Jim in Anchorage Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Yes. Laws put in place to prohibit personal choices that those seeking the legislation find distasteful, for the purposes of curbing said behavior, is social engineering. My point is that your advocacy of your preferred brand of social engineering legitimizes all social engineering; so when you advocate for it, you don't get to complain when they other guys get into power, and institute their preferred brand. I have no issue with your libertarian points here, but what would you say to legal meth? same principal.
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Yes. Laws put in place to prohibit personal choices that those seeking the legislation find distasteful, for the purposes of curbing said behavior, is social engineering. My point is that your advocacy of your preferred brand of social engineering legitimizes all social engineering; so when you advocate for it, you don't get to complain when they other guys get into power, and institute their preferred brand. I have no issue with your libertarian points here, but what would you say to legal meth? same principal.
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Yes. Laws put in place to prohibit personal choices that those seeking the legislation find distasteful, for the purposes of curbing said behavior, is social engineering. My point is that your advocacy of your preferred brand of social engineering legitimizes all social engineering; so when you advocate for it, you don't get to complain when they other guys get into power, and institute their preferred brand. I have no issue with your libertarian points here, but what would you say to legal meth? same principal.
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Yes. Laws put in place to prohibit personal choices that those seeking the legislation find distasteful, for the purposes of curbing said behavior, is social engineering. My point is that your advocacy of your preferred brand of social engineering legitimizes all social engineering; so when you advocate for it, you don't get to complain when they other guys get into power, and institute their preferred brand. I have no issue with your libertarian points here, but what would you say to legal meth? same principal.
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 For the puposes of this discussion, please consider "personal choice" to be synonymous with liberty. Liberty, logically being defined as the freedom to act, restricted only by the intrusion into the liberty of others. Murder falls outside this sphere. Your desire to impede another's legal ability to smoke pot is morally no different than someone else seeking to restrict you legal ability to own guns, speak freely, practice your own religion, etc. Your own argument legitimizes the weapon, so you can't then complain when others use it against you. Ah but here's the rub. You're referring to something that is currently legal (the ownership of guns) vs something that is currently illegal (marijuana) so it's not an apples to apples comparison. I have no issue with your libertarian points here, but what would you say to legal meth? same principal. Are you stoned again? It's a good point but damn man you only needed to make it once.
Maury Ballstein Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 No I think your continues arguments with him will keep this thread alive. That and prove you're a clueless stoner. Wahhhhh. Cranky because you forgot to eat your prunes today ?
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Wahhhhh. Cranky because you forgot to eat your prunes today ? If by cranky you mean laughing at you then yeah, I'm real cranky.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 I have no issue with your libertarian points here, but what would you say to legal meth? same principal. Meth is a poor example, in it's current production setting, because of the destructive potential of it's labs in the event of an explosion. This is similar to my support of restrictions of the private ownership of WMDs. The legalization of heroin would be a much cleaner example, and I have no issues with it. Ah but here's the rub. You're referring to something that is currently legal (the ownership of guns) vs something that is currently illegal (marijuana) so it's not an apples to apples comparison. Freedoms to freedoms is an absolute apples to apples comparison. Your argument that legal timelines should be conflated with morality has no foundation in logic.
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Meth is a poor example, in it's current production setting, because of the destructive potential of it's labs in the event of an explosion. This is similar to my support of restrictions of the private ownership of WMDs. The legalization of heroin would be a much cleaner example, and I have no issues with it. Freedoms to freedoms is an absolute apples to apples comparison. Your argument that legal timelines should be conflated with morality has no foundation in logic. Meth is a poor example because of the possibility that meth labs may explode? Wouldn't meth labs go away if it were legal? Kind of like exploding stills back in the day when booze was illegal. Now tell us really why you're against the legalization of Meth? And I hope you never ever have anyone you care about overdose on heroin. Edited March 7, 2014 by Chef Jim
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Meth is a poor example because of the possibility that meth labs may explode? Wouldn't meth labs go away if it were legal? Kind of like exploding stills back in the day when booze was illegal. Now tell us really why you're against the legalization of Meth? A meth lab exploding is not the same as a still exploding. Meth labs can take out city blocks. However, if meth were legalized, and a city set up zoning in which the production of meth could be localized to certain areas, and losses insured; I'd have no issue with it then. You'll note that I hedged my prior post by noting current manner of production. And I hope you never ever have anyone you care about overdose on heroin. I already have, but I am not my brothers keeper, and it was her life to live, not mine to control. Edited March 7, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 I already have, but I am not my brothers keeper, and it was her life to live, not mine to control. Awesome. I'm sure she would have appreciated the fact that you felt that way had she reached out to you for help.
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 I have no issue with your libertarian points here, but what would you say to legal meth? same principal. "Principle." You did that on purpose.
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 "Principle." You did that on purpose. No Jim's high school principal was a stoner AND a meth head.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Awesome. I'm sure she would have appreciated the fact that you felt that way had she reached out to you for help. Her reaching out to me for help, which she did, and I tried to do, is not the same thing as legislating prohibition. Additionally, I don't try to feel my way through difficult problems.
Chef Jim Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Her reaching out to me for help, which she did, and I tried to do, is not the same thing as legislating prohibition. Additionally, I don't try to feel my way through difficult problems. Continuted Legislating prohibition will likely keep others (people you may know and love) from getting caught up in something as horrible as herion addiction. But your "!@#$ 'em if they want to !@#$ up their life i'm not their keeper" attitude is very refreshing.
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 No Jim's high school principal was a stoner AND a meth head. No but my 11th grade chemistry teacher was and it worked out great. And mind you this was 35 years before breaking bad.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Continuted Legislating prohibition will likely keep others (people you may know and love) from getting caught up in something as horrible as herion addiction. But your "!@#$ 'em if they want to !@#$ up their life i'm not their keeper" attitude is very refreshing. Jesus, stop advocating feeling your way through difficult problems. First of all, prohibition only serves to drive activities out of the sunlight, and into the criminal world of black markets. It doesn't prevent them, and in many cases actually creates an allure. Prohibition certainly didn't stop my friend. It did, however, turn her into a criminal, and make it harder for her to seek help without fear of legal consequences. Like I've said before, freedom isn't always pretty, but it's the best thing we've got. You, however, feel differently, and would prefer to wander through life as a morality cop; which is fine, I guess, but like I said, you've forfiet the right to complain when the morality cops on the other side come knocking at your door. Edited March 7, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker
4merper4mer Posted March 7, 2014 Author Posted March 7, 2014 For the puposes of this discussion, please consider "personal choice" to be synonymous with liberty. Liberty, logically being defined as the freedom to act, restricted only by the intrusion into the liberty of others. Murder falls outside this sphere. Your desire to impede another's legal ability to smoke pot is morally no different than someone else seeking to restrict you legal ability to own guns, speak freely, practice your own religion, etc. Your own argument legitimizes the weapon, so you can't then complain when others use it against you. How is having to navigate a sea of pot head losers not an infringement on my liberty? If they weren't stoners I might actually be able to have my gas tank filled more quickly or simply walk on the street without having to be accosted and/or annoyed. When I am annoyed I am less productive. When I am less productive I make less $$$$ and have less liberty to do my own bidding. Or how about the baby that was almost killed by these losers that started this whole thread? That baby's liberty and the puppies later on were certainly infringed.
4merper4mer Posted March 7, 2014 Author Posted March 7, 2014 Jesus, stop advocating feeling your way through difficult problems. First of all, prohibition only serves to drive activities out of the sunlight, and into the criminal world of black markets. It doesn't prevent them, and in many cases actually creates an allure. Prohibition certainly didn't stop my friend. It did, however, turn her into a criminal, and make it harder for her to seek help without fear of legal consequences. Like I've said before, freedom isn't always pretty, but it's the best thing we've got. You, however, feel differently, and would prefer to wander through life as a morality cop; which is fine, I guess, but like I said, you've forfiet the right to complain when the morality cops on the other side come knocking at your door. Society used to heap shame upon losers that did stupid things like smoking pot. There were stigmas about a lot of legal and illegal things. Now stigmas are frowned upon and those who stigmatize others are seen as evil. This has left us with more than half of the country on the dole, a good portion of them on drugs and about 20% of the population being productive and trying to prop up others. It is certainly necessary to help many people that are truly in need, but people who make choices like smoking pot deserve to be called out for being LOSERS. Having it legalized only lends credence to their denial of pots harmful impacts on our society. It weakens the stigma and makes these losers all the more emboldened in their already insufferable arguments. The cycles that are churned by society propping up these morons leaves us much more open to our society crumbling gradually until it reaches the point where it is easily defeated. Booze is bad too; I agree. But for whatever reason boozing countries like Russia seem perfectly capable of defense and aggression. The more people that turn to pot in the USA, the more we will be vulnerable. Would you take a stoner or a boozer in hand to hand combat? I understand what you are saying about laws but it is all very theoretical. If we re-built the stigma around pot and continuously pointed out over and over how pot heads are losers, then very few people would be engaged in it. At that point in time we could legalize it and maintain the stigma. And heroin. And even the awful things JBoyst does to those poor cows. Stigma Stigma Stigma. A booze stigma is gradually being built and that is a good thing. It is centered around drunk driving for now, but it may grow. It is difficult to build because boozers can always fall back on the legality argument. They also have a strong lobby of large companies. Pot doesn't have this. Why let them build it? Stigmatize the ever loving crap out of it.....then legalize it.
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Meth is a poor example because of the possibility that meth labs may explode? Wouldn't meth labs go away if it were legal? Kind of like exploding stills back in the day when booze was illegal. Now tell us really why you're against the legalization of Meth? And I hope you never ever have anyone you care about overdose on heroin. I suspect heroin ODs would drop to near zero with legalization because now the purity of the drug is known, rather then the crap shoot street buyers face today. Not that I support legalizing ether heroin or meth.
Recommended Posts