Originally posted by socool8520
I'm not sure what you're saying, but I'm under no illusion that there isn't voter fraud.
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. 😱
Originally posted by socool8520
So you don't imprison murderers to also keep them from murdering others? Hmmm. okay.
Originally posted by socool8520
Also, drug use is a crime so you should be punished.
Originally posted by socool8520
So no one should ever know the crimes you have committed?
Originally posted by socool8520
Don't commit crimes if you are worried about the ramifications later. It's as simple as that.
Originally posted by socool8520
The employer does find out...with a background check. lol How else are they going to come up with your criminal history, your honesty?
Originally posted by socool8520
If you can't see the difference between slavery and conditions of imprisonment for criminal activity then I really don't know what to say.
Originally posted by socool8520
It would be hard to know if there's fraud if you don't have any way to check it. lol [/B]
Originally posted by snowdragon
How about if you are going to be handling sensitive material, large amounts of cash/making financial descisions for others, handling a firearm..........?
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?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
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.
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?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Circular reasoning. I'm disputing whether drug use should be a crime, not whether it is.
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.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Nope, not unless you choose to disclose that information. It's not the government's business to be disclosing private information.
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
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
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.
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.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That you've decided to make slavery ok under specific circumstances doesn't change that it's slavery.
OK.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
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?
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.
Originally posted by socool8520
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.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
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.
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.
Originally posted by socool8520
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?
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/2011/06/16/magic-mushrooms-can-improve-psychological-health-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.
Originally posted by socool8520
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.
Originally posted by socool8520
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.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
All drugs should be decriminalized and stuff like weed, LSD, shrooms, etc. should be outright legalized.And if you're worried about people doing stupid shit while under influence, then alcohol should be your number one concern.
I disagree, but you have a right to your opinion.
Absolutely. I could totally see why it could be outlawed. You get no argument from there. lol
Originally posted by socool8520
Okay then no gun laws either right?
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.