Like it or not, the ecomony of this great nation was built by tobacco and cotton…in that order. If cigarettes were introduced today, of course the FDA would never allow them. Tobacco is a part of history and I enjoyed every cigarette I ever smoked. Had to quit because race directors wouldn’t let me smoke in the transition area.
Wine consumption goes back to biblical times when there were no performance enhancing drugs, when professional athletes were not held in very high esteem. Alexander the Great despised professional athletes and thought they ought to dedicate their talents to the state as professional warriors instead.
These days, when the work ethic and hardier virtues of Alexanders times are absent, professional athletes are adored and feel the ‘pressure’ from the public to put on superior performances.
It’s called “free will” based on hopefully intelligent decisions.
This statement is what it all comes down too… there are several million unintelligent people making unintelligent decisions each minute. Those decisions impact society in a negative way. Thus the intelligent have designed controls on the unintelligent in the form of laws and a criminal punishment system to deter them from doing unintelligent things. This all being in the hope that if the unintelligent are deterred from unintelligent decisions, they will never affect the intelligent in a negative manner…
Laws are ways of babysitting the adult population. Although I expect to have to tell my daughter not to touch the hot stove. No one should have to tell an adult not to shoot up or smoke crack, it’s obviously bad for you!!!
Legalize drugs and you have even better social darwinism in place IMO. No longer the strong survive, it becomes the smart survive. If you aren’t smart enough to not fry your brain, then you deserve what you get.
Dude! Morphine has been around for many many many millenia (since 3000 B.C.E)!!! Except it was a part of Opium.
I do agree that it does not make sense to compare it with asprin, though.
Right - it was a fictional scenario. Of course marijuana has been around for a long time, though I think it’s fair to say that more-or-less widespread use is a pretty recent phenomenon.
The fact is, humans have been trying to alter their consciousness for a long, long time. It hasn’t destroyed mankind yet.
vitus wrote: **FWIW, IMO in a perfect world we wouldn’t need legislation for substances like this, or, for that matter, what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom. but then again, it sure as heck ain’t a perfect world, is it? **Not since Adam ate the apple.
See? Tom is right, women are bad, because it was EVE that made him eat that apple. At least, that what the old patriarchal society writers blamed her for doing…As Bill Cosby said way back in the 60’s, Eve made him eat that apple because she was out of mud pies…she was making him eat mud pies to keep the slobbering guy busy so he wouldn’t be trying to get in her fig leaf all the time. Sounds about right…
Tom, the real problem with women is Adam’s fault. One day, in Paradise (no doubt he had a Cervelo P3 to ride), Adam got the idea that he was lonely. He asked God to send him someone to talk to. Someone that he could have interesting conversations with about the virtues of Compact Gearing, Steep Seat tube angles, and the Perfect Saddle to go on his bike. Furthermore, Adam asked God to send him someone to cook for him, answer his every beckon call for physical satisfaction, and that was gorgeous. God nodded affirmatively, and said, “I can do all that, but it will cost you an arm, a leg, and all your cycling gear.” Adam, the dimwit, said, “What can I get for a rib”. The rest, as they say, is history. (It was actually the Devil that tricked Adam out of the Cycling gear, later. But, that’s another story.)
Don’t be ridiculous. Of course there’s a line between licit and illicit drugs. It’s called the law. You ( or I ) may disagree with where that line is currently drawn, but there is a definite, plainly visible line.
Please be aware that sheer addictiveness of a substance is not the factor that I think should determine whether a drug should be legal or not. It’s a red herring.
As for tobacco killing all those people. . .That may be. How many people does old age kill? So what? I feel pretty solid in saying that tobacco killed all those people via accidental overdose each year while they were in their prime, we’d ban cigarettes in a heartbeat.
Whatever. Like I said, it may be that cigarettes are a more pernicious drug than crystal meth, and they should be banned, and not legal like they are today. It’s debatable, just as it’s debatable whether or not pot should be legalized. It’s irrelevent to my point, which is that it isn’t hypocritical to ban certain substances while legalizing certain other drugs which society has deemed to be acceptable.
I think that you’re confusing “society” meaning all of us, with a few rich people who make the decisions in this, or any other country.
There has never been a time in our history where tens, hundreds, or thousands of Americans filled the commons of our cities demanding that marijuana be outlawed. Likewise for other drugs. We, as sheep, are expected to accept or reject the use of drugs based on their legality? I think we know how that’s working out.
Your point is misguided, in that you appear to correlate social acceptance with legality. The reality, for many people, is that the only social stigma associated with drugs such as marijuana is that it is illegal. It it weren’t, then there would be no social acceptance or rejection, because nobody would know or care whether you were doing it.
In any event, I think it is hypocritical to expect someone to break the home run record every year, but not expect baseball players to be using steriods. It is also hypocritical for the government to tell people not to smoke, meanwhile they are skimming billions of dollars from the tobacco companies on the front end, and taxing cigarettes on the back end. So they don’t want us to smoke, but they still want to make money from it?
But if that line (the law) is drawn COMPLETELY ARBITRARILY, what authority does it hold? I say zero. Drugs have many characteristics, addictiveness is one of many. What SHOULD be the factor that you think should determine whether a drug should be legal or not? It is its ‘destructiveness’ or it something else? If yes, Alcohol and tobacco win hands down.
“…to ban certain substances while legalizing certain other drugs which society has deemed to be acceptable” --So who in society gets the privilege of deciding which drugs are acceptable? Do we take a popular vote of all of the people living in society? I think we should take a vote among those folks in the illegal drug business (here and in South America) because they are all LOVING our insane drug laws. They would vote to make all drugs illegal (and throw in alcohol and tobacco as well) because these laws are making these ruthless psychopaths richer beyond our wildest dreams.
Make all drugs legal (and prostitution legal while you are at it) and all these organized criminals would actually have to go out and WORK for a living. ‘Tony Soprano’ would have to pick your garbage or something!
That’s pretty cool. I’m still kind of a poser when it comes to skating. I never was any good – just good enough (or bad enough) to get hurt. But every once in a while, I get on ebay and look at the skate stuff. I’ve come close to buying a few things, but I haven’t pulled the trigger. Skating was a big part of my life – did it every day for about three years (kind of like triathlon!). Then I turned 16 and started driving. I also discovered beer and got my first girlfriend. So much for skating after that!
But I still watch competitions when they come on TV, and I’m still amazed by what those guys can do. My favorite trick was always just a uber-tweaked, sick invert, and unfortunately, you don’t see many of those anymore. I also used to really dig those monster backside airs. Hosoi was the best at nailing those. I remember going to a demo in Jacksonville, FL, at the Kona skatepark and watching Monty Nolder and Mike McGill skate. That was when a McTwist was really something, and McGill put on a huge show. Nolder was tough, too.
All this brings back memories. I’m going to have to get that mini-half pipe built in the back yard, get a new board (I want a retro skate, one like we used to ride; these little ones kind of confuse me), some pads and go for it. I’ve got pretty good insurance . . .
It’s interesting how the sport evolved. When I left the sport it was largely because younger, better skaters with an entire new repertoire of moves were coming in. The ollie had just been invented and was changing the way people got air. Up until then, and in our day, it was frontside air, backside air- invert, tail tap, rock n’ roll, rock n’roll slide, cess slide, acid drop, roll-out- pretty simple stuff.
Then these kids come along and start hitting backside airs 5 feet high with a 360 in them. I was like, “Shit, I can’t do that!” So boom, we did the next best thing- we started a band.
I don’t even want to get into debating the nature of society. Really.
Suffice it to say that I am not confused between the concepts of “social acceptance” and “legality.” I think perhaps you haven’t fully grasped that there is, and should be, a strong correlation between the two, in all areas, not just drugs.
Besides, I really don’t think there’s as much support for legalizing marijuana as some people think. No, people aren’t holding million man marches to keep it illegal. But they aren’t rioting in the streets to legalize it either. I don’t think legalizing pot would survive a referendum in America. (Today. That may change at some point. Or not.)
I will agree that the government skimming billions of dollars from tobacco companies, while taking cigarettes, while keeping them legal, is hypocritical. It was sheer extortion.
“I think perhaps you haven’t fully grasped that there is, and should be, a strong correlation between the two, in all areas, not just drugs.”
Quite the contrary. I think that part of being an intelligent human being means that you have the ability to critically analyze aspects of the word you live in, including laws, and judge for yourself whether or not they are just laws. Throughout history, people have lived under unjust regimes and unjust laws. If I as a citizen believe that a law is unjust, then I may choose to break that law and deal with the risk of being caught, as well as the consequences, until such time as I can act to get the law repealed. I’m not talking murder, but rather the “victimless” crimes which do not directly affect another person, but rather appeal to some people’s sense of morality.
For example, why do we all speed? It is illegal, yet many of us do it because collectively we feel that most speed limit laws are ridiculous. So we drive fast and we risk getting a ticket. Is there a social stigma attached to speeding? Should there be one? We aren’t picketing to repeal the speed limit laws, even though we all go a good 20mph over the limit on most highways.
I consider myself to have a pretty strong sense of ethics, and a strict moral code. However the idea that all laws are just by definition is frightening. If a person breaks a law, and their breaking of that law does not have a direct negative impact on another person, then I don’t see how the law is just, or why people should be ostracized for breaking it.
By the way, numerous localities have tried to decriminalize pot, only to have the feds threaten to withhold federal funds. And three states(Maine, Vermont, Alaska) have all but legalized it. Even in MA, possession is now a civil offense in which they can ticket you rather than arrest you and put you in jail.