Who would you vote for?

[cheezMcNASTY]

I like Ron Paul but I don't trust it.
.......
...has a no bullshit attitude speaks blatant truth bravely. Seeing that every other candidate seems retarded...


I'm not going to vote I don't see much hope in it.

What exactly do you not trust? Are you saying that because he's trying to run with a major party ticket you don't trust him anymore?

Also, how can you justify not voting?
I'm not asking because you'd vote for the same person I would. I'm curious why anyone wouldn't want to take part when they have a candidate that they would endorse.

 

[Zarkes]

What exactly do you not trust? Are you saying that because he's trying to run with a major party ticket you don't trust him anymore?

Also, how can you justify not voting?
I'm not asking because you'd vote for the same person I would. I'm curious why anyone wouldn't want to take part when they have a candidate that they would endorse.

He's the guy I'd vote for, it seems unreal to good to be true. I'm like scared I'm going to get bushed or Obamad, yknow?

Idk if I can vote anyways I never have so there might be some kinda weird stuff I gotta do.

I vote for the person best fit to lead the country not by party but the fact that he is Republican is also a factor I admit. This is my first year on the scene as a legitimate responsible citizen so take everything I say with a grain of salt I guess.

 

[Necromancer]

We have to seriously sort out the education system before we do any legalising of anything. People need to have the ability to know what's bad for them and why, then if they want to accept the risks, they can. Otherwise it's just irresponsible governing, and doesn't get anyone anywhere.

I think legalizing drugs would take care of some of the problems having to do with drug education in schools. The government pays for that kind of stuff because of the war on drugs, but without the war on drugs, the type of "ALL DRUGS R BAD" propaganda we sometimes see wouldn't even be there. Obviously some real drug education would have to be put in its place though, which is something that legalization wouldn't solve on its own.

Legalize all narcotics? That's messed up. The only thing that should be legal is the "natural stuff"; all that heavy chemically produced crap like meth would do serious harm if it was legalized. Have you seen what it does to people?

Nah, if it doesn't grow out in the field it shouldn't be legalized.

Well, let me give you my arguments, as a social libertarian, which is different from a libertarian socialist, for why there should be no illegal narcotics.

1. Obviously, Ron Paul brings up a good point. There wouldn't be some massive rise in drug usage if they were all made legal all of a sudden. I know for a fact that I would not decide to use things like heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. if they were made legal. Legality has no effect on the drugs that I choose to use, and that seems to be the case with the vast majority of people I've met.

2. This argument is more of a philosophical one. I don't believe anyone should be restricted in what they put in their own body. It doesn't have any direct effect on others, after all. If someone wants to sit in their house and shoot heroin, it doesn't hurt anyone else, plus, it's their business, not the state's.

3. Far too much time, effort, and money are spent trying to arrest and prosecute those who sell and use drugs. If narcotics were legal, and agencies like the DEA did not exist, law enforcement could be much more effective in capturing criminals who have actually committed crimes that harm others such as theft, rape, murder, etc.

4. Legalizing drugs would also solve problems having to do with prison overcrowding, something that's a pretty big problem in the US. There are many people in prisons who have not committed any violent crimes, and even for a criminal who has committed a violent crime, if they get out on parole, they can be thrown right back in for just using an illegal drug. This causes more and more tax dollars to be spent on maintaining prisons and prisoners, and also on building new facilities when prisons become overcrowded. This is a shame because a lot of those wasted tax dollars could be used for something productive.

5. The violent crimes involved in the drug business are caused by the current system of prohibition. Without knowing and regulating the businesses, like the cartels, it is difficult for law enforcement to stop violent crimes from happening within the market. Also, when there is a conflict between drug manufacturers/dealers and law enforcement, there is a great risk of danger for both parties. With the legalization of drugs though, organizations like cartels would not even exist because taxation of these products would take away the massive profit motive you get from selling illegal substances.

6. Legalizing drugs would allow them to be regulated and taxed. Obviously, taxing drugs can help out with a lot of things. It would give the government more money to do something productive. Regulation of these products could also aid in keeping potential users a little bit safer. Laws could require that warnings be put on the packaging of any drug being sold, much like cigarettes, to let potential buyers know exactly what the risks are. Regulations could also increase the quality of drugs, making them more pure and safe. Obviously, there are a lot of drugs that aren't safe at all to take, but if you buy something like ecstasy or meth in the current system of prohibition, you really don't know if there is something in the drug that could potentially be more harmful to your health than the drug itself. With regulations on the drug market, however, manufacturers would be required by law to make sure their products are not contaminated.

 

[HeroOfCrapsalot]

I think Ron Paul's campaign slogan should be, "You gotta cough to get off. Vote Ron Paul, dude." Just sayin'.

 

[Arseface]

With the legalization of drugs though, organizations like cartels would not even exist because taxation of these products would take away the massive profit motive you get from selling illegal substances.

This is the only part I disagree with. If the products are taxed, the cartels will be able to undercut legitemate suppliers and still make a significant profit. Not that that's enough to stop me from agreeing with you overall, though.

 

[Sean]

Ron Paul, if possible. If not, not voting.

Considering Santorum, Romney, Gingrich and Obama are all very open about waging war and intervening with Iran and Syria as well as this new pacific strategy against Asia (more than likely China) like whaaaaaaaaat. Possibly three new wars? No thanks, bro.

 

[White_Howler]

Ron Paul, if possible. If not, not voting.

Considering Santorum, Romney, Gingrich and Obama are all very open about waging war and intervening with Iran and Syria as well as this new pacific strategy against Asia (more than likely China) like whaaaaaaaaat. Possibly three new wars? No thanks, bro.

Agreed, I'm not big on voting but that doesn't mean I dont'. I want my say.

But on the subject of wars, I really want to know America's issue (that is the bigwigs really) with the rest of the world. Why do we have to keep shoving our noses where it doesn't belong. Do they really need something to kill that much? Perhaps it's just a way to make the weapons companies money. Maybe it's really for oil. Whatever the reasons it's rather absurd.

Look at the past 50 years. Since WW2 there have been plenty of wars that we've been in, and none o them involved us at the start. Vietnam (no offense to the vets of course), the Gulf War (I could be off about the timing of this one), the war in Iraq/Iran. To me it seems like the American politiciansjust want to kill something for the sake of killing something. To quote Invader Zim *soldier sitting in a tank* "C'mon! We gotta UUUSE this stuff on SOMETHING!" That seems like the mentallity. 'We have the soldiers, they're well trained. We have the weapons, deadliest in the world. Now who can we use them on? *ponder*" It's disgusting.

 

[Necromancer]

Perhaps it's just a way to make the weapons companies money. Maybe it's really for oil.

It's a mixture of that and other corporate interests, along with the power that comes with colonization and imperialism.

 

[White_Howler]

It's a mixture of that and other corporate interests, along with the power that comes with colonization and imperialism.

Ah the idea of an empire. Honestly the world needs to dis-assemble borders. Front Mission: Evolved brought that point up through it's awful characters yet good plotline. Granted there would still be issues to work out but still, it's a large step that will be needed eventually.

Also corporate agenda ****es me off to no end.

 

[Tsuyu]

This argument is more of a philosophical one. I don't believe anyone should be restricted in what they put in their own body. It doesn't have any direct effect on others, after all. If someone wants to sit in their house and shoot heroin, it doesn't hurt anyone else, plus, it's their business, not the state's.

However one could argue that the welfare of it's citizens is the state's responsibility.

Special consideration has to be taken when discussing addictive substances. Lets talk about cigarettes: I believe in freedom and all that, but whenever a person tells you that he chooses to smoke, that person is lying to you and himself. He is addicted to nicotine and his body craves the substance, no matter how he rationalizes it in his mind. How many people do you think would actually keep smoking if the nicotine was cut out of cigarettes?

Not many.

Therefore I make the argument that a person that is addicted to a highly addictive substance such as heroin is not right of mind to make his own choices regarding the issue because he is addicted.

 

[White_Howler]

However one could argue that the welfare of it's citizens is the state's responsibility.

Special consideration has to be taken when discussing addictive substances. Lets talk about cigarettes: I believe in freedom and all that, but whenever a person tells you that he chooses to smoke, that person is lying to you and himself. He is addicted to nicotine and his body craves the substance, no matter how he rationalizes it in his mind. How many people do you think would actually keep smoking if the nicotine was cut out of cigarettes?

Not many.

Therefore I make the argument that a person that is addicted to a highly addictive substance such as heroin is not right of mind to make his own choices regarding the issue because he is addicted.

This is actually very true. There are certain limits to which a persons mind and body can remain in control. There was a time when I smoked a pack and a half a day, so about 30 ciggabutts a day for about 4 years. That adds up real quick and it wasn't until I quit cold turkey that I realized how addicted I'd become. Granted I have an amazingly powerful willpower so I was able to quit cold turkey.

If I think about all the people I know who've tried to quit and failed it astounds me how dismal it is. They always have some excuse for it too. 'I was really stressed so i had one.' 'I got all irritable and didn't like it.' 'It's too hard.' 'I need to ween myself off them.' 'I'm trying to cut down.' 'I can quit whenever I feel like it.'

The excuses are endless. So I do agree with you Tsuyu...

...to a point.

If someone is not currently addicted to... let's use cigarettes for now just as an example... cigarettes, and they know all the health concerns and the probability (certainty) of addiction, and they still want to go ahead and do it anyway... I say let them. If they know all about how it's going to destroy them and they want to anyway they should be able to.

If someone wants to destroy themselves, let them. As long as they aren't harming anyone else.

 

[Arseface]

This is actually very true. There are certain limits to which a persons mind and body can remain in control. There was a time when I smoked a pack and a half a day, so about 30 ciggabutts a day for about 4 years. That adds up real quick and it wasn't until I quit cold turkey that I realized how addicted I'd become. Granted I have an amazingly powerful willpower so I was able to quit cold turkey.

If I think about all the people I know who've tried to quit and failed it astounds me how dismal it is. They always have some excuse for it too. 'I was really stressed so i had one.' 'I got all irritable and didn't like it.' 'It's too hard.' 'I need to ween myself off them.' 'I'm trying to cut down.' 'I can quit whenever I feel like it.'

The excuses are endless. So I do agree with you Tsuyu...

...to a point.

If someone is not currently addicted to... let's use cigarettes for now just as an example... cigarettes, and they know all the health concerns and the probability (certainty) of addiction, and they still want to go ahead and do it anyway... I say let them. If they know all about how it's going to destroy them and they want to anyway they should be able to.

If someone wants to destroy themselves, let them. As long as they aren't harming anyone else.

Bring on suicide booths, I say.

 

[White_Howler]

Bring on suicide booths, I say.

I loled at this.

 

[Necromancer]

Honestly the world needs to dis-assemble borders.

This is a thought that I've had for quite a while, and I love that you've got it too. Borders and separations of different countries only bring about feelings of superiority, feelings of inferiority, bigotry, prejudice, blind patriotism, competition, and imperialism, all of which are plagues on human civilization, and are also just plain unjustifiable.

However one could argue that the welfare of it's citizens is the state's responsibility.

Special consideration has to be taken when discussing addictive substances. Lets talk about cigarettes: I believe in freedom and all that, but whenever a person tells you that he chooses to smoke, that person is lying to you and himself. He is addicted to nicotine and his body craves the substance, no matter how he rationalizes it in his mind. How many people do you think would actually keep smoking if the nicotine was cut out of cigarettes?

Not many.

Therefore I make the argument that a person that is addicted to a highly addictive substance such as heroin is not right of mind to make his own choices regarding the issue because he is addicted.

First off, I'd like to say that if you're an able bodied and stable minded adult, taking care of yourself is your own responsibility. Although, I do agree that someone who is addicted to a drug is not in their right mind, and at that point, the state should help them out. Addiction is definitely a problem, but prohibition is not the solution. It causes all kinds of problems, as I've stated above, and it doesn't actually keep the people who would use drugs like meth and heroin from doing so. If you go out and ask people why they don't use things like meth, heroin, cocaine, PCP, etc., they won't say "because it's illegal." They'll say something like "because that's stuff's horrible for you." Governments need to redirect resources that are wasted on enforcing drug laws toward helping those who suffer from serious addictions.

EDIT:

If someone is not currently addicted to... let's use cigarettes for now just as an example... cigarettes, and they know all the health concerns and the probability (certainty) of addiction, and they still want to go ahead and do it anyway... I say let them. If they know all about how it's going to destroy them and they want to anyway they should be able to.

If someone wants to destroy themselves, let them. As long as they aren't harming anyone else.

This too.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

Speaking from personal experience as a cig smoker, I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility. There are smoking cessation programs everywhere, not seeking them out is a personal choice. I've quit smoking cigarettes once when my heart wasn't in it and I'm not surprise that I relapsed. It's not because I associate cigarettes with the need to reduce stress or anything like that, I just simply love smoking. You can't quit anything if your heart isn't in it. Either you have a deal with yourself such as "at 25 it'll be time to quit because X Y or Z" or certain factors will make you realize that smoking just isn't worth it anymore. True, all it takes is willpower, but personally I can't conjure up willpower out of thin air. If smoking gets in the way of something I want, then I'll have a reason to quit. If I wake up asthmatic one day, I'll quit. If a family member of mine dies from lung cancer, I'll quit. Without that reason though, I'm not being honest with myself. I enjoy it too much to give it up without a reason that's readily apparent.

Unlike heroin, I would argue that people who smoke are of a sound mind. They know what they're doing to their bodies and they know that if they can't quit there are programs available to help them. It may be extremely difficult to quit for someone who has been at it for 25 years, but if the reason to get behind quitting is readily apparent then quitting and staying clean is far easier. It doesn't seem quite as harmless to relapse if there's a good reason you quit in the first place.

 

[Arseface]

Speaking from personal experience as a cig smoker, I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility. There are smoking cessation programs everywhere, not seeking them out is a personal choice. I've quit smoking cigarettes once when my heart wasn't in it and I'm not surprise that I relapsed. It's not because I associate cigarettes with the need to reduce stress or anything like that, I just simply love smoking. You can't quit anything if your heart isn't in it. Either you have a deal with yourself such as "at 25 it'll be time to quit because X Y or Z" or certain factors will make you realize that smoking just isn't worth it anymore. True, all it takes is willpower, but personally I can't conjure up willpower out of thin air. If smoking gets in the way of something I want, then I'll have a reason to quit. If I wake up asthmatic one day, I'll quit. If a family member of mine dies from lung cancer, I'll quit. Without that reason though, I'm not being honest with myself. I enjoy it too much to give it up without a reason that's readily apparent.

Unlike heroin, I would argue that people who smoke are of a sound mind. They know what they're doing to their bodies and they know that if they can't quit there are programs available to help them. It may be extremely difficult to quit for someone who has been at it for 25 years, but if the reason to get behind quitting is readily apparent then quitting and staying clean is far easier. It doesn't seem quite as harmless to relapse if there's a good reason you quit in the first place.

I just don't get that you know the dangers of smoking, but you wont quit unless they become apparant to you.

 

[TRA Rotid]

Addiction is definitely a problem, but prohibition is not the solution. It causes all kinds of problems, as I've stated above, and it doesn't actually keep the people who would use drugs like meth and heroin from doing so.

Neither is legalizing them. It would just create another branch of industry to get money from people's addictions - and most likely those who do it illegally now would find a way to slip themselves into the legal business. Plus it wouldn't stop "illegal drugs", much like we have illegal cigarettes or illegal alcohol. Drugs will mess up your life, which means you're not going to live for anything else. I don't see how would that benefit any government or society?

I'd rather live in a world where governments get money from healthy working individuals rather than scraping money from useless addictions.

 

[Arseface]

Neither is legalizing them. It would just create another branch of industry to get money from people's addictions - and most likely those who do it illegally now would find a way to slip themselves into the legal business. Plus it wouldn't stop "illegal drugs", much like we have illegal cigarettes or illegal alcohol. Drugs will mess up your life, which means you're not going to live for anything else. I don't see how would that benefit any government or society?

I'd rather live in a world where governments get money from healthy working individuals rather than scraping money from useless addictions.

I would rather live in a world where people are educated properly on the risks/benefits of using drugs, and then allowed to make their own decisions on whether to use them or not.

I think we can all agree that the only thing that stops us from both having our way is capitalism.

 

[Tsuyu]

cheez, nicotine is highly addictive. In fact, it is right up there with heroin when it comes to how addictive it is. The only difference is that it is legal to get people hooked on it. The tobacco companies are such bullsh*tters; talking about the freedom of choice for people to use their highly addictive product.

Man, I'm gonna start a fast food chain where I pump that stuff into the meals. I'd make millions. I wonder... would that be legal?

 

[Arseface]

cheez, nicotine is highly addictive. In fact, it is right up there with heroin when it comes to how addictive it is. The only difference is that it is legal to get people hooked on it. The tobacco companies are such bullsh*tters; talking about the freedom of choice for people to use their highly addictive product.

Man, I'm gonna start a fast food chain where I pump that stuff into the meals. I'd make millions. I wonder... would that be legal?

I think the difference is this: The state can't take responsibility for people who choose to **** themselves up. They have to take responsibility for letting corporations drive people to **** themselves up.