Do we need another "prohibition"?

[g5000]

If we're not going to prohibit all of it, then we shouldn't prohibit any of it.

So should we allow private citizens to possess nukes? After all, if we are not going to prohibit all arms, then we shouldn't prohibit any of them.

You see, there is a point where a line must be drawn when it comes to the possession of arms. Just so with drugs. Heroin and crack and the like are the nuclear weapons of drugs.

I'm perfectly fine with legalizing pot. I use alcohol and cigarettes as benchmarks. Pot is no more addictive or destructive than alcohol or nicotine.

Arms and weapons are totally different from alcohol and cigarettes. I smoke cigarettes also. Of course John Q. Public shouldn't own nukes. That's a silly question.

It is an allegory. Just as there is an arbitrary line for the private ownership of arms which rationality dictates must be drawn, so there is one for drugs, too.

 

[Sonny Clark]

If we're not going to prohibit all of it, then we shouldn't prohibit any of it.

So should we allow private citizens to possess nukes? After all, if we are not going to prohibit all arms, then we shouldn't prohibit any of them.

You see, there is a point where a line must be drawn when it comes to the possession of arms. Just so with drugs. Heroin and crack and the like are the nuclear weapons of drugs.

I'm perfectly fine with legalizing pot. I use alcohol and cigarettes as benchmarks. Pot is no more addictive or destructive than alcohol or nicotine.

Arms and weapons are totally different from alcohol and cigarettes. I smoke cigarettes also. Of course John Q. Public shouldn't own nukes. That's a silly question.

It is an allegory. Just as there is an arbitrary line for the private ownership of arms which sanity dictates must be drawn, so there is one for drugs, too.

I believe arms, weapons, nukes, other bombs, etc. etc. are a far cry from alcohol or cigarettes. We usually prohibit for the collective good, so it would seem. But, it doesn't always work out that way. I see no reason why anyone shouldn't own rifles, shot guns, and pistols. I think self-protection is a must in today's society. But, I would definitely draw a line where nukes, other bombs, and chemical or biological weapons are concerned.

 

[aaronleland]

Whether legal or illegal, pot should be at least of the same classification as tobacco.

I am for the legalization of pot.

However, while cigarettes may be more addictive than pot, they are not an intoxicant. They do not inhibit your ability to drive or your judgment. Pot should therefore not be in the same classification as tobacco.

I don't care what you think. I'm going to smoke the rest of this joint, and make more dick jokes in the Flame Zone.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Whether legal or illegal, pot should be at least of the same classification as tobacco.

I am for the legalization of pot.

However, while cigarettes may be more addictive than pot, they are not an intoxicant. They do not inhibit your ability to drive or your judgment. Pot should therefore not be in the same classification as tobacco.

I don't care what you think. I'm going to smoke the rest of this joint, and make more dick jokes in the Flame Zone.

dont hold out on me Aaron.....pass it this way.......

 

[Donald Polish]

No. We need less government intrusion and more personal responsibility.

We don't have government control but American personal responsibility is even lower. Alcohol abuse is a significant problem among young people and a solution needs to be found. This page evaluates prevention programs and identifies effective and ineffective ways to reduce drinking problems among young people, especially high school, college, and university students. The best preventive measures are radical like ever.