Willie Nelson sentenced to... sing.

[MaineShark]

Like I keep saying, the marketplace will decide the exact social pressures that would encourage or discourage the use of Tylenol, pot, or anything else.  It is clear, however, that some degree of pot prohibition will inevitably continue to exist.

Sure - some folks will prohibit just about anything.  But not the overwhelming amount that you've been trying to claim.

Given what a huge fraction of the population has used it, I expect you really don't have any clue what you're talking about.

I've used Microsoft Office, and even inhaled the VBA... but that doesn't mean I want my children to use it! 

I've done some pretty destructive hacking in my teens, most notably a certain "white power" BBS (via a known MajorBBS / Worldgroup vulnerability) - something that I regret today, and I most certainly would require my employees to sign a code of ethics that prohibits this sort of behavior.

Even some people who smoke pot once in a while may choose to move into a drug-free neighborhood, because other economic incentives make that desirable, and go to a "pot friendly hotel" on the other side of town every other weekend to relax.  Etc.

Except there aren't any economic incentives to ban marijuana, until after you've banned all the more-dangerous drugs.

So, something between a quarter and half the population of the US are forever "potheads," in your theory?

I clearly said "according to some people", while explaining why some people would be very strict about contractual drug prohibitions in their neighborhood / university / business charter agreements.

And I'm sure some folks would ban various racial or ethnic groups, as well.  Do you think that will be widespread?

One has to pick one's battles, but putting quotes and commas in their rational place has no ill side-effects.

Other than the part where it makes you look ignorant, and causes folks to discount what you say to some extent.

Good luck explaining that to a line of pedophiles who're about to show up at your door asking how much you're charging to play CPR with your 12-year-old.   

If one of my children is not breathing, and needs CPR to survive, I don't really care if the individual administering it is a pedophile or not.

Face it, your analogy made no sense.  You have to compare analogous things.

Its effectiveness as an antipyretic is questionable.  Ibuprofen has demonstrably better effectiveness, and is far safer.

You may be right, but I'm just observing the marketplace.  Take that up with the doctors.

I wouldn't let the average doctor treat my pets, let alone myself or any member of my family.  The doctor who isn't incompetent (on his best day) is a rare find.

Joe

[MaineShark]

no it doesn't rest entirely on legality - or do you mean the public's opinions rest solely on legality? What I'm saying is that most people in the public in general don't have a positive view on recreational drug usage outside of alcohol or cigarettes.

And half the contents of their medicine cabinets.  Their opinions are based solely upon the legal status, in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Doubly-so with marijuana, where a huge number of folks will admit that it is safe and no major problem, "but change the law, first; using illegal drugs is wrong, mmkay!"

Numerous polls and votes (in various countries) support this, though mainly I'm speaking from my personal experience living in society. Now wether they believe such BECAUSE said drugs are illegal would be a lot harder to gauge, though in my experience that's not the case. The sad fact of the matter is vice is a pretty pernicious aspect of the human condition and something that I've found most people are rational enbough to realize should be avoided and/or viewed with suspicion/negatively.

Yeah, no one engages in any vices!

the OP may have been about pot but the claim that people would live in separated communities is broad enough that other recreational drugs come into play. And again, people already do such in co-op buildings and HOAs*

No, that's just a straw man you invented, since the actual claim was indefensible.

I don't really care what Alex says** - even if a lot of people have used pot, doesn't mean they don't now when they're older feel that it's a slacker's or childish way of having fun

Except for how many of them still use it, of course...?

*the thing you said about HOA's in Texas is true, but they can't enforce any CC&R that wasn't in the original deed. That stuff is put in by the developer deliberately based on what he thinks his customers want. So the control that the HOA's can have is something people voluntarily vote and live under for with their dollars

Um, no, a HOA can be established after the fact, and has wide-reaching regulatory powers.

Joe

[Ed]

I disagree with you on the basis of their opinion. I would say that most people understand the danger of vices and so stay away from (what they see as) the more dangerous ones.

I never said no one engages in any vices. Again, in my experience they stay away from the ones they perceive as more dangerous/addicting and try not to overdue it on booze. Now who's straw manning?

It's not a straw man, it's the way the conversation has shifted. That's where I jumped in.

no, an HOA formed by vote can enforce already-in-place deed restrictions/covenants, and they can levy dues to maintain public areas, but said pubolic areas again have to be some form of already-in-place easement. They can't encumber your land with CC&R without your consent, such a process doesn't even exist in law. They could only levy dues and enforce them with liens, and even then they won't need to pay for much if there are no common areas that haven't been deeded to the public.

all I'm saying is people do already live in separate communities with those restrictions because of their opinions, and there's no reason to believe their opinions would change under a different governance scheme.

[MaineShark]

I disagree with you on the basis of their opinion. I would say that most people understand the danger of vices and so stay away from (what they see as) the more dangerous ones.

Except that they regularly use one of the most dangerous drugs?

It's not a straw man, it's the way the conversation has shifted. That's where I jumped in.

Really?  Do please quote where that "shift" occurred...

Because, based upon the words that my eyes can see on the screen, you're the first one to mention harder drugs.  But maybe you are seeing some magical, hidden words that I missed?

no, an HOA formed by vote can enforce already-in-place deed restrictions/covenants, and they can levy dues to maintain public areas, but said pubolic areas again have to be some form of already-in-place easement. They can't encumber your land with CC&R without your consent, such a process doesn't even exist in law. They could only levy dues and enforce them with liens, and even then they won't need to pay for much if there are no common areas that haven't been deeded to the public.

Given the number of folks I know who live there, and have dealt with this nonsense, I'm just going to say that you're completely ignorant, and move on.  There's no point in trying to explain something to an ignorant individual who asserts that he already knows everything...

Joe

[Ed]

are you talking about tylenol? if so, then clearly they don't see it as such

give me a break. That's what AL was talking about - people living in communities where they retsrict drug usage through contract law.

did I say I know everything? When did I say I know everything?
If you know something about HOA law in Texas why don't you tell us how they can encumber your land with CC&R which could restrict your behavior (out side of not paying dues for maintenance) like the ability to create drug usage policies, lawn maintenance standards, improvement-approval requirements, etc.?

[MaineShark]

are you talking about tylenol? if so, then clearly they don't see it as such

Actually, I was referring to alcohol, which is even easier to OD on.

give me a break. That's what AL was talking about - people living in communities where they retsrict drug usage through contract law.

No, he was specifically talking about marijuana, and asking others to devote less effort to legalization/etc.

You added other drugs in, as straw men, because the original claim was so thoroughly refuted.

If you know something about HOA law in Texas why don't you tell us how they can encumber your land with CC&R which could restrict your behavior (out side of not paying dues for maintenance) like the ability to create drug usage policies, lawn maintenance standards, improvement-approval requirements, etc.?

I've already told you.  You refuse to listen, because you believe you know everything.

Joe

[Ed]

Ok either way people view it as not as bad a vice in terms of addictiveness and/or effect or however you want to put it

I dunno, I feel like I remember him talking about such communitites in general

oh yeah? I "added that in" because the claim was "so thoroughly refuted"? How do you know that?
I'm telling you that I've been talking about drug-restricting communities in general because that's where I jumped in and that's what interests me as a developer and realtor, land use law. And I found it odd that you're claiming people wouldn't do such when I know for a fact they already do.

I believe I know everything? When did I say that? What's your basis for that claim?
I know that covenants and deed restrictions are contractual in nature. If the HOA were to try put a lien against your house without and already pre-existing deed restriction, they wouldn't have a document to show the judge to p[rove such restrictions exist. And even if they put on the lien, when they try to foreclose, you could simply go to the judge and say you didn't sign anything. It's hard to trump contract law.
It's basic common law. If there's something you know that I don't about that specific HOA statute, I'm open to hear it.
And moreover I find it hard to believe that either states or municipalties would pass a law with such a high chance of requiring them to pay money should it be found to be a regulatory taking, which would be an obvious implication if the law works as you say it does. In my experience they strongly try to avoid those expenses. We're in negotiations of a settlement right now where a zoning change changed our 52 possible units into 2 possible units. Town isn't even fighting it. They know they messed up.

[Ed]

Recreational drugs make people less coherent, less productive (unless they work for Comedy Central), and less rational.

There's a quote from AL about recreational drugs in general

[Ed]

at least as early as if not earlier than post #30 AL starts talking about private, contractual restrictions on drug use

[Ed]

I'm looking it up and the only thing I can find is that some CCR's have an expiration date with the ability to renew and you could end up in an HOA with only 60% vote like you said even if from the start you didn't sign up to be in one
but again, the CCR's have to be there in the first place
and I could be wrong on the details there, I'm inferring from
http://www.texashoareform.org/SpecObj.html

[Tom Sawyer]

The most annoying recreational drug is adrenaline fueled by ego... 

"I'm an intellectual giant, baby!"

[littlehawk]

I wonder if Ol Willie smokes Adrenaline? Is it anything like Northern Lights?

[Russell Kanning]

The most annoying recreational drug is adrenaline fueled by ego... 

"I'm an intellectual giant, baby!"

since I don't have these guys on ignore, i am thinking about deleting random posts
there has to be a better place on the internet to debate drugs than here

[littlehawk]

It started out as a good thread.     umm..what was it about again?

[MaineShark]

since I don't have these guys on ignore, i am thinking about deleting random posts
there has to be a better place on the internet to debate drugs than here

The real debate, of course, is about violent folks wanting to force their will on others.  And why peaceful people would not behave the same way.  I think this is a good place to have that debate

Joe