Samira wrote:
And...?
It's up to person B to manage his relationship with person A, assuming any relationship other than a dependent child. I would agree that it is irresponsible of parents to be in an altered state if they bear sole responsibility for small children.
If you lived out in the middle of no where by yourself, then your point would have more foundation. The problem is, a community doesn't work like that. Your personal actions may and will affect others. The people in the neighborhood directly affects the value of the community.
Exodus wrote:
I fully agree. We should ban everything that could place yourself in harms way, as we all know that it would affect the people around you as well.
I'll start making a list of things:
Driving, sky diving, scuba diving, drugs, soda, fast food, video games, the internet, air travel, drinking too much water, hunting, construction work, electricity usage/repair, cooking (grill, stove, oven, and microwave)...
Feel free to add anything you want to that list, as just about anything could kill you. Also, not just drugs, but -anything- done excessively could lead to obsessive behavior that could harm you and the people around you.
Even though you're "joking", I will address this.
All of those aforementioned scenarios have control measures to greatly reduce the safety hazards allowing personnel to have daily involvement with minimal negative side effects.
The problem lies in "hard drugs" that are nothing but harmful, that can kill you or severely alter you in short amount of time. The contradiction in trying to implement safety measures in "hard drugs" is that people are taking the drugs for the exact reasons that are causing the serious side effects. Else, they would be just taking "gateway drugs".
Majivo wrote:
Luckily we don't make legislation based on what you want to see as you walk down the street, or else (cross-thread shenanigans) we'd be outlawing certain haircuts or clothing. It's also interesting how you say it applies for gateway drugs, then list off crack and meth. As it is, there's a public interest in barring public drunkenness; no one wants to get the crap beat out of them by some pissed-off drunk. On the other hand, why not let people high on marijuana walk around? The worst they're going to do is ask for some food off you.
I'm confused on your crack/meth gateway drug comment.
What about having unwrapped open bottles of beer, drinking in public and not being drunk? Isn't that also illegal?
Aethein wrote:
And I still don't see why you think someone wanting to hallucinate is stupid.
What harm is there in someone using LSD or shrooms or other such drugs and experience those hallucinations if they take the proper precautions so they don't end up jumping off of a building or running in front of a train chasing bats or sh*t like that.
It's more about not being in the right state of mind than hallucinating. I can't change your opinion on anything, but all I can say is that you are implying that curiosity outweighs stupidity and that's not true. Rather you agree with the definition or not, that word exists.