If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
Stop trying to equate the examples and try to see the point being made!
A person cannot argue anything on the right to free choice, because of the implications of the arguement.
Here is the point:
Arguing the right to grow your own drugs based on the right to free choice is self-defeating because of the implications of the arguement 'right to free choice'.
Every argument you've put up gets knocked down, yet you still come up with even more absurd assertions.
Now you've got no arguments left, you're trying to hide behind some kind of "life isn't fair" stance which you've totally contradicted elsewhere on this forum (forest gump/human nature).
As a plain question, do YOU believe it's appropriate that people should be aquiring criminal records and getting banged up for growing their own weed for themself and their pals? Forget the whole consent stuff, we're talking about your opinion.
Again, this doesn't make sense. You cannot draw the same conclusions about things which are totally different (i.e. growing weed and murder). I believe it might be called a "category error".
You consider by assertations absurd because you don't understand them. Life isn't fair, this is something I have never denied, it doesn't mean I like it (re: human nature).
And if you read my post record, which may take an awful long time by now, I have been very careful about posting my direct opinion, I'm not about to start now.
The law, is the law, go change it if you want to.
A sensible person cannot draw the same conclusions about things that are totally different, and indeed, I would not. This is not a standard that can be expected of the general public. I can see the potential for ridiculous counter-arguement, why can't you?
But you are.
No, I'm not, I'm stating the potential for them. There's a difference.
So you try to argue with opinions that aren't yours?
Sorry pal, I think you just can't admit you've been soundly beaten in debate.
Sorry pal, I think you just can't admit you've been soundly beaten in debate. Either that or you're fucking out of your mind :eek2:
The opinion that using the argument 'right to free choice' is foolish is mine, I'm using arguments that other people may use to make that point.
The only way a person can be 'beaten' in debate is by having their opinion changed by the opposing argument, in which case, you are just as 'beaten' as me.
No, you're saying that the personal choice to smoke weed is morally comparable to the personal choice to murder someone. It isn't.
No I'm not. Don't put words in my mouth it's extremly rude.
I am saying that the main argument for legalising canabis is the right to free choice. Which not only simply exists as a concept not as a true reality. Can also be abused by people wanting things which aren't as 'harmless'.
Well, how about using arguments that you would use to make that point? Basically you've just said you consider supporting the notion of free choice (when it affects nobody but the decision-maker) foolish, but you don't have any arguments of your own to back it up.
I think it's obvious for all to see you've got no real knowledge of the topic.
To have real knowledge I have to be drug user do I?
Free choice has to be balanced with responsibility, do you agree?
Well what the hell are you saying?
No, that is not the main argument for legalising cannabis. It is one of the arguments, but not the main one.
And anyway, are you arguing that people don't have the free choice to do things that don't harm anyone else? Sorry, that's bollocks. Morally I have the free choice to smoke weed if I want. It might be illegal, but I still have that free moral choice.
No, but it might be an idea to know something about the subject.
Yes. What has that to do with smoking cannabis?
Excuse me, one of the arguments.
Who gives you this moral free choice? Where does it come from?
That if you want to grow your own, you must be correspondingly responsible for it's use and actions under the influence. Ie making sure that you don't provide it to those who are underage (assuming there'd be an age limit), or that if you were stoned you'd take responsibility for an accident if you unaware steped into a road, or decided to drive a car.
Well then isn't the answer to differentiate between freedom of choice leading to harm to others and freedom of choice which effects no-one but the person making the choice? How many times does it need to be said?
Let's take a theoretical example. You're appointed drugs tzar, and have the ability to control drugs policy at your discretion. Knowing that growing & smoking weed does not interfere with anyone else but the people doing the growing or smoking, would you not legalise, and if not, why not?
I gave it to myself.
it hadn't been said until that very post.
And all the people I know who grow their own do exactly that.
Sorry, what was your point again?
Yes it had.
An agreement that it was necessary, not voluntary. The people you know are responsible out of choice, not everyone behaves the same way.
So you continued to argue for what reason? Why didn't you just direct me to it?
Driving under the influence of cannabis is obviously illegal, it would obviously continue to be so in the event of legalisation.
It's what free the weed campaigners have been saying for a long time, i'm glad you've finally agreed
'cos I'm not your mother
True. And if cannabis was legalised, then people might be more inclined to behave responsibly. In the same way that most pubs and off licences won't serve under 18's and most people won't drink and drive.