Legalization of Marijuana

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='Metalcore501']Marijuana, was once a legal drug mainly in the prohabition area of time many many people turned to drugs spacifically marijuana. More and more things started to happen to the people smoking this drug, it turned into the substitute for Alchohal untill they finnaly got rid of it. Gods we learn from our mistakes and you pro-marijuana people should take the hint this drug can destroy not only the people that smoke it but familys of the people too.[/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]I like your outlook on the history of marijuana in the U.S.: it is simple and concise. Oh, and it is a gross simplification and misrepresentation of what really occurred.

To understand why the United States banned marijuana, which had been a cash crop in the US since its colony days, you have to understand that America’s intolerance of immigrants is nothing new. What do immigrants have to do with the prohibition of marijuana? Just about everything.

Pietistic Protestants primarily supported the prohibition (alcohol) movement. We all know that the one thing Protestants hate more than having a good time is Catholics, and they were pouring in from Italy and Ireland during the late 1800’s. It is no surprise that initially the vast majority of people prosecuted under prohibition laws were catholic (oh, and just so blacks don’t feel left out, the KKK was a staunch supporter of prohibition which meant that African Americans also frequently got shafted under the law), it was actually the prohibition movement that led to the rise of the Irish cop. Irish Catholics felt that they were unjustly persecuted by the law and began entering the police force en mass.

Anyway, as the enforcement of prohibition winded down, sanctimonious Protestants (and racist people in general) needed a new law to use in order to “righteously” discriminate those different from them. They littered congress and the press with tales and propaganda of wild, horribly exaggerated violent acts committed by [b]immigrants[/b] intoxicated by marijuana. I bold immigrants because if you ever have the chance to read some of the early propaganda it was obviously aimed towards them in a derogatory fashion. So now there was a law that gave the judicial branch (which was more or less entirely Protestant at the time) an excuse to lock up immigrants. One could make the argument that minority populations are still targeted today, considering that blacks and Hispanics make up 58% of all jailed marijuana offenders despite representing only 20% of marijuana smokers (although I would tend to argue socio-economic issues have far more cause in that disparity than racism).

I don’t really care whether you support the legalization of marijuana. I do care that you attempt to validate your argument with several untrue points. You have no idea if marijuana use increased during prohibition because no one bothered to really evaluate its consumption until that time. And the idea that “we learn from our mistakes”, more or less insinuating that the US made marijuana legal for rational reasons, is laughable at best.

And while I am ranting, I am sick of people using the “but it ruins families” argument. Drugs and alcohol don’t ruin families. Horrible people ruin families. If you are a crack head, a heroin addict, or a drunk and you start a family and you still let that addiction rule your life you are a horrible person. If you have a family and you pick up one of those said addictions you are a horrible person. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?[/color]

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud'][color=indigo]
And while I am ranting, I am sick of people using the ?but it ruins families? argument. Drugs and alcohol don?t ruin families. Horrible people ruin families. If you are a crack head, a heroin addict, or a drunk and you start a family and you still let that addiction rule your life you are a horrible person. If you have a family and you pick up one of those said addictions you are a horrible person. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?[/color][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]You scold this poor kid for making an oversimplification on the marijuana matter and continue to make one for yourself. I don't know where all the prejudice and hate is coming from in this paragraph, but it's quite obvious. Perhaps it's justified, but at the same time it's not really fair.

Don't get me wrong, people that let alcohol or any other substance mess up their lives have obviously made huge mistakes, but it's not fair to classify them as horrible people. Addiction is a powerful thing. Worst of all is how suddenly it can appear, without any warning signs. There are people that have genetic predispositions to addiction that don't even know it. Having a few drinks with friends from time to time can quickly lead some people down the road of addiction. It's quite horrible. And it takes an unbelievable amount of willpower to break that addiction. And let's face it, people are weak. So don't be so quick to classify everybody that lets their personal lives get away from them because of addiction a "horrible person."

Can you hold the ignorant responsible? I actually don't know how i feel on this, it's not a rhetorical question. I'm asking straight out what you think. I doubt many people that get addicted to any substance really know what they're getting themselves into. And on the same note, do you blame a person for his actions or his intentions?

Aaaanyways. Besides that last paragraph of your argument i pretty much agree. I'm no history buff and reading all that on prohibition was quite interesting and definitely not something i've considered before in the argument for or against the legalization of marijuana.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='The13thMan'][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]
Don't get me wrong, people that let alcohol or any other substance mess up their lives have obviously made huge mistakes, but it's not fair to classify them as horrible people. Addiction is a powerful thing. Worst of all is how suddenly it can appear, without any warning signs. There are people that have genetic predispositions to addiction that don't even know it. Having a few drinks with friends from time to time can quickly lead some people down the road of addiction. It's quite horrible. And it takes an unbelievable amount of willpower to break that addiction. And let's face it, people are weak. So don't be so quick to classify everybody that lets their personal lives get away from them because of addiction a "horrible person."

Can you hold the ignorant responsible? I actually don't know how i feel on this, it's not a rhetorical question. I'm asking straight out what you think. I doubt many people that get addicted to any substance really know what they're getting themselves into. And on the same note, do you blame a person for his actions or his intentions?
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]My horse is higher than your horse is, so you are going to have a horrible time trying to kick me off.

First, if you reread the part of my post that you quoted you?ll notice that I never once generalized people with addictions as horrible folks. I specifically stated that if you have an addiction (to drugs or alcohol) [b]and start a family[/b] or start a family and then [b]become an addict[/b] you are a horrible person. You can write that these people are just weak willed saps that landed in a bad circumstance, but I think that is a load of bull. If your well being dictates the well being of your sons and/or daughters then it is your responsibility to avoid those vices which lead to addiction. If you don?t, to quote my shameful vice LC, ?you are a sucky person?.

Also, if you have made it through elementary school in the United States or have watched a healthy dose of Saturday morning cartoons, you are not ignorant to the ill effects of drugs and alcohol. Therefore, I don?t have to hold the ignorant responsible. Being ignorant implies that they have no knowledge of the ill effects of drugs or alcohol. People that become addicted to a particular drug usually know the risks, they just chose to ignore applying said risks to themselves. That makes them stupid, not ignorant.

[/color]

[Annie]

[quote name='The13thMan'][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]
Don't get me wrong, people that let alcohol or any other substance mess up their lives have obviously made huge mistakes, but it's not fair to classify them as horrible people. Addiction is a powerful thing. Worst of all is how suddenly it can appear, without any warning signs. There are people that have genetic predispositions to addiction that don't even know it. Having a few drinks with friends from time to time can quickly lead some people down the road of addiction. It's quite horrible. And it takes an unbelievable amount of willpower to break that addiction. And let's face it, people are weak. So don't be so quick to classify everybody that lets their personal lives get away from them because of addiction a "horrible person."
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[size=1]My oldest half-brother is an alcoholic. His father was not. My/Our mother is not a drinker, either. This disease isn't [b]always[/b] hereditary, of course. I'm not doubting, or going against your idea of addiction. It does happen at any time, even without gentetics. Addiction is terrible, and equally hard to break. It can be done with help and support.

My brother, to me, is a "horrible person". He chose his addiction over his family and loved ones, and hurt many people along the way. He knew his consequences, lost his jobs, ruined his marriage, was always so drunk that his wife would take his kids and come over to my family's house for fear of him trying something stupid. No matter how hard his wife tried, she couldn't even help him. He refused to go to AA classes because he believed he was in complete control of his drinking. He ended up in the hospital and jail cells dozens of times before his wife filed for divorce. Not doing this helped him. He moved back to California, and instead of thinking "Oh, damn, alcohol ruined my marraige and drove me away from my daughters." and cleaning himself up, he continued on his [b]chosen[/b] path of addiction.

People who choose what they decide to do [in the case of smoking and drinking], and depend upon it, sicken me. And I think they are horrible people. People who choose to smoke blunts every chance they get, pick a bottle up every time they're thirsty, and make that their priority in life. Those are the horrible people, and I have no sympathy for them. I've been around too many potheads and drunks who could do so much more with their lives, and watched them flush everything down the drain. Why? Why would a person deliberately destroy their lives? Over alcohol, or pot.

My brother was an awesome brother when he was sober. Which made it so painful knowing that he chose alcohol over anything. I've known people who are potheads, and who were so amazingly wonderful when they weren't smokin' it up. It's disgusting, and a waste.

Now, as far as legalizing weed. I've said it before, I could care less. I don't associate with people who waste their lives on it, and therefor it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Legalizing it won't make a difference, because people do it now. And that argument of "Legalizing it will make a difference because there are people who won't do it because it's illegal." is bull. Those people just need the excuse. If they really wanted to try pot, they'd do it. Kids smoke cigarettes, even though they know it's wrong and it will kill you. They still flippin' do it anyway. And the kids who don't smoke at the age of 12 or whatever, the kids who say "Parents won't let me", still end up doing it behind they're parent's back.

[b]PS-[/b] Heaven's Cloud, I am happy to see you back. I don't recall ever having talking with you, but I did miss seeing your posts.[/size]

[Guest kyou18]

you people want a good reason why marijuana should not exist as well as other drugs..... ok here is a reason ummm.... it's stupid. and a lot of innocent people get killed (tehehehe i was never good at debate) :animeknow

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud'][color=indigo]My horse is higher than your horse is, so you are going to have a horrible time trying to kick me off.

First, if you reread the part of my post that you quoted you?ll notice that I never once generalized people with addictions as horrible folks. I specifically stated that if you have an addiction (to drugs or alcohol) [b]and start a family[/b] or start a family and then [b]become an addict[/b] you are a horrible person. You can write that these people are just weak willed saps that landed in a bad circumstance, but I think that is a load of bull. If your well being dictates the well being of your sons and/or daughters then it is your responsibility to avoid those vices which lead to addiction. If you don?t, to quote my shameful vice LC, ?you are a sucky person?.

Also, if you have made it through elementary school in the United States or have watched a healthy dose of Saturday morning cartoons, you are not ignorant to the ill effects of drugs and alcohol. Therefore, I don?t have to hold the ignorant responsible. Being ignorant implies that they have no knowledge of the ill effects of drugs or alcohol. People that become addicted to a particular drug usually know the risks, they just chose to ignore applying said risks to themselves. That makes them stupid, not ignorant.

[/color][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I'm sure your horse is very [B]high[/B]. ;D

Yes... i just made a pun. I'm not proud of it, but what's done is done.

I actually did notice that as i read it. I don't recall why i didn't make that more clear back when i wrote it, i guess i didn't figure it important, or perhaps i figured you thought those who get addicted as horrible people as well.

So then, to be straight, you believe people who are addicted to a drug and start or have started a family are horrible people? Ok, i agree with half of the argument there (more like a quarter). The people who are already addicted, realize it, and still decide to start a family are horrible people. Anybody that would willfully start a family knowing full and well that their addiction will hurt those people that love him/her are horrible people so long as they don't try to get over it. But the ones that start a family without an addiction and then get one are not necessarily horrible people. I think this because i also think that people make mistakes. There are people out there that start families and start drinking without the intention of becoming an addict and hurting their family. But it does happen. And those people that do not intend to hurt their families through their addiction are not horrible people... stupid naive ones, perhaps, but not horrible. Though, if they continue with their addiction and don't get help, they are horrible.

For me, when i judge a person (not blame) on his morals, it comes down to intent. It is the intentions behind the actions and not the actions themselves that matter when it comes to judging upon morals. Someone who means well but still makes bad choices and screw up are not horrible people... just dumb. My point really in starting all this with you is to point this out.

I still maintain that not everybody fully understands the dangers of addiction. I don't think anybody can fully understand it without actually being the one to experience it themselves. Nobody can really understand how many drinks it will be before they can't control themselves. Nobody can fully understand how dependent they'll become to these substances. There's no amount of second hand knowledge that can ever truly reveal what addiction is like. But people certainly can learn a lot.

Have you ever heard of drug dealers giving drugs to first timers for free because they know that once is all it takes for a person to get addicted to some drugs? I'm not sure which drugs... i'm thinking crack, but that's besides the point. Do you think those people that accepted the free drugs all knew that it would only take one time for them to become addicts? Have your saturday morning cartoons and elementary school classes ever warned you against those drugs and drug dealers? My point is not everybody out there knows all the facts behind addiction. Not all of us realize how little it can take. I personally even think it's counter-intuitive to think that my body will become hoplessly dependent upon a substance after consuming it x number of times. Luckily i do know that it is possible.

Sorry if my argument's a bit scattered or incomplete, i'm a bit tired. Plus i don't feel like going back and refining it. =D

Ah, and welcome back person that i recognize from a few posts in the archives i've looked at.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[Color=indigo]I usually don?t break posts apart. I don?t think it is fair to the original author because the quotes inevitably lack the content of the whole. However, you mad a few separate points and I find it easier in this instance to just address them one at a time rather than tax my limited transitional skills. I just wanted to state that upfront so I didn?t seem nitpicky. [/color]

[quote name='The13thMan'][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]
But the ones that start a family without an addiction and then get one are not necessarily horrible people. I think this because i also think that people make mistakes. There are people out there that start families and start drinking without the intention of becoming an addict and hurting their family. But it does happen. And those people that do not intend to hurt their families through their addiction are not horrible people... stupid naive ones, perhaps, but not horrible. Though, if they continue with their addiction and don't get help, they are horrible. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[Color=indigo]I disagree. Not because what you write is wrong, but because I believe that you are overlooking a crucial aspect in your argument. First, if someone with a family starts abusing harder drugs like heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, etcetera, then they already made a conscious decision to break the law in a felonious manner. That means that instantly they are willing to take a risk that sacrifices the well being of their family. That type of person sounds pretty horrible to me. Second, people don?t become addicted to lesser drugs like alcohol and marijuana by using them a few times sporadically. These types of addictions take time to cultivate, valuable time that would be spent away (at least emotionally so) from their family. A good person wouldn?t risk so much time away from their family just to cultivate a bad habit.

There is a classification of drugs that I would not apply the above to, and those are painkillers. I have never personally taken a painkiller but I can understand how a doctor prescribed substance with addictive properties could lead to a crippling addiction through no original fault of the abuser. However, if they recognize the problem and then refuse help I would file them away in the horrible person category. [/color]

[quote name='The13thMan'][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]For me, when i judge a person (not blame) on his morals, it comes down to intent. It is the intentions behind the actions and not the actions themselves that matter when it comes to judging upon morals. Someone who means well but still makes bad choices and screw up are not horrible people... just dumb. My point really in starting all this with you is to point this out.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[Color=indigo]A younger me would have agreed with you on this. In retrospect though, I would have only agreed with you because I was the type of person that did some bad things without the intent of hurting anyone. Now that I am older I have come to the realization that the only things that matter are the actions or inactions you take. See, judging by intent allows people to avoid responsibility for their life, therefore often avoiding rational thought. [/color]

[quote name='The13thMan'][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Have you ever heard of drug dealers giving drugs to first timers for free because they know that once is all it takes for a person to get addicted to some drugs? I'm not sure which drugs... i'm thinking crack, but that's besides the point. Do you think those people that accepted the free drugs all knew that it would only take one time for them to become addicts? Have your saturday morning cartoons and elementary school classes ever warned you against those drugs and drug dealers? My point is not everybody out there knows all the facts behind addiction.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[Color=indigo]Actually, yes school and television taught me about all of those things at a very, very young age. Considering D.A.R.E is implemented in 90% of public schools in the U.S. and over 75% of all of our schools, I imagine that the vast majority of folks have learned about these situations. People tend to just ignore what they have learned or decide that the situation does not apply to them. [/color]

[liamc2]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"][SIZE="1"]Sorry, I haven't been here in a while, but this piqued my interest. I'll try to avoid a heavy debate [as experience has taught me that 1. I'm terrible at it and 2. The entire point of a debate is to convince the audience and not your opponent...and considering that we're all debaters here it sort of makes this entire situation redundant. Hm.

Anyhow. I don't support the legalisation of marijuana. I have read many comparisons here between cigarettes and marijuana and how there has been little interest in restricting cigarettes and so on.

I am uncertain of the nature of various countries and state's laws and restrictions on the nature of substances prone to abuse, so I apologise if my statements are contrary to the circumstance the reader currently lives in.

For the past few years, building to a climax this year, the the Queensland Government here in Australia has introduced and enforced a series of serious sanctions [ah, alliteration] against or restricting the use and sale of Cigarettes. My memory is hazy on the exact detail and sequence but there have always been warning labels on packets of cigarettes ["Surgeon General Warns: Smoking can harm your unborn child"] that are simple advisory statements due to the consequences of smoking.

I would like to include a comparison here to rule out objections to the placement of these advisory notices. Ibuprofen [an over the counter pain medication, with the common brandnames of Neurofen and Herron Blue] has advisory notices that indicate that you should not use the medication if you have heart, stomach, or kidney problems. The simple answer is that ibuprofen [while a proficient pain medication] [i]will kill your kidneys and various organs if you do do not drink enough water, have organ faults or even take it on an empty stomach[/i].

This is a fact, something that people ignore a lot, but generally it is a non-issue as the drug is beneficiary if used correctly [which it is usually] and these side affects are restricted to a negligible population. People are generally intelligent with medication.

Cigarettes, however, are [i]not[/i] beneficiary. Groups may justify use of cigarettes and cite evidence of "it's what I need at the end of a long day" or "it settles my anxiety" [side note: Do not get me started on caffeine] but this evidence doesn't really have a scientific grounding or legal basis in my book.

Why? Well, for one thing, Nicotine isn't necessary for an individual health or well-being. It stimulates the nervous system and creates a need [See: Addiction] for that stimulation. Another cigarette. Further stimulation. Body needs more nicotine. Escalation of use of cigarettes [and subsequent horrific respiratory damage].

Then you have population that "need" to smoke.

People who smoke have increased health problems [you should see a throat swab microscope slide from someone who smokes] and create a strain on the public and private health sector. There are many people who do not have any "major" problems with smoking [other than an increased risk of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections] during youth, but in later years will develop severe conditions or experience shortened lives.

People generally don't associate smoking consequences with their own smoking habit: "that only happens to heavy smokers" [Insert: "users"].

Government recognises lethal nature of second hand smoke Queensland bans smoking on train platforms, bars, clubs, public spaces in general, within 7 meters of a building entrance. Government also introduces legislation that all packets of cigarettes must be printed to include colour photos of smoking consequences [eye, lung, heart etc damage] with appropriate text warnings.

Population response: [quote name='"One of my Customers"']"Gross, don't give me that one, the eye creeps me out. I don't know why they put those photos on anyway, it's just disgusting"[/quote]

Response [intentionally sarcastic/pithy, I do apologise] "Would you prefer the photo of the child dying as consequence of her exposure to second hand smoke?"

[quote name='"Customer"']"Yeah, that's fine. As long as it isn't that creepy eye"[/quote]

Further conversation revealed that the customer didn't believe that cigarettes could do any of the things listed on the boxes. Logic fail, if the images are evidently making you uncomfortable because either A: they make you recognise that you're not bullet proof or B: Gross you out just because, then [i]they are working[/i].

Cigarettes are a nightmare for a population that is rediscovering or reinforcing science and [now common] knowledge of the physiology. Attempting a full ban would lead to unknown and unimaginable public backlash and problems, as would banning alcohol or similar substances currently legalised. Restrictions are introduced to prevent new generations from making the same mistakes.

The long and short of it is that [like many things] you don't implicitly [i]need[/i] to smoke. There are many complications that result from smoking, things I didn't even consider or think of before I started study. It makes me [and my lecturers, and classmates, and demonstrators...] wonder at how lucky we have been so far that the consequences of such a decision haven't been more dire.

[Side note before I continue: Quit smoking. If I can't appeal to common sense, I'll appeal to your fiscal responsibility. Cigarettes and their consequences cost you money lots much.]

What is my point? In my wanderings through the halls of learning and such, we are taught about many conditions and the causes of said conditions. As such I am well versed in the use of ToxiLab kits for the determination of the presence prohibited substances in the urine, as well as the presence of these substances on the list of possible causes of an innumerable host of physiological problems.

Yes, these "natural" and "synthetic" substances will mess you up. They are excellent at affecting your neurological processes to cause over stimulation of your mental faculties. It's how they work. Unfortunately, this overstimulation results in [i]bad things[/i].

The severity of these bad things varies depending on your genotype, yes, but bad things can and will happen to anyone who over stimulates their system [let alone the brain]. Enzymes, proteins, pumps, inter/intracellular processes can and will be broken by certain chemical compounds. This gives the "high" that apparently "needs" to be legalised. These consequences may be dire, they may be minor. The stimulated body requires more of the substance, leading to abuse.

"I'm strong, I'm only a casual user"
"It makes me happy"

Super. Keep doing what you're doing and I'd love to chat with you in 20 years and compare your past and present cognitive abilities with a chart that represents normal degradation with age.

I remember from a Chemistry 2 class with one Dr Steve Bottle, talking on the subject of Amphetamines and Marijuana and the chemical structure. He pulled up the chemical structure of the "pleasure" hormone that stimulates the brain [the name of which escapes me, I do apologise] and then that of Marijuana. Similar structure, but if it's possible to describe a chemical structure, then I'd call Marijuana [i]nasty[/i].

Being only a 1st year subject, he didn't really go into much detail other than list the various horrors caused by over stimulation of the brain by this chemical from Marijuana, but I do remember him saying explicitly "marijuana in the 70's is not like the marijuana now. It has been refined, it has been concentrated by people who need a higher stimulation. It will do serious damage to you much, much faster than the marijuana your parents ever used"

What are my points here?

Governments are generally the voice of the people [if you are allowed to vote and [i]actually do[/i]] and do what they believe is in the best interests of the people and the population of their nation. I used the example of cigarettes as Queensland [unlike other states] has introduced tighter restrictions on the use of tobacco and tobacco related products in an effort to curb use or exposure to the non-smoking public. Majority rules, system works and so on. There are medical boards dedicated to this sort of thing. If anything, the Government is losing money on these restrictions due to the cost of these campaigns and the probable loss of taxes from sales of cigarettes and tobacco related products.

I may just be speaking for myself here when I say this, but I believe this may be due to someone recognising the significant health hazards associated with this practice. Yes, being healthy is popular with Governments now and smoking is associated [with good reason] with poor health. It may be a psychological campaign, but it is achieving results. Maybe not with everyone, but in a majority. Subsequent generations [i]may[/i] have healthier lives because of it.

Science is important. Knowledge of the human anatomy and physiology is important. I have a knowledge of the FDA approval process and the Australian Equivalent Quality control process and I doubt legalised marijuana would be "fast tracked" by Pfizer, as the QC process takes significant time. Any drug that is spat out by a pharmaceutical corp in under 5 or less years, is treated with significant suspicion.

Hallucinogens cause significant damage. I know I compared to other drugs and substances in society, but really I can't. These were general examples to have you [i]think[/i] about what is happening here. Hallucinogens, from what I have learnt, have an incredible diversity in their effects on the population. It can kill you outright, it may give the desired effect, it may not. They [i]will[/i] have long term consequences, which will surface. While you appear "fine" when your down, your neurology is shot to pieces and recovering and rebuilding to respond or even require significant re-stimulation with the previously used or even "harder" substance.

People scoff at marijuana being a so called gateway drug, but it is true. Much like when you find yourself requiring more coffee to get started in the morning, or move onto stronger espresso, or switch to energy drinks, or start popping NoDoze, you are obviously satiating a self created need for caffeine stimulation.

The same is true of marijuana and other prohibited drugs. The consequences are much more dire. Yes, it has been banned in the past for a variety of reasons and excuses [none of which I can claim to understand or excuse], but there is a reason for it.

I'm not going to sing, or rap, or even dance. I won't cite my qualifications or even my religious or moral values, but I will tell you that I have studied these things in a sterile and scientific environment, and basic physiology tells me that Marijuana should remain prohibited.

Yes, people have a right to "destroy themselves," but as someone who is educated in these things, I feel obliged to intervene.

If a baby goes to put a fork in an electrical socket, I'm going to intervene. I'll put preventative measures and guards in place. I will educate.

I could just let it take course and let the child learn its lesson the hard way, but there is always the strong possibility that the harsh lesson will be only learnt once, with immediate and life shattering consequence.

If someone even [i]thinks[/i] I'm being narky or that I'm assuming I know better, I'm not ashamed to say that yes, I [i]do[/i] know better.

I am aware of chemical compounds present in marijuana that may be extracted from marijuana or tobacco for beneficial use of mankind, but it doesn't mean we should smoke it. There are proteins and processes present in cancer that can unlock the secrets of the stem cell, extended life and tissue renewal, but it doesn't mean I'm going to sign up for a tumour.
[/SIZE][/FONT]