Government Against the People

Words of Truth ^ | Aaron Armitage

[clamper1797]

Listen ... I just got slapped on the side of the head by my lady for calling you names ... and she's right ... so I apologize for that ...

[clamper1797]

But she also says you have no idea what your talking about ... so on that note I have to go or I'll get slapped again

[A.J.Armitage]

However, laws that prevent the legal sale of substances that take away people's ability to reason, to choose to stop using the drugs, to see reality, to recognize their kids as their kids and not a secret agent that they decapitate (actual event), or any other necessary inhibition to function as a responsible human..... ...... are not only constitutional, but are GOOD.

So you're for prohibition?

[Pistias]

Oh and my lady (the Pharmicist) is looking over my shoulder as I'm typing this as we are both home sick today

Oh, I can't even make a joke droll enough for that one...

[clamper1797]

You can try ... we are both just getting over strep throat. I'm at the kitchen table trying to run some simulations for work and posting on FR. She came by and said to log off ... or else ... so by all

[Pistias]

No, Tex. Chemotherapy is damn near the closest thing you can come to poisoning yourself without dying. Even heroin has a lower LD50 at equal concentration, or so my Physiology prof tells me.

[A.J.Armitage]

Ping me when you post something like this if you don't mind.

Sure. It was actually written a while ago and just got started up again. In #208 is my critique of Locke's social contract theory. Next semestor's going to be fun.

And good luck tomorrow--it should be a cakewalk, with the way the choice of questions is set up.

I hope so. I still need to get a bluebook, so thanks for reminding me.

[Texaggie79]

So you're for prohibition?

Not for alcohol, because the VAST majority of citizens are capable of using it responsibly.

[A.J.Armitage]

But isn't that CRUEL? You wouldn't be a moral-liberal, now would you?

[Pistias]

Angle Dust

I really could have used that in geometry in high school...

But seriously, If you don't care about the consequences to the addict, then allow them to off themselves, as they do daily, via overdose. We pay through the nose in increased taxes and social services, foisted on us by the do-gooders, trying to "save" these people from themselves.

Well, that's certainly cold-hearted, but I can't argue with that. But so long as suicide-happy junkies can still vote, they pose a threat, albeit a less obvious one. I guess they usually don't make it to the polls, though.

[A.J.Armitage]

Not for alcohol, because the VAST majority of citizens are capable of using it responsibly.

But alcohol can and does have the same kinds of effects on a very large number of people.

[Pistias]

Yes, it is. That doesn't necessarily make it a legitimate or prudent concern of government--but it shows a fundamental disdain for your fellow man.

[Texaggie79]

But isn't that CRUEL?

No, A person has every right to place themselves in harms way. Be it sky diving, swiming with sharks, smoking cigarettes or pot. But that right ends when OTHER's rights are violated, in other words, they are threatened.

[Pistias]

He has extra.

[Texaggie79]

Lets say you have a small child. You are forced to decide on allowing an intoxicated person to watch that child. Your choices are a person intoxicated on alcohol, one on cocaine, one on crack, one on heroin, one on LSD, or one on Meth. Which would you choose. Sure there can be deviance from the norm, but hopefully you are going to go with the odds.

[Protagoras]

I have no problem with people harming themselves.

Pretty cold.

It's a pity that you feel that way. I have a problem with anyone being harmed, by someone else or by themselves. It comes with my faith.

[Texaggie79]

So I can do nothing if you point a gun at me from your property whilst I'm on mine? Not until you pull the trigger huh?

[Texaggie79]

Pretty cold.

Oh please! We aren't talking feelings here. We are talking legal principles.