Bonzo77 Posted November 27, 2014 Author Share Posted November 27, 2014 There are posters on this thread and who know others that want cannabis legalised. What has stopped these supporters using the drug ? Why does that matter? Do you think everyone who has decided to stop drinking wants alcohol banned? Same goes for reformed smokers? The fact that people can use cannabis, enjoy it, then decide to stop, should speak volumes about the dangers and addictiveness of the drug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I have no interest in using it. I also don't smoke out of choice (based on the medical and social issues). What I don't believe though, is that my opinion should be imposed on anyone else with regards to things they do to themselves. What are your views on seat belts in cars ? ---------- Post added 27-11-2014 at 11:05 ---------- Why does that matter? Do you think everyone who has decided to stop drinking wants alcohol banned? Same goes for reformed smokers? The fact that people can use cannabis, enjoy it, then decide to stop, should speak volumes about the dangers and addictiveness of the drug. Good points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 What are your views on seat belts in cars ? 2 things will kill you in an accident,stopping dead and being crushed.The seat belt aids both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 What are your views on seat belts in cars ? I think that driving is a licensed activity for a variety of reasons, and that the cost to society for injuries and deaths to occupants involved in accidents is high. As such, the requirement to use a seatbelt whilst on the public road is reasonable. If you wish to drive a car without one on private land, then you can do so. An alternative could be to allow people to buy extra insurance to allow them to drive without a seat belt, to compensate society when they are severely injured or killed. Difficult to enforce that though, hence the blanket requirement. The requirement to use a safety device though is not a close analogy to prohibition though. If your concern is about the cost to society then in the case of smoking that cost is balanced by the tax charged on tobacco. That's actually an argument in favour of licensed sales. You can't tax something that you've prohibited. You still have to cover the costs, because prohibition doesn't work, but you have no income from it to balance that cost. And what's more you have to spend billions in the "war on x" in a futile attempt to make prohibition work. ---------- Post added 27-11-2014 at 11:31 ---------- 2 things will kill you in an accident,stopping dead and being crushed.The seat belt aids both. It worries me that you claim to be a professional driver and are probably actually allowed on the road in some capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I think that driving is a licensed activity for a variety of reasons, and that the cost to society for injuries and deaths to occupants involved in accidents is high. As such, the requirement to use a seatbelt whilst on the public road is reasonable. If you wish to drive a car without one on private land, then you can do so. An alternative could be to allow people to buy extra insurance to allow them to drive without a seat belt, to compensate society when they are severely injured or killed. Difficult to enforce that though, hence the blanket requirement. The requirement to use a safety device though is not a close analogy to prohibition though. If your concern is about the cost to society then in the case of smoking that cost is balanced by the tax charged on tobacco. That's actually an argument in favour of licensed sales. You can't tax something that you've prohibited. You still have to cover the costs, because prohibition doesn't work, but you have no income from it to balance that cost. And what's more you have to spend billions in the "war on x" in a futile attempt to make prohibition work. ---------- Post added 27-11-2014 at 11:31 ---------- It worries me that you claim to be a professional driver and are probably actually allowed on the road in some capacity. So should over weight people also be made to have extra insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I haven't said that anybody should require extra insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I think that driving is a licensed activity for a variety of reasons, and that the cost to society for injuries and deaths to occupants involved in accidents is high. As such, the requirement to use a seatbelt whilst on the public road is reasonable. If you wish to drive a car without one on private land, then you can do so. An alternative could be to allow people to buy extra insurance to allow them to drive without a seat belt, to compensate society when they are severely injured or killed. Difficult to enforce that though, hence the blanket requirement. The requirement to use a safety device though is not a close analogy to prohibition though. If your concern is about the cost to society then in the case of smoking that cost is balanced by the tax charged on tobacco. That's actually an argument in favour of licensed sales. You can't tax something that you've prohibited. You still have to cover the costs, because prohibition doesn't work, but you have no income from it to balance that cost. And what's more you have to spend billions in the "war on x" in a futile attempt to make prohibition work. Your argument throughout has about one's views being imposed on others when they did not agree. Cost has not come into my argument. What I have expressed disgust about is the government collecting tax from a product which they identify by proof as being severely detrimental to health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 My argument has been about minimising social harm. You should go back and read it in more detail. The moral position of self determination is equally important I agree. But the cheque book is a better way to convince the government IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I haven't said that anybody should require extra insurance. ha ha do you even know what day it is? You need to ease up with them druggys mate. From the above quoted post of YOURS?? "An alternative could be to allow people to buy extra insurance to allow them to drive without a seat belt" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 My argument has been about minimising social harm. You should go back and read it in more detail. The moral position of self determination is equally important I agree. But the cheque book is a better way to convince the government IMO. It has been an interesting debate but think we have exhausted it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now