Dear California Potheads

[Aaron]

My immediate response would be, no, but I've not given that question much thought.

I had a very good friend (decades ago) who was institutionalized because his mother (who didn't like him very much) called the police and said that he was suicidal, knowing that would "lock him up".

Once locked up, the "doctors" held his fate in their hands. He could not get out until they said so. He was forced to take anti-psychotic drugs and suffered greatly all because his mother was trying to punish him for something (I can't recall).

All it took was her word that my friend was suicidal. No judge or jury, yet locked up, as if in prison. That's just one example of what can happen when we give the state (aka sinners) that kind of power.

There's corruption everywhere. Abuse of a system is not an argument against it.

The answer is yes. Suicide is murder. The commandment is 'Thou shalt do no murder.' No one has the right to maim or kill themselves.

What if the substance adversely affects memory and learning, motor control, coordination and higher cognitive functions?

 

[thatbrian]

There's corruption everywhere. Abuse of a system is not an argument against it.

The answer is yes. Suicide is murder. The commandment is 'Thou shalt do no murder.' No one has the right to maim or kill themselves.

What if the substance adversely affects memory and learning, motor control, coordination and higher cognitive functions?

I would disagree that suicide is murder, based on biblical definitions.

Gluten does that to some. Peanuts can kill some people who eat them, so now many schools don't allow anyone to eat them in school.

Rather than make the people with these allergies responsible for themselves, Progressives shift the responsibility to the rest of us. This is the way that they think and rule. They bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. That's why these decisions aren't safe in their hands.

 

[Benjamin]

The issue isn't whether or not someone should use it, but whether or not the government has the right to regulate private behavior.

My argument has been over the hypocrisy of a politically motivated rebellious state (California) that is well known for aggressively setting regulations on what they deem harmful chemicals turning a blind on this issue. That said, frankly, I’m inclined to believe that you are in the habit of adjusting the issue toward what you think you can defend according to your motives.

On that note, there is no question of there being a time and place for any civilized government to make moral laws about what goes on people’s private lives to maintain a healthy and moral society, the only question is where do you draw the line and why.

 

[Benjamin]

You do not have to smoke it though...you can ingest it —they make it in liquid form. Anyway I find alcohol even more disruptive and toxic to the human body as well as addictive. Alcohol is legal if consumed responsibly so why can’t guideline laws be implemented for canibus?

You do realize your argument still falls back on trying prove 2 wrongs make a right, correct? BTW, trying to remove the typical method of usage (smoking) is a pretty weak argument and does nothing toward proving it to be a safe and responsible way to "feel good"...

 

[JohnDeereFan]

On that note, there is no question of there being a time and place for any civilized government to make moral laws about what goes on people’s private lives to maintain a healthy and moral society, the only question is where do you draw the line and why.

I draw the line at the government staying out of its citizens' personal lives. You know, like the Founders intended.

 

[Benjamin]

I draw the line at the government staying out of its citizens' personal lives. You know, like the Founders intended.

If it were true that the only line you would draw is on government control I would hate to live in your imaginary, lawless and unreasoning world, but of course, your claim of not supporting any lines within other people’s personal lives that cannot crossed is not the truth.

If you can’t think of any circumstances in people’s personal lives that need to be unlawful I would think you incredibly morally deprived, having an extremely hyper moral relativist/nihilist view, but I don’t think of you, I merely think you are desperate to make a case for the legalization of pot and don’t comprehend how fallacious your argument has become. ...SNIP HAHA

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You do realize your argument still falls back on trying prove 2 wrongs make a right, correct? BTW, trying to remove the typical method of usage (smoking) is a pretty weak argument and does nothing toward proving it to be a safe and responsible way to "feel good"...

I’m not looking for a way to feel good as much as I am to explore possible medications for neuropathy and chemo.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If it were true that the only line you would draw is on government control I would hate to live in your imaginary, lawless and unreasoning world, but of course, your claim of not supporting any lines within other people’s personal lives that cannot crossed is not the truth.

If you can’t think of any circumstances in people’s personal lives that need to be unlawful I would think you incredibly morally deprived, having an extremely hyper moral relativist/nihilist view, but I don’t think of you, I merely think you are desperate to make a case for the legalization of pot and don’t comprehend how fallacious your argument has become. ...SNIP HAHA

That is an arrogant remark you just made to a brother and you should be ashamed of yourself. As far as I’m conserned this discussion is over.

 

[Aaron]

I would disagree that suicide is murder, based on biblical definitions.

Would you mind citing them?

Which principle or commandment of the law does suicide violate if not the Sixth Commandment?

Gluten does that to some. Peanuts can kill some people who eat them, so now many schools don't allow anyone to eat them in school.

Rather than make the people with these allergies responsible for themselves, Progressives shift the responsibility to the rest of us. This is the way that they think and rule. They bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. That's why these decisions aren't safe in their hands.

Lol. Gluten and peanutes were big at Woodstock, too. We're not talking about allergies. Try to stay on topic.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

If it were true that the only line you would draw is on government control I would hate to live in your imaginary, lawless and unreasoning world, but of course, your claim of not supporting government interference in people’s personal lives is not the truth.

Actually,, it is the truth. I believe very strongly in the idea that men should have the liberty to make their own decisions about their lives. Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Rutherford, Heyek, and Friedman all made similar arguments.

An educated person would hardly call them "lawless and unreasoning". In fact, Blackstone's work is the basis for much of the law in the Western World.

I merely think you are desperate to make a case for the legalization of pot and don’t comprehend how fallacious your argument has become

Actually, I haven't made an argument for the legalization of pot. So for you to claim my argument is "fallacious" without my ever having made one is a logical fallacy commonly known as poisoning the well, which is a tactic used by cowards who are too stupid to rebut an argument.

...and perhaps should put down the bong! HAHA

Childish insult in lieu of a coherent response duly noted.

 

[thatbrian]

Would you mind citing them?

Which principle or commandment of the law does suicide violate if not the Sixth Commandment?

Lol. Gluten and peanutes were big at Woodstock, too. We're not talking about allergies. Try to stay on topic.

Murder is something that you do to someone else. We don't refer to suicide as murder, and we don't prosecute attempted suicide as an attempted murder.

God allowed Adam to kill himself by his own hand, did He not?

We were discussing substances which are potentially harmful to self. That was on topic.

 

[Benjamin]

, ...which is a tactic used by cowards who are too stupid to rebut an argument.

You need to calm down. Maybe try attacking the issues directly and logically instead of resorting to personal attacks while hiding behind a computer screen. ...

 

[Benjamin]

I’m not looking for a way to feel good as much as I am to explore possible medications for neuropathy and chemo.

This goes to show that those trying to defend legalization of pot merely use the medical aspect to open the door for recreational use. If it were true that (medical use) was their only concern it would just be legalized for medical purposes, and why not just for medical use? .

 

[JohnDeereFan]

You need to calm down. Maybe try attacking the issues directly and logically instead of resorting to personal attacks while hiding behind a computer screen. ...

Well, I guess the moderators here are going to let you have the last word with your childish insults and ad homs, but not allow me to defend myself.

So I'll just ask other posters to point out any post I've made in which I haven't been calm, in which I've resorted to personal attacks instead of addressing the issue.

 

[InTheLight]

Well, I guess the biased moderators here are going to let you have the last word with your childish insults and ad homs, but not allow me to defend myself. Doesn't surprise me a bit.

So, I'll just ask other posters to point out any post I've made in which I haven't been calm, in which I've resorted to personal attacks instead of addressing the issue.

In this thread? Or in the last couple of days?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[InTheLight]

Benjamin's point is that the state of California regulates and requires warnings on a whole range of products. As a business owner I know there are stringent regulations on aerosol products (Google California Proposition 65.)

So if the state of California requires warnings on thousands of products isn't it hypocritical of the leftists there to let weed get by without warning regulations?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[JohnDeereFan]

You need to calm down. Maybe try attacking the issues directly and logically instead of resorting to personal attacks while hiding behind a computer screen. ...

Maybe you could try rebutting what I have to say without resorting to your childish ad homs and insults.

 

[Aaron]

Murder is something that you do to someone else. We don't refer to suicide as murder, and we don't prosecute attempted suicide as an attempted murder.

Again, you said 'biblical definitions.' Would you mind citing them?

God allowed Adam to kill himself by his own hand, did He not?

Let's assume the stretch you're making is valid. It was still forbidden, and by the same token, He allowed Cain to kill Abel.

We were discussing substances which are potentially harmful to self. That was on topic.

No, not potentially. I said substances that make one a danger to himself and others. Besides, we're working back from the other extreme.

 

[just-want-peace]

I would disagree that suicide is murder, based on biblical definitions.

Gluten does that to some. Peanuts can kill some people who eat them, so now many schools don't allow anyone to eat them in school.

Rather than make the people with these allergies responsible for themselves, Progressives shift the responsibility to the rest of us. This is the way that they think and rule. They bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. That's why these decisions aren't safe in their hands.

AMEN X 100K!!!

 

[Benjamin]

Concerning laws within one's private life let's get real about morality and safety laws affecting private lives:

Should a private citizen be able to build his house and move his family if it would collapse under 30 mile an hour winds or should he be required to follow government building code regulations established by an engineer that rightly understands the risk?

My nephew-in-law expressed his intent to tattoo his young children after purchasing equipment, while his family struggled keeping food on their plates I might add and after displaying and bragging about his “artwork” that looked like a typical 8 year old’s cartoon drawings and after my objection was ignored I “very strongly” warned him not to do so. I suppose this private citizen should be allowed to do whatever he wanted with own children and on that note I should be able to do whatever I wanted in my personal life to stop my nephew’s plan for my great nephew/nieces? Or should there be government regulations/lines to be drawn concerning these matters?

In the privacy of their own home should parents be allowed to engage in swinging parties in front of their children? How about sacrifice puppies and give the blood to their children to drink? Get drunk and stoned and defecate and throw-up all over the house that their child crawls through while they lay passed out on the floor?

Should a mother (private citizen) that is too preoccupied with getting stoned be able to neglect teaching her otherwise normal 2 ½ year old to walk and talk be allowed/entitled to let her child continue to live under those conditions?

Should loaded guns be allowed to lay all around the house with young children present because the parent (private citizen) claims they are entitled to do so being their children have been taught not to play with them? No line to be drawn on this judgment?

Should a parent be allowed to give their child alcohol or other drugs according to their own private determinations of its value and safety? Getting past the private citizen's child's welfare, should one be allowed to take someone else's prescription? On that note why even need a prescription???

Some like to act as if there is NOT a time and place to establish laws that govern what people can do in their private lives.

The list could go on and on, BUT some seem to think their argument that they have no lines they would draw holds as they try to make a defense for pot use and attempt to deny the obvious truth:

If it were true that the only line you would draw is on government control I would hate to live in your imaginary, lawless and unreasoning world, but of course, your claim of not supporting any lines within other people’s personal lives that cannot crossed is not the truth.

If you can’t think of any circumstances in people’s personal lives that need to be unlawful I would think you incredibly morally deprived, having an extremely hyper moral relativist/nihilist view, but I don’t think of you, I merely think you are desperate to make a case for the legalization of pot and don’t comprehend how fallacious your argument has become.

Yet, some continue to claim that their position on having ABSOLUTELY NO LINES to draw in people's personal private lives is truth, irrefutable and announce they should have this freedom right as a private citizen, along with that “others are progressives”! One opponent has rationalized his position is CREDIBLE through listing a few sources he claims he agrees with him along while offering a fallacious “Argument from Common Practice” with them to support his position.