Shotgun 1 #76 January 19, 2011 QuoteIt is ridiculous for soft drugs such as pot to be treated any different than alcohol. But hard drugs like crack destroy lives. Alcohol is a hard drug, and it has destroyed far more lives than crack or any of the other illegal hard drugs. And it accounts for a much larger percentage of health problems and therefore healthcare. The arguments that you are making about the other drugs make it sound like you think alcohol should be illegal too. That, and you're also demonstrating that prohibition isn't exactly working. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #77 January 19, 2011 QuoteThe Bill of Rights does not grant us our rights, it specifies which rights may not be taken away under any circumstance. Actually, that's not true at all. There are, in fact, procedures to change any part of the US Constitution or any one of the Amendments including the first ten.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #78 January 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteIt is ridiculous for soft drugs such as pot to be treated any different than alcohol. But hard drugs like crack destroy lives. Alcohol is a hard drug, and it has destroyed far more lives than crack or any of the other illegal hard drugs. And it accounts for a much larger percentage of health problems and therefore healthcare. The arguments that you are making about the other drugs make it sound like you think alcohol should be illegal too. That, and you're also demonstrating that prohibition isn't exactly working. ALL too very true +1 I SAW firsthand how a drunken stepfather could affect and destroy a family. The best thing that came out of that for me personally was to drink sparingly if at all. Some people NEED their "high" a tad too much for maintaining a cohesive family, and end up not giving a shit about their actions, then they try to blame it on the drug or alcohol and not on their piss poor ability to control their own impulses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #79 January 19, 2011 QuoteThe arguments that you are making about the other drugs make it sound like you think alcohol should be illegal too. That, and you're also demonstrating that prohibition isn't exactly working. How absurd, but this is the DorkZone. I have already been accused of "wanting skydiving to be banned" all because people have died in the sport (without saying anything remotely close to such nonsense) and now I am being accused for wanting alcohol to be banned? Too funny ... I have already stated my position on the matter and no matter what I say, there is nothing I say that means fuck all in this world. I am not the messiah who was sent to us to save the world. I have no power ... I just know there are thousands of "Dawn of the Dead" zombies roaming the streets of "Hastings and Main" in the downtown eastside of Vancouver and this is the result when people ingest their bodies with such harmful substances. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #80 January 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe Bill of Rights does not grant us our rights, it specifies which rights may not be taken away under any circumstance. Actually, that's not true at all. There are, in fact, procedures to change any part of the US Constitution or any one of the Amendments including the first ten. The Bill of Rights is the term used for the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. By definition, they are a modification / elaboration on the Constitution. I think it fair to say that they enumerate rights that the first Americans knew to be vital to a free nation. This was based on their recent need to wage war in protest of these rights being trampled by the previous government.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #81 January 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe arguments that you are making about the other drugs make it sound like you think alcohol should be illegal too. That, and you're also demonstrating that prohibition isn't exactly working. How absurd, but this is the DorkZone. I have already been accused of "wanting skydiving to be banned" all because people have died in the sport (without saying anything remotely close to such nonsense) and now I am being accused for wanting alcohol to be banned? Too funny ... I have already stated my position on the matter and no matter what I say, there is nothing I say that means fuck all in this world. I am not the messiah who was sent to us to save the world. I have no power ... I just know there are thousands of "Dawn of the Dead" zombies roaming the streets of "Hastings and Main" in the downtown eastside of Vancouver and this is the result when people ingest their bodies with such harmful substances. Not accusing you of anything. But I think that your perception of the drug problem (including alcohol) might be skewed by these zombies you keep talking about, which do not necessarily represent the overall picture. You seem to think that crack is a far worse drug than alcohol, and you are entitled to your opinion, so if that is the case then I'll just disagree with you (my opinion) and leave it at that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #82 January 19, 2011 Okay, Mr. McNitpickerston. Please mentally edit to read, "...under any circumstance short of Constitutional amendment." I've edited my original post so that future Constitutional scholars reviewing this thread are not confused. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #83 January 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe Bill of Rights does not grant us our rights, it specifies which rights may not be taken away under any circumstance. Actually, that's not true at all. There are, in fact, procedures to change any part of the US Constitution or any one of the Amendments including the first ten. The Bill of Rights is the term used for the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. By definition, they are a modification / elaboration on the Constitution. I think it fair to say that they enumerate rights that the first Americans knew to be vital to a free nation. This was based on their recent need to wage war in protest of these rights being trampled by the previous government. Yet, slavery was in the body of the actual Constitution and that was changed. The statement, "The Bill of Rights does not grant us our rights, it specifies which rights may not be taken away under any circumstance", is simply incorrect.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #84 January 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe arguments that you are making about the other drugs make it sound like you think alcohol should be illegal too. That, and you're also demonstrating that prohibition isn't exactly working. How absurd, but this is the DorkZone. I have already been accused of "wanting skydiving to be banned" all because people have died in the sport (without saying anything remotely close to such nonsense) and now I am being accused for wanting alcohol to be banned? Too funny ... I have already stated my position on the matter and no matter what I say, there is nothing I say that means fuck all in this world. I am not the messiah who was sent to us to save the world. I have no power ... I just know there are thousands of "Dawn of the Dead" zombies roaming the streets of "Hastings and Main" in the downtown eastside of Vancouver and this is the result when people ingest their bodies with such harmful substances. Not accusing you of anything. But I think that your perception of the drug problem (including alcohol) might be skewed by these zombies you keep talking about, which do not necessarily represent the overall picture. You seem to think that crack is a far worse drug than alcohol, and you are entitled to your opinion, so if that is the case then I'll just disagree with you (my opinion) and leave it at that. Once upon a time they were described as living down on Skid Row and were known as bums. There are STILL plenty of them out there whose drug of choice is alcohol ... but I think some people are missing that fact. There are a LOT of them, in every city across many parts of the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #85 January 19, 2011 Obviously alcohol is destructive. Sorry if I left you the impression where I thought alcohol was harmless. I can't recall saying anything in this thread saying alcohol was harmless and it appears that by default my opposition to legalizing drugs such as crack made some people think I thought alcohol was harmless (got to love the assumptions people make on the DorkZone). I don't have a solution to solving the world's alcohol problems. Clearly prohibition has not worked in the past nor will it work in the future. Plus as long as humanity is producing hard drugs, people will use them. Prohibition has not worked in this regard either. But two wrongs don't make a right. Legalizing hard drugs isn't going to do anything except make them more accessible than they already are and more zombies will join the ranks down on skid row. But we can probably find some common ground here. Soft drugs such as pot while not harmless, are NOT the "boogie man" drug governments makes them out to be. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #86 January 19, 2011 QuoteSorry if I left you the impression where I thought alcohol was harmless. I didn't get that impression at all. ("Not as bad as crack" does not necessarily equal "harmless." ;-) QuoteSoft drugs such as pot while not harmless, are NOT the "boogie man" drugs governments make them out to be. It has been my perception that the government (and the media) has done a poor job of educating the public about any drugs; seems to be lots of misinformation out there. But then the public is free to do their own research. (Well, they might end up in prison for it, but . . .) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #87 January 19, 2011 QuoteThere is nothing in the US Constitution securing a right to ingest substances. Yes there is, that's why I said earlier the Federal drug acts are Unconstitutional. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #88 January 19, 2011 Quote>where do you draw the line because just because it is legal, doesn't mean it >is any less devastating than crack, cocaine, heroin. It doesn't have anything to do with "how devastating" it is. It has to do with people's willingness to obey the law. In the hands of someone who is law-abiding, a gun can confer protection. In the hands of a criminal who has committed serious crimes previously, it's a lot more likely to be used for criminal purposes. The criminality of smoking pot, based on our population (and no, I'm actually not one of them), is on par with driving at 80 in a 65 freeway. It indicates nothing about their willingness to commit real crime. killing or merely beating another guy to get exclusive turf to sell the weed - yes, that indicates something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #89 January 19, 2011 The Bill of Rights does not grant us our rights, it specifies which rights may not be taken away under any circumstance short of Constitutional amendment. The Constitution does not grant us rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thrillstalker 0 #90 January 19, 2011 Quote>where do you draw the line because just because it is legal, doesn't mean it >is any less devastating than crack, cocaine, heroin. It doesn't have anything to do with "how devastating" it is. It has to do with people's willingness to obey the law. In the hands of someone who is law-abiding, a gun can confer protection. In the hands of a criminal who has committed serious crimes previously, it's a lot more likely to be used for criminal purposes. bullshit laws are still bullshit. jay walking and dui are breaking the law. people do this everyday and put themselves in way more immediate danger than someone who smokes a bowl or toots some coke. i see dui and jay walking as worse than drug use for each particular case, you not only can hurt yourself, but others as well. to me that is more serious than smoking a bowl because it effects others. QuoteIn the hands of a criminal who has committed serious crimes previously, it's a lot more likely to be used for criminal purposes. guns dont kill people, people kill people. if they outlaw guns, only criminals will have them."Never grow a wishbone, where your backbone ought to be." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #91 January 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteThere is nothing in the US Constitution securing a right to ingest substances. Yes there is, that's why I said earlier the Federal drug acts are Unconstitutional. I am curious to hear your explanation of this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #92 January 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteThe Bill of Rights does not grant us our rights, it specifies which rights may not be taken away under any circumstance. Actually, that's not true at all. There are, in fact, procedures to change any part of the US Constitution or any one of the Amendments including the first ten. Sorry... Wrong. Read Thomas Jefferson writings in the Library of Congress. Wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #93 January 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe Bill of Rights does not grant us our rights, it specifies which rights may not be taken away under any circumstance. Actually, that's not true at all. There are, in fact, procedures to change any part of the US Constitution or any one of the Amendments including the first ten. Sorry... Wrong. Read Thomas Jefferson writings in the Library of Congress. Wrong. Sorry, but the writings of one man do not trump the actual rules of the US Constitution. The fact is ANY part of the US Constitution can be changed. http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.htmlquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,450 #94 January 19, 2011 >bullshit laws are still bullshit. That's fine. People who obey all laws are not going to use their gun illegally. People who think some laws are bullshit are more likely to use their gun illegally. "What do you mean, I can't wave my gun at my teenage daughter's boyfriend? That's BULLSHIT! He's not going to get her pregnant and dump her." That may indeed be a valid point of view - but it also means he's more likely to brandish his gun, which is illegal in most places. >guns dont kill people, people kill people. if they outlaw guns, only >criminals will have them. Yep. And if you let criminals have guns, then criminals will have them, too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #95 January 19, 2011 QuotePeople who obey all laws . . . Do these people exist? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #96 January 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThere is nothing in the US Constitution securing a right to ingest substances. Yes there is, that's why I said earlier the Federal drug acts are Unconstitutional. I am curious to hear your explanation of this. I have read the US Constitution many times. I'm afraid you will need to point out the part I keep overlooking. It's not actually very long.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #97 January 19, 2011 Who owns your body? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #98 January 19, 2011 Directed to me? Huh?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #99 January 19, 2011 Anyone... Who OWNS your body? Less broad: You or the Government? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #100 January 19, 2011 "they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." suggests that the individual is ultimately responsible for and has authority over himself.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
