Zooid;162686 said:
I agree with most of what you said.....and believe it or not.....I consider myself a conservative too...mostly on the fiscal side....I'm more libertarian on the social side.
One question, I agree that people should not be driving after smoking pot, but if you don't want to make it legal to smoke even if you don't drive, should we also make
alcohol illegal again? It didn't work the first time, I don't think it would work now either. We should enforce anti-pot DRIVING laws. I believe you can be cited for DWAI
and it can be just as effective as a DWI or DUI for the offenders.
THIS, is where things get completely "gray". I don't want to get too off course from the topic at hand but, I personally could care less if alcohol was made illegal again. Of course that will never work and I would miss the occasional beer or two.
I can tell you that I could also care less if people consume these substances
responsibly. However, I can tell you from both first hand experience and data driven information that LARGE amounts of people do not use substances responsibly. Here are some stats put out by NHTSA (National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration); Alcohol impaired vehicle crashes cost more than $37 Billion annually. In 2010 more than 10,000 people died in alcohol impaired accidents. I know from other statistics that on a Friday or Saturday night after 9 p.m., 1 out of every 10 cars on the roadway has a driver impaired by alcohol. For every DUI arrest made, that person has reasonably driven 60 prior times under the influence without being caught. I have seen the numbers for alcohol related motor vehicle deaths as high as 23,000 annually. The NHTSA stat is only for those OVER the legal limits as imposed. The higher death toll statistic is for alcohol "related", meaning not necessarily rising to the level of "under the influence" but more probably "while ability impaired". This many times is delineated by the blood alcohol content laws (per se laws). Which now stands at .08g of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. "Impairment" remains between the .05g and .08g range.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/Impaired
We live in a society where a LARGE amount of the population do not make responsible decisions. The original prohibition movement was based on some of this same premise. Alcohol was the biggest common denominator to crime, domestic abuse, poverty and health care problems during that time. (Much like it is today) You don't have to repeat history, you use history to make better decisions and learn from failures. I believe (personally) that limited prohibition would alleviate (not eliminate) a great deal of the horrendous after effects of substance abuse/misuse.
Why in the world would we introduce another substance (MJ), that until a recent upsurge (last 10 years), was not as heavily/widely used drug?? Heck, the battle when I was in school was cigarette use and the prevention/education of teens against smoking. It wasn't MJ. The difference to me is the impairment factor of MJ.
To answer your question more specifically; I would have no issue with prohibition again, only on a much
different & reasonable level. I could go much more in depth with ideas and such but will try to stay short-winded.
And YES, people who drive under the influence of drugs are arrested and charged with DUID not DWAI. This is already a skyrocketing trend/issue. The legalization and widespread availability of MJ resulting from such, will only exasperate the already out-of-control problem further.
Wicked Demon;162692 said:
Sounds like you want control over every aspect of another individuals every thought and decision making process????
I am glad we live where we do, because I am a FREE man able to make my own decisions, whether you deem them a mistake or not, not everybody has to see things your way.
A society where everyone is treated exactly the same and cannot have any free thought already has a name, its called communism, and you live in the wrong country for that approach!
Laughable, I have no idea how you extrapolated that out of my comments!! LOL I couldn't be more polar opposite from communism!! I'm already beside myself at current government leaders (cough cough), trying to socialize our country...which is the first transitional step toward communism. Disgusting.
Freedom and it's premise should always only extend as far as you don't harm or potentially harm others, thereby infringing on their freedom. This is why laws exist even in a freedom based culture/society. True and absolute freedom only lives in anarchy, because there are no laws that tell you can't do a certain thing or act a certain way. Now, you can have personal anarchy and feel that you are FREE to do whatever you want, fine. However, if your "free" decision to live your way leads someone to say, steal from another...should there not be punishment or laws to prevent that "lifestyle" if you will?? From a philosophical standpoint, we are all completely "free" in that you can think and act in WHATEVER form you decide. However, most learn at a certain young age, there are consequences for certain "free" acts.
NOTHING can
prevent certain acts from happening, that is why law enforcement, in any form and in any society, will almost always be reactionary. Once the 'free' act is done though, if it has harmed another or potentially harmed another, there should be consequences. This is a civilized form of a free society.
Wicked Demon;162693 said:
Also...there are countries that have completely decriminalized all drug use, offering treatment to addicts, treating it like the HEALTH issue it is, instead of a criminal one, the result has been a huge decline in addiction rates.
BTW I totally agree with the Darwinism approach to allowing junkies to OD, in the shallow end of the gene pool swimming was never an option.
I'm confused. If you want decriminalization so that addictions can be treated as the Health issue you mentioned, then why is there this callousness to say hopefully junkies will OD? Where is the humanity and compassion in that scenario if it is truly a health issue?? To me this is speaking out of both sides of one's mouth. Saying that something is a health issue and should be allowed treatment and no consequences (criminally), but out of the other side of the mouth saying that those with the health issue should just OD and leave the strongest to survive?? I don't want to live in that society.
I have had family members, friends and significant others with substance abuse problems. I would never desire to see them left to flail around, labeled as the shallow end of the gene pool. I have also lost close friends to the same, at the hands of others with substance abuse problems. So it is a polarized topic for me.
