It's just a plant...

[Rule]

You're being far too black and white on this issue. 

You cannot reasonably argue that personal freedoms should always trump all other considerations.  You have to consider different circumstances in context. It is often decided whether it would be more responsible to allow someone to exercise a so-called "right" in a society with laws and regulations, or to restrict that freedom for the safety of others. 

If Billy-Bob shoots an innocent kid with his gun, yes it becomes a problem.  If thousands of innocent lives are lost all the time because of a right to firearms, then yes, that is a problem.  If it reasonably obvious that through tightening gun-control laws, or even completely barring the civilian use of firearms, that these lives will no longer be lost, then something should be done.
Since the audience here will have mixed opinions on gun-control, I will use some more extreme examples to drive my point home. 

Should we all be allowed the right to have rocket launchers?  Should we all have the right to own nuclear weapons?  Should we all have the right to drive as fast as we want?  After all, driving as fast as I want and getting in a car accident are different situations.  To reflect that, there are different legal punishments for each action.  However we should not completely separate effects from their most common causes.

I identified happiness and safety as two important considerations in a society.  I believe that certain rights are important enough that they should be preserved in spite of safety considerations.  In other circumstances safety is more important than personal freedom.  I am not asking you to live in a dictatorship, but do you want to live in an anarchy? 

Legalizing marijuana may not crumble society, but by enforcing its prohibition I think the general population would be more motivated, productive, intelligent, safe, and that other criminal activities would decrease.  In my opinion, this is more important than someone's right to smoke, which to most people is trivial anyways.

Hey, as long as I'm not a criminal, everything's good, right?  (Notice the parallel to the NSA spying logic.)

I don't see the parallel in this case.  I'm not saying marijuana is ok as long as it isn't abused.

[TehUser]

You're being far too black and white on this issue. 

You cannot reasonably argue that personal freedoms should always trump all other considerations.  You have to consider different circumstances in context. It is often decided whether it would be more responsible to allow someone to exercise a so-called "right" in a society with laws and regulations, or to restrict that freedom for the safety of others. 

And why can't I?  Because you say so?  What could possibly be more important than freedom?

If Billy-Bob shoots an innocent kid with his gun, yes it becomes a problem.  If thousands of innocent lives are lost all the time because of a right to firearms, then yes, that is a problem.  If it reasonably obvious that through tightening gun-control laws, or even completely barring the civilian use of firearms, that these lives will no longer be lost, then something should be done.
Since the audience here will have mixed opinions on gun-control, I will use some more extreme examples to drive my point home. 

Yet, even though it's completely obvious that in the interests of society, guns should be banned, the government (in the U.S.) sees fit to let people kill one another with them anyway.

Should we all be allowed the right to have rocket launchers?  Should we all have the right to own nuclear weapons?  Should we all have the right to drive as fast as we want?  After all, driving as fast as I want and getting in a car accident are different situations.  To reflect that, there are different legal punishments for each action.  However we should not completely separate effects from their most common causes.

Damn right we should.  If I want a rocket launcher for hunting rabbits or a nuke for...  Whatever the societally accepted use of nukes is, then yeah, I should be able to have it.  Until I demonstrate that my usage of said items is infringing upon the rights of other people, the government shouldn't have a say in the matter.

I identified happiness and safety as two important considerations in a society.  I believe that certain rights are important enough that they should be preserved in spite of safety considerations.  In other circumstances safety is more important than personal freedom.  I am not asking you to live in a dictatorship, but do you want to live in an anarchy?

Now who's getting black and white?  I'm not for any form of extreme government, what I'm advocating is a system in which I am afforded freedom until I prove myself incapable of conducting myself appropriately (meaning when I use my freedoms to curtail someone else's).

Legalizing marijuana may not crumble society, but by enforcing its prohibition I think the general population would be more motivated, productive, intelligent, safe, and that other criminal activities would decrease.  In my opinion, this is more important than someone's right to smoke, which to most people is trivial anyways.

It's not for you to decide that society should be motivated, productive, intelligent, or safe.  That should be the choice of the individual.  If I want to lay on my couch all day smoking weed, then I'll have to deal with the consequences of that lifestyle.  But I chose that lifestyle with my right to choose what I do with my life and my body, and that's what's important.

I don't see the parallel in this case.  I'm not saying marijuana is ok as long as it isn't abused.

You said that it's the responsibility of the government to make people as safe as they can be.  The U.S. government believed they were doing that by violating the privacy of American citizens.  That's how it's analogous.

[Rule]

You're being far too black and white on this issue. 

You cannot reasonably argue that personal freedoms should always trump all other considerations.  You have to consider different circumstances in context. It is often decided whether it would be more responsible to allow someone to exercise a so-called "right" in a society with laws and regulations, or to restrict that freedom for the safety of others. 

And why can't I?  Because you say so?  What could possibly be more important than freedom?

I just don't think it's so black and white!  I think freedom can be very important, but also that certain freedoms can seriously endanger innocent people.  In some cases I'm convinced it's better to prevent a tragedy than to wait for it to happen, and then to react.   Sometimes this will be at the cost of a freedom.  If the freedom is trivial enough, and the tragedy is serious enough, then the tragedy must be avoided at the expense of the freedom.    Whether the punishment should be the same for breaking a law (in place to prevent harm) and for actually harming others is a different argument.

I think, for example, that the thousands of lives lost due to slack gun control are more important than the freedom to own a gun.

Damn right we should.  If I want a rocket launcher for hunting rabbits or a nuke for...  Whatever the societally accepted use of nukes is, then yeah, I should be able to have it.  Until I demonstrate that my usage of said items is infringing upon the rights of other people, the government shouldn't have a say in the matter.

I was surprised by this response! I am now curious how far you will go with these beliefs, so I am going to write up an hypothetical situation.

It has been proven that upon consumption of chemical Y, one is 90% likely to go on an homicidal rampage and kill at least three people.  Most people
live in fear of this chemical, and avoid it at all costs.  However, there are a group of sociopaths who legally distribute it, often selling it to children who are poorly
informed about its side effects.  The substance is very addictive and is responsible for a majority of the murders that take place in this imaginary community.  It is established that by outlawing chemical Y its use will discontinue, and the people of the community would thereafter be more at ease and content. 

Should the right to consume Y be taken away, or should the community continue to suffer in order to preserve this right?
   

You said that it's the responsibility of the government to make people as safe as they can be.  The U.S. government believed they were doing that by violating the privacy of American citizens.  That's how it's analogous.

I said as safe and content as they can be.  If taking away a right will result in discontent that is obviously more significant than whatever safety benefits would result, then the right should be preserved.  I think the right to privacy is incredibly important, and substantial justification would be needed for me to accept it being violated.  In the NSA situation, I think the fight is over whether it is unclear how much danger the citizens actually are in, and to what degree violating privacy rights has and will protect people.



I feel as though safety is a right.  Or is it only a lowly privilege?  It should be comparable to certain freedoms.  I think most people would rather feel safe than have certain rights.  Is it not their right to make this decision?      

I don't trust that all people are responsible and sensible.  If legally maintaining a personal freedom is very likely to facilitate harm, death, or unhappiness to many, then it is irresponsible not to limit this freedom by law.  For example, I don't think it would be just to allow someone who is certifiably insane to legally purchase a nuclear missile from the US government.  Endangering the world is
not worth such a trivial freedom to most.  (I am now purposely using extreme examples).

Yes, some things are just obviously more important than legally preserving some so-called "freedoms."  If you don't agree, then we must agree to disagree  on this point, which is really behind my whole "illegalize marijuana" argument.  In this regard, we must have very different priorities.

If Trudeau had not initiated the War Measures Act, temporarily suspending various freedoms, it is likely many lives would have been lost, Canada would probably be separated, and hence large groups of people would be trapped in a state of poverty and despair.  I don't think anyone missed the freedoms too much either.  The ends justified the means.

[TehUser]

I just don't think it's so black and white!  I think freedom can be very important, but also that certain freedoms can seriously endanger innocent people.  In some cases I'm convinced it's better to prevent a tragedy than to wait for it to happen, and then to react.   Sometimes this will be at the cost of a freedom.  If the freedom is trivial enough, and the tragedy is serious enough, then the tragedy must be avoided at the expense of the freedom.    Whether the punishment should be the same for breaking a law (in place to prevent harm) and for actually harming others is a different argument.

First of all, unless you're some amazing psychic, the best you can do is throw statistics at me until this "tragedy" that you're trying to prevent occurs.  I don't know if you've realized it, but people have free will--you know, the ability to choose to do what they like and to be responsible for those actions.  Second, what the hell kind of "tragedy" is going to result from legal marijuana usage?

"Quick, some kids are unmotivated, we have to do something!"
"Oh my God, what have we done?!"

I think, for example, that the thousands of lives lost due to slack gun control are more important than the freedom to own a gun.

I disagree.  Freedom affects everyone.  While I can sympathize with those who have lost family or friends to gun violence, taking away personal liberties by criminalizing certain actions is not a solution.

I was surprised by this response! I am now curious how far you will go with these beliefs, so I am going to write up an hypothetical situation.

It has been proven that upon consumption of chemical Y, one is 90% likely to go on an homicidal rampage and kill at least three people.  Most people
live in fear of this chemical, and avoid it at all costs.  However, there are a group of sociopaths who legally distribute it, often selling it to children who are poorly
informed about its side effects.  The substance is very addictive and is responsible for a majority of the murders that take place in this imaginary community.  It is established that by outlawing chemical Y its use will discontinue, and the people of the community would thereafter be more at ease and content. 

Should the right to consume Y be taken away, or should the community continue to suffer in order to preserve this right?

Hmm, sounds a lot like alcohol.

But seriously, that's an interesting question because even I'm tempted to say it should be illegal because 9 out of 10 people who take it are going to kill people.  But then the argument becomes, "What percentage is acceptable?"  Fortunately, this isn't a scenario I have to worry about though.  For instance, in the United States, we have laws that make a person guilty of murder if they disregard a substantial risk, even indirectly, that leads to a murder.  Thus, in this case, any person who creates, distributes, sells, or gives away this chemical is just as guilty for the murder and can be prosecuted for his role.  So disregarding the fact that a) such a chemical would never be legal, b) such a chemical would probably be impossible to create, there are still legal repercussions if the drug is taken irresponsibly and induces homicidal rampages.  Thus, I think that I can safely say that the freedom to take this chemical should be protected.  The mere probability that someone's going to commit a crime is not sufficient justification to find a way to charge them with a crime now.  I simply won't disregard free will and say that people should be punished for actions they might commit in the future.  That's not justice.  People should be punished for crimes they commit, not crimes it's possible (or even probable) they might commit.

But again, we're talking about marijuana.  It doesn't make people kill people.  Hell, it doesn't even have the same effect that drinking does on driving abilities.  I just can't see this "tragedy" that you're foretelling resulting from legalization of marijuana.

I feel as though safety is a right.  Or is it only a lowly privilege?  It should be comparable to certain freedoms.  I think most people would rather feel safe than have certain rights.  Is it not their right to make this decision?      

I don't trust that all people are responsible and sensible.  If legally maintaining a personal freedom is very likely to facilitate harm, death, or unhappiness to many, then it is irresponsible not to limit this freedom by law.  For example, I don't think it would be just to allow someone who is certifiably insane to legally purchase a nuclear missile from the US government.  Endangering the world is
not worth such a trivial freedom to most.  (I am now purposely using extreme examples).

Yes, some things are just obviously more important than legally preserving some so-called "freedoms."  If you don't agree, then we must agree to disagree  on this point, which is really behind my whole "illegalize marijuana" argument.  In this regard, we must have very different priorities.

If Trudeau had not initiated the War Measures Act, temporarily suspending various freedoms, it is likely many lives would have been lost, Canada would probably be separated, and hence large groups of people would be trapped in a state of poverty and despair.  I don't think anyone missed the freedoms too much either.  The ends justified the means.

I don't believe there there should be anything more important to government than preserving the freedoms of all citizens.  That said, when all citizens agree on a restriction of a certain right in the name of safety or public interest or whatever, that's fine.  For instance, an explicit "No killing other people." rule.  But marijuana?  Surely in the midst of all of your massively ridiculous examples, you've realized that people smoking a little dope is not a big deal.  But if not, how is marijuana "very likely to facilitate harm, death, or unhappiness to many"?

[MrRaza]

You guys need to stop typing so much, and smoke some weed.

[Rule]

First of all, unless you're some amazing psychic, the best you can do is throw statistics at me until this "tragedy" that you're trying to prevent occurs.  I don't know if you've realized it, but people have free will--you know, the ability to choose to do what they like and to be responsible for those actions.

We have free will? 

When someone makes the "decision" to take mind-altering substances, the decisions this person will make afterwards will be affected by the substance; his options, or "free will," becomes limited.  If someone is shown to likely be a sufficient danger to others after taking a substance or exercising a certain right, then it is only responsible to try to prevent the person from taking the substance or to remove the legal option to exercise that right.

Now, what should qualify as "sufficient danger"? 

"What percentage is acceptable?"  Fortunately, this isn't a scenario I have to worry about though.  For instance, in the United States, we have laws that make a person guilty (of murder) if they disregard a substantial risk, even indirectly

What is a substantial risk?  I could say by operating powerful radio equipment in a commercial airplane that I may not consciously be putting other passengers at risk.  However, there is a good chance (e.g. > 30%), that these activities will endanger the lives of the passengers.  I would not be allowed to
take such a risk.  In the same way, by driving too fast I may not consciously be putting others in danger, but there is a good chance (e.g. > some percentage)
that I will injure someone else by driving in this way.  Hypothetically, if there is a 50% chance someone will get in an accident and kill someone if they drive
> 190 mph for a day in the city, then if X represents the number of people who do this/day,   as   X --> infinity,  the number of people who die because of this action becomes precisely 0.5*X.  By having legal driving limits, we pre-emptively
save lives: something an overwhelming majority of people would agree is a good idea.

Every time we do something we are putting someone else at risk.  Even if it is
merely a walk in the park.  If the probability that a given action will cause harm
to someone is sufficiently high, we have an illusion that this action is a direct risk to that person and basically everyone agrees that this action should be punished by law.  For example, if I shoot an AK-47 at someone's stomach, it may not have been my intent to hurt anyone.  We can never be sure of someone's intent.  We are only somewhat sure of the risks associated with any action. If the risk is great enough, that person is punished for their "choice," and the choice is outlawed for the "greater good of society." 

Second, what the hell kind of "tragedy" is going to result from legal marijuana usage?

"Quick, some kids are unmotivated, we have to do something!"
"Oh my God, what have we done?!"

Off with their heads  .

For the most part, I have been trying to get you to admit it is sometimes a good idea to compromise freedoms in exchange for some other benefit (e.g. safety).  It is never guaranteed that the exchange will result in the said benefit -- like everything else, that is a matter of probability.

You will not argue that shooting someone is a freedom that should be preserved.  This is because it is so obviously putting someone else in danger.  By the same token,

You cannot reasonably argue that personal freedoms should trump all other considerations

What differentiates the act of shooting someone from the act of doing drugs is merely the difference in probability that each action will cause harm to someone else.  We cannot prove intent.

You argue that it is a choice to use drugs.  I respond that by using drugs your later choices become limited to ones that will most probably hurt other people, in the same way shooting someone will most probably hurt that person.  The initial choice is seen as innocuous to others (and being short sighted creatures this is really all we consider), but that initial choice leads to a probable sequence of events that does harm others.  Although taking a drug initially only involves one person, it is unusual for this choice not to later affect others.

What am I saying now?  That using marijuana is as bad as shooting people? Surely not.  As I said earlier, I think the freedom to use marijuana can be exchanged for a more productive, intelligent, safe, motivated and less criminal society.  Is it my place to insist that the exchange be made?  Maybe, maybe not.  I have my reasons for wanting marijuana to be illegal though.


Your response to the "Y" situation seems to amount to:  it would be illegal anyways, but in the unlikely event it weren't, I think the right to consume Y should be protected.  It would most probably be illegal for good reasons!  By saying you think the right should be protected, you are saying you think the decision to take Y should be legal, even though this helps facilitate an action that will most probably kill other people?  Should the law really differentiate between taking Y and shooting someone?  I don't think it should: the risks associated with each action are roughly equal.

People should be punished for crimes they commit, not crimes it's possible (or even probable) they might commit.

I've agreed with that point several times.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and illegalize actions that will probably lead to certain crimes, as a preventative measure.

[TehUser]

We have free will? 

When someone makes the "decision" to take mind-altering substances, the decisions this person will make afterwards will be affected by the substance; his options, or "free will," becomes limited.  If someone is shown to likely be a sufficient danger to others after taking a substance or exercising a certain right, then it is only responsible to try to prevent the person from taking the substance or to remove the legal option to exercise that right.

Now, what should qualify as "sufficient danger"? 

Oh, don't be ridiculous.  Everything that people do causes neurochemical changes, be it eating a piece of chocolate or smoking an enormous joint.  Furthermore, if you're going to claim that people who smoke marijuana are "likely to be a sufficient danger to others", then cite some evidence instead of continuing to rely on these asinine extreme examples.

Everything you says has to do with this risk that's posed to society.  What is this risk?  Where is your evidence?

Hell, while we're at it, let's make carrying mirrors illegal because they can reflect UV radiation and result in cancer.  Oh, and food, we have to ban that because its full of carcinogens and other natural poisons.  In fact, we might as well make life illegal since every being poses a risk to every other being.  In your "examples", if you can even call them that, you make up probabilities that you feel are appropriate.  That's ridiculous.

So keep the argument to marijuana and if you want to continue saying that the use of marijuana poses a significant risk to others, let's see some actual evidence supporting it instead of the deluded creations of your own mind.

[CrAz3D]

We have free will? 

When someone makes the "decision" to take mind-altering substances, the decisions this person will make afterwards will be affected by the substance; his options, or "free will," becomes limited.  If someone is shown to likely be a sufficient danger to others after taking a substance or exercising a certain right, then it is only responsible to try to prevent the person from taking the substance or to remove the legal option to exercise that right.

Now, what should qualify as "sufficient danger"? 

Oh, don't be ridiculous.  Everything that people do causes neurochemical changes, be it eating a piece of chocolate or smoking an enormous joint.  Furthermore, if you're going to claim that people who smoke marijuana are "likely to be a sufficient danger to others", then cite some evidence instead of continuing to rely on these asinine extreme examples.

Everything you says has to do with this risk that's posed to society.  What is this risk?  Where is your evidence?

Hell, while we're at it, let's make carrying mirrors illegal because they can reflect UV radiation and result in cancer.  Oh, and food, we have to ban that because its full of carcinogens and other natural poisons.  In fact, we might as well make life illegal since every being poses a risk to every other being.  In your "examples", if you can even call them that, you make up probabilities that you feel are appropriate.  That's ridiculous.

So keep the argument to marijuana and if you want to continue saying that the use of marijuana poses a significant risk to others, let's see some actual evidence supporting it instead of the deluded creations of your own mind.

driving impaired + whateverelse i said before

[Rule]

We have free will? 

When someone makes the "decision" to take mind-altering substances, the decisions this person will make afterwards will be affected by the substance; his options, or "free will," becomes limited.  If someone is shown to likely be a sufficient danger to others after taking a substance or exercising a certain right, then it is only responsible to try to prevent the person from taking the substance or to remove the legal option to exercise that right.

Now, what should qualify as "sufficient danger"? 

Oh, don't be ridiculous.  Everything that people do causes neurochemical changes, be it eating a piece of chocolate or smoking an enormous joint.  Furthermore, if you're going to claim that people who smoke marijuana are "likely to be a sufficient danger to others", then cite some evidence instead of continuing to rely on these asinine extreme examples.

Everything you says has to do with this risk that's posed to society.  What is this risk?  Where is your evidence?

Hell, while we're at it, let's make carrying mirrors illegal because they can reflect UV radiation and result in cancer.  Oh, and food, we have to ban that because its full of carcinogens and other natural poisons.  In fact, we might as well make life illegal since every being poses a risk to every other being.  In your "examples", if you can even call them that, you make up probabilities that you feel are appropriate.  That's ridiculous.

So keep the argument to marijuana and if you want to continue saying that the use of marijuana poses a significant risk to others, let's see some actual evidence supporting it instead of the deluded creations of your own mind.

Haven't I made it extremely clear that it isn't so black and white?  I am making up probabilities?  Tell me something that isn't obvious.  I am giving you concrete examples to illustrate how different actions pose different risks, and that at some point it is clearly necessary to draw the line.  I could have been more abstract and used variables instead of specific numbers, but I think that would have unnecessarily complicated the argument.

I have repeatedly emphasized that I do not wish to see people punished for crimes they have not committed, but that it would be irresponsible to not restrict certain freedoms that are probably going to cause a lot more trouble than they're worth.  I have to establish this point before we can talk too much about marijuana.  If you disagree, then I cannot help but think it is you who is being delusional.

Since you are now asking me to argue more specifically why it is in society's best interests to illegalize marijuana, then you must first concede that it is sometimes in society's best interests to give up certain freedoms in exchange for some other benefit.  Everything has a price.

[TehUser]

Haven't I made it extremely clear that it isn't so black and white?  I am making up probabilities?  Tell me something that isn't obvious.  I am giving you concrete examples to illustrate how different actions pose different risks, and that at some point it is clearly necessary to draw the line.  I could have been more abstract and used variables instead of specific numbers, but I think that would have unnecessarily complicated the argument.

If it's so obvious, why do you persist in making an argument on an imaginary premise?

I have repeatedly emphasized that I do not wish to see people punished for crimes they have not committed, but that it would be irresponsible to not restrict certain freedoms that are probably going to cause a lot more trouble than they're worth.  I have to establish this point before we can talk too much about marijuana.  If you disagree, then I cannot help but think it is you who is being delusional.

You can't "not wish to see people punished for crimes they have not committed" and then turn around and say that laws based on preventing crimes are warranted.  That's a direct contradiction unless you can establish a some sort of direct harm that results from the original crime.

Since you are now asking me to argue more specifically why it is in society's best interests to illegalize marijuana, then you must first concede that it is sometimes in society's best interests to give up certain freedoms in exchange for some other benefit.  Everything has a price.

What the hell?  Do you have any idea how stupid what you just said was?  "I won't give you a reason unless you accept the fallacious premise of my reasons."  That's called circular reasoning and it doesn't fly with me.

[Rule]

You simply aren't making sense.  I make it painfully obvious why every single freedom shouldn't be preserved at all costs, and you ask me to talk about marijuana, not other examples that drive my point home beyond doubt.  Then when I ask you to concede a point, you say that by doing that you are accepting a premise to my "illegalize marijuana argument." 

Good job, you're right.  If you are not mature enough to accept the reality that
not all freedoms should be preserved at absolutely all costs, then we cannot talk about whether marijuana should be legal or not. 

I am not practicing circular logic; I am not saying "accept that marijuana should be illegal then we will talk about why marijuana should be illegal."  I have asked you to acknowledge a premise pretty much any reasonable person would agree with.  I have used the so-called "asinine" examples to see how far you are willing to go to protect the idea that any freedom is more important than anything else. 

Laws based on preventing crimes are to punish those who have wrecklessly decided to exercise a so-called "freedom" even though it may pose a significant danger to others.  That is worthy of punishment in my opinion.  Sometimes artifical deterrents are needed to maintain a society a majority of people are comfortable being part of.  I couldn't have made this more obvious.  Besides, it's not really a big step to understand that point: it is something that pretty much every desirable first world society acknowledges.

Would you prefer that we didn't have speeding limits?  That we didn't have luggage checks at airports?  That we didn't have laws making it more difficult for anyone, even those who are certifiably insane, to obtain extremely dangerous weapons?   

(Edit: Something I found somewhat interesting, but to avoid being too long-winded I will leave it as an amusing aside, and would prefer that the above content be considered more seriously)
Incidentally, and really, as an aside, I think one interesting conclusion that followed from the series of "extreme examples" was that there really isn't much to differentiate shooting someone in the stomach, something so clearly and directly wrong, to exercising some other freedoms (e.g. intake of chemical Y).

[TehUser]

You simply aren't making sense.  I make it painfully obvious why every single freedom shouldn't be preserved at all costs, and you ask me to talk about marijuana, not other examples that drive my point home beyond doubt.  Then when I ask you to concede a point, you say that by doing that you are accepting a premise to my "illegalize marijuana argument." 

Your examples aren't applicable.  I've already stated that freedom is freedom, now make you case for the point at hand, not some imaginary example that you feel is better suited.

Good job, you're right.  If you are not mature enough to accept the reality that
not all freedoms should be preserved at absolutely all costs, then we cannot talk about whether marijuana should be legal or not. 

Wow, excellent work there, Rule.  When someone has an ideological difference, they're "not mature".  That's brilliant reasoning.

I am not practicing circular logic; I am not saying "accept that marijuana should be illegal then we will talk about why marijuana should be illegal."  I have asked you to acknowledge a premise pretty much any reasonable person would agree with.  I have used the so-called "asinine" examples to see how far you are willing to go to protect the idea that any freedom is more important than anything else. 

And I've been consistent in my application.  You just don't seem to have any problem with taking away peoples' rights without any legitimate reason for doing so.

Laws based on preventing crimes are to punish those who have wrecklessly decided to exercise a so-called "freedom" even though it may pose a significant danger to others.  That is worthy of punishment in my opinion.  Sometimes artifical deterrents are needed to maintain a society a majority of people are comfortable being part of.  I couldn't have made this more obvious.  Besides, it's not really a big step to understand that point: it is something that pretty much every desirable first world society acknowledges.

FOR THE UMPTEENTH FREAKING TIME, WHAT SIGNIFICANT DANGER DOES MARIJUANA POSE?  I have asked that question a number of times, I want to hear you justify it for once.

Would you prefer that we didn't have speeding limits?  That we didn't have luggage checks at airports?  That we didn't have laws making it more difficult for anyone, even those who are certifiably insane, to obtain extremely dangerous weapons?   

Yes!

(Edit: Something I found somewhat interesting, but to avoid being too long-winded I will leave it as an amusing aside, and would prefer that the above content be considered more seriously)
Incidentally, and really, as an aside, I think one interesting conclusion that followed from the series of "extreme examples" was that there really isn't much to differentiate shooting someone in the stomach, something so clearly and directly wrong, to exercising some other freedoms (e.g. intake of chemical Y).

Let's think here...  I have a) shot someone in the stomach or b) taken chemical Y.  I'll clue you in here, Rule.  In one of those scenarios, an actual crime has been committed.  Someone else's rights have been infringed upon.  I'll give you a hint.  It's not 'b'.

[MyndFyre]

Uh, you mean, a treatise upon which almost all of Western society originated?

For the love of all things good in the world, when are you people going to realize that the number of people who agree with something has no bearing on whether or not it is correct?

It might not have a bearing on whether something is correct, only if there is an absolute.  While I tend to favor an absolute in most things, some gray areas exist for me.

You think?  Oh, that must make it correct!  The reason I don't address Rule's post is because it's not a legitimate argument.  It amounts to, "It can screw up your life, therefore it should be illegal."  Government has no place dictating what I can and cannot do with my body or my mind until I start infringing on someone else's rights.  If I want to waste my life stoned out of my mind with my circle of pothead friends and supporting the "cannabis culture" then the government shouldn't be telling me that I can't.

Yes, I think, I believe.  Of course, you're saying that you believe that government has no place dictating[...]. 

Those are all stupid for the same reason.  They all predict that you're going to commit an additional crime.  I shouldn't be charged with a crime based on the possibility that it will lead to an actual crime.  That's the whole point here, there's no reason to say that using marijuana damages anyone's life but the person using it.

You're not being charged with a crime that you haven't done yet.  This crime is set up as a deterrent to socially high-probability problems. 

Excuse me for holding personal freedoms in high esteem.

So long as you realize that it's your opinion and not the end-all of truth.  You know, like you accused me of.

If I wanted a government to make me "as safe as I can be", I'd go live in a dictatorship where even the most miniscule of crimes was punished by death.  Hey, as long as I'm not a criminal, everything's good, right?  (Notice the parallel to the NSA spying logic.)

Why is it necessary to go to such an extreme when the issue is much more moderate than you're suggesting?  The government isn't killing you because you're taking a hit of marijuana.

I believe that this is really why the libertarian movement hasn't taken off.  It's the same reason why Linux hasn't taken off.  Libertarians and other conservatives really believe in most of the same fundamental principles (as I've stated before, I'm also in favor of the decriminalization of all drugs).  But instead of compromising to get a larger part of the agenda in place, you have to go and make extreme examples and fight to the death over stupid things.  You're as bad as the environmentalist wackos who argue that we're causing global warming by making the air cleaner, and nobody wants to listen to it.

It's very similar to the Linux attitude -- a coworker of mine in IT said she recently saw a Usenet post of Linux users saying that they don't want to make Linux more accessible because then stupid people will use it.  It's clear that the attitude will never hit the mainstream if this attitude doesn't change. 

FOR THE UMPTEENTH FREAKING TIME, WHAT SIGNIFICANT DANGER DOES MARIJUANA POSE? I have asked that question a number of times, I want to hear you justify it for once.

He (and CrAz3D) have made attempts to answer the question.  You have dismissed (at least CrAz3D) by calling it "stupid."  You're the one with the problem with this argument.

[Rule]

You just don't seem to have any problem with taking away peoples' rights without any legitimate reason for doing so.

Are you willing to admit that there may be a legitimate reason for taking away someone's rights?

FOR THE UMPTEENTH FREAKING TIME, WHAT SIGNIFICANT DANGER DOES MARIJUANA POSE?  I have asked that question a number of times, I want to hear you justify it for once.

Because, if you aren't, then there is no point in me talking about what dangers marijuana poses.  If I can't get you to say my imaginary chemical Y should be illegal, then there is no way I can get you to agree marijuana should be illegal.  In the hypothetical example, chemical Y certainly posed serious dangers.  Yet you still thought it should be legal.  What difference would it make then, if I soundly demonstrated how marijuana poses a serious danger to society?

Would you prefer that we didn't have speeding limits?  That we didn't have luggage checks at airports?  That we didn't have laws making it more difficult for anyone, even those who are certifiably insane, to obtain extremely dangerous weapons?   

Yes!

.  After that admission I don't see how we can continue seriously.

I have a) shot someone in the stomach or b) taken chemical Y.  I'll clue you in here, Rule.  In one of those scenarios, an actual crime has been committed.  Someone else's rights have been infringed upon.  I'll give you a hint.  It's not 'b'.

If a) qualifies in your books as an "actual crime," then so should b).  a) is a crime because of the high probability the action will cause harm to another.  b) is a crime for the same reason.

[TehUser]

Yes, I think, I believe.  Of course, you're saying that you believe that government has no place dictating[...]. 

No, government has no place dictating.

You're not being charged with a crime that you haven't done yet.  This crime is set up as a deterrent to socially high-probability problems. 

You're being charged with a crime that shouldn't be a crime and that is only a crime because someone had the audacity to say that the action in question would lead to other crimes.

Why is it necessary to go to such an extreme when the issue is much more moderate than you're suggesting?  The government isn't killing you because you're taking a hit of marijuana.

No, but it has a habit of taking 10 years off of an individual's life.  That's much better.

I believe that this is really why the libertarian movement hasn't taken off.  It's the same reason why Linux hasn't taken off.  Libertarians and other conservatives really believe in most of the same fundamental principles (as I've stated before, I'm also in favor of the decriminalization of all drugs).  But instead of compromising to get a larger part of the agenda in place, you have to go and make extreme examples and fight to the death over stupid things.  You're as bad as the environmentalist wackos who argue that we're causing global warming by making the air cleaner, and nobody wants to listen to it.

First of all, I'm not arguing an agenda.  I'm not arguing legislation.  I couldn't care less whether or not anyone likes or dislikes my argument and/or whether or not they want to put it to practical use.  I'm arguing theory.  I want reason.

It's very similar to the Linux attitude -- a coworker of mine in IT said she recently saw a Usenet post of Linux users saying that they don't want to make Linux more accessible because then stupid people will use it.  It's clear that the attitude will never hit the mainstream if this attitude doesn't change. 

Once again, I'm not trying to make my argument "mainstream".  It's whether or not it's right that matters.

He (and CrAz3D) have made attempts to answer the question.  You have dismissed (at least CrAz3D) by calling it "stupid."  You're the one with the problem with this argument.

Did you even read the objections?  If so, did you understand them?  You're clearly not connecting the dots here.