If marijuana's illegal, why isn't milk?
25 Aug 2009, 1:08 am
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
If I don't kill people with marijuana and I don't harm myself for using it and I get a kick out of using it why the hell shouldn't I get it if I want it? What's so nasty about wanting something?
it is not in the wanting but in the arguing of usefulness and purpose of needing that bothers me. If you want to want it, then that is your concern. But not all people have (perhaps) a good level of self-control that one or two members of the population have. If they did, then we wouldn't have issues with many of the things that are illegal (or legal, considering the abuse of tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and credit cards). And just because you want it doesn't mean that you should have it. Primarily because of the behavior of the majority of people around things that are easily abused and are legal (gambling, spending, blah blah blah) and how those things influence people who don't use them. Look at how uncontrolled spending has influenced the entire economy. You could argue that people should be allowed uncontrolled access to credit cards and loans because they want things and they should be allowed to make their own decisions. But then look what happens when you allow people unrestricted access to things they want but do not need.
Wanting something is not nasty. Giving people whatever they want, however, can be nasty.
It's not your business to stick your nose into other people's motivations as long as they are not harmful. Your self righteous attitude at supervising other people's lives is arrogant. Mind your own business.
25 Aug 2009, 1:25 am
Sand wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
If I don't kill people with marijuana and I don't harm myself for using it and I get a kick out of using it why the hell shouldn't I get it if I want it? What's so nasty about wanting something?
it is not in the wanting but in the arguing of usefulness and purpose of needing that bothers me. If you want to want it, then that is your concern. But not all people have (perhaps) a good level of self-control that one or two members of the population have. If they did, then we wouldn't have issues with many of the things that are illegal (or legal, considering the abuse of tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and credit cards). And just because you want it doesn't mean that you should have it. Primarily because of the behavior of the majority of people around things that are easily abused and are legal (gambling, spending, blah blah blah) and how those things influence people who don't use them. Look at how uncontrolled spending has influenced the entire economy. You could argue that people should be allowed uncontrolled access to credit cards and loans because they want things and they should be allowed to make their own decisions. But then look what happens when you allow people unrestricted access to things they want but do not need.
Wanting something is not nasty. Giving people whatever they want, however, can be nasty.
It's not your business to stick your nose into other people's motivations as long as they are not harmful. Your self righteous attitude at supervising other people's lives is arrogant. Mind your own business.
I don't care much for monitoring other people's decisions. You might claim that your motivations are harmless and that it is not my business. But you can't be sure that being allowed access to anything you want is not harmful to others, nor do I presume that is would make you care. Just pointing out that while you might want something, the world doesn't need to let you have it. And perhaps that you don't see that other people might want marijuana left illegal, and perhaps their motivations are just as harmless as yours. In fact, considering that their motivations are to preserve the health and potential safety of the majority... you could argue that their motivations are less harmful than yours are. And perhaps if that leads to you using marijuana illegally, why should I deny your decision-making in doing what you want. And if it leads to you being thrown in jail, then why should I deny the public's decision-making in doing what they want. Why should I step in and prevent you from the consequences or benefits of your wants? I won't. I just mind my own business.
_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed
25 Aug 2009, 1:30 am
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
If I don't kill people with marijuana and I don't harm myself for using it and I get a kick out of using it why the hell shouldn't I get it if I want it? What's so nasty about wanting something?
it is not in the wanting but in the arguing of usefulness and purpose of needing that bothers me. If you want to want it, then that is your concern. But not all people have (perhaps) a good level of self-control that one or two members of the population have. If they did, then we wouldn't have issues with many of the things that are illegal (or legal, considering the abuse of tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and credit cards). And just because you want it doesn't mean that you should have it. Primarily because of the behavior of the majority of people around things that are easily abused and are legal (gambling, spending, blah blah blah) and how those things influence people who don't use them. Look at how uncontrolled spending has influenced the entire economy. You could argue that people should be allowed uncontrolled access to credit cards and loans because they want things and they should be allowed to make their own decisions. But then look what happens when you allow people unrestricted access to things they want but do not need.
Wanting something is not nasty. Giving people whatever they want, however, can be nasty.
It's not your business to stick your nose into other people's motivations as long as they are not harmful. Your self righteous attitude at supervising other people's lives is arrogant. Mind your own business.
I don't care much for monitoring other people's decisions. You might claim that your motivations are harmless and that it is not my business. But you can't be sure that being allowed access to anything you want is not harmful to others, nor do I presume that is would make you care. Just pointing out that while you might want something, the world doesn't need to let you have it. And perhaps that you don't see that other people might want marijuana left illegal, and perhaps their motivations are just as harmless as yours. In fact, considering that their motivations are to preserve the health and potential safety of the majority... you could argue that their motivations are less harmful than yours are. And perhaps if that leads to you using marijuana illegally, why should I deny your decision-making in doing what you want. And if it leads to you being thrown in jail, then why should I deny the public's decision-making in doing what they want. Why should I step in and prevent you from the consequences or benefits of your wants? I won't. I just mind my own business.
This is merely theoretical with me as I don't need or want marijuana or any other drugs but you are basically arguing that people should not be allowed to conflict with legal norms. That sounds pretty totalitarian to me.
25 Aug 2009, 1:41 am
Sand wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
If I don't kill people with marijuana and I don't harm myself for using it and I get a kick out of using it why the hell shouldn't I get it if I want it? What's so nasty about wanting something?
it is not in the wanting but in the arguing of usefulness and purpose of needing that bothers me. If you want to want it, then that is your concern. But not all people have (perhaps) a good level of self-control that one or two members of the population have. If they did, then we wouldn't have issues with many of the things that are illegal (or legal, considering the abuse of tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and credit cards). And just because you want it doesn't mean that you should have it. Primarily because of the behavior of the majority of people around things that are easily abused and are legal (gambling, spending, blah blah blah) and how those things influence people who don't use them. Look at how uncontrolled spending has influenced the entire economy. You could argue that people should be allowed uncontrolled access to credit cards and loans because they want things and they should be allowed to make their own decisions. But then look what happens when you allow people unrestricted access to things they want but do not need.
Wanting something is not nasty. Giving people whatever they want, however, can be nasty.
It's not your business to stick your nose into other people's motivations as long as they are not harmful. Your self righteous attitude at supervising other people's lives is arrogant. Mind your own business.
I don't care much for monitoring other people's decisions. You might claim that your motivations are harmless and that it is not my business. But you can't be sure that being allowed access to anything you want is not harmful to others, nor do I presume that is would make you care. Just pointing out that while you might want something, the world doesn't need to let you have it. And perhaps that you don't see that other people might want marijuana left illegal, and perhaps their motivations are just as harmless as yours. In fact, considering that their motivations are to preserve the health and potential safety of the majority... you could argue that their motivations are less harmful than yours are. And perhaps if that leads to you using marijuana illegally, why should I deny your decision-making in doing what you want. And if it leads to you being thrown in jail, then why should I deny the public's decision-making in doing what they want. Why should I step in and prevent you from the consequences or benefits of your wants? I won't. I just mind my own business.
This is merely theoretical with me as I don't need or want marijuana or any other drugs but you are basically arguing that people should not be allowed to conflict with legal norms. That sounds pretty totalitarian to me.
I am arguing that the argument goes both ways. I am arguing that people shouldn't be allowed what they want because they want it. It is a compromise and a balance. And sometimes that means not getting what you want, and sometimes it means only occasionally getting what you want. A well-balanced society balances the needs/wants of the majority with the needs/wants of the individual. Only considering the needs/wants of one side is not well-balanced and will cause problems. But the balance will require both sides to accept losses in order to benefit as a whole.
_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed
25 Aug 2009, 1:49 am
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
If I don't kill people with marijuana and I don't harm myself for using it and I get a kick out of using it why the hell shouldn't I get it if I want it? What's so nasty about wanting something?
it is not in the wanting but in the arguing of usefulness and purpose of needing that bothers me. If you want to want it, then that is your concern. But not all people have (perhaps) a good level of self-control that one or two members of the population have. If they did, then we wouldn't have issues with many of the things that are illegal (or legal, considering the abuse of tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and credit cards). And just because you want it doesn't mean that you should have it. Primarily because of the behavior of the majority of people around things that are easily abused and are legal (gambling, spending, blah blah blah) and how those things influence people who don't use them. Look at how uncontrolled spending has influenced the entire economy. You could argue that people should be allowed uncontrolled access to credit cards and loans because they want things and they should be allowed to make their own decisions. But then look what happens when you allow people unrestricted access to things they want but do not need.
Wanting something is not nasty. Giving people whatever they want, however, can be nasty.
It's not your business to stick your nose into other people's motivations as long as they are not harmful. Your self righteous attitude at supervising other people's lives is arrogant. Mind your own business.
I don't care much for monitoring other people's decisions. You might claim that your motivations are harmless and that it is not my business. But you can't be sure that being allowed access to anything you want is not harmful to others, nor do I presume that is would make you care. Just pointing out that while you might want something, the world doesn't need to let you have it. And perhaps that you don't see that other people might want marijuana left illegal, and perhaps their motivations are just as harmless as yours. In fact, considering that their motivations are to preserve the health and potential safety of the majority... you could argue that their motivations are less harmful than yours are. And perhaps if that leads to you using marijuana illegally, why should I deny your decision-making in doing what you want. And if it leads to you being thrown in jail, then why should I deny the public's decision-making in doing what they want. Why should I step in and prevent you from the consequences or benefits of your wants? I won't. I just mind my own business.
This is merely theoretical with me as I don't need or want marijuana or any other drugs but you are basically arguing that people should not be allowed to conflict with legal norms. That sounds pretty totalitarian to me.
I am arguing that the argument goes both ways. I am arguing that people shouldn't be allowed what they want because they want it. It is a compromise and a balance. And sometimes that means not getting what you want, and sometimes it means only occasionally getting what you want. A well-balanced society balances the needs/wants of the majority with the needs/wants of the individual. Only considering the needs/wants of one side is not well-balanced and will cause problems. But the balance will require both sides to accept losses in order to benefit as a whole.
I find no logic in your insistent motivation to monitor innocent desires. It has nothing at all to do with balancing society.
25 Aug 2009, 2:05 am
Sand wrote:
I find no logic in your insistent motivation to monitor innocent desires. It has nothing at all to do with balancing society.
of course you don't. You aren't thinking logically. I find no logic in your claim that those desires are innocent rather than selfish. You want me to mind other people's business when their choices influence you negatively and then mind my own business when it would benefit you to do what you want. Either way, you want what you want when you want without regard to sacrifice. Perhaps I disagree with your insistent motivation to be able to do whatever you like. Perhaps it has nothing to do with you, but with the other people who may have less innocent desires but want the same thing. Perhaps you just don't realize that I don't care about what you desire or what you want. It bears nothing to me. I only care about affects and results, not motivations and desires. Desire what you want... regardless of whether it is innocent or not. But don't complain about other people's motivations in the arguably laughable assertion that they are infringing on your motivations. Because then all you are doing is illogically and insistently monitoring the desires of other people while claiming foul that they are monitoring your desires.
rather ironic, I think.
_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed
25 Aug 2009, 2:45 am
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
I find no logic in your insistent motivation to monitor innocent desires. It has nothing at all to do with balancing society.
of course you don't. You aren't thinking logically. I find no logic in your claim that those desires are innocent rather than selfish. You want me to mind other people's business when their choices influence you negatively and then mind my own business when it would benefit you to do what you want. Either way, you want what you want when you want without regard to sacrifice. Perhaps I disagree with your insistent motivation to be able to do whatever you like. Perhaps it has nothing to do with you, but with the other people who may have less innocent desires but want the same thing. Perhaps you just don't realize that I don't care about what you desire or what you want. It bears nothing to me. I only care about affects and results, not motivations and desires. Desire what you want... regardless of whether it is innocent or not. But don't complain about other people's motivations in the arguably laughable assertion that they are infringing on your motivations. Because then all you are doing is illogically and insistently monitoring the desires of other people while claiming foul that they are monitoring your desires.
rather ironic, I think.
The very peculiar concept that selfish desires cannot be innocent as long as they do not harm others indicates to me you have a rather puritan take on things. What horror am I doing by not interfering in people who want innocent pleasures? You are frightfully weird.
25 Aug 2009, 3:59 am
Sand wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
I find no logic in your insistent motivation to monitor innocent desires. It has nothing at all to do with balancing society.
of course you don't. You aren't thinking logically. I find no logic in your claim that those desires are innocent rather than selfish. You want me to mind other people's business when their choices influence you negatively and then mind my own business when it would benefit you to do what you want. Either way, you want what you want when you want without regard to sacrifice. Perhaps I disagree with your insistent motivation to be able to do whatever you like. Perhaps it has nothing to do with you, but with the other people who may have less innocent desires but want the same thing. Perhaps you just don't realize that I don't care about what you desire or what you want. It bears nothing to me. I only care about affects and results, not motivations and desires. Desire what you want... regardless of whether it is innocent or not. But don't complain about other people's motivations in the arguably laughable assertion that they are infringing on your motivations. Because then all you are doing is illogically and insistently monitoring the desires of other people while claiming foul that they are monitoring your desires.
rather ironic, I think.
The very peculiar concept that selfish desires cannot be innocent as long as they do not harm others indicates to me you have a rather puritan take on things. What horror am I doing by not interfering in people who want innocent pleasures? You are frightfully weird.
selfish desires can be innocent, they can also not be innocent. Just because they do not harm other people does not by virtue make them innocent. The claim that it does is somewhat silly. It is like arguing that the means justify the end or the end justifies the means. Neither are correct and yet both are correct. I claim not that there is horror in interfering or not interfering, but that the horror is in doing either unrestricted and without consideration.
_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed
25 Aug 2009, 4:50 am
Shiggily wrote:
tobacco should be illegal. There is no benefit and it is highly addictive and unhealthy.
Spoken by someone who has never experienced the wonderfulness of a good Havana cigar after a good meal. A good meal, a good glass of brandy, and a good cigar and thou, beneath the bough.
Tobacco should be indulged in infrequently, but intelligently. Alcoholic beverages, similarly.
ruveyn
25 Aug 2009, 5:36 am
Sand wrote:
It's not your business to stick your nose into other people's motivations as long as they are not harmful. Your self righteous attitude at supervising other people's lives is arrogant. Mind your own business.
Yeah, mind your own f*****g business, Shiggily, like the man says. We´re all sick of your attitude, ok?
Now......enjoy this fine Avril Lavigne video, she´s got a new album comming out in november I think...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc7Y3qqHjjA[/youtube]
25 Aug 2009, 10:18 am
ruveyn wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
tobacco should be illegal. There is no benefit and it is highly addictive and unhealthy.
Spoken by someone who has never experienced the wonderfulness of a good Havana cigar after a good meal. A good meal, a good glass of brandy, and a good cigar and thou, beneath the bough.
Tobacco should be indulged in infrequently, but intelligently. Alcoholic beverages, similarly.
ruveyn
Actually I have. and I enjoy both cigars and scotch. But I would have no problem with the idea that it be made illegal.
_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed
25 Aug 2009, 10:24 am
grain-and-field wrote:
Sand wrote:
It's not your business to stick your nose into other people's motivations as long as they are not harmful. Your self righteous attitude at supervising other people's lives is arrogant. Mind your own business.
Yeah, mind your own f***ing business, Shiggily, like the man says. We´re all sick of your attitude, ok?
Now......enjoy this fine Avril Lavigne video, she´s got a new album comming out in november I think...
a post for opinions on the internet isn't the best way to convey a mind-your-own-business message.
and I can't enjoy a singer that crappy. But thanks for the thought...
_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed
Last edited by Shiggily on 25 Aug 2009, 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
25 Aug 2009, 10:25 am
Shiggily wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
tobacco should be illegal. There is no benefit and it is highly addictive and unhealthy.
Spoken by someone who has never experienced the wonderfulness of a good Havana cigar after a good meal. A good meal, a good glass of brandy, and a good cigar and thou, beneath the bough.
Tobacco should be indulged in infrequently, but intelligently. Alcoholic beverages, similarly.
ruveyn
Actually I have. and I enjoy both cigars and scotch. But I would have no problem with the idea that it be made illegal.
Cigars and scotch: you're my kind of person.
Well, you know, except for that whole "I'd have no problem with it being made illegal" part. That's just foolish subjugation.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
25 Aug 2009, 10:49 am
Shiggily wrote:
grain-and-field wrote:
Sand wrote:
It's not your business to stick your nose into other people's motivations as long as they are not harmful. Your self righteous attitude at supervising other people's lives is arrogant. Mind your own business.
Yeah, mind your own f***ing business, Shiggily, like the man says. We´re all sick of your attitude, ok?
Now......enjoy this fine Avril Lavigne video, she´s got a new album comming out in november I think...
a post for opinions on the internet isn't the best way to convey a mind-your-own-business message.
and I can't enjoy a singer that crappy. But thanks for the thought...
That wasn't in reference to the discussion. It was in reference to the police sticking their nose in where their nose didn't belong.
25 Aug 2009, 1:56 pm
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
If I don't kill people with marijuana and I don't harm myself for using it and I get a kick out of using it why the hell shouldn't I get it if I want it? What's so nasty about wanting something?
it is not in the wanting but in the arguing of usefulness and purpose of needing that bothers me. If you want to want it, then that is your concern. But not all people have (perhaps) a good level of self-control that one or two members of the population have. If they did, then we wouldn't have issues with many of the things that are illegal (or legal, considering the abuse of tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and credit cards). And just because you want it doesn't mean that you should have it. Primarily because of the behavior of the majority of people around things that are easily abused and are legal (gambling, spending, blah blah blah) and how those things influence people who don't use them. Look at how uncontrolled spending has influenced the entire economy. You could argue that people should be allowed uncontrolled access to credit cards and loans because they want things and they should be allowed to make their own decisions. But then look what happens when you allow people unrestricted access to things they want but do not need.
Wanting something is not nasty. Giving people whatever they want, however, can be nasty.
It's not your business to stick your nose into other people's motivations as long as they are not harmful. Your self righteous attitude at supervising other people's lives is arrogant. Mind your own business.
I don't care much for monitoring other people's decisions. You might claim that your motivations are harmless and that it is not my business. But you can't be sure that being allowed access to anything you want is not harmful to others, nor do I presume that is would make you care. Just pointing out that while you might want something, the world doesn't need to let you have it. And perhaps that you don't see that other people might want marijuana left illegal, and perhaps their motivations are just as harmless as yours. In fact, considering that their motivations are to preserve the health and potential safety of the majority... you could argue that their motivations are less harmful than yours are. And perhaps if that leads to you using marijuana illegally, why should I deny your decision-making in doing what you want. And if it leads to you being thrown in jail, then why should I deny the public's decision-making in doing what they want. Why should I step in and prevent you from the consequences or benefits of your wants? I won't. I just mind my own business.
This is merely theoretical with me as I don't need or want marijuana or any other drugs but you are basically arguing that people should not be allowed to conflict with legal norms. That sounds pretty totalitarian to me.
I am arguing that the argument goes both ways. I am arguing that people shouldn't be allowed what they want because they want it. It is a compromise and a balance. And sometimes that means not getting what you want, and sometimes it means only occasionally getting what you want. A well-balanced society balances the needs/wants of the majority with the needs/wants of the individual. Only considering the needs/wants of one side is not well-balanced and will cause problems. But the balance will require both sides to accept losses in order to benefit as a whole.
So is this the basic gist of your argument - that society must always balance needs/wants of the whole over the individual concerning everything that is for sale? Well in that case, maybe milk should be outlawed because it is loaded with HGH and antibiotics which is a significant contributing factor to the ineffectiveness of antibiotics to treat basic infection such as MRSA. Or perhaps we should outlaw something more closely related to marijuana with respect to its utter uselessness (by your own opinion) such as silk flowers. The manufacturing process pollutes the earth and releases chemicals into the air, therefore we must stop their sales now. Just because people want flowers that don't need maintenance doesn't mean that they should have them if they are bad for society. Why should your personal opinion on what is and isn't good for people be the determining factor for what should or should not be legal? You do seem to be displaying quite a bit of arrogance on the matter. I also do not have any want or need for marijuana, but I do not presume that I know what's best for everyone else. Frankly, it's not my business. Addiction and self-control issues are never solved by simply removing the object of desire.
