Without reason, there is only Eluusive. That is an entirely asinine statement. The only way I can see anyone stating that seriously (apart from mental disorders) is if they don't know what nihilism means.
Buddhists don't necessarily believe in God, but they are not nihilistic.
> I find your determination to accept no other interpretation but your own, very very reminiscent of the same authoritarians you despise so much.
You seem determined to accept no other interpretation either. There certainly is a difference, however: my interpretation is in accordance with freedom, which is what most Americans claim is the basis of our political system. The authoritarians that I despise try to take away freedoms, keep you from doing things that directly affect no one.
> You're entitled to your opinion however naive and simplistic it may be
Is it naive to hope for world peace? Chances of it EVER happening are nil, but it doesn't mean we should not try.
Ever heard the saying that sometimes the simplest solution is best? And it's not naivete, it's wishful thinking (true, there's only a slight difference at times). I don't belive that pot will be legalized during my lifetime, regardless of valid research that may occur (which is currently impossible to do in the US because of unfair and overly-restrictive government legislation -- they are afraid to be proven wrong). That is not because of public opinion, but because the government (barring major change) will refuse to allow decriminalization.
The only rebuttal you have made to any of my points is that it should be illegal because some people react badly to it. That will happen when Some people react badly to roses, nuts, etc. Does that mean they should be torn out of the ground and the owners thrown in jail? People react much worse to alcohol. Prohibition didn't work for that, and marijuana is just modern prohibition.
Just under half of all Americans have tried pot, and about 40% of the population currently supports decriminalization of small quantities. If you believe in the fundamentals of democracy, you have to admit that the population at large does not see it as much of a health risk. Of course, I never underestimate the collective stupidity of large groups of people, so this is just for information, not judgement.
I guess we are equally stubborn in our views and cannot see why the other is so blind.
> it's better to restrict supply for the benefit of those who are likely to suffer severe damaged from exposure to it.
And those who would normally benefit from it just have to go wanting because a few have addictive personalities? That's the whole argument of "medical marijuana." Of course, I won't falsely claim that's why I want it, but it does have its very positive uses. I want to get high. Legally. I want to get drunk. Legally. The only difference between them, other that pot being safer, is summed up pretty well in a stupid stoner quote: "God made grass, man made booze. Who do you trust?" Marijuana is a naturally-growing product. That by itself should be a good enough reason for it to be legal to grow at the very minimum.
Marijuana is not generally addictive.
A PERSON may become addicted to it, but that is unrelated to the drug itself. A person can become addicted to any behavior if they are given the right stimulus. Some are addicted to gambling, alcohol, makeup, puzzles, washing their hands (or any other common OCD trait), shopping, eating... Therefore, taking away an expression of that problem doesn't take away the problem, it just moves it to another, perhaps less obvious, harder to treat, or more dangerous area.
> prepared to risk having people's lived destroyed by addiction
Pot does not make people destroy their lives. Pot not existing does not keep these people from destroying their lives. The government does not and should not exist to save these people from destroying their own selves, it exists to protect them from OTHERS, so that they may have the freedom to enjoy personal responsibility and the ability to do what pleases you, so long as it is not at the cost of another. And no, "society" is not a person, even if one COULD positively argue that pot, by itself, is detrimental to society at large.
> I think you need to grow a sense of perspective.
If perspective means me telling other people what is right and wrong and forcing those opinions on them, no thanks: I'll stay 27 forever.
> Its an empirical observation. As opposed to wishful thinking and selective blindness, which is what you are guilty of.
Empirical observation? What if you are observing the wrong thing? What if you are attributing to pot what should be attributed to the person's way of thinking? There is extremely strong evidence in favor of that position. If that is your argument, you must logically conclude that excess of anything should be illegal, since it is the same problem manifested in a slightly different way.
What am I blind to? The truth? No, I see the truth & am mad about it: that's why I want change, not because I think some magical utopia will spring up. Am I blind to the fact that people abuse MJ? No, I know plenty of pot smokers, many of whom I would say have a "problem." But smoking it is only a symptom. Their larger problem is being generally unhappy with the world. So they do something to take their mind off it. They are very unhappy with the worl, so they smoke what I would consider to be too much. IT'S THEIR CHOICE.
I use wishful thinking as a tool to guide me, not a fountain of knowledge. Even so, do yo think we should stop trying to create Utopia just because it is impossible? Utopia SHOULD be our goal, or at least to get as close as possible, even though we can't get to it.
To go back to the religion line of thinking, it's supposedly impossible to be sinless, yet that does not mean we say "screw it" & start randomly killing people. If that was all it took, I'd have started already: I don't believe in sin.
You can't connect two sentences yet say that I can't think straight? Do you always accuse people of flaming when they bring up a contrary position? And aren't you already "wasting time" by posting on slashdot? I know I am. Sure, I claim it's "research" when at work, but it's really just a way to pass time & gain a little entertainment & insight.
> What makes you think I give a damn about religion?
I'm using it as an example because most people, even atheists (if they are not atheists just to be different/rebel/whatever) see religion as a generally-accepted thing and even though there bad individuals who cause bad things to happen in the name of religion (Catholics), it does not make all religions bad. Just like the "fact" (it's HIGHLY debatable) that PCP makes people jump out of windows should not affect the decision to keep marijuana illegal.
There are bad people who take marijuana sale profits and do bad things with it. More often than not, though, it just increases money flowing through KY & WV (both of which need it badly). This does not make Marijuana good or bad. To say it is good or bad is putting the actions of people related to a plant onto the plant itself.
The bottom line: there is a plant that grows naturally, has since before humanity existed, probably, has been used in numerous ways (including smoking) since before recorded history, yet these arrogant bastards who are "in charge" now suddenly make up BS reasons why it should be illegal. Then all of those reasons were proven to be flat-out lies. So they make up more lies for the sole reason of keeping a safe plant illegal, so that the prison wardens can afford to continue giving "contributions" to their campaigns.
> I doubt very much that I am conformant to any of the stereotypical meme clusters you are familiar with.
I doubt anyone is totally conformant to stereotypes, unless they are trying.
> How much liberty can you enjoy when you are writhing in pain, comatose, or dead from total organ failure?
Well, since none of the drugs I enjoy have ever caused any of those things, I'd say it doesn't matter. How much liberty can you enjoy when the "system" is designed to keep you from gaining any power unless you know/are related to someone who already has it? How much liberty can you pretend to have when all your important choices are made for you? How can you claim ANY KIND OF FREEDOM AT ALL, when you advocate ANY choices being made for you? That is not freedom at all.
What happened to personal responsibility? What if I am just a fuckup and ruined my life by some other method. I gambled too much and got fired, so you made that illegal. I started playing darts, but that got in the way of the new job, so I had to quit. I decided that eating's now my bag, but I got so fat my wife left with the kids. THE DAMNED GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE MADE BEING FAT ILLEGAL. Maybe then I wouldn't have done it. Do you think legislation TRULY solves anything?
No, action is what solves problems. Making something illegal just makes criminals out of people who previously weren't. Of course, in some cases that might be a good thing -- when the actions of one adversely & permanently affect another. But the biggest criminals of all are the ones writing the laws, so they'll make sure they can stay where they are.
I'd prefer being high & dull the pain of life for an hour over being sober & still having to deal with it anyway -- just without the hour of respite. Life sucks, but you're trying to illegalize anything that can make us forget that! (j/k, sorta)
> If I can stop you doing that I will be glad to do so, no matter how much it may prick your sense of injustice.
IOW, "What I think is right, I will force on you, even if you don't think it's right."
I believe religion is holding us back and harming many people, so I will take it upon myself to remove all religious institutions, for your good, "no matter how much it may prick your sense of injustice."
See how bad it sounds when it's me forcing you instead of the other way 'round. Both scenarios are fascist, regardless whether or not you agree with the thing being wrongly banned.
> The masses which visit fast-food places are/were somewhat ignorant to the mass of cholestoral and fat they were consuming.
First, I seriously question that they didn't know. Who, since the mid eighties, seriously thinks fast food is good for you? All they have to do is ask for the information, Mcdonalds has info sheets on that stuff.
But even then, isn't it the buyer's responsibility to know what they are getting? Caveat Emptor? As long as the advertising isn't a lie -- I've never seen an advert claiming their burgers were good for you.
> You'd think that evolution would have given us the "pot" [...] gene
What, like Seratonin-creating cells?
Marijuana has been used a LOOOONG time. If there was something bad about it, you would think evolution would have given us an anti-pot gene to compensate. No? It's just as likely as a pro-pot gene.
> Except all drug use is us abusing receptors from their original intentions.
Like Aspirin? Most pharmaceutical chemicals (AKA Drugs) cause more "harm" than Marijuana.
Do you seriously claim to know exactly what all "receptors" in the body are "intended" for? That's assuming there is any intention involved to begin with. What if we have those receptors specifically FOR using psychoactive chemicals?
As soon as someone claims to have special knowledge of the body's "intention" in its complex design, they lose a whole lot of credibility. Sure, some things are obvious... The mouth is intended for eating & breathing, but we can also inflate balloons with it, cut small pieces of plastic, kiss another, kiss another's ass, y'know, whatever.
> but it might harm you less if you read said book *without* said joint.
The possible harm is so close to nil...
What if he came up with a brilliant new idea to save humanity because he was high while reading that particular book? It's not likely, but about as likely as that joint causing any real problem.
As long as your job isn't using a meat slicer. The only time in my life I was ever high at work. Didn't hurt myself, but I was scared as s#!t that I would. Even now, when I work with computers and not dangerous equipment, I would never do that again. Every night when I get home, however...
> I would say stop surfing the net from the server, O Master of Secure Computing.
Yes, funny, but a better moderation would be "I can't believe this isn't obvious to anyone with half a brain." Of course, you know there are a bunch of people out there whose workstation is also a main server. Sad.
> They're not hurt at all, they weren't home, and no physical damage was done. But it's still illegal and still dishonest.
How is sleeping in someone else's house dishonest? If you later said that you didn't, sure, but I have no idea what is dishonest about sleeping. Illegal, yes, but if someone has nowhere else to sleep, I wouldn't blame them (assuming they took/broke nothing).
> as long as Ford sells enough cars to "be successful", they shouldn't make attempts to keep cars from being stolen off their lots or from their factories?
Inaccurate analogy. Truer would be: "If Ford sells enough cars, they shouldn't make an attempt to stop people COPYING THEIR CAR?" If you said that, then you would be correct. I wouldn't expect Ford to sit around idly while people give away Mustang copies...?
Slashdot Mirror
> Without God, there is only Nihilism.
Without reason, there is only Eluusive. That is an entirely asinine statement. The only way I can see anyone stating that seriously (apart from mental disorders) is if they don't know what nihilism means.
Buddhists don't necessarily believe in God, but they are not nihilistic.
> to call the Jews only members of a religion shows that you know very little about Judaism.
If a Jew becomes an atheist, is he still considered Jewish? (Honestly, I don't know) If not, it is just a religion.
> I find your determination to accept no other interpretation but your own, very very reminiscent of the same authoritarians you despise so much.
You seem determined to accept no other interpretation either. There certainly is a difference, however: my interpretation is in accordance with freedom, which is what most Americans claim is the basis of our political system. The authoritarians that I despise try to take away freedoms, keep you from doing things that directly affect no one.
> You're entitled to your opinion however naive and simplistic it may be
Is it naive to hope for world peace? Chances of it EVER happening are nil, but it doesn't mean we should not try.
Ever heard the saying that sometimes the simplest solution is best? And it's not naivete, it's wishful thinking (true, there's only a slight difference at times). I don't belive that pot will be legalized during my lifetime, regardless of valid research that may occur (which is currently impossible to do in the US because of unfair and overly-restrictive government legislation -- they are afraid to be proven wrong). That is not because of public opinion, but because the government (barring major change) will refuse to allow decriminalization.
The only rebuttal you have made to any of my points is that it should be illegal because some people react badly to it. That will happen when Some people react badly to roses, nuts, etc. Does that mean they should be torn out of the ground and the owners thrown in jail? People react much worse to alcohol. Prohibition didn't work for that, and marijuana is just modern prohibition.
Just under half of all Americans have tried pot, and about 40% of the population currently supports decriminalization of small quantities. If you believe in the fundamentals of democracy, you have to admit that the population at large does not see it as much of a health risk. Of course, I never underestimate the collective stupidity of large groups of people, so this is just for information, not judgement.
I guess we are equally stubborn in our views and cannot see why the other is so blind.
Forcing people to your will is not wise, it's oppressive, regardless what BS one-liner you give to justify it.
> it's better to restrict supply for the benefit of those who are likely to suffer severe damaged from exposure to it.
And those who would normally benefit from it just have to go wanting because a few have addictive personalities? That's the whole argument of "medical marijuana." Of course, I won't falsely claim that's why I want it, but it does have its very positive uses. I want to get high. Legally. I want to get drunk. Legally. The only difference between them, other that pot being safer, is summed up pretty well in a stupid stoner quote: "God made grass, man made booze. Who do you trust?" Marijuana is a naturally-growing product. That by itself should be a good enough reason for it to be legal to grow at the very minimum.
Marijuana is not generally addictive.
A PERSON may become addicted to it, but that is unrelated to the drug itself. A person can become addicted to any behavior if they are given the right stimulus. Some are addicted to gambling, alcohol, makeup, puzzles, washing their hands (or any other common OCD trait), shopping, eating... Therefore, taking away an expression of that problem doesn't take away the problem, it just moves it to another, perhaps less obvious, harder to treat, or more dangerous area.
> prepared to risk having people's lived destroyed by addiction
Pot does not make people destroy their lives. Pot not existing does not keep these people from destroying their lives. The government does not and should not exist to save these people from destroying their own selves, it exists to protect them from OTHERS, so that they may have the freedom to enjoy personal responsibility and the ability to do what pleases you, so long as it is not at the cost of another. And no, "society" is not a person, even if one COULD positively argue that pot, by itself, is detrimental to society at large.
> I think you need to grow a sense of perspective.
If perspective means me telling other people what is right and wrong and forcing those opinions on them, no thanks: I'll stay 27 forever.
> Its an empirical observation. As opposed to wishful thinking and selective blindness, which is what you are guilty of.
Empirical observation? What if you are observing the wrong thing? What if you are attributing to pot what should be attributed to the person's way of thinking? There is extremely strong evidence in favor of that position. If that is your argument, you must logically conclude that excess of anything should be illegal, since it is the same problem manifested in a slightly different way.
What am I blind to? The truth? No, I see the truth & am mad about it: that's why I want change, not because I think some magical utopia will spring up. Am I blind to the fact that people abuse MJ? No, I know plenty of pot smokers, many of whom I would say have a "problem." But smoking it is only a symptom. Their larger problem is being generally unhappy with the world. So they do something to take their mind off it. They are very unhappy with the worl, so they smoke what I would consider to be too much. IT'S THEIR CHOICE.
I use wishful thinking as a tool to guide me, not a fountain of knowledge. Even so, do yo think we should stop trying to create Utopia just because it is impossible? Utopia SHOULD be our goal, or at least to get as close as possible, even though we can't get to it.
To go back to the religion line of thinking, it's supposedly impossible to be sinless, yet that does not mean we say "screw it" & start randomly killing people. If that was all it took, I'd have started already: I don't believe in sin.
You can't connect two sentences yet say that I can't think straight? Do you always accuse people of flaming when they bring up a contrary position? And aren't you already "wasting time" by posting on slashdot? I know I am. Sure, I claim it's "research" when at work, but it's really just a way to pass time & gain a little entertainment & insight.
> What makes you think I give a damn about religion?
I'm using it as an example because most people, even atheists (if they are not atheists just to be different/rebel/whatever) see religion as a generally-accepted thing and even though there bad individuals who cause bad things to happen in the name of religion (Catholics), it does not make all religions bad. Just like the "fact" (it's HIGHLY debatable) that PCP makes people jump out of windows should not affect the decision to keep marijuana illegal.
There are bad people who take marijuana sale profits and do bad things with it. More often than not, though, it just increases money flowing through KY & WV (both of which need it badly). This does not make Marijuana good or bad. To say it is good or bad is putting the actions of people related to a plant onto the plant itself.
The bottom line: there is a plant that grows naturally, has since before humanity existed, probably, has been used in numerous ways (including smoking) since before recorded history, yet these arrogant bastards who are "in charge" now suddenly make up BS reasons why it should be illegal. Then all of those reasons were proven to be flat-out lies. So they make up more lies for the sole reason of keeping a safe plant illegal, so that the prison wardens can afford to continue giving "contributions" to their campaigns.
> I doubt very much that I am conformant to any of the stereotypical meme clusters you are familiar with.
I doubt anyone is totally conformant to stereotypes, unless they are trying.
> How much liberty can you enjoy when you are writhing in pain, comatose, or dead from total organ failure?
Well, since none of the drugs I enjoy have ever caused any of those things, I'd say it doesn't matter. How much liberty can you enjoy when the "system" is designed to keep you from gaining any power unless you know/are related to someone who already has it? How much liberty can you pretend to have when all your important choices are made for you? How can you claim ANY KIND OF FREEDOM AT ALL, when you advocate ANY choices being made for you? That is not freedom at all.
What happened to personal responsibility? What if I am just a fuckup and ruined my life by some other method. I gambled too much and got fired, so you made that illegal. I started playing darts, but that got in the way of the new job, so I had to quit. I decided that eating's now my bag, but I got so fat my wife left with the kids. THE DAMNED GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE MADE BEING FAT ILLEGAL. Maybe then I wouldn't have done it. Do you think legislation TRULY solves anything?
No, action is what solves problems. Making something illegal just makes criminals out of people who previously weren't. Of course, in some cases that might be a good thing -- when the actions of one adversely & permanently affect another. But the biggest criminals of all are the ones writing the laws, so they'll make sure they can stay where they are.
I'd prefer being high & dull the pain of life for an hour over being sober & still having to deal with it anyway -- just without the hour of respite. Life sucks, but you're trying to illegalize anything that can make us forget that! (j/k, sorta)
> Looks like a non sequitur.
> > > addiction-vulnerable individuals themselves, who are otherwise destined to self destruct
Looks like you aren't good at reading comprehension. Let me rephrase that explicitly so you can understand:
Just saying that someone who becomes addicted would be "otherwise destined to self destruct" does not make it so.
> the good of addiction-vulnerable individuals themselves, who are otherwise destined to self destruct
the good of religion: vulnerable individuals themselves, who are otherwise going to lead happy, less guilt-driven lives.
Just saying something does not make it so.
> reductionism is a necessary evil. Only a complete fool would argue otherwise.
Obviously, you are not a Buddhist, nor have you met one...
> If I can stop you doing that I will be glad to do so, no matter how much it may prick your sense of injustice.
IOW, "What I think is right, I will force on you, even if you don't think it's right."
I believe religion is holding us back and harming many people, so I will take it upon myself to remove all religious institutions, for your good, "no matter how much it may prick your sense of injustice."
See how bad it sounds when it's me forcing you instead of the other way 'round. Both scenarios are fascist, regardless whether or not you agree with the thing being wrongly banned.
> The masses which visit fast-food places are/were somewhat ignorant to the mass of cholestoral and fat they were consuming.
First, I seriously question that they didn't know. Who, since the mid eighties, seriously thinks fast food is good for you? All they have to do is ask for the information, Mcdonalds has info sheets on that stuff.
But even then, isn't it the buyer's responsibility to know what they are getting? Caveat Emptor? As long as the advertising isn't a lie -- I've never seen an advert claiming their burgers were good for you.
> You'd think that evolution would have given us the "pot" [...] gene
What, like Seratonin-creating cells?
Marijuana has been used a LOOOONG time. If there was something bad about it, you would think evolution would have given us an anti-pot gene to compensate. No? It's just as likely as a pro-pot gene.
> Except all drug use is us abusing receptors from their original intentions.
Like Aspirin? Most pharmaceutical chemicals (AKA Drugs) cause more "harm" than Marijuana.
Do you seriously claim to know exactly what all "receptors" in the body are "intended" for? That's assuming there is any intention involved to begin with. What if we have those receptors specifically FOR using psychoactive chemicals?
As soon as someone claims to have special knowledge of the body's "intention" in its complex design, they lose a whole lot of credibility. Sure, some things are obvious... The mouth is intended for eating & breathing, but we can also inflate balloons with it, cut small pieces of plastic, kiss another, kiss another's ass, y'know, whatever.
> but it might harm you less if you read said book *without* said joint.
The possible harm is so close to nil...
What if he came up with a brilliant new idea to save humanity because he was high while reading that particular book? It's not likely, but about as likely as that joint causing any real problem.
> I can do my job stoned, no problems
As long as your job isn't using a meat slicer. The only time in my life I was ever high at work. Didn't hurt myself, but I was scared as s#!t that I would. Even now, when I work with computers and not dangerous equipment, I would never do that again. Every night when I get home, however...
> just some people are more free than others :)
American Dictionary:
Free (adj.): Rich
> a Linux user, since those are the only people that SCO would be pissing off to such a great extent.
I use Windows and still hate SCO...
Funny, I'm using it now. Guess I don't exist either.
> I would say stop surfing the net from the server, O Master of Secure Computing.
Yes, funny, but a better moderation would be "I can't believe this isn't obvious to anyone with half a brain." Of course, you know there are a bunch of people out there whose workstation is also a main server. Sad.
> i can usually get a new release of BT in about an hour and a half,
Holy crap, what are you using? Most movies take me about a day or two to get. I have a cable modem; are you on a campus/work T1 or something?
> Some other drivers fault.
That person is where the fault lies then.
> Tyre blow out.
Guess you should have taken the responsibility to change your tires if they were that worn-out.
> Debris in the highway.
If you can't avoid debris without crashing, you were going too fast or following too closely to see it & react.
There is still a person at fault in those situations.
> They're not hurt at all, they weren't home, and no physical damage was done. But it's still illegal and still dishonest.
How is sleeping in someone else's house dishonest? If you later said that you didn't, sure, but I have no idea what is dishonest about sleeping. Illegal, yes, but if someone has nowhere else to sleep, I wouldn't blame them (assuming they took/broke nothing).
> as long as Ford sells enough cars to "be successful", they shouldn't make attempts to keep cars from being stolen off their lots or from their factories?
Inaccurate analogy. Truer would be: "If Ford sells enough cars, they shouldn't make an attempt to stop people COPYING THEIR CAR?" If you said that, then you would be correct. I wouldn't expect Ford to sit around idly while people give away Mustang copies...?
> However, once you did get it validated you were able to play without any sort of online interaction
What if you don't have a 'net connection? Then you can't legally play the game you purchased?
> that programming is written by... humans!
... A small subset of very intelligent, highly trained humans. Not exactly your average grocery-getting driver.