Should Marijuana Be Legalized?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I looked over his words. I still don't see how it is saracasm even if he was going for the smug approach. It's just too long of a sentence. uhuh

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then it should be stopped. Similarly state governments should be stopped if they try equally insane things.

The real question is why Zeal disgrees with the second part.

I think state governments shouldn't be allowed to do insane, harmful things simple because they aren't the federal government. Libertarians believe they should. People think I'm weird. Such is the internet, I suppose.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
ffs

[b]"Murder - The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." [/B]

Who the hell are you and why don't you post more? 😄

This was basically my point, earlier. It was not about murder, itself (as SC wrongfully claimed in his diatribe). It was about reclassifying abortion as murder or not murder at the state level.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think state governments shouldn't be allowed to do insane, harmful things simple because they aren't the federal government. Libertarians believe they should. People think I'm weird. Such is the internet, I suppose.

And, no, some libertarians would be about as much freedom as possible without infringing on others. They are super left wingers. Most support abortion (because they do not define the fetus as a person...so no rights are infringed...which is the same logic that people like Hitler used for the Jews...so he could kill them, too), legalizing most to all drugs, gay marriage, free speech (including hate speech), freedom of businesses (low regulation), and so forth.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Who the hell are you and why don't you post more? 😄

This was basically my point, earlier. It was not about murder, itself (as SC wrongfully claimed in his diatribe). It was about reclassifying abortion as murder or not murder at the state level.

And, no, some libertarians would be about as much freedom as possible without infringing on others. They are super left wingers. Most support abortion (because they do not define the fetus as a person...so no rights are infringed...which is the same logic that people like Hitler used for the Jews...so he could kill them, too), legalizing most to all drugs, gay marriage, free speech (including hate speech), freedom of businesses (low regulation), and so forth.

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
Well, being anti-regulation of business is not a position of the left. I think that libertarians are somewhere in the middle because of their support for citizens' rights which is leftist and their support for economic freedom, which is more conservative. I was just talking about murder of people above the age of 1. I had no idea we were talking about abortion 😄 . I think that before abortion can be prohibited, the adoption system should be reformed. Pregnant women who aren't in a position to take care of a child should have adoption as an easy alternative before banning their easiest method of getting rid of the fetus. When my uncle and aunt adopted a few years ago, they said that the system was much too complicated, and I know that it took them almost a year before being able to take my cousins home. This system would be even more stressful for an impoverished and hormonal pregnant woman. So, again, I think it would be unfair and much too stubborn of any federal or state government to ban abortion before reforming the system of adoption.

There like...5 or 6 different flavors of libertarianism. There is left and right, for sure.

The left flavor wants free markets. They are much closer to anarchy than other libertarians. They are more anti-state than other types. The freer the market, the closer to anarchy. It delves into socialism, mutualism, and "employee owned" businesses. I agree with some of the thoughts, but not all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There like...5 or 6 different flavors of libertarianism. There is left and right, for sure.

The left flavor wants free markets. They are much closer to anarchy than other libertarians. They are more anti-state than other types. The freer the market, the closer to anarchy. It delves into socialism, mutualism, and "employee owned" businesses. I agree with some of the thoughts, but not all.

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
It's so weird that a political philosophy could advocate both socialism and anarchy.

Not really: pure socialism is a form of anarchy. estahuh

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sarcasm?

WTF?!?!? You should at least use a smiley face. Now I look like MORE of an *ss. 😬

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
Yeah, bro. I thought you were serious too, and I was like "the ****?" but I didn't want to take the time to go find links to prove it. I'm glad DDM did it for me 😛

the standard I like to use is "has this person said something diametrically opposed to what is very simple and almost common knowledge" when trying to determine sarcasm. I guess I also hoped people would give me the benefit of the doubt on something like this by now... 😠

though, ya, internet isn't the best medium for it, however, I find confusion to be too much fun. Facetiousness is next to Godliness, as the Bible says.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There like...5 or 6 different flavors of libertarianism. There is left and right, for sure.

The left flavor wants free markets. They are much closer to anarchy than other libertarians. They are more anti-state than other types. The freer the market, the closer to anarchy. It delves into socialism, mutualism, and "employee owned" businesses. I agree with some of the thoughts, but not all.

idk about that, we might just be defining things differently, but the classical free market anarchists come from a much more conservative strain of anarchy than do those who want more communal settings (in general the American vs European thinkers on anarchy, and specifically the Boston vs Chicago schools within America) and even the classic Libertarian Anarchists tried to co-opt Ayn Rand into their ranks because of an assumed ideological congruence.

In fact, most left wing anarchists I've talked to think a belief in capitalism instantly disqualifies one from being an anarchist. The only people who have ever told me I'm not an anarchist are people from the left wing/socialist anarchy groups, and it has been specifically about my belief in free markets.

though, ya, it could be entirely a definitional thing...

Originally posted by inimalist
idk about that, we might just be defining things differently, but the classical free market anarchists come from a much more conservative strain of anarchy than do those who want more communal settings (in general the American vs European thinkers on anarchy, and specifically the Boston vs Chicago schools within America) and even the classic Libertarian Anarchists tried to co-opt Ayn Rand into their ranks because of an assumed ideological congruence.

In fact, most left wing anarchists I've talked to think a belief in capitalism instantly disqualifies one from being an anarchist. The only people who have ever told me I'm not an anarchist are people from the left wing/socialist anarchy groups, and it has been specifically about my belief in free markets.

though, ya, it could be entirely a definitional thing...

The leftist libertarians look for...as best as I can describe, gentle free market. A free market that doesn't destroy. It is hard for me to put it into words without directly quoting the modern known leftist libertarians. But due to the "communal"-ness of leftist libertarians, they are far closer to anarchy than they are pure free-market capitalists. I see the following as being a false polarity:

"Free Market Capitalism"

"Pure Socialism"

They are not perfectly opposites. There is not "political sliding scale". I would feel more comfortable graphing these on a Cartesian Plane with 4 "poles" rather than two. Further still, a 3D graph would suffice more.

Originally posted by inimalist
the standard I like to use is "has this person said something diametrically opposed to what is very simple and almost common knowledge" when trying to determine sarcasm. I guess I also hoped people would give me the benefit of the doubt on something like this by now... 😠

though, ya, internet isn't the best medium for it, however, I find confusion to be too much fun. Facetiousness is next to Godliness, as the Bible says.

No, there are people out there that support pockets of the Prohibition as having higher quality and lower prices for alcohol. But those people do not realize that those are the extreme majority (they may, but they focus on the pockets and stress how those pockets could expand to all niches and locations making it a better system). So when you said that, you seemed like one of those people that held onto the idea of the pocket success, but not the overall snapshot of the prohibition times.

And the bible also says if I have nasties with a dame, I can and should marry her. 😖hifty:

Legaliza it all, if folks have some OCD and overdose and maybe die, that will happen if its legal or not.
Less than 1% of cocaine overdoses end up in the ER. Legalize and profit from it. Use it responsibly and generally there are no problems, beyond the so called morality issues.

It would be much better than taking Prozac and eating junk food to feel better about yourself.

Originally posted by JodiJeff
Legaliza it all, if folks have some OCD and overdose and maybe die, that will happen if its legal or not.
Less than 1% of cocaine overdoses end up in the ER. Legalize and profit from it. Use it responsibly and generally there are no problems, beyond the so called morality issues.

It would be much better than taking Prozac and eating junk food to feel better about yourself.

And what if the federal government decides to legalize murder? What if the central government of the most powerful nation in the world decides to turn its military might against its own citizens? (Hint: it has happened before and it will happen again.) You should be far more concerned with that happening than the issue of states' rights. But, no, we need to discuss BUT WHAT IF THOSE TEABAGGER REDNECKS DECIDE TO MAKE LYNCHING BLACKS LEGAL, THEY MIGHT JUST DO IT YOU KNOW.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
And what if the federal government decides to legalize murder? What if the central government of the most powerful nation in the world decides to turn its military might against its own citizens?

You should be far more concerned with that happening than the issue of states' rights. (Hint: it has happened before and it will happen again.) But, no, we need to discuss BUT WHAT IF THOSE TEABAGGER REDNECKS DECIDE TO MAKE LYNCHING BLACKS LEGAL, THEY MIGHT JUST DO IT YOU KNOW.

Perhaps you have forgotten about Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians at Waco and the entirety of the Civil War or when Americans were marched to their deaths for the sake of foreign powers on multiple occasions in the 20th and 21st centuries. I have not.

People should be free to do anything they want. Hard drugs like heroin should probably stay illegal though.

they already do it, might as well legalize it... kinda pointless

They should legalise all drugs but give them their proper financial worth, which is pennies. It would wipe out dealers and cut down crime. Though you should only be able to purchase them in specific centres.

Just like legalizing alcohol wiped out moonshiners.

I agree with the principle, but I think it's overoptimistic to say that legalizing all drugs would shut down all or even most drug dealers.

Certainly marijuana dealing would become a thing of the past because anyone could grow it.

But for other drugs that have to be purchased/can't be grown/created in your home I can see a black market emerging. If any currently illegal drug was legalized it would I think only be legalized with a massive tax on it.

Just like a black market exists for cheap cigarettes there would exist a black market for cheap pot--assuming marijuana receives the same regulations that tobacco does.