Mike,

>>Well, good question. I suppose the answer to this lies in what people think the role of government should be?
>
>I think you and I disagree on this because of other things you've been desensitized too. I think that I'm on this planet to live, I wasn't born so I could be told what to do and what not to do by anyone, including Government or some book.

Well, I suppose we could argue as to which one of us is, in fact, desensitized. I'll take this as a gratuitous assertion and therefore simply lwt it pass as such.

>
>>Why is it somehow 'right' for governmental bodies to force people to stop smoking in, say, private restaurants (or even their homes!) whereas it isn't ok for that same government to force folks to stop smoking pot?
>>IMO there is a huge double standard at work here..
>
>The double standard is our alcoholic representives stiffening pot laws. It has nothing to do with ciggerettes.

Not with respect to your point where you objected to the government telling citizens what they could or could not od I'd think. Additionally, we also have laws on the books in the several states with respect to the legal drinking age and so forth.

We also have them for speeding and stopping at stop signs. Do you stop at stop signs or do you just blow through, taking your chances? <g> There's a reason that law is ther and the same goes for some of these others I'd think.

>
>>Total Libertarianism is inother words anarchy and we are a nation of laws, whether or not you or I agree with them.
>
>You're playing the slippery slopes card by suggesting that giving us rights that should be ours leads the way to anarchy. The netherlands hasn't wiped itself off the map, and I doubt ENgland will either with its new rethinking.

Well, based upon my observations of history I'd think you're incorrect. Go back a little further, say, to the Roman Emopire or . The pattern is always the same.


>
>>Right now smoking pot is illegal and you and I should obey those laws.
>
>At one time, Women weren't allowed to vote, and there were laws requireing segregation. Just because its a law, doesn't mean its right.

Well, I agree in pronciple of course. I seem to recall that there was a Constitutional Ammendment enacted to fix this? While I'm not sure an ammendment would be needed this is the approach I'm suggesting - that is, if you disagree with any given law, work through the system to change it to what you'd like. I'll do likewise.

>
>>As far why the government 'waged war' regarding the alcohol issue I would remind you that this was a Constitutional Ammendment (later recinded as we all know).
>
>Waging war was an illegal drugs issue, not alcohol. By declaring a war on drugs and drug users, the Government targetted our friends and families.

No.. During Prohibition using and selling alcohol was illegal. As far as targeting "our freiends and familes", what does that have to do with anything? If I have an Aunt who kills her kids I want her locked up - regardless of any biological relationship. Are you suggesting that simply because these folks are genetically related to you that this is cause for dropping any investigation or charges? ?? Now you have me questioning your thinking process Mike..



>>This isn't about legal rights IMO but common sense. If you want to be stupid and blow out brain cells go ahead.
>
>http://www.scientificamerican.com/1998/0998issue/0998scicit1.html
>
>"NIH investigators reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
>Sciences in early July that THC and cannabidiol serve as powerful
>antioxidants. In laboratory rat nerve cells, the compounds can prevent the
>toxic effects of excess glutamate, which can kill brain cells after stroke.
>(After reading this report, legalization advocates reveled at the notion
>that marijuana may actually protect brain cells.)"

And I suppose I can cite other studies that show the opposite. *shrug*

>
>>I would still think they your pretty stupid to do it.
>
>ANd I happen to think alot of the things you do are stupid. I'm not supporting laws to throw you in jail though.

I'm perfectly comfortable that you might think those thoughts. I recognize your right to be wrong. <g> Seriously though, would you want everyone to agree with you on everything?? I sure wouldn't. Of course, this has nothing to do with the current state of the law.... And, no offense meant, it also has nothing to do with what you or I think things ought to be. It has to do with what is; that is, what are the laws on the books currently?

>
>>Well, what's the purpose of drinking or smoking pot then Mike? Using a joint "to put your mind at reat" is IMO nothing more than taking a drug to alter your mental state.
>
>I didn't disagree that they are the same thing. You asked why you would want to, and I told you why.

>
>>How is this not altering your mental state as you assert "Not always."??
>
>Like I said, it depends on what you take. Some drugs effect mental processes, others effect physical ones.

Uh huh.. So then you are asserting that the human mind is more than just a physical entity? I'm glad to see you make this observation. It goes a long way towards the next stages.. That's the whole point here IMO.. Man is more than physical and when you degrade your physical 'side' you degrade the other parts as well. They are not disconnected...



>
>>Why not just relax without the drugs?? Or are you dependent upon them. Sounds like you are. Dependency is the first step towards addiction just in case you don't know...
>
>I'm not dependent, but I happen to know people that are "evened" out by pot. If thats what they need, cool, and they have fun doing it too.

Well, one of the signs that dependency has moved to the threshold of addicition is denial. If you're not dependent - stop. If you say that you like the 'buzz' more than reality, then I think it's fair to say that you are dependent upon the results of smoking pot to reach a point of relaxation denials notwithstanding, inner calm or whatever you might call this state. The facts are still the same in that you (in this hypothetical I presume) need the ingestion of a foreign substance to get where you want to go. I am asserting that this is totally unnecessary.


>
>Slighlty off topic, but woudl you be able to relax if you didn't know why you were on earth, or if there was a god? I could theorize that you are as dependent on religion as some people are on pot. Whats the difference?

Everyone intrinsically 'knows' that there is a God and that He exists. Look at all of the anthropological evidences, particularly of those peoples who have never encountered civilization. Guess what, they have some form of worship. The problem is is that people do not want to acknowledge these two facts and actively reject these two ideas that causes trouble. This last sentence will most likely elicit outrage from those who have chosen to reject the notions. But, don't blame someone else for doing this should this be tour reaction. It is, afterall, your choice, for which you are responsible for making, not me. I'm just pointing out that you are making it and not at all attempting to force you to make another, though I'd certainly like to influence yo to so do.

>
>>Why? (and this goes to the heart of the 'it doesn't hurt anyone' argument) If you're breaking the law your behavior is causing some person to need to spend time and money that could go towards some other venture to be spent tracking you down and prosecuting you. They do that because they are legally required to do this. Again, if you don't like this then work within the law to have it changed. Until then, when you break the law, you are a part of the problem, not the answer.
>
>So basically, the baggage that comes from pot mostly stems from the fact that it is technically illegal? Why start a war on drugs when you can just legalize? From what you just said, that sounds like a perfect solution.

No, not at all. I also think that smokong pot degrades your physical and mental acuities. It just also happens to be illegal. Alcohol is not and I dare say that far more people are damaged by alcohol than pot. That is no argument for legalizing yet another substance that will harm people.

>
>>Yup.. You analogy breaks down though as playing an xBox hasn't been deemed illegal. I suppose Sony would like that. <g>
>
>No, it doesn't break down, because I've deemed cannibis to be as safe as playing video games.

*chuckle*

You may have a point.. <g> Not that it the same as being 'good' or 'desireable'.

Best,


DD

A man is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep for that which he cannot lose.
Everything I don't understand must be easy!
The difficulty of any task is measured by the capacity of the agent performing the work.