<p>hahaha exactly, we have a choice! Yay for choice!!</p>
<p>I don't mind so much legalizing pot, but other harder drugs I'd say DEFINITELY NOT.</p>
<p>The thing with pot is, you don't get violent when you get high. In fact, you're mellow and "giggly". Now, with things like PCP, you get violent, even when you're not on it. It pretty much screws with your brain to the point that you think people are watching you, you're paranoid of everyone around you, and you'll get violent with total strangers.</p>
<p>Now, should you get the right to gigglies? Yes, alcohol companies are already profiting from this, so why can't pot growers? Should you be able to take a drug that will **** with your brain to the point where you get violent with strangers of the general public? Most would disagree.</p>
<p>If you can find a better way of transportation over distances between 0-5 hours then go ahead and create it...But right now, cars are the most effective method of short-medium range transporation if you dont live or are not going to a large city.</p>
<p>I'm sure that if all of the women who stay at home were forced to work instead of just take care of kids there would be a HUGE boost in the productiveness of the united states. </p>
<hr>
<p>Actually its funny you mention it be there was a study that just came out that proved the productiveness of stay at home women and valud thier work at $135,000 per year.</p>
<p>Or what about people who retire early?? </p>
<hr>
<p>If you have the money to retire early, obviously you did something important enough beforehand to warrant the retirement.</p>
<p>Where should government intervention stop??</p>
<hr>
<p>Government intervention should stop when it begins to impede on one's individual rights. </p>
<p>Now if you can point out to me where the Constitution says that one has the right to commit suicide or to do drugs, then please correct me.</p>
<p>Thats where the line is crossed. If it's a substance or anything really that your doing takes away OTHER people's freedom of life,choice, whatever, thats when it crosses a line and should be highly regulated. Still, remember that something being illegal does not make it dissapear. People will still take PCP or whatever violence inducing drugs are out there when they are illegal. Legalization only takes away the black market aspect and allows for regulation.</p>
<p>Legalization will not take away the black market. As previously discussed, the government will not legalize drugs with high concentrations of the active ingredient, thus, when one reaches a tolerence threshold, there will be a black market to give that person more concentrated drugs.</p>
<p>^Yeah, but PCP really shouldn't even be regulated in a legal market. It's just one of those drugs that can cause an individual to impede on the rights of others. </p>
<p>So, instead of cracking down the potheads, I think we should concentrate less on pot, more on the hard stuff (PCP, Meth, heroin to some extent, Ketomine, etc.), and try to prevent the violent crimes before they happen.</p>
<p>I wonder if alcohol and cigarettes would fall in the category of hard stuff. I believe that is where it can become difficult. When does one draw the line between what can happen and what actually occurs...</p>
<p>"If you can find a better way of transportation over distances between 0-5 hours then go ahead and create it...But right now, cars are the most effective method of short-medium range transporation if you dont live or are not going to a large city." </p>
<p>Ever heard of a train? or busses for long distance trips? People should not live more than an hour away from where they work, and if they do it is almost always because they simply want to and for no "valid" reason besides personal choice. And I know it sounds antiquated but horses can still go pretty fast. We worked as a society very well before individuals had cars. Maybe it took a little longer to get where you want to go but people got there.</p>
<p>"Actually its funny you mention it be there was a study that just came out that proved the productiveness of stay at home women and valud thier work at $135,000 per year."</p>
<p>Study's mean nothing to me. Anyone whose taken a simple stats class knows not to trust a study you have no details on. I would find it VERY hard to believe that a woman who has two teenage children (say 14 and 15) wouldn't better contribute economically if she worked a job. My own mom worked all through my childhood and to look at her "total output" There's me, a sucessful individual, and all of the work she did at her job. Compare her to someone who only raised "me." we lose everything she did at her job. </p>
<p>What I would assume is that that study counted hours worked in a home situation for cooking cleaning and child care and called that their productivity. A person working a job isn't going to NOT do those things, but instead maybe the household will be less perfectly clean and meals will be detailed. I'm sure it would be more efficient to have one person care for 3-4 other children than a stay at home mom who only cares for one child. If there were four stay-at-home-mom-of-one's and three of them decided to go back to work, the one remaining woman could watch all four children and then society would gain the other three women's productivity. </p>
<p>But this is not what I'm arguing. What I'm saying is that these sorts of regulations should NOT be inplace because we should have personal choice.</p>
<p>"If you have the money to retire early, obviously you did something important enough beforehand to warrant the retirement."</p>
<p>Not really. What about people who invested in stocks smartly? How does that contribute to society? Or people who simply inherited their money, what about them? having money does not equate to having contributed to society.</p>
<p>"Now if you can point out to me where the Constitution says that one has the right to commit suicide or to do drugs, then please correct me."</p>
<p>The constitution doesn't say a lot of things that we take as rights. Where does the constitution say that an individividual does NOT have the right to commit suicide or take drugs? Where does it say that individuals have an obligation to contribute positively towards society? A lot of our law makers regularly took snuff, a drug of sorts. To tell me that it doesn't say it in the constitution is a weak argument.</p>
<p>Cigs don't cause an individual to violently attack others. Secondhand smoke can cause discomfort, so that's why people can't smoke in most public places (here, anyway). </p>
<p>I'm talking about things that will "reform" your brain, so to speak, to make you lash out on others.</p>
<p>Alcohol, now, is one of those teetering ones. Some people are violent drunks, but not the majority. Most get giggly and can't walk straight. Also, when you drive drunk, you're more likely to get into an accident. However, as equine said, alcohol is one of those markets that can be regulated (as are cigs) to where accidents and such are greatly reduced.</p>
<p>I do believe you are getting your butt kicked by a weekly pot smoker with a 3.955 gpa. . .</p>
<p>Note: I only mention my gpa because getting "slow" and being unproductive are two symptoms people often associate with smoking pot.</p>
<p>Equine, a lot of people live an hour away from work for economic reasons. They generally can't afford to live in city propers, and choose to commute to exurbs. As you said, personal choice, and they choose car-->work-->car-->home.</p>
<p>exactly, my whole point is that the government limiting personal choice is a bad thing, he (she?) brought up that cars were good for society, I was just saying that they aren't necessarily so great, playing devil's advocate etc. It just got the point out further that choice is good, limiting choice is bad.</p>
<p>Oh, I wasn't arguing against you... just telling you why, haha.</p>
<p>It's not uncommon here (in Atlanta) to commute for an hour to work. We LOVE our cars!</p>
<p>hehe, no worries :)</p>
<p>Cigs...well, I wonder more with how these items affect others.</p>
<p>Well, I always wondered...if a parent smokes in a house and there is a child in the house, does that mean the health of the child is compromised? </p>
<p>I have also wondered with public places...smoking is not banned indoors where I live. People can still smoke in restaurants and theaters. Say if a person worked in a restaurant where smoking is allowed, does that compromise the health of the worker?</p>
<p>Well, if a woman is pregnant and uses cig...we know the possible problems that could happen with her child.</p>
<p>These are all details that should be associated with regulations, but ciggs themselves should not be illegal. </p>
<p>This is also coming from someone who hates ciggarettes. I won't stand next to someone smoking them, would never let anyone smoke them in my house, and find them a major turn off for people of the opposite sex. I am a girl btw.</p>
<p>True, people can smoke them for all I care.</p>
<p>Oh, lets not get into the laws concerning children... much too complex.</p>
<p>In most states, children are seen as a form of "property" (not exactly, but kind of like how a slave was property in the antebellum era). So, in the eyes of the law, if you smoke around your child, you're smoking around your "property", and since you pay for the house, you can make the children step out of your home while you smoke, etc. As long as you feed them, clothe them, and shelter them, you can do ALMOST anything you want with them (aside from violent abuse, where even then you're given, in some states, only 4-8 yrs in prison for murdering you own children).</p>
<p>hehe I'm SO reved up arguing about all of this! I keep hitting refresh hoping there will be something new to argue!</p>
<p>Actually, I'm tired and a bit depressed remembering that most states recognized me as a piece of property for 17.999999 years.</p>