You gotta know when it's enough, if you don't, then you're stupid and need help.</font>[/QUOTE]a bit of a generalisation but a good point never the less

<font color="#55ffcc">Coolness [img]smile.gif[/img] I am pretty set in my opinion on the subject, but I am not trying to make others believe as I do [img]smile.gif[/img] anyway, Im amazed that the topic didn't get locked or erased....it does make for good discussion. </font>

[ 07-12-2002, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color="#55ffcc">Just a little clarification on something. Why do I say, "Do not let addicts have publicly funded medical care for their condition"? The reasoning is like this...

Being a libertarian, I believe we should be free to do as we please as long as it doesnt interfere with the rights of others. In other words..what I do in my home is my business, but the minute you take public money to support those people who are knowingly engageing in risky behaviour thats where you start affecting the rights of others. That money is not yours, it is confiscated from the public, people who went out and EARNED it and should be used in a manner more directly beneficial for the societal whole...or not collected at all...even better...errr this would include spending massive amounts on rescue missions for nut jobs who like to do Xtreme types of stunts like climbing K2 or Everest or jumping out of perfectly good ariplanes...let them use their own funds to take care of themselves.</font>

[ 07-12-2002, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Couldn't have said it better myself ! :D

So we should put them in prison instead? The penal system is much more expensive than healthcare. Should people having liver problem not be given medical care because it was caused by acohol? Should fat people having heart problems should be left to die because they have a bad diet? You can guess my answer... my definition of the "societal whole" doesn't exclude anyone.

Hmm... well, I'd say that if people want to use drugs, they can... if they want to die, it's not my problem. Hmm... maybe set up some form of zone where people can do drugs, but if they try to take them out they get mangled. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Besides, the less people there are who can think coherently, the less competition I have. *evil grin* [img]tongue.gif[/img]

*ahem* only if she uses a waterpipe, I hasten to add. 90 joints with tobacco in them will DEFINITELY harm theunborn child [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]
I completely agree that alcohol is more dangerous than pot, but trust me, you should rather use alcohol moderately (no more than 1-2 units a day) than smoke pot excessively. It DOES have ill side effects.</font>[/QUOTE]Note that I didnt say anything about tobacco in my post. All research was done with Goverment grown Delta 9 in the USA. Supposedly the highest potency af any pot in the world. Still, not many women can smoke 90 joints a day anyway. Im sure there have been other studies showing results that wouldnt concur, but I got my informations from the med school library at the UTHSC-Dallas.

I think the US (and other) goverment(s) need to get off the 1930's mentality. Reefer Madness was the single most anti-educational propaganda film ever made. Unfortunatley, the people of the 20's 30's amd 40's were very naive and gullible and therefore bale to be lead by there noses. They believed everything the government told them.

It might take another 30 years for our generation to come to power and change things :(

I might be wrong , but from what I know by the time drinking causes a person to notice that they have liver problems it is already too late to do anything about it. Why on earth would you want to pump public healthcare money into a lost cause that was totaly caused by the persons own actions?? Cancer is one thing, you cant realy prevent it , but a hardened scarred up liver caused by drinking is both preventable AND self inflicted!!

As for fat people with heart problems , well no one told them to sit on their dead ass and get to be 300 pounds!! I have even less sympathy for people who get too fat to walk.IMHO if you are too fat to walk you shouldnt get wedged into a wheelchair to get around, you should be wedged into an excercise bike to pedal untill you can walk again.

People who have self inflicted illnesses should have to pay to fix them themselves, WITHOUT public money. Its kind of like haveing bad credit, its no ones fault but your own.

IMO alcohol is far more dangerous than pot. You cant smoke until you get tunnel vision and you cant smoke until you go permanently blind. You cant smoke so much that you choke to death on your own vomit. You cant smoke so much that that your blood-thc level is so high that it kills you. Unlike alcohol you cant OD on pot.

In the US the big stink the last couple years is Right to Life groups or whoever trying to make Cigarettes ILLEGAL. We know that Nicotine is the most addictive substance in the entire world.

These groups are trying to label Cigarettes as a "DELIVERY DEVICE FOR NICOTINE."

If they are successful in getting Cigarettes BANNED on that basis I will begin a push to get COFFEE MUGS and BOTTLES and CANS banned as well.

Those are DELIVERY DEVICES for CAFFIENE AND ALCOHOL. Both Caffiene and alcohol are addictive as well.

Where does this Politically Correct crap STOP???

If someone doesnt like cigarette smoke DONT GO TO THE BAR. Drink at home. Its cheaper anyway. Alcohol reduces nicotine in the bloodstream. Its a circular thing:smoke drink smoke drink .......
Chances are you wont hear any music at the bar that you havent heard before or wont hear again. Buy the CD and let the smokers who drink do so in peace.

<font color="#55ffcc"> You are mis-quoting me. I said we should let them have access and die if that be their choice. Which is not imprisonment. The alcohol and food issues are not what we are talking about. Right now as it stands the VAST majority of society does NOT consume illegal substances and incur the problems associated with it. So lets deal with issue at hand and the problem that this thread is about and not derail it going off on extremist issues, we are talking about an extreme minority of people...Drug addicts not about food choices of the Majority.

The idea that Drug addicts/abusers are a valuable useful part of the collective whole I think is saddly missing the mark. The people who are abusing the illegal substances are a drain on the society not a positive influence. Ohh a few of them may be able to contribute for a while, or may clean up their act, but no I do not think they need public funds or clean needles to further their addictions.

At any rate this is just my opinion and since I weild no plenary powers to enforce my editcs, its not worth worrying about [img]smile.gif[/img] You may notice I am NOT a socialist in any true sense of the word.

Oh and by the way, I am agaisnt public funds for people who do unusual things, not normal things like eating. Personally I PAY for all of my medical care and get nothing from the state...except exorbitant tax bills. I have no problem with social programs for those who do not have othe rhealth care, but if you are accepting public funds, you SHOULD be obaying PUBLIC rules like not abusing drugs, wearing Helmets etc etc.</font>