The Unfan

I can't think of a rational reason to outlaw marijuana and not alcohol. While both are mind altering drugs alcohol is actually far more dangerous while marijuana has medical benefits such as ease of pain, increase in appetite, and the surpressing of vomit. Marijuana realistically isn't a bad way to treat bulemia.

The first ammendment was made to protect unpopular speech, not popular speech. You have the right to choose if something offends you or not, but not the right to take away someone else's rights based on how offended something makes you. You can react to it, sure. I agree that you should be able to down talk any stance you want, and ridicule those who disagree with you. Make your point and if its convincing enough someone might change their stance or retract their statement. No government interaction necesary. We're all offended by some things and that is a good thing. Taking away individuality based on what offends you personally just isn't good (subjectively speaking of course) for society as a whole.


In recent history I've not been censored.

cardboard adolescent

There's still a reason it's illegal, but it's a bad reason and not based on historical precedent or clinical studies, more social prejudices and tobacco lobyists. For something like anti-discrimination laws, there is a valid historical precedent.

The Unfan

Expand? I'm just curious as to if your understanding differs from mine or if I missed something in history class.

tkpb938

Hmmm how about the whole thing with african-americans being enslaved by white folk....

ProggyMan

Not taking sides here, but anti-discrimination laws have nothing to do with slavery.

cardboard adolescent

obviously they do, though not directly. the immediate causes were segregation, jim crow laws, and pretty much every form of social and economic subjugation you can think of, but these were all caused by the dissolution of slavery

ProggyMan

I mean that without them there still wouldn't be slavery. The laws that prohibit slavery and the taking away of a groups rights aren't anti-discrimination laws.

Barnard17

Well, yes to be a pedant they are. The issue lies in how far anti-discrimination laws are taken before they become so absorbed in not offending one particular group that they start to act as an unjustified censure to others, the mystical and much feared "positive" discrimination.

TheBig3

And funny you should mention that. Know who else doesn't agree with that? Libratarians, Aranchists, or Conservatives. Read something about William F Buckley and get back to me. Unless of course he's only a quasi-conservative or whatever the hell it is you use to save face.


And not so you could hop on the public airwaves and be shocking because you're attention starved. it was politiclly motivated to give equality to people who were under the persecution of government rule. Not to throw Bologna at a strippers ass.


Maybe we ought to ban you and make the damn thread more relevent.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Gates_of_Iscariot

I will not follow a law i do not want to follow.
simple enough.
Government should not be present, people should learn how to survive on their own. Yeah obviously there will be murder.. oh well **** happens, if you aren't protecting yourself, thats your fault.

I was born into a government w/o a choice, and I don't like it, I shouldn't have to cow tow to the rules that completely opposite people put in place.


but remember you always have to fight for your right to party