LogFAQs > #922778719

CaptainStrong posted...

If I wanna be a GAMEFAQS CENSORED THIS WORD and hurt my self why should they stop me? this is supposed to be the land of the free.

Because the government (and, by extension, the rest of the taxpaying public) has a vested interest in keeping you healthy and productive. If you injure yourself because you didn't wear a seatbelt, you will take up hospital resources that could have been spent on someone who wasn't being a moron and, depending on what your health insurance situation is, the taxpayers may wind up footing the bill for treatment. And for the whole time you're recovering (which may be the rest of your life if you really screw yourself up) you aren't contributing to society yourself via working and paying taxes. That sort of a situation isn't one that any society should be encouraging.

CaptainStrong posted...

and isnt the shit being mostly safe actually a reason for it to be legal?

In and of itself? No. Hence why driving without seatbelts is illegal, while other activities that have much, much higher risks of injury - like something as simple as professional football - are completely legal. Just saying "it's mostly safe" and not building on that isn't a valid reason for legalizing something.

Now if you say, "It has benefits x, y, z, which are worth having access to, and it's mostly safe" then you've got an argument... *if* it's actually safe. And that's been my point all along - we should have a better understanding of that before we start talking about whether to legalize (though I'm all in favour of decriminalization - imprisoning people and giving them permanent records over an activity that is, at absolute worst, nothing more than self-destructive is ridiculous).

But that wasn't what you were arguing. You weren't arguing "Weed is safe", you were arguing "alcohol is more dangerous", which is a) A separate discussion and b) Completely irrelevant to whether or not weed should be legal.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Societies have been using it for many 100's of centuries. It's only in recent times, that we think we know better than nature, a fallacy.

"Agriculture" has only been around for a single "hundred centuries", so I'm somewhat skeptical of your claim we've been using it for many times that figure.

And pardon me for doubting the wisdom of the ancients but they were also convinced that tomatoes were extremely toxic, mostly because the tomato juice was reacting with the lead that they thought was a great idea to make their dinnerware out of, so I'm a bit more comfortable trusting in modern science instead.

SunWuKung420 posted...

It is that most useful plant on the planet, providing: cloth, food, fuel, oil, medicine.

Do your own argument a favour and stop bringing this up. I would bet the contents of my house that you could not give less of a shit about the cloth manufacturing industry, nor do you particularly care if hemp is used for food, fuel, or oil.

I just wish more marijuana advocates would be honest about what they're asking, rather than dancing around the subject with talk about hemp ropes and cloth production. I have significant respect for someone with the stones to say, "I want to be able to go down to the store, buy a bud, and light up in the comfort and privacy of my home without worrying that the cops are going to bash down my door and haul me off to jail." That's an argument with substance; in fact, I think it's the best argument in favour of legalization. But pretending that you're actually a great advocate for the cloth industry makes it seem like that argument doesn't have legs, when it absolutely does.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!