Calif. bans smoking in cars with kids

[MdKnightR]

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

Who's going to pay for all the health care of the people who are on disability for smoking-induced emphysema or lung cancer? Who's going to pay for the intensive care unit stays of these people when they end up on respirators when they get pneumonia? Who's going to pay for all the extra police required to deal with whacked out druggies shooting up on Friday night? Who's going to pay for their health care when they finally discover they have AIDS? Who's going to pay for rehab for the addicts?

Uh, isn't that what our government is already doing with our taxes? Legalization wouldn't change things for the worse in those situations.

[Jae Onasi]

Originally Posted by MdKnightR

Uh, isn't that what our government is already doing with our taxes? Legalization wouldn't change things for the worse in those situations.

Well, they'd have to do a lot more of it if it were all legalized, and I think it'd have a huge negative impact on public health (mainly drugs). Hait Ashbury's a pretty good indicator of what would happen if illegal drugs in particular were legalized.

[MdKnightR]

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

Well, they'd have to do a lot more of it if it were all legalized, and I think it'd have a huge negative impact on public health (mainly drugs). Hait Ashbury's a pretty good indicator of what would happen if illegal drugs in particular were legalized.

Let me pose a question then. If Marijuana was legalized today, would you run right out to the nearest convenience store to buy a pack of lefty-cigarettes? I'm guessing not.

If people want to smoke it (or use any other drug), it is readily available already. Legalization (I prefer the term "decriminalization") would simply put a stop to the organized crime associated with it. Look at Prohibition. When alcohol was outlawed, organized crime saw an opportunity. The same opportunity that outlawing drugs has afforded the street gangs of today. If aspirin was outlawed tomorrow, there would soon be a black market for it.

Harry Browne (RIP), the Libertarian who ran for President in 2000, said his first act of office if elected would be to pardon all nonviolent (key word there) drug offenders. Can you imagine an end to prison overcrowding? That would do it! Sure, keep the bass turds that commit violent crime locked up, but people being put in jail for possession is a travesty to a free society.

[Totenkopf]

As regards nonviolent offenders, house arrest and community service seems like a much better idea (keeps the lib judges happy and minimizes the pressure on jail overcrowding). Always thought that minimum sentencing guidelines were a bit draconian and even counterproductive to a degree.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by MdKnightR

Let me pose a question then. If Marijuana was legalized today, would you run right out to the nearest convenience store to buy a pack of lefty-cigarettes? I'm guessing not.

If people want to smoke it (or use any other drug), it is readily available already. Legalization (I prefer the term "decriminalization") would simply put a stop to the organized crime associated with it. Look at Prohibition. When alcohol was outlawed, organized crime saw an opportunity. The same opportunity that outlawing drugs has afforded the street gangs of today. If aspirin was outlawed tomorrow, there would soon be a black market for it.

Harry Browne (RIP), the Libertarian who ran for President in 2000, said his first act of office if elected would be to pardon all nonviolent (key word there) drug offenders. Can you imagine an end to prison overcrowding? That would do it! Sure, keep the bass turds that commit violent crime locked up, but people being put in jail for possession is a travesty to a free society.

I support this message.

I think people ought to have the freedom to run their own lives how they wish. This includes the freedom to ruin their own lives, so long as they don't harm anyone else in the process the government should not intervene. This also increases the importance of personal responsibility in society, so implementing Libertarian ideals might cause a few bumps in the road, simply because of the people who have relied on Uncle Sam to do their moralizing for them would have to come to grips with their newfound freedoms.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

As regards nonviolent offenders, house arrest and community service seems like a much better idea (keeps the lib judges happy and minimizes the pressure on jail overcrowding). Always thought that minimum sentencing guidelines were a bit draconian and even counterproductive to a degree.

I 100% agree with this. Although it has little to do with the subject, I have a friend who committed a crime, was sentenced to house arrest but allowed to pursue his studies nonetheless, going out only for school on a tight schedule.

He's one of the most amazing mathematicians I've ever met. It would have been such a waste if there was minimum sentences for certain offenses. The Conservative party (of Canada) proposed minimum sentences for offenders. Obviously, if my friend had been to prison because of such measures instead of being judged properly, based on his past and wish to redeem himself, he would have continued to be a drain on society after he came out of prison.

Everything must be judged on a case by case basis.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I think people ought to have the freedom to run their own lives how they wish. This includes the freedom to ruin their own lives, so long as they don't harm anyone else in the process the government should not intervene.

Most of the time, people do have the freedom to do as they wish with their lives as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

Originally Posted by John Galt

This also increases the importance of personal responsibility in society, so implementing Libertarian ideals might cause a few bumps in the road, simply because of the people who have relied on Uncle Sam to do their moralizing for them would have to come to grips with their newfound freedoms.

Ironic really. In a way, laws represent morality in a society. Technically, Uncle Sam does your moralizing for you. The State puts limits on what you can and what you can't do, even a minimal one, would have certain laws prohibiting certain behaviors. Telling people not to harm each other is a form of moralizing. That's how I take your statement.

In fact, it's quite childish to say that the government is the one telling its people what to think, especially in a democracy. On one side, the people do elect the legislators, so they have a legitimacy to make laws that represent the wishes of those who voted for them. I think it would be more correct if someone said the government tells you what you can and can't do. If anything, you should blame certain radical non-governmental organizations for forcing their ideals upon the populace, but hey, that's democracy.

[MdKnightR]

Originally Posted by lukeiamyourdad

On one side, the people do elect the legislators, so they have a legitimacy to make laws that represent the wishes of those who voted for them.

In a perfect world......




By the way, the USA is a republic, not a democracy.

[Rev7]

Originally Posted by MdKnightR

By the way, the USA is a republic, not a democracy.

Actually the United States of America is both a Republic and Democracy.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally Posted by MdKnightR

In a perfect world......

I think you missed the point. The legislators have legitimacy to act. Of course, who has been elected with 100% of the vote? No one. The fact that you disagree with certain laws does not make the entire system illegitimate. This is the system you chose to live in. Personal responsibility no?

It's a form of dictatorship of the majority. It's not a perfect system, but people are generally happier under working democracies then under working dictatorships.

Originally Posted by MdKnightR

By the way, the USA is a republic, not a democracy.

Don't know what a democracy is eh?

Rev7 said it already, America is both. If you're so picky, the word democracy wouldn't even exist. No country would be one. For reasons of logistics. Can you imagine referendums every day? Does a regular citizen, with job, wife, kids and hobbies have the time to get up every day, get properly informed on every subject, foreign or local, that's going to be involved in referendum of the day, read every bill which will be voted and then decide what to vote? 24 hours isn't enough.

America elects its leaders. It's a democracy.

[Jae Onasi]

Originally Posted by MdKnightR

Let me pose a question then. If Marijuana was legalized today, would you run right out to the nearest convenience store to buy a pack of lefty-cigarettes? I'm guessing not.

If people want to smoke it (or use any other drug), it is readily available already. Legalization (I prefer the term "decriminalization") would simply put a stop to the organized crime associated with it. Look at Prohibition. When alcohol was outlawed, organized crime saw an opportunity. The same opportunity that outlawing drugs has afforded the street gangs of today. If aspirin was outlawed tomorrow, there would soon be a black market for it.

Alcohol does not have the same addictive qualities of heroin and some other illegal substances, nor does it cause extensive health problems like crack or ice do. Why do you think we have to give prescriptions for some medications? Because the risk of serious health problems associated with incorrect medication usage (under- or over-) makes it mandatory that someone who knows what they're doing instructs the patient on the correct way to take it. A reasonable number of my patients are health-savvy and could make their own decisions on these things. A lot of my patients could care less. A lot of my patients are blessed in other areas besides intelligence and would not be able to learn enough to figure out how to take it on their own. A great majority of patients think that if some medicine is good, even more must be better, when in fact 'even more' could become risky or even deadly. A few of my patients, God bless them, are complete and utter morons and would be a danger not only to themselves but to others if they had to try to figure some of this out on their own. A very few would actually use the meds for malicious reasons.

You cannot equate alcohol with any illegal drug with the exception of maybe marijuana. Heroin, cocaine, crack, ice, meth, PCP, etc are so dangerous either physically/lethality or in terms of addiction potential that they should never be legalized. If you need some more convincing, go volunteer in an ER or a police department (preferably a larger city one) on some Friday or Saturday nights, if you haven't already--you'll get to see the destructive effects of these drugs first hand on a regular basis. After you see a few people come through who are in withdrawal because they can't get their fix, or who've destroyed their bodies with meth (if they haven't caused an explosion trying to make it at home), or the kids who've been beaten to a pulp because their parent(s) were strung out, you'll have a different perspective.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but that doesn't mean you should hand someone a gun to shoot themselves with, and legalizing highly addictive and/or dangerous illegal substances would be akin to doing just that.

[MdKnightR]

Originally Posted by Rev7

Actually the United States of America is both a Republic and Democracy.

Just wanted to see who was paying attention.

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

Alcohol does not have the same addictive qualities of heroin and some other illegal substances, nor does it cause extensive health problems like crack or ice do.

I suppose that Cirrhosis of the liver isn't an extensive health problem. Or that people can't die for alcohol poisoning. Or drunken driving is harmless. Seems to me that they are equatable.

Alcohol is very additive to many people, as is nicotine. Some people don't even know that they are predisposed to alcoholism and are addicted from the very first drink. In fact, up to 40 percent of industrial fatalities and 47 percent of industrial injuries can be linked to alcohol use and alcoholism.

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

Why do you think we have to give prescriptions for some medications?

Ah, but there's the rub! Prescription medication is LEGAL, but that's not to say that people don't get their hands on it using less than savory methods.

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

You cannot equate alcohol with any illegal drug with the exception of maybe marijuana. Heroin, cocaine, crack, ice, meth, PCP, etc are so dangerous either physically/lethality or in terms of addiction potential that they should never be legalized.

What about the medicinal use of marijuana? Or how about the addictive qualities of the legal drug morphine? Morphine can be just as harmful as heroin.

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

If you need some more convincing, go volunteer in an ER or a police department (preferably a larger city one) on some Friday or Saturday nights, if you haven't already--you'll get to see the destructive effects of these drugs first hand on a regular basis. After you see a few people come through who are in withdrawal because they can't get their fix, or who've destroyed their bodies with meth (if they haven't caused an explosion trying to make it at home), or the kids who've been beaten to a pulp because their parent(s) were strung out, you'll have a different perspective.

And this is my point. ALL of this happens in a society that has the mistaken notion that the war on drugs is a productive venture. Ever since today's illicit drugs were outlawed, addiction has risen dramatically. There was virtually no drug problem before these drugs were outlawed. People weren't robbing their grandmothers so they could go buy Coca-Cola by the case! (FYI, cocaine was one of the original ingredients for those of you who didn't know) All the money that has been funneled into this "war" has been spent in vain, and yet people are in an uproar over spending in the Iraq war.

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

I'm all for personal responsibility, but that doesn't mean you should hand someone a gun to shoot themselves with, and legalizing highly addictive and/or dangerous illegal substances would be akin to doing just that.

No one said such a thing. I am not advocating addiction. Decriminalization would be a productive move because all the funding that has been poured into combating drug trafficking could then be used for treatment and programs that encourage people to stay off drugs. It is widely known that the best way to combat addiction is through workplace drug screening. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that 77% of drug users in the United States are employed. 77%!!! If every place of employment were to participate in a Drug-Free Workplace program, it would make an incredible positive impact that the current approach could never have. Not to mention the impact that would have on the cost of health care and health insurance coverage.