The divide between America's liberals and conservatives

[theirlosthearts]

Chea Chea, word. But being serious though, I do think that if it were totally acceptable to smoke weed socially/legally there would be plenty of people who would smoke instead of drink and overall less violence amongst those populations. Not everybody that drinks does so irresponsibly or makes bad decisions while drunk, but the main characteristic or idea/goal of getting drunk or consuming alcohol is that of recklessness. I do think that if there were more people who chose to smoke instead of drink that things would be overall better for us.

Reminded me of this: Why Medical Marijuana Laws Reduce Traffic Deaths | Healthland | TIME.com

What beer companies don't want us to know XD

 

[Vayne Mechanics]

There is (or was if it's been changed) a 500 character limit for sigs.

Post character limit is independent from the limit that applies to signatures lol.

 

[theirlosthearts]

Post character limit is independent from the limit that applies to signatures lol.

The implication was that I wanted to put the quoted section of your post in my sig lol.

 

[Morpheaus]

The fact that drug usage changes mental functions is a given, whether or not those changes are positive or negative is debatable for some.

This seems to be a rather generalized and inaccurate statement. The negative and positive mental effects aren't really debatable, it's the purpose, method, and application of these compounds which lead to negative, or positive consequences. Methadone is used to treat addiction in drugs addicts, as well as moderate pain, but in other forms it can be addictive and harmful. Bupropion is a powerful anti-depressant with no discernible addictive qualities, but too much can cause harm. It's not about the compounds and their effects - which are well documented,- but the way in which these compounds are used. In the wrong hands, any tool can be dangerous.

I wouldn't really mind this, but I wouldn't trust people to only use drugs in the way that they're prescribed (for lack of a better word) either. Especially drugs that have a long term psychological effect. But I definitely like this more than letting people use drugs whenever/however they want.

There are a multitude of products, information sources, and media I wouldn't trust people to use freely- the internet for example,- but individual stupidity and immaturity does not constitute an absolute need for action at an institutional level. A person could, for example, take bleach and ammonia, common household cleaning products, and mix the two together to create an extremely volatile series of chemical reactions. Should these compounds be policed given their potential for hazard, or should we as a society take measures to educate and inform one another as a means of prevention?

Now, I'm a fan of government regulation in many forms, but I also understand how strong the temptation seek decisive, quick, and sweeping solutions to potential issues. Yes, such things do have their place. However, before we police our society's access to products based upon the implicit results of such access, would it not be reasonable to educate the people and give them the benefit of making more informed decisions? Too often we turn to doctrine to guide us in making decisions instead of knowledge and reason.

 

[theirlosthearts]

This seems to be a rather generalized and inaccurate statement. The negative and positive mental effects aren't really debatable, it's the purpose, method, and application of these compounds which lead to negative, or positive consequences. Methadone is used to treat addiction in drugs addicts, as well as moderate pain, but in other forms it can be addictive and harmful. Bupropion is a powerful anti-depressant with no discernible addictive qualities, but too much can cause harm. It's not about the compounds and their effects - which are well documented,- but the way in which these compounds are used. In the wrong hands, any tool can be dangerous.

That's kinda what I meant. Sorry I didn't make that as clear as I could have.

There are a multitude of products, information sources, and media I wouldn't trust people to use freely- the internet for example,- but individual stupidity and immaturity does not constitute an absolute need for action at an institutional level. A person could, for example, take bleach and ammonia, common household cleaning products, and mix the two together to create an extremely volatile series of chemical reactions. Should these compounds be policed given their potential for hazard, or should we as a society take measures to educate and inform one another as a means of prevention?

Society does take measures to educate people about ammonia and bleach. However, ammonia and bleach have uses that outweigh the risks in an educated society. As for the question of how to balance risks and uses, well, when everyone agrees on that topic, I'll look for flying pigs.

Now, I'm a fan of government regulation in many forms, but I also understand how strong the temptation seek decisive, quick, and sweeping solutions to potential issues. Yes, such things do have their place. However, before we police our society's access to products based upon the implicit results of such access, would it not be reasonable to educate the people and give them the benefit of making more informed decisions? Too often we turn to doctrine to guide us in making decisions instead of knowledge and reason.

Although I doubt that the majority of people make informed decisions even after they have been informed, I personally put awareness over simple regulation. Eventually, rules can be changed, and if no one knows why the rules were made, the rules will be removed, even if they were good rules.

 

[Morpheaus]

So your point is that particular potentially volatile compounds are acceptable without some form of regulation while others aren't despite a subjective degree of danger? That's pretty contradicting. Also, I'm more than willing to bet the majority of the middle class and lower class of the western world is more aware of the dangers of narcotics than the dangers of household cleaners.

As for the question of how to balance risks and uses, well, when everyone agrees on that topic, I'll look for flying pigs.

That's a straw man argument. First of all, I didn't say anything about balancing risk/reward and usage, nor do I think any reasonable person would attempt to argue the necessity for absolute consensus. Second, you can't place everything in the abstract and remove context. It's an impractical approach which yields no valuable data and renders conversation pointless.

Eventually, rules can be changed, and if no one knows why the rules were made, the rules will be removed, even if they were good rules.

Two things:

First, how can no one know the reason a good rule was created if the rule is good? Surely if a rule qualifies as good- which we can define as logical and in the best interests of a non-tyrannical and ordered society, bear with me- then surely the purpose of that rule would be self-evident.

Second, the State of California has the third longest in the world. Not the country, the world. The document still includes working laws which date back to the period of time when California was the property of Mexico. Not only is it a ponderous mess which few, if any, political scientists can claim expertise in, it is widely considered the epitome of what a constitution should not be. The document is filled with laws for which the original rationale is either arbitrary, or lost to time, so clearly some laws (rules) are not examined or reviewed as thoroughly as they should be. The system is meant to be adaptable to the needs of the people, but it is seldom easy, clear, or subject to consistent analysis.

 

[theirlosthearts]

So your point is that particular potentially volatile compounds are acceptable without some form of regulation while others aren't despite a subjective degree of danger? That's pretty contradicting.

You have risks. You have benefits. You attempt to see which is greater.

That's a straw man argument. First of all, I didn't say anything about balancing risk/reward and usage, nor do I think any reasonable person would attempt to argue the necessity for absolute consensus.

Read the sentence before that sentence. It's related to that, just a little bit. A quasi-addendum if you will.

Second, you can't place everything in the abstract and remove context. It's an impractical approach which yields no valuable data and renders conversation pointless.

Well, the discussion is about drugs, which is a completely overgeneralized term by itself. Context would be specific to every drug currently known, which would be too numerous too mention, much less go through in detail.

First, how can no one know the reason a good rule was created if the rule is good? Surely if a rule qualifies as good- which we can define as logical and in the best interests of a non-tyrannical and ordered society, bear with me- then surely the purpose of that rule would be self-evident.

So basically, you're saying that if a rule is good, it should be obvious to people? I wish I could share your faith in the intelligence of humans, but I just can't.

Second, the State of California has the third longest in the world. Not the country, the world. The document still includes working laws which date back to the period of time when California was the property of Mexico. Not only is it a ponderous mess which few, if any, political scientists can claim expertise in, it is widely considered the epitome of what a constitution should not be. The document is filled with laws for which the original rationale is either arbitrary, or lost to time, so clearly some laws (rules) are not examined or reviewed as thoroughly as they should be. The system is meant to be adaptable to the needs of the people, but it is seldom easy, clear, or subject to consistent analysis.

Did you mean constitution? And you seem to be making my point. The reasoning behind rules shouldn't be lost just because nobody bothered to write them down (or whatever equivalent), or they could eventually end up like California's constitution.