mungkiman Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun? Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what? What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun? That's not what he suggested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Pot and music is like horns and low distortion. They just go together. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Whatever happened to the principle of a man's (or woman's) house is their castle and the power of the state doesn't reach into another person's castle? It was the basis of the Fourth Amendment. Of course, that amendment was disregarded and made impotent with the WoD. What someone chooses to do in their own home is none of my business. It is a nice thought, but reality and the needs of a civilized society dictate otherwise. We do not allow people to beat their wives simply because what they do in the privacy of their homes is nobody's business. We have authority to go into people's homes to investigate cases of severe child abuse and neglect because what goes on in people's homes has most definitely been demonstrated to be everyone's business. I don't know where exactly the cut-off is supposed to be, and I do very much align with the legalization proponents on the basis of having more freedoms in one's own home. However, I don't think the adage helps articulate the distinction. Naturally, people will come back with the next adage, "As long as they aren't hurting anybody else..." There is no doubt that drug abuse has been shown to be one of the number-one reasons for child abuse and neglect... or at least, the correlation is very strong. It's not the easiest of issues. For example, if people ought to be able to use these particular drugs in their own homes, then, why not Xanax, Vicodin, Viagra, Symbicort and anything else they might want? Why should a doctor be in the way of their freedoms to take those drugs? What makes those drugs so special and worthy of regulation, as opposed to MJ and cocaine? If we open the flood gates, why not be consistent and open them all the way? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 What were we talking about again? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Whatever happened to the principle of a man's (or woman's) house is their castle and the power of the state doesn't reach into another person's castle? It was the basis of the Fourth Amendment. Of course, that amendment was disregarded and made impotent with the WoD. What someone chooses to do in their own home is none of my business. It is a nice thought, but reality and the needs of a civilized society dictate otherwise. We do not allow people to beat their wives simply because what they do in the privacy of their homes is nobody's business. We have authority to go into people's homes to investigate cases of severe child abuse and neglect because what goes on in people's homes has most definitely been demonstrated to be everyone's business. I don't know where exactly the cut-off is supposed to be, and I do very much align with the legalization proponents on the basis of having more freedoms in one's own home. However, I don't think the adage helps articulate the distinction. Naturally, people will come back with the next adage, "As long as they aren't hurting anybody else..." There is no doubt that drug abuse has been shown to be one of the number-one reasons for child abuse and neglect... or at least, the correlation is very strong. It's not the easiest of issues. For example, if people ought to be able to use these particular drugs in their own homes, then, why not Xanax, Vicodin, Viagra, Symbicort and anything else they might want? Why should a doctor be in the way of their freedoms to take those drugs? What makes those drugs so special and worthy of regulation, as opposed to MJ and cocaine? If we open the flood gates, why not be consistent and open them all the way? We are also now being held communally accountable for the healthcare of us all. Those who abuse themselves and take risks now can rely upon others to pick the tab for the untoward consequences of those actions. What you do with your health matters to all of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted February 14, 2016 Moderators Share Posted February 14, 2016 Pot and music is like horns and low distortion. They just go together. Well it's no wonder, the Klipsch factory is in Hempstead county AR ! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun? Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what? What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun? That's not what he suggested. I was not driving any "principle" in my prior post............. I merely posed a question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun?Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what?What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun? That's pretty sad. Are you not the same person who blames all others for your diet miseries? Have you any command of your faculties?In other words, you have no answer. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun?Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what?What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun? That's not what he suggested. What? He asked a question, and I asked why the answer mattered to him. Enough of the pointless interjections. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun? Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what? What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun? That's pretty sad. Are you not the same person who blames all others for your diet miseries? Have you any command of your faculties? The full quote is more than a question... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun?Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what?What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun? That's pretty sad. Are you not the same person who blames all others for your diet miseries? Have you any command of your faculties?In other words, you have no answer.Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk In actuality there's no debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun?Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what?What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun? That's not what he suggested. I was not driving any "principle" in my prior post............. I merely posed a question. And I asked why you care about others using drugs? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun?Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what?What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun? That's not what he suggested. I was not driving any "principle" in my prior post............. I merely posed a question. And I asked why you care about others using drugs? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk We are also now being held communally accountable for the healthcare of us all. Those who abuse themselves and take risks now can rely upon others to pick the tab for the untoward consequences of those actions. What you do with your health matters to all of us. Perhaps this is akin to caring about all motorcycle riders wearing helmets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Whatever happened to the principle of a man's (or woman's) house is their castle and the power of the state doesn't reach into another person's castle? It was the basis of the Fourth Amendment. Of course, that amendment was disregarded and made impotent with the WoD. What someone chooses to do in their own home is none of my business. It is a nice thought, but reality and the needs of a civilized society dictate otherwise. We do not allow people to beat their wives simply because what they do in the privacy of their homes is nobody's business. We have authority to go into people's homes to investigate cases of severe child abuse and neglect because what goes on in people's homes has most definitely been demonstrated to be everyone's business. I don't know where exactly the cut-off is supposed to be, and I do very much align with the legalization proponents on the basis of having more freedoms in one's own home. However, I don't think the adage helps articulate the distinction. Naturally, people will come back with the next adage, "As long as they aren't hurting anybody else..." There is no doubt that drug abuse has been shown to be one of the number-one reasons for child abuse and neglect... or at least, the correlation is very strong. It's not the easiest of issues. For example, if people ought to be able to use these particular drugs in their own homes, then, why not Xanax, Vicodin, Viagra, Symbicort and anything else they might want? Why should a doctor be in the way of their freedoms to take those drugs? What makes those drugs so special and worthy of regulation, as opposed to MJ and cocaine? If we open the flood gates, why not be consistent and open them all the way? We are also now being held communally accountable for the healthcare of us all. Those who abuse themselves and take risks now can rely upon others to pick the tab for the untoward consequences of those actions. What you do with your health matters to all of us. Why do you think using drugs is abusing ones self? For many people it's an enhancement to life. Secondly, if you are suggesting that everyone will have their life dictated for maximum health, there isn't even a word yet for that level of intrusion into liberty. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun?Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what?What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun? That's pretty sad. Are you not the same person who blames all others for your diet miseries? Have you any command of your faculties? The full quote is more than a question... Are you his handler? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Whatever happened to the principle of a man's (or woman's) house is their castle and the power of the state doesn't reach into another person's castle? It was the basis of the Fourth Amendment. Of course, that amendment was disregarded and made impotent with the WoD. What someone chooses to do in their own home is none of my business. It is a nice thought, but reality and the needs of a civilized society dictate otherwise. We do not allow people to beat their wives simply because what they do in the privacy of their homes is nobody's business. We have authority to go into people's homes to investigate cases of severe child abuse and neglect because what goes on in people's homes has most definitely been demonstrated to be everyone's business. I don't know where exactly the cut-off is supposed to be, and I do very much align with the legalization proponents on the basis of having more freedoms in one's own home. However, I don't think the adage helps articulate the distinction. Naturally, people will come back with the next adage, "As long as they aren't hurting anybody else..." There is no doubt that drug abuse has been shown to be one of the number-one reasons for child abuse and neglect... or at least, the correlation is very strong. It's not the easiest of issues. For example, if people ought to be able to use these particular drugs in their own homes, then, why not Xanax, Vicodin, Viagra, Symbicort and anything else they might want? Why should a doctor be in the way of their freedoms to take those drugs? What makes those drugs so special and worthy of regulation, as opposed to MJ and cocaine? If we open the flood gates, why not be consistent and open them all the way? We are also now being held communally accountable for the healthcare of us all. Those who abuse themselves and take risks now can rely upon others to pick the tab for the untoward consequences of those actions. What you do with your health matters to all of us. As it always did. Even our founders used tax dollars to provide health care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun?Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what?What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun? That's pretty sad. Are you not the same person who blames all others for your diet miseries? Have you any command of your faculties? The full quote is more than a question... Are you his handler?Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk He can speak for himself. I'll speak for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Whatever happened to the principle of a man's (or woman's) house is their castle and the power of the state doesn't reach into another person's castle? It was the basis of the Fourth Amendment. Of course, that amendment was disregarded and made impotent with the WoD. What someone chooses to do in their own home is none of my business. It is a nice thought, but reality and the needs of a civilized society dictate otherwise. We do not allow people to beat their wives simply because what they do in the privacy of their homes is nobody's business. We have authority to go into people's homes to investigate cases of severe child abuse and neglect because what goes on in people's homes has most definitely been demonstrated to be everyone's business. I don't know where exactly the cut-off is supposed to be, and I do very much align with the legalization proponents on the basis of having more freedoms in one's own home. However, I don't think the adage helps articulate the distinction. Naturally, people will come back with the next adage, "As long as they aren't hurting anybody else..." There is no doubt that drug abuse has been shown to be one of the number-one reasons for child abuse and neglect... or at least, the correlation is very strong. It's not the easiest of issues. For example, if people ought to be able to use these particular drugs in their own homes, then, why not Xanax, Vicodin, Viagra, Symbicort and anything else they might want? Why should a doctor be in the way of their freedoms to take those drugs? What makes those drugs so special and worthy of regulation, as opposed to MJ and cocaine? If we open the flood gates, why not be consistent and open them all the way? We are also now being held communally accountable for the healthcare of us all. Those who abuse themselves and take risks now can rely upon others to pick the tab for the untoward consequences of those actions. What you do with your health matters to all of us. Why do you think using drugs is abusing ones self? For many people it's an enhancement to life. Secondly, if you are suggesting that everyone will have their life dictated for maximum health, there isn't even a word yet for that level of intrusion into liberty. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Not yet. But if we can get a hold of those food chains and soda-makers and tell them they can't harm the people anymore... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Why does society need to be stoned, or drunk, or speeding to feel like they're having fun?Why does the answer matter. What if I just say, "because I enjoy it!" Then what?What principle ate you trying to apply to human behavior? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk You require needing your mental acuity altered to have fun? That's pretty sad. Are you not the same person who blames all others for your diet miseries? Have you any command of your faculties?In other words, you have no answer.Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk In actuality there's no debate. So obviously you have given little thought to the matters you are commenting on. Drug use is not equal to drug abuse for most people. There are many purposes of drugs that are developmental for people. That raise their quality of life. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Whatever happened to the principle of a man's (or woman's) house is their castle and the power of the state doesn't reach into another person's castle? It was the basis of the Fourth Amendment. Of course, that amendment was disregarded and made impotent with the WoD. What someone chooses to do in their own home is none of my business. It is a nice thought, but reality and the needs of a civilized society dictate otherwise. We do not allow people to beat their wives simply because what they do in the privacy of their homes is nobody's business. We have authority to go into people's homes to investigate cases of severe child abuse and neglect because what goes on in people's homes has most definitely been demonstrated to be everyone's business.I don't know where exactly the cut-off is supposed to be, and I do very much align with the legalization proponents on the basis of having more freedoms in one's own home. However, I don't think the adage helps articulate the distinction. Naturally, people will come back with the next adage, "As long as they aren't hurting anybody else..." There is no doubt that drug abuse has been shown to be one of the number-one reasons for child abuse and neglect... or at least, the correlation is very strong. It's not the easiest of issues. For example, if people ought to be able to use these particular drugs in their own homes, then, why not Xanax, Vicodin, Viagra, Symbicort and anything else they might want? Why should a doctor be in the way of their freedoms to take those drugs? What makes those drugs so special and worthy of regulation, as opposed to MJ and cocaine? If we open the flood gates, why not be consistent and open them all the way? We are also now being held communally accountable for the healthcare of us all. Those who abuse themselves and take risks now can rely upon others to pick the tab for the untoward consequences of those actions. What you do with your health matters to all of us.Why do you think using drugs is abusing ones self? For many people it's an enhancement to life.Secondly, if you are suggesting that everyone will have their life dictated for maximum health, there isn't even a word yet for that level of intrusion into liberty. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Not yet. But if we can get a hold of those food chains and soda-makers and tell them they can't harm the people anymore... Oh? Did they make soda illegal?Because I have been talking about illegal drugs. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.