{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
This thread is inspired by another: view original post
Edited by Cultmeister:
4/25/2013 1:16:07 PM
22
What's the difference between the Gun debate and the Drug debate?
so guns should be allowed but drugs shouldn't?
please someone, explain the logic behind this because they seem like basically the same arguments to me.
Note: 'drugs' means all drugs, not just weed.
EDIT: i am NOT saying drugs and guns are the same, but that the arguments people use to ban one can easily be used against the other.
[u]arguments for banning either guns or drugs:[/u]
they can be dangerous to inexperienced users
they can harm or kill you and others
[u]arguments for not banning guns or drugs:[/u]
using them is a fun activity and when used properly and safely pose little risk to the user (note: in the case of drugs 'used properly and safely' does not include getting addicted)
a person has a right to the freedom to own and/or use them so long as they are not putting others in any harm or otherwise infringing their rights.
why should we treat them differently?
-
17 Replies in this Sub-ThreadDrugs aren't used in protecting yourself from the criminal element, wildlife, or a tyrannical government.
-
Edited by M37h3w3: 4/25/2013 2:55:12 AM[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
-
-
