Smoking and Drinking... Still legal...

[drippinhun]

Watch that Milton Friedman video in the legalization of marijuana thread. That video single handedly convinced me that the legalization of marijuana would be the correct move.

Friedman convinced you? Now that must have been a trip. Was it Microdot or Owsley?

 

[steveox]

BRING BACK PROHABITION! And Make Cigarettes so expensive to buy only the rich can smoke em.

 

[vyo476]

BRING BACK PROHABITION!

Cause that worked so well last time...

 

[mustardayonnaise]

Prohibition has never worked, not in the 1920s with alcohol and not today with other drugs. How many millions of dollars are spent by the American government trying to stop the production and importation of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, crack, meth, etc.? Have they succeeded? I think not.
Personally I think all drugs should be legalised and freely available. That way you won't be putting people in jail for drug-related crime except DUI and public order offences, the entire criminal-run black market based on drugs would disappear, and the money saved on policing could be used to fund treatment centres for those who do go too far. Treatment and education are the only ways I can see of reducing drug use & dependency.

 

[mustardayonnaise]

Kind of got off point there, back to smoking and drinking....why should anyone else be able to tell me what I can or can't do to myself? Besides, alcohol and tobacco are both huge tax contributors which itself is a deterrent from prohibition by government. If you don't want to smoke or drink that's fine, but please just let the rest of us get on with it without interference from the Nanny State.

 

[9sublime]

If I want to kill myself with substances let me do it, just arrest me when I cause anyone else harm.

Bloody do-gooders, so concerned with what I'm doing.

 

[palerider]

If I want to kill myself with substances let me do it, just arrest me when I cause anyone else harm.

Bloody do-gooders, so concerned with what I'm doing.

You live in a country with socialized medicine right? If you want to kill yourself by stepping off of a tall building, and can be sure that no one else is below you, then you can do it and it does't really cost anyone else anything.

If, however, you choose a slow death from substance abuse, every bit of medical care you get is coming out of the pocket of someone who is paying taxes and since they are paying for your care, they have every right to restrict you from substances that are, in the end, going to cost them money.

The same is becoming true here in the US. Most abusers don't have their own insurance, and can't afford their own care, so the rest of us end up paying for it. Like I told my kids, they can do whatever they like when they are grown up enough to pay their own way but as long as I am footing the bills, I get to make the rules. In a socialist system, however, you never get to be grown up enough to assume complete responsibility for either yourself or your actions.

That is one of the problems with living in a socialist society. You don't have the freedom to do what you like and pay for your mistakes yourself. Everything you do has an effect on everyone else. Even if yours is the only body being hurt by substance abuse, someone else is being hurt monitarily.

 

[top gun]

Absolutely not.

I can't believe it... I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH the Almighty!

My position: The government wants it both ways by saying something is so wrong... while allowing it to be legal for the tax revenue.

What that tells me is two things.

#1) It's obviously not so bad that it needs to be outlawed & more importantly #2) It shouldn't be up to someone else to tell me how I must live my life.

Now there are modifications in my behavior that protect others that are reasonable to require... but the government seems to always want to kill cock roaches with shotguns, or so it would appear.

For instance smoking (note: I don't smoke)... I think it's perfectly reasonable to require smoke free sections in restaurants etc. but what I've seen happening are total bans even in bars and PRIVATE CLUBS. This is ridiculous IMO. They even almost passed a law here in Ohio that you couldn't smoke within 50 feet on the OUTSIDE of a building.

On drinking it's a similar revenue raising issue. You would think that the more drunk you are the harsher the penalty would be. That would seem logical to me. You become a greater threat to others... you pay a higher price when caught.

Not the case though. What has happened is the federal government has forced legal limits down which raises penalties at the lowest level and creates more fine revenue while doing nothing extra to the more for seriously impaired driver.
Here in Ohio, forever, the legal limit was .1 now it has been driven down to .08 just to continue to receive federal funding.

No one wants to have smoke blown into their face. No one wants drunk drivers endangering others. But if these products are legal (which in a free society they should be) they are to be expected to be used. Saying BAD don't use... GOOD give us your tax money... come on!

 

[drippinhun]

Kind of got off point there, back to smoking and drinking....why should anyone else be able to tell me what I can or can't do to myself? Besides, alcohol and tobacco are both huge tax contributors which itself is a deterrent from prohibition by government. If you don't want to smoke or drink that's fine, but please just let the rest of us get on with it without interference from the Nanny State.

I agree with two caveats. First, one should never be permitted to use as a defense being under the influence on any such substance for damages they cause. And secondly, the place where such products may be consumed should be restricted as to avoid the real possibility of others being harmed by another one's use.

 

[9sublime]

Tax the cannabis Palerider, tax the bongs, tax all the drugs,


but still sell them cheaper than the dealers.

You will be able to make drug users pay for their healthcare indirectly and completley breakdown the illegal side of weed.

 

[palerider]

Tax the cannabis Palerider, tax the bongs, tax all the drugs,


but still sell them cheaper than the dealers.

You will be able to make drug users pay for their healthcare indirectly and completley breakdown the illegal side of weed.

Even if you tax it at an exorbinant rate (which would encourage a black market) the taxes would not cover the associated health care costs.

 

[Abraxis Axis]

Even if you tax it at an exorbinant rate (which would encourage a black market) the taxes would not cover the associated health care costs.

Can you demonstrate that by figurative analysis?
can you demonstrate the data from Actual health care costs?
or is this a calculated assumption?

 

[palerider]

Can you demonstrate that by figurative analysis?
can you demonstrate the data from Actual health care costs?
or is this a calculated assumption?

Since you seem to believe that you are the smartest guy in the room, I would expect for you to provide a figurative analysis proving that I am mistaken. Can you or can't you?

 

[Abraxis Axis]

No no sir i simply asked you a question regarding your statement? How fair is to to answer a question with a question? I never claimed anything of the sort, as being the smartest guy in the room? so then it is safe for us to assume it was the latter?

that it is a "calculated assumption" rather than a factually based statement. thanks that what i asked about, and you answered it just fine.the problem is your theory is flawwed look at the Dutch model

 

[palerider]

No no sir i simply asked you a question regarding your statement? How fair is to to answer a question with a question? I never claimed anything of the sort, as being the smartest guy in the room? so then it is safe for us to assume it was the latter?

that it is a "calculated assumption" rather than a factually based statement. thanks that what i asked about, and you answered it just fine.the problem is your theory is flawwed look at the Dutch model

The dutch model is failing. That is why it is under a constant state of revisitation.