Position on Freedom

[Jab-Jab]

The classic "I'm-not-mature-enough-to-realize-that-other-people-have-other-opinions-and-so-I-shall-thusly-conclude-that-they-are-just-ignoring-me" argument. I have not seen that one pulled out in over a week!

Actually its because Jason kept repeatedly claiming that I was saying that people had the right to wantonly go out and hurt others, when every time he said that, I said no.


After the 5th time it got old and was clear that Jason didn't care about my actual position and was just going to assume.

Some how Jason seems to think that if I allow someone to purchase a hammer, that means I also condone them going to their neighbor and bludgeoning them with it. I don't have to defend myself against such absurd claims.

I tried to have a good conversation. Its not my fault both parties didn't want it to remain as such.

If you want to make an argument against my position, please do so. You are quite welcome to do so.

 

[Jake]

Healthcare didn't change, only insurance. I actually disagree with allot of what happened with that legislation. We are not a nation of heroin addicts. That is the key. Having the freedom to do something, dose not mean people want to do it as a whole. There are those who would want to do heroin, and that should be their choice because until they actually violate a person's liberties, they are not the problem. They could have a problem though. That is a different issues.

no, healthcare will change, it's going down, down and down some more. It's not about a change of insurance, which is a choice, this is the illegal forcing of citizens to purchase, through taxes, a product they may or may not want to pay for, among many, but especially drug addicts who were too weak and/or too cowardly to go and get some help before they experienced physical ailments, such as kidney, liver failure, cancer, etc.

I am aware of what people can do, but I consider the acts a person dose under drugs differently then the drugs themselves. If a person goes crazy from doing drugs, the acts they do should be punishable, but banning the substance dosen't curve the actual problem.
People drink and do drugs, but they do not constantly cause massive harm. People snap, people push limits, but in the end the consequences end up being faced. Banning a substances dose not make the crime go down, because if a person is determined enough, the legality of the situation dose not matter.

Legalizing drugs will cause, and do not tell me I am assuming, a social acceptance, same thing happened with alcohol, it was once banned and now to the point where it's socially acceptable, all the while people continue being killed from drunk drivers, major health issues in our society due to this type of drug and now you want to expose a people, who are already irresponsible, to drugs that are even worse than a drink, introduce it to future generations and tell them it's ok to use because it's legal now? Do you see how crazy and irresponsible this idea is?

That was funny. . I do want to point out that every generation thinks the generation after them is worse. Its not that a generation is worse, its a part of growing up. A person has to learn the value of their work and choices. You really can't just tell someone that something is valuable, they have to understand. Chilldren to young adults have to go through life and learn. Some learn faster then others.

I think my generation could be the worse, we have been indoctrinated into liberalism from Kindegarten and we definitely want everything for nothing, yet I see the baby boomers behaving the same way - go figure.

Think about it this way. In the 60's many people did drugs, went to war, and defied their parents. Now most of them are adults that work or are starting to enter their golden years. Most people grow up, it just takes some life experience. to get them there.

from what I have read, the 60's IS what went wrong in our country.

No it is not. Society is the sum of its people and culture. A person marrying several people dose not cause society to fall, it only shows a differen't facet of society. Societies and ethics change based both on discovery and questioning the established order.

no, ethics should not change, they should remain constant. We should not one day believe something is not ok, and then change with the wind the next, a huge lack of integrity. We don't change ethics because this group wants this - let's give it to them. There has got to be guidelines based upon something - the Bible. Otherwise we're raising sissy's who get whatever they want - wow! welcome to the usa!

You are doing the same thing you did with the heroin example. You are taking a situation that dosen't exist as a justification to dismiss another. We are not a nation of polygamists, but we do have some in our society.

No, what happens is people simply do not think for themselves and what the consequences could be, it's like a 5 year old thinking something sounds ok at the moment, sounds like fun, yet fails to recognize the consequences of their action. What we are discussing is society implications that more than likely would cause major destruction for generations and generations to come!

The United States was founded on some Ethics and Morals, but they are not absolute. The founders weren't divine, so it is our duty to question what they established. At one time Black people where not considered real people in the United States. It was with the questioning of long held truths and morals that this was eventually corrected. It is our job as the people of the United States to constantly question and evaluate what the this nation is and what it stands for.

No I disagree with your definition of worldly morals and Absolute morals. It is because of your definition that the right to Pursue happiness is demoted to a worldly moral because it can become self serving and so dose Liberty.

There is most definitely absolute morals and absolute truth! People who don't know this are the ones who change with every shifting wind. They want because it "sounds good at the time". We need to look beyond ourselves and what we want, and look to what is best for our country.

 

[Jab-Jab]

no, healthcare will change, it's going down, down and down some more.

What exactly in the lat legislation changed healthcare?

It's not about a change of insurance, which is a choice, this is the illegal forcing of citizens to purchase, through taxes, a product they may or may not want to pay for,

Yes, forcing people to buy insurance. Healthcare was not affected, insurance was affected. I also agree with you that it is wrong for the government to force us to buy insurance.

among many, but especially drug addicts who were too weak and/or too cowardly to go and get some help before they experienced physical ailments, such as kidney, liver failure, cancer, etc.

No, the legislation just stated that those with drug addictions could not be turned away from treatment or insurance.

The healthcare reform, wasn't actually reform or created a new system. It just makes people buy insurance and stops insurance companies from kicking people off from their plans for pre existing conditions.

Legalizing drugs will cause, and do not tell me I am assuming, a social acceptance,

Social acceptance dose not mean you have to accept it. I don't do drugs, not because the government tells me not to. I don't do them because I don't need them.

same thing happened with alcohol, it was once banned and now to the point where it's socially acceptable, all the while people continue being killed from drunk drivers, major health issues in our society due to this type of drug and now you want to expose a people, who are already irresponsible, to drugs that are even worse than a drink, introduce it to future generations and tell them it's ok to use because it's legal now? Do you see how crazy and irresponsible this idea is?

You are aware that we tried banning alcohol, but lifted it because it caused more problems then it helped. Prohibitions was a massive failure. It was culturally accepted before it was banned. Alcohol and drugs are not new crazes, they are actually a massive part of human culture. All forms of escapism are. You are asking me how I could let future generations do such a thing? I'm not poring the liqur down their throat, I'm not forcing them to trip on acid, I'm not forcing them to do dangerous activity. Its their choice. They choose it.

I think my generation could be the worse,

I don't think you are part of the generation that caused a massive uproar in New England that ended up with hundreds killed or imprisoned because people wanted farm land. The Salem witch trials where quite a disturbing indication of low. Not to mention that we also had a generation that marched natives or killed them for their land because of an entitlement we had at the time for this land.

There was also that generation that committed mass genocide against the jews in a small western european country.

The worst generation needs to be put into perspective my young man.

we have been indoctrinated into liberalism from Kindegarten and we definitely want everything for nothing, yet I see the baby boomers behaving the same way - go figure.

This is part of teen and child psychology. We tend to be self absorbed until events show us differently. It actually goes along with how successful an economy is.

from what I have read, the 60's IS what went wrong in our country.

I would argue that the 20's or 50's had just as big of an impact. If you think the 60's was liberal, check out the roaring 20's. A lot of cocain, greed, and flashyness going on there. The 50s was when allot of liberties started to get taken away in the name of safety and was a forced "return"/revival of what America was supposed to be.

no, ethics should not change, they should remain constant. We should not one day believe something is not ok, and then change with the wind the next, a huge lack of integrity. We don't change ethics because this group wants this - let's give it to them. There has got to be guidelines based upon something - the Bible. Otherwise we're raising sissy's who get whatever they want - wow! welcome to the usa!

That is actually the very defense used to keep black people as slaves, against desegregation, against Woman's sufferage, against the Civil rights movement, etc.

Ethics do change based on new information. The Salem Witch Trials, the Red Scare, and the Holocaust showed us what happens when we don't question ethics.

No, what happens is people simply do not think for themselves and what the consequences could be, it's like a 5 year old thinking something sounds ok at the moment, sounds like fun, yet fails to recognize the consequences of their action. What we are discussing is society implications that more than likely would cause major destruction for generations and generations to come!

I'm giving you an argument with rational logic. 5 year olds don't have that kind of cognitive thinking.

There is most definitely absolute morals and absolute truth! People who don't know this are the ones who change with every shifting wind.

No, it is your job to defend your claim against scrutiny. There is a reason why we have elections. A leader has to be able to adapt to situations, if they can't, they fail. It is with logic and reason that we can establish who is right.

They want because it "sounds good at the time". We need to look beyond ourselves and what we want, and look to what is best for our country.

I agree, and that is why we changed our nation and ended slavery, woman's suffrage, and housed some of the greatest thinkers of the modern era.

 

[Jake]

The healthcare reform was the worst thing to happen to america since Obama. We have quality healthcare now, but we will not, because the cost of healthcare is why we have quality healthcare......the gov't will not provide quality care. It's not insurance, europeans do not call it insurance, they call it taxes.

Maybe my generation isn't the worst, but we'll see, we haven't had a chance yet, I do believe it's one of the most liberal generation in existance though.

The people responsible for legalizing drugs, will be responsible for millions of drug addicts.

Yes, getting rid of slavery was a good thing. Society should be progressive - ours is digressive.

 

[Pard]

For the most part I agree with you, though. I differ in regards to drugs and a few other moral areas. I do so because, yes God gave us these rights, but at the same time He gave us clear cut things we are to avoid.

Ex: Adam didn't have the right to eat that Apple. And Eve didn't have the right to take it from the tree.

God has boundaries and if a government claims (as ours does) to protect the inalienable rights that God so clearly gave to us it must also protect God's clear rules that He wishes for us to abide by.

And besides that, drug usage is not a "victim-less" crime, no matter how much you'd like to believe it is. Even if drug usage becomes legalized it will not become a "victim-less" crime. And as a crime that claims victims it is something that infringes upon those rights that God so clearly set for us.

 

[Jab-Jab]

The healthcare reform was the worst thing to happen to america since Obama. We have quality healthcare now, but we will not, because the cost of healthcare is why we have quality healthcare......the gov't will not provide quality care.

The Health care reform isn't offering any new care. The public option was taken out of the bill, and so was single payers. What the reform actually did was take US tax dollars, and give them to insurance companies in return for lower insurance, also Insurance companies can no long kick people with preexisting conditions off of insurance and extended the age a person can remain on their parent's. The catch is that every one now has to buy insurance. I don't like this legislation.

It's not insurance, europeans do not call it insurance, they call it taxes.

No, you don't understand. We are getting taxed, and then that extra cash is given to insurance companies as a subsidy to lower insurance. The Europeans don't have a stupid system like that. The government isn't offering any new care.

 

[Jab-Jab]

For the most part I agree with you, though. I differ in regards to drugs and a few other moral areas. I do so because, yes God gave us these rights, but at the same time He gave us clear cut things we are to avoid.

I don't mind disagreements and difference of opinions. I just don't care for when someone either gets nasty of overly sarcastic because I won't just agree with them.

I can respect your and Jason's opinion. The only thing I ask in return is that a response not turn into an attack on the person. Especially when its coming from a mod.

 

[jasoncran]

Actually its because Jason kept repeatedly claiming that I was saying that people had the right to wantonly go out and hurt others, when every time he said that, I said no.


After the 5th time it got old and was clear that Jason didn't care about my actual position and was just going to assume.

Some how Jason seems to think that if I allow someone to purchase a hammer, that means I also condone them going to their neighbor and bludgeoning them with it. I don't have to defend myself against such absurd claims.

I tried to have a good conversation. Its not my fault both parties didn't want it to remain as such.

If you want to make an argument against my position, please do so. You are quite welcome to do so.

sigh, how does one use heroine. responsbly and not get addicted to it.? when you can answer that you have a case.

so if i a business should then legally be allowed to put arsenic in childrens milk? and tell them nothing?

they should just figure that out for themselves. after all its their bodies.

what else does one do with drugs? use them. if its for medical reasearch then that is all together different matter.

buy them but dont use them? its legal to buy them but you alone face the consquences.

and on health care. odd for a libertarian to want big govt healthcare. where if the govt has the sole control of medical costs. surely if such a system is in place wouldnt they have a right to tell you what to do reduce cost on them. its called fiscal responsibility.

that is why from own army expercience why i dont want single payer as they did just that. i agree with that. imagine if in europe which is there already.

fat your fined!
certain foods are banned or taxed(sodas)
why? because being overweight will cost the govt more money take care of you.

so with drugs it makes no sense to legalise them and yet not punish the user for the act of taking the drug.

 

[jasoncran]

Think about it this way. In the 60's many people did drugs, went to war, and defied their parents. Now most of them are adults that work or are starting to enter their golden years. Most people grow up, it just takes some life experience. to get them there.

yup my poor uncle is one of those and now from his pot and smoking use has an illness that we all pay for on medicare. something called copd. he admits he did this to himself. he can no longer work from that. he saved what he could.

yes the twenties were an age of rebellion. funny, yes the govt can go overboard, but so can the rebellious, think communism. wasnt that a rebellion as well and what was the hippies all about?

they had communes. my uncled talked about the orgies and not worrying about aids and stds. funny cant do that now a days. yup rebellion is good aint it.

as i have gotten older as you say i have learned that we arent meant to be indivuals but that we are meant to be in subjection to an authority, ie part of a community. however, with the hippies doing that they are now doing the same that they rebelled agaisnt.

puritanical order. they have their peta's. nazi-feminism that has abortion and these are untouchables.

uh have you ever been in polygamy or country that has that. when you do please then see what i mean.

i have seen it first hand. why do you or other get jealous if they date another?

sorry moral relativism doesnt work.

i could then say what if a society that says we can kill gays isnt going to fail? you wouldnt agree with that being a failure? yet in americas past we did that quite a bit. killed them . beat them up and denied rights.

yet we surived. so i guess so country like zimbobwe that wants that as punishment for that offense isnt wrong.

and no i am not for that stuff, but making a point that you cant have what you say is relative and call another relativist who does what you hate, and you calling him wrong and not be in contradiction.

 

[Galan Ashta]

I wanted to get some clarification on some of the memebers ideas of what exactly they think what freedoms we deserve or should be restricted.

I am of the opinion that each man and women should have the rights of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To explore this I'll be more direct.

I believe each man/women has the right to believe or not believe in any philosophy/religion they choose, but no one has to agree with them and can't be forced to follow anyone's philosophy unless it violates Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I also believe everyone has the right to state their opinion and not be attacked or censored for such an opinion.

I believe that people have the right to express themselves in anyway they see fit and if a person is offended by it, they can ignore it.

I believe the Government should have no say in what a person eats, consumes, or dose with their body (including killing one self) as long as it dosen't violate the main 3 rights stated before.

What do you guys think?

I agree with this. Freedom to me means the ability to enjoy life, liberty, and property without being denied by any other individual or government, provided it is peaceful and does not harm others. And by harm I don't mean simply being offended. I mean real physical harm that hurts someone in a physical and tangible sense.

Freedom is a logical value that is inherent with the individual. We're all equal in that we think, feel, and act on the same level. As individuals, we have only one life and logically speaking when we have only one of something then it is deeply precious. The government's job is to protect individuals through law and order. Without law, there can be no freedom. Without justice, there can be no freedom. It's not easy to maintain. It's constantly changing because society is changing. But I can think of few things more worth fighting for.

 

[Jab-Jab]

sigh, how does one use heroine. responsbly and not get addicted to it.? when you can answer that you have a case.

I don't have to answer it because its not the case. I'm not talking about how addictive a substance is, I'm talking about the authority of government.

so if i a business should then legally be allowed to put arsenic in childrens milk? and tell them nothing?

No, the reasoning behind this is infringing on a person's right to life. Arsenic is lethal and causes death. The company would be responsible for manslaughter from the damage caused. The only way around this is if the company slapped a label on the milk with warning arsenic.

they should just figure that out for themselves. after all its their bodies.

You are confusing my stance. I'm stating that a person has the right to ingest what ever "they" want. If a person deceives another or causes another harm, then its a violation of the person's rights.

what else does one do with drugs? use them. if its for medical reasearch then that is all together different matter.

I'm more concerned with why you believe you have the right to tell others what they can do with their own property.

buy them but dont use them? its legal to buy them but you alone face the consquences.

My stance is if you want to use them, go ahead. The person will face the consequences of their actions.

and on health care. odd for a libertarian to want big govt health care.

I'm actually quite the opposite. I don't want this Obama health care reform. I stated that at least 3 times already.

where if the govt has the sole control of medical costs. surely if such a system is in place wouldnt they have a right to tell you what to do reduce cost on them. its called fiscal responsibility.

Its a good thing I'm not for that then.

that is why from own army expercience why i dont want single payer as they did just that. i agree with that. imagine if in europe which is there already.

Differnt European countries handle their systems differently and it works for some of them. Canada has a good system. I now several people that have had good dealings with their system. A universal plan wouldn't work in the US since we are to big to do such a thing. It would have to be done on a state level and offer a tax break for those who opt out.

fat your fined!
certain foods are banned or taxed(sodas)
why? because being overweight will cost the govt more money take care of you.

Against this.

so with drugs it makes no sense to legalise them and yet not punish the user for the act of taking the drug.

Your sentence was contradictory. If its legal, then there would be no punishment. If someone hurts someone while on drugs, then they get punished. If they steal while on drugs, they get punished.
I don't see the hole in my logic.

 

[Pard]

I'm having a hard time distinguishing your extreme libertarian views from that of a neo-anarchy. Want to help me find the distinguishing markers because frankly your ideal government sounds like anarchy.

And while we are on "ideals" I'd like to just point out that your views seem to be rather incompatible with the real world.

 

[Jab-Jab]

yup my poor uncle is one of those and now from his pot and smoking use has an illness that we all pay for on medicare. something called copd. he admits he did this to himself. he can no longer work from that. he saved what he could.

And my heart goes out to him. I am not saying that we can't help each other, I want to make that clear. What I am saying is that the government dose and should not have the authority to make us help each other. Its a point of choice. You can't make people be responsible.

yes the twenties were an age of rebellion. funny, yes the govt can go overboard, but so can the rebellious, think communism. wasnt that a rebellion as well and what was the hippies all about?

Rebellion is any act against established order. Capitalism was a rebellion against the English class system. Christianity was a rebellion against Roman rule and an oppressive world, The United States was a Rebellion against England based on Taxation for no representation. Rebellion is anything against the grain.

they had communes. my uncled talked about the orgies and not worrying about aids and stds. funny cant do that now a days. yup rebellion is good aint it.

Rebellion is either good or bad based on why the person is rebelling.

as i have gotten older as you say i have learned that we arent meant to be indivuals but that we are meant to be in subjection to an authority, ie part of a community. however, with the hippies doing that they are now doing the same that they rebelled agaisnt.

To some degree yes.

puritanical order. they have their peta's. nazi-feminism that has abortion and these are untouchables.

Its not untouchable, its just taboo. Rebel against it if you want to make your point.

uh have you ever been in polygamy or country that has that. when you do please then see what i mean.

Are you talking about first or third world polygamy? Its a big difference.

sorry moral relativism doesnt work.

I'm not arguing moral relativism, because I do think that certain claims of morality are not on the same level as others. Its my job to defend my position.

i could then say what if a society that says we can kill gays isnt going to fail? you wouldnt agree with that being a failure? yet in americas past we did that quite a bit. killed them . beat them up and denied rights.

Yes, it happened, now we are correcting it because people have rebelled against the established order. They are demanding the same rights to Life, liberty, and pursuit to happiness everyone else gets.

yet we surived. so i guess so country like zimbobwe that wants that as punishment for that offense isnt wrong.

Zimbobwe is against the basic rights I hold ( Life, liberty, etc). So I disagree with them. I didn't say a country fails, but it dose infringe on rights.

and no i am not for that stuff, but making a point that you cant have what you say is relative and call another relativist who does what you hate, and you calling him wrong and not be in contradiction.

I never sated what I claim you stated. You assumed. It seems you didn't understand my very first post, or you didn't read it.

So far you have assumed I'm a moral relativist, an Atheist, A liberal, For the harm of children, for the harm of others, heartless, and for universal health care.

I don't know where you got all that from my statement that I'm for the rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[jasoncran]

sigh, a heroine addicted that is homeless and wants his fix will steal to get that fix or kill. so again no known heroine addict the remains that will have a any income to get that fix.

really.where i live we a ton of canadian visitors they come here and like ours as they have money to pay for it. and like it.

only the workers use the canadian socalised system. and in canada like the nhs which its based on they are taxed for soda use and foods that cause health issues are discouraged.

pard said it best. you appear to be into anarchism you havent convinced me otherwise and logically any user of drugs that are illegal wont steal, kill and destroy to get his or her fix. they will break the law. so its pointless to make drugs legal and besides even in liberal portugual the users are fined and sent to rehab.

Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts—defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use—are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law.

Each three-person commission includes at least one lawyer or judge and one health care or social services worker. The panel has the option of recommending treatment, a small fine, or no sanction.

Peter Reuter, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, College Park, says he's skeptical decriminalization was the sole reason drug use slid in Portugal, noting that another factor, especially among teens, was a global decline in marijuana use. By the same token, he notes that critics were wrong in their warnings that decriminalizing drugs would make Lisbon a drug mecca.

"Drug decriminalization did reach its primary goal in Portugal," of reducing the health consequences of drug use, he says, "and did not lead to Lisbon becoming a drug tourist destination."

5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results: Scientific American

so even there its not really encouraged just dealt with differently.

 

[Jab-Jab]

I'm having a hard time distinguishing your extreme libertarian views from that of a neo-anarchy. Want to help me find the distinguishing markers because frankly your ideal government sounds like anarchy.

And while we are on "ideals" I'd like to just point out that your views seem to be rather incompatible with the real world.

Thank you for asking.

My stance is that a government system is there to protect the rights of its populace and provide for the best interest of the people.

The government can have a military as long as its volentary. (we have this now)
The government can make laws that protect the rights of Individual liberties such as making laws against murder, theft, rape, copyright, etc. These I agree with.

I am for the government being a body of elected individuals that we choose to serve in best interest for our state, and for use to also send individuals from our state to represent us in the federal government.

I think the Federal government should only be involved in regulating State cohesion, meaning that their has to be some level of conformity amongst the States, such as money recognition of another state's licencing, etc.

I think that the States should have more power then the federal government.

I think that if there are social programs, they should be regulated by the states individually, and a person has the ability to opt out if they choose. For instance, a person can opt out of paying into social security, but won't receive social security benefits.

I believe their should be a police force to enforce and keep order, but they should be state regulated, then township, then county.

That is some of my basic ideas. I'm for a Congress, senate, and supreme court, and president.

 

[jasoncran]

sigh do you watch polygamy shows is that really want goes on? no those are edited. most countries that have polygamy ie in islamic states are moving away from it. even on hbo the husbands dont stay with the same wife.they live in seperate houses! and raise the kids, so now we have one mother with her kids with a part time husband

theres more to being a dad then heres money and a kiss and some sex. its a full time job that men often neglect! kids need a dad in their life full time, doing things with them and teaching them.

 

[Jab-Jab]

sigh, a heroine addicted that is homeless and wants his fix will steal to get that fix or kill. so again no known heroine addict the remains that will have a any income to get that fix.

I get it, I do. But I don't think you understand the point I'm making. If you want to talk about the absolute negatives of Heroin, please start a topic about heroin. Mainly because I do have opinions on this, but I'm not going into it because this thread is not about whether drugs themselves are bad, but the authority the government has over them. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

really.where i live we a ton of canadian visitors they come here and like ours as they have money to pay for it. and like it.

The US dose have better systems. I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying that Canadians as a whole enjoy being able to get basic medical care.

only the workers use the canadian socalised system.

Is actually not a socialized system since there are still private insurance companies in Canada. In order for something to be socialism, the entire market has be controlled by the government. Its not.

and in canada like the nhs which its based on they are taxed for soda use and foods that cause health issues are discouraged.

And I don't agree with that. I've stated this.

pard said it best. you appear to be into anarchism you havent convinced me otherwise and logically

Jason, you've been arguing against points I haven't made and made assumptions of what I stand for without asking. I think this is a 2 sided confusion. If you wanted to know further detail about how I felt about government authority, you should have asked, instead of berating me for claims I never made.

any user of drugs that are illegal wont steal, kill and destroy to get his or her fix. they will break the law.

You took my statement that the federal government should not have the authority to tell us what we can assume, and turned it into your last statement. I don't see how you got from point A to Point B.

so its pointless to make drugs legal and besides even in liberal Portuguese the users are fined and sent to rehab.

I am not talking about Protugual, I'm talking about the United States.

I deleted the rest of the post, because I'm not going to defend myself against a claim I never made.

 

[Jab-Jab]

sigh do you watch polygamy shows is that really want goes on? no those are edited.

I don't watch reality TV. Its trash in my honest opinion.

most countries that have polygamy ie in islamic states are moving away from it. even on hbo the husbands dont stay with the same wife.they live in seperate houses! and raise the kids, so now we have one mother with her kids with a part time husband

I think I need to clear something up here. I think someone should have the ability to choose for themselves if they want to get into a relationship like that. This dose not mean I agree with that.

Do you understand that stating that I believe people have the right to choose, dose not automatically mean I believe their choice is right?

I need an answer here, do you understand?

 

[jasoncran]

I don't watch reality TV. Its trash in my honest opinion. I think I need to clear something up here. I think someone should have the ability to choose for themselves if they want to get into a relationship like that. This dose not mean I agree with that.

Do you understand that stating that I believe people have the right to choose, dose not automatically mean I believe their choice is right?

I need an answer here, do you understand?

improper use us a gun that is legally purchase shouldnt be legalised.

i'm sorry the reality is that no man would use any drug(save few exceptions and i can clearly argue if i wanted to adovocate that the deaths of the gays wont bring the end of the man's society yet some would call such societies retrograde yet to coin your term just a different society).
for his good.

somethings such as drugs shouldnt be allowed as no reasonable person that will them. those thet get hooked are taken advantage of by their dealers and also crimes are commited while high.

should i have the liberty to possess a tactical nuke? what else would a private citizen use that for? display as in war trophy.

common sense dictates that somethings ought not be allowed. drugs are just in that category. even portugal acknowledges that. they adjusted how they deal with the problem but its still a problem. i dont fully agree with their position but that is why i state i agree with rehab as punishment first then imprisoment if they continue to be a problem.

sorry, just because you buy a drug legally doesnt mean you will use that responsbly and not be a burden on society albeit socialised meds or not.

even if all social programs are optional would you just walk by and let your friend a coke addict just not get help? surely you realise that even if legal they will be still needing society as whole to carry them.

so why may i ask should a person have liberties to kill themselves via illicit drugs? what liberty is there in that? no person who is addicted to any drug really wants that once they are hooked. its owns them.

they just cant stop, they may want to but if you havent understood any addiction or its hold(i do and it aint drugs)you want to stop but your sucked in you fight and its no use. you want to stop but you cant.

 

[Jab-Jab]

improper use us a gun that is legally purchase shouldnt be legalised.

If you are talking about murder or for the use of a roberty? Then I agree.

i'm sorry the reality is that no man would use any drug(save few exceptions and i can clearly argue if i wanted to adovocate that the deaths of the gays wont bring the end of the man's society yet some would call such societies retrograde yet to coin your term just a different society).
for his good.

Well then I don't have to defend such statements then, since I didn't make them.

somethings such as drugs shouldnt be allowed as no reasonable person that will them. those thet get hooked are taken advantage of by their dealers and also crimes are commited while high.

You actually just mention 2 things I actually Am against. I think the crimes the commit while high should be punishable. You also pointed out how dealers use their customers, the problem with this scenario is that it depends on the drug, and also if there is a legal market with regulations, this takes some power away from the dealer. This means the dealer is monitored.

should i have the liberty to possess a tactical nuke? what else would a private citizen use that for? display as in war trophy.

Can you afford a tactcal nuke?

common sense dictates that somethings ought not be allowed. drugs are just in that category.

No you have to defend you stance against scrutiny and every issue has to be defended on its own merit. Such as marijuana and Cocain are different substances with different effects.

sorry, just because you buy a drug legally doesnt mean you will use that responsbly and not be a burden on society.

I never gave such a grantee.

even if all social programs are optional would you just walk by and let your friend a coke addict just not get help?

yeah, I'd help him, because it would be my choice.

surely you realise that even if legal they will be still needing society as whole to carry them.

We don't tend to do this now, what makes you think that making drugs legal will automatically change this?

so why may i ask should a person have liberties to kill themselves via illicit drugs? what liberty is there in that?

The liberty is that they are allowed to choose to do and choose to get help.

they just cant stop, they may want to but if you havent understood any addiction or its hold(i do and it aint drugs)you want to stop but your sucked in you fight and its no use. you want to stop but you cant.

That is why you get help.