Marijuana

But whether or not the results are good or bad, that's not why we should pass laws.

The government is not our mama and we don't need a nanny state.

Laws should be considered based on whether or not they will uphold an individual's liberty.

Washington is the most corrupt place on the planet and that you guys would trust them to make laws to keep us "moral" is ironic,to say the least.

 

My luck is that if they legalize it, I'm the guy who will get run over by a high 18 year old. I say NO WAY to legalizing another drug. We have enough already killing thousands (drunk driving)every year, we don't need another one.

 

Friend speaks my mind.

As to the drunk driving issue, that's what is illegal, not being drunk. Same should be with driving while high or otherwise influenced.

 

Question: do we as a people have the right or duty to protect the unborn children from what their mothers do to them via alcohol or other drugs?

 

But there are already laws governing driving while intoxicated. Some states have even passed laws saying that you can't drive if you haven't gotten enough sleep.

What I'm talking about is legalizing them for personal use and posession. That wouldn't change the consequences for what you do while under their effects.

 

Yes.

The problem is that this can be really difficult and can raise other problems.

 

If it's proved that a woman intended to continue her pregnancy to term, and there are complications resulting from drugs, alcohol or smoking, she should be charged for, what, child endangerment? At the point she decides to carry the pregnancy through, she is responsible for any damages to the child she bears.

Which still has no bearing on a general legalization.

 

Then you are saying that although she may be morally responsible, she should not be held legally responsible?

 

Oh, no no no. What I mean is, her being legally and morally responsible for the effects on a child she may bear has no bearing on whether or not the substance itself should be legal to use.

I believe that if a woman drinks heavily during her pregnancy, and her child suffers from the results of that drinking, she should suffer legal consequences. And that isn't in conflict it being legal to drink alcohol.

 

That is why we pass laws, to produce positive results, not what many call their right to certain "liberties".

Uh, not, laws are designed to protect individual freedoms (aka, liberties), so long as the negative aspects of those liberties do not negatively impact another person.

That is why you can legally get plastered in your own house, but the moment you step out of your house, you are criminally guilty of being drunk in public.

You can legally sing in the shower as bad as you want, but do it outside at 2 am, and you'll be cited for disturbing the peace.

You can legally smoke, but you cannot legally smoke in enclosed public places.

 

God called the saved out to be seperate from the world. how can we be seperate from the world if we are partaking in the things of this world? i am talking about drinking,smoking,lust, etc. This country was founded on the bible and the law which the bible contains. now the nation has turned it's back on GOD and are now making laws which suit what they think is right not ressairly what GOD thinks is right!

GOD BLESS AMERICA

 

i belive that it is wrong and i will always belive it. but everyone has there opinion.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

 

Do you know what circular reasoning is?

You're missing the point. It's not the responsibility of the government to protect us from ourselves. You say that liberty must be protected and then you turn around and say that liberty must be curtailed "for our own good".

You mean like Muslim countries? They regulate "indecency, immorality, overindulgence, etc". Would you say that that form of government has had a "positive effect" on it's societies? If you were to ask someone who suffered under the Taliban which society they would rather live in, which do you think they'd chose? If you were to live in Communist China, which regulates those things, do you think you'd be better off?

This begs the question, who decides what is immoral? Who decides what is indecent? Who decides what is overindulgent?

Assuming that's true (and I don't believe it is), it's not up to you to say that people who believe differently from us shouldn't have the right to seek spirituality that way.

Yes, we do. The Constitution guarantees it.

It's not up to you to decide whether or not people have that right.

You have completely missed the point.

Abuse always brings consequences and there are laws to punish them for acts against the public good.

The problem is, under our system of government, we assume that people ae going to be responsible with their liberties and we don't punish the whole because of the actions of a few.

We don't have to agree with what someone does. We can say it's wrong. We can even try to convince that person that it's wrong. But, assuming they're not bothering us, they have the right to do what they want.

We don't outlaw matches because they could lead to arson. In the same way, we shouldn't take liberties away from those who act responsibly for the sake of those who don't.

Then that person would be held accountable under the law.

Of course not but I wouldn't want them to live as a slave, either.

I agree. Go look at this objectively and get back to us.

 

No problem. I didn't think you did it on purpose.

 

Well, it is a debate forum.

Then why did you oject when I posted my thoughts?

I agree, but that's not the government's job to say.

I beg your pardon?

No I'm not. The premise of the poll was "is pot sinful" and I believe that, in most cases, it is. I couldn't vote in the poll because it was too broad.

If you aren't willing to allow others their liberty, then you don't deserve yours.

I've already explained this to you a couple of times.

Like I've said, we already have laws to discourage the "negative effects".

But it's not the job of the government to determine that. We don't live in a theocracy and the government shouldn't be in the business of deciding who should believe what.

By the way, you haven't answered my questions concerning the Taliban and China.