WN: Marijuana vending machines open in California - London Telegraph

[JustinM]

quote forrestkc: "My point is that for you tell someone what they can or cannot do to their own body is as totalitarian as it gets."

Ok, now restate your opinion without all the sensationalized rhetoric. You know darned well I am not advocating that. I am saying that drugs, marijuana and all other illegal substances should not be legalized because it isn't good for society. You have ignored that point and focused on turning me into a tyrant.

Do drugs, have indiscriminate sex, kill, rape, whatever, but be prepared for the consequences, that isn't totalitarian, that is justice and reality.

I don't really care what people do, but as long as there are laws on the books that say they cannot do certain things, then the government has the obligation to enforce those laws. You have a beef with the government, not me.

I will tell them what they are doing is wrong and unhealthy and inform them of the risks they are taking, I will tell them what God wants them to do with His temple. We already have laws that make those substances illegal to use, I am not asking for more laws, or surveillances of their households.

How can I be a tyrant, when all I want, is for our government to enforce the law it has written.

I will remember your words the next time someone I know decides to commit suicide, his life, his body, his decision, right?

How about telling someone not to do drugs, simply because it is harmful to them? Which was my first point. Compassion is what drives us to do some of the things we as Christians should be doing. It means intervening when one of our loved ones falls into the abysmal pit of drug addiction and telling them they have to stop.

Excuse me forrestkc, but I am no tyrant, I want whats best for me and my loved ones and society. Tyrants want whats best for themselves.

You cannot come up with 1 logical reason why drug addiction is a good thing, so why promote it? Why allow it, in the name of "liberty?"

You don't know the meaning of the word.

Your definition of freedom/liberty will lead to anarchy. People nowadays aren't responsible enough to even follow simple laws and rules, how responsible do you think they will become when they have none?

So, why don't you make a spiritual argument that supports drug abuse, or are you too worldly in your thinking?

[forrestkc]

quote forrestkc: "My point is that for you tell someone what they can or cannot do to their own body is as totalitarian as it gets."

Ok, now restate your opinion without all the sensationalized rhetoric. You know darned well I am not advocating that. I am saying that drugs, marijuana and all other illegal substances should not be legalized because it isn't good for society. You have ignored that point and focused on turning me into a tyrant.

Overeating is not good for society, should that be criminalized?

What about cults, they certainly are not go for society?

How about alcohol?

Gambling?

My point is that I don't see where marijuana is harmful enough to justify it being criminalized. By decriminalizing it, we could focus more resources toward combating drugs that are actually very harmful like meth or crack. No one says marijuana destroyed our family or destroyed my life, but a lot of people can say that meth destroyed their family.

Do drugs, have indiscriminate sex, kill, rape, whatever, but be prepared for the consequences, that isn't totalitarian, that is justice and reality.

For one, indiscriminate sex is not illegal. Rape and murder are illegal because in doing so ones actions impact another directly. Drugs, like I say it depends on what drug.

I don't really care what people do, but as long as there are laws on the books that say they cannot do certain things, then the government has the obligation to enforce those laws. You have a beef with the government, not me.

Of course I have a beef with the government, but you are supporting the status quo. Like I say, I don't think people should smoke pot, but just like I don't think that the government should be in the business of telling you not to over eat in your own home, smoke in your own home, or drink in your own home, I don't think the government ought to be in the business of telling you that you can't smoke pot in your own home.

I will tell them what they are doing is wrong and unhealthy and inform them of the risks they are taking, I will tell them what God wants them to do with His temple. We already have laws that make those substances illegal to use, I am not asking for more laws, or surveillances of their households.

How can I be a tyrant, when all I want, is for our government to enforce the law it has written.

The problem is that you are supporting a tyrannical law on the part of the government that does involve big brother invasiveness on the part of the government into the private lives of individual citizens.

I will remember your words the next time someone I know decides to commit suicide, his life, his body, his decision, right?

The two are not comparable. If you are trying to take your own life, then by definition you are legal insane as you are an immediate danger to yourself or others. Marijuana usage would be just generally bad for your overall health, just like not eating right or not exercising would be. For example, you can't take a gun to your head, but you can certainly kill yourself slowly by spending your days eating fast food, smoking 2 packs a day, and never exercising.

How about telling someone not to do drugs, simply because it is harmful to them? Which was my first point. Compassion is what drives us to do some of the things we as Christians should be doing. It means intervening when one of our loved ones falls into the abysmal pit of drug addiction and telling them they have to stop.

Great, no one is arguing with that. Of course you should tell people that drug use is bad for them.

Excuse me forrestkc, but I am no tyrant, I want whats best for me and my loved ones and society. Tyrants want whats best for themselves.

No, tyrants simply try to impose their personal beliefs upon others. Many tyrants actually do think they are doing what is best for society.

You cannot come up with 1 logical reason why drug addiction is a good thing, so why promote it? Why allow it, in the name of "liberty?"

I am not promoting it. I don't think its a good thing. I am just saying that just like its tyrannical to tell someone they cannot smoke in their own home, or be a glutton, its tyrannical to tell someone they cannot smoke pot in their own home.

You don't know the meaning of the word.

Your definition of freedom/liberty will lead to anarchy. People nowadays aren't responsible enough to even follow simple laws and rules, how responsible do you think they will become when they have none?

That sounds as though its right out of Mao's little Red Book. Every authoritarian believes that people are not responsible enough to handle personal liberty.

[Bolts]

Of course I have a beef with the government, but you are supporting the status quo. Like I say, I don't think people should smoke pot, but just like I don't think that the government should be in the business of telling you not to over eat in your own home, smoke in your own home, or drink in your own home, I don't think the government ought to be in the business of telling you that you can't smoke pot in your own home.

Government do have to much control over individuals. The ordinary person spends $$$$$'s to buy a house which he/she has very little say over. There are common sense laws that should be implemented and followed eg, fire restrictions, but it sometimes feels as though what we buy or own in assets isn't really ours.

[JustinM]

quote forrestkc: "That sounds as though its right out of Mao's little Red Book. Every authoritarian believes that people are not responsible enough to handle personal liberty."

Yeah, OK, compare me to a fascist tyrant, that's rational. Do you have rules for your children to follow, if you do, you are authoritarian, which by your definition, would mean you, yourself is also a tyrant, even if you are just a tyrant under your own roof.

Here is what I said: "Your definition of freedom/liberty will lead to anarchy. People nowadays aren't responsible enough to even follow simple laws and rules, how responsible do you think they will become when they have none?"

Tell me the statement in bold isn't true and I will call you a liar. Your own stance proves that people aren't responsible enough to follow the simple law of not consuming illegal substances. Instead of lobbying to change the law, they are willfully breaking it, that is being irresponsible and also being a criminal.

You aren't gonna sway me to accepting the legal consumption of marijuana, no matter what dictator/tyrant you manage to conjure up and compare me to.

Your comments on this topic are cliche' of what liberals consider dialogue. That's them talking and me nodding my head in agreement, and if I am so bold as to actually disagree with what they have to say, they call me a murderer, or fascist, or racist or whatever the liberal word/adjective of the day is, or compare me to Marx, Stalin, Che Guevara, or Mao.

Marijuana is illegal, it should remain so, until someone can come up with a really good reason to legalize it. Comparing it to alcohol won't change my mind, nor calling me names, nor the bandwagon approach, nor the "it's for those that suffer" approach.

I am not so fickle as to fall for that line of propaganda. Marijuana is legal for those that have prescriptions to it. A prescription is not a free pass to grow your own and consume it at leisure.

As for the alcohol argument, the only way a person becomes intoxicated by alcohol is when it is abused. 1 ounce of marijuana has the capability of intoxicating someone. It takes more than an ounce of alcohol to intoxicate someone.

So, the comparison of alcohol and marijuana can only be relevant if alcohol is abused.

[JustinM]

forrestkc: "I am not promoting it. I don't think its a good thing. I am just saying that just like its tyrannical to tell someone they cannot smoke in their own home, or be a glutton, its tyrannical to tell someone they cannot smoke pot in their own home."

If someone is consuming, contributing or producing an illegal substance in their home, law enforcement has the Constitutional Authority to come into that person's home and apprehend them for criminal behavior.

Why do you keep coming up with the glutton argument, it's irrelevant. It is not illegal to eat. People that eat themselves to obesity aren't the same as people that BREAK THE LAW, by consuming illegal substances.

That's why it is difficult to have a discussion with a liberal minded person. You on a completely different wavelength than I am. I am talking about respecting the law, you are talking about self control.

Yes, I made the statement that I believe that marijuana should remain illegal because of it intoxicating nature and that as Christians we should be sober minded and not defile our own bodies, because that is what God, our Creator commands. He only wants was best for us anyway.

So you say, alcohol is intoxicating, it should be banned, because it's a double standard to ban one and not the other. However, alcohol is only intoxicating when it is abused, marijuana is intoxicating when it is used for its chemical nature.

So, now we have use and abuse comparisons and that's like comparing apples to oranges. Your point is irrelevant.

The rest of your arguments and insults show a desperation you have from trying to win an unwinnable argument.

So now that we have the legal argument settled what's next? Physiological? You already know what marijuana does to someone, it makes them stoned and passive. You are saying that people should be allowed to alter their chemical state of mind so they can be euphoric, stoned, high, or whatever sensory disruptions they want. To say that someone has the right to get stoned, is also saying they have the right to use other substances to alter different sensory perceptions.

You are trying to use the Roe V Wade argument to justify drug abuse. We've seen the devastating effects of abortion around the world and now you want us to go down the same path for drug use. Why do you want society to self destruct? Are you so hopeless or despairing so much that you want to bring everyone down with you? Physiologically speaking, any type of intoxication is bad for the body and bad for the mind and bad for the spirit. We've seen the effects drug abuse has on people, so those tragic experiences alone are enough to justify banning intoxicating substances from a physiological standpoint.

I believe there is no legal, or physiological justification for legalizing marijuana. I have a strong case.

Since you are intent on ignoring the spiritual argument and God's commands of sobriety and holiness from His people, I will skip the Judeo-Christian argument.

[nebula]

No. Have you?

Yes I have. When I was younger. Thats probably true of most people. I was never that big on it because I never smoked and its rough on your lungs. However, in so far as drugs go, tobacco and alcohol included, pot is not that addictive and I have certainly never heard of anyone getting depressed from it. After all, Willie Nelson seems like a pretty good natured guy.

My thing is that who am I, or you, or anyone to tell another adult what they can do to their own body.

First of all, forrest, I spoke of marijuana addiction.

Just as a glass of red wine a day can actually have some health benefits, so can marijuana have some health benefits to those with certain conditions. Just as some people can have an occasional drink and not be affected, so it can with marijuana. But just like alcohol, marijuana can become an addiction, and when it does then it becomes dangerous.

By the way, forrest -

You have children, correct?

What will you do if you discover one of them is smoking marijuana?

Just curious.

[The Lorax]

Yeah, OK, compare me to a fascist tyrant, that's rational. Do you have rules for your children to follow, if you do, you are authoritarian, which by your definition, would mean you, yourself is also a tyrant, even if you are just a tyrant under your own roof.

Um, there's an important difference between adults and children. Children aren't born with the discipline or knowledge required to live without rules. The purpose of parenthood is to instill these traits in one's children so that they may one day function as autonomous persons. I've been following your posts, Justin. You seem to think citizens should be treated like children for their whole lives, with the government as parent. This is an incredibly cynical view of humanity and I don't agree with it in the least. Our Founders didn't either, which is why they guaranteed us personal freedoms that were out of government control.

People nowadays aren't responsible enough to even follow simple laws and rules, how responsible do you think they will become when they have none?"

Tell me the statement in bold isn't true and I will call you a liar.

You can call me a liar then, because your statement is far too simplistic to be taken seriously. Sure, SOME times SOME people break SOME rules. How often a rule is broken depends largely on the subject of the rule, its enforceability, and the penalty for breaking it. Look at traffic laws. They are pretty simple, and though sometimes motorists speed and forget to signal, the roads are safe and efficient enough that they are overwhelmingly the preferred mode of travel. Now, if your claim that people can't follow "even simple laws" were true, then you'd be crazy to even drive down your own block, because people wouldn't care much for stop signs or yellow lines. No doubt you'll say I'm taking your statement way too far. Actually, I'm just taking it literally. Should I not?

Also, if you don't think people can follow even simple laws and rules, then why have laws and rules at all? Just to keep the prisons full?

[forrestkc]

By the way, forrest -

You have children, correct?

What will you do if you discover one of them is smoking marijuana?

Just curious.

Since they are 4 and 7, it would be very disturbing indeed. Of course I am only kidding, I know what you mean. If I caught them as a teen doing it my wife and I would have a long talk with them about it. I would not just freak out, but we would definitely treat it as the serious matter that it is.

[Matthitjah]

By the way, forrest -

You have children, correct?

What will you do if you discover one of them is smoking marijuana?

Just curious.

Since they are 4 and 7, it would be very disturbing indeed. Of course I am only kidding, I know what you mean. If I caught them as a teen doing it my wife and I would have a long talk with them about it. I would not just freak out, but we would definitely treat it as the serious matter that it is.

Sincere question.

Would you counsel them with the Word of God and what He has to say about Righteous living?

Peace,

Dave

[forrestkc]

forrestkc: "I am not promoting it. I don't think its a good thing. I am just saying that just like its tyrannical to tell someone they cannot smoke in their own home, or be a glutton, its tyrannical to tell someone they cannot smoke pot in their own home."

If someone is consuming, contributing or producing an illegal substance in their home, law enforcement has the Constitutional Authority to come into that person's home and apprehend them for criminal behavior.

Why do you keep coming up with the glutton argument, it's irrelevant. It is not illegal to eat. People that eat themselves to obesity aren't the same as people that BREAK THE LAW, by consuming illegal substances.

That's why it is difficult to have a discussion with a liberal minded person. You on a completely different wavelength than I am. I am talking about respecting the law, you are talking about self control.

Yes, I made the statement that I believe that marijuana should remain illegal because of it intoxicating nature and that as Christians we should be sober minded and not defile our own bodies, because that is what God, our Creator commands. He only wants was best for us anyway.

So you say, alcohol is intoxicating, it should be banned, because it's a double standard to ban one and not the other. However, alcohol is only intoxicating when it is abused, marijuana is intoxicating when it is used for its chemical nature.

So, now we have use and abuse comparisons and that's like comparing apples to oranges. Your point is irrelevant.

The rest of your arguments and insults show a desperation you have from trying to win an unwinnable argument.

So now that we have the legal argument settled what's next? Physiological? You already know what marijuana does to someone, it makes them stoned and passive. You are saying that people should be allowed to alter their chemical state of mind so they can be euphoric, stoned, high, or whatever sensory disruptions they want. To say that someone has the right to get stoned, is also saying they have the right to use other substances to alter different sensory perceptions.

You are trying to use the Roe V Wade argument to justify drug abuse. We've seen the devastating effects of abortion around the world and now you want us to go down the same path for drug use. Why do you want society to self destruct? Are you so hopeless or despairing so much that you want to bring everyone down with you? Physiologically speaking, any type of intoxication is bad for the body and bad for the mind and bad for the spirit. We've seen the effects drug abuse has on people, so those tragic experiences alone are enough to justify banning intoxicating substances from a physiological standpoint.

I believe there is no legal, or physiological justification for legalizing marijuana. I have a strong case.

Since you are intent on ignoring the spiritual argument and God's commands of sobriety and holiness from His people, I will skip the Judeo-Christian argument.

Your argument smacks of authoritarianism. Basically you are saying that since its illegal, there is nothing authoritarian about it. The point is the laws themselves are authoritarian.

There is one thing that almost all authoritarians have in common, that is that they use these same type of big brother arguments, and use the same kind of protect the people from themselves justifications. This is especially true of authoritarians that sought to create what they saw was a utopian society. Look at the writings of Lenin or Mao, both of them make these same kinds of arguments. The people are irresponsible even with the freedoms they have - we have to protect them from themselves, type arguments.

In the entire history of civilization totalitarianism has never been established through a social safety net, civil rights protections, environmental protections and oversight, labor protections, a separation of church and state, or through vigorous civil liberties protections.

Without exception, totalitarianism is always established by governments that convince its citizens into surrendering their rights to privacy and other civil liberties in exchange for promises of security or as protection from themselves, ultra-nationalism, fostering bigotry, using the government as a vehicle to impose specific religious beliefs, and through the mixing of government and religion.