i thought it would be interesting to get a cross-sectional view of your opinions on whether all drugs (lsd, heroin, cocaine, etc.
be legalized so that they then became freely available to the general population, in the same way that alcohol and tobacco are .
spanner
If drugs are legalized then I think addicts and users should have register with the government. Addicts to harder drugs could get their supply free of charge. I believe they do this in Switzerland.
You think drugs should be provided? I thought I was liberal.
i thought it would be interesting to get a cross-sectional view of your opinions on whether all drugs (lsd, heroin, cocaine, etc.
be legalized so that they then became freely available to the general population, in the same way that alcohol and tobacco are .
spanner
Except for the "filthy habit" part.
i thought it would be interesting to get a cross-sectional view of your opinions on whether all drugs (lsd, heroin, cocaine, etc.
be legalized so that they then became freely available to the general population, in the same way that alcohol and tobacco are .
spanner
Sure, you can smoke crack all you want. Lock yourself in a room, never get in a car, never expose children (unborn or already delivered) to you or your filthy habit, use your independent wealth to fund it, and do as you want to ONLY your body, and I'll probaby pity you but it won't much affect me. If you can accomplish total isolation, smoke away. But the minute you want to collect any goverment funds to support you in your addiction, the first second you collect unemployment because your crack-destroyed self can't hold a job, the moment you want my tax dollars to subsidize your habit through distribution or production, or the first time someone else is harmed by your inability to function normally as a result of your addiction, you're no longer an island.
I agree with this entire paragraph! Drugs should be legal, and the state is not responsible for the results. I'm glad that our positions appear to be exactly alike!
i find myself whistling several when working and when i catch up with what's going on i stop.
anybody else?
"Blondes and brunettes have been pushed aside by men.
They won't let themselves be turned aside by them."
To be sung by bethelites.
i thought it would be interesting to get a cross-sectional view of your opinions on whether all drugs (lsd, heroin, cocaine, etc.
be legalized so that they then became freely available to the general population, in the same way that alcohol and tobacco are .
spanner
I seem to have entered some sort of alternate universe in which I find myself agreeing with everything crazy151 is saying.
i thought it would be interesting to get a cross-sectional view of your opinions on whether all drugs (lsd, heroin, cocaine, etc.
be legalized so that they then became freely available to the general population, in the same way that alcohol and tobacco are .
spanner
You're all being idiots. No argument for or against legalization based on safety, crime, expense, etc. has any validity. The only question to be decided is - who has the right to decide what a person is allowed do with his/her own brain chemistry. Answer: only that person. If said person then commits a crime while said chemistry is altered - punish that crime. But EVERY adult has the right to decide for themselves what they will do with their own brain chemistry, including the right to do really stupid things with it that don't hurt other people. Any other response is just an attempt to impose your morality on others.
No one on this planet has any right to tell me what to do with my brain or body, so long as I am not harming others.
i've written about this before but recent events bring it up again.. is the watchtower attempting to 'decouple' the identity of the 'faithful and discreet'.
slave from the pretense of being 'anointed'?.
basically, this would mean that whoever is in charge is collectively the 'faithful'.
Alan mentions Jaracz's true believer fanaticism... is there any useful speculation about the rest of the GB, and other top men? How wide and deep is the cynicism?
the term loser is, admittedly, insulting.
ways because of years of damage done to my family that likely will never be reversible.. nevertheless, like a growing number of others, i have managed to repair some of the injury.
- unlike these sad cases:.
Og, it's a good thing you're not a music critic.
so true...
the term loser is, admittedly, insulting.
ways because of years of damage done to my family that likely will never be reversible.. nevertheless, like a growing number of others, i have managed to repair some of the injury.
- unlike these sad cases:.
cen, that is one of the very worst poems I've ever read.
this article by author john le carre is in todays times.
it makes for interesting reading coming as it does from the master of the spy story himself.. please note that his views are not neccessarily my views, i present this article simply as food for thought.. englishman.. .
the united states of america has gone mad.. .
To say that I'm "America bashing" is in itself pejorative. It implies that disagreeing with this administrations views is akin to being a traitor.
America can be and should be great in peace. Give the low level of proven threat from Iraq, many options remain (I for one don't absolutely rule out military force - I just don't see that it is now warranted).
One question not yet answered by Bush supporters on this thread is, why Iraq? Why not N. Korea, or Saudi Arabia, or Libya? If WMDs includes bio-warfare agents, lots of countries would qualify. Small Pox and Anthrax is hardly expensive or high tech. Why not, for that matter, Israel? They've been convicted of spying on the US, and they have nuclear arms.
I've seen the argument made that Saddam should be removed because he is a tyrant that abuses his own people. I could actually buy that, but again - why Iraq? Lots of oil free countries abuse their people; we seem to tolerate them. We stood by as the Khmer Rouge killed their countryment, why is Iraq now so pressing?
Here's another question: if our enemy is Osama, why aren't we going after Saudi Arabia? His funds, his backers, and the actual bombers came from that country, not Iraq.
Finally, how are we going to be safer by means of this war? Will terrorism increase or decrease?
