Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dsc
So, your argument is that because one intoxicating substance that can ruin lives is legal, all intoxicating substances that can ruin lives should be legal. That about it?

Carrying your point to it's logical conclusion then, Fedzilla should take anything that "can ruin lives" under its benevolent control ... like what kind of light bulb you can use ... how many gallons of water your toilet can flush ... what you can eat ... where you live ... brilliant plan.

See post #26

33 posted on 10/02/2010 1:39:47 PM PDT by tx_eggman (Liberalism is only possible in that moment when a man chooses Barabas over Christ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: tx_eggman

“Carrying your point to it’s logical conclusion”

You didn’t carry the point to its logical conclusion; you carried it to a ludicrous extreme. Your “logic” would allow one to argue against murder laws on the grounds that fedzilla would go on to prohibit all physical movement.

I often say that there is no idea so good that it doesn’t become a bad idea when taken to extremes. However, all good ideas are not taken to extremes. The government has not gone on from murder laws to ban all physical movement, and there is no reason to think that you and I would take pot laws to the extremes you name.

The leftards, of course, are trying to go to those extremes regardless of the state of pot laws, which would neither encourage nor discourage them in their drive toward tyranny.

It is worth noting that the argument you used here is one that the left used to topple rationality and take charge in this country.


37 posted on 10/02/2010 1:55:07 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson