• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The "masks and vaccines are an affront to personal liberty" crowd continues policing what we can put into our bodies

Good point, because there's no inconsistency in positions among the "you must wear a mask in a breezy outdoor restaurant (but only while walking to your table)" crowd.

Opposition to legalizing drugs might have something to do with the fact that the people pushing hardest for it are also pushing so hard for tons of funding to take care of addicts.

Personally, I'm all for legalizing everything but also think that if someone gets addicted, that's his/her problem and she/he should be held fully responsible for all his/her actions with no excuses considered.
You know of many marijuana addict rehabs?
 
Opium and cocaine products need to be legalized and supplied by the government at cost. Not to make life easier for addicts but to stop making vicious evil bastards rich and stop addicts from stealing from you and me to support their addiction.
Kidding, right?
Pot? There was never any reason to illegalize it.
That was Nixon’s doing.
Meth? Land with both feet on the heads of everyone involved.
Definitely?
 
If the federal government legalizes it, that's more pressure on backwards states to stop losing money by prohibiting it.
You mean, if the federal government ceases to make it a federal offence, then the several states have more room to make money out of making it prohibited UNLESS the person obtains a state license to do it (and, of course, making money out of fining those people who do do it without a state permit).
 
You mean, if the federal government ceases to make it a federal offence, then the several states have more room to make money out of making it prohibited UNLESS the person obtains a state license to do it (and, of course, making money out of fining those people who do do it without a state permit).
That's probably how it will work, unfortunately. Pot makes you feel good in a naughty way. That means there will always be multiple hoops to jump through.
 
What's Whole Foods?
Way I see it, the government scores the raw materials for the drugs, pays labs to produce the final product and sells it to addicts at cost. A very small fraction of what the dealers are charging, reliable quality control and there's no more addicts B&E'ing apartments, no more addicts being resuscitated in alleys and transported to ER's and no more drug gangs shooting up neighbourhoods over turf.
Sounds good to me.
My beef with putting the whole process into private business hands is they might want to increase their market. And don't say It wouldn't happen. I'm old enough to remember cigarette ads.
The first stage looks like this...... our universities develop drugs for the pharmaceutical industries they do not have a huge stake in the overall picture just about a 400% - 700% margin.
 

"masks and vaccines are an affront to personal liberty" crowd continues policing what we can put into our bodies"​

Wrong ..... the COVID 19 and Variants decide that................. if you would rather die why not go jump off a cliff or a very tall building or step in front of a fast moving 18 wheeler? You would die instantly probably without realizing excruciating pain.
 
It isn't the "line policemen" that caused the situation, it was the upper echelons of the "police administration" who had the clout to actually do something that would protect their "administrative areas" and who exercised that clout for their own benefit that did it. "Joe Streetnarc" has about as much direct say in what drugs are made (il)legal as you or I do.
Joe Streetnarc upholds unjust laws above and beyond the war on drugs, and is at best quietly complicit with his buddy Todd Shootblacks. Can you really blame me for lumping them in with their administrators?
 
4-5 years ago, I passed through Colorado and had a budtender tells me he believed weed would be legal nationwide in 4-5 years. I laughed as I asked him if he'd even been to the Bible Belt.

Kentucky is on its way to making sure Delta-8 is illegal. The justification? "Intoxication."

“The main point of this bill, sir, is to resolve, sweep aside any ambiguity and make clear as a matter of state law, from this point forward intoxicating substances like Delta-8 THC remain prohibited in the Commonwealth,” Bilby said, speaking to GOP State Sen. Jason Howell.


Can't wait to see their bill also banning alcoholic beverages.

The "don't tread on me" crowd (if you're not familiar with KY politics, they're some of the biggest "don't tread on me" crowd there is) treading on lots of people with this one.
The alcoholic beverage industry is too big and powerful in Kentucky for that to happen.
 
Joe Streetnarc upholds unjust laws above and beyond the war on drugs, and is at best quietly complicit with his buddy Todd Shootblacks. Can you really blame me for lumping them in with their administrators?
Enablers enable. It is the directing minds who decide what is to be enabled.

As far as "unjust laws" are concerned, it generally is NOT "the law" that is "unjust" but rather the way that "the law" is enforced.

Having a 50 mph speed limit is not "unjust" (it may be stupid, but that's another matter entirely).

Arresting people who exceed the 50 mph speed limit is not "unjust".

However arresting anyone who is "Colour A" if they are travelling at 51+mph in a 5- mph zone while only arresting anyone who is "Colour B" unless they are traveling at 70+ mph in a 50 mph speed zone is "unjust enforcement".
 
Back
Top Bottom