Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CMS27 who wrote (169)	6/30/1998 8:35:00 AM
From: Turboe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

You really think pot is that bad? Where to you get your info?

To: CMS27 who wrote (169)	6/30/1998 8:57:00 AM
From: Sverre Schriwer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

"...alcohol is having similar effects on society as other drugs.I don't think it should be made illegal because it has historcial societal acceptance." Does this mean that you propose legalization of other drugs in countries with a previous history of social acceptance of these instead of alcohol? "Obesity is a medical/geneology issue. It is not caused by eating butter." Obesity is easily cured by eating less. If it is within the mandate of the state to force the individual to healthier lifestyle, especially if the reason is to minimize expenditure on health care etc, mandatory exercise and a carefully regulated government approved diet should top the agenda. "Allow a company to profit from marijuana and they will market, package and promote the use of it to new unbelievable hieghts." I was under the impression that profits were currently being made in this commodity... But, silly me - since it's not legal it can't possibly be marketed, packaged and promoted!

To: CMS27 who wrote (169)	6/30/1998 10:39:00 AM
From: MeDroogies	Respond to of 13060

I think you can probably figure out where I stand on the drug issue. On the obesity issue, you are only partially correct. Both those factors come into play. However, eating butter WILL make you fat. If you take in more calories than you burn, you WILL get fat. You can control your cholesterol, you can reduce your risk of stroke, heart attack and emphysema.... These are all preventable, and by your logic, would ALL be in the common good. Yet we don't prevent people from living as they choose. Or we shouldn't. Families and relationships ARE destroyed by drug use, but the users know what they are doing as they use them. My best friend was an alcoholic. I tried for months to help. Finally I kicked him out of my apartment and told him never to speak to me again. I called all our friends and told them not to give him a room, money or use of a car. He was penniless and on the streets for several years. Today, he has a job, a family and money in the bank. I also have a former crack abusing friend who lived a similar story...now works with Price Waterhouse. Both relationships were killed by the drug/alcohol use. It was the detachment and destruction of relationships that brought these people back. Drug/alcohol addiction is a cycle that can only be broken when users hit "rock bottom". Some people have no rock bottom. Outlawing the use of these drugs doesn't make it more difficult to get addicted. Legalizing them doesn't make it easier (look at other countries with more lenient policies and their drug use levels). So, while you are somewhat correct in the effect abuse has on others, the net effect on anyone but the user is zero. I hated losing my friends - but I got them back. I may not have, but that wouldn't have been a tragedy. When they were addicted, they weren't really the friends I remember. They were different people. Children of abusive parents will have to be protected, of course. But that isn't any different than it is today...nor will it be different if the drugs are legal. BTW, I work in advertising. I can assure you that your belief in our effectiveness is (blush) enjoyed. Our statistics that "prove" our effectiveness is quite skewed. Good advertising and marketing effects only the 5% of people who can't make up their minds anyway... Does that mean those 5% would be MORE at risk? Absolutely not...they still have to make a personal decision. Anti-drug advertising campaigns will be just as prevalent....

To: CMS27 who wrote (169)	6/30/1998 11:18:00 AM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

Obesity is a medical/geneology issue. It is not caused by eating butter. I used butter as a proxy for all the foods that are considered fattening. Check in with the people supporting a national health program. Ask them what they think of problem's such as obesity. They will quickly start discussing how bad diet causes obesity. They will also start talking about how such controlable addictions impose a tremendous cost on society. They will then make it clear than in exchange for providing the wonders of universal health coverage we have a responsibility to control the cost to society of such addictions. In extreme examples they will discuss the need to use governmental solutions to 'encourage' proper eating habits. Once you introduce the notion that the individual has a responsibility to society in such victimless addictions then you inevitability open the door for those who wish to control how other lead many aspects of their lives. Henry