part where they pretend to be an aloof libertarian neither for nor against, but are rather merely enjoying some good sport poking holes in “liberal hypocrisy”. Don’t bother.
I am calling out this statement as garbage (Ecstasy being ‘one of the more dangerous drugs’), unless you have something to support it. It is like cocaine in that it is stimulating, but that is where the comparison ends.
I agree with this, mostly. Being drunk or high while (say) operating a motor vehicle is negligence, the same as if you were fiddling with a blackberry or driving over 90mph. Call it that and be done with it, no need for a bunch of fancy DUI laws. Of course, the idea of passing on a criminal’s sentence to their children is so idiotic as not to bear any serious comment.
So you think if someone dies due to someone else’s negligence, that’s worse than if they just pulled out a gun and shot them for no good reason? You think drunk driver killers should receive harsher punishment than people who murder someone else for their money? I guess we’ll just have to disagree on this.
It’s actually more like methamphetamine pharmocologically, but I wouldn’t say it’s that dangerous.
Those effects don’t sound like a picnic to me. It may not be as dangerous as I thought, and a lot of the danger may be from getting bad pills due to it’s illegality like heroin, but I’d say it’s much more dangerous than marijuana and psychedelics. I think I’d lump it in with heroin, a little below powder cocaine.
Nah, not at all. That Wikipedia article is the classic anti-MDMA hatchet job that conflates the effects of overexertion with effects of MDMA. Yes, people sometimes dance without sufficiently hydrating. But calling this an effect of MDMA is like saying that alcohol causes ruptured aorta (because those darned steering columns keep going through people’s chests after drinking). As to the “significant debate” concerning neural damage, this usually refers to the Ricaurte study, which has since been retracted because of an error in methodology… namely, that they injected the test primates with methamphetamine rather than MDMA. Oops. :rolleyes: Even a cursory glance at emergency-room statistics demonstrates that deaths attributable to MDMA are roughly on par with deaths from lightning strikes (i.e. very rare), and it’s not clear how many of these were due to combinations with other drugs. Also, see the recent UK government assessment of overall harm, which puts MDMA near the bottom of the risk scale.
MDMA does raise body temperature slightly as well as heart rate and blood pressure, but then so does caffeine. As for addictive potential it is virtually nonexistent because complete tolerance builds up within a matter of hours… subsequent dosing is completely ineffective until the body waits a couple of weeks to “recharge”.
As with any drugs, yes, there are risks, but I hope you can see how silly it is to say that MDMA is anywhere near as risky as heroin.
Some states tax baby food, why the heck wouldn’t we tax a leisure/recreational drug like pot. What makes pot any less taxable than liquor?
There are all sorts of ways pot hrams society. Pot is frequently smoke unfiltered which is just as bad for you as smoking an unfiltered cigarette. It affects memory which affects the economy (there was a taco stand in Venice beach where they had to change the prices because noone working there could figure out how to make change after about 10 in the morning).
I am also pretty sure that there is no tax rate on the table that would actually increase the retail cost of pot to the consumer. You get rid of a LOT of middlemen when Con Agra and Altria grow, process and distribute pot to your local liquor store.
I’m all for the legalization of ‘recreational’ drugs. I mean, how many times do you come across a rubric that reads: ‘Ecstasy Addled Raver Hugs Friend To Death’! :rolleyes:
And this:
Suffice to say however, implementing such a policy would need to engender greater control measures than the likes of alcohol and tobacco currently do:
-A kind of ‘prescription system’ whereby people would not be able to [legally] obtain more than a given quota of a certain drug. (eg. four(4) ‘standard’ Ecstasy tablets per month)
-The drugs could only be dispensed through pharmacies, not your local liquor stores etc.
-Strictly enforced age limitations (*may vary depending on drug)
-Would-be ‘users’ would need to be appropriately assessed (eg. susceptibility to psychosis - marijuana)
…and so on.
It would be somewhat complicated. But I think it would benefit society in the long run if it weened people off of alcohol, ‘hard’ drugs, gambling and the like – the real ‘evils’ in today’s world.