|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:33 pm
if they're illegal and you take them, youre even more responsibe for your actions than if they were legal, because this way the government is saying "NO!", as opposed to "if you want to, go ahead and take them"
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:25 pm
Do you really think the right answer is to make all bad and/or majority perceived "bad" options illegal so that people are not aloud to make them? We're supposed to have freedom of choice. This includes freedom to make bad (or "bad") choices, so long as we do not violate other's rights. Clearly, even if they are not legally "aloud" to do drugs, people still do and will. Even with a clear message of "it's bad and we won't let you do it!" people do any way. It's just like abstinence only education if I can make a comparison for a moment. People can be told always "No! Don't do it!" but they still will any way and now in a way that's more likely to be risky because they are not well educated on the full facts of the subject. Even if you don't approve of something it is then safer to just tell people "ok, I don't want you to do it, but for those of you that will any way, here's why I don't want you to and if you still will, here's the best way to not go and get yourself into a complete mess, still bad though I find it."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:01 pm
bluecherry
Do you really think the right answer is to make all bad and/or majority perceived "bad" options illegal so that people are not aloud to make them? We're supposed to have freedom of choice. This includes freedom to make bad (or "bad") choices, so long as we do not violate other's rights. Clearly, even if they are not legally "aloud" to do drugs, people still do and will. Even with a clear message of "it's bad and we won't let you do it!" people do any way. It's just like abstinence only education if I can make a comparison for a moment. People can be told always "No! Don't do it!" but they still will any way and now in a way that's more likely to be risky because they are not well educated on the full facts of the subject. Even if you don't approve of something it is then safer to just tell people "ok, I don't want you to do it, but for those of you that will any way, here's why I don't want you to and if you still will, here's the best way to not go and get yourself into a complete mess, still bad though I find it."In other words, don't do anything about it because the use of narcotics is unavoidable and probably impossible to stop. Like terrorism and the like, right? However, this isn't something that you should just keel over on because, "Well shoot, people will do drugs no matter what, so we might as well just let them f*** themselves up, because we're not supposed to try and prevent or or do anything about it." People are provided with reasons for not to do drugs, it's not like they don't have the education. The Government says it's illegal, so hat's how it has to be. The Government cares about the well-being of its citizens, and drugs do not help the well-being. To show that drugs are a bad choice, they must be made illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:03 am
No, NOT like terrorism at all. Terrorism does things like destroy peoples property and kill people, which is violating people's rights. It's not an individual life choice. This, terrorism, is something that should be fought and punished. And the government's job is not to play mom and dad looking out for silly little kids who can't help themselves and they can make all the decisions for. Legal adult citizens of this country are responsible for themselves and their own decisions, good or bad, and nobody has the right to come in and use force to inhibit this freedom of choice so long as their choices are their own and not infringing upon the rights of others. This is why making drugs illegal I find is over-stepping the bounds of what government has the right to legislate. I only brought up that people do it any way and such even when it's illegal as a point that it would not be the very counter-productive action you asserted it would be to tell people a choice is bad while leaving them the option to take it. In fact, it's more counter productive I think as it is. They're just wasting time and money and energy on something that is out of their range of responsibility any way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:09 am
Drugs ruin lives, too. As my friend says, taking something like drugs is a bad decision, and that one bad decision can lead to a whole slew of bad decisions, which then makes you a bad citizen. Such decisions must be punished, and that is why the Government has made drugs illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:55 am
Alright, here's something that needs to be asked to clear things up: Tell me, what do you hold to be the job and purpose of a government?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:05 pm
the purpose of a government is to up hold and make laws, as well as establish imports and exports, etc. but thegovernment also makes sure that the economy doesnt collapse (which our government hasnt done a teriffic job of) drugs not only estroy lives, they can ruin a country's job market and economy as well. so the government enforcing drug laws is their job
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:06 pm
Government's job is to protect the well-being of its citizens, as well as maintaining the stability of the nation's economy so as to keep it strong. In order to keep its citizens safe, things that can harm them must be kept away from them, and this includes drugs. The purpose of the PATRIOT Act is for the same reason, so what is so bad about having drugs be illegal?
My overall stance on government is that I prefer large government over small government, as this actually gives government the power to do something in order to protect the citizens and the country itself. Small government is too preoccupied with guaranteeing the citizen's rights to do something drastic if an emergency comes along.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 6:45 pm
Unless you have walked the walk of addiction or walked in those shoes you have no business talking about the personal choice that is lost by those who have walked that long and horrible walk. You think you can summize all up as "I feel they shuold be legal and people be responsible for their actions>" etc... I can only PRAY for you that if it's not you a close family member or child does not get caught up in that web to make you change your minds about such a serious topic.
MADD mothers against drunk drivers
barb aka Natzi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:24 pm
And here we have the root of the problem as I suspected. We have different ideas on the purpose of a government and thus will not agree on this subject as our answer is something we will give based upon our definition of a government's purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:24 am
"And here we have the root of the problem as I suspected. We have different ideas on the purpose of a government and thus will not agree on this subject as our answer is something we will give based upon our definition of a government's purpose. " Bluecherry what exactly is that supposed to mean in latent terms. PLEASE DEFINE YOUR MEANING. It sounds to me like you are talking in circles arouned yourself if this was a remarK after my comment, there is no correlation and it makes jot sense.
You are either high or dont' have a clue.
MADD mother against drunk drivers
barb aka Natzi
try approaching the issue straight on not from some test book point of view or some naive uneducated point of view. do you have any idea what would become of our country and what the consequences would be THINK CHILD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:14 pm
My response was directed primarily toward shadow and Der, as they responded directly to me question with their definitions of the job of a government. I didn't say my definition because I've already said so several times in previous posts was all, that a government's job is to protect it's citizens rights. So, I was not responding directly to your comment even though my post was right after yours. (And I'm not/wasn't high. Sheesh, I said I want drugs legalized as a personal choice, but never that they were a choice I'd endorse even if they WERE legal.) And I have already said what I think of the results of legalizing them too: Some people will do them, it may get messy for a while, but people on the whole will get themselves under control again as people will learn from mistakes made or if they don't will be responsible for their own outcomes and the rest of people will move on without them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:44 pm
The point is freedom of choice. Driving is dangerous. Walking the streets is dangerous. Skydiving, mountaineering, football, smoking, drinking alcohol, using commercial cleaning products, being depressed, home maintenance/ remodeling, and manufacturing jobs are all dangerous. I'd go so far as to say you would be hard pressed to name an activity that isn't in some way risky. It's all based on mediating risk with reward. What one person finds too risky for the reward that is recieved from it, another person may find completely reasonable. Some people go skydiving, others smoke pot or drink alcohol. There are some things that are quite dangerous that many of us do routinely without actually thinking about how much danger we are in thanks to social norms making people complacent and jaded. Driving for example, is one of the most dangerous activities one can indulge in (A total of 42,636 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in 2004 [in the US]. Another 2.8 million people were injured. [Reference: 2004 Annual Report]) and yet nobody thinks about the statistics as they step into their cars. Why do you think the government is in the right to legislate what risks you may take? Where do you draw the line? Imagine what the world would be like if only the most neccesary risks were legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:24 pm
Squicks The point is freedom of choice. Driving is dangerous. Walking the streets is dangerous. Skydiving, mountaineering, football, smoking, drinking alcohol, using commercial cleaning products, being depressed, home maintenance/ remodeling, and manufacturing jobs are all dangerous. I'd go so far as to say you would be hard pressed to name an activity that isn't in some way risky. It's all based on mediating risk with reward. What one person finds too risky for the reward that is recieved from it, another person may find completely reasonable. Some people go skydiving, others smoke pot or drink alcohol. There are some things that are quite dangerous that many of us do routinely without actually thinking about how much danger we are in thanks to social norms making people complacent and jaded. Driving for example, is one of the most dangerous activities one can indulge in (A total of 42,636 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in 2004 [in the US]. Another 2.8 million people were injured. [Reference: 2004 Annual Report]) and yet nobody thinks about the statistics as they step into their cars. Why do you think the government is in the right to legislate what risks you may take? Where do you draw the line? Imagine what the world would be like if only the most neccesary risks were legal. Driving can be as dangerous as can many other things, but using such drugs can lead to even more dangerous choices. From what I've seen, while deaths due to overdose aren't as large as other deaths, they are going up. Legalize it and it's sure to increase exponentially. I already said that choosing to do drugs makes one a bad citizen, and bad citizens should be punished. I really don't just "some" people will do them, I think far more people will do drugs simply because they are now legal, when normally if they were still illegal. People should not be allowed to make whatever choice they want; that is why we have government. And if the government says something is illegal, then that's how it has to be. I really don't see any benefit to legalizing drugs, so they should stay illegal. I'm not much for "what if" questions, because they aren't what is. The government isn't going to make driving illegal due to the fact that it's an efficient method of transportation. That's blowing things out of proportion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:51 pm
As Squicks said, it's about freedom of choice. You can choose to do what you want as long as that doesn't violate another's rights no matter what the personal consequences may be and as long as you aren't violating other people's rights, you owe them nothing. You can't make whatever choice you want ONLY if that choice violates another person's rights, and THAT is why we have a government (though this I know is not your definition government we've seen by now.) Government makes laws, but they only should make laws to the extent that they follow and uphold what they demand citizens follow -- individuals are not aloud to violate other individuals rights and neither is government to make laws infringing upon those rights (after all, why have government in the first place if it's going to take away the very rights it exists to protect?). Any infringement of a government upon individual rights (unless done to make up for one person previously violating or seeking to violate another person's rights -- meaning the criminal justice system) is an act of self defeat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
