Your Political Views

[Vako]

I'm considering the source...

[Mir]

Pot is a safer drug than both alcohol and cigarettes.

[Vako]

Mir, you have a sense of respect (and a sense of humor), so I will discuss this with you. All drugs end up doing the same damage. They are all addictive, they all cause damage to the nervous system, and they are all used with the same mentality. Escapism. To say that one drug is safer than another is a form of self-rationalization.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Vako

Mir, you have a sense of respect (and a sense of humor), so I will discuss this with you. All drugs end up doing the same damage. They are all addictive, they all cause damage to the nervous system, and they are all used with the same mentality. Escapism. To say that one drug is safer than another is a form of self-rationalization.

I've never seen someone die from one hit of pot or one drag on a cigarette, but I've heard and read stories of people dying on the first try of anything harder.

Pot, cigarettes, and alcohol is not = LSD, Heroin, PCP, Meth, or Crack

Though the reasons for using them are usually the same and the outcome is normally the same. I guess it just depends on how fast you want to DIE by using drugs.

[Vako]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Though the reasons for using them are usually the same and the outcome is normally the same. I guess it just depends on how fast you want to DIE by using drugs.

That is basically what I was trying to get at.

[Kraven de Sade]

Originally Posted by Splintered

Which is exactly why I disagree with your system.

But that's the problem with every single form of government... Not everyone's going to agree with it, or like it. Then again, even if living under that form of government, liking or agreeing with it is not required.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Kraven de Sade

But that's the problem with every single form of government... Not everyone's going to agree with it, or like it. Then again, even if living under that form of government, liking or agreeing with it is not required.

Which is why you reach a republic. So the majority of the people can enjoy it.

Do you honestly think that people will be subject to a system they do not like? Hitler's Totalitarianism failed. Maybe not internally, but it still failed under the pressure of other nations. The French Revolution and the Committee of Public Safety felt a major backlash. High taxation by the British crown, etc, etc, etc.

All drugs end up doing the same damage. They are all addictive, they all cause damage to the nervous system, and they are all used with the same mentality. Escapism. To say that one drug is safer than another is a form of self-rationalization.

Actually, that's not entirely true.
By your definition, all drugs that cause damage to the nervous system, and are addictive, also extend to cover massive amounts of commonly used medicinal chemicals.
It is not the drugs themselves, but the abuse of it. And even under that, Caffeine is also a dangerous substance.

[Vako]

Originally Posted by Splintered

Actually, that's not entirely true.
By your definition, all drugs that cause damage to the nervous system, and are addictive, also extend to cover massive amounts of commonly used medicinal chemicals.
It is not the drugs themselves, but the abuse of it. And even under that, Caffeine is also a dangerous substance.

Medication can be dangerous, also, I realize that, and I do put caffeine in the category of a physically and mentally addictive substance.

[Kraven de Sade]

Originally Posted by Splintered

Which is why you reach a republic. So the majority of the people can enjoy it.

Do you honestly think that people will be subject to a system they do not like? Hitler's Totalitarianism failed. Maybe not internally, but it still failed under the pressure of other nations. The French Revolution and the Committee of Public Safety felt a major backlash. High taxation by the British crown, etc, etc, etc.

Republics aren't always the best answer. Following your example of Hitler's Nazi Germany, I might point out that that never would've occured if it wasn't for a republic... the Weimar Republic.

I'm not saying that the destiny of a nation should be entirely out of the people's hands. Some aspects of government should be given power only through the majority's choice, such as taxes, education, and law enforcement issues like drugs and prostitution. But there are some aspects that should be out of their hands, like the aforementioned mandatory military service.

Also, military service doesn't necessarily mean automatically going overseas for tours of duty. There are domestic branches which normally remain domestic, even during war time, like the National Guard and state militias. Those are viable options as well.

[Firestorm]

Originally Posted by Vako

Mir, you All drugs end up doing the same damage. They are all addictive, they all cause damage to the nervous system,

Cannabis has been scientificly tested for decades. So far, scientists have concluded that cannabis is not neurotoxic.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Kraven de Sade

Republics aren't always the best answer. Following your example of Hitler's Nazi Germany, I might point out that that never would've occured if it wasn't for a republic... the Weimar Republic.

I'm not saying that the destiny of a nation should be entirely out of the people's hands. Some aspects of government should be given power only through the majority's choice, such as taxes, education, and law enforcement issues like drugs and prostitution. But there are some aspects that should be out of their hands, like the aforementioned mandatory military service.

Also, military service doesn't necessarily mean automatically going overseas for tours of duty. There are domestic branches which normally remain domestic, even during war time, like the National Guard and state militias. Those are viable options as well.

Mandatory military service??

Out of the two years of military service that I gave, I got in return a sense of self and a whopping dose of PTSD.

I'm not one of the best troops that's ever served, but I just have to ask: Have you ever donned the uniform? To say that your family members and friends have does no imply that you understand what it means to wear it.

If you have worn the uniform, maybe you handled it better than most. Maybe you were made for that kind of lifestyle. I for one, wasn't.

If there was mandatory military service, then for what ever mental and physical damages one would suffer from it, should be completely covered by the government with out question.

If you've never been in the service, I encourage you to have the courage of your convictions. Sign up, put on the uniform. Serve 2 to 4 years. See how it fits for you. :-)

[Vako]

Originally Posted by Firestorm

Cannabis has been scientificly tested for decades. So far, scientists have concluded that cannabis is not neurotoxic.

It effects short term memory and it kills brain cells.

[Kraven de Sade]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Mandatory military service??

Out of the two years of military service that I gave, I got in return a sense of self and a whopping dose of PTSD.

I'm not one of the best troops that's ever served, but I just have to ask: Have you ever donned the uniform? To say that your family members and friends have does no imply that you understand what it means to wear it.

If you have worn the uniform, maybe you handled it better than most. Maybe you were made for that kind of lifestyle. I for one, wasn't.

If there was mandatory military service, then for what ever mental and physical damages one would suffer from it, should be completely covered by the government with out question.

If you've never been in the service, I encourage you to have the courage of your convictions. Sign up, put on the uniform. Serve 2 to 4 years. See how it fits for you. :-)

In all honesty, no, I haven't served. Not for a lack of trying, though. I failed the medical examination due to an old knee injury. I didn't think the injury was a big deal, but the army doctor thought otherwise.

As for damages, well, if you had read my initial post in this thread you would've seen that the military service (as well as three years of civil service) would pay for each citizen's retirement. I see no reason why that can't be extended to phychological support and whatnot. But the time everyone turns 21 (or shortly thereafter), they'll have done their duty to support the State. After that, once they retire (or, if necessary, such as with PTSD, before that), the State will have the duty to support the individual.

[Kraven de Sade]

As far as the marijuana aspect of this topic goes, take a look at this article.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Kraven de Sade

No offense, but in a nation with a government as I described, with mandatory military service, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

Points for honesty, anyway. Give me a good, old-fashioned totalitarian rather than the modern, plastic ones.

Drake

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Binkie

Disingenuous? Are you just randomly going through a thesaurus or are you actually paying attention to your wording? Obviously you aren't paying attention to the analogy's context, which is: A few bad things are alright, so all bad things should be alright in that same regard.

I read the analogy exactly the way intended, and the way you explain it here. That's why I objected to it. It deceptively obscures the facts and misrepresents the view of the people on the other side of the issue.

Drake

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

I read the analogy exactly the way intended, and the way you explain it here. That's why I objected to it. It deceptively obscures the facts and misrepresents the view of the people on the other side of the issue.

Actually, I just went back and re-read your post, and I may have taken it the wrong way. Now I can't figure out whether "A few bad things are alright, so all bad things should be alright in that same regard" was an argument you were making yourself, or a position you were ascribing to the pro-legalization types.

In any case, it's not hard to come up with a rationale for illegalizing some drugs and not others. An easy one, for example, would be the distinction between those which present a direct threat to others, and those which are only dangerous to the user.

To raise the bigger issue, I want to again drag into the light one of the popular myths I hate and that, in my opinion, enables a lot of really nasty social behaviorisms (including the passage of laws which infringe freedom without real reason). It's the "deciding what is best for us" myth.

We are talking here not about whether drugs are good or bad, or whether individuals should or should not choose to use drugs. We're talking about whether we should use police force (read: "the systematic threat of violence") to cow people into giving up that choice. To someone like me, that's an option of last resort, to be used only in cases of truly egregious behaviorisms.

Let me make that clear in reference to the specific issue at hand. Drugs are dangerous. They can be really bad for you. They can be really bad for society. And as a general rule, they should be legal.

Drake

[Cyntrox]

Guns are not dangerous. The people holding them are. Should we ban people?

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Kraven de Sade

In all honesty, no, I haven't served. Not for a lack of trying, though. I failed the medical examination due to an old knee injury. I didn't think the injury was a big deal, but the army doctor thought otherwise.

As for damages, well, if you had read my initial post in this thread you would've seen that the military service (as well as three years of civil service) would pay for each citizen's retirement. I see no reason why that can't be extended to phychological support and whatnot. But the time everyone turns 21 (or shortly thereafter), they'll have done their duty to support the State. After that, once they retire (or, if necessary, such as with PTSD, before that), the State will have the duty to support the individual.

That's my point. If you've already acknowledged that there are people predisposed to certain injuries and psychological problems after serving, why would you want to put a person through that? Honestly, I'd much rather have never served and have my sanity than to have to deal with PTSD or other problems. People have to right to not endure ritualistic torture and psychological damages. Some people can't get better.

The military doesn't NEED social workers and street sweepers. The military needs killers. Lots and lots of killers. A draft is just that. You think they'd give you a choice on how you would contribute your military obligation? We don't need an army of yeomans and personnel men. Not everyone has the warrioristic mentality like you do. I only wish your knee was never bad. I think you would have a bit more compassion about your standpoint.

Jillian, can you explain how Anarchy would work in the most ideal situation?

Then in the most practical?

[KontanKarite]

I am actually curious as to how anarchy can work as well.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

I'm afraid that "anarchy" and "practicality" are antithetical.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Jillian, can you explain how Anarchy would work in the most ideal situation?

In the most ideal situation, we wouldn't have a government because we wouldn't need it.
A capitalist society would thrive with healthy competition. Of course, under ideal conditions, humankind would now better than to enjoy immediate satisfaction at the expense of others; therefore we wouldn't have the problem of monopolies; something that cannot happen in reality.

Then in the most practical?

It can't. Monopolies are bound to happen without restraint. The government should in its minimum regulate companies to allow competition in most products and services, and have a strict control over legal monopolies (patents) and natural monopolies (water & electricity)

[KontanKarite]

Anarchy can't work because people suck at self government sometimes.

My example:

Jillian is minding his own business, planting some roses in his yard.

The neighbor sees this and gets pissed. What's to stop him from going over to Jillian's yard and mowing his roses away? So the neighbor does just that.

Anarchy fails because people don't know how to be benevolent and people don't know how to mind their own business.

[Mir]

Originally Posted by Vako

Mir, you have a sense of respect (and a sense of humor), so I will discuss this with you. All drugs end up doing the same damage. They are all addictive, they all cause damage to the nervous system, and they are all used with the same mentality. Escapism. To say that one drug is safer than another is a form of self-rationalization.

I agree somewhat with that, however not everyone that does pot does it as an escape and not all pot users are addicts/heavy users. You are about as likely to kill yourself from the occasional joint (impaired driving and related accidents aside) as you are from having excess amounts of sugar in your diet.