Marijuana - Legalise It

[rez]

Quote by: Logjam Nope. Smoking dope is not good for you. There are a great many studies that prove this fact. There are also unlimited testimonials from ex dope smokers that testify to the danger of smoking the stuff. I find it astounding how much effort dope smokers expend to convince others that their addiction is harmless.

I smoke "dope" once a week...sometimes I will smoke like three days in a row and usually wait another two weeks without ever really thinking about it.

Thats great, you know its a FACT that smoking dope is not good. Pot is dangerous? My friend smokes pot twice a day, insofar as he is high 70% of while driving a car and has YET been in a car accident..NOT ONCE.

You find it "astounding" that people are putting effort into a cause because you have no clue what this whole discussion is about. You simply stated that you know dope is dangerous because a couple of people testified. This, to me, shows your opinion lacks substance and rigor.

Yeah so I smoke pot go to college and never been in a car accident.....pot is fucking dangerous.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri I smoked marijuana for years. When I quit smoking, it was because I had asthma, and it was aggravating my asthma. I also had to move out of the town I lived in, as there was a phosphate industry that was affecting my lungs, and I had to quit smoking cigarettes. Now my lungs are clean as a whistle. If marijuana is addictive, I would like someone personally to tell me when I went through marijuana withdrawal. I must've missed that part somewhere, since when I quit, I quit and that was that. Sure I missed it. I miss all great things. I miss Spain. I miss my husband that passed on. I miss a lot of things. However, withdrawal? When? I think people talk a lot of bullshit about marijuana.

Why did you address that to me? I never claimed marijuana was addictive...


I am sure that smoking the stuff is harmful, however what isn't these days? Just walking down a busy city street places one in all kinds of danger, from pollution to mugging and car accidents.

I'll take my chances with drink and any other minor social taboo which crosses my path, which I think i may enjoy.

[asterix404]

IN major drug tests preformed by both the UK and the US the harmeful effects of smoking weed were determined to contain 5x he amount of tar. People were given one ounce a day for 30 days and then immeadtily after stoped, after 3 days no one in the study had bad dreams night sweats or really even wanted to smoke. After a long term study of people who smoked 30 years or more, it was shown to have minimal effect on their lungs because they smoked so little every time. Their brain was PERFECT their congnative reasoning skills were PERFECT, there was no toxins in their blood and their liver was in wonderful health. WEED NEVER HAS NOR EVER WILL KILL SOMEONE, a gate way drug is BS. It introduces you into the drug community sure... just like alchoal introduces you to bar buddies, or cigs introduce you to people who smoke in your work place. Some of the people who smoke weed do other drugs becasue they want to. They have issues so they stay away from alchoal and drown their sorrows in shrooms or acid, or in the most extream cases herroin. You do not take herrorin unless you are having heuge issues, it forces your body to be happy and is very adicting. Weed is more of a relaxer and I don't know about the hulcinagenic part... I have seen crazier shit happen with me on benedril then whenever I smoked. All it does, and literally all it does is this: Make you feal things that you already feal more intencily, just like booze. If you are pissed off drinking you are a ripping mad drunk, if you are pissed off high, you are just upset but really can't do anything aobut it cuz you are sleepy and possibly hungry. I have smoked on and off for about 2 years now almost every chance I get but thats not often since i am buisy and sometimes sad. I am logical enough to not do things when I am sad becasue then you get a dependence on them to make you happy. Instead of making criminals out of people who choose a different way to socilize why not tell people when is a good time to smoke and when isn't...

I also got another beef and someone explain this one to me. A friend of mine went into a phyche exam cuz he wasn't fealing too good and was failing out of school and couldn't consontrate and all that stuff... has had a very hard time in college. He was asked if he did any drugs. He said he smoked and drank. The shink kinda looked at him and said no I ment drugs... Smoking is way worse for you and don't even get me started on teh effects of alchoal. Take a good look a drunks brain, liver, kidneys, stoamch, pancrease, (butchering spelling sorry), esphogaus, mouth, muscles... everything and tell me what you see. It's why they shouldn't bother to give them liver transplants... the rest of their body is shot to hell anyway. Alchoal is a HORRBALE drug and does nurmorus consequences within the first month of heavy consumption including a hole in your stomach lining, thats what an ulcer is... It has also been linked to gout in many cases. So why is it when a friend of mine can drink a bottle of gin in 2 days that this doesn't worry anyone?

[tinybear]

Quote by: Logjam Nope. Smoking dope is not good for you. There are a great many studies that prove this fact. There are also unlimited testimonials from ex dope smokers that testify to the danger of smoking the stuff. I find it astounding how much effort dope smokers expend to convince others that their addiction is harmless.

I think that's called 'denial'.

[asterix404]

I think it's called if you do too much of something all of a sudden it's bad. I'll also show you a million people from AA who have said that if they don't stop drinking their livers will fail. Docs have said that weed is better for you then cigs, you don't smoke nearly as much weed as cigs... and I thought dope was herroin, not weed. Breating will kill you eventuilly I mean you die if you stop right... so it's an adiction... ::sheaks head:: no weed is sterotyped as something evil and horrid and it's not and it's not adicting and it's not a gate way drug. Good for you... who knows... eating red meat isn't good for me... eating eggs sometimes isn't good for me. No one has ever died from smoking weed in a car crash or the like, no one has ever ODed on it, no one has ever really done anything crazy on it unless it was laced. So if smoking it is bad... and there is danger... why not ban breathing smoggy air, or cigs, or cigars, or pipes or any other smoked drug on this planet? I guess what I am asking is... whats so special... tabaco is a plant that grows almost everywhere... weed is a plant that grows almost everywhere... both are cultivated and kepted up, both are rather bad for you if what you say is even true which it really isn't... but thats an argument of the perofessionals which isn't really for this thread. But tabaco is almost the same as weed, yet smells worse, has been linked to deaths of many types... and yet is perfectly aceptable... explain?

[tinybear]

So you think it's OK to legalize something bad just 'cos there are things which are worse? What kinda logic is that?

[Osborn F Enready]

Tinybear, I think he was trying to point out the LACK of logic being used by the Anti-druggers. Since I posted my last fact filled post in this thread, I have seen very little if any intelligent debate directed towards those FACTS.

I thought this was a debate site, centered around DEBATE OF FACT, not just a bunch of opinion spewing and ego stroking. If people would stick to debating facts, this thread would have been about 5 pages long probably, since thats what it would take for me to silence all those who believe they have FACTUAL BASIS to regulate human craving, consumption, or the basic issue of "who" owns their own body for the purpose of decision making.

Instead, this thread, as many of late, have ended up in a bunch of off the cuff, non-debate provoking comments, not backed by fact, not backed by sources, but instead backed by more opinion of people who are not even educated on the subject.

In order to discuss logic, one must first be able to identify it!

[Osborn F Enready]

The issue of drug illegalization is EXACTLY like the issue of prohibition. It is a case of the federal government UN-SUCCESSFULLY trying to regulate a desire, a craving, a PERSONAL choice. What is a personal choice? A choice that only you can make, that only affects you, physically. You can't be held responsible for what someone else "feels" or "thinks" because of an action.

Marijuana is no more/less harmful than smoking any other vegetable(No, I don't know the tar content of all vegetables, and that is a vague and general statement since smoking ANYTHING is harmful to the lungs among other things). Its harm on the body is irrelevant, since people ARE THEIR OWN MASTERS and have the RIGHT to consume what they wish as long as it does not physically harm another.(during the act of consumption. I don't want to hear about people being hurt as a "result" of someone using a drug or alchohol since there ARE laws in place to deal with people who break laws of that manner. Whether or not they are under the influence has no bearing on the fact that the individual exercised poor judgement, and critical flaws in thinking to cause the life of another.)

How many of you would stop eating corn, if the government made a federal law that said you could no longer eat corn?

How many of you would stop drinking, if the federal government made a federal law that said you could no longer drink?

Marijuana is used for an effect that it provides. For some, relaxation. For some, appetite. For some, focus. For some, beliefs. For some, enjoyment. For some, medical benefits.(glaucoma)

Alchohol, is also used for an effect that it provides. For some, relaxation. For some, social anxiety relief. For some, focus. For some, beliefs. For some, enjoyment. For some, medical benefits.(good heart health, and whatever other crap the F.D.A. and the medical journals are saying this month.)

Marijuana, is a derivative of cannibus, such as hemp. I would think most of you know the Constitution is written on hemp parchment? Hemp has thousands of industrial and everyday uses, and there are even engines designed to run on hemp oil. All of the United States Navy used to use Hemp rope, and still do in some cases.

SO, here we have the federal government, trying to regulate a personal choice(which is a pandoras box to open at ANY instance), which is directly affecting a relatively harmless drug(compared to the average of available legal drugs, including over the counter) that is a by product of an extremely useful, cheap, easyily grown and harvested plant.

Does this sound like rational thought processes at work?

Harry Anslinger enters the picture.
http://www.erowid.org/culture/chara...ger_harry.shtml

You have to understand that marijuana was demonized by Harry Anslinger and his corporate, political friends for three reasons.

#1 It shifted the focus from a tax on alchohol, which was being talked about at the time, and alchohol was Harrys stress reliever.

#2 It greatly eased, and secured the profit of Harrys good friends, the Hearsts, Duponts and others in industry.

#3 It was a way in Harrys mind to lash out against his racial enemies, and the people who did not believe as he did.
http://www.ukcia.org/potculture/20/lies.html


People should not be asking IF marijuana should be illegal, they SHOULD be asking WHY marijuana is NOT legal!


Gateway drug theory is just that, a theory, which is faulted in concept.

There is the initial theory, which says that taking marijuana itself is a gateway drug in a physical sense. Why is this? Is it because the person who trys it says, "gee, this isn't what everyone made it out to be. I don't feel evil, or like killing. I feel relaxed, and hungry. I wonder if all the other drugs are as mis-represented as marijuana?" Could this be the dreaded gateway theory? Well we will probably never know, since this kind of theory verges un-provable due to abilty to accurately test desire or intrest.

People learn about marijuana the SAME WAY they learn about other illegal drugs. It is naturally a gateway to the black market, NOT to other drugs.

Once a person sees how easily the black market can be tapped for whatever product the legal market cannot provide, the question is naturally presented as to whether or not one should obtain other products for consumption, or otherwise. It is the black market, that is the gateway to crime. The black market EXISTS only because laws are RESTRICTING COMMONLY DESIRED ITEMS, which in turn allows quantity to provide profit.

When did we first have a black market on a national scale in the United States? The beginning of prohibition of alchohol.

As an interesting side note....

What is a famous political family that has its family wealth obtained by bootlegging alchohol that is currently still active and using that same wealth?

THE KENNEDYS!

Speaking of criminals, has anyone read the criminal records of their political officials? We all know how strongly these people feel about crime, and punishment right? Surely these must be people who lead by EXAMPLE, right?

http://www.issues2000.org/askme/spousal_abuse.htm

Victimless crimes, do we understand their impact?

Well, having tried to say this in my own words shortly and sweetly, I couldn't so I had to reflect back to the words of Alan W. Bock from his book on Ruby Ridge.

"Consideration of law enforcement abuses would lead honest people to consider whether there are some laws that simply cannot be enforced- even ineffectively- without abuse. Most people want government to try to protect them from those of their fellow citizens who seek to do them harm. But when the very possesion of certain items, like guns or drugs, is made illegal, without the necessity of any harm having been done to innocent people, thereby, law enforcement agencies are forced to use increasingly intrusive means to try to enforce such laws."
"Such laws, creat victimless crimes in the special legalistic sense, since there is no complaining victim to go to the police,offer to cooperate, and demand the perpetrators be brought to justice, as is usually the case with a robbery or mugging. Instead, enforcement agencies must penetrate private places to gather evidence of law breaking, or use undercover agents to set up provable crimes by people they suspect of being inclined toward law breaking. Whether or not one believes such tactics to be inherently abusive, there is little question that they hold more potential for abuse than more straigtforward tactics against crimes with clearly identifiable victims."

What this tries to put in context is, that law enforcement is being asked to enforce laws that go beyond the clarifications of the Constitutions stated goals. The constitution is the basis for all law in this land, and is the supreme law of the land.

In order to enforce drug laws for example, one must first change the constitution to reflect the nations urgency to a "war on drugs" by creating an amendment outlawing drugs, and this was not done as it was for prohibition. This creates a gray area, as there is no constitutional argument for the use of "dogs, mechanical devices(sniffers, x-rays, FLIR) to search an OTHERWISE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AREA OF PRIVACY.

Prohibition was wrong, and based on the same concepts as the war on drugs. Flawed logic, inconclusive, rigged evidence, and a lack of citizen support.

It is also unconstitutional for the Fed to ignore the State rights of California, to legalize medical marijuana, and then claim they support the Constitution and all of its graces.

Could you show me, where the police derive the authority TO USE DRUG DOGS, and the devices I listed above in the Constitution? How about sobriety checkpoints? How about random search of your vehicle at traffic stops?

Could anyone show me how victimless crimes prevention outweighs the loss of rights to those WRONGLY accused? What compensation should be made to those who lost those rights, for whatever time and dignity was lost?

Moreover, ask yourself one important question. How did unconstitutional laws get on the lawbooks in the first place? Is there no such thing as enforcement of constitutional limitations on government?

I welcome any intelligent debate on this topic.

[Waychel]

Smoking Marijuana is actually more detrimental to one's health than smoking cigarettes. A Marijuana "cigarette" contains four times as much tar as a cigarette of identical weight/content of Tobacco. This means that when you smoke a large "blunt" of Marijuana, you're actually depositing around eight or ten times more tar in your lungs than you would be getting from a normal cigarette. Similarly, because Cannabis is smoked without a filter and the smoke is inhaled deeply into the lungs and held longer than with tobacco, your lungs are irritated twice as much. Most long-time smokers of Marijuana develop erythema, edema and chronic bronchitis; the severity of which is, once again, proven to be two times greater in Marijuana smokers than in Tobacco smokers. This all regardless of the fact that Marijuana also contains many carcinogens.

So, really, the concept that Marijuana isn't "dangerous" to one's own health is a fallacious one. The implications upon youth culture's use of the drug only amplify the justification for it being banned as, unlike Tobacco, Marijuana impacts the developing Hipocampus and retards memory function/retention. Marijuana is not something that a developing brain should be poisoned with.

EDIT: Here's a source that I found, since I know you're going to demand one eventually. =PpP

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/druginfo...abishealth.htm

[tinybear]

I'm with you on this issue, Waychel. Any government which legalizes something this dangerous is irresponsible.

[rez]

Quote by: Waychel Smoking Marijuana is actually more detrimental to one's health than smoking cigarettes. A Marijuana "cigarette" contains four times as much tar as a cigarette of identical weight/content of Tobacco. This means that when you smoke a large "blunt" of Marijuana, you're actually depositing around eight or ten times more tar in your lungs than you would be getting from a normal cigarette. Similarly, because Cannabis is smoked without a filter and the smoke is inhaled deeply into the lungs and held longer than with tobacco, your lungs are irritated twice as much. Most long-time smokers of Marijuana develop erythema, edema and chronic bronchitis; the severity of which is, once again, proven to be two times greater in Marijuana smokers than in Tobacco smokers. This all regardless of the fact that Marijuana also contains many carcinogens. So, really, the concept that Marijuana isn't "dangerous" to one's own health is a fallacious one. The implications upon youth culture's use of the drug only amplify the justification for it being banned as, unlike Tobacco, Marijuana impacts the developing Hipocampus and retards memory function/retention. Marijuana is not something that a developing brain should be poisoned with. EDIT: Here's a source that I found, since I know you're going to demand one eventually. =PpP http://www.drugscope.org.uk/druginfo...abishealth.htm

WRONG. You forgot to mention that as time goes on WEED becomes BETTER, meaning there is more THC. The conclusion here, is that, the more THC, the less a person has to smoke,therefore making your post propaganda conservative jesus christ bullshit.

Also, smoking POT in a blunt is considered only when the POT is not potent. If you buy regular pot from mexico people will roll it in a blunt because smoking shitty pot in a bowl is a waste. However, smoking really good pot takes TWO hits, which TOTALLY contradicts your whole ENTIRE thought process.

So try again.

[tinybear]

So what you're saying is marijuana is harmless?

[rez]

Quote by: tinybear So what you're saying is marijuana is harmless?

Yes, Marijuana is HARMLESS. This drug heightens brain chemistry...It increases what was already there to begin with.....The only negative thing I can really say it does is that it increases your thoughts so fast that you FORGET what you wanted to say, but it still comes to you.

I mean, TRY IT....I feel so much better about myself knowing that I am not hanging out with drunk people that turn aggressive and obnoxious all the time.

EDIT: but you still need to remember that it is illegal......which, now that I think about it...is not really true either.

Me and a couple of pals were smoking in a park and a cop caught us...he simply made us stomp it out....Christ, who wants to write up paper work for a nickle bag of Pot..its a waste of time...

My advice is, dont carry around a lot of pot with you because the authority can catch you for selling....also if you have spare pot put it in your shoe afterwards.....cops do not check there...

This is simple common sense shit....mean while 50 kids are drinking beer in the woods at midnight in the pitch black dark....that sounds really safe....

Also, I lived in the honors dorm for my freshman year and the other honors kids responded the same way as the rest of the conservatives here are, however, they soon realized its not as bad as they initially thought..

[Waychel]

I know honor students that go binge drinking. I suppose that by your logic, this would mean that alcohol -- especially the practice of binge drinking -- is something not as bad as we have been lead to believe by conclusive scientific case studies and research? Just because we do not see the damage does not mean that it isn't being done.

I'm sure all of the people out there who have died from lung cancer due to smoking, at one point adhered to this same philosophy.

[tinybear]

It really amazes me how people can still denial the harmful effects of marijuana, just like the harmful effects of tobacco were denied until very recently.

[asterix404]

The idea that weed is unflitered is stupid... look at the whole market of bongs... and don't compaire alchoal to weed, thats the exact point of what we are saying shoudln't be done. Alchoal is a horrid substance that kills every organ in your body. Weed is a drug that cures alergies, helps people with brain cancer, helps peope with certain types of pains... One drug I can get anywhere and if i am a woman I cna get anywhere at just about any age and the other I could be arrested for having.

And listen... that 5x more tar crap... okay here we go... lets just say an average smoker smokes about 2 packs a day... not too bad... but still very substantial. Thats about 40 cigs... to get the same amount of tar I would have to smoke 8 joints compeatly alone... I don't know people on the planet who can smoke that much weed in a day. After 1 joint you are done for about 4h... if you smoke more... half will get you high for about 4 more... the rest another 4... thats 12h right there on 2. I will never deny the fact that smoking anything is bad for you... in fact it is... but what about eaten? Weed is very tasty hence forth brownies and butter and such... would you ever eat a ciggerette or sollow chewing tabaco? Also to be honest... I live outside 4 major cities... I goto shcool in a small city... there are polutents everywhere and I am rather certain that what I breath in from them is so much worse. Also here is a fun fact for you... Weed doesn't clog your capilaries... those are the things that give oxigen to your blood... the biggest problem with tabaco if you look at a lung that has used it... it's black and tarished... and all the capilaries have died due to the drug... this doesn't have that affect. Weed is also non adicting so when it is smoked you don't feal the need to do it for hours after. I go about every 3-4 weeks sometimes 2... who knows...

About bindge drinking now: it is something that is horrable for you but people do it anyway and know the consequences of their actions. People have drank themselves to death and killed inocent people on the roads with thier drunk driving.

Fact 1) It is impossable to smoke yourself to death in a night... you can not OD on weed.
Fact 2) After about an hour you are perfectly able to do everything you normally would do.
Fact 3) For women who can not orgasm, smoeking weed makes you more senceative and relaxes your mind so you can cum, this in tern reduces the over all stress of the body and releaces many endorphans into the blood stream and is a very very good thing.
Fact 4) You have been lied to by the govt on any drug related issue. We are so anti drug we have bud commercials on TV, we have liquer commercials on TV... then I see a comercial where a guy almost hits a girl with his car cuz she walked in front of a drive through... he stoped though... and this was anti-weed.
Fact 5) You CAN NOT stop someone from doing something that they want to do. If they want to kill you they will find a way... if they want to drink when they are 12... they will find a way... if they desire a gun to kill their teachers... they will find a way. If a person wants to do drugs they will... ones that are a lot stronger then weed, and i do not think people should use them... but I think they should be legalized.

Tinybear... what harmful effects? Where are they... why are all of my friends who smoke very liad back and rather stress free and extreamly happy?

Waychel... if we know that binge drinking is so bad for you why is it legal? If you know people can die from it... why is it legal... why is it so acceptable that you can get drunk and kill someone with your car and do less time in jail then people smoking weed? Why is it that someone who deals can get a minimum of 25 years in jail while someone to kills a child can be out in 7 with good behivior? Why would you want to pay for someone to be in jail if they have not hurt society?

[tinybear]

It's addictive for a start. That's the harm. I've posted many links from a variety of sources stating how harmful marijuana is. I don't want to go on posting more.

A little over 100 years ago when the opium trade flourished in China and was legal, it was touted as having medicinal properties, was very relaxing, makes you feel good...etc And it was true (in a way). As long as you keep taking it, it did make you feel good. We now know what it really does to you.

[asterix404]

But marijunana isn't addictive... how can i go for months on end and not want it at all? Physically it can be but so can smoking and drinking and not breathing under water... and getting yourself high that way.... Opium is also not weed... I am very focused on marijunana since other drugs are very bad for you but people do them anyway. People having been smoking weed for 30 years and quite in a few days... it's been around for centuries... we would know by this point too woudln't we? And don't we... have you tried it?

[rez]

Quote by: tinybear It's addictive for a start. That's the harm. I've posted many links from a variety of sources stating how harmful marijuana is. I don't want to go on posting more. A little over 100 years ago when the opium trade flourished in China and was legal, it was touted as having medicinal properties, was very relaxing, makes you feel good...etc And it was true (in a way). As long as you keep taking it, it did make you feel good. We now know what it really does to you.

First Off: What's wrong with me then? Why ain’t I addicted? I guess I ain't gettin the good shit? I realize your point and strongly agree, but I want to know what I’m SMOKING.
You seemed to go off on a tangent about Opium in CHINA saying stuff like “As long as you keep taking it, it did make you feel good. We now know what it really does to you." I don’t know whether you want to say Opium and Pot are connected or what? But same something useful. I need to get this addictive pot stuff……is it cheap?

[Osborn F Enready]

Waychel, Tinybear, allow me to clarify something.

I didn't say marijuana is "harmless".

I said it is as harmful as smoking any dried vegetable, give or take a few grams of tar.

People don't smoke nearly as many joints a day, as they do cigarettes. When I smoke cigarettes, which I have quit quite a few times, and started back by choice AFTER the addiction was long gone, I smoke about 2 to 3 packs a day.

When I smoke pot, I smoke between 1 and 6 joints a day, depending on if I am working, or have plans. I have never smoked at a job I gave a shit about, though when I was younger, I smoked while doing menial factory work in order to maintain my sanity and justify my necessity for putting up with the job.

Regardless of whether or not pot is harmful is IRRELEVANT.

The government does not have the authority to regulate appetite, craving or desire.

There are millions, LITERALLY, MILLIONS of natural and man made substances out there that will kill a person, or even worse, just maim them permanently. None of these substances are outlawed. So what is your logical chain of thought? Why should something be banned or made illegal, just because if it is used a certain way, it could cause harm?

Wouldn't all kitchen knives be illegal? Gas? Propane? Natural Gas? Hairspray? Electronics Cleaner? Oven Cleaner? Bathroom Cleaner? etc.......

Show me your chain of logic, please, or this argument stands irrelevant on its premise.
You are both obviously thinking of the state or Fed as a mommy figure, who slaps your hands before you burn yourself. Sorry, this is supposed to be America.

"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control mans' appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded."
-Abraham Lincoln (December 1840)


Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual from his own foolishness, no serious objections can be raised against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.

care of "M. A. Johnson" <michaelj@america.net>:

These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naive advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the cause of censorship, inquisition, intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.

-Ludwig von Mises, Austrian-born NYU Professor and free market advocate, 1949