Text 21465, 112 rader
Skriven 2008-10-03 10:21:26 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 21444 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Ärende: Legal Strictions
========================
Roy Witt wrote to Robert Bashe on Wednesday October 01 2008 at 19:35:

RW>>> I oppose the legalization of cannabis as a medicine.

RB>> And I oppose anyone who, young and in perfect health, presumes to
RB>> impose his morals on old, sick people who could possibly benefit from
RB>> unconventional drugs.

RW> I'd prefer that the Food and Drug Administration do it's thing and
RW> investigate these unconventional drugs before we go off the deep end
RW> with them.

In that case, let's do a study on the relative harm caused by alcohol and
cannabis. Might be interesting to see which is doing the public health more
damage.

RB>> The medical, and not the moral or political situation is for me the
RB>> important point here.

RW> No it isn't. Society as a whole has more to say about it than some
RW> whacko doctors wild claims.

Or moral/religious "whackos" who don't have any problem drinking alcohol and
smoking a cigarette, but foam at the mouth when they hear about marijuana.

RW> Social issues must come before the use of drugs that are detrimental
RW> to society.

I agree. Let's re-introduce (alcohol) prohibition to improve public health,
since everyone knows how effective and beneficial that was. And while we're at
it, forbid manufacture, sale and consumption of cigarettes, cigars, chewing
tobacco and the like.

RW> We already have enough people who're injecting themselves with drugs
RW> and society pays for it.

Roy, you don't "inject" marijuana, you smoke it. Let's keep on the subject, if
you don't mind.

RB>> This applies not only in this case, but in all cases where people who
RB>> are young/in perfect health/full of life presume to impose their
RB>> moral and religious beliefs on others who are not in their lucky
RB>> situation.

RW> So a 40yo Shannon, who thinks making pot legal is forcing you to tow
RW> his line?

No, it seems to me like he's arguing the same way as I am: let people decide
for themselves, just like they do with the known harmful drugs alcohol and
tobacco. It's the ones who want to decide for _others_ I have problems with.

RB>> I also believe in the right to euthanasia -

RW> That's a moral issue, not a drug issue.

As is legalization of marijuana, which is no more harmful than alcohol and/or
tobacco. Many attempts have been made over the years to prove otherwise, but up
to now they've all failed. If they hadn't, you would definitely see them
reprinted full-page in the newspapers.

RB>> the right to die without pain and under dignified circumstances -
RB>> regardless of what the fatcats in religion and politics spout. Let
RB>> them die in agony if they so desire, but let them decide for
RB>> themselves ALONE. There are limits to what others may morally dictate
RB>> for so-called "ethical" reasons, and every human being has a right to
RB>> determine his/her own fate. Anything else is, for me, "cruel and
RB>> unusual punishment" and should by rights be forbidden by the
RB>> Constitution.

RW> That's ok for an atheist.

That's OK for a humanist who doesn't presume to force his moral views on
others.

I've seen a couple of cases here in Europe where badly suffering people were
actually _forced_ to keep living and suffering by the courts despite their
explicit wish to die - they were in such bad shape they would have required
help. In one of these cases, the poor woman was found dead of a sedative
overdose shortly after the court case - naturally aided by some (unknown)
person with a trace of human compassion - and in the other, the person involved
simply suffocated in the end. Now, _that_ was surely a good example for "mercy"
:-(((

The only country in western Europe that doesn't explicitly forbid "Sterbehilfe"
(aid in committing suicide) is Switzerland, but not everyone in bad health and
often totally incapacitated can travel to Switzerland for help.

RW> Those whose religion calls anything but natural death, suicide, is a
RW> sin that won't get them past the gates of heaven.

Heaven... is that something like the place suicide bombers go to frolic with
hundreds of virgins under the benevolent eyes of Allah?

No, there are pious people who are _also_ tolerant, and there are people who
exhibit their religion publically as an excuse for their intolerance. I call
the latter fanatics, be they Christian, Moslem, Buddhists or whatever. And they
exist all over the world.

Cheers, Bob

P.S. Please don't misinterpret me in the matter of marijuana. I'm NOT in favor
of legalizing things like cocaine (although that would be a borderline case
except for "crack"), and certainly not highly addictive stuff like heroin, but
as long as there's legal alcohol and tobacco on the shelves of stores, I just
don't see the argument that marijuana is worse for public health and keeping it
banned only increases public curiosity and the desire to "try it out" just to
see if it's as bad as some people keep preaching. Let's save the big club for
the real dangers and not waste it and our efforts on things that are no worse
than what you can buy in every corner grocery store.

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)