The Case of Illinos vs. Cabelles

[tinybear]

The dried leaves produce harmful effects when inhaled, that's why. To a lesser extent, so does tobacco. I wouldn't mind if they banned tobacco tomorrow, but it's noteworthy that after decades of lies from the tobacco lobby about the effects of tobacco, the truth is finally known and a lot has now been done to discourage smoking it.

[Osborn F Enready]

tinybear, how many things are harmful?

Are dandelions safe to eat?
Is gasoline safe to eat?
Is model glue safe to sniff?

Your theory would have us outlawing anything harmful! Soon you will have the thought police ticketing us for bad thoughts, and burning our hands on the pot on the stove!

Absolutlely preposterous!!!

[tinybear]

Your examples are not valid as analogies. People don't eat dandelions or drink gasoline. But people do smoke and many many can't stop once they do. The harm is widespread and addictive. Glue sniffing should be illegal too. But glue has other more useful and conventional uses and, let's face it, glue sniffing is not as rampant as drug abuse.

[RickSp]

Quote by: tinybear The dried leaves produce harmful effects when inhaled, that's why. To a lesser extent, so does tobacco. I wouldn't mind if they banned tobacco tomorrow, but it's noteworthy that after decades of lies from the tobacco lobby about the effects of tobacco, the truth is finally known and a lot has now been done to discourage smoking it.

Fast food may be more dangerous than grass. I suppose you want to regulate french fries too. What right do you, or anyone, have to regulate what substances adults ingest? Do you want a nanny government looking over our shoulders to make sure we don't eat or smoke things that are bad for us?

Alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug. Prohibition of alcohol worked real well didn't it?

[tinybear]

Fast food is not addictive and not all alcoholic drinks are harmful unless taken in excessive quantities. There are also drink driving laws to discourage excessive drinking.

[Milton Bradley]

Alchohol is a toxic poison that can kill in a single dose.


Over the counter medications are often more dangerous that heroin, and almost always in smaller quantities.


Any number of things could be dangerous if consumed, yet there are no laws governing these other dangerous substances. Which leads many to believe there is an agenda behing criminalizing just a few taboo substances.


Sure enough, my government will prescibe Marinol (marijuanna extrct) for patients with certain conditions, and the medical community has prescribed all of the derivatives of herion for many years. They just want to make sure certain entities profit from sale of these targeted substances, not that they cannot be obtained.


Tinybear, either you have an agenda yourself, or perhaps you nedd to read a little history.


Nobody will blame you for not wanting to take drugs, just do not attempt to regulate what I ingest with my own body. Thats what this is all about.


It is always those people perched on their own moral high ground attempting to make decisions for others, all in the name of my best interests mind you. Thanks, but no thanks.

[RickSp]

Quote by: tinybear Fast food is not addictive and not all alcoholic drinks are harmful unless taken in excessive quantities. There are also drink driving laws to discourage excessive drinking.

Great job at not addressing the issue.

Some folks claim fast food is addictive. Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs known to man. Compared to cigarettes heroin is not so bad. Marijuana is not addictive at all. The greatest risks associated with marijuana use is that can lead to smoking cigarrettes. Alcohol in moderate quanities is good for you. In larger quantities is is deadly and addictive. Too little Vitamin A can cause blindness and death in children. Too much Vitamin is a poison.

The issue should not be what is or is not dangerous but what right the governemnt has to dictate to adults what they should or should not consume.

[Milton Bradley]

Marijuanna is phychologically addictive, lets not belittle the point here. It is probably a gateway drug as well, but that does not change the fact that we live in a supposedly free country, and free men have the right to decide for themselves what is right, as long as no others are harmed, or has their rights violated in the process.

[tinybear]

"As long as no others are harmed" is a loose test. How about decriminalizing necrophilia?

[Milton Bradley]

No, I would think that that type of behavior infringes on the rights of the family members, unless perhaps they just left them lying around on the ground.


I also think that is reaching pretty far to try and make a point which was weak to begin with.

[tinybear]

The family members were either going to burn or bury the body anyway. What 'rights' would they have exercised over it? Are you saying that if the family members consent, necrophilia should be legalized?

[RickSp]

Necrophilia? Of please. Not responding to the point at hand and pulling progressively wierder analogs out of the woodwork might be a useful, if annoying, debating ploy but adds nothing to the conversation overall.

[tinybear]

It's just a illustration that the statement 'as long as an activity does not harm any person, it should not be criminalized or regulated' is too wide. Sometimes, disgusting behavior is also the subject of legislation. Yeah, the law sometimes acts as a moral guardian.

[Milton Bradley]

Yes Tinybear, please get back to the original point and explain why you, or anybody should have the right to decide for me.


Explain to me how you rationalize having authority to decide what I ingest in the privacy of my home.


Then explain how that is constitutional.


That will go a long way in the development of this conversation.

[tinybear]

You mean you would be happy for legislation to limit the ingestion of marijuana to your own home? Hmmm, that sounds OK. That's something we should think about.

[RickSp]

Quote by: tinybear You mean you would be happy for legislation to limit the ingestion of marijuana to your own home? Hmmm, that sounds OK. That's something we should think about.

To return to the original case, if ingestion at home is ever OK, how would it be transported? By car perhaps?

[tinybear]

OK, what was I thinking? Ban the stuff!!

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: RickSp To return to the original case, if ingestion at home is ever OK, how would it be transported? By car perhaps?

I have always questioned that mindset. I've heard many people grudgingly say it should be OK to have and use pot in their own homes, yet they still maintain selling (dealing, pushing) the stuff should be treated as a serious crime.
So where are you gonna BUY it then?

Delaware had a similar law, I believe. It was perfectly legal to HAVE fireworks but illegal to USE them.

[Milton Bradley]

Marijuanna grows almost anywhere, its a weed, and a tough one at that. Greenhouses could be used to grow your own in colder climates.


I would be growing my own right now, but I am not "free" to do so.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I have always questioned that mindset. I've heard many people grudgingly say it should be OK to have and use pot in their own homes, yet they still maintain selling (dealing, pushing) the stuff should be treated as a serious crime. So where are you gonna BUY it then? Delaware had a similar law, I believe. It was perfectly legal to HAVE fireworks but illegal to USE them.

Maybe if you only used the fireworks inside your house.

OK, maybe not such a good idea.