What's new
By:

I believe in Liberty

Stoked said:
Theft, home invasion, assault...all justifiable reasons to lock someone up. I know what you are saying and I am telling you that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

So lock people up for doing those things. I don't see the problem.
 
Gameface said:
So lock people up for doing those things. I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...

In my experience the people were doing those things because of meth and other hard drugs. They are damaging to society in ways that tobacco and marijuana are not.
 
Stoked said:
In my experience the people were doing those things because of meth and other hard drugs. They are damaging to society in ways that tobacco and marijuana are not.
Click to expand...

If legal would they, or any other drugs, be more or less damaging than alcohol is now? Alcohol will never be on the banned list but it is quite damaging, even though it is never discussed as a "drug" per se. As a manager we have far more problems due to alcohol use in the workplace than drug use. You can argue that it is because drug use is illegal, but can we really say that? Are the ratios assumed to be the same, that if made legal roughly the same percentage of the population would use drugs as now use alcohol? Not sure that is valid line of reasoning.
 
Archie Moses said:
Sometimes laws are in place because, well, people are super stupid. Government sometimes (should I dare say it?) tries to protect people from themselves and from their guardians. But let me guess, anarchism FTW, right?
y.
Click to expand...
exactly.
evolution survival of the fittest.let stupid people die.
government should not protect stupidity.
stupidity should have consequences
 
Archie Moses said:
We live in the U.S.A. We don't burn it out of respect to those who died for it. A nation that allows people to burn something that is a symbol for freedom, pride, patriotism, etc is surely headed in the wrong direction imo.

“He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”
― Alexander Hamilton
Click to expand...

so it is not okay to burn the flag.
but it si okay for obama that lil punk commie bitch. to trample on all your rights and amendemnts.

hey obama is literally burning the bill of rights. but dont burn the flag that is the symbol.

a symbol is nothing when what it stands for does not exist
 
heyhey said:
The flag is the symbol of the modern government. I don't think people died for the flag but rather the principles that this country was founded on. If the government ceases to live up to those principles burning a flag is absolutely appropriate.
Next
Click to expand...

exactly.
those principles are being systematically trampled and shoved aside.
so the flag is useless :)
 
LogGrad98 said:
If legal would they, or any other drugs, be more or less damaging than alcohol is now? Alcohol will never be on the banned list but it is quite damaging, even though it is never discussed as a "drug" per se. As a manager we have far more problems due to alcohol use in the workplace than drug use. You can argue that it is because drug use is illegal, but can we really say that? Are the ratios assumed to be the same, that if made legal roughly the same percentage of the population would use drugs as now use alcohol? Not sure that is valid line of reasoning.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in seeing a study showing the numbers of casual drinkers v. casual hard drug users. And % of addicted drinkers and % of addcited hard drug users.

In my personal opinion hard drugs are already as damaging as alcohol. I would not expect a huge spike in hard drug use by making it legal but there an increase.
 
Archie Moses said:
We live in the U.S.A. We don't burn it out of respect to those who died for it. A nation that allows people to burn something that is a symbol for freedom, pride, patriotism, etc is surely headed in the wrong direction imo.
Click to expand...

The more sacred a symbol is, the more important becomes the right to deface it and mock it.
 
Stoked said:
I would be interested in seeing a study showing the numbers of casual drinkers v. casual hard drug users. And % of addicted drinkers and % of addcited hard drug users.

In my personal opinion hard drugs are already as damaging as alcohol. I would not expect a huge spike in hard drug use by making it legal but there an increase.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, which it very well may be, then the converse would hold true right? If A=B then B=A. So alcohol is as damaging as hard drug use under our current system. So shouldn't we ban alcohol if the level of damage caused is the reasoning behind banning certain substances? I think this is more a social and economic issue than it is an issue of the damage the use of the substance causes.
 
LogGrad98 said:
If that's the case, which it very well may be, then the converse would hold true right? If A=B then B=A. So alcohol is as damaging as hard drug use under our current system. So shouldn't we ban alcohol if the level of damage caused is the reasoning behind banning certain substances? I think this is more a social and economic issue than it is an issue of the damage the use of the substance causes.
Click to expand...

That is where I would want to see the ability of people to take hard drugs and not become addicted v. the drinkers and % who are not addicted.
 
One Brow said:
Do you have some statistics handy that motorcycles are inherently less safe, say in terms of deaths per miles ridden?
Click to expand...

He would have been much better served to equate set belts in cars to wearing helmets on motorcycles.
 
This may be a change of pace, but does it bother anyone else when people say our military is out defending our freedoms? When is the last 150 years have our freedoms been threatened by anyone but ourselves? Has our military protected our freedoms anytime since the Civil War?
 
scootsy said:
This may be a change of pace, but does it bother anyone else when people say our military is out defending our freedoms? When is the last 150 years have our freedoms been threatened by anyone but ourselves? Has our military protected our freedoms anytime since the Civil War?
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHa

BRILLIANT.
 
scootsy said:
This may be a change of pace, but does it bother anyone else when people say our military is out defending our freedoms? When is the last 150 years have our freedoms been threatened by anyone but ourselves? Has our military protected our freedoms anytime since the Civil War?
Click to expand...

I think WWII was a situation where we could easily have been threatened had we allowed Europe to fall to Nazis and Asia to fall to the Japanese (I guess with Italy taking the ME and N. Africa, I don't really know what kind of position Italy was really in). We sort of did get attacked first but it was directly related to our involvement and picking of sides in favor of the Brits.

Not to mention, some situations are so bad that we do have an obligation to stand against it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top