[akiroz]

   
It's wrong because you are robbing people of their freedom and/or their money when they didn't even do anything wrong. They did not initiate force, theft, or fraud against anyone else. You clearly have no concept of human rights, much less self-ownership and self-responsibility. What you are condoning is nothing more than senseless violence against the innocent. Countless thousands of people are rotting in jail (where horrible things, including physical violence, happen to them) simply because they chose to ingest a substance into their own bodies, without ever harming anyone else, and that is wrong! Why would you wish harm upon others who did not cause harm (as in direct, actual, physical harm) to anyone else?

dude.... I'd agree if it's only affecting them but it's not!

everyone around them are forced to smoke 2nd hand smoke, what happened to my right to breath clean air on the streets?
 
you probably have no idea how bad 2nd hand smoke is because you stay home all day and watch anime....
especially in a super crowded city where I live.

 

[deadlylover]

everyone around them are forced to smoke 2nd hand smoke, what happened to my right to breath clean air on the streets?

 
We have a law here where you can't smoke cigarettes within a certain distance of a restaurant/coffee shop etc. It seems to be working nicely, not to mention a pack of ciggies is something like $20 nowadays...
In combination with the high cost, we have plain packaging with scary pictures on the boxes and IIRC it has helped on lowering the youth smoking rate.

 

[214324]

   
It's wrong because you are robbing people of their freedom and/or their money when they didn't even do anything wrong. They did not initiate force, theft, or fraud against anyone else. You clearly have no concept of human rights, much less self-ownership and self-responsibility. What you are condoning is nothing more than senseless violence against the innocent. Countless thousands of people are rotting in jail (where horrible things, including physical violence, happen to them) simply because they chose to ingest a substance into their own bodies, without ever harming anyone else, and that is wrong! Why would you wish harm upon others who did not cause harm (as in direct, actual, physical harm) to anyone else?

Your argument is so broad it's stupid. By your logic there may as well be no laws because every restriction is a freedom taken away. Laws requiring licenses for guns? Take them away because gun ownership is a human right by the US constitution and shouldn't be restricted in any way. etc.
 
And of course there's the second hand smoke like Boris has mentioned above.

 

[akiroz]

HYPE!
 

 
not a new game, but I just got around to buying it on DMM.com.
heard the story is really good.
 
also, anime planned for first season next year.

 

[akiroz]

   
We have a law here where you can't smoke cigarettes within a certain distance of a restaurant/coffee shop etc. It seems to be working nicely, not to mention a pack of ciggies is something like $20 nowadays...
In combination with the high cost, we have plain packaging with scary pictures on the boxes and IIRC it has helped on lowering the youth smoking rate.

 
Over here it's about $10 a pack and no smoking in undercover areas.
 
but HK is just so dense and crowded, you're pretty much forced to walk near the smokers on the streets....

 

[Music Alchemist]

  dude.... I'd agree if it's only affecting them but it's not!

everyone around them are forced to smoke 2nd hand smoke, what happened to my right to breath clean air on the streets?

 
Everyone is forced to be exposed to pollutants from cars, which, as I mentioned, far exceeds anything coming from cigarettes. It's kind of hard to breathe clean air on the streets when there technically isn't any in the first place. And it's pretty easy to walk away from cigarette smoke you can see.
 
Smoking is already partially banned, anyway, but restricted to certain things:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States
 

  Your argument is so broad it's stupid. By your logic there may as well be no laws because every restriction is a freedom taken away. Laws requiring licenses for guns? Take them away because gun ownership is a human right and shouldn't be restricted in any way. etc.
 
And of course there's the second hand smoke like Boris has mentioned above.

 
Let me phrase it this way: What punishment do you feel smokers deserve?
 
And no, I was not merely referring to the freedom of smoking being taken away; I was referring to being thrown in prison for years (as is the case with many non-violent offenses, which is a crime against humanity as far as I am concerned) as punishment for smoking, etc. (Just as an example.)
 
For the record, I don't like cigarette smoke and always avoid it.

 

[akiroz]

   
Everyone is forced to be exposed to pollutants from cars, which, as I mentioned, far exceeds anything coming from cigarettes. It's kind of hard to breathe clean air on the streets when there technically isn't any in the first place. And it's pretty easy to walk away from cigarette smoke you can see.
   
For the record, I don't like cigarette smoke and always avoid it.

As we've mentioned earlier car exhaust is heavily regulated, there really isn't all that much coming out of cars that's really harmful.
(when's the last time you went to a large city? I suspect a very long time.... )
 
 
Unfortunately, this isn't a choice everyone can make..... unless you shut yourself in or move to a remote place where smokers don't exist, there really isn't a good way to avoid it.
 
 
For the record, this is the kinda place I'm living in, you tell me how easy it is just to walk away....

 
This is the usual amount of people on the streets at night, it gets worse on festivals.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Unfortunately, this isn't a choice everyone can make..... unless you shut yourself in or move to a remote place where smokers don't exist, there really isn't a good way to avoid it.

 
I meant I actively avoid cigarette smoke in public when I see or smell it. There is a good way to avoid it: walk away.

 

[akiroz]

   
I meant I actively avoid cigarette smoke in public when I see or smell it. There is a good way to avoid it: walk away.

See my edited post above.
 
I live in a small city with a population over 7 million...

 

[Music Alchemist]

  See my edited post above.

 
Oh.

I see your point there. I wouldn't live in a crowded city like that for any amount of money. And in that situation, banning smoking in public areas does make sense. I'm just opposed to a complete ban of smoking that would apply to everything including private home use.

 

[214324]

   
Let me phrase it this way: What punishment do you feel smokers deserve?
 
And no, I was not merely referring to the freedom of smoking being taken away; I was referring to being thrown in prison for years (as is the case with many non-violent offenses, which is a crime against humanity as far as I am concerned) as punishment for smoking, etc. (Just as an example.)
 
For the record, I don't like cigarette smoke and always avoid it.

So you would rather the smokers keep smoking and get lung cancer and also suffer all of the side effects of smoking leading up to that point?
 
They're better off going through withdrawal for the first week or two then getting over it. It's not like the withdrawal is nearly as bad as something like heroin. It's fairly uncomfortable for maybe the first week then tapers off from what I know.
 
And they get to save hundreds of dollars each month so if anything banning smoking isn't a punishment but a net reward.
 
And making something illegal doesn't make it so you land in jail immediately. Banning smoking would simply end up giving a hefty fine to the smoker. Repeat offences just increase the fine which is plenty discouragement to not smoke. Would you smoke a cigarette even if you had that nicotine itch if you knew that your fine was compounded to a couple thousand for one smoke?

 

[Music Alchemist]

  So you would rather the smokers keep smoking and get lung cancer and also suffer all of the side effects of smoking leading up to that point?
 
They're better off going through withdrawal for the first week or two then getting over it. It's not like the withdrawal is nearly as bad as something like heroin. It's fairly uncomfortable for maybe the first week then tapers off from what I know.
 
And they get to save hundreds of dollars each month so if anything banning smoking isn't a punishment but a net reward.
 
And making something illegal doesn't make it so you land in jail immediately. Banning smoking would simply end up giving a hefty fine to the smoker. Repeat offences just increase the fine which is plenty discouragement to not smoke. Would you smoke a cigarette even if you had that nicotine itch if you knew that your fine was compounded to a couple thousand for one smoke?

 
That's their business, not mine. I support the right of an individual to do whatever they want with their life as long as it does not violate the rights of others, and believe that no one has the right to dictate what a person can or cannot do with their own body. Banning it would not prevent people from doing it. Just look at history. Prohibition does not work. If anything, it just makes the problem worse. And smoking is already banned in certain areas (especially enclosed spaces like hospitals and some restaurants) for obvious reasons. As for me, I tried smoking a cigarette two or three times out of curiosity and felt like I was dying. lol

 

[NLNH]

That's their business, not mine. I support the right of an individual to do whatever they want with their life as long as it does not violate the rights of others, and believe that no one has the right to dictate what a person can or cannot do with their own body. Banning it would not prevent people from doing it. Just look at history. Prohibition does not work. If anything, it just makes the problem worse. And smoking is already banned in certain areas (especially enclosed spaces like hospitals and some restaurants) for obvious reasons. As for me, I tried smoking a cigarette two or three times out of curiosity and felt like I was dying. lol

well, it depends on how much integrity u have and how considerate you are. but then you know there are too many that has little self awareness

 

[vwinter]

Hmmm... maybe the stuff my friend was smoking isn't quite the same weed.....
Smells really nice and sweet like those scented candles lol
It also never ceases to amaze me how they can roll a joint with one hand on the street.

They do have weed scented candles

Your argument is so broad it's stupid. By your logic there may as well be no laws because every restriction is a freedom taken away. Laws requiring licenses for guns? Take them away because gun ownership is a human right by the US constitution and shouldn't be restricted in any way. etc.

And of course there's the second hand smoke like Boris has mentioned above.

This is unfortunately the quintessential classic straw man argument and needlessly hurts the debate.

I think the real issue here isn't even weed IMO. At its core the issue being argued here is the social construct of legality and the classification of "drug" use and the inherently negative connotation with such terminology in this context. Its hard to have an objective stance in an argument when even the language being used surrounding the topic is inherently positive or negative and is a result of modern societal norms.

Laws are a form of control that are constructed by people for better or worse who feel or are compelled to represent that people or entities need to be protected from something, or when people lobby enough . The greater good is not even close to always being the purpose. Who is being protected from what is sometimes not clear or can be misguided or purposely benefiting a specific subset of entities. There are laws that are still technically in affect in some areas in the US that prohibit having sex in a bathtub. A more recent example are bills that will likely be proposed again for legislation creating the effective mandated installation of back doors into consumer electronics through legal control over encryption. Or specific laws targeting disruptive market forces to protect the established, like Tesla not being able to sell direct to consumer in many states or Airbnb being held legally responsible for even allowing users to post certain rentals in certain areas.

IMO people should be responsible for themselves and a common decency and reasonable respect toward others. While certain substances may be addictive, I don't feel the substance itself is ever the root cause of the addiction. There needs to be an underlying cause of the desire to ingest such substances and to continue ingestion to a point where the addictive properties of a substance take over. Addiction doesn't happen in one go. Using legality as a means of wipe out a symptom of an issue will never solve the root cause of this end. Life will find a way, to paraphrase a questionable movie character.

Regarding the issue of harm to others, anything can be used to harm others. Let's ban kitchen knives and piano wire and drain cleaner, heck pens and pencils too. Now I'm toeing the line of a straw man argument myself but i'm doing it for specific effect. This portion of the argument is not an easy one. The freedoms of the many given up to be protected against the malicious intent and instability of the very few. Where should lines be drawn and who's to say.

You sound like you have a very strong personal opinion on substance abuse and that's fine. I just don't think hinging a position on societal constructs like law really help drive home your point. It's like putting the cart before the horse IMO.

 

[vwinter]

micebluemechgamer123Music Alchemist

Thanks for your input on my HD6xx question the other day!

I had two meetings in the morning and when I got back to the site to say f* it I'll give it a shot around lunch time, all 5000 were gone, an over 2k requests for another drop were already submitted.

I have a feeling that this was partially because this one was posted to big deal sites. This has been known to break sites which don't expect the volume of traffic those sites can cause. Massdrop felt this. Effectively a DDoS through intent to provide profit

At the rate those sold out and the number of requests to bring it back right now, I think this one will be back sooner than later for those who missed it.