Drug legalization?

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

Like I said though in my analysis. I'm really better off with a ban than a mindless limitation.

Kizzume · Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:17 pm Post subject:

Okay.

If you have seen the movie "Demolition Man", what aspects to that reality that was being depicted are you against? In that movie, the government made a whole bunch of things illegal because they're "bad" for you or they're "bad" for society.

How far should this whole thing go? How far into Guilani's utopia should we allow the government to become?

How much of a police state do you acceptable? Checkpoints every 10 blocks and pee in this cup to go to work?

Sorry, I'm getting emotional and irrational. I will continue this later...

Kizzume · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:34 am Post subject:

Okay--let me rephrase that: How much government do you find acceptable? How much government is TOO much government when it comes to intruding on our personal lives if it's for our own good? How far should the reach of the government be allowed to go?

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

As far as we allow it. That's the beauty and sadness of democracy.

Kizzume · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:09 am Post subject:

How far should we allow it?

Should we have to do some special procedure for every action we make? Should we have to fill out a form to get a glass of water?

To me, some of the things people have been proposing would make this country into a Demolition Man reality. Shouldn't we be trying to do everything we can to KEEP that from happening?

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

Kizzume · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:39 am Post subject:

This is kind-of a slippery slope though.

There are different ways one can facilitate the needs/desires of the majority. If it becomes something that hinders people from being able to do things in the name of trying to allow people to do things, then it isn't something very effective. If we were to turn this country into a Demolition Man reality, it's not very effective in letting people live their lives how they choose, AT ALL.

Have you seen the movie I keep referring to? Demolition Man? If not, you may not understand the references I'm making, and I'll have to find a different example....

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

I've seen Demolition Man. I own it. But you yourself are pushing for that. You are pushing down that slippery slope right? With the over-regulation of tobacco products as a primary step, you can see how we are steadily moving that direction.

Kizzume · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:45 am Post subject:

I don't want to BAN anything outright. That movie pretty much involves banning. The things you suggest with drugs, and also with cigarettes is LOT closer to that reality than anything I've suggested.

I just want people to be able to breath not-cigaretted air when they're indoors.

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

What you want leads to the same end result though... That's what you fail to see. Your limitation of an individuals freedoms doesn't stop at just the public locations. If it's okay to infringe upon their public freedoms then it's okay to infringe upon the private freedoms. Right? This is the big scare with police checkpoints. It's all one big slippery slope. I say we either fight it or embrace it. You claim to want to avoid it yet support policies that fall on that slippery slope.

Kizzume · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject:

I do fail to see it. Yes. I don't understand the progression you're making--why doesn't my limitation on freedoms stop at the public locations? Who is pushing something beyond this? I know I'm sure not--the only people that push beyond that are those that think people shouldn't be able to do those things AT ALL.

How is this jump made?

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

It relates because it's a slippery slope, individual freedoms and rights. You seek to limit them and not even in a consistent manner. Either it's harmful or it's not. If it's harmful than treat it as such.

You pick cigarettes and want to remove those from public yet based upon your profile at PF with the whole 420 bit, you support at minimum decriminalization. So we want to criminalize one form of smoke and decriminalize the next...

Like a check point, you are picking and choosing the laws YOU want to enforce. Right? I mean really this isn't an issue of a solid legal principle, it's an issue of 'well this is how I feel'.

Kizzume · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:12 pm Post subject:

I don't want to criminalize ANYTHING. You're the one who thinks that cigarettes should be made illegal if we're to do anything at all. I don't think people should be able to smoke 420 in public places either. I don't think people should have to smell like weed after they go to a bar, same with crack, same with any of 'em.

I want to allow people to do whatever they want, but if they're going to be inside a public place, they can't be emitting smoke, for the same reasons why someone shouldn't be able to have a bonfire in the middle of an inside public place.

debateman · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 349 Location: New Mexico

But Mark has already given the information of prolonged exposure to alcohol vapors and the severe impacts they have on health. So you are choosing only to be consistent about smell as opposed to health impact. I'm not saying that you have to ban cigarettes. I'm just saying pick a standard and be consistent.

Kizzume · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:22 pm Post subject:

I will. It's the smell, it's the stain causing properties, it's the plastic-deteriorating properties, it's the cellphone-ruining properties, and this happens from simply being in the same room with someone. When people smoke outside, none of these things have a chance of happening--the smoke is mixed with enough fresh air that none of those things have a chance of happening.

Alcohol does not have any of those properties, as nothing is going to happen to someone just from being in the same room as someone who is drinking.