do you consider regulation, as it relates to "hard" or addicting substances, as anti-freedom?
if a person who is doing drugs, then commits murder, rape, theft, abuse etc.. then get them on that. i don't think that a drug user, without breaking other laws, should be sent to prison. if you drink alcohol, you are not a criminal. there are things that you could do to become a criminal, while under the influence of alcohol. but simply drinking alcohol does not make you a criminal. that is how i see drug use as well, at least ideally. it isn't that way currently.
zombie wrote:do you consider regulation, as it relates to "hard" or addicting substances, as anti-freedom?
if a person who is doing drugs, then commits murder, rape, theft, abuse etc.. then get them on that. i don't think that a drug user, without breaking other laws, should be sent to prison. if you drink alcohol, you are not a criminal. there are things that you could do to become a criminal, while under the influence of alcohol. but simply drinking alcohol does not make you a criminal. that is how i see drug use as well, at least ideally. it isn't that way currently.
Yes. But I see it as necessity for the better of society at large. Like I said, where is the line? Getting people involved into Meth and Heroin is more likely to amount to a clusterfuck of shit than Alcohol and Weed, but both certainly can.
zombie wrote:do you consider regulation, as it relates to "hard" or addicting substances, as anti-freedom?
if a person who is doing drugs, then commits murder, rape, theft, abuse etc.. then get them on that. i don't think that a drug user, without breaking other laws, should be sent to prison. if you drink alcohol, you are not a criminal. there are things that you could do to become a criminal, while under the influence of alcohol. but simply drinking alcohol does not make you a criminal. that is how i see drug use as well, at least ideally. it isn't that way currently.
Yes. But I see it as necessity for the better of society at large. Like I said, where is the line? Getting people involved into Meth and Heroin is more likely to amount to a clusterfuck of shit than Alcohol and Weed, but both certainly can.
enh. well, then freedom of speech isn't really freedom. there are things (or ways of saying things) that we get punished for saying. but fair enough. honestly laws can be seen as anti-freedom, in the same way as regulations. but i don't think that way.
i don't know where to draw the line. i don't think that a prison sentence is the way to draw the line though. do you?
Reign in Blood wrote:I don't know what Foo's real angle on this is, but he's right, regulation is not freedom, but we all know we're gonna have and need it, especially age regulations/restrictions. No one is gonna say a 10 year should be able to jump behind the wheel nor drink alcohol or smoke weed or buy a prostitute. But as adults, where is the line? You can sit there and say it's anything as long as they don't commit crimes that hurts anybody else, but many times it does end up that way. Even if it's the times of the family and friends putting that person into an early grave.
Foo in the past has often looked at this as introspective, what do we as a society really wanna be type of shiz. Or we can say fuck it all. We're somewhere in between, but as someone who doesn't like to be told what to do, and if I do it I have to pay more etc. etc. I ponder as well.
I despise tobacco for instance, but the taxes they put on cigarettes border on criminal, and I have a hard time calling that freedom.
If we essentially made it do only the wealthiest among us could afford the "privilege" to drive because of outlandish fees, would we call that freedom?
In Maryland right now they are passing laws directed at breweries. Limiting the amount they can sell in their tasting rooms as well as their hours.
Only the brainwashed among us do not see this as both political favoritism where winners and losers are chosen by government, but also restrictions on freedom.
For the record, when liberals call for tobacco to be regulated like tobacco and cigarettes, they ALWAYS point to the revenue potential. How is that not advocating a sin tax?
Foo wrote:For the record, when liberals call for tobacco to be regulated like tobacco and cigarettes, they ALWAYS point to the revenue potential. How is that not advocating a sin tax?
you want me to answer for other liberals. i'm not in a position to do that.
zombie wrote:i'm not advocating "sin taxes", but that is a nice try.
You advocate regulation. They are like cousins who butt fuck each other.
regulation as in 21 & older, or by prescription, are not cousins of sin tax.
Where does the money come from to enforce the regulations?
Where does the money come from when we determine there are negative externalities to marijuana?
Cigarettes and alcohol used to be cheap. Then society decided to tax them like mad.
unfortunately, i'm not an economist. are prescription drugs taxed as heavily as cigarettes and alcohol are? they are regulated. where does the money come from to regulate them?
zombie wrote:i'm not advocating "sin taxes", but that is a nice try.
You advocate regulation. They are like cousins who butt fuck each other.
regulation as in 21 & older, or by prescription, are not cousins of sin tax.
Where does the money come from to enforce the regulations?
Where does the money come from when we determine there are negative externalities to marijuana?
Cigarettes and alcohol used to be cheap. Then society decided to tax them like mad.
unfortunately, i'm not an economist. are prescription drugs taxed as heavily as cigarettes and alcohol are? they are regulated. where does the money come from to regulate them?
Not that any liberals pay any attention to the bullshit they thrust upon the public, but Obamacare had significant prescription drug taxes as part of it. You know, because making things more expensive is really making them cheaper in the left wing bizarro universe.
zombie wrote:i'm not advocating "sin taxes", but that is a nice try.
You advocate regulation. They are like cousins who butt fuck each other.
regulation as in 21 & older, or by prescription, are not cousins of sin tax.
Where does the money come from to enforce the regulations?
Where does the money come from when we determine there are negative externalities to marijuana?
Cigarettes and alcohol used to be cheap. Then society decided to tax them like mad.
unfortunately, i'm not an economist. are prescription drugs taxed as heavily as cigarettes and alcohol are? they are regulated. where does the money come from to regulate them?
Not that any liberals pay any attention to the bullshit they thrust upon the public, but Obamacare had significant prescription drug taxes as part of it. You know, because making things more expensive is really making them cheaper in the left wing bizarro universe.
so it would seem to be something other than a sin tax, in the way that there is a push for soft drinks, as an example, to be taxed more?
if we want to take this into a blame liberals for all the wrong in the world direction, that's fair... but it seems like a different topic.
Also, growing a crop that requires a ton of water just to light fire to it is not so great for the environment, but it gets us nice and stoned so suddenly we overlook it like the way we ignore the environmentally destructive batteries in our Teslas.
Foo wrote:Also, growing a crop that requires a ton of water just to light fire to it is not so great for the environment, but it gets us nice and stoned so suddenly we overlook it like the way we ignore the environmentally destructive batteries in our Teslas.
It's not like you care about any of that either...so I'm not sure what you're accomplishing. Armchair GMing.
