1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify te moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.
1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify te moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.
What do you mean by 'moral backlash'?
Yeah, a plurality or majority of people are in favour of legalizing marijuana. The support is just pretty soft and the opposition not. Aside from the usual suspects acting in their usual way I'm not seeing how anything would change, aside from the carton designs behind the gas station register.
People should do what they want, and live with the consequences of what they do. That's all.
Doesn't mean I won't help them out if they "messed up" and want to change, but fuck trying to help someone who won't help themselves, ya dig? I'm a charitable person at my heart but there are limits.
I don't do drugs but I don't care what you put into your body. I don't drink, smoke, or even take prescription pills if I can help it. I personally think we could solve a lot of problems in this world by legalizing and controlling drug use a bit more carefully.
I believe abortion is murder, but I'm okay if someone chooses it if they really think it will spare them some pain and suffering. I'd probably would break up with my girlfriend if she got one behind my back or wanted one, but of course it is something I go over with any girl before things get too serious.
On the same token, I don't believe in the death penalty, and I always ask people who are pro-life if they are against the death penalty, and I'm ashamed whenever someone is pro-life and pro death penalty. I believe in the Justice system, but I know that they make mistakes. Plus if someone really deserves to suffer what better way is there than throwing them in a cell and never letting them have the sweet taste of freedom again?
Gay marriage. See the first sentence. Same goes for hetero marriage people.
Religion. God doesn't exist. Period. Really simple. However, believe in whatever you want. Bonus points if said belief causes you to be a nice fucking person. I've met some absolutely great holy men and women of many different faiths, all trying their best to make this place a better world. Fantastic. I've also known devout men and women to use religion as a tool to torture their children into fitting a predetermined mold of what a god filled life is supposed to entail. Tragic.
1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify te moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.
What do you mean by 'moral backlash'?
I'm more concerned by the assertion that the crime rate would go up.
I find it far more likely that the crime rate would go DOWN.
1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify the moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.
What do you mean by 'moral backlash'?
While it wouldn't be entirely marajuanna as the cause, I don't believe the American public is ready for legal marajuanna(beyond medical, that is). We've seen what drug abuse/addiction does, and we all know the damaging effects of achohol. My reason for saying there would be a moral backlash is because as an irresponsible country, we would handle it poorly.
Personal experiance has yet to show me there are no negative effects related to marajuanna. Perhaps you won't get cancer, but I've yet to meet the long-term user who didn't sound like a retard. And on the arguement of driving high; I've been in 2 accidents where the other driver was high(not drunk, high), and one where someone I was riding with was high. He totalled his mom's car and decided to run from the scene...leaving me...
1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify te moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.
What do you mean by 'moral backlash'?
I'm more concerned by the assertion that the crime rate would go up.
I find it far more likely that the crime rate would go DOWN.
1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify te moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.
What do you mean by 'moral backlash'?
I'm more concerned by the assertion that the crime rate would go up.
I find it far more likely that the crime rate would go DOWN.
There might be a rash of Cheeto's related theft.
Dorito's flying off the shelves, economic crisis solved.
coutts on
Pearl FC - 2535 1604 7594 // Black FC - 2494 3438 2717
Edit: The general idea of the definition including viability is to prevent fringe cases like "My contractions are starting, time for an abortion," which I don't think are defensible even under the most lenient standards.
You mean the ones that don't actually exist?
There has never been an abortion late in the pregnancy that was not the direct result of medical concerns. Chiefly those involving imminent death or already being dead at the time. It is extremely rare for abortions to be used as birth control (again, it isn't a thrill ride) and those instances only ever occur in the earliest days or weeks of implantation. A time when miscarriage is actually pretty likely independent of external action.
For my own personal information, "never ever" or "pretty much never?" I know it would be radically fringe if at all so I sort of covered the possibility, but I do admit ignorance as to specifics.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify te moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
O_o ? There's no evidence to support that, esp. if you don't favor criminalization of alcohol, which is a very strong driver of fatal car accidents and both violent and non-violent crime.
1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify te moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.
What do you mean by 'moral backlash'?
I'm more concerned by the assertion that the crime rate would go up.
I find it far more likely that the crime rate would go DOWN.
Perhaps in a perfect, reasonable world, it would go down.
But in places such as Amsterdam, the crime rate went up by quite a bit after the legalization of marajuanna.
1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify the moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.
What do you mean by 'moral backlash'?
While it wouldn't be entirely marajuanna as the cause, I don't believe the American public is ready for legal marajuanna(beyond medical, that is). We've seen what drug abuse/addiction does, and we all know the damaging effects of achohol. My reason for saying there would be a moral backlash is because as an irresponsible country, we would handle it poorly.
Marijuana is not an addictive substance. Or at least the incidence of addiction is so remote as to be non-existent. People get more addicted to caffeine than they do to marijuana.
Personal experiance has yet to show me there are no negative effects related to marajuanna. Perhaps you won't get cancer, but I've yet to meet the long-term user who didn't sound like a retard. And on the arguement of driving high; I've been in 2 accidents where the other driver was high(not drunk, high), and one where someone I was riding with was high. He totalled his mom's car and decided to run from the scene...leaving me...
...o_O
Driving under the influence wouldn't suddenly become legal, so I really have no idea what your point is here.
1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify the moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.
What do you mean by 'moral backlash'?
While it wouldn't be entirely marajuanna as the cause, I don't believe the American public is ready for legal marajuanna(beyond medical, that is). We've seen what drug abuse/addiction does, and we all know the damaging effects of achohol. My reason for saying there would be a moral backlash is because as an irresponsible country, we would handle it poorly.
Personal experiance has yet to show me there are no negative effects related to marajuanna. Perhaps you won't get cancer, but I've yet to meet the long-term user who didn't sound like a retard. And on the arguement of driving high; I've been in 2 accidents where the other driver was high(not drunk, high), and one where someone I was riding with was high. He totalled his mom's car and decided to run from the scene...leaving me...
Marijuana is not chemically addictive. The folks who would get addicted to legal marijuanna are currently already addicted to porn, or gambling, or whatever.
Also, legalizing pot would actually DECREASE the number of "career deviants" within pot subculture. It would no longer be an identity for so many people, but rather, just one activity within their larger identity.
I'm saying all of this as a guy who DOESN'T smoke pot for the record. Tried it ages ago, and didn't particularly like it or see the point of it. That doesn't change the fact that it SHOULD be legal (and taxed!)
Edit: The general idea of the definition including viability is to prevent fringe cases like "My contractions are starting, time for an abortion," which I don't think are defensible even under the most lenient standards.
You mean the ones that don't actually exist?
There has never been an abortion late in the pregnancy that was not the direct result of medical concerns. Chiefly those involving imminent death or already being dead at the time. It is extremely rare for abortions to be used as birth control (again, it isn't a thrill ride) and those instances only ever occur in the earliest days or weeks of implantation. A time when miscarriage is actually pretty likely independent of external action.
For my own personal information, "never ever" or "pretty much never?" I know it would be radically fringe if at all so I sort of covered the possibility, but I do admit ignorance as to specifics.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify te moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
O_o ? There's no evidence to support that, esp. if you don't favor criminalization of alcohol, which is a very strong driver of fatal car accidents and both violent and non-violent crime.
Amsterdam.
And I don't like achohol either, for the cancer/brain-killing/idiocy effects.
Edit: The general idea of the definition including viability is to prevent fringe cases like "My contractions are starting, time for an abortion," which I don't think are defensible even under the most lenient standards.
You mean the ones that don't actually exist?
There has never been an abortion late in the pregnancy that was not the direct result of medical concerns. Chiefly those involving imminent death or already being dead at the time. It is extremely rare for abortions to be used as birth control (again, it isn't a thrill ride) and those instances only ever occur in the earliest days or weeks of implantation. A time when miscarriage is actually pretty likely independent of external action.
For my own personal information, "never ever" or "pretty much never?" I know it would be radically fringe if at all so I sort of covered the possibility, but I do admit ignorance as to specifics.
No documented cases of it ever happening.
At least, not in the US. Something like that might have been done in some fucked up shithole as a means of torture &c. but that's not really germane.
Edit: The general idea of the definition including viability is to prevent fringe cases like "My contractions are starting, time for an abortion," which I don't think are defensible even under the most lenient standards.
You mean the ones that don't actually exist?
There has never been an abortion late in the pregnancy that was not the direct result of medical concerns. Chiefly those involving imminent death or already being dead at the time. It is extremely rare for abortions to be used as birth control (again, it isn't a thrill ride) and those instances only ever occur in the earliest days or weeks of implantation. A time when miscarriage is actually pretty likely independent of external action.
For my own personal information, "never ever" or "pretty much never?" I know it would be radically fringe if at all so I sort of covered the possibility, but I do admit ignorance as to specifics.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify te moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
O_o ? There's no evidence to support that, esp. if you don't favor criminalization of alcohol, which is a very strong driver of fatal car accidents and both violent and non-violent crime.
Amsterdam.
[citation needed]
moniker on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify te moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.
What do you mean by 'moral backlash'?
I'm more concerned by the assertion that the crime rate would go up.
I find it far more likely that the crime rate would go DOWN.
Perhaps in a perfect, reasonable world, it would go down.
But in places such as Amsterdam, the crime rate went up by quite a bit after the legalization of marajuanna.
*edit* Tired and cannot spell.
Cite? After the end of alcohol prohibition, Chicago, which had seen its murder rate nearly double during a 20-year period, experienced a roughly 50% decline in homicides. Legalizing drugs automatically ends crime associated with people illegally trafficking and selling that drug, forcing them either out of business or onto a less profitable product. So unless you're claiming that people who smoke pot illegally are less prone to grand theft auto than they would be if they smoked it legally I'm not sure I understand.
1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify the moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.
What do you mean by 'moral backlash'?
While it wouldn't be entirely marajuanna as the cause, I don't believe the American public is ready for legal marajuanna(beyond medical, that is). We've seen what drug abuse/addiction does, and we all know the damaging effects of achohol. My reason for saying there would be a moral backlash is because as an irresponsible country, we would handle it poorly.
Personal experiance has yet to show me there are no negative effects related to marajuanna. Perhaps you won't get cancer, but I've yet to meet the long-term user who didn't sound like a retard. And on the arguement of driving high; I've been in 2 accidents where the other driver was high(not drunk, high), and one where someone I was riding with was high. He totalled his mom's car and decided to run from the scene...leaving me...
Marijuana is not chemically addictive. The folks who would get addicted to legal marijuanna are currently already addicted to porn, or gambling, or whatever.
Also, legalizing pot would actually DECREASE the number of "career deviants" within pot subculture. It would no longer be an identity for so many people, but rather, just one activity within their larger identity.
I'm saying all of this as a guy who DOESN'T smoke pot for the record. Tried it ages ago, and didn't particularly like it or see the point of it. That doesn't change the fact that it SHOULD be legal (and taxed!)
Your right. It's not chemically addictive. I am a bit biased do to some bad experiances.
I also agree, to a certain extent, with you about legalizing marajuanna for medical purposes and taxing it. Time magazine did an article back in April(May?) about the potential profit from medical marajuanna.
1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify te moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.
What do you mean by 'moral backlash'?
I'm more concerned by the assertion that the crime rate would go up.
I find it far more likely that the crime rate would go DOWN.
Perhaps in a perfect, reasonable world, it would go down.
But in places such as Amsterdam, the crime rate went up by quite a bit after the legalization of marajuanna.
1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify te moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.
What do you mean by 'moral backlash'?
I'm more concerned by the assertion that the crime rate would go up.
I find it far more likely that the crime rate would go DOWN.
Perhaps in a perfect, reasonable world, it would go down.
But in places such as Amsterdam, the crime rate went up by quite a bit after the legalization of marajuanna.
*edit* Tired and cannot spell.
Cite? After the end of alcohol prohibition, Chicago, which had seen its murder rate nearly double during a 20-year period, experienced a roughly 50% decline in homicides. Legalizing drugs automatically ends crime associated with people illegally trafficking and selling that drug, forcing them either out of business or onto a less profitable product. So unless you're claiming that people who smoke pot illegally are less prone to grand theft auto than they would be if they smoked it legally I'm not sure I understand.
Finding the article after I post this.
The reason is because I'd like to point out that after it being a norm within society for centuries, the prohibition removed an "essential" part of society(not really, but if you like something enough...). It only made since that once the people were given what they wanted, they no longer had a reason for rebeling/killing/etc...
Trust me. I was surprised when I read the article, but rather than sit here and expect you to believe me, I'll go get it.
1. Abortion - I prefer Abortion as a last resort, used in cases such as rapes/incest, but not excluding those who cannot afford a child.
2. Religon/Politics - I see no issue with seeking spiritual guidance for personal issues, but should be completely absent within politics.
3. Stem Cell Research - The typical religous group argues that men shouldn't play God. However, the possible cures/discoveries we could make to aid mankind outwieghts this clause.
4. Drugs (specifically, the Herb) - The long debated issue of legalizing marjuanna remains at a standstill. I believe that the legalizing of marjuanna doesn't justify te moral backlash our society may suffer. In other words, the crime rate would go up(murder, no. Theft, GTA, similar crimes, yes).
5. Universal Healthcare - Actually, I really don't know to much about it.
What do you mean by 'moral backlash'?
I'm more concerned by the assertion that the crime rate would go up.
I find it far more likely that the crime rate would go DOWN.
Perhaps in a perfect, reasonable world, it would go down.
But in places such as Amsterdam, the crime rate went up by quite a bit after the legalization of marajuanna.
*edit* Tired and cannot spell.
Cite? After the end of alcohol prohibition, Chicago, which had seen its murder rate nearly double during a 20-year period, experienced a roughly 50% decline in homicides. Legalizing drugs automatically ends crime associated with people illegally trafficking and selling that drug, forcing them either out of business or onto a less profitable product. So unless you're claiming that people who smoke pot illegally are less prone to grand theft auto than they would be if they smoked it legally I'm not sure I understand.
Finding the article after I post this.
The reason is because I'd like to point out that after it being a norm within society for centuries, the prohibition removed an "essential" part of society(not really, but if you like something enough...). It only made since that once the people were given what they wanted, they no longer had a reason for rebeling/killing/etc...
Trust me. I was surprised when I read the article, but rather than sit here and expect you to believe me, I'll go get it.
I dunno about amsterdam, but marijuana hasn't been illegal for CENTURIES in the US.
Your right. It's not chemically addictive. I am a bit biased do to some bad experiances.
I also agree, to a certain extent, with you about legalizing marajuanna for medical purposes and taxing it. Time magazine did an article back in April(May?) about the potential profit from medical marajuanna.
I do think you are biased, but have one solid point.
On crime: Even if in Amsterdam the crime rate went up right after legalization, you cannot even begin to link that to marijuana legalization without a properly constructed analysis that accounts for dozens of variables. It is surprisingly hard to generate causal links of legislation changes for this sort of thing.
On DUI: This is a valid concern, because marijuana DUI is a known issue. You'd need to show strong evidence for it to be something that would increase with legalization for it to be an actual reason not to legalize. I might argue that if we increase education that it is dangerous* and develop better tools and training for law enforcement to detect it, it could actually decrease.
On costs: It's important to note that marijuana enforcement at this time is so ridiculously expensive that the consequences of legalization would need to be of staggering proportions for it to not be worthwhile. The true economic cost of the enforcement is shameful.
* This is anecdotal, but I have known a handful of marijuana smokers who would not never drive drunk, but are perfectly willing to light up and then drive. They obviously care about safe driving, so it strikes me as an education problem.
And I cannot find the article I was citing... so take it however you want.
Judgement on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited June 2009
I guess I should post some of my 'issues' as per the OP.
1. Religion - I believe there is no God. Sure, there's a possibility in some sense, but I haven't seen any evidence. That said, I like Vonnegut's quote: 'Live by the harmless untruths that make you brave and kind and happy and healthy.' So if someone gets a kick out of religion that's great, as long as they don't try to legislate based on something wholly outside reality.
2. Censorship - I'm against it. When I found out my little brother's middle school blocked Wikipedia, I was pretty livid. After some thought I assume it was so the kids wouldn't look up sexy or subversive things, but at least they can't vandalize pages so it's a wash.
3. Food - I don't eat meat. No gelatin, no poultry, no fish. It's a personal choice and I don't try to force it on people, but then I don't tiptoe through the tulips if someone asks my opinion either. We need to quit funding agribusiness to pump everything full of corn, and start encouraging people to eat right. "Low fat" cookies are not a health food. If you're a whale because you're eating too much fried cheese, the solution is not a hydrogenated soy cheese-flavored spread, it's to lay off the fucking cheese.
I guess I should post some of my 'issues' as per the OP.
1. Religion - I believe there is no God. Sure, there's a possibility in some sense, but I haven't seen any evidence. That said, I like Vonnegut's quote: 'Live by the harmless untruths that make you brave and kind and happy and healthy.' So if someone gets a kick out of religion that's great, as long as they don't try to legislate based on something wholly outside reality.
2. Censorship - I'm against it. When I found out my little brother's middle school blocked Wikipedia, I was pretty livid. After some thought I assume it was so the kids wouldn't look up sexy or subversive things, but at least they can't vandalize pages so it's a wash.
3. Food - I don't eat meat. No gelatin, no poultry, no fish. It's a personal choice and I don't try to force it on people, but then I don't tiptoe through the tulips if someone asks my opinion either. We need to quit funding agribusiness to pump everything full of corn, and start encouraging people to eat right. "Low fat" cookies are not a health food. If you're a whale because you're eating too much fried cheese, the solution is not a hydrogenated soy cheese-flavored spread, it's to lay off the fucking cheese.
About #2; Seriously?! Banning Wikipedia? As long as the information provided has links/citations that are legitamite, I see no issue with it. Censorship as a whole is based off what society deems publicy acceptable, and as far as I know Wikipedia isn't Redtube.
Judgement on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I guess I should post some of my 'issues' as per the OP.
1. Religion - I believe there is no God. Sure, there's a possibility in some sense, but I haven't seen any evidence. That said, I like Vonnegut's quote: 'Live by the harmless untruths that make you brave and kind and happy and healthy.' So if someone gets a kick out of religion that's great, as long as they don't try to legislate based on something wholly outside reality.
2. Censorship - I'm against it. When I found out my little brother's middle school blocked Wikipedia, I was pretty livid. After some thought I assume it was so the kids wouldn't look up sexy or subversive things, but at least they can't vandalize pages so it's a wash.
3. Food - I don't eat meat. No gelatin, no poultry, no fish. It's a personal choice and I don't try to force it on people, but then I don't tiptoe through the tulips if someone asks my opinion either. We need to quit funding agribusiness to pump everything full of corn, and start encouraging people to eat right. "Low fat" cookies are not a health food. If you're a whale because you're eating too much fried cheese, the solution is not a hydrogenated soy cheese-flavored spread, it's to lay off the fucking cheese.
About #2; Seriously?! Banning Wikipedia? As long as the information provided has links/citations that are legitamite, I see no issue with it. Censorship as a whole is based off what society deems publicy acceptable, and as far as I know Wikipedia isn't Redtube.
There are pictures of dongs and whatnot. And the kids might learn that their teachers are feeding them bullshit.
2. Censorship - I'm against it. When I found out my little brother's middle school blocked Wikipedia, I was pretty livid. After some thought I assume it was so the kids wouldn't look up sexy or subversive things, but at least they can't vandalize pages so it's a wash.
A good one I forgot. This also includes obscenity law, except in public places / broadcast TV. I think a person has a right to walk down the street without seeing a digital billboard of a woman performing fellatio a horse, but said material should be available in private to consenting adults.
Child porn and other victimizing media is the sole exception, as it cannot be created without abuse, and it often is a further abuse with each further dissemination. Fake child porn (drawings, etc) does not qualify, as there is no victim.
3. Food - I don't eat meat. No gelatin, no poultry, no fish. It's a personal choice and I don't try to force it on people, but then I don't tiptoe through the tulips if someone asks my opinion either. We need to quit funding agribusiness to pump everything full of corn, and start encouraging people to eat right. "Low fat" cookies are not a health food. If you're a whale because you're eating too much fried cheese, the solution is not a hydrogenated soy cheese-flavored spread, it's to lay off the fucking cheese.
I'm a happy omnivore, but otherwise agree. We need to change incentives to encourage locally grown fresh foods. The occasional Oreo or whatever is fine, but we need to make it easier to eat well in terms of prices, availability, and education. Of course, individuals need to take some responsibility as well, because being fat is often significantly your own fault.
I guess I should post some of my 'issues' as per the OP.
1. Religion - I believe there is no God. Sure, there's a possibility in some sense, but I haven't seen any evidence. That said, I like Vonnegut's quote: 'Live by the harmless untruths that make you brave and kind and happy and healthy.' So if someone gets a kick out of religion that's great, as long as they don't try to legislate based on something wholly outside reality.
2. Censorship - I'm against it. When I found out my little brother's middle school blocked Wikipedia, I was pretty livid. After some thought I assume it was so the kids wouldn't look up sexy or subversive things, but at least they can't vandalize pages so it's a wash.
3. Food - I don't eat meat. No gelatin, no poultry, no fish. It's a personal choice and I don't try to force it on people, but then I don't tiptoe through the tulips if someone asks my opinion either. We need to quit funding agribusiness to pump everything full of corn, and start encouraging people to eat right. "Low fat" cookies are not a health food. If you're a whale because you're eating too much fried cheese, the solution is not a hydrogenated soy cheese-flavored spread, it's to lay off the fucking cheese.
About #2; Seriously?! Banning Wikipedia? As long as the information provided has links/citations that are legitamite, I see no issue with it. Censorship as a whole is based off what society deems publicy acceptable, and as far as I know Wikipedia isn't Redtube.
There are pictures of dongs and whatnot. And the kids might learn that their teachers are feeding them bullshit.
I think that banning flavored cigarettes is reprehensible. Adults should be allowed to smoke flavors if they want to.
yes, they COULD be used to entice children, but you could also just make the laws about that stricter.
The fact that menthol is always exempted from these bans is very telling.
Ah yes, the new ban on flavored cigarettes. It seems more to me that with the new laws passed today that they're trying to stop people from smoking in a sneaky way. Rather than attack the companies head-on, they're undermining the foundation of them.
We should have harsher punishments for those who are selling cigarettes to minors, or those providing them(i.e.buying them) for minors, not blame the fact the cigarette says it tastes like mint. I didn't try my first cigarette because it looked fun and childish.
Oh, and speaking as a recovering drug addict, those people who are like "fuck addicts, they chose to do it themselves" are heartless sons of bitches.
Fuck you people, those of you who think this.
Drug addiction is a complicated issue and the people who do find themselves as addicts didn't get that way because they one day decided to step outside their white picket fence life and say "boy howdy, I'm going to start doing heroin for kicks!"
To show a stone heart towards addicts is basically to turn your back on the poor, the mentally ill, and the psychologically troubled. I think that makes you a fucking bastard.
But, then, I also believe in government-run health care (which my country, thank God, has) so I am not okay with letting suffering human beings twist in the wind because "well, it's their fault".
But maybe some of you people are son of a bitch Ron Paul libertarians who think that everyone should just pull themselves up by their fucking boot-straps and get their heads on straight and just stop doing drugs.
Fuck you people, seriously.
I needed professional help to deal with my drug addiction issues, and it was certainly not something I was economically able to pay for, so the government (and by extension, the taxpayers) helped me repair my broken life.
Social Darwinists and libertarians and objectivists can all die in fucking car fires. You people are hurting human civilization.
I love this post, absolutely love it. "I fucked up my life by taking drugs. FIX MY LIFE FOR ME. IF YOU DON'T YOU'RE MEAN".
- War on (some) Drugs: Expensive, causes crime, corrupts law enforcement, and is pretty much harmful in every way. Several drugs should be fully legalized, others should be attacked with a treatment and harm reduction centric approach.
- Gun control: As above, doesn't actually prevent crime, is unconstitutional, etc. The best approach is to focus on crime related gun use specifically (punish criminals, not everyone) and to reduce crime generally.
- Health care: Nationalized health care is better and cheaper than current US health care. No room for debate, we need to adopt a provably working model.
- Abortion: Private medical decision that should only be restricted insofar as it is callous (aborting a healthy and viable fetus without medical justification, which almost never ever happens, so the law might be superfluous anyways).
- Religion: Religion belongs in churches, not in government. Also, religion should not be used as an excuse for otherwise inappropriate acts (denying a child a transfusion, for example).
I disagree with this. It strikes me that only focusing crime related gun use is somewhat shutting the barn door after the horse is gone. While i can't argue about your 'constitutional rights' as I don't really understand the true importance of this to Americans (I live in Australia, we have a constitution, it doesn't seem to come up much), it seems that without guns, there are much fewer homicides. (our homicide rate is ~1.5, America's is ~5)* Of course, there are many other variables, but it seems like there would likely be a correlation, if I looked at more sources.
But, as it is a 'no-brainer', where does my logic fall down? How do the benefits of gun control get outweighed by the benefits of none?
Oh, and speaking as a recovering drug addict, those people who are like "fuck addicts, they chose to do it themselves" are heartless sons of bitches.
Fuck you people, those of you who think this.
Drug addiction is a complicated issue and the people who do find themselves as addicts didn't get that way because they one day decided to step outside their white picket fence life and say "boy howdy, I'm going to start doing heroin for kicks!"
To show a stone heart towards addicts is basically to turn your back on the poor, the mentally ill, and the psychologically troubled. I think that makes you a fucking bastard.
But, then, I also believe in government-run health care (which my country, thank God, has) so I am not okay with letting suffering human beings twist in the wind because "well, it's their fault".
But maybe some of you people are son of a bitch Ron Paul libertarians who think that everyone should just pull themselves up by their fucking boot-straps and get their heads on straight and just stop doing drugs.
Fuck you people, seriously.
I needed professional help to deal with my drug addiction issues, and it was certainly not something I was economically able to pay for, so the government (and by extension, the taxpayers) helped me repair my broken life.
Social Darwinists and libertarians and objectivists can all die in fucking car fires. You people are hurting human civilization.
I love this post, absolutely love it. "I fucked up my life by taking drugs. FIX MY LIFE FOR ME. IF YOU DON'T YOU'RE MEAN".
Hilarious.
You better be on absolutely no type of welfare, government hand out or the benefit of any sort of bailout of financial institution.
Farthing: most Americans don't literally mean 'no gun control' when they say they're opposed to gun control. Very few people in serious discourse believe in a TOTAL lack of gun control (giving permits to the mentally retarded, for example), many are just opposed to certain restrictions. There is a lot of give and take on issues like waiting periods, felony ownership, 'lessons' being mandatory for a concealed carry permit etc. etc.
So a candidate can think that felons and the blind and retarded shouldn't own guns, and that there should be mandatory background checks for guns, and that guns can only be sold by specialized shops... and they'd still be 'against gun control' on many popular spectrums.
It just seems to me that there are too many guns around (in america), and that it's more of a grey area than it was made out to be in the post I quoted.
double edit: I need to think things through before I post.
It just seems to me that there are too many guns around, and that it's more of a grey area than it was made out to be in the post I quoted.
America has 'some' gun control. Mostly the NRA and other lobbying groups (and a big chunk of the gun owning community) think the laws should either remain stagnant or modify to less gun control. Most gun control advocates think the system is currently too liberal in its allowance of gun ownership.
Posts
What do you mean by 'moral backlash'?
Yeah, a plurality or majority of people are in favour of legalizing marijuana. The support is just pretty soft and the opposition not. Aside from the usual suspects acting in their usual way I'm not seeing how anything would change, aside from the carton designs behind the gas station register.
this thread was only started a few hours ago.
Doesn't mean I won't help them out if they "messed up" and want to change, but fuck trying to help someone who won't help themselves, ya dig? I'm a charitable person at my heart but there are limits.
I don't do drugs but I don't care what you put into your body. I don't drink, smoke, or even take prescription pills if I can help it. I personally think we could solve a lot of problems in this world by legalizing and controlling drug use a bit more carefully.
I believe abortion is murder, but I'm okay if someone chooses it if they really think it will spare them some pain and suffering. I'd probably would break up with my girlfriend if she got one behind my back or wanted one, but of course it is something I go over with any girl before things get too serious.
On the same token, I don't believe in the death penalty, and I always ask people who are pro-life if they are against the death penalty, and I'm ashamed whenever someone is pro-life and pro death penalty. I believe in the Justice system, but I know that they make mistakes. Plus if someone really deserves to suffer what better way is there than throwing them in a cell and never letting them have the sweet taste of freedom again?
Gay marriage. See the first sentence. Same goes for hetero marriage people.
Religion. God doesn't exist. Period. Really simple. However, believe in whatever you want. Bonus points if said belief causes you to be a nice fucking person. I've met some absolutely great holy men and women of many different faiths, all trying their best to make this place a better world. Fantastic. I've also known devout men and women to use religion as a tool to torture their children into fitting a predetermined mold of what a god filled life is supposed to entail. Tragic.
I'm more concerned by the assertion that the crime rate would go up.
I find it far more likely that the crime rate would go DOWN.
While it wouldn't be entirely marajuanna as the cause, I don't believe the American public is ready for legal marajuanna(beyond medical, that is). We've seen what drug abuse/addiction does, and we all know the damaging effects of achohol. My reason for saying there would be a moral backlash is because as an irresponsible country, we would handle it poorly.
Personal experiance has yet to show me there are no negative effects related to marajuanna. Perhaps you won't get cancer, but I've yet to meet the long-term user who didn't sound like a retard. And on the arguement of driving high; I've been in 2 accidents where the other driver was high(not drunk, high), and one where someone I was riding with was high. He totalled his mom's car and decided to run from the scene...leaving me...
There might be a rash of Cheeto's related theft.
Dorito's flying off the shelves, economic crisis solved.
For my own personal information, "never ever" or "pretty much never?" I know it would be radically fringe if at all so I sort of covered the possibility, but I do admit ignorance as to specifics.
O_o ? There's no evidence to support that, esp. if you don't favor criminalization of alcohol, which is a very strong driver of fatal car accidents and both violent and non-violent crime.
Perhaps in a perfect, reasonable world, it would go down.
But in places such as Amsterdam, the crime rate went up by quite a bit after the legalization of marajuanna.
*edit* Tired and cannot spell.
Marijuana is not an addictive substance. Or at least the incidence of addiction is so remote as to be non-existent. People get more addicted to caffeine than they do to marijuana.
...o_O
Driving under the influence wouldn't suddenly become legal, so I really have no idea what your point is here.
Marijuana is not chemically addictive. The folks who would get addicted to legal marijuanna are currently already addicted to porn, or gambling, or whatever.
Also, legalizing pot would actually DECREASE the number of "career deviants" within pot subculture. It would no longer be an identity for so many people, but rather, just one activity within their larger identity.
I'm saying all of this as a guy who DOESN'T smoke pot for the record. Tried it ages ago, and didn't particularly like it or see the point of it. That doesn't change the fact that it SHOULD be legal (and taxed!)
Amsterdam.
And I don't like achohol either, for the cancer/brain-killing/idiocy effects.
No documented cases of it ever happening.
At least, not in the US. Something like that might have been done in some fucked up shithole as a means of torture &c. but that's not really germane.
[citation needed]
you mean where I said that you can't count some one as an accomplice to a crime that you have ZERO evidence to connect them to?
Cite? After the end of alcohol prohibition, Chicago, which had seen its murder rate nearly double during a 20-year period, experienced a roughly 50% decline in homicides. Legalizing drugs automatically ends crime associated with people illegally trafficking and selling that drug, forcing them either out of business or onto a less profitable product. So unless you're claiming that people who smoke pot illegally are less prone to grand theft auto than they would be if they smoked it legally I'm not sure I understand.
Your right. It's not chemically addictive. I am a bit biased do to some bad experiances.
I also agree, to a certain extent, with you about legalizing marajuanna for medical purposes and taxing it. Time magazine did an article back in April(May?) about the potential profit from medical marajuanna.
Quotefile'd.
Yeah, um, HELL NO!
We should not be seeking to reap large tax revenues from MEDICINE.
If we're going to pretend that Marijuana is medical, then we shouldn't be piling taxes on to it.
I'm saying legalize it outright, forget the medical BS, and THEN tax it.
Finding the article after I post this.
The reason is because I'd like to point out that after it being a norm within society for centuries, the prohibition removed an "essential" part of society(not really, but if you like something enough...). It only made since that once the people were given what they wanted, they no longer had a reason for rebeling/killing/etc...
Trust me. I was surprised when I read the article, but rather than sit here and expect you to believe me, I'll go get it.
I dunno about amsterdam, but marijuana hasn't been illegal for CENTURIES in the US.
I do think you are biased, but have one solid point.
On crime: Even if in Amsterdam the crime rate went up right after legalization, you cannot even begin to link that to marijuana legalization without a properly constructed analysis that accounts for dozens of variables. It is surprisingly hard to generate causal links of legislation changes for this sort of thing.
On DUI: This is a valid concern, because marijuana DUI is a known issue. You'd need to show strong evidence for it to be something that would increase with legalization for it to be an actual reason not to legalize. I might argue that if we increase education that it is dangerous* and develop better tools and training for law enforcement to detect it, it could actually decrease.
On costs: It's important to note that marijuana enforcement at this time is so ridiculously expensive that the consequences of legalization would need to be of staggering proportions for it to not be worthwhile. The true economic cost of the enforcement is shameful.
* This is anecdotal, but I have known a handful of marijuana smokers who would not never drive drunk, but are perfectly willing to light up and then drive. They obviously care about safe driving, so it strikes me as an education problem.
http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl/655-amsterdam-crime-rate
And I cannot find the article I was citing... so take it however you want.
1. Religion - I believe there is no God. Sure, there's a possibility in some sense, but I haven't seen any evidence. That said, I like Vonnegut's quote: 'Live by the harmless untruths that make you brave and kind and happy and healthy.' So if someone gets a kick out of religion that's great, as long as they don't try to legislate based on something wholly outside reality.
2. Censorship - I'm against it. When I found out my little brother's middle school blocked Wikipedia, I was pretty livid. After some thought I assume it was so the kids wouldn't look up sexy or subversive things, but at least they can't vandalize pages so it's a wash.
3. Food - I don't eat meat. No gelatin, no poultry, no fish. It's a personal choice and I don't try to force it on people, but then I don't tiptoe through the tulips if someone asks my opinion either. We need to quit funding agribusiness to pump everything full of corn, and start encouraging people to eat right. "Low fat" cookies are not a health food. If you're a whale because you're eating too much fried cheese, the solution is not a hydrogenated soy cheese-flavored spread, it's to lay off the fucking cheese.
I'm pretty sure that there's only one way to take it...
About #2; Seriously?! Banning Wikipedia? As long as the information provided has links/citations that are legitamite, I see no issue with it. Censorship as a whole is based off what society deems publicy acceptable, and as far as I know Wikipedia isn't Redtube.
There are pictures of dongs and whatnot. And the kids might learn that their teachers are feeding them bullshit.
A good one I forgot. This also includes obscenity law, except in public places / broadcast TV. I think a person has a right to walk down the street without seeing a digital billboard of a woman performing fellatio a horse, but said material should be available in private to consenting adults.
Child porn and other victimizing media is the sole exception, as it cannot be created without abuse, and it often is a further abuse with each further dissemination. Fake child porn (drawings, etc) does not qualify, as there is no victim.
I'm a happy omnivore, but otherwise agree. We need to change incentives to encourage locally grown fresh foods. The occasional Oreo or whatever is fine, but we need to make it easier to eat well in terms of prices, availability, and education. Of course, individuals need to take some responsibility as well, because being fat is often significantly your own fault.
yes, they COULD be used to entice children, but you could also just make the laws about that stricter.
The fact that menthol is always exempted from these bans is very telling.
Must...resist...penis joke...
Ah yes, the new ban on flavored cigarettes. It seems more to me that with the new laws passed today that they're trying to stop people from smoking in a sneaky way. Rather than attack the companies head-on, they're undermining the foundation of them.
We should have harsher punishments for those who are selling cigarettes to minors, or those providing them(i.e.buying them) for minors, not blame the fact the cigarette says it tastes like mint. I didn't try my first cigarette because it looked fun and childish.
Also, menthol was left out? Why?
I love this post, absolutely love it. "I fucked up my life by taking drugs. FIX MY LIFE FOR ME. IF YOU DON'T YOU'RE MEAN".
Hilarious.
I disagree with this. It strikes me that only focusing crime related gun use is somewhat shutting the barn door after the horse is gone. While i can't argue about your 'constitutional rights' as I don't really understand the true importance of this to Americans (I live in Australia, we have a constitution, it doesn't seem to come up much), it seems that without guns, there are much fewer homicides. (our homicide rate is ~1.5, America's is ~5)* Of course, there are many other variables, but it seems like there would likely be a correlation, if I looked at more sources.
But, as it is a 'no-brainer', where does my logic fall down? How do the benefits of gun control get outweighed by the benefits of none?
*in 1998, which is the latest i found, America's is a conservative estimate
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm
So a candidate can think that felons and the blind and retarded shouldn't own guns, and that there should be mandatory background checks for guns, and that guns can only be sold by specialized shops... and they'd still be 'against gun control' on many popular spectrums.
It just seems to me that there are too many guns around (in america), and that it's more of a grey area than it was made out to be in the post I quoted.
double edit: I need to think things through before I post.
America has 'some' gun control. Mostly the NRA and other lobbying groups (and a big chunk of the gun owning community) think the laws should either remain stagnant or modify to less gun control. Most gun control advocates think the system is currently too liberal in its allowance of gun ownership.