HumanBeing
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 761
- Reaction score
- 358
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Would I be right in guessing that you aren't including alcohol in this? If so why? It kills far more people than all illegal drugs combined.drugs should be illegal.
You're doing it wrong. Did you smoke it yourself, or give it to the guy who wanted to assault you? :lol:Visbek said:Last I checked, you can't use a joint for self-defense
Last I checked, you can't use a joint for self-defense.
There are some overlaps in terms of constituencies and liberal reasoning, but many of the fundamental justifications do not match.
It's my view that there are strong similarities between guns and drugs, and the way they should be handled in society. They can be used to kill, and they can be used to save lives. They can help people or hurt people depending on who uses them and their motive for doing so, and can generally be accessed by those determined to obtain them whether they are legal or not.
…(generally speaking) theleftwrong favors drugs but not guns, and the right favors guns but not drugs.
If I can't grow pot or mix up whatever in my basement then where the hell are my property rights? Your statement is bull right there. If I can't do what I want with a consenting adult in my own bedroom then where are my property rights? What good is property if my bedroom is open for all to peek in and dictate what goes on in there?It seems that you are treating legitimate medicinal drugs as being in the same category as destructive “recreational” drugs. The distinction is vital, here. The drugs that can “save lives” and “help people” are not the same as “recreational drugs”, which only cause harm. For purposes of this discussion, I will ignore legitimate medicinal use of drugs, over which there is no significant controversy, and confine any discussion of “drugs” to the harmful “recreational” use thereof.
Civilian ownership of arms is vital to protesting individual freedom and a free society; and it is for very good reason that the great men who wrote our Constitution included the right to do so in our Bill of Rights. Drugs fulfill no such function at all. The “recreational” abuse of drugs causes only harm, no good. You can argue that a person should be allowed the “right” to harm himself in this manner, along with any others who stand to be adversely affected by his doing so; but don't be fooled into thinking that by so arguing, you are in any way arguing anything comparable to the importance of upholding the right to keep and bear arms.
This is nothing more than a narrow part of a broader difference between the right and the wrong. The right favors genuine, essential freedoms, such as the right to keep and bear arms, the right to hold and express controversial beliefs and opinions, property rights, and so on, while the wrong favors “freedoms” that are based on generally harmful, degrading things, such as pornography, drug abuse, sexual immorality, socialism, and so on.
Last I checked, you can't use a joint for self-defense.
There are some overlaps in terms of constituencies and liberal reasoning, but many of the fundamental justifications do not match.
It's my view that there are strong similarities between guns and drugs, and the way they should be handled in society. They can be used to kill, and they can be used to save lives. They can help people or hurt people depending on who uses them and their motive for doing so, and can generally be accessed by those determined to obtain them whether they are legal or not.
Due to those views, I think you have to either be in favor of both being legal or illegal if you want to be consistent with your beliefs. This puts me in an awkward position when it comes to American politics, because it seems that (generally speaking) the left favors drugs but not guns, and the right favors guns but not drugs.
I didn't include the option of "some but not all drugs/guns" in the poll because I think that is a separate discussion in itself. That's why I used the term "generally speaking" in the polling options.
I made the poll to see how people actually feel about it, and would be especially interested to hear from people who support the legality of one but not the other and your reasons.
I'd also be interested to hear people's thoughts on how someone with those views would be accepted into American society, and whether this issue in itself would doom me to a life of isolation if I were to live there.
The ownership of both should be legal. The use of both should be legal. The abuse of both should be illegal.
Aderleth, this is much closer to the way things should be, and may be in the future....a good deal of "growing up" by our nation is necessary.....a lot less clinging to our old Constitution and much more in respecting the people.....and I mean all of the people....My thinking doesn't really fit an option precisely:
Both should be available but managed/policed in various ways.
With drugs this probably means FDA oversight, licensed sellers (a la cigarettes and booze) and age restrictions for purchase.
For guns, this means waiting periods and background checks to weed out the crazies and convicted felons.
Who would want guns and drugs to be legal? Great. So we can have people running around armed, high on bath salts. That sounds real smart..... god bless democracy. Our lives are in the hands of idiots.
Didn't anyone follow the Miami zombie story? Sheesh.
I guess the concept of making abuse of either item illegal and subject to severe punishments is beyond your comprehension?
Yeah, I don't get it.
AS Inspector Callahan once said
A Man's got to know his limitations
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?