• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is actually wrong with being high?

tererun said:
I understand there are negative indirect problems with being high. I am asking what are the actual problems with feeling good, having an altered state of consciousness, feeling relaxed, and having fun? Yes, people can do bad things with drugs, but they can also do good things. There are lots of people who use drugs for fun and pay taxes, do their jobs, live their lives, and make the world a better place with their presence. I want to know why is it wrong to be high. I know the mistakes one can make or the problems that come from certain substances, but I want to know why someone being high pisses others off so much.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because the mistakes that ones make can have negative consequences for others; or perhaps because society does not want to see you make mistakes while you are high that could cost you your life; or perhaps because for a lot of addicts/users/abusers there are tolerance level issues that require them to do worse or more dangerous things to get that same level of high, increasing the risk to themselves or to others. To try to equate crack with heroin with pot as equally okay is the first and gravest mistake the legalization people make.
 
Fisher said:
Perhaps because the mistakes that ones make can have negative consequences for others; or perhaps because society does not want to see you make mistakes while you are high that could cost you your life; or perhaps because for a lot of addicts/users/abusers there are tolerance level issues that require them to do worse or more dangerous things to get that same level of high, increasing the risk to themselves or to others. To try to equate crack with heroin with pot as equally okay is the first and gravest mistake the legalization people make.
Click to expand...

Those are indirect effects and are a different argument. I want to know what you think is so wrong about that feeling. Let us say for example a person was voluntarily brought it, placed in a safe setting, and made high by some drug, then releweased and not given the drug again. What damage was done to their life for that time while they were high? What was wrong with those moments.
 
tererun said:
Those are indirect effects and are a different argument. I want to know what you think is so wrong about that feeling. Let us say for example a person was voluntarily brought it, placed in a safe setting, and made high by some drug, then releweased and not given the drug again. What damage was done to their life for that time while they were high? What was wrong with those moments.
Click to expand...

Well since that never happens except maybe in a methadone clinic that people don't go to until after they have totally ruined there lives I suppose they have not made their ruined lives worse in being clinically given drugs.
 
Fisher said:
Well since that never happens except maybe in a methadone clinic that people don't go to until after they have totally ruined there lives I suppose they have not made their ruined lives worse in being clinically given drugs.
Click to expand...

I was using that as an example to remove the other things you were talking about. What is wrong with the actual being high.
 
tererun said:
I was using that as an example to remove the other things you were talking about. What is wrong with the actual being high.
Click to expand...

Well if we are begging arguments, what is wrong with not being high?
 
Drugs are bad because some old whites guys who still embrace the temperance movement say they are.
 
tererun said:
I understand there are negative indirect problems with being high. I am asking what are the actual problems with feeling good, having an altered state of consciousness, feeling relaxed, and having fun? Yes, people can do bad things with drugs, but they can also do good things. There are lots of people who use drugs for fun and pay taxes, do their jobs, live their lives, and make the world a better place with their presence. I want to know why is it wrong to be high. I know the mistakes one can make or the problems that come from certain substances, but I want to know why someone being high pisses others off so much.
Click to expand...

As a person who's all for people living their own lives, free from government interference, and free to conduct their lives as they see fit, I have no problem with someone else being "high" - it's not for me, but that doesn't mean it's not for someone else.

I would say, however, that with freedom comes responsibility and with responsibility comes consequences. If you want the freedom to be high, don't come crying to me or to a court when you commit an illegal act or "accidentally" harm someone or kill them and claim "I didn't mean to do it, I was high".

It's the same problem I have with drunks driving and killing people and getting off with manslaughter or less. If you're drunk and you kill someone, that's first degree murder in my book unless you can prove you were kidnapped, force-feed alcohol, and then put in the driver's seat of a moving car without your consent. Otherwise, rot in a jail cell for the rest of your sorry life. Do the same "high", go rot in the hole too.
 
tererun said:
You know if you do not want to answer the question you can simply go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I can stay here. You simply do not want to answer the question because you know you are wrong. You are wrong in your assumptions so you have no choice but to beg the question by assuming that there is nothing wrong with getting high, and you cannot articulate an argument as to why not getting high is somehow worse. Since you asked a loaded question, explain your basis and I will explain to you why you are wrong.
 
Fisher said:
I can stay here. You simply do not want to answer the question because you know you are wrong. You are wrong in your assumptions so you have no choice but to beg the question by assuming that there is nothing wrong with getting high, and you cannot articulate an argument as to why not getting high is somehow worse. Since you asked a loaded question, explain your basis and I will explain to you why you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Or I will simply ignore the child and move on. Good luck with all of that.
 
tererun said:
Or I will simply ignore the child and move on. Good luck with all of that.
Click to expand...

Like I thought, you have no basis for your position other than "Because that is how I want it." Have fun playing with your Fisher-Price things.
 
Fisher said:
Like I thought, you have no basis for your position other than "Because that is how I want it." Have fun playing with your Fisher-Price things.
Click to expand...

Just for ****s and giggles I will chime in here. I think the point of the OP (and I apologize if I've misread the context) is that there in fact NOTHING wrong with being sober OR high but that they are simply two different ways to enjoy the same life. I (and most people who smoke) live a mostly sober life. I own and operate a successful business, go outside regularly, go to the gym and play sports on a daily basis, and my diet consists of more than Funyons and cheetos. When I do smoke, I do it at home. I do not drive and present NO danger(in my opinion) to society.

So I have two questions

1) In the environment that I have described do you see my use of marijuana as dangerous to society?

2) Provided that I am not a danger to society in that setting, and that I am willingly participating in and enjoying my activity, what is wrong with it?
 
KevinKohler said:
Drugs are bad because some old whites guys who still embrace the temperance movement say they are.
Click to expand...

Drug control is almost as old as the country itself in one shape or form or another. (Erowid Psychoactive History Vault : U.S. Drug Control Timeline) It is the natural progression of "progressive" autocratic government. It is not because some bunch of old white guys embracing the temperance movement. It is because society as a whole felt is was being adversely affected by the cumulative effect of the actions of irresponsible individuals--be they drunks, companies that sold cocaine syrups, or even just the victimization of others in the black markets because society decided it had enough of "But it's my right, but not my responsibility" people. Perhaps they have gone too far with outlawing pot, but that does not change that every time you give the government one more ounce of power (like with Obamacare) you are giving it even more authority to do things you don't like. One individual alone smoking pot is irrelevant as is one individual alone smoking crack or heroin. When you have 1,000,000 people doing it, then society has a problem and society has the right to say no because the "progressives" decided that micromanaging people's lives was better than not and gave the government the power. That it bites them in the ass is just good political karma.
 
Midwest Lib said:
Just for ****s and giggles I will chime in here. I think the point of the OP (and I apologize if I've misread the context) is that there in fact NOTHING wrong with being sober OR high but that they are simply two different ways to enjoy the same life. I (and most people who smoke) live a mostly sober life. I own and operate a successful business, go outside regularly, go to the gym and play sports on a daily basis, and my diet consists of more than Funyons and cheetos. When I do smoke, I do it at home. I do not drive and present NO danger(in my opinion) to society.

So I have two questions

1) In the environment that I have described do you see my use of marijuana as dangerous to society?

2) Provided that I am not a danger to society in that setting, and that I am willingly participating in and enjoying my activity, what is wrong with it?
Click to expand...

The government sees your use of marijuana as dangerous if, for no other reason, you are participating in an illegal activity that is supplied by syndicated criminals who kill or exploit a lot of people in the process. What is wrong with that is that people on the borders are being terrorized to supply you the drugs that allow you to set back and smoke your weed.
 
tererun said:
I understand there are negative indirect problems with being high. I am asking what are the actual problems with feeling good, having an altered state of consciousness, feeling relaxed, and having fun? Yes, people can do bad things with drugs, but they can also do good things. There are lots of people who use drugs for fun and pay taxes, do their jobs, live their lives, and make the world a better place with their presence. I want to know why is it wrong to be high. I know the mistakes one can make or the problems that come from certain substances, but I want to know why someone being high pisses others off so much.
Click to expand...


My guess is remnants of puritanism combined with all sorts of invidious bull**** like race issues. I wrote a paper on the history of drug law in the US when I was in law school, and quite a lot of it was the result of racially motivated scare tactics by die-hards from the failed prohibition movement. Our first drug Czar (Harry Anslinger, if I'm remembering correctly) put out numerous propaganda pieces linking (e.g.) marijuana use to Communism, "Red China," etc, etc. The bottom line is that there's really nothing at all wrong with being high (depending on what you're talking about) so long as you're careful and avoid heavy machinery.
 
Fisher said:
The government sees your use of marijuana as dangerous if, for no other reason, you are participating in an illegal activity that is supplied by syndicated criminals who kill or exploit a lot of people in the process. What is wrong with that is that people on the borders are being terrorized to supply you the drugs that allow you to set back and smoke your weed.
Click to expand...

I do not view my government as an omnipotent entity. I disagree with the law (and the reasons for it's existence) as well as the entire war on drugs. I understand that it is against the law, and as an adult I know the risk that breaking the law comes with. I agree wholeheartedly that WAY too many people are hurt and killed in the cultivation and illegal transport of marijuana. Also, I don't contribute to that problem as I know I don't buy anything that originates from a crime syndicate.

So, since you bring up the violence inherent in the system I propose another 2 questions.

1) Do you believe that legalizing marijuana would lessen the violence and terrorism caused by the illegal marijuana trade?

2) Completely ignoring EVERY tangent and situation possible in regards to origin. In a COMPLETELY secure location, such as ones home, what is the actual harm to society when an adult gets high?
 
Midwest Lib said:
Weird orgies? Wild parties? I need me a new dealer...:lamo
Click to expand...

No, you were born too late and missed out on the 60's and early 70's. Sex, Drugs and Rock n' Roll. "Turn on, tune in, drop out"

And it was a myth about the "free love" it still cost you a buck for a six pack and a buck for a few reds to get her in the mood.

I think the movie "Reefer Madness" did more to cause teens and young adults to get into using drugs.

But "that 70's Show" version of "Reefer Madness" was as good as the 1938 original.

 
Aderleth said:
Sounds like an advertisement for my college years.
Click to expand...

I suppose we can assume you didn't attend Cal-Tech.

BTW, that's the university that those geeks on "The Big Bang Theory" are suppose to work at.

For partying schools, Cal-Tech comes in dead last.

I think you need a security clearance to attend that university. :lol:
 
APACHERAT said:
I suppose we can assume you didn't attend Cal-Tech.

BTW, that's the university that those geeks on "The Big Bang Theory" are suppose to work at.

For partying schools, Cal-Tech comes in dead last.

I think you need a security clearance to attend that university. :lol:
Click to expand...

Hah. I actually went to Berkeley, which is by no stretch of the imagination a party school; but it's definitely a drug/orgy friendly school (at least if, like me, you did a lot of theatre). There was a co-op when I was there that allegedly had parties with drug-themed rooms (e.g. the pot room, the coke room, etc, etc). Personally I stayed away from that co-op, but that had more to do with the standing water in their basement (where they'd have concerts) and the scabies infestation (no joke).

I know a couple of Cal-Tech grads. Their college experience was... different from mine.
 
Fisher said:
The government sees your use of marijuana as dangerous if, for no other reason, you are participating in an illegal activity that is supplied by syndicated criminals who kill or exploit a lot of people in the process. What is wrong with that is that people on the borders are being terrorized to supply you the drugs that allow you to set back and smoke your weed.
Click to expand...

Yikes.
Didn't think that one through, didja?
 
Midwest Lib said:
I do not view my government as an omnipotent entity. I disagree with the law (and the reasons for it's existence) as well as the entire war on drugs. I understand that it is against the law, and as an adult I know the risk that breaking the law comes with. I agree wholeheartedly that WAY too many people are hurt and killed in the cultivation and illegal transport of marijuana. Also, I don't contribute to that problem as I know I don't buy anything that originates from a crime syndicate.

So, since you bring up the violence inherent in the system I propose another 2 questions.

1) Do you believe that legalizing marijuana would lessen the violence and terrorism caused by the illegal marijuana trade?

2) Completely ignoring EVERY tangent and situation possible in regards to origin. In a COMPLETELY secure location, such as ones home, what is the actual harm to society when an adult gets high?
Click to expand...

1) Sure legalizing pot would destroy the organized crime associated with pot smuggling, but that would be true with any drug, not just pot. and

2) Because if it is legal, then it will not just be legal in your home. That said, I really don't care one way or the other as long as I do not have to smell it or be anywhere near it because I find it an obnoxious odor. The opponents, however, will argue that it is the "gateway drug" since most hard-core drug addicts seem to start off as pot smokers who went searching for a bigger, better high.

3) It really will be a moot point anyway at some point. Prescription drug abuse/addiction, and the proliferation of home-made highs will make pot seem nothing soon enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom