| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| How many of you smoke? |
| yes |
|
11% |
[ 12 ] |
| no |
|
68% |
[ 71 ] |
| i used to but i quit |
|
12% |
[ 13 ] |
| i am mainly a social smoker |
|
7% |
[ 8 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 104 |
|
| Author |
Message |
trumpetgirl612
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 3865
Location: practice room 114
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
good points phil
_________________
HI I'm a trumpet player, and I'm better than you.....
~*~
Olds Ambassador Bb
Bach 43 LR Bb
Schilke c from experimental period with CSO
Blessing Artist Series Flugel
I'll ognore you anyday baby  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Yoder
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 2238
Location: Colorado Springs
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Richiebee wrote: | | Yoder wrote: |
Maybe if we had more liberal laws regarding marijuana people would not have to sneak around and do it. |
Such a simplistic approach. You really haven't thought about the possible consequences have you? |
 That is right, I never think of consequences!
What are the consequences? Heroin addicts?
The drug war is a FAILURE--it cannot be won--just like Vietnam. So, what do we do? Continue locking people up for blowin some herbs in the confines of their own homes? Fill our prisons with non-violent offenders so the pedophiles can lurk in our streets preying on our children? Waste law enforcement on drug interdiction and thus allow millions of illegals into our country every year, who then bleed our health care system and other social services? Yea, the drug war is going along just fine--LIE.
Someone said:
"I guess what I am saying is that if you choose to break the law, stop whining and knocking those who obey it and pay the consequences when you get caught."
Whinning? Who is whinning? Why is it that everytime someone questions the status quo they are accused of "whinning." The mind of the mass conformist always tries to denigrate the opposition via the trivialization of their words--this is the very mentality that lays the foundation of Fascism. Blindly obeying unjust laws also is part of the fascist psyche. Such a psyche is based "a rigid culture that prescribes behavior and in many cases (IBM, Albania) dress and appearance; and an intolerance for any deviation from the chosen definition of the Perfect Man, the Ubermensch, the Good Soldier, the Team Player."
Oh yes, the Perfect Man! Been to church lately? Get home before curfew? Were you toilet trained before age three?
We have been warned by our leaders:
"Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you have lost the genius of your own independence, and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises." - Abraham Lincoln
A THer also said:
"In society it is not the right of the citizen to choose which laws to obey. It is the right to change the laws that don't make sense through the lawful mechanisms defined in any country's laws."
At least we have a history of documents, leaders, and philosophers, that render the above statement impotent/ridiculous!
Citizens have an obligation to revolt against and not obey any laws that are unjust thus deny individual rights, and/or property rights. It is called "civil disobedience" and is what drove the Civil Rights Movement.
Like they say: "That government that is best which governs least."
Also, the US Bill of Rights states that the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right. Who is to say how one may pursue happiness? As long as the pursuit of happiness does not infringe upon the individual rights of another and/or their rights to property, and thus interfere with their pursuit of happiness, then there is nothing wrong with the activity. To smoke pot in the privacy of ones' home does not impinge upon anyone elses pursuit of happiness or rights.
It is said:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." Thus, we are given permission to revolt--it is the American way.
Ya gotta love the principles on which this country was founded and the people who put them in place--Revolutionaries they were! And I am willing to bet that they did not follow every law they were told to follow!
Again, I do not think of consequences!
_________________
http://www.co-bw.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yoder
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 2238
Location: Colorado Springs
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Clarino wrote: |
If someone is sitting next to me in a park and starts to smoke, they are infringing on my right to breathe fresh air. Adrian was being ironic to make a point. |
\
Ironic or moronic? If you are in a park or any public building, then you have a right to breath fresh air. For someone to come along and fire up and saturate the air with secondary smoke violates your individual right to breath clean air. The point is, one is free to do what they want as long as they do not violate your individual rights or property rights.
_________________
http://www.co-bw.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ward42
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 1005
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| When I was a junior in highschool, the lead player in jazz band tried to tell me that smoking was "making his lungs tougher" and it would help his playing in the long run... needless to say, he has not gone far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trumpetgirl612
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 3865
Location: practice room 114
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
lol yeah but i know some screamers who are heavy pot smokers.......
_________________
HI I'm a trumpet player, and I'm better than you.....
~*~
Olds Ambassador Bb
Bach 43 LR Bb
Schilke c from experimental period with CSO
Blessing Artist Series Flugel
I'll ognore you anyday baby |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LittleRusty
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 12699
Location: Gardena, Ca
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are a very good debater Yoder.
While you are more than welcome to live your life as you please, and I really don't mean this as a personal attack, I sincerely hope that the majority of the citizens of any country don't believe as you do.
My purpose in my posts was not to attack you or your position, but to show there is another viewpoint.
My daughter recently took a stand on a rather trivial issue as Lara did and was threatened with violence. I am very proud of her principles and morals.
Sorry if I offended you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trumpetgirl612
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 3865
Location: practice room 114
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
tell your daughter that i too commend her for standing tall!
Emily
_________________
HI I'm a trumpet player, and I'm better than you.....
~*~
Olds Ambassador Bb
Bach 43 LR Bb
Schilke c from experimental period with CSO
Blessing Artist Series Flugel
I'll ognore you anyday baby |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ustacouldplay
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 970
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yoder,
You're my kind of guy and not because I'm a pothead (although I did used to sell waterpipes in San Diego... until I got shut down for not having a tobacco license  ).
I just get a strong libertarian vibe from your posts which I agree with very much. I don't think you can turn people like these on this issue, though, so I won't get involved in this discussion. I think this is just something people have to noodle out for themselves when they're ready to accept the truth. But I did want you to know you've got some support out here.
Rock on.
_________________
John Ford's next stop:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clarino
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 3010
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LittleRusty wrote: | | You are a very good debater Yoder. |
I disagree.
| Yoder wrote: | | Clarino wrote: |
If someone is sitting next to me in a park and starts to smoke, they are infringing on my right to breathe fresh air. Adrian was being ironic to make a point. |
Ironic or moronic? If you are in a park or any public building, then you have a right to breath fresh air. For someone to come along and fire up and saturate the air with secondary smoke violates your individual right to breath clean air. The point is, one is free to do what they want as long as they do not violate your individual rights or property rights. |
Adrian took your own position and put it in a context that made it impossible for you to agree with. For you to call him moronic only goes to show that you have no ability to understand his (and my) arguement.
| Yoder wrote: |
If you are in a park or any public building, then you have a right to breath fresh air. For someone to come along and fire up and saturate the air with secondary smoke violates your individual right to breath clean air. The point is, one is free to do what they want as long as they do not violate your individual rights or property rights |
So how are you argueing about this? Making other people breathe your smoke, be it from tobacco or weed, is violating their rights. Making it illegal to smoke (which is bad for you anyway) preserves those rights. You have, effectively defeted your own arguement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yoder
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 2238
Location: Colorado Springs
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LittleRusty wrote: | You are a very good debater Yoder.
While you are more than welcome to live your life as you please, and I really don't mean this as a personal attack, I sincerely hope that the majority of the citizens of any country don't believe as you do.
My purpose in my posts was not to attack you or your position, but to show there is another viewpoint.
My daughter recently took a stand on a rather trivial issue as Lara did and was threatened with violence. I am very proud of her principles and morals.
Sorry if I offended you. |
No offense take. Just debating.
The pigs that threatened your daughter are just that "pigs." We all have the right to say and believe what we want, but no one has the right to inflict bodily harm or threaten others because of their beliefs.
I do not know what your daughter was debating, but tell her to hang tough, be logical, back herself up with facts, and not to cave in to the ignorance of others--she may want to avoid them though if they want to beat her up.
_________________
http://www.co-bw.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yoder
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 2238
Location: Colorado Springs
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Clarino wrote: | If someone is sitting next to me in a park and starts to smoke, they are infringing on my right to breathe fresh air. Adrian was being ironic to make a point.
Adrian took your own position and put it in a context that made it impossible for you to agree with. For you to call him moronic only goes to show that you have no ability to understand his (and my) arguement.
|
Yes, it is impossible for me to agree with your "argument" for the simple reason that it violates individual rights, and really is not much of an argument. You miss the whole point of preservation of individual rights: simply, you are free to do what you want as an individual as long as you do not deprive another of his/her individual rights, or property rights. To say someone has the right to kill another is absurd--you not only deny them their right to live, but if you are religious then you have commited the gravest of sins (have you not also sinned by simply thinking of such a deplorable thought?) Thus, only a moron would suggest that he has the right to kill another for no other reaason than he "has a right to do so." (Initially, my remark was a play on words: ironic vs. moronic, and posed as a question. A question is not a statement. I just substantiated your statement.)
| Clarino wrote: | | So how are you argueing about this? Making other people breathe your smoke, be it from tobacco or weed, is violating their rights. Making it illegal to smoke (which is bad for you anyway) preserves those rights. You have, effectively defeted your own arguement. |
Your hair is in your eyes. Read it. I did not say anyone has the right to smoke in public, I argued the contrary.
If you are in a park or any public building, then you have a right to breath fresh air. For someone to come along and fire up and saturate the air with secondary smoke violates your individual right to clean air. The point is, one is free to do what they want as long as they do not violate another's individual rights or property rights. All of these people who suffer from asthma are perfect examples of personal rights being violated by the perceived "rights" of the smoker.
You are so bent on proving me wrong, that you blind yourself to the facts that are presented. Consequently, I have not defeated my argument but have only presented an argument that seems to confuse you. In your confusion you no longer see what is being presented. Instead, you let your ego fill in the blanks with what you think should be there in a impotent quest to bolster your beliefs. This is unfortuanate, because this is not staying true to the course and you bring into the debate many extraneous variables. But, there is a logical reason as to why people "debate" like this--it goes back to the concept of "divide and conquer." The problem for you is that I stay true to two basic principles: 1) Individual Rights, and 2) Property Rights. Everything else in our society, our laws, our attitudes, our norms--all of our pursuits in a democratic society are concerned with Individual Rights. Everything in a capitalist ideology revolve around Property Rights.
Where full individual/property rights are upheld/revered, then every individual must assume full responsibility for his or her actions and must also show tolerance for the actions of others (assuming the actions do not violate individual/property rights). This can be intimidating for some, and philosophically impossible for others--thus we get discord, incoherency, incongruities, and an inability to accept new ideas in a desperate attempt to protect the status quo. But, all of life/society is a system and like all dynamic systems it must change; so to must some of our laws change.
_________________
http://www.co-bw.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The King of Swing
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 598
Location: College Station, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So who are the five people who voted yes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yoder
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 2238
Location: Colorado Springs
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richiebee wrote: | Death... injury... illness. No, not an exhaustive list, but enough to keep it illegal.
Do you take the typical pot smokers attitude that no one has been harmed by marijuana? If so, do you truly believe it to be true?
R. |
First you need to define what you mean by the term "harmed."
I do know that there has not been one recorded overdose death due to marijuana use. So no death from its direct use. Illness? It is used to help those with cancer, glaucoma, etc. Injury, yea there may be some pipe burns--but, I am sure there have been instances of heavy equipment wrecks while under the influence. That is irresponsible use. To use this argument as a call for illegalization is irrational and would suggest that all drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, guns, motorcycles, or anything that has caused any form of injury due to irresponsible use be banned.
The whole point is that the individual must accept full responsibility for his or her actions, and it is no business to you or the state how one wishes to live his/her life. There is not one legitimate reason to make marijuana illegal other than the government says so. This is a another perfect example of statism denying American's of their individual rights.
_________________
http://www.co-bw.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trptStudent
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 2572
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think, in essence, we all agree with you Yoder.
You state, almost axiomatically, that one is free to do what they want as long as they are not imposing on the rights of others. I'm with on this one absolutely; there is no debate over that definition. I think it is how each person is interpreting the violation or imposition of the rights of others that is up for debate.
If "harm" were defined in terms of both physical, mental and psychological then at least some people would have to be stopped. I've met more than one person who threw away their entire lives and did nothing but "smoke up and get high". Sure, these people may not be just choosing the life they want, but if they are smoking in a public place, then they're physically harming others. If they are in full view of young children, then they could be influencing them in a way that could be non-productive to their lives or society. If they are going against the wishes of guardians then they could be causing psychological distress to the said guardians. I think the last two would constitute as the violation of someone else's personal rights.
Of course, the case mentioned above is the abusive case and an obvious case of mis/over use. It's hard for me to distinguish what the facts are and what the propaganda is, but I think on the whole, low usages of marijuana is non-health threatening. I have noticed, from personal experience so this is just an observation and not part of the argument, that a lot of people I know who smoke marijuana are extremely laid back, to the point where it seems like they don't care about anything. I'm not sure why this is, but without evidence I'm not going to even think about attributing it to marijuana. Yoder, you have presented many points, and for the most part I agree with the large majority of them. The forcefulness of your arguments, however, seems to make people nervous and want to argue back. Oh well, c'est la vie.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LittleRusty
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 12699
Location: Gardena, Ca
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trptStudent wrote: | | I have noticed, from personal experience so this is just an observation and not part of the argument, that a lot of people I know who smoke marijuana are extremely laid back, to the point where it seems like they don't care about anything. |
If one were to assume that Yoder uses marijuana, based only on his passionate responses, he is obviously not one of those people who you have observed.
I am not trying to imply he does use marijuana in anyway. And he has expressed passionate opinions in other areas also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silverstar
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 3772
Location: Solon, IA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yoder,
Seeing that you have resorted to calling names (June Cleaver) and that no matter what I say you will say is wrong, I refuse to continue this argument.
Lara
_________________
I <3 my Bb Eclipse MR!!
I may falter, I may fall, but I will get back up and keep at it. Fall down 7 times, get up 8. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PRogers
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 26 Sep 2004
Posts: 953
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richiebee wrote: | | Yoder wrote: | | Richiebee wrote: | | Yoder wrote: |
Maybe if we had more liberal laws regarding marijuana people would not have to sneak around and do it. |
Such a simplistic approach. You really haven't thought about the possible consequences have you? |
That is right, I never think of consequences!
What are the consequences? Heroin addicts?
|
Death... injury... illness. No, not an exhaustive list, but enough to keep it illegal.
|
Might as well outlaw tobacco, alcohol, automobiles, prescription drugs, pajamas, fast food, hot dogs, swimming pools, or any number of things by that logic (especially the first two)
Edit: sorry, I just saw that Yoder already addressed that. 
BTW, the only rule I pay much credence is the golden rule. I just so happen to also obey most laws of society by proxy, but the I keep the golden rule as often as possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PRogers
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 26 Sep 2004
Posts: 953
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, if you're arguing against pot on that basis, I just don't understand how you can ignore something that is so much more destructive, such as alcohol and cigarettes. The negative consequences of pot are simply insignificant when compared with so many other legal substances that the only reason that it is outlawed, both now and in the first place, is straight politics.
I suppose that in your utopia, alcohol, cigarettes, AND pot would be banned (after all, we certainly can't ban alcohol and cigarettes, but one out of three is better than nothing), in which case I understand your arguement and dissent as a matter of base principle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yoder
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 2238
Location: Colorado Springs
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trptStudent wrote: | | The forcefulness of your arguments, however, seems to make people nervous and want to argue back. Oh well, c'est la vie. |
Yea, I guess I should just fire up a joint an mellow out a bit.
Gave it up many, many years ago.
_________________
http://www.co-bw.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yoder
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 2238
Location: Colorado Springs
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richiebee wrote: | | The legal state of one harmful thing is not good rationale for the legalization of another. |
Yes, let us protect the people from harmful things. It is not good when people inflict harm upon themselves. I say it all in jest--it really is not up to anyone to decide what is right/good for another based on whether or not it does harm. Isn't it ironic that we just pick and choose a few things. Hell, pot makes people lazy and may be seen as a threat to the capitalist wheels of commerce.
I will bet that sugar cause more health related harm than pot does. We should ban all sugar products in order to protect people from harm. Oh, the potential for a black market are endless. Yea, Sugar Cane Daddy!
In closing, statism is not a good thing and federal regulations seem to oppress more than liberate. We should be only concern ourselves with the opportunity to pursue life, liberty, justice, and happiness. Community, family, and friends together--enjoying all the wonders that life has so graciously bestowed upon us.
_________________
http://www.co-bw.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
