Ron Paul Debates Steven Baldwin on Marijuana
- Thread starter Collapse
- Start date
I am just speaking about regulations in general, but that does include weed, or any other drugs. I just wonder at what point in human history did our ancestors all collectively bend over and let someone (one of their peers since we are all humans) else dictate what they "legally" can and cannot do to their own person?
Drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex, saving money (social security) basically anything that does not negatively impact anyone but themselves. I understand why child abuse is illegal, I understand why stealing is illegal, I don't and will never understand why drugs and any of the other "vice" crimes are illegal.
OK. I agree to an extent, but....
What if someone gets drunk and kills someone? You have now affected someone else negatively. What if you fuck someone and give them AIDS? Again, you have now negatively affected another person.
Now, this is assuming that everyone gets high and kills someone, which we all know is not true. However, as a gerneal standard, there is POTNENTIAL to harm someone else while in the process of harming oneself.
I always thought it was stupid to put on a seatbelt....becuase really, it only affects me negatively in a car crash.
What if someone gets drunk and kills someone? You have now affected someone else negatively. What if you fuck someone and give them AIDS? Again, you have now negatively affected another person.
Now, this is assuming that everyone gets high and kills someone, which we all know is not true. However, as a gerneal standard, there is POTNENTIAL to harm someone else while in the process of harming oneself.
I always thought it was stupid to put on a seatbelt....becuase really, it only affects me negatively in a car crash.
Yeah, that is true, but I think its a big jump from potential to direct correlation. I mean working out may increase my testosterone, which may increase my aggressive behavior, which may increase the potential I attack my wife, but that does not mean I should not be able to work out.
If we were able to make a direct correlation such as every time I smoke pcp there is an almost 100% chance I assault someone, then I would accept that being illegal.
Driving drunk is another example. 9/10 driving drunk doesn't do harm to anyone, but it clearly increases the likelihood that you might.
I don't think we should make driving drunk illegal, because clearly the majority of times you do it, you don't do anything but drive home. My solution to this problem would be to drastically increase mandatory prison sentences for crimes/injury inflicted on another person, while eliminating victimless crimes entirely.
In the instance of drunk driving as an example. It would be perfectly legal to do it, but as soon as you hurt someone else, 25 years in jail. Same goes for driving recklessly, or anything that is known to increase the likelihood of serious negative impact on someone else.
Perfect example. Its fucking ridiculous.
If the 1/10 time you injure someone, thats enough to say "thats illegal". And in all honesty, thats fine by me. I mean, why risk it? What if that one person you inure/kill, is a helpless child? Im sorry, but I would much rather not risk that.
Working out increases levels of organic chemicals that already exist in the body, where as injecting or smoking something is presenting something foreign to your body.
Working out increases levels of organic chemicals that already exist in the body, where as injecting or smoking something is presenting something foreign to your body.
YOU might not want to risk it, but you shouldn't have the authority to make that decision for someone else.
It should be up to each individual to take that risk or not. I and agree what if you injure or kill a helpless child that would be horrible. Which is why I would drastically increase minimum sentencing.
The deterrent should be in the consequences, but the decision should be up to the individual.
Also, where do you draw the line? 1/10 is enough. What about 1/100? 1/10,000? Anywhere you draw the line is going to be arbitrary.
Right but see my problem is that is has also been scientifically proven that listening to certain types of music in a car can negatively impact driving
Similarly, studies have shown that passengers in cars increase the risk of an accident.
http://www.iih.usyd.edu.au/events/l...obile-phones-contribute-to-road-accidents.cfm
So now by your logic, listening to certain types of music and having two or more passengers should be illegal because they have been scientifically shown to cause accidents at a much higher rate?
EDIT: Sorry I missed your latest reply while I was replying lol
Similarly, studies have shown that passengers in cars increase the risk of an accident.
http://www.iih.usyd.edu.au/events/l...obile-phones-contribute-to-road-accidents.cfm
So now by your logic, listening to certain types of music and having two or more passengers should be illegal because they have been scientifically shown to cause accidents at a much higher rate?
EDIT: Sorry I missed your latest reply while I was replying lol