|
I can't believe I'm saying this, but "You're right, mmarsh." This issue is hardly black and white, yet both sides gravitate to extremes. So far the "father knows best" extreme is winning in the real world. Odd how pot has been banned, yet alcohol and tobacco have not. Tobacco has been linked to all sorts of cancers. Alcohol is a root of many of the aforementioned social issues.
Another interesting observation I've made in this thread is that both sides have spouted all manner of "facts," yet FDD is the only one who has actually sited his information. Are the rest of you folks doctors? Doesn't this forum require that information beyond the ken of us laymen be sourced?
As far as my own personally opinion; the only substance mentioned here that I ever use is alcohol and that in extreme moderation. I have used pot in the past. I didn't like it so I quit. I have used tobacco in the past. I didn't like the effects it had on me so I quit. By the logic of some here, that means that I should be violently opposed to anyone else using the products I no longer use. I tend to think of myself as more logical than that. Personal responsibility rears its ugly head here. I really don't care one way or the other what substances you put in your body. It's your choice and neither the government nor I (should) have any say in it. Should you negatively effect someone else while imbibing in the drug of your choice, you will pay the same price as everyone else. Simply, enforce the law. By that same token, if the laws in the US were enforced as they should be, drunk driving would not be the problem that it currently is.
"Oh! lad I don't know where you've been but I see you won first prize." The Scotsman
|