Worthy News: Nevadans to Vote on Legalizing Marijuana - Las Vegas Sun

[JustinM]

quote marnie: "If you are going to pass laws against illicit drugs because a person who takes them MIGHT hurt somebody else, why are guns legal and regulated?"

That is an indefensible argument to make as the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the US Constitution. Drug use is not.

You are missing my point. Peopl are irresponsible and reckless with their lives, but we must limit how reckless they can be with someone else's life. So and so can do whatever drugs he wants in his basement, but what happens when he leaves and decides to go for a drive while high? He will most likely have an accident and if he has been blessed by God, he will not end up killing or harming someone else.

It needs to be illegal, because the effects of the drugs are a danger to society and we must try to discourage it whenever we can. I believe most drug addicts need rehabilitation and shouldn't spend their lives in prison (unless, if under the influence of the drugs they harmed another human being). But the rehab. I am imagining is one where they will not be able to leave until they are completely free of their chemical prison.

How can someone call themselves a libertarian and make an argument against firearms? Once again, I refer to the First Ammendment of the US constitution that has our Bill of Rights. No where does it say you have the right to get high, or use body-chemistry altering drugs.

[JustinM]

This is a rediculous point to make:

quote marnie: "But you are proving my point: decriminalizing these drugs would have zero effect on your brother"

Anti-drug laws are used to deter people from becoming addicted to drugs in the first place.

Using that same logic, let's apply it this way:

Since we can't prevent people from murdering others we might as well decriminalize murder, since killers will still be killers no matter what the law says.

Since we can't prevent people from speeding, lets decriminalize speeding, that way someone can do 75 mph in a school zone during school hours.

Since we can't stop people from shoplifting (and since it doesn't really hurt anyone) let's just decriminalize theft.

Laws are not used as preventive measures from crime, because criminals will be criminals. Instead, laws are used as a deterrance to committing crime, because the penalties for that crime diminishes the reward for doing it.

Most Americans believe the consequences are greater than the rewards, so they abstain from it and comply with society's collective agreements.

But, while we cannot get rid of all crime, we can make it hard on people that choose that lifestyle. We also set boundaries for our children to stay within.

Nowadays people (like libertarians) are wanting to erase all boundaries, because they believe in absolute freedom for all. They just use the constitution to condemn the boundaries they are opposed to. Absolute freedom, in my book is the definition of anarchy. When anarchy breaks out, the strong are free, but the weak remain restrained.

Do you really believe a Utopia will ever exist, so long as man is in charge of it? You are in denial if you believe that you can erase all evil by removing all boundaries. Of course, without boundaries evil will no longer be seen as evil, but more of an "alternative lifestyle".

Who will be truly free then? People will be imprisoned with fear for their lives and live a lifetime of terror. Because, if left unchecked and unrestricted, evil will grow and become more and more ruthless.

The best example of a utopic society this world has seen, would probably be the Native Americans, but even they occasionally fought with each other for territory and food supplies. But, who was in charge of these utopic societies? It was a patriarchetype society, but even that wasn't perfect.

Last point. Even in the end, when Christ is the ruler of the world and satan and his minions are bound and chained in Hell, there will be wicked, evil men that will try to destroy that perfect, holy society.

You cannot change the nature of man. Our laws restrict man's wicked nature so that those that choose to live good lives can do so in relative peace.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying your argument.

[Marnie]

Justine wrote this:

How can someone call themselves a libertarian and make an argument against firearms? Once again, I refer to the First Ammendment of the US constitution that has our Bill of Rights. No where does it say you have the right to get high, or use body-chemistry altering drugs

I am not against bearing arms--I have many handguns to prove it. I was illustrating the absurdity of your argument by making an absurd claim of my own.

That is an indefensible argument to make as the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the US Constitution. Drug use is not.

While drug use is not in the Constitution anywhere, liberty is. If one wants to use drugs, why limit their liberty? How fair is that, if we want to talk fair? The pursuit of happiness for some might be using pot. If it HARMS NO ONE else, let them.

You are missing my point. Peopl are irresponsible and reckless with their lives, but we must limit how reckless they can be with someone else's life. So and so can do whatever drugs he wants in his basement, but what happens when he leaves and decides to go for a drive while high? He will most likely have an accident and if he has been blessed by God, he will not end up killing or harming someone else.

You mentioned "we must limit how reckless they can be." My question is why? If they want to be reckless, let them, they will find a way any way. If so and so drives high and causes a wreck, charge him with a traffic offense. I don't advocate anarchy so please dont misread what I am saying. There are enough laws on the books to punish the offender.

It needs to be illegal, because the effects of the drugs are a danger to society and we must try to discourage it whenever we can. I believe most drug addicts need rehabilitation and shouldn't spend their lives in prison (unless, if under the influence of the drugs they harmed another human being). But the rehab. I am imagining is one where they will not be able to leave until they are completely free of their chemical prison.

Justin it is you who are missing my point. You are trying to modify sinful (if you think harming oneself is sinful, which I do) behavior using mans laws. That is not only useless, but goes against the Bible. It is only through the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit within a man that can totally rehabilitate that man. The State cannot do the Spirit's work. Which is why drug laws and other vice laws are useless.

We'll never agree on this; we have a totally different world view, which is OK because I know you know the Lord. We both want the same kind of world, and we will eventually have it but it will be of the Lord's doing, not mans. In the meantime, I believe in liberty with responsibility.

This is a rediculous point to make:

quote marnie: "But you are proving my point: decriminalizing these drugs would have zero effect on your brother"

Anti-drug laws are used to deter people from becoming addicted to drugs in the first place.

It is not "rediculous" in the least. My point was, sadly, Billie's brother is already getting the junk with the laws in place! So taking the laws off the books would have a zero effect, since he is already getting the junk! Oy! lol

Since we can't prevent people from murdering others we might as well decriminalize murder, since killers will still be killers no matter what the law says.

No no! Murder is a crime against another person, so it is right and proper to have laws against it. It is one of the Ten Commandments, too.

Since we can't prevent people from speeding, lets decriminalize speeding, that way someone can do 75 mph in a school zone during school hours.

No no! Traffic laws prevent crimes against other people. You are not making a car illegal just because it might be used in the commission of a crime. That's your logic in illicit drug use.

Since we can't stop people from shoplifting (and since it doesn't really hurt anyone) let's just decriminalize theft.

No NO! Shoplifting does hurt people--it makes goods cost more and costs jobs. Therefore it is a crime against society.

Laws are not used as preventive measures from crime, because criminals will be criminals. Instead, laws are used as a deterrance to committing crime, because the penalties for that crime diminishes the reward for doing it.

Actually, laws for both prevention and deterrance. Ever watch Law and Order?

Nowadays people (like libertarians) are wanting to erase all boundaries, because they believe in absolute freedom for all. They just use the constitution to condemn the boundaries they are opposed to. Absolute freedom, in my book is the definition of anarchy. When anarchy breaks out, the strong are free, but the weak remain restrained.

If that is what you think libertarianism is, then you have a misconcept of it. I direct you to the Federalist Papers and other founding documents. Those men were very close to "people" like me. It is liberty WITH responsibility. If, in your liberty you harm OTHERS, you need to be punished for intruding upon their liberty of health or whatever.

Do you really believe a Utopia will ever exist, so long as man is in charge of it?

No I don't. But apparently you do, since you think more laws will change man's behavior.

Our laws restrict man's wicked nature so that those that choose to live good lives can do so in relative peace.

Our laws change nothing of man's nature. Only Christ can do that.

[georgesbluegirl]

But again, you're looking at two kinds of laws. I'll reiterate what has been pointed out multiple times already - laws against child abuse, murder, speeding, shoplifting, etc. prevent harm from coming to others. Laws attempting to legislate personal decisions with no legally measurable consequences for others beyond the self I believe are generally indefensible. We have to be able to walk the thin line between protecting ourselves from the actions of others and allowing the freedom of personal choice in determining how one lives his or her life. The laws about drug use, cannabis in this case, that I'd be for would be driving laws, etc. I'd be all for making those strict. Driving high is irresponsible and has the potential to injure or kill other human beings. Your personal choice should not be allowed to harm the freedom or well-being of other human beings (as it deprives them of their own ability to make personal choices).

Plus someone brought up smoking an O a day? Yeah, no. Maybe one day, but there's no way that you could sustain that, in either a monetary or physical sense. Unless you're Snoop Dogg or Willie Nelson, but they kind of make up their own category.

[JustinM]

No I do not believe a Utopic society can exist with laws nor change the nature of man. But, citizens should be able to live in a society that embraces the idea of a Utopic society in which people can go about their lives without fear that the actions of someone else may end theirs.

You are right, drugs are relatively harmless to use (if you are on a deserted island) where the only person that can be harmed by their side-effects is you and only you.

But, we live in a Society, a large group of people that have come together and collectively established boundaries to preserve its safety and well-being. The will of the people needs to be respected, so trying to legalize something that society isn't willing to accept can be seen as tyrannical. As is the case, since the last 3 [was it?] elections, the people voted against it. Society's reason for voting against the ballot initiative should be reason enough to drop it. Society isn't willing to allow people to easily become addicted to substances that are known to have destructive effects on lives and the people surrounding that person's life.

Maybe marijuana is relatively harmless to use, but what precedent does that set for society? If it feels good, do it, because in the name of liberty and happiness we can do that?

liberty: freedom from external (as governmental) restraint, compulsion, or interference in engaging in the pursuits or conduct of one's choice to the extent that they are lawful and not harmful to others b : enjoyment of the rights enjoyed by others in a society free of arbitrary or unreasonable limitation or interference.

[Marnie]

Hey, I have an idea: let's all go out for a pizza.

[JustinM]

Alright, meet you at the Stratosphere.

[apothanein kerdos]

All I can say is it must be some seminary! If your fellow future men-on-the-cloth are getting the junk now, again I ask, what's the difference in decriminalizing it? The very fact that you are not yeilding to the temptation, yet once did, tells me you learned a lesson and grew up. As many former pot-users did.

I did not say they are doing it now, but would if it were decriminalized. The reason is that it would remove much of the stigma and of course the inevitable debate of, "Is it really a sin" would occur.

The thing is drug use really does harm other people, even if done in private. It can cause a drain on society, or even mental anguish of a fellow relative.

[Marnie]

I did not say they are doing it now, but would if it were decriminalized. The reason is that it would remove much of the stigma and of course the inevitable debate of, "Is it really a sin" would occur.

The thing is drug use really does harm other people, even if done in private. It can cause a drain on society, or even mental anguish of a fellow relative.

AK, in response to your first statement, the problem is not the drug (or the pills or the porn or the whatever), but rather man's sinful nature. I draw your attention to James 1:14--15;

ut each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

The problem is within man himself. I would suggest that if a man wanted to do drugs, whether or not they are legal makes no difference. It is true that shame will often discourage one from indulging in the forbidden thing, but, that does not cure the sinful nature. Only Christ can do that.

I cannot disagree with your second statement one iota. But I would add, again, that many other things (booze, fast cars, video games, fatty foods,the internet, porn, name your vice...) do the same things. So my challenge is, the logical thing to do is criminalize or at least regulate all those things that would cause one to "sin."

[anti-hillbilly]

Hey, I have an idea: let's all go out for a pizza.

If you'll do the driving I'll have a beer with mine.