Prison Reform

[Ksandra]

Forgive me, i'm sick and high on percocet. I meant we don't ban them. Such drugs should definitely be regulated. Also, alchohol and tobacco are drugs...

So you are saying we should get rid of age limits on alcohol and cigarettes?

[hey]

So you are saying we should get rid of age limits on alcohol and cigarettes?

Wtf are you talking about? Where did i say that?

[Ksandra]

Wtf are you talking about? Where did i say that?

You said alcohol and cigarettes are drugs, and that we shouldn't ban drugs. Age limits are a ban up to a certain criteria.

[hey]

I am done with you.

[Ksandra]

lol

[Buffy]

@Buffy

Why are we as a society ok with people fucking up their lives? Yea I agree about legalization but not because "people have the right to fuck up their lives". What is this, the Dark Ages? We just give up on people that seemingly have given up on themselves?

Because personal responsibility is the core of adulthood.

Because what is right for me is not always what is right for someone else.

Because the constitution specifically limits certain rights, and outside of those specific limits the government shouldn't have the right to tell me what to do. Its why I'm okay with a texting or dui law - texting while driving has the possibility to impact another person if you hit them when you aren't paying attention. Its why I'm okay with limiting the rights of smokers to smoke inside where their smoke can give me cancer, but I support their right to smoke at home or outside, because it's their life and it's their choices.

Because where do you set the line about what is good for someone? Should we only allow salads or wraps from our fast food chains? Should we only allow ergonomic chairs? Should we only allow one hour of TV watching a day because being sedentary is bad for you? Should we require 1 hour of exercise every day, documented, before a person has access to the health care system?

Because telling someone that "this" is okay, but "that" isn't leads to an erosion of personal liberties, like privacy and freedom. For instance, the courts have decided that it is okay to listen to transcripts of my phone calls if I am talking to someone overseas that is a suspected terrorist or those that associate with them (the recent NSA debate). I find this to be an erosion of personal privacy and freedom.

Telling me that I'm not allowed to smoke weed (which, for the record, I've never touched and have no real desire to) because its bad for me, what does that lead to? Being told I can't have a medical procedure that I want? Which leads to what? Being told I can't have a medical procedure I need?

These are all extreme examples, but they are the concerns I fear 10, 20, or 50 years from now. Small liberties, like being able to injest whatever the hell I want into my body should be my right. It's the abortion argument, right? It's *MY* body, let me do what I want with it.

edit: holy hell did we get off-track from prison reform. rofl. my bad.

[Kohan]

lol

I personally agree with hey. It's a nonsensical statement, especially since hey already stated that they believe they should be regulated. Beyond that, it's a limit, not a ban, and it isn't as if limitations wouldn't be included in relation to other substances.

edit: holy hell did we get off-track from prison reform. rofl. my bad.

We all know that the unnecessary drug wars are why these sorts of reforms are necessary. I personally consider this entirely on-topic.

[Ksandra]

I personally agree with hey. It's a nonsensical statement, especially since hey already stated that they believe they should be regulated. Beyond that, it's a limit, not a ban, and it isn't as if limitations wouldn't be included in relation to other substances.

It's still a ban, and he needs to articulate his position better, which is what I was trying to figure out. He even admitted he said the wrong word in his first response to me. I have no idea what he thinks should happen if he wants to put alcohol and cigarettes under the bubble.

[quannum]

ksan saying stupid shit to win an internet argument.. who knew?

[Kohan]

It's still a ban, and he needs to articulate his position better, which is what I was trying to figure out. He even admitted he said the wrong word in his first response to me. I have no idea what he thinks should happen if he wants to put alcohol and cigarettes under the bubble.

I honestly find whatever point you're looking for more murky than their own. Hey's series of posts were as follows:

Other than drugs, we don't legislate anything else that would fuck up people's lives.

You replied with cigarettes and alcohol, but as hey also stated, nicotine and alcohol are drugs, so the statement was already accurate. Nonetheless, they clarified:

Forgive me, i'm sick and high on percocet. I meant we don't ban them. Such drugs should definitely be regulated. Also, alchohol and tobacco are drugs...

Legislation and regulation were implied from the beginning. That's why asking if they condone abolishing existing legislation is nonsensical.

We don't use the word "ban" in the context of limitations—that's why we use "limitation." "Ban" and "prohibition" are traditionally used to refer to a complete prevention of access to something, not a regulated level of access. While you can technically use "ban" to imply partial prohibition, the average person would not receive it that way.

[Ksandra]

Legislation and regulation were implied from the beginning. That's why asking if they condone abolishing existing legislation is nonsensical.

I consider banning a use of something to a certain age still a ban. If you want to call it semantics, go for it.

[Kohan]

I consider banning a use of something to a certain age still a ban. If you want to call it semantics, go for it.

It is semantics, yes. Given the context of hey's posts, which specified a preference for legislation from the start, it's apparent they're not interested in abolishing all limitations.

As for myself, I personally agree that the use of various substances should be legalized and regulated accordingly. In the case of THC, I would push for allowances for medical uses in relation to children, as they can benefit in many regards, especially if they're subject to having seizures, or are terminally ill. Naturally, tobacco and alcohol should not be used by children, as there is no justifiable reasoning.

[Ksandra]

It is semantics, yes. Given the context of hey's posts, which specified a preference for legislation from the start, it's apparent they're not interested in abolishing all limitations.

Well, it wasn't to me so I was trying to figure it out? You can't say it's clear when he even admitted he said the wrong word in the first place.

[Kohan]

Well, it wasn't to me so I was trying to figure it out? You can't say it's clear when he even admitted he said the wrong word in the first place.

They hadn't used the wrong word. Legislation is correct, and alcohol and nicotine are drugs. I believe they were being polite in their elaboration, not actually admitting wrongdoing. I don't believe it's very important to the discussion overall to continue debating it, though. You're aware of their intent by now.

[Ksandra]

They hadn't used the wrong word. Legislation is correct, and alcohol and nicotine are drugs. I believe they were being polite in their elaboration, not actually admitting wrongdoing. I don't believe it's very important to the discussion overall to continue debating it, though. You're aware of their intent by now.

If you want I could say battery acid is also regulated and that can fuck you up by throwing it on someone.

It was just the first two that happened to come to my mind. To say we don't regulate things that can fuck you up is wrong.

[edit] for that matter we ban certain pesticides, even for home use:

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/illegalproducts/

So yes we ban things that can fuck you up, too (even if you were to use the pesticide on food YOU only eat).

It's a wrong statement no matter how you want it to be right.

I am not even saying that we shouldn't legalize drugs, it's just incorrect to use that as a reason when it's false.

[Mazmaz]

Just chiming in to say I like that Kohan's using the pronoun "they".

[Kohan]

Spoiler: show

If you want I could say battery acid is also regulated and that can fuck you up by throwing it on someone.

It was just the first two that happened to come to my mind. To say we don't regulate things that can fuck you up is wrong.

[edit] for that matter we ban certain pesticides, even for home use:

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/illegalproducts/

So yes we ban things that can fuck you up, too (even if you were to use the pesticide on food YOU only eat).

It's a wrong statement no matter how you want it to be right.

I am not even saying that we shouldn't legalize drugs, it's just incorrect to use that as a reason when it's false.

To be entirely honest, I do not understand what you are saying at all.

Just chiming in to say I like that Kohan's using the pronoun "they".

I do use it frequently regardless, but whenever I'm either unsure as to or am unaware of someone's gender, I specifically endeavor to use it.

[hey]

To say we don't regulate things that can fuck you up is wrong.

This is really not what i said. Literally anything can fuck you up if you use it wrong, or in the wrong quantities. I said would for a reason; it implies that it is not just possible, but likely, even when used properly.

We do not really ban (almost? Fuck, maybe there's an exception somewhere, but it's still not something that is done often) anything merely to prevent people from harming themselves. Drugs are (one of) the only things.


Kohan, i am a woman.

[Ksandra]

We do not really ban (almost? Fuck, maybe there's an exception somewhere, but it's still not something that is done often) anything merely to prevent people from harming themselves. Drugs are (one of) the only things.

attempted suicide

I just don't like the idea of saying, "We don't do it for other things, so we shouldn't do it for this!" I don't think it is a valid point.

[hey]

Suicide hasn't been illegal in the us for a long time.

I just don't like the idea of saying, "We don't do it for other things, so we shouldn't do it for this!" I don't think it is a valid point.

Either legislating dangerous behavior is a good idea, or it's not. If it is, we should probably expand it to more dangerous activities. If not, we should stop it.