Denver decriminalizes mushrooms!

[Irving]

Okay, google is my friend

https://americansuppressorassociation.com/montana-full-game-suppressor-hunting-now-legal/

there are now 35 states which allow hunters to use legally possessed suppressors in the field without restriction. Last year, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Ohio all enacted similar pro-suppressor hunting reform.

No I'm talking about Montana not requiring any of the NFA hoops for suppressors/machine guns that are manufactured in state and remain instate. I'm not 100% on what they are doing up there because I don't live there, but that is the impression that I'm under.

[Zundfolge]

If drug legalization didn't disproportionately help the Democrat party and government in general, they wouldn't be proposing it.

Pot legalization in CO has turned the state permanently blue (by changing our demographics, not because of the effects of the drug).

However, the more people nation wide smoking pot the more likely those people are going to vote D (or again, the D's would not have relinquished the power over people that drug laws provide).

All that said, I can see the point that its not the government's place to tell adults what they can do with their bodies (I even agree with it) but lets not pretend that the Democrat push to legalize first weed and then other drugs has anything to do with making the people more free.

[Irving]

Liberty is all well and good, but when you're dealing with substances capable of short circuiting and then significantly rewiring the pleasure centers of the human brain with only a handful of uses, arguments for personal responsibility go right out the window.

Can you elaborate at all on what you mean here? Maybe provide a theoretical example of what you mean? I've heard of psychoactive drugs smoothing out ingrained patterns of thought, but not with respect to rewiring the pleasure center. I'm curious what the fear is from this specific point of view. Like do a few mushroom trips and now you only find pleasure in not paying taxes and stomping puppies?

[Irving]

If drug legalization didn't disproportionately help the Democrat party and government in general, they wouldn't be proposing it.

Pot legalization in CO has turned the state permanently blue (by changing our demographics, not because of the effects of the drug).

However, the more people nation wide smoking pot the more likely those people are going to vote D (or again, the D's would not have relinquished the power over people that drug laws provide).

All that said, I can see the point that its not the government's place to tell adults what they can do with their bodies (I even agree with it) but lets not pretend that the Democrat push to legalize first weed and then other drugs has anything to do with making the people more free.

I didn't follow any of this, and didn't even know it was on a ballot until this thread popped up. From that one article it sounded like a small group pushing for this legislation. Is there evidence that this was presented/inspired/encouraged/supported by the Democratic party?

[Skip]

Liberty is all well and good, but when you're dealing with substances capable of short circuiting and then significantly rewiring the pleasure centers of the human brain with only a handful of uses, arguments for personal responsibility go right out the window.

I see your point that asking for responsibility from a self-injured impaired person is difficult. But a person knew those consequences going in. Far worse to make us responsible for bad choices we didn't even make.

CHA-LEE's position is morally consistent.

"I have the freedom to do as I choose"
"I must be accountable for the consequences of my actions"

That's what freedom is.

The moment there is external/third party/collective consequences we end up with laws that restrict freedom. Can't have it both ways without creating chaos (like Gman said).

[Irving]

Skip can you provide examples of what you're talking about just so we're all clear where you're coming from?
Can you differentiate issues you see arising from this from other ways in which society already provides for people who get themselves into trouble with whatever choices they are making that you do find acceptable?

[Justin]

I see your point that asking for responsibility from a self-injured impaired person is difficult. But a person knew those consequences going in. Far worse to make us responsible for bad choices we didn't even make.

CHA-LEE's position is morally consistent.

"I have the freedom to do as I choose"
"I must be accountable for the consequences of my actions"

That's what freedom is.

The moment there is external/third party/collective consequences we end up with laws that restrict freedom. Can't have it both ways without creating chaos (like Gman said).

Plenty of people start without knowing what the consequences are, or vastly underestimate their understanding of them. Humans are hugely short-sighted creatures, so I don't buy your argument that anyone, perhaps short of a full-on medical doctor, decides to undertake the use of addicitive substances in any sort of headspace approaching full-on understanding of the consequences.

Further, differences in biology mean that there's no way to know how you'll react. There are some people who shoot heroine, or smoke crack or meth recreationally and never get addicted, or even if they are addicted, they're able to hold down a job and manage their drug use.

On the other hand, there are people who end up destroying their lives, and the lives of those around them due to an addiction.

CHA-LEE's position may be morally and philosophically consistent, but it does nothing to take into account the fact that humans aren't rational actors, even at the best of times, and expecting someone with a drug addiction to be a rational actor is utterly inconsistent with what is known about neurochemistry. Hell, a 2 minute conversation with literally any smoker will tell you that.

[Skip]

Skip can you provide examples of what you're talking about just so we're all clear where you're coming from?
Can you differentiate issues you see arising from this from other ways in which society already provides for people who get themselves into trouble with whatever choices they are making that you do find acceptable?

I'm not standing on anyone's shoulder looking over his/her life to evaluate the role drugs have had in bad choices. But if I am forced to fund the safety nets for those who "can't" then I am held accountable for those choices and have an interest* in the role drugs have had. A lot of effort goes into to making sure I can't quote you a statistic. I'm not even entitled to know how my paycheck is being spent and who specifically is benefitting.

There are no behavior disqualifiers for these safety nets/programs. If a person can vote and has a perceived need, I pay. I pay directly (taxes) and indirectly (healthcare costs, cost of living).

Also not a day going by without a group saying they "can't" do something; housing, healthcare, student loans, etc... and need more of my paycheck. Isn't it odd people have plenty of money for drugs and can't do the things so many of us have had to do in life?


*I never wanted that interest, it was forced on me.

[Skip]

Plenty of people start without knowing what the consequences are, or vastly underestimate their understanding of them. Humans are hugely short-sighted creatures, so I don't buy your argument that anyone, perhaps short of a full-on medical doctor, decides to undertake the use of addicitive substances in any sort of headspace approaching full-on understanding of the consequences.

Further, differences in biology mean that there's no way to know how you'll react. There are some people who shoot heroine, or smoke crack or meth recreationally and never get addicted, or even if they are addicted, they're able to hold down a job and manage their drug use.

On the other hand, there are people who end up destroying their lives, and the lives of those around them due to an addiction.

CHA-LEE's position may be morally and philosophically consistent, but it does nothing to take into account the fact that humans aren't rational actors, even at the best of times, and expecting someone with a drug addiction to be a rational actor is utterly inconsistent with what is known about neurochemistry. Hell, a 2 minute conversation with literally any smoker will tell you that.

Yup, you never know how the mind will respond to things. The potency of pot has also changed making it very different. Not sure about shrooms. Another thing I would never do. If people are operating in an info vacuum in 2019 that's also that person's fault.

If I'm divorced from the consequences, I don't need other humans to be rational actors. As a side note, isn't that why a lot of us here CCW? Self defense is separating ourselves from the consequences of often irrational behavior.

And that's kind of my point in consistency. Yes, I understand that means some people will die from the consequences of their actions. That's freedom to "do with my body as I choose." If the negative consequences were internalized it would serve as an example to others creating disincentive.

[davsel]

http://schizopot.com/