As far as a lab goes (and no, that isn't its sole purpose), if others are unharmed by its presence, and content enough for the person (there is only one) owning the house to permit it, and indeed to have given equipment as a b/day or xmas gift, which has happened then is it not safe to say they are not unduly inconvenienced by it? I doubt very much, were its presence detested that the one other in its presence would decide of their own accord, to give its owner something for it.
As for addiction, the only thing that could be called such (unless you include science of most descriptions, from personally conducted chem/bio/physics stuff to spending days reading paleontology journals), at least to a substance is to pain meds. I DON'T take anything from anybody not given, or transacted unless you count refill RX's from a GP surgery, and what a pharmacist gives in exchange for those RX's-that cannot be by any estimation taking something which I have not the right to in a sense of depriving others of what is theirs, or what they have the right to.
Yes, they have side effects. No, they are far from perfect. But if its a choice between mobility and being physically able to lie down and to make a knowing tradeoff between negatives and positives and necessity then there is quite obviously a problem, medically speaking which does require such a choice to be made, regardless of which choice is made.
And the other need is the anticonvulsant which is, secondarily a sedative-hypnotic, albeit with remarkably low, and in my case zero physical dependence, save in the sense that I do need it, because it serves to prevent seizures. Without it, I'd have them, with, 95% of the time I can kill the things before they get started, and were the drug to be taken away and my left with no protection, I'd be right back where I started before I began taking that medication. That is certainly different from either a psychological habit, or a physiological dependence in which lack of the med would cause a direct consequence by way of a withdrawal, as opposed to removing the protection it provides against a serious medical problem (the seizures).
Sure, the pain meds are an intoxicant. They aren't breaking any law however. Any that might be bent a little, so to speak, would be in the case of something fulfilling a role similar to either Odeon's ale, should he ever drink a few beers to unwind, or Al's bourbon. In the case of Al and odeon, their tastes differ as does mine. One prefers ale the other bourbon. I'm not much of a drinker, not very often at least, once in a great while I will get drunk. If I had to pick between the two, I'd go for beer. Why? because I have an intense personal distaste for anything resembling whiskey. The smell makes me want to puke. Some prefer wine, I can't drink it without holding my nose and tipping it back and rinsing my mouth after, which I've done perhaps three times in my lifespan (when I was a kid too young to buy it and getting drunk socially was to be done, and the means to do so rather restrictive to my taste. And I don't intend on drinking it again)
To achieve the same aim, on an occasional basis, I don't particularly see how the particular configuration of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, more often also nitrogen, that people ingest in order to reach the same end goal should have any particular bearing upon the person's right to reach essentially the same goal. It is little different to if I am to consume alcohol, having a preference for one preparation of it over another. Different tastes, but I defy even you odeon, to deny that were my preference in non-spirituous beverages of the alcoholic kind for wine in place of beer that I would lack the right to choose in that direction. How about were I to choose a different kind of consumable alcohol? there are others, such as tertiary pentyl alcohol which provide similar effects but are consumed by the mililiter or by the few hundred mg to a gram or so, and which in the cases of tertiary alcohols, they don't get metabolized to nasty aldehyde metabolites like the commonly drunk alcohol, ethanol does and they can possess less toxicity to the liver, nasty fruity acetaldehyde taste on one's breath but if misused, and one became an alcoholic on any of them, the end result would be much the same, bar possibly the cirrhosis of the liver.
If I drink off the shelf booze and treat people like an asshole, that would be me at fault. if I consume an alternate and cleaner-feeling, to my own individual taste, more pleasant kind of alcohol like that aforementioned 2-methyl-butan-2-ol and treat somebody like an asshole, its my fault in equal measure. If however I decide to consume either one, to rest my feet on the sofa and fire up a videogame, minding my own business whilst now and again under the influence of either one, do I thereby trespass upon the fundamental rights of another being by virtue of the alcohol in question having 5 carbons, and the according number of hydrogen atoms as opposed to two carbons?
Looking at it logically, the nature of the person's actions, rather than the chemical entity ingested, ought to be that which dictates the right or wrong, since a chemical in a container cannot bear inherent guilt, it not being a sentient living thing. It acts only when surrounded by the bag of nerves, meat, water and squishy things that makes up your average living thing. And the actions of said bag of squishy bits are, in humans at least, to be dictated by that human.
I, you, al, CBC, ren, elle, funwithmatches, the lot of us, we all share that much, same with any member here barring spambots, the capability to act according to our will in that we decide the voluntary activity of our associated meat-bags, and its that activity any of us bear responsibility for. And ergo the conduct which that activity makes up and by which we interact with others. This being, as far as I can tell, the most important factor.
And it is a good point Al makes. Nobody is present from this forum standing by any of our sides, with odd exceptions such as say, ren and ceilidh, so the only judgement which can be made by a remote entity is based on subjective inference, not objective testing. Others not present with one another may see only what is presented through that lens, and attempt to put together a partial picture based on fragments, which is of course, unlikely to show the true, objective reality in any one case.
And Al, sure your opinion is respected, inaslong as what you say has merit. if Odeon says something meritworthy, then likewise, I would view either as worthy of consideration. Mere sticks and stones, as Al put it, on the other and...well a middle finger received is likely to result in a middle finger given in return, I'll just as much give what I get to any. But any who merely wish to attempt to insult for the sake of dispensing insult, don't expect me either to take it to heart so much I go hang myself like an anorexic repeatedly teased and called fat, by a bunch of other teenage girls prone to cattiness and hissy fits. Those who do throw insult for insult's sake may expect to be met with the same, but I'm not going to waste time going out of my way for those who prove themselves to act in a manner undeserving of respect.
Al-as far as levity and absurdity, less of the latter than you may have expected. What you point out is logically sound.
As far as picking and choosing laws..well when they serve to maintain the peace, and prevent one member of society from invading the rights of another, that is reasonable, logical, and I have no desire to break such law.
I cannot on the flip side of the coin, respect a law designed to infringe the rights of a being to hold soverignty in thought or action upon that same being. Not all laws made by governments are good laws.
Would you respect the right of say, a court in some parts of africa, to hold on you assize, for the charge of witchcraft? such laws exist in some such countries there to this day. Or laws demanding you hand jews over for the gas chambers in nazi-era germany and axis-occupied land at the time? such laws are, quite plainly wrong, are they not? what about laws in places like saudi arabia, or other middle eastern countries which are still stoning homosexuals? Whether or not you wish anything to do with homosexuality, I doubt you would post in support of their being lynched, may I assume I am correct in this conclusion?
What have such laws got in common? they exist to transgress against the right of the individual to be the individual. (barring perhaps the sorcery example which is based on primitive superstition and in this day and age, idiocy, no person arrested for such a 'crime' ever actually being guilty thereof given the act itself cannot exist, and given the 'crime' cannot in reality be committed, all those so charged must logically therefore, be innocent)
And consider this, and balance it on the scales of justice, odeon: which is worse-a man going somewhere or being somewhere passive smoking cannot reach another person, stepping outside the back door etc, and smoking a joint. Or assaulting that same man for smoking the joint. They have posed no threat to society, yet the armed division of the legal system in return, has the right to pose a threat to them? and not only them, but potentially those who may depend on that person as a breadwinner for example?
One could argue that the breadwinner has a responsibility to the dependent. But assuming they are not acting in a manner to negatively impact their performance on the job, I would argue that the responsibility lies upon the legal system not to permit its agents to perform such an assault in the first place, given the 'crime' exists only in statute, and lacks inherently, anybody being made victim, in such a victimless 'crime' then the victim, is the one assaulted.
