If marijuana's illegal, why isn't milk?

Post Reply New Topic

Research suggests that the beneficial chemicals in red wine are also present in red grape juice. Or better yet, you can just eat grapes. It's just that the earlier findings about red wine give people additional health grounds to keep drinking, especially in Europe where those findings became widely-known. I remember one time I mentioned to an Italian person that I didn't drink and he replied, "you shouldn't stay teetotal, it's bad for your heart!"

It is a hard thing to describe. I know that I have to make sacrifices to benefit from a society. And that other people can't make the same decisions that I can. So while I know that alcohol and tobacco being legal poses no problem to me because I use moderation (I have been "drunk" once... and never again). But I also know that other people will pose a health risk to themselves and society by over-indulging. Laws can't be made saying that only I be allowed to have those. I weigh the benefits of it being legal or made illegal and I am ok either way.

Sometimes I am ok with the concept of rules for everyone even though by nature they apply only to the problems of a few.
For example, the rules of what you can and cannot carry on a plane. Those rules do not apply to me, they apply to other people. But they restrict my freedoms. Why should I suffer for the poor decisions of other people? Sometimes it is necessary. The rules benefit a majority by restricting the freedoms of the individual. You can give examples of the opposite. Laws of torture are rules that benefit an individual over the needs/desires of a majority.

Sometimes I don't get what I want so that other people can have what they want. It can be a problem, but the basic concept is not a bad system. You just need to find balance. Cigars and scotch are nice indulgences, but I don't need them. I negotiate for wants. I go to battle for needs.

Speak for yourself. My wants are my needs. I want what I need and I need what I want. And inconsequential things like Laws make no difference to me in that department.

ruveyn

the basic gist is that in order to function, society must balance the needs/wants of the whole and the individual... period. And milk doesn't contain HGH and antibiotics by nature. We have added those things into milk. You could ban those items. But banning milk is like making strawberries illegal because growers in California spray them with pesticides so strong that if you don't cover it with a tarp it will kill all life in the surrounding area. You ban the pesticide...

and I never said that what I know is what is best for everyone else. I say let a Dr decide because that is what they are trained to do. People are rarely able to tell what is best for themselves. We are constantly confusing wants and needs. If people were able to make rational decisions that only influenced themselves we wouldn't need laws or regulations or prescriptions.
And removing the object of desire is one of the main steps towards solving addiction and self-control issues. You are not going to give someone a bit of counseling and a huge bag of meth. What do you think the point of rehab is?

This entire thread is a personal opinion on what is and isn't good for people be the determining factor for what should or should not be legal. Isn't that the whole argument for marijuana? A personal opinion on what is best for me is best for everyone? If marijuana is actually best for the person, then making it available by prescription would make it available to that person. If it wasn't best for that person, then they wouldn't get it. That is not a personal opinion, it is a viable solution.

In has many of the same benefits. But not all. Grape juice is a good substitute for those who don't drink.

take what you want. Society takes what it wants. What happens to you after that makes no difference to me.

Yes, I would have no problem with the idea of crappy music being illegal.


well, I wouldn't have a problem with that either I suppose but that's because I don't smoke and drink.

the problem with moral authority is that is falls all across the spectrum. What is morally acceptable for one person is not for another. And what is not a problem of moderation for one person, is a huge problem for another. There is no real way to make it a win-win scenario for all people involved. "If you can think of it, then someone is turned on by it, offended by it, or has a website obsessed with it". Immutable laws of human nature. Or as Scott Adams puts it "horniness, selfishness and stupidity". We can't all have what we want. And something I might not mind giving up because it is inconsequential to me, would be a horror for another person to give up. The only people I distrust are those who truly think that the best system gives them everything they want without any consideration of anyone else. Because you have to realize that if everyone got what they wanted, the world would be a very un-enjoyable place. Maybe it is the cynicism inside of me. But the people I grew up with... I don't want to see what happens if they got whatever they wanted. Mostly because I am very aware of what they want.

When one of the soldiers here got into trouble for getting drunk and breaking into a woman's house, and another broke into a store, and another was accused of rape, they instituted a base-wide lockdown. You couldn't leave your house, except to go to work, and you couldn't leave the base. Punishment was having your status revoked (which means shipped back to the States). Everyone had to suffer for the stupid actions of 3 people. I barely drink, and I am too weak to go rape anyone. The rules obviously had no application for me. Not to mention that I live off base, so I couldn't leave my house, go grocery shopping, visit people or use restrooms off base driving to and from work. Dozens of people lost their jobs and their status and were sent back to the States because they refuse to be denied their right to eat McDonalds (for 2 weeks).

The problem with such an argument is twofold: a) Is it the government's responsibility to essentially play an ever watchful parent who manipulates the law to achieve a "healthier" society?

b) Where would the line be as far as banning products? Very effective arguments can be made that there is too much salt/sodium and sugar/high fructose corn syrup in products now. Would there have to be a government mandated acceptable level of the aforementioned items? In the US, obesity is one of the biggest health concerns/costs. Fatties cost this country a lot of money...should they only be allowed to purchase so many calories in a day?

Allowing ban on substances might allow our society to be "healthier" in a physical sense but it would make for new black markets and opportunities for organized crime [as illustrated by the current war on drugs and the previous war on alcohol] and it makes for more poverty in the community [these items aren't taxable because they aren't legally sold so therefore community projects suffer funding shortages and also it expands cost on the product by falsely inflating cost as the risk of selling the product goes up] and it makes society, in fact, less healthy for those who still consume the products by way of less regulations available to ensure that the products are safe and contain only the products they claim they contain [though cigarettes have fallen a victim to neglect on this front, I would speculate that the nature of disgust and want of prohibition of the product more effects how poorly the product is maintained than a failure only on a part of the FDA].

Bingo! Prohibition never, ever, ever works. Not once. Not ever. It not only does not solve "the problem" but it corrupts the legal system.

ruveyn

Absolute truth. So often, what is healthy for the group is not healthy for the individual, and what's healthy for the individual is not healthy for the group. This is why there is a need for the careful balancing act. Everything else is just details/arguments/squabbling over how to balance the group vs. the individual.

What are the parameters for determining this balance?

Milk is a food and marijuana is not.

ruveyn

but it can be!


/marijuana seeds can be used as a grain and let's not forget the ever-popular hash brownies.

Any law that you make is going to have a twofold problem. And the existence of government will always be tenuous. I think that rather than looking at the government as an entity to make society healthier, you should look at it as a protection from people/companies who would take advantage of the people. I am not a fan of banning fatty foods or sugars, but I do agree with corporate regulations. I am not a fan of controlling what people spend their money on, but I do agree with preventing credit card companies from using overdraft charges and late fees, high interest rates and dubious sales techniques to trap consumers in spiraling debt. I may not be a fan of government health care (entirely) but I do think that government should prevent insurance companies from double crossing their customers, and that people who cannot work should be taken care of (children, elderly, and disabled/sick).

The purpose of the government is to protect and care for its people in a way that they cannot, not to just control them. So the question is what are you protecting from who, and is it something that they can do for themselves? I don't disagree that there are not some people who can use marijuana responsibly. I disagree that all people could. Even the Netherlands doesn't have a full legalization of marijuana. You can't sell it, possess large amounts of it, or use it in public, except for highly regulated coffee shops. Their system is not necessarily bad because they are preventing drug dealers and commercial companies from exploiting their people. I am not a fan of public consumption of either tobacco or marijuana because it exposes the side effects to people who do not want to smoke either, and who might have adverse health problems because of it.

Does that make sense?

technically you can make poison brownies or liquid vicodin brownies, or heroin brownies... pesticide brownies.

do you argue that pesticide qualifies as a food?