Do you agree with the use of weed in any circumstances?

Why do you think its good or bad?, have you ever tried it?

Legalize all drugs.

Its not bad it just smells like shit

كتب بواسطة winkcat, 15.10.2018 at 15:33

Its not bad it just smells like shit

You'd get use to it, idk how people can get use to cigarettes they smell like someone roasting in an oven

كتب بواسطة Guest, 15.10.2018 at 17:42

كتب بواسطة winkcat, 15.10.2018 at 15:33

Its not bad it just smells like shit

You'd get use to it, idk how people can get use to cigarettes they smell like someone roasting in an oven

menthol smells better than pot wtf are you talking about western jew rat

It helps to destress and doesn't necessarily have major health implications. That being said it also takes away the pain.

كتب بواسطة winkcat, 15.10.2018 at 15:33

Its not bad it just smells like shit

Nerd

Why shouldn't you be allowed to do to your body whatever you may want tot do to it? As long as you don't take crystal meth and go on a killing spree...

كتب بواسطة Tirpitz406, 16.10.2018 at 03:41

Why shouldn't you be allowed to do to your body whatever you may want tot do to it? As long as you don't take crystal meth and go on a killing spree...

That's exactly what mauzer did (i guess)

Either legalize all drugs or neither

كتب بواسطة Tirpitz406, 16.10.2018 at 03:41

Why shouldn't you be allowed to do to your body whatever you may want tot do to it? As long as you don't take crystal meth and go on a killing spree...

Social health care.

كتب بواسطة Helly, 16.10.2018 at 14:30

Social health care.

if you destroy your body by excessively using drugs, you shouldn't be eligible for social services, and those should be much smaller anyways. I think it's immoral, that i have to pay for some fatty's healthcare aswell.

2-3 joints a week should be fine. Smoking every day is just not gonna end up well in a long run.

Regardless of that, you shouldnt smoke and go to work or something like that. Even if you're high you can still function, but you're not really bright ha. Anyways ,i dont see a reason why weed is illegal while alcohol is perfectly fine and legal. I mean.. i think you can all figure out the pros and cons of both weed and alcohol..

I think we all agree is that people are not always at their best state of mind as stress and low self trust boomed so bad that now even many of its architects are trying to spread reversed mssages through media and encourage people to take grip of themselves. Thus experiencing alternative ways of feeling can do well to the consumer. However after I witnessed what alcohol and ciggerretes to do its consumers when they get old I simply don't trust those companies espeically when it comes to weeds who are being grown illegally by unreliable people. I guess low amount of it once in a while is fine but when It comes to weed I would'nt take something illegal and just pass espeically when it burns brain cells.

I also believe that if someone is bothered he needs to check deep inside himself instead of turning on stuff like that to cover it. It will take a toll big time otherwise.

But for actual pain and medicial reasons I can't see why not using it.

كتب بواسطة Tirpitz406, 16.10.2018 at 15:45

كتب بواسطة Helly, 16.10.2018 at 14:30

Social health care.

if you destroy your body by excessively using drugs, you shouldn't be eligible for social services, and those should be much smaller anyways. I think it's immoral, that i have to pay for some fatty's healthcare aswell.

Same but world governments disagree. So untill society starts to hold individuals accountable again I believe harmful substances should be banned entirely.

This country ain't free
Until I have an eightball
Of crack just for me

كتب بواسطة Tirpitz406, 16.10.2018 at 03:41

Why shouldn't you be allowed to do to your body whatever you may want tot do to it? As long as you don't take crystal meth and go on a killing spree...

Exactly this.

I've never heard a rational explanation as to why any authority should prohibit what you ingest, inject, or inhale, provided it's your choice, and it isn't 'harming' others. [For instance, taking hallucinogens while piloting a passenger airline - not ok.]

Making it criminal and having it result in imprisonment is a gross violation of free will. [If you don't think there is such a 'thing' as free will, then it makes even less sense.]

كتب بواسطة brianwl, 17.10.2018 at 07:06

I've never heard a rational explanation as to why any authority should prohibit what you ingest, inject, or inhale, provided it's your choice, and it isn't 'harming' others. [For instance, taking hallucinogens while piloting a passenger airline - not ok.]

Making it criminal and having it result in imprisonment is a gross violation of free will. [If you don't think there is such a 'thing' as free will, then it makes even less sense.]

Well 1) it does harm others, because nobody is an island and everything you do effects everyone else. But 2) even if it actually only harmed you there's no purely rational justification for letting people freely do whatever they choose. You can just as easily reason yourself into might makes right or intelligence makes right as you can into some libertarian live and let live philosophy.

كتب بواسطة Acquiesce, 17.10.2018 at 11:33

كتب بواسطة brianwl, 17.10.2018 at 07:06

~

Well 1) it does harm others, because nobody is an island and everything you do effects everyone else.

But 2) even if it actually only harmed you there's no purely rational justification for letting people freely do whatever they choose. You can just as easily reason yourself into might makes right or intelligence makes right as you can into some libertarian live and let live philosophy.

Point 1 i could accept if it weren't that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands now, perfectly legal things that the authorities know have harmful side effects that are allowed to enter our diets, air and indirectly through environment release. These we have NO control over, so it's somewhat double minded to say you MUST be exposed to lead, chromium, hormones, biohazards, etc, which we know ARE going to harm you. Also you can have SOME psychotropic drugs like alcohol, caffeine and sugar. So we aren't going to even bother being consistent. But we are going to imprison you (not fine or limit certain relevant freedoms, but throw you in jail with the rapists and murderers) if you take a substance we don't say is ok.

So YES, i agree everything we do impacts others - but in general, if you are responsible about drug use (for instance recreational drugs, at home, in privacy of your own residence, without the children watching) the harm is no greater than passing gas in public or forgetting your deodorant.

Point 2 would only be made if you don't value freedom of choice. However, in my experience, that is our purpose here. - this thing we call 'consciousness' is the means by which we make choices and learn. If i do drugs, and my relationship suffers, i learn and internalize this learning through the consequences of my actions. If i don't do drugs because an authority says he'll throw me in jail, and i am afraid of going to jail, then i make no free will choice. If you are like many/most people, you are afraid of the consequences. You don't learn self- control, you don't learn to accept consequences for your actions, you don't grow from choices. In short, your development is stunted and you live far below your potential in a state of fear... an absolutely horrendous condition if you value freedom of choice.

This is why i would hold the exact opposite view... that people are free to do whatever they choose (provided it doesn't 'harm' others or prevent them from exercising their free will. Defining 'harm' may appear somewhat arbitrary, but can generally be negotiated on an individual to individual basis.)

By saying people aren't free to do as they choose, is to accept dictatorial rule, which invariably leads to a lowering of the potential of an individual, and in the larger picture, a lowering of the potential of that 'society' or group under that rule, and moves in the direction of 'randomness' and devolving, rather than growth and evolution of the mind/consciousness potential of the individual, and the greater society of which they are a part.

كتب بواسطة brianwl, 17.10.2018 at 14:13

This is why i would hold the exact opposite view... that people are free to do whatever they choose (provided it doesn't 'harm' others or prevent them from exercising their free will. Defining 'harm' may appear somewhat arbitrary, but can generally be negotiated on an individual to individual basis.)

You make some good points but I'd still hesitate before making such grand statements. We all know that without legal prohibition or at least social pressures from authorities people will freely make some truly shitty decisions. Is it cool if I freely choose to sell my organs, sell my vote? Sell myself into slavery? If I join a cult of 100 people and we all freely decide to drink the Kool Aid is that a ok? What if two people freely choose to duel, should we as a society accept such behavior? If a father and his adult daughter freely consent, should we be bothered that they want to have sex? The balancing of freedom and authority is actually quite complex (and interesting) when we look at examples.

كتب بواسطة Acquiesce, 17.10.2018 at 17:52

You make some good points but I'd still hesitate before making such grand statements. We all know that without legal prohibition or at least social pressures from authorities people will freely make some truly shitty decisions. Is it cool if I freely choose to sell my organs, sell my vote? Sell myself into slavery? If I join a cult of 100 people and we all freely decide to drink the Kool Aid is that a ok? What if two people freely choose to duel, should we as a society accept such behavior? If a father and his adult daughter freely consent, should we be bothered that they want to have sex? The balancing of freedom and authority is actually quite complex (and interesting) when we look at examples.

You sound akin to a believer in Symbolic Interactionism; You seem to believe that regulation and laws active in our country is what dictates our people's moral code of ethics, which you perceive as a consequence of positively-associated negative desires as a means to an end. What would bring the grand majority of the populace to this sort of situation in this regard? I myself would live my life relatively similar to how I currently do if-- miraculously-- laws vanished overnight, and I believe most people would do the same to whatever extent became possible.

Applying this situation to Maslow's hierarchy of needs (Various, 2018), we can deduce quite visibly that a person who is mentally sound will preserve themselves first and foremost in any given situation provided that is a positive outcome of said situation. Is it cool to sell your organs?

Well, not to rebut with another question, but how is this any different from selling other bodily products as people in our society already does? I agree that a fine line in terms of government regulation should be applied here; it's not hard to see some schmuck accidentally signing away his lungs or something. The whole concept of offering contracts for life-threatening deals is abusive to many people in our society itself, but that's tangential. Nonetheless; Selling your vote and incest are largely crimes against morality rather than crimes with perceived victims. Joining a suicide cult-- conversely-- is a great deal more destructive than your other examples. Simply put: The degrees by which a person can measure their infractions can be a visual metric comparable to the three basic types of crime already utilized in the criminal justice system.

Reiterating on your rebuttal to BrianWL by which you claim that victimless crimes are nonexistent: The term you're looking for here is "Codependency" (Lancer, 2018). The classical example of this phenomena is the mother-son drug addict model, by which the son is (typically) addicted to some narcotic and the mother enables, funds, and/or shelters this addictions out of a grand love for her son to the point in which she cannot function as she normally does without him. The crime itself (the son using narcotics) is victimless as there are no party(s) involved in the crime itself that are measurably or admittedly hurt by said crime. Now, if the mother herself becomes involved with purchasing the drugs or sheltering the trade than she may then become a quantifiable variable by which degrees of victimhood can become applied (if you do enough mental gymnastics). By our social standards, victims cannot perpetrate crimes willingly, hence she would still be viewed as a non-victim and thus this crime would continue to be victimless- hell, some may even begin to see the son as a victim due to his mother's aid in his addiction out of a necessity for her to keep him around for her own mental sanity.

Thus: Your response reeks of Bandwagon(ing) fallacies and Ludic fallacy(s), by which I mean that you employ the notion that all people are prone to negative behavior when given the opportunity to do so, while then offering examples existing as varying degrees of this notion; If I steal a case of Rolling Rock from the local Wal-Mart, is that comparable to gutting a man and using his entrails as a tightly-wound rope to hang myself? Of course not. Hence: The procurement of further personal freedoms within bounds of sociocultural bounds leads to a happier and stabler society.

كتب بواسطة Guest, 17.10.2018 at 20:10

---

Lol, nice essay. You should submit it to a journal.

كتب بواسطة Acquiesce, 17.10.2018 at 20:25

كتب بواسطة Guest, 17.10.2018 at 20:10

---

Lol, nice essay. You should submit it to a journal.

Or-- in other words-- you have no satisfactory rebuttal.

كتب بواسطة Guest, 17.10.2018 at 21:23

Or-- in other words-- you have no satisfactory rebuttal.

You make so many unrelated claims I can't possibly bother to answer them all.

"brevity is the soul of wit"

كتب بواسطة Guest, 17.10.2018 at 21:23

كتب بواسطة Acquiesce, 17.10.2018 at 20:25

كتب بواسطة Guest, 17.10.2018 at 20:10

---

Lol, nice essay. You should submit it to a journal.

Or-- in other words-- you have no satisfactory rebuttal.

Or--in other words-- he didnt wanna read all that bullshit.

كتب بواسطة Acquiesce, 18.10.2018 at 07:50

You make so many unrelated claims I can't possibly bother to answer them all.

"brevity is the soul of wit"

"So many unrelated claims" I literally took an academic standpoint on everything you were attempting to argue and dissected them from an actual sociological standpoint rather than just bullshitting with conjecture.

كتب بواسطة 4nic, 18.10.2018 at 07:55

Or--in other words-- he didnt wanna read all that bullshit.

Most people do not wish to read anything academically inclined, yes.

كتب بواسطة Guest, 18.10.2018 at 09:19

Most people do not wish to read anything academically inclined, yes.

For good reason. A lot of social science literature is poorly written. If you have a good argument, make it intelligibly and concisely. There's nothing big brained about throwing a word salad + unnecessary cites to "experts" at me. (Orwell, Politics and the English Language)

كتب بواسطة Acquiesce, 18.10.2018 at 10:40

كتب بواسطة Guest, 18.10.2018 at 09:19

Most people do not wish to read anything academically inclined, yes.

For good reason. A lot of social science literature is poorly written. If you have a good argument, make it intelligibly and concisely. There's nothing big brained about throwing a word salad + unnecessary cites to "experts" at me. (Orwell, Politics and the English Language)

You're disregarding an entire field of science based on a bias here. Prior, peer-reviewed research has already been done! Long-term effects of decriminalization of drugs has already been done in a scientific manner, not to mention: How am I "throwing a word salad" at you? How are you expected to properly debate someone on a serious issue if you refuse to do it academically?

My argument was already written intelligibly and concisely, you sitting here ignoring it is the antithesis of it as you still have offered no proper rebuttal to the valid points that I raised. I'm going to safely say that this discussion has ended as you have nothing more to add, and the unlimited freedoms with regulation is the proper method to go in an organized and civil society with the virtues that we own.

كتب بواسطة Guest, 18.10.2018 at 11:00

—

Lol ok, sorry for not living up to your academic standards in the forum for a browser based video game.

Appreciate you citing to Brian's profile page in your original comment, in case I forgot who he was.