Re: CANNABIS PSYCHOSIS_OBSERVER

In article ,
Jasbird@houdini.com (Jasbird) wrote:

> *From:* Jasbird
> *Date:* Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:06:53 GMT
>
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
> Claude@aol.com (Claude) wrote:
>
> >Rights come with responsibilities. Not everyone in a society can do
> >exactly what they want all of the time.
>
> You aren't interested in rights, only in telling us what our
> "responsibilities" are. The typical Blairite dogma is that
> "Rights come with responsibilities". Don't be so dumb to think
> that if you repeat that mantra often enough then it will,
> somehow, make sense.

Curious how lots of people interpret what I am interested in and get it so
wrong.
These ideas are not at all new and not Blairite, I am no defender of
him, they have long an honourable history. Many sensible people think they
make sense. I suggest you re read John Stuart Mill on the conditions for
the circumscription of individualism. Another suitable author if you want
to educate yourself on the subject, rather than just ranting, might be
Leonard Hobhouse-his work "Liberalism" published nearly 100 years ago.

There is a balance to be struck between rights & responsibilities. It can
easily be argued that in modern Britain, people have too many "rights" now
and that has contributed to social breakdown.
Balance, though you dismiss it because it does not suit your personal
right to smoke pot, is important.
I have snipped your ranting for brevity>
**********************************************************************
You see the mote which is in your brother's eye; but you do not see the
beam which is in your own eye. When you cast out the beam from your own
eye, then you will see (clearly) to cast out the mote from your brother's
eye.

Claude wrote:

It's funny to hear you babbling about balance while you take the most
one-sided approach in this discussion about smoking pot. You easily
dismiss other people's rights with some vague mumbo jumbo about
balance, because it doesn't happen to affect you personally.

I think you ought to loose your job, have your property confiscated and
be locked up for a while to see what's wrong with your point of view.
Once you have YOUR rights infringed for some silly reason (like
protecting you against yourself), you might change your fascist opinion
on the subject.


The beam in your eye is your tacit approval of society condoning
alcohol (ab)use while simultaneously condemning pot (ab)use (the mote
in your brothers eye).

Claude wrote:

where and how do you find yourself in possession of a "right" to punish
someone for doing things to themself? where and and how do youf ind
yourself in possession of a "right" to determine *anything* about what a
fellow human being does to his body and/or mind?

explain yourself.

b
--
citizen, patriot, stoner

Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com

Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org

"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc

"Claude" wrote in message
news:memo.20060222053512.1504B@pheon.cix.co.uk...

> In article ,
> Jasbird@houdini.com (Jasbird) wrote:
>
>> *From:* Jasbird
>> *Date:* Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:06:53 GMT
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> Claude@aol.com (Claude) wrote:
>>
>> >Rights come with responsibilities. Not everyone in a society can do
>> >exactly what they want all of the time.
>>
>> You aren't interested in rights, only in telling us what our
>> "responsibilities" are. The typical Blairite dogma is that
>> "Rights come with responsibilities". Don't be so dumb to think
>> that if you repeat that mantra often enough then it will,
>> somehow, make sense.
> Curious how lots of people interpret what I am interested in and get it so
> wrong.
> These ideas are not at all new and not Blairite, I am no defender of
> him, they have long an honourable history. Many sensible people think they
> make sense. I suggest you re read John Stuart Mill on the conditions for
> the circumscription of individualism.

Well, if your gonna mention him, why not include his 'Harm Principle', then
explain how smoking a plant in your own house goes against Mills idea, as
Mill himself says :

'That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to
others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.'
Mill, On Liberty, Ch 1.

>Another suitable author if you want
> to educate yourself on the subject, rather than just ranting, might be
> Leonard Hobhouse-his work "Liberalism" published nearly 100 years ago.
>
> There is a balance to be struck between rights & responsibilities.

Maybe so, but as I asked you before, what do you regard as the States
'Rights and Responsibilities' ?

>It can
> easily be argued that in modern Britain, people have too many "rights" now
> and that has contributed to social breakdown.

Go-on then, make your argument, as I, for one don't see it.
'Social breakdown', what, exactly, do you mean by that ?

> Balance, though you dismiss it because it does not suit your personal
> right to smoke pot, is important.
> I have snipped your ranting for brevity>

--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.

'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn