But they are used personally by some that have the freedom to do whatever they want with their own bodies.

Except you don't have the freedom to do whatever you want with your body.

You absolutely do. That's exactly what freedom means.

No. You don't. There's a difference between what freedoms you think you have and what freedoms you do.

Freedom is defined as the ability to do with your own body whatever you so choose provided you harm no one else. So I absolutely have the right to do any drub I want, even though the only one I choose to use is cannabis even over caffeine.

[quote]Freedom is defined as the ability to do with your own body whatever you so choose provided you harm no one else.[/quote] [url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom]No.[/url] Even if it was, the Supreme Court and the rest of society have ruled that no freedom is absolute. Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to yell fire into a crowded theater. The Second Amendment does not give you the right to own and operate current military grade tanks and jets. [quote]So I absolutely have the right to do any drub I want, even though the only one I choose to use is cannabis even over caffeine.[/quote] No you don't.

Wow, your link only proved my point! HAHAHA! Methew, once again you have only hurt yourself and proven me right, you really make this way too easy every time. It's just sad now. The rest of society? Freedom is defined by nature, it doesn't get a vote. The majority can't oppress the minority and the fact that tyranny exists isn't an argument. You have free speech, provided you harm no one else which is why you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and you CAN own and operate current military equipment, it's just very expensive to do so. Yes, I do. You both lied and proven yourself wrong here. Next I expect you to become cowardly and mute me claiming you don't want to continue arguing rather than being honest and just admitting you have no argument. It's coming.

[quote]Wow, your link only proved my point![/quote] Your point: Freedom is defined as the ability to do with your own body whatever you so choose provided you harm no one else. The actual definition of freedom is not that in the slightest. [quote]Freedom is defined by nature,[/quote] Freedom is defined by people. Not by nature. Nature is not conscious. It is not thinking. Not aware. It can not give definitions. [quote]The majority can't oppress the minority[/quote] Can't? They can. And do. And the inability to use drugs without being arrested for it isn't "oppression." [quote]You have free speech, provided you harm no one else which is why you can't yell fire in a crowded theater[/quote] Missing the point. [quote]CAN own and operate current military equipment, it's just very expensive to do so.[/quote] Point me to where you can buy an F-22. And again: Missing the point. No freedom is absolute. [quote]You both lied and proven yourself wrong here.[/quote] Really now? [quote]Next I expect you to become cowardly and mute me claiming you don't want to continue arguing rather than being honest and just admitting you have no argument. It's coming.[/quote] How adult.

You look idiotic posting the same gif every post. Your own link confirmed my views. Allow me to quote from it directly... "a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another h : unrestricted use Examples of FREEDOM She has the freedom to do as she likes." Thanks again for proving yourself wrong and not even realizing it. It's really too good. People do not assign freedoms or they wouldn't be freedoms at all. They are indeed defined by nature, what else could possibly define them? You think someone granted you the freedom of speech? It's an inalienable right. The fact that tyranny exists isn't an argument. "The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." "It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately." -Thomas Jefferson They have no authority to oppress the minority, and infringing on a freedom or right is indeed oppression. You can't comprehend the point. Freedom is absolute, otherwise it wouldn't be a freedom. Really. Because you're such an adult all the time? You're a delusional fool.

[quote]You look idiotic posting the same gif every post.[/quote] I did it to rile you up. I'm going to keep doing it because now I know it riles you up. [quote]Your own link confirmed my views. Allow me to quote from it directly... -snip- Thanks again for proving yourself wrong and not even realizing it. It's really too good.[/quote] Your "definition" of freedom was exceptionally narrow and does not qualify as the "definition" of freedom. And again: The literary definition of freedom is pointless in terms of this discussion. Freedom in America includes many things but absolute freedom is not granted or allowed by the law. [quote]People do not assign freedoms or they wouldn't be freedoms at all. They are indeed defined by nature, what else could possibly define them? You think someone granted you the freedom of speech? It's an inalienable right. The fact that tyranny exists isn't an argument.[/quote] People define freedoms. And yes: Someone did grant me the freedom of speech. [quote]"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." "It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately." -Thomas Jefferson[/quote] It's funny how you quote Jefferson where he uses the words "moral law" and use it as a justification to do immoral things. It's also funny because your quote of Jefferson doesn't help you. Is it moral to do X? No. Then it's not moral to do X because you have a million people saying it's okay. Should I also point out the hypocrisy of the founding fathers in terms of slavery? Or women's rights? [quote]They have no authority to oppress the minority, and infringing on a freedom or right is indeed oppression. You can't comprehend the point.[/quote] I'm comprehend the point: You have an extremist mindset. You've openly declared it several times in the past and it makes you all the more idiotic and stupid whenever you air it. Restriction of doing certain things to your person or the limitation to a certain extent of certain rights is not and will never be oppression no matter how hard you think it is and how much you scream it to be.

Making yourself look like a fool isn't going to rile me up, it's going to make me feel bad at how pathetic you are. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. You're either free or you aren't. That is where you're wrong. We fight to protect our freedoms, but they are not granted to us. "A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." -Thomas Jefferson [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sNWbiAMf80&feature=player_detailpage#t=473s]Freedom has always existed[/url] Thomas Jefferson wanted the Constitution to free slaves but it wouldn't have been ratified if they included it. He treated his slaves very well and that doesn't make him a hypocrite. Slaves were vital for the continuation of this country. Extremist? Far from it. I'd say oppressing people is extreme, especially when you lock them up over a harmless plant. What have I declared openly in the past that you consider extreme? I can't wait for a response. It is when you don't have the authority to restrict free people. Infringing on freedoms is absolutely oppression, and nothing you say will ever prove that incorrect. Do you know what inalienable means?

[quote]Making yourself look like a fool isn't going to rile me up, it's going to make me feel bad at how pathetic you are.[/quote] Oh noes. An idiotic fool on the internet thinks I'm a fool and pathetic. Lemme go eat a quart of chocolate ice cream. [quote]There is no such thing as absolute freedom. You're either free or you aren't.[/quote] So the concept of a grey area just completely escapes you. [quote]That is where you're wrong. We fight to protect our freedoms, but they are not granted to us.[/quote] Because I totally had to go fight that boar trying to take away my freedom of speech this morning. [quote]Thomas Jefferson wanted the Constitution to free slaves but it wouldn't have been ratified if they included it. He treated his slaves very well and that doesn't make him a hypocrite. Slaves were vital for the continuation of this country.[/quote] I didn't call out Jefferson. But I suppose you would mistake thinking that I did. Illiteracy is a horrible thing. [quote]Extremist? Far from it. I'd say oppressing people is extreme,[/quote] Except when your definition of oppression is extreme. [quote]especially when you lock them up over a harmless plant.[/quote] Cannabis isn't the only drug that people use. [quote]What have I declared openly in the past that you consider extreme? I can't wait for a response.[/quote] Go look at your post history. Close your eyes, spin around in a circle and poke your computer screen. 99% sure that whatever it lands on is extreme. [quote]It is when you don't have the authority to restrict free people.[/quote] Except that the government was given the authority to do so. By the people. [quote]Infringing on freedoms is absolutely oppression, and nothing you say will ever prove that incorrect.[/quote] You talk like you're talking about some objective concept when you're talking about your subjective opinion. Hell, the Supreme Court literally says your wrong too. [quote]Do you know what inalienable means?[/quote] Yes.

Now you're talking to yourself about yourself? Well, I always knew you were delusional. What grey area? Either what you're doing is a freedom or it isn't. You're NEVER free to harm someone else. Now you're just embarrassing yourself. You specifically mentioned Jefferson, dang you can even keep track of your own argument. How is my definition of oppression extreme? It's an extreme view to want to leave people alone and mind your own business? Wow, then what do you consider isn't extreme? Giving them order and locking them up if they don't listen to you when they aren't harming anyone else? Ya, not extreme at all! It doesn't matter what drugs people use. As long as they aren't bothering me. And since you failed to give one example I must assume you just have no idea what you're talking about. I guess all of our framers were just so extreme also. We can't grant the government authority we don't already have. Again, popularity doesn't make tyranny legal. We also wrote a constitution which clearly defined their limited powers, and infringing on freedoms by banning substances wasn't one of those limited powers. The supreme court is capable of making mistakes. They once ruled income tax unconstitutional but we have one again now. Freedoms are clear, no matter what anyone else says. You have no good reason why people shouldn't be able to do whatever drug they want, prohibition has been a MASSIVE failure and an expensive waste which makes drugs more potent and easily available to children. "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." -Thomas Jefferson

Same ol', same ol'. Now that you're just spinning in circles I'm going to quote you. [quote]Once again you have only hurt yourself and proven me right, you really make this way too easy every time. It's just sad now.[/quote]

So, if the majority said to a Christian they couldn't read the bible, would they still be free to read the bible or do they have to obey tyranny? Your gif sums you up perfectly.