Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

54. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 11:12 Beamer
jacobvandy wrote on Feb 3, 2014, 02:38:
Beamer wrote on Feb 3, 2014, 01:23:
You don't think that, if it was legal, you wouldn't have more people trying it out of curiosity?

Right now, illegality and it simply being difficult to access absolutely limits who is doing it. Obviously a large amount of people still have access to it, but I don't think it's hard to imagine that there are plenty of people that never try it because they never have the opportunity, and that the legal issues further discourage them from overcoming that. I don't think many people would disagree that no one listens to what the government discourages us from. Some, however, do listen to what they prohibit us from.

Removing all barriers will absolutely increase first time users, and for things like meth, first time users are never only time users.
This isn't something like marijuana, which is harmless. This is something that legitimately destroys people.

Also, the "if people want to ruin themselves I say let them" argument below Prez' is a terrible one.

Lol, well since you avoid everything else in my post under the pretense of disagreeing with the basic premise of personal liberty laid out in the first sentence, could you at least explain why you think that's so terrible? Or are you just being typically disingenuous like so many others who are so quick to shrug off any notion of legalizing drugs? I don't think the government needs to be in the business of protecting people from themselves. Certainly not if the only goal is to prevent your "large amount of people" (I'd wager less than 1% of the population, are those who are inclined to want to do hard drugs and the only thing stopping them is a law) from harming themselves because they're stupid. It wouldn't be ignorance, either, because you would still have education of the dangers out there, as well as resources for those who need help when they've gotten in over their heads. Just like you do now for tobacco and alcohol, and those aren't even a fraction as harmful. At some point you need to allow common sense to do its work, or else you end up with Idiocracy.

Again, do you really think all of the negative consequences of these drugs being illegal is worth protecting that small subsect of the population from doing something dumb?

I don't think it's "typically disingenuous."

The government isn't in the business of protecting us from ourselves. It is in the business of protecting us from idiots around us.

Do you know what methheads are? Dangerous. And expensive. The fewer we have, the better. Hence, meth is illegal.

We know, conclusively, marijuana doesn't have the same effects. This is why it's rapidly becoming legal. And, when I worked in criminal law, possession was very rarely prosecuted. Why? It wasted everyone's time. There are only so many judges, and bringing everyone possessing into court would clog things more than they're already clogged.

But meth? Meth is a very different thing.
Music for the discerning:
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo