Replies

There is no country in the world that has fully legalized marijuana use. So, any argument you make in favor of making it legal is strictly theory. You are here arguing that something which is currently illegal will make the crime associated with it, lessen. This has never been done with marijuana, so we are to take your esteemed word that this is the right thing to do.

This argument that “what my neighbor does, as long as it doesn’t get out in the streets,” is fine. However, if you believe this as your sole criteria, you therefore believe bestiality in your own home is okay, that people should be allowed to create and use chemical and radiological weapons (as long as it stays on their property), and that shooting from one’s property with a blindfold is fine, again, as long as it never hurts another.

I don’t think you are that consistent, so, please, tell us why some behaviors our society deems “bad” should be legalized, while other behaviors our society claims are bad should categorically remain illegal.

Gosh, if we legalized rape, rape statistics would immediately drop to zero (you know, it’s no longer “illegal”). Interesting stance, there, huh?

What IS your fixation with bestiality? Personally, I find it distasteful, but if you can get your animal to voluntarily consent, then be my guest. (or not.) Maybe you don’t wait for that consent. I guess PETA might want to talk to you, in that case.

I DO NOT CARE ONE WHIT about other countries and what they allow or not. Are you one of those like that SCOTUS justice who thinks we need to take other nations’ laws into account when we judge our OWN laws? Sure sounds like it to me. And pot was NOT ALWAYS illegal in this country. Up to the time when Harry Anslinger demonized pot by associating its use with Mexicans and Black Jazz Musicians who just wanted to have sex with white women, there never was a bit of MEDICAL problem with it. In fact there were, as I understand it, numerous MEDICAL USES for hemp, listed in the pharmacopoeia of the day.

And I am nothing if not CONSISTENT. If your action initiates any form of aggression against another, then it may rightly be regulated or prohibited (your murderous proclivities and fixation with rape and involuntary sex are covered under this... INCLUDING having sex with children). If NO ONE but you and your VOLUNTARY associates are involved, HAVE AT IT. Of course, you do need to get the ASPCA to approve your animal sex partners, but hey, that would be a snap for YOU!

And as for your other strawmen, I won’t even bother. When you learn how to make a focused response in a debate, you’ll find you do a LOT better.

... that people should be allowed to create and use chemical and radiological weapons (as long as it stays on their property) ...

With the same strawman argument you used here, once could also justify that reloading brass on one's on property should also be prohibited. After all, you're dealing with dangerous chemicals, explosives, and materials.

So where does common sense stop and liberalism begin? Right there.

The fact is that if someone chooses to use marijuana in their home, recreationally, it harms no one but the person who makes that choice, unless that person goes out and does something stupid while high. But- there are some who want to use the police power of Gov't (ie: the DEA) to tell you what you can do in your own home, because they don't particularly like the behavior or the potential that you may do something stupid while high.

If someone chooses to reload brass in their home, it harms no one, unless that same person takes said reload and goes on a killing spree. There are some who want to use the police power of Gov't (ie: the BATFE, FBI, etc) to tell you what you can do in your own home, because they don't particularly like the behavior or the potential that you might go out on a killing spree.

Using Gov't as the all powerful regulator of the behavior of personal choices that certain groups may not approve of isn't something I'd expect from someone with a 'ConservativeMind'.