OFF: smoking etc.

[Nick English]

> But the point that all you debaters are missing is this:  A significant
> number of citizens--tax-paying--citizens, want to smoke cigs, weed,
> cigars etc, and some want to drink alcohol, and some want to take
> other drugs.  Whatever happened to the right of the individual to
> determine what s/he wants?  If you want to outlaw everything that's
> potentially life-threatening, where do you start?  And, where do you
> end up?  Hell, it's probably bad for my health to breath the stale, re-
> circulated air in this very building.  Why should it be legal for my
> employer to mismanage the health of a hundred employees, yet
> illegal for me to grow a little weed in my backyard?
>
> theo


As the father of a 4-year-old, I generally tend to look at things
from the perspective of what I want my son getting involved with and
what I don't. In that sense, tobacco, alcohol and the "illegals" are
all taboo.

And that's where I become a hypocrite. In my younger days, I consumed
all kinds of banned substances. To this day I still use tobacco --
the only addiction I've never been able to break (other than BOC and
Motorhead). And if alcohol is just as bad as any other drug (which I
DO sincerely believe), then how do I rationalize Saturday night, when I
celebrated the return of a friend from 11 years in the Navy by
downing 11 shots of Jack Daniels?

I would have to say that drugs are more detrimental than beneficial.
But does that mean they should be disallowed? And why make such a
distinction between pot and alcohol? How can  someone who grows a
leaf or two in his or her own backyard receive a stiffer sentence
than a drunk driver? It happens often.

I can tell you that after 11 shots of Jack, I was far less in control
of my own life than I would have been if I'd smoked a joint -- or
even 11 joints. Yet what
I did was considered perfectly legal, whereas a joint would have
landed me in court, possibly prison.

--  Nick