Lilith
Newbie
Cancer
Lol
Posts: 60 
|
Post by Lilith on Jun 3, 2016 10:16:10 GMT -5
This is different to drunk driving ... how exactly? They tried prohibition of alcohol ... didn't work. As far as the deaths caused for it to get into the country, that has everything to do with it being illegal. Where it is legal, that problem doesn't exist because you don't have the worst group of people in control of the substance. Did you also know that the homicide rate tripled and then tripled again during prohibition? And it dropped right back to where it was before after prohibition stopped. Weed is not the problem, just like alcohol wasn't the problem. The problem lies with people who don't use in moderation, and people who think they are more suited to decide what we do with our lives than we are. Stupid laws and the stupid and FAILED war on drugs is the cause of all of the deaths and violence. Not weed. Using alcohol as an example of something which is worse yet tolerated will not work on me, since in my view, anything that alters your state of mind after minimal exposure or use or which degrades your brain over a period of prolonged use ought to be forbidden. This includes alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. Putting wealth ahead of the health of the citizens of your country is unacceptable. I'm curious... do you have these views on alcohol because you witnessed someone with an alcohol problem first hand? I've been through that, it wasnt very nice at all. It is why I rarely ever drink and have never really been drunk. When I was younger I flat out refused to go near pubs / bars / clubs and still do somewhat even today. Just dont feel comfortable in there at all. Some pubs and bars are nice, but clubs? Nope. Never! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 10:25:14 GMT -5
Using alcohol as an example of something which is worse yet tolerated will not work on me, since in my view, anything that alters your state of mind after minimal exposure or use or which degrades your brain over a period of prolonged use ought to be forbidden. This includes alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. Putting wealth ahead of the health of the citizens of your country is unacceptable. I'm curious... do you have these views on alcohol because you witnessed someone with an alcohol problem first hand? I've been through that, it wasnt very nice at all. It is why I rarely ever drink and have never really been drunk. When I was younger I flat out refused to go near pubs / bars / clubs and still do somewhat even today. Just dont feel comfortable in there at all. Some pubs and bars are nice, but clubs? Nope. Never! No, I see things that way because I just consider it common sense. Under no circumstances should someone wish to deprave themselves of the ability to think rationally by their own accord, while simultaneously causing harm to their bodies. That doesn't have any positive aspects to me. |
|
Lilith
Newbie
Cancer
Lol
Posts: 60
|
Post by Lilith on Jun 3, 2016 10:29:30 GMT -5
I'm curious... do you have these views on alcohol because you witnessed someone with an alcohol problem first hand? I've been through that, it wasnt very nice at all. It is why I rarely ever drink and have never really been drunk. When I was younger I flat out refused to go near pubs / bars / clubs and still do somewhat even today. Just dont feel comfortable in there at all. Some pubs and bars are nice, but clubs? Nope. Never! No, I see things that way because I just consider it common sense. Under no circumstances should someone wish to deprave themselves of the ability to think rationally by their own accord, while simultaneously causing harm to their bodies. That doesn't have any positive aspects to me. Sometimes being a bit tipsy can be fun, but being so drunk that you're falling over, throwing up and having memory lapses is just stupid. When I was in Uni I witnessed soooooooooooo many people (mostly girls) spend the night with their heads down the toilet throwing up (or falling asleep with their head in the toilet) and I was just always like.... what an idiot lol its one of the MANY reasons why I never liked or got on with my ex's friends. |
|
|
|
Post by Sarah Twilight on Jun 3, 2016 13:13:51 GMT -5
Using alcohol as an example of something which is worse yet tolerated will not work on me, since in my view, anything that alters your state of mind after minimal exposure or use or which degrades your brain over a period of prolonged use ought to be forbidden. This includes alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. Putting wealth ahead of the health of the citizens of your country is unacceptable. I'm trying to understand how you side with conservatism in regards to politics and yet right here in this post endorse government overreach. Whether or not you view weed or alcohol as bad doesn't matter. That decision is for each individual to make for themselves. If someone abuses it and harms someone because of it, then they need to deal with the consequences of that. But overall, it's not up to a small group of people to decide that for everyone. The answer I have for you here is the same answer that is used for liberals in regards to their being offended by everything or hating guns. - If you don't like it, you don't have to have any. That is your right to do. What is NOT your right is to tell everyone else they can't do something because you don't like it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 13:24:05 GMT -5
Using alcohol as an example of something which is worse yet tolerated will not work on me, since in my view, anything that alters your state of mind after minimal exposure or use or which degrades your brain over a period of prolonged use ought to be forbidden. This includes alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. Putting wealth ahead of the health of the citizens of your country is unacceptable. I'm trying to understand how you side with conservatism in regards to politics and yet right here in this post endorse government overreach. Whether or not you view weed or alcohol as bad doesn't matter. That decision is for each individual to make for themselves. If someone abuses it and harms someone because of it, then they need to deal with the consequences of that. But overall, it's not up to a small group of people to decide that for everyone. The answer I have for you here is the same answer that is used for liberals in regards to their being offended by everything or hating guns. - If you don't like it, you don't have to have any. That is your right to do. What is NOT your right is to tell everyone else they can't do something because you don't like it. When something affects other people, because of one person's ability to choose to participate in such action despite the possibility of others who may be involved actively attempting to avoid involvement in said action, especially if it affects them in a severely negative way, then that is when the government, whose responsibility it is to protect its citizens who pay taxes and provide national security though military service, should prevent the possibility of the actions of few affecting the lives of many. Take, for example, the article I linked proving that people are behaving extremely recklessly and irresponsibly while under the influence of marijuana and this is putting other people's lives in danger. That is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. What happens if, while I'm in Vancouver, WA/Portland, OR and I'm driving a rental car to see Mt. St. Helens, and some idiot runs a red light because he's lighting a blunt? What if I die from that, with my entire productive future of $45k entry level employment ahead of me, while society becomes responsible for his medical bills? That is unjustifiable. There is a fine line between freedom of personal choice and too much freedom which impairs the freedoms of others. His freedom to drive impaired under lax laws has eliminated my freedom to choose to be a productive member of society and have a job in one of the nation's economy's most important jobs, mass transportation. Also, I am in no means strictly conservative. In fact, I'm growing quite frustrated at the entire political system of both parties being manipulated by bribes and outside funding. |
|
|
|
Post by Sarah Twilight on Jun 3, 2016 13:41:37 GMT -5
This isn't minority report though. And the situation you just described can happen to you without any drugs or alcohol involved. Someone can run a red light because they had a seizure due to an unknown medical condition, or because they simply weren't paying attention. You can walk down the street tomorrow and have a steel beam fall on your head that fell from a construction site because it wasn't properly secured or hell, maybe it was just faulty equipment that was securing it.
Now we need to ban cars and ban construction work and the equipment they use because a few people are inept at doing it. That is exactly what your argument sounds like.
The reason we have freedoms of personal choice is to NOT have that kind of totalitarian mindset where someone's fear of a few makes the decisions for the many. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. And that's the problem we have nowadays is that nobody wants to be responsible for themselves, but they want to have plenty to say about what everyone else does.
Mind you, I don't smoke marijuana. Not a huge fan of it ... for me to ever want to use it. However, I believe that a responsible person should be able to enjoy themselves if they so choose the same way I can enjoy a drink after work.
If we're realistic about this, if we banned everything that was unhealthy for you, or that could possibly harm/kill/injure you in ANY way ... you might as well get rid of your computer now, any video games you may have ... your T.V. and probably every last thing in your house.
Why? People have died staying online too long without sleep. How can we trust that you can handle such a task? I mean ya know, that whole "ban everyone because of a few" mentality. Better stop using utensils because ... well people have been stabbed by knives and even forks ... how do I know you won't do that?
Can't have pillows, people have used them to smother other people. Too dangerous.
Do you see how slippery a slope that mindset is?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 13:49:40 GMT -5
This isn't minority report though. And the situation you just described can happen to you without any drugs or alcohol involved. Someone can run a red light because they had a seizure due to an unknown medical condition, or because they simply weren't paying attention. You can walk down the street tomorrow and have a steel beam fall on your head that fell from a construction site because it wasn't properly secured or hell, maybe it was just faulty equipment that was securing it. Now we need to ban cars and ban construction work and the equipment they use because a few people are inept at doing it. That is exactly what your argument sounds like. The reason we have freedoms of personal choice is to NOT have that kind of totalitarian mindset where someone's fear of a few makes the decisions for the many. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. And that's the problem we have nowadays is that nobody wants to be responsible for themselves, but they want to have plenty to say about what everyone else does. Mind you, I don't smoke marijuana. Not a huge fan of it ... for me to ever want to use it. However, I believe that a responsible person should be able to enjoy themselves if they so choose the same way I can enjoy a drink after work. If we're realistic about this, if we banned everything that was unhealthy for you, or that could possibly harm/kill/injure you in ANY way ... you might as well get rid of your computer now, any video games you may have ... your T.V. and probably every last thing in your house. Why? People have died staying online too long without sleep. How can we trust that you can handle such a task? I mean ya know, that whole "ban everyone because of a few" mentality. Better stop using utensils because ... well people have been stabbed by knives and even forks ... how do I know you won't do that? Can't have pillows, people have used them to smother other people. Too dangerous. Do you see how slippery a slope that mindset is? Alcohol, tobacco and drugs are in no way essential, or even remotely beneficial, to the furthering or progression of the human race. The things you listed in some ways are. So, just because I could die from someone hitting me with their car for entirely uncontrollable reasons, means we should just stop caring and let everyone choose to be reckless because we could die anyway? Under no circumstances should people sit back i good conscience while others choose to harm themselves and others. This isn't about what's dangerous or why, it's about the choice to do dangerous things for no reason. The mindset many people have of acting like you shouldn't care what other people do and then jumping down the throat of anyone who disagrees with them is poisonous, and is leading to the ignoring of facts under the guise of "freedom of personal choice" while simultaneously working towards the eradication of all opposing views under the guise of "offensive" or "insensitive" material. No matter what, the government's job is to ensure the safety and longevity of the country and the people who live in it. This is in total contradiction with the concept of allowing people the freedom to cause themselves and others harm by participating in unhealthy and dangerous activities which are exceptionally high in risk and offer zero reward. |
|
|
|
Post by Sarah Twilight on Jun 3, 2016 14:05:42 GMT -5
The constitution does not say that your personal freedoms are limited to what is considered "productive" by the system. You're saying that making drugs and alcohol and tobacco illegal would somehow stop the use of those substances. Drugs are illegal now, marijuana is still illegal in many states ... yet people still use it. That "law" you're suggesting would not prevent the scenario you've described from happening. A law is nothing more than words on a paper somewhere. You don't deal with the consequence of breaking a law until you've broken it. So that person who killed you because they ran a red light while lighting a blunt ... they would not get consequences until AFTER you're dead whether weed was legal or illegal.
But speaking of that ....
Let's meet Nancy, mid twenties, just got out of school and landed an internship with an architect. In two years she meets a nice guy, a driven, productive member of society who doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, doesn't do drugs. He has a $45k a year entry level position at an accounting firm and likes to write a character named Dag Riddik for this efed on the internet. He and Nancy hit it off, get married, have a few kids and all is well with the world.
But as time goes on, the mortgage on their home gets harder to keep up with, and bills are always behind, even with the two incomes they have. This is mostly due to their increase in taxes to fund government agencies and law enforcement agencies with stamping out drugs, tobacco and alcohol. The programs are failing just as badly as the original war on drugs had, but they keep requesting more funding somehow sure that with more money, they'll get rid of it all.
The tax increases have put a strain on Dag's relationship with Nancy. They argue about finances almost daily. Dag's stress at work multiplied tenfold as he's been given added reports and additional responsibilities to keep up with the new tax codes, as well as an adjusted workload to keep the company's bottom line. He's already had to wipe out both of his children's college funds to pay bills and keep the family afloat and things don't seem to be getting any better.
One night he comes home at the peak of his depression and finally loses it. He smothers his wife Nancy, and their two children Stephen and Tabitha with a pillow. Figuring that was the only way to prevent further suffering for his family.
If only there had been a ban on pillows ... some law that would have prevented this. I mean, lawmakers knew from the past that people had used pillows as an instrument of death before ... yet they ignored it and did nothing to prevent this tragedy. Certainly a law against smothering someone with a pillow would have stopped this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 17:07:30 GMT -5
The constitution does not say that your personal freedoms are limited to what is considered "productive" by the system. You're saying that making drugs and alcohol and tobacco illegal would somehow stop the use of those substances. Drugs are illegal now, marijuana is still illegal in many states ... yet people still use it. That "law" you're suggesting would not prevent the scenario you've described from happening. A law is nothing more than words on a paper somewhere. You don't deal with the consequence of breaking a law until you've broken it. So that person who killed you because they ran a red light while lighting a blunt ... they would not get consequences until AFTER you're dead whether weed was legal or illegal. But speaking of that .... Let's meet Nancy, mid twenties, just got out of school and landed an internship with an architect. In two years she meets a nice guy, a driven, productive member of society who doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, doesn't do drugs. He has a $45k a year entry level position at an accounting firm and likes to write a character named Dag Riddik for this efed on the internet. He and Nancy hit it off, get married, have a few kids and all is well with the world. But as time goes on, the mortgage on their home gets harder to keep up with, and bills are always behind, even with the two incomes they have. This is mostly due to their increase in taxes to fund government agencies and law enforcement agencies with stamping out drugs, tobacco and alcohol. The programs are failing just as badly as the original war on drugs had, but they keep requesting more funding somehow sure that with more money, they'll get rid of it all. The tax increases have put a strain on Dag's relationship with Nancy. They argue about finances almost daily. Dag's stress at work multiplied tenfold as he's been given added reports and additional responsibilities to keep up with the new tax codes, as well as an adjusted workload to keep the company's bottom line. He's already had to wipe out both of his children's college funds to pay bills and keep the family afloat and things don't seem to be getting any better. One night he comes home at the peak of his depression and finally loses it. He smothers his wife Nancy, and their two children Stephen and Tabitha with a pillow. Figuring that was the only way to prevent further suffering for his family. If only there had been a ban on pillows ... some law that would have prevented this. I mean, lawmakers knew from the past that people had used pillows as an instrument of death before ... yet they ignored it and did nothing to prevent this tragedy. Certainly a law against smothering someone with a pillow would have stopped this. Bro. C'mon. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Spearman on Jun 3, 2016 17:11:22 GMT -5
The constitution does not say that your personal freedoms are limited to what is considered "productive" by the system. You're saying that making drugs and alcohol and tobacco illegal would somehow stop the use of those substances. Drugs are illegal now, marijuana is still illegal in many states ... yet people still use it. That "law" you're suggesting would not prevent the scenario you've described from happening. A law is nothing more than words on a paper somewhere. You don't deal with the consequence of breaking a law until you've broken it. So that person who killed you because they ran a red light while lighting a blunt ... they would not get consequences until AFTER you're dead whether weed was legal or illegal. But speaking of that .... Let's meet Nancy, mid twenties, just got out of school and landed an internship with an architect. In two years she meets a nice guy, a driven, productive member of society who doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, doesn't do drugs. He has a $45k a year entry level position at an accounting firm and likes to write a character named Dag Riddik for this efed on the internet. He and Nancy hit it off, get married, have a few kids and all is well with the world. But as time goes on, the mortgage on their home gets harder to keep up with, and bills are always behind, even with the two incomes they have. This is mostly due to their increase in taxes to fund government agencies and law enforcement agencies with stamping out drugs, tobacco and alcohol. The programs are failing just as badly as the original war on drugs had, but they keep requesting more funding somehow sure that with more money, they'll get rid of it all. The tax increases have put a strain on Dag's relationship with Nancy. They argue about finances almost daily. Dag's stress at work multiplied tenfold as he's been given added reports and additional responsibilities to keep up with the new tax codes, as well as an adjusted workload to keep the company's bottom line. He's already had to wipe out both of his children's college funds to pay bills and keep the family afloat and things don't seem to be getting any better. One night he comes home at the peak of his depression and finally loses it. He smothers his wife Nancy, and their two children Stephen and Tabitha with a pillow. Figuring that was the only way to prevent further suffering for his family. If only there had been a ban on pillows ... some law that would have prevented this. I mean, lawmakers knew from the past that people had used pillows as an instrument of death before ... yet they ignored it and did nothing to prevent this tragedy. Certainly a law against smothering someone with a pillow would have stopped this. Bro. C'mon. Yea, come on. Dag riddick would not smother his wife with a pillow. He'd use a plastic bag |
|
Lilith
Newbie
Cancer
Lol
Posts: 60
|
Post by Lilith on Jun 3, 2016 17:36:25 GMT -5
You ever seen the movie The Purge? Thats what I imagine a perfect world is like to Sarah Twilight lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 17:56:14 GMT -5
I understand what he's talking about and I don't think he'd like the purge, lol. But still, when I get serious I get really serious.
|
|
