Look at it this way. Let's use inner city blacks as an example to make a point. In the black population, especially in inner cities of our country, drug abuse is very very high. You do realize that children in these homes are witnessing a very high abuse of drugs by the adults around them? They also see guns, violence and ‘thug’ life right? They are inundated with it from a very early age. Don't get me wrong, not all young black children but a large enough amount of them to be concerned, right? But the drugs, the guns and the inherent violence of that lifestyle is there for the little kids to learn by. Those kids in drug abusing and violent homes, whether white or black or whatever by and large end up doing what they witnessed their parents and other adults in their young lives do. In this case many many will turn to the ‘thug’ life style of drugs and violence. Statistics support this.
I'm against drugs because of the little kids who will be influenced by drug addled adults and then turn into those same drug addicted, mentally addled adults themselves. Less drugs, less crazies. I've seen it up close, you haven't. Take my word.
Drug abuse by adults leads to all kinds of very bad circumstances for children. I don't get why libertarians always want to argue that drugs aren't that harmful. Because they are to kids. they are very harmful to kids and another joins the addict list every single day. And I don't even want to hear the stupid argument always trotted out " But alcohol" is just as blah blah blah. It's not nearly as descructive as quickly as drugs.
Here's what you said- "The argument you are making is that guns can “cause” certain people to commit crime just because they have access?
You even quoted the word "cause", which I never used. You used it, then you ascribed it to me by quoting it as if I used it. Nor did I say "certain people". I do believe that I simply said "person".
And then you said- "I don't even want to argue that stupid point."
So you don't want to argue your own stupid point? Fine let's not, because it certainly is stupid.
I said that meth can influence a person's thought process in such a way that a crime is committed as result of that thought process, and I said that a gun can influence a person's thought process in such a way that a crime is committed as result of that thought process, both of which are true statements.
Now, if you want to argue either of those correct and true points that I made, instead of the stupid point that you made and then quoted and ascribed to me, be my guest.
"I'm against drugs because of the little kids who will be influenced by drug addled adults and then turn into those same drug addicted, mentally addled adults themselves. Less drugs, less crazies. I've seen it up close, you haven't. Take my word."
I am a former drug addict. I've used marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, cocaine, alcohol, opiates, muscle relaxers, valium and xanax. I was physically addicted to Xanax, until I quit. I have not used drugs for 9 years. Nothing except a single patron margarita on my birthday each year.
I've seen it up close. From the ages of 16-36. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.
"Drug abuse by adults leads to all kinds of very bad circumstances for children. I don't get why libertarians always want to argue that drugs aren't that harmful."
I never argued that drugs aren't harmful. In fact, I argued that "Meth use can cause hallucinations, paranoia and psychosis. It is obviously a very dangerous drug." It's right there in my post, which I can only assume, at this point, that you didn't read.
"Because they are to kids. they are very harmful to kids and another joins the addict list every single day.
And that, very sadly, is going to continue to happen regardless of what the law is or is not.
"And I don't even want to hear the stupid argument always trotted out " But alcohol" is just as blah blah blah. It's not nearly as descructive as quickly as drugs"
Oh yes, it most certainly is, and you may be shocked to learn that alcohol, like other drugs, is also a drug.
Let's Learn About The Destructive Nature and Terrifying Speed of the Drug Known As Alcohol Together
I would like to know what you think of this young man's story in this video. Please let me know what you think.
What is going on is you are only looking at the drugs, and not your solution. TO you the solution is, “Make drugs go away.” It is very liberal-esque, pie in the sky.
The solution we see is the machine you need to construct to make drugs go away, and the powers you need to give it.
I know what is out there now, and it is failing miserably. As it is failing, we still have a level of government intrusiveness which, if you knew about it, would probably have you ready to take up arms.
As an innocent person, if you came to me today, and said, “Government agents are listening to the conversations in my home, and I am not even a criminal.” I would not be surprised. Surveillance isn’t just done on criminals. Even in a legal investigation, they let it “accidently” bleed over to everyone around the person in question, and they monitor it, just so nothing can surprise them.
Is there a pot dealer living five houses down on your street? They will listen to every sound in your house, using tech not on your property, and monitor you, to see if you have any involvement. They won’t keep official records, they’d deny it if you asked, but nevertheless, they are recording every sound in your house.
And because it is so illegal, they will privatize the units doing it and contract it to eliminate records. I assume those privatized entities are not totally averse to hiring out if the money is right. I would bet when Soros wants intel for his hedge fund, the people he hires are back and forth between private gigs and government spook jobs. So the machine you want to create is then for hire.
Asset forfeiture, SWAT doing raids for everything, criminal informant networks that would blow people’s minds.
You are supporting the creation of a STASI state, because you can’t cope with junkies in a free society.
Basically we see things from the other side, and view freedom as more important than safety, or protecting every loser who can’t stay away from the crack pipe.