U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-29-2010, 01:13 PM
 
231 posts, read 195,638 times
Reputation: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregHenry View Post
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

There are a lot of things I can't stand, but I'm not such a tyrant and advocate of big government that I seek to use collective violence to prevent people from living their lives as they will, as long as they do not harm me.

Liberty requires tolerating conduct in others that we do not like
and would not do ourselves.
I didn't realize voting against a proposition was considered "collective violence."

What conduct? This is smoke that affects how I feel--in a negative way. Liberty does not require that I spend my days feeling sick and smelling an offensive odor.

Plus your argument could be used to justify letting people smoke tobacco freely, wherever they wanted. After all, it just requires tolerating that conduct, right?

In fact, let's get away from tobacco, as that argument just goes in circles. Let's say you worked in an office where someone's perfume was making you sick, really nauseous. Other than that you like the job and really don't want to quit just because this person wants to douse themselves in fragrance. You wouldn't tolerate that smell and nausea, or giving up a good job, for the sake of their freedom to wear the perfume they liked, I'd think.

Last edited by Jehjeh; 10-29-2010 at 01:17 PM.. Reason: Added last paragraph.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2010, 01:26 PM
 
Location: LA
6,186 posts, read 11,634,698 times
Reputation: 2532
i think there's a huge difference between what people should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own homes versus what they do in public. as to your perfume example, i have worked for companies that explicitly disallow employees from wearing perfume/cologne in the office for the exact reasons you mentioned. however, nothing is stopping someone from dousing themselves at home and stinking up their entire house. the same can be said for cigarettes, so why not weed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2010, 01:44 PM
 
583 posts, read 402,242 times
Reputation: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jehjeh View Post
I didn't realize voting against a proposition was considered "collective violence."
Then you don't know political theory. Using the coercive power of the state, a collective of force, to limit another's freedom is absolutely collective violence. You are getting another to do as you want by putting a collective boot on his neck.

There's nothing subtle or intellectually satisfying about such a course. It's just getting your way at the barrel of a gun.

Quote:
What conduct? This is smoke that affects how I feel--in a negative way. Liberty does not require that I spend my days feeling sick and smelling an offensive odor.
Buddy, I have some Asian neighbours that cook some things that make marijuana smell like roses. I have to close my windows, and I have to hold my breath as I walk past their door. Ought I to have a law passed against noxious fish dishes?

Quote:
Plus your argument could be used to justify letting people smoke tobacco freely, wherever they wanted. After all, it just requires tolerating that conduct, right?
People largely do have the ability to smoke tobacco wherever they want, as long as it does not harm another. People can smoke in their homes without any state interference. People also chew tobacco, a manner of ingestion which I presume causes you no olfactory displeasure?

Further, to assuage your senses, marijuana can be cooked into food, made into capsules, vaporised and consumed in a variety of fashions that do not, in any way, cause you to notice it.

I presume a law prohibiting smoking in restaurants will equally extend to clove and marijuana cigarettes.

You don't have a right not to be offended.

Quote:
In fact, let's get away from tobacco, as that argument just goes in circles. Let's say you worked in an office where someone's perfume was making you sick, really nauseous. Other than that you like the job and really don't want to quit just because this person wants to douse themselves in fragrance. You wouldn't tolerate that smell and nausea, or giving up a good job, for the sake of their freedom to wear the perfume they liked, I'd think.
Unless you own the company, your choices as an employee are these: 1) quit, 2) complain to the management. What to do with the overscented employee is solely a matter for the company. If you are less valuable than the fragrant one, no action might be taken on your grievance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2010, 01:45 PM
 
231 posts, read 195,638 times
Reputation: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRinSM View Post
i think there's a huge difference between what people should be allowed to do in the privacy of their own homes versus what they do in public. as to your perfume example, i have worked for companies that explicitly disallow employees from wearing perfume/cologne in the office for the exact reasons you mentioned. however, nothing is stopping someone from dousing themselves at home and stinking up their entire house. the same can be said for cigarettes, so why not weed?
You should re-read what I wrote about people smoking in their homes but leaving the window open, or the smoke seeping through walls and floors. It's not going to be as private an activity as you think.

If your neighbor doused his or her apartment up with air freshener and the fumes seeped into your apartment, would you just deal with a constant headache, or would you try to stop the neighbor from saturating your space with air freshener?

(Those who would answer that they'd just deal with the headache, with all due respect, I don't believe you--I think you'd get rather tired of the headache after Day 2.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2010, 02:00 PM
 
583 posts, read 402,242 times
Reputation: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jehjeh View Post
If your neighbor doused his or her apartment up with air freshener and the fumes seeped into your apartment, would you just deal with a constant headache, or would you try to stop the neighbor from saturating your space with air freshener?
There is an entire body of law dealing with those who impede on another's property enjoyment with noxious odors. Amazingly, this entire body of law was developed while marijuana was illegal and where marijuana use was not the subject of the case.

Courts are well able to adjudicate noxious odor cases to preserve property rights. There is no need to keep substances illegal that **might** become the subject of such cases.

I suspect California courts will see as many stinky weed cases as they will other sort of noxious smell cases. A quick injunction against the offending resident will send him scampering for a vaporiser which will keep his odors behind his walls.

We lose so many freedoms worry about what **might** happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2010, 01:44 AM
 
Location: Toronto
287 posts, read 598,231 times
Reputation: 264
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.c...970646cl-8.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2010, 07:38 AM
 
Location: In God's Hand
1,315 posts, read 964,750 times
Reputation: 134
Marijuanna serves as a gateway to other drugs. Legalize marijuanna, and you give the drug pushers or the "friends" the medium to offer harder drugs when that person is stoned.

My older brother declared strongly that he would never do crack many years ago and then lo and behold: he was doing crack. I had asked him why he would go back on his word about never doing crack, and he has said that crack was offered to him when he was stoned.

I don't know what proof anybody needs to say that judgment is impaired when you are stoned.

If Californians legalize marijuanna, then they are opening the gateway for more users to be approached with harder drugs. Then you can kiss that liberty good bye when drug users are enslaved by these drugs as the only means to get them through the day. You will have annoying family members asking for money for gas, food, and whatnots when in actually, they are asking money for drugs. How's that for unwanted oppression on families as an unnecessary drain on resources in these difficult times?

Then if drug users cannot get money from family members, then they resort to selling stuff to get the money. And when all that is of value that can be sold is gone, then stealing will become an option.

Then you have the history of irresponsible people in California of drinking and driving. How much will that be raised by people driving while stoned? How many have to get in a car wreck and how many people need to die to see that smoking marijuanna is for the purpose of being stoned or impaired?

Can California recover from that downward spiral in society caused by the legalization of marijuanna? Is the drug price for entertainment worth the blood spilled in Mexico? Will the drug war move to California when California wakes up too late to change things back?

People need to stop the rationalization of marijuanna as a harmless drug when it is a fact that it serves as a gateway for other harder drugs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2010, 09:23 AM
 
1,331 posts, read 1,792,525 times
Reputation: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enow View Post
Marijuanna serves as a gateway to other drugs. Legalize marijuanna, and you give the drug pushers or the "friends" the medium to offer harder drugs when that person is stoned.

My older brother declared strongly that he would never do crack many years ago and then lo and behold: he was doing crack. I had asked him why he would go back on his word about never doing crack, and he has said that crack was offered to him when he was stoned.

I don't know what proof anybody needs to say that judgment is impaired when you are stoned.

If Californians legalize marijuanna, then they are opening the gateway for more users to be approached with harder drugs. Then you can kiss that liberty good bye when drug users are enslaved by these drugs as the only means to get them through the day. You will have annoying family members asking for money for gas, food, and whatnots when in actually, they are asking money for drugs. How's that for unwanted oppression on families as an unnecessary drain on resources in these difficult times?

Then if drug users cannot get money from family members, then they resort to selling stuff to get the money. And when all that is of value that can be sold is gone, then stealing will become an option.

Then you have the history of irresponsible people in California of drinking and driving. How much will that be raised by people driving while stoned? How many have to get in a car wreck and how many people need to die to see that smoking marijuanna is for the purpose of being stoned or impaired?

Can California recover from that downward spiral in society caused by the legalization of marijuanna? Is the drug price for entertainment worth the blood spilled in Mexico? Will the drug war move to California when California wakes up too late to change things back?

People need to stop the rationalization of marijuanna as a harmless drug when it is a fact that it serves as a gateway for other harder drugs.
Don't think I've come across many more posts that are this badly loaded with tons of fail on this subject here on CD. Most marijuana users could care less about doing harder drugs. Plus if you legalize marijuana, you take those drug dealers away from marijuana smokers as they will be getting their marijuana legally and in a safe environment where they don't have to worry about other drugs being pushed on them.

In regards to your brother, he does not represent everybody. We don't know the full story behind him, his personality, and behaviors. I highly doubt smoking marijuana was the main culprit with your brother trying crack. Most marijuana smokers only hang out with others who only smoke marijuana.

It's false to think that legalizing marijuana will lead to people using harder drugs. The gateway argument is false and legalizing will take away people dealing with shady dealers as they can go through legal means to obtain. People do not usually steal because they can't afford marijuana. How often do you see people busted for stealing to support a lone marijuana smoking habit? I'd say almost never. It will be not alright for people to smoke and drive. Police have means to detect this if it occurs. Sadly, studies have shown that drivers on marijuana are safe and pay more attention to what they are doing while driving. Funny that you have no evidence to back up your claims. It's scary that people can actually think in this manner and buy into blatant lies/distortions. Educate yourself and you might be surprised at what you find.

New study debunks marijuana 'gateway theory' - CNN has yet to hear // Current (http://current.com/news/91902926_new-study-debunks-marijuana-gateway-theory-cnn-has-yet-to-hear.htm - broken link)

Risk of marijuana’s ‘gateway effect’ overblown, new UNH research shows | Science News

http://www.iowatelecom.net/~sharkhaus/driving.html

University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2010, 09:56 AM
 
5,375 posts, read 6,888,990 times
Reputation: 2763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enow View Post
Marijuanna serves as a gateway to other drugs. Legalize marijuanna, and you give the drug pushers or the "friends" the medium to offer harder drugs when that person is stoned .... it serves as a gateway for other harder drugs.
This is the fourth time today that you have posted exactly the same post word for word in different topics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2010, 01:04 PM
 
Location: California
25,321 posts, read 16,282,421 times
Reputation: 17706
If someone smokes it openly they can be hit with a $100 fine, it's much easier way to fine and get money than criminal persecution, which costs more than the state will recoup. It's like public smoking of cigs in CA now, you don't see often . Occasionally, maybe, but those folks get glares and draw attention so it's not done much...and there isn't even a fine attached to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top