Relaxation and enjoyment. Same as the purpose of a beer, or a scotch.

I think treating it regulation-wise, like beer would be appropriate.

I've always been skeptical of the glass of wine with dinner, too often I get served a chilled white under the pretense of matching it to a meal. The only workable strategy here is to make sure you've already got the chianti poured before that white zin gets uncorked.
 

Out of curiosity, what is it about a puff of said "headies" that makes it more irresponsible than a pint of IPA?




Abraxas: I'm not against medical dispensaries in the slightest, I'm just not very keen on frivolous use of them. This might sound weird, but I'd rather get my buds from an honest weed-man than a doctor who plays fast and loose with a prescription pad.

I distinctly remember Patton saying I knew nothing about raising a child because I was not yet a father and had no personal experience with the issue. I agreed.

As a result of that, I find no reason why I can't assert that Patton knows nothing about the effects of pot until he himself has tried it. In fairness, Patton should agree with me.


Good point, and I couldn't agree more.

I'm pretty good friends with the guy I get weed from, actually. He's not the shady drug dealer that the TV would want you to believe (I know you know, illy - I'm just sayin' that out loud). He's an honest guy who works and goes to school and sells pot cause it's a good way to make money.

I think the front row seat to the pain and misery warps your view.

I know three people who have overdosed on drugs before they turned 25. I know many more whose lives were ruined because of drugs. I too have had a front row seat to the horrors of drugs.

I also do them myself, and know many people that still do. And we have a really good time doing them. So I've also had a front row seat to the joy of drugs. There are two sides to this coin, as there is with anything else.

Notice how you mentioned a dead child due to the effects of a legal drug? Alcohol has a very nasty side, one filled with death, broken homes and ruined lives. It also has a side of people drinking and having a good time, or certain people having a glass of wine with dinner. We tried banning it because the dark side was outweighing the good, and how did that turn out exactly?

Try seeing it from another point of view.

OK, Patton, let's try a simple exercise:

Have you ever seen (or even heard of) someone die marijuana use?
Have you ever seen someone die from an alcohol use?
Have you ever seen someone die from tobacco use?

---

Now, as to the right to get drunk or stoned, it of course depends on the circumstances.

For example, if your getting drunk or stoned endangers lives you can be charged with endangering lives. But why shouldn't a bunch of students getting stoned in their apartment have the right to do so, if it doesn't affect others?

Also, you must recognise that getting drunk is nothing like getting stoned. Alcohol makes people angry and violent, which tends to impact on those around them, whereas pot does the opposite, and thus primarily affects the user.

No one is saying that drugs (alcohol is a drug, so the distinction between drugs and alcohol is artificial) are not harmful. I am saying that if someone wants to use drugs then they should be allowed to do so, as long as they do it in a way that doesn't harm others. I'm also saying that prohibition creates numerous problems that need not exist, which you seem to concede, since I have made the point several times without reply,

Isn't it you who must justify taking away the right to get drunk or stoned? Isn't that how it works?

I havn't done anything with regards to taking away anyones rights....I merely advocate the status quo....these are decisions made long before I arrived on scene.

I am saying that if someone wants to use drugs then they should be allowed to do so, as long as they do it in a way that doesn't harm others.

I would need to read the proposed legislation....if there was a clause for use inside ones own home listening to Pink Floyd that did not subject the public to stoned zombies roaming the streets...I suppose I would not object.

And depending on where you're at and if you're wearing headphones, the Pink Floyd isn't acceptable in the streets either.