I was referring to the issue of voter fraud and the lack of evidence, yet we have situations such as the CA bit that blatantly show a system put in place that ALLOWS fraud to occur without a mechanism to actually check it.
But the dude's already murdered someone. He's already committed a crime and has already violated someone else's rights. Drug users have not done this.
Circular reasoning. I'm disputing whether drug use should be a crime, not whether it is.
Nope, not unless you choose to disclose that information. It's not the government's business to be disclosing private information.
That's not an argument. Explain to me why people should be punished again after having already been punished. We're not discussing whether or not someone should commit crimes. We're discussing what the ramifications should be. And no, if you're going to punish someone, then they shouldn't be punished after having already been punished.
Employers shouldn't have an obligation to know your criminal history.
That you've decided to make slavery ok under specific circumstances doesn't change that it's slavery.
But we do know that voter turnout is being reduced by the thousands. So why are we enacting policy we know prevents thousands from voting on the basis of something we don't know?
How about if you are going to be handling sensitive material, large amounts of cash/making financial descisions for others, handling a firearm..........?
If someone's crimes has made it so they can't be trusted with certain sh!t, then the government can put restrictions on say firearm usage or restrict a rapist being able to do a job that involves kids. You don't have to disclose sh!t to do either.
Though really, people should be released once they've been rehabilitated. If the dude is still a danger to society, why would you release him?
So what? Drug use is a crime. A person knows that they can be jailed for drug use so why should I care if they are jailed?
It should be. You're in an altered state (more so than coffee or some lesser bs point that may be brought up) which can lead you to make bad decisions or harm someone. You can make the case that some drugs are that big of an issue and I'm open to some of them, but you won't convince me that something like crack should be legal.
Okay. load your business full of people with criminal pasts and let me know how that goes for you. As a business owner, I definitely want to know the character of the person I may hire. I also wouldn't leave it up to the individual to disclose that information. That's just foolish
Their character should very much be challenged if they have repeat offences and such. It's your own fault that you would be in a situation where a background check may be unfavorable for you.
I disagree. I would want to know if I have criminals working for me or not.
OK.
Because one can be rectified by obtaining an ID (easy to get and makes things legal) while the other puts a restriction on an illegal activity. That's not hard to think through.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
I'd say at the bare minimum weed and psychedelics should be legalized and the use of other drugs should be decriminalized, even if their sale is still criminalized.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Psychadelics? Are you serious? People on bath salts and such chewed people's faces off. They make you see things that aren't real. You don't see the harm in that?
While I don't have a serious issue with people doing drugs as long as they are not caught, I can easily see why they are illegal.
I think were forgetting one key point here when it comes to voting.
Voting is not a right, it is a privilege. The unintellectuals should never vote. Why? Because most of them have no idea, and there just voting because their stuck in a party system.
If you take youre time and ask the average person to name one policy for whom they voting for, they 8/10 unable too. All they do is recite what they here on the news.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Bath salts do not fall into the category of psychedelics my dude, hallucinogens are not universally psychedelics. Psychedelics include LSD, psilocybin (shrooms), mescaline (which is in peyote), and DMT.
Psychedelics have a history of being used as entheogens, substances used for spiritual experiences and revelations, such as the Native Americans' tradition of utilizing peyote in such a manner. This is something I've experienced firsthand with LSD, and it is as a consequence of my experiences with psychedelics that I am not the same spiteful resentful person I was less than two years ago, and that I've developed a philosophical perspective and moral compass that has allowed me to take control of my emotions and motivations to improve my own state of being.
Likewise, Steve Jobs has also stated that doing LSD was one of the most important things he had ever done and that it helped him keep his priorities straight. I've also read dozens of experience reports from people who speak of psychedelic experiences as some of the most profound experiences of their lives and that these experiences helped motivate them to get their shit together in life.
There have also been studies with psychedelics where the participants have reported that they were some of the most meaningful experiences of their lives, such as this study on psilocybin: Giffiths’ study involved 18 healthy adults, average age 46, who participated in five eight-hour drug sessions with either psilocybin — at varying doses — or placebo. Nearly all the volunteers were college graduates and 78% participated regularly in religious activities; all were interested in spiritual experience.
Fourteen months after participating in the study, 94% of those who received the drug said the experiment was one of the top five most meaningful experiences of their lives; 39% said it was the single most meaningful experience.
Critically, however, the participants themselves were not the only ones who saw the benefit from the insights they gained: their friends, family member and colleagues also reported that the psilocybin experience had made the participants calmer, happier and kinder. http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/...alth-long-term/
And there's also quite a bit of potential for the use of psychedelics in psychotherapy or in promoting psychological help, such as alleviating depression and PTSD.
Additionally LSD and psilocybin are not addictive substances (in fact studies show that psychedelics can actually help treat addiction, such as alcoholism), and their chemical toxicity relative to dosage is significantly less than that of aspirin or caffeine.
I won't deny that there certainly are risks involved and that psychedelics should be regulated to some extent, however to keep these substances criminal is to shut the door on a very powerful catalyst for meaningful experiences and personal transformation.
Just to clarify, do you view weed in this manner as well? Keeping weed illegal is completely and utterly retarded tbh.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Weed for the most part hasn't had any history of creating delusions or violent behavior. I do think it should be regulated like alcohol where you shouldn't be high at work, driving, etc.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
At the same time there's also studies suggesting that the use of psychedelics helps reduce domestic violence.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
And that's a potential risk I should be at liberty to take without the government threatening me with force if I do.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Then hold that person accountable to murder laws, and leave everyone else whose not murdering anyone the **** alone.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
I never said psychedelics shouldn't be regulated, I said they shouldn't be illegal.
And what you've actually just brought up actually hits upon my general standard when it comes to prohibition of things.
I'm against prohibition because my general standard is that it's wrong to restrict the liberty of an entire nation due to a minority of cases where people are going to **** up. My belief is that you give people their liberty, with regulation when proven effective and necessary enough, allow the responsible people to go about their day and punish the irresponsible people.
Alcohol is legal and regulated, underage drinking is illegal, drunk driving is illegal, and those who drive drunk are to be punished to the full extent of the law and everyone else is to be left alone. It would be immoral IMO to prevent the entire nation from consuming alcohol because some people are irresponsible dipshits.
In the same way, you've given me the extremely marginal case in psychedelic usage when someone takes them and kills someone else and argue that's justification for restricting the liberty of the entire nation. Unless you can prove that legalizing psychedelics would impact the homicide rate to demonstrable severity, then I don't consider it valid to curb the liberty of the entire nation based on this. If we prohibited everything with the potential to cause death; guns, cars, alcohol, knives, etc. we'd quickly find a lot of our liberty eroded. So the potential for harm is not enough to back prohibitive measures, the harm that would arise actually needs to be proven to a sufficient extent.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Last edited by Emperordmb on Nov 15th, 2017 at 04:02 PM
KMC Community Forums
Nov 14th, 2017 03:39 PM
