Posted on 07/22/2012 9:47:45 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Actually, in concept, I agree, as long as no tax dollars go to the “user,” and that the “user” is given a torture penalty three times worse than what harm he may have done to another while under the influence.
Basically, I believe that any thing done under the influence of ANYTHING recreational, taken voluntarily, is completely premeditated.
By the way, I would volunteer to be the torturer to that premeditated maimer/killer.
Actually, in concept, I agree, as long as no tax dollars go to the “user,” and that the “user” is given a torture penalty three times worse than what harm he may have done to another while under the influence.
Basically, I believe that any thing done under the influence of ANYTHING recreational, taken voluntarily, is completely premeditated.
By the way, I would volunteer to be the torturer to that premeditated maimer/killer.
There’s no such thing as a “recreational drug”.
5.56mm
Basically, I believe that any thing done under the influence of ANYTHING recreational, taken voluntarily, is completely premeditated.
By the way, I would volunteer to be the torturer to that premeditated maimer/killer.
And all of the above applies to the drug alcohol, yes?
If a conservative doesn’t like recreational drugs, he ...
There’s no such thing as a “recreational drug”.
If a pseudo-conservative doesn’t like recreational drugs, he tapdances around the principle of limited government. (A recreational drug is, of course, a drug taken with recreational intent.)
Yes, in an ideal world. My aunt lost her legs to such a person.
I’d like to more painfully remove the arms legs of the guy who did that.
And if a psuedo-conservative doesn’t like having a severe torture penalty applied to himself for the same kind of torture he willingly, even gleefully, gave another after choosing to take the substance that took his mind away, then he has no understanding of personal responsibility and accountability and he believes government should be “limited” only to the extent it lets him get away with maiming others while not being personally maimed.
I agree, that would be perfect.
Restaurant Row!
If a conservative doesn’t like recreational drugs, he ...
There’s no such thing as a “recreational drug”.
If a pseudo-conservative doesn’t like recreational drugs, he tapdances around the principle of limited government. (A recreational drug is, of course, a drug taken with recreational intent.)
And if a psuedo-conservative doesn’t like having a severe torture penalty applied
This has nothing to do with the post to which it's a reply ... and I never said I was opposed to your proposal ... but, whatever.
to himself for the same kind of torture he willingly, even gleefully, gave another after choosing to take the substance that took his mind away, then he has no understanding of personal responsibility and accountability and he believes government should be “limited” only to the extent it lets him get away with maiming others while not being personally maimed.
Your proposal certainly squares with personal responsibility and accountability, although I think it may have Eighth Amendment issues. I definitely agree that at a minimum, impairment due to voluntary substance use should never be considered a mitigating factor in any crime or tort.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.