Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization
I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe He was born of a virgin, that He is the Son of God and that He was resurrected and has ascended into heaven. All things central and taught as truth in my faith and all things I'm sure you see as being "stupid". Am I right?
Not at all. I don't hold those same beliefs, but I don't think believing in them is "stupid".
Why are you so determined to take offense to things?
I agree, and this is why I oppose abortion. Before all he flaming and name calling starts, I'm not saying you have to agree with me, can you, at least, see what I'm saying?
Why would I flame and name-call simply because you oppose abortion and see it as protecting people from harm? We don't disagree on protecting people from harm in that regard, we disagree on the definition of a person. I do NOT place the abortion debate in the same realm as victimless crimes because for many people, abortion is the exact
opposite of a victimless crime.
While this is a total sidetrack, the primary view of a person who opposes abortion is that it is the selfish taking of an innocent human life. They aren't attempting to legislate morality, they are trying to legislate for protecting that innocent human life. Regardless of whether I agree with a person's position, or their definition of what a human is, I can certainly appreciate their position as being
intended to protect an innocent being from being harmed by another person.
Obviously, I'm not one for abolishing all laws. I just think one of the most retarded arguments in favor of legalizing anything is that people are doing to do it whether it's illegal or not. By that "logic", since all crimes continue to occur, everything should be legal. I don't see marijuana use as being as benign (or maybe even laudable?) as you do. Most of my friends who oppose legalizing pot are to the political left of me - most people I know are to the political left of me - and they do so because they are parents.
I'm a father too, and even more to the point, my life has been negatively affected by drugs far worse than the majority of people experience. My brother is a recovering heroin addict.
the argument isn't "People are going to do it anyway, so why keep it illegal", it's "The prohibition doesn't do a ****ing thing to prevent it, so why are we continuing to waste tremendous resources that could be better spent by ACTUALLY ****ING PREVENTING IT via effective programs on a feel-good prohibition and punitive approach that does not ****ing work and will never ****ing work."
Trust me, I
hate drugs. I've watched them take my family to the brink of destruction. I've been to a dozen funerals for some of my best friends from childhood due to them.
I also know that the laws have failed. Miserably. And that more effective preventative and recovery approaches
do exist.
There's no point in punishing people for being addicted to drugs. The addiction is so much worse of a punishment than the legal system can impose. Our system is ****ed when it comes to addiction. We give shoddy treatment and then put them back in a world where they can't get a job (because they are a felon), they don't have any support, and they have only one course of action to gain any finances (dealing drugs).
On top of that, legalizing and regulating drugs would have saved the lives of most of my friends who have died. Why? Because the **** you get on the street is cut with whatever the **** the criminal who cuts it wants to cut it with. If we regulated it, then the number of overdoses would decrease, without having a substantial effect on the actual rates of use, because people who don't use don't do so because they know it will **** you up, not because they are afraid of the laws.
If a law exists to perform a certain task (prevent addiction and deaths due to use), and it fails miserably at that task, and even causes the opposite to occur (heroin being illegal increases overdose deaths
and underage use of drugs is also made
easier by drugs being illegal), then it's a ****ty law that should be repealed, even if that means that people have to accept that bad **** occurs.
The problem is that prohibition only provides the
illusion that something is being done. You see, I
don't see marijuana use as benign, nor laudable. I see it as somewhat bad. Not as bad as consuming 4000 calories a day, but still bad.
I can see something as bad and
also realize that banning it is asinine since it doesn't (
can't) achieve the desired goal.
As to morals being legislated, can I assume you oppose restrictions on guns, incandescent light bulbs, large soft drinks, and Happy Meals in equally colorful terms.
Two of those things (light bulbs and guns) are related to the effect they have on those who are
not using them, making them dramatically different from gay rights and pot.
Lets put it this way, if people who want to **** up the environment and pretend we are not ****ing up the environment could do so in a way that
only ****ed up
their environment, then I'd be adamantly opposed to any legislations regarding environmental stuff. But these people **** up the environment for EVERYONE, including (especially) my son, so **** 'em.
As far as as gun restrictions go, I'm on record many times calling those who push for gun bans stupid and misguided. Making something MORE of a crime doesn't prevent it from happening. Shooting people is a crime, ergo, making it illegal to own the gun with which someone commits a crime doesn't really seem like much of a deterrent.
The world WOULD be a better place in the absence of guns, though. Just as it would be better without drugs. Reality doesn't give a **** about happy thoughts, though. So we can look at legalization the same way in both cases: prohibition doesn't work, so treat the problem more effectively.
Anyone trying to ban large drinks and happy meals is an idiot. But to be honest, those are things you need to be a
lot more concerned about than pot if you are a father, because obesity kills a ****load more people than pot
ever will. That being said, banning happy meals and big gulps won't create parents who make good food choices for their children. Fat parents have fat kids, and it
ain't just genetics. Bad habits will be taught to a kid regardless of whether the parent can do so with a happy meal or if they have to bake the chocolate cake the kid calls breakfast for the kid themselves. It's retarded to try to take away one measely avenue for stupid choices, when the kid is STILL going to be given a full and compelte education on stupid choices. If people
really want to fix the problem, then educate the parents.
The fact that many oppose legalizing pot, but also oppose banning happy meals or vice versa, is, simply put, idiotic. The logic in both instances is identical "BUT WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!111!!!!", yet because they've been told by politicians that one ban is good and the other ban is bad, they have a hypocritical and conflicting position on both issues.
Both types of bans are equally ineffective and are both based on the same amount of wishful thinking. Neither will
ever achieve their goals. Both waste resources that could be better spent on effective measures, but would be harder to
actually carry out and thus will never get traction as they would require politicians to do a little more work than just trying to get votes for the next reelection cycle.
