User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:15:40 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FREEDOM!!!* *Unless it's something I don't like or agree with,then I want the gov to force everyone else to comply. Except it’s not freedom if the participants are shielded by the state for the results of their own poor choices. I highly doubt that Oregon will say, “can’t keep a job because you are a junkie? No welfare for you.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:18:36 PM EDT
[#2]
Just like California
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:22:27 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "How did our country survive back when Laudanum, Opium, Heroin, and Cocaine were all readily available pharmaceuticals? Based on the fear mongering by many of you, that should have caused the end of civilization as we know it. " You guys can't possibly be this ignorant. That is exactly what happened in China.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So are they allowing people to smoke in restaurants or inside buildings again? I'm just confused why cigarettes are bad, FIFY.  Why in the world should the government be allowed to dictate which vices are okay and which are not? How did our country survive back when Laudanum, Opium, Heroin, and Cocaine were all readily available pharmaceuticals? Based on the fear mongering by many of you, that should have caused the end of civilization as we know it.  If all drugs are bad and cause people to become homeless thieves, how do you explain those that are on prescription narcotics for pain relief, yet are still able to hold down a job and be a functioning member of society? For that matter, how do you explain those that enjoy a glass of bourbon or a good cigar on occasion? Aren't they filthy drug addicts too? "How did our country survive back when Laudanum, Opium, Heroin, and Cocaine were all readily available pharmaceuticals? Based on the fear mongering by many of you, that should have caused the end of civilization as we know it. " You guys can't possibly be this ignorant. That is exactly what happened in China. But did it happen in the US when said drugs were readily available and sold over the counter? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:22:34 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "How did our country survive back when Laudanum, Opium, Heroin, and Cocaine were all readily available pharmaceuticals? Based on the fear mongering by many of you, that should have caused the end of civilization as we know it. " You guys can't possibly be this ignorant. That is exactly what happened in China. The radical difference when those things were freely available is that we didn’t have a welfare state. You were either functional with your addiction or had the financial wherewithal to be non-functional in your addiction or die off. No taxpayer support in your addiction |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:22:44 PM EDT
[#5]
So no confiscation of firearms for possession, amirite?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:24:59 PM EDT
[#6]
Shut off the supply of Narcan to those states. Problem fixes itself within a few months.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:25:57 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The radical difference when those things were freely available is that we didn't have a welfare state. You were either functional with your addiction or had the financial wherewithal to be non-functional in your addiction or die off. No taxpayer support in your addiction You know how you keep a roofer off the job the next day? Pay them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:27:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The radical difference when those things were freely available is that we didn’t have a welfare state. You were either functional with your addiction or had the financial wherewithal to be non-functional in your addiction or die off. No taxpayer support in your addiction Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: "How did our country survive back when Laudanum, Opium, Heroin, and Cocaine were all readily available pharmaceuticals? Based on the fear mongering by many of you, that should have caused the end of civilization as we know it. " You guys can't possibly be this ignorant. That is exactly what happened in China. The radical difference when those things were freely available is that we didn’t have a welfare state. You were either functional with your addiction or had the financial wherewithal to be non-functional in your addiction or die off. No taxpayer support in your addiction That is a valid point, but the same could be said about obesity. I wonder how many people in the world right now use some form of drug, alcohol, or pharmaceutical on a regular basis, but are still functioning members of society? Addicts will always be addicts, regardless of the law, and decriminalization will not instantly make more people into addicts just because the drugs that they don't use are now legal. I live in Oregon, but have no plans to run out and become a heroin addict. Why do so many here think that's what will inevitably happen to everyone?  It's like arguing that there would be more mass shootings if machine guns were legalized.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:30:47 PM EDT
[#9]
Sounds like a great place to raise a family.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:31:31 PM EDT
[#10]
Damn, people will never learn from history.
Oregon is going to have the massive crime wave we saw when the 21st amendment legalized booze again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:33:27 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The radical difference when those things were freely available is that we didn't have a welfare state. You were either functional with your addiction or had the financial wherewithal to be non-functional in your addiction or die off. No taxpayer support in your addiction On the bright side it's cheaper to feed junkies than to keep them in prison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:37:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds like a great place to raise a family. If you knew just how rural the vast majority of Oregon is, along with all the beauty it has to offer, you'd realize that your statement is quite accurate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:39:15 PM EDT
[#13]
Is Portland going to to be pacified or go berserk?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:39:23 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is a valid point, but the same could be said about obesity. I wonder how many people in the world right now use some form of drug, alcohol, or pharmaceutical on a regular basis, but are still functioning members of society? Addicts will always be addicts, regardless of the law, and decriminalization will not instantly make more people into addicts just because the drugs that they don't use are now legal. I live in Oregon, but have no plans to run out and become a heroin addict. Why do so many here think that's what will inevitably happen to everyone? It's like arguing that there would be more mass shootings if machine guns were legalized. I agree with obesity or BASE jumping or any potentially harmful behavior—if you are free to make such choices and it’s not the business of the state to stop you from making bad choices then it’s also not the business of the state (taxpayer) to bail you out from the expected results of said bad choices. Everyone should be free to own a belt fed or a mortar or a mini-gun (to put it into a gun analogy as we always do here) but one should be held fully responsible if they cause harm to themselves or others through their negligence or malfeasance. Run a belt through your 240 into the sky at New Years and injure someone else or damage property and expect to be held responsible but don’t limit the rights of us who are not s stupid in the first place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:39:27 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Measure 110, which will decriminalize personal possession of small amounts of drugs, making it a violation much like a traffic ticket, becomes law on Monday. Here's the details of what it does: Ballot Measure 110 does not make possession of drugs legal. It just decriminalizes personal possession of illegal drugs. It reclassifies possession of small amounts of drugs as a civil violation, like a traffic offense. The penalty becomes a $100 fine, which a person can avoid by agreeing to participate in a health assessment. The measure makes it a non-criminal violation, like a traffic ticket, to possess the following: • Less than 1 gram of heroin • Less than 1 gram, or less than 5 pills, of MDMA • Less than 2 grams of methamphetamine • Less than 40 units of LSD • Less than 12 grams of psilocybin • Less than 40 units of methadone • Less than 40 pills of oxycodone • Less than 2 grams of cocaine The measure also reduces from a felony to a misdemeanor simple possession of substances containing: • 1 to 3 grams of heroin • 1 to 4 grams of MDMA • 2 to 8 grams of methamphetamine • 2 to 8 grams of cocaine Selling, distributing and manufacturing these drugs remains illegal -- and if convicted, you will go to jail. The measure, which passed with more than 58% voter approval, also funds health assessments, addiction treatment, harm-reduction efforts and other services for people with addiction disorders, OPB reports. Funding those programs will come through the reallocation of tens of millions of dollars generated by Oregon’s cannabis tax. The measure also is expected to generate savings in the criminal justice system because of fewer drug arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations. Those savings would be redirected into a new state fund for treatment and other services. It neither breaks my bones nor picks my pocket....or something. I guess libertarians (full disclosure, I'm one of those people) have been dreaming of this for decades. Now, we have an experiment at the state level to see how it plays out. I suspect the next step will be state drug stores (OR already has state liquor stores) that will sell and tax it. I don't care what people do to themselves if it doesn't impact someone else. Too bad that so many users end up on the public payroll. I don't know if these quantities are a lot or a little for a user, but...let the games begin. This is not an experiment in libertarianism. They reduced the sentence for hard drug possession in small doses but they are still illegal. Production and distribution is still illegal. In short, they retained the black market created by the drug war that produces the overwhelming majority of drug related crimes. In a few years conservatives are going to be pointing to Oregon and how "legalizing drugs" (which is not what happened) didn't fix anything. Not that I care since its about freedom, not engineering a "great" society. But it is important to point out that this is not what we wanted. We wanted freedom not a reduced penalty while minding your own business. At best it is a minor gain since less people will be incarcerated for non-violent crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:43:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On the bright side it's cheaper to feed junkies than to keep them in prison. Except one doesn’t involve you calling the cops at 3am with a six foot five tweeker rampaging through your house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:48:36 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except it’s not freedom if the participants are shielded by the state for the results of their own poor choices. I highly doubt that Oregon will say, “can’t keep a job because you are a junkie? No welfare for you.” Good reason to get rid of welfare too. Though I do wonder, what makes you think that legalizing drugs (which is not what happened in Oregon) will make junkies apply for welfare but wouldn't if drugs were illegal? Last time I checked you don't have to pass a drug test to get a handout. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:49:54 PM EDT
[#18]
The mass exodus out of those shitholes will ramp up In earnest. Who the fuck wants to live or try to raise a family in a junkie free for all . Of course ill admit I was wrong if legalization happens to turn these places into bastion of liberty and a utopia of freedom as well as having a cornucopia of party favors readily available .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:51:03 PM EDT
[#19]
I'm going to start buying one way bus tickets for local street people to go to Oregon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:52:43 PM EDT
[#20]
For all of those who say "I'll have a coke", is that an Oregon coke or the sugary one?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:54:03 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The mass exodus out of those shitholes will ramp up In earnest. Who the fuck wants to live or try to raise a family in a junkie free for all . Of course ill admit I was wrong if legalization happens to turn these places into bastion of liberty and a utopia of freedom as well as having a cornucopia of party favors readily available . Legalization did not happen. Liberty is not about creating utopia, it is about respecting people's right to live their own lives. Utopia will not then follow as some will be dipshits who smoke crack and don't get jobs. I just have no right to try and force someone to be moral and successful, and could not succeed even if I did have that right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 9:57:10 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you sure about the selling across state lines? This article makes it sound like he was local. https://www.guns.com/news/2019/01/17/case-at-supreme-court-challenges-legitimacy-of-the-national-firearms-act Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: States should use this as an example to introduce that into other areas. SBR’s/SBS’s? Suppressors? And then use State personnel and Administration, State resources to hinder every attempt by non-State agency incursions against State law(s) and regulation(s). Kansas did that. 'Course the guys that were state legal still get fucked by the feds (and got no help from the state). And didn't even rate a pardon from Trump,when he was pardoning shitbags... I remember. Weren’t they selling and made they’re product available over State lines? That’s not what I’m talking about. I did not know about crossing state lines. Shouldn't matter anyway if they weren't committing actual crimes against others such as rape,murder,arson,and rape. Are you sure about the selling across state lines? This article makes it sound like he was local. Kettler, a disabled combat veteran, came under investigation in 2014 when he posted a video on social media of a suppressor he bought at a local Army-Navy surplus store without a tax stamp or ATF paperwork. According to court documents, the man who sold him the silencer, Shane Cox, did not have a federal license to manufacture suppressors and violated the NFA as he didn’t pay the special tax or register the items in accordance with the act. https://www.guns.com/news/2019/01/17/case-at-supreme-court-challenges-legitimacy-of-the-national-firearms-act Unless there’s more to it, looks like you’re correct. That would a very good place to to kick it off if Kansas, and like-minded States backing them, would pick that back up and fight for its residents. The sooner the better and considering the fraudsters (illegitimately) occupying our Nation’s Capitol at the moment, now is a better time than ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:00:27 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Empirically, higher odds of apprehension are what deter, not harsher consequences. Consequences only prevent recidivism physically. Works for me. [shrug] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:04:31 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree with obesity or BASE jumping or any potentially harmful behavior—if you are free to make such choices and it’s not the business of the state to stop you from making bad choices then it’s also not the business of the state (taxpayer) to bail you out from the expected results of said bad choices. Everyone should be free to own a belt fed or a mortar or a mini-gun (to put it into a gun analogy as we always do here) but one should be held fully responsible if they cause harm to themselves or others through their negligence or malfeasance. Run a belt through your 240 into the sky at New Years and injure someone else or damage property and expect to be held responsible but don’t limit the rights of us who are not s stupid in the first place. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That is a valid point, but the same could be said about obesity. I wonder how many people in the world right now use some form of drug, alcohol, or pharmaceutical on a regular basis, but are still functioning members of society? Addicts will always be addicts, regardless of the law, and decriminalization will not instantly make more people into addicts just because the drugs that they don't use are now legal. I live in Oregon, but have no plans to run out and become a heroin addict. Why do so many here think that's what will inevitably happen to everyone? It's like arguing that there would be more mass shootings if machine guns were legalized. I agree with obesity or BASE jumping or any potentially harmful behavior—if you are free to make such choices and it’s not the business of the state to stop you from making bad choices then it’s also not the business of the state (taxpayer) to bail you out from the expected results of said bad choices. Everyone should be free to own a belt fed or a mortar or a mini-gun (to put it into a gun analogy as we always do here) but one should be held fully responsible if they cause harm to themselves or others through their negligence or malfeasance. Run a belt through your 240 into the sky at New Years and injure someone else or damage property and expect to be held responsible but don’t limit the rights of us who are not s stupid in the first place. Yup, you get it!  I also oppose things like mandatory helmet laws, though I would personally never choose to ride without a full-face helmet. If someone else chooses not to wear a helmet, that should be their prerogative. What's really funny is that WA doesn't require helmets, but OR does, so there are signs at the border stating "Helmets Required". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:06:36 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except one doesn’t involve you calling the cops at 3am with a six foot five tweeker rampaging through your house. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: On the bright side it's cheaper to feed junkies than to keep them in prison. Except one doesn’t involve you calling the cops at 3am with a six foot five tweeker rampaging through your house. And that will somehow be more likely to happen now because...? *Edit* Wait, I get it!  By feeding them, we will now be creating larger tweakers, hence why the subject in your example is 6'5". Good catch.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:09:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The mass exodus out of those shitholes will ramp up In earnest. Who the fuck wants to live or try to raise a family in a junkie free for all . Of course ill admit I was wrong if legalization happens to turn these places into bastion of liberty and a utopia of freedom as well as having a cornucopia of party favors readily available . Why is everyone so convinced that drug use will suddenly skyrocket? Drug users already use drugs, and I don't know of anyone that suddenly wants to become a drug user now that it's been decriminalized.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:13:57 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, why should the government be able to dictate which vices are considered acceptable? The government should be out of the welfare business. You can't have freedom without responsibility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:15:26 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The government should be out of the welfare business. You can't have freedom without responsibility. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Again, why should the government be able to dictate which vices are considered acceptable? The government should be out of the welfare business. You can't have freedom without responsibility. No argument here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:22:00 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's under that whole "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" portion.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A comparison to gun rights. Lol. Where in the constitution does it say anything about muh rights to do muh heroin and meth? I don’t believe the “stats” from third world countries about how increasing access to drugs like that somehow magically decrease their use. It's under that whole "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" portion. Of course. Clearly the founders meant happiness like the nightmare that addicts and their families live in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:22:45 PM EDT
[#30]
Got a feeling that homeowners insurance is going to skyrocket in that state.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:24:58 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Of course. Clearly the founders meant happiness like the nightmare that addicts and their families live in. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: A comparison to gun rights. Lol. Where in the constitution does it say anything about muh rights to do muh heroin and meth? I don’t believe the “stats” from third world countries about how increasing access to drugs like that somehow magically decrease their use. It's under that whole "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" portion. Of course. Clearly the founders meant happiness like the nightmare that addicts and their families live in. That's why the 18th Amendment was created; to help protect the American people from that vile poison that has killed so many people, ruined so many lives, and destroyed so many families. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:25:21 PM EDT
[#32]
And just like that, the question to the homeless epidemic that had been plaguing that pacific northwest state was solved.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:29:56 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Probably shouldn’t let people own guns then. They may act irresponsibly. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: you have a killdozer avatar, but you're complaining about more freedom. does not compute More freedom? You actually believe people will act responsibly?  Probably shouldn’t let people own guns then. They may act irresponsibly. That’s pretty much the exact thing Democrats use as the back bone for their philosophy toward gun ownership |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:34:12 PM EDT
[#34]
Proving that Pot IS a Gateway Drug. We will have to increase the funding of the cops 10 fold just to pick up the bodies of Overdosed Liberals.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:34:43 PM EDT
[#35]
If nothing else, this is going to be an interesting experiment we all can learn from.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:36:50 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And just like that, the question to the homeless epidemic that had been plaguing that pacific northwest state was solved..... Sadly Narcan is over the counter too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:38:42 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sadly Narcan is over the counter too. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And just like that, the question to the homeless epidemic that had been plaguing that pacific northwest state was solved..... Sadly Narcan is over the counter too. Note to self- invest in the company that manufactures Narcan immediately |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:55:19 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: you have a killdozer avatar, but you're complaining about more freedom. does not compute More freedom? You actually believe people will act responsibly? Probably shouldn’t let people own guns then. They may act irresponsibly. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/50674/Oh_that_was_different_jpg-1799591.JPG What are the consequences of using a gun irresponsibly? What are the consequences in of using drugs irresponsibly? Kind of seems like they already ARE different. In Michigan, if someone overdoses and someone calls 911 to request medical assistance, no charges can be brought for anything related to that incident. And first responders are now being encouraged to leave narcan at the scene, so the "victim" can have easier access to it next time. Can you imagine if it worked the same for firearms? Shoot somebody by accident? As long as you call 911 for an ambulance they can't prosecute you for anything. Oh, and they'll give you a blowout kit for next time, too. There has to be some kind of check on deviant behavior. In "nature" (libertarian utopia) the "check" is the natural consequence of your actions. Wanna play with dangerous drugs? Fine. But if you can't hold a job because you're high all the time, you starve. If you overdose, you die. I'm good with that. Our current society has removed the natural "checks" which places an increased burden on everbody else. Now because you're high all the time, the govt takes my money from me by force to give to you so you don't starve. And they take more money from me to pay for EMS and medical care so you don't die when you overdose. I'm not good with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:56:42 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except it’s not freedom if the participants are shielded by the state for the results of their own poor choices. I highly doubt that Oregon will say, “can’t keep a job because you are a junkie? No welfare for you.” Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: FREEDOM!!!* *Unless it's something I don't like or agree with,then I want the gov to force everyone else to comply. Except it’s not freedom if the participants are shielded by the state for the results of their own poor choices. I highly doubt that Oregon will say, “can’t keep a job because you are a junkie? No welfare for you.” State involvement is the problem. Welfare, ridiculous "laws" that will get you thrown in a cage for possessing an item or substance (arms/ non prescribed drugs) We have enough thugs who try to rob us. I don't want to the money stolen from every paycheck going towards state thugs in blue who do the same thing. The state stepping away is a step in the right direction. ...Some drugs are dangerous, but they make no choices, only people make choices. Did someone commit a crime? Whether someone is on drugs or not is irrelevant to whether they committed a crime. Unless you believe in "pre crime" which is basically how people justify "laws" against objects, rather than legitimate criminal actions. You should be in favor of the state having less perceived authority when it comes to drugs. The very same argument can be made with ownership of arms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 11:07:23 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ...Some drugs are dangerous, but they make no choices, only people make choices. Did someone commit a crime? Whether someone is on drugs or not is irrelevant to whether they committed a crime. Unless you believe in "pre crime" which is basically how people justify "laws" against objects, rather than legitimate criminal actions. You should be in favor of the state having less perceived authority when it comes to drugs. The very same argument can be made with ownership of arms. Another person who gets it! It's the same as any sort of assault or murder. The weapon used should have no bearing whatsoever on the determination of what crime was committed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 11:10:08 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The prison and jail population in Oregon will decrease noticeably. As a classical liberal, I don't see why drugs should be illegal to any degree. If you want the freedom to own guns, you should be for everyone's freedom in general. We don't get to pick and choose like selfish brats. Wut?? The "why" matters here...you're just gonna ignore WHY we should all be free to own guns? I missed the part where the founders thought drugs were necessary for self defense and necessary for the people to be able to fight a tyrannical government. Apples to oranges man. That doesn't mean I think all drugs should be illegal...but your argument there is illogical, and you should stop using it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 11:12:09 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s pretty much the exact thing Democrats use as the back bone for their philosophy toward gun ownership Yeah, but everyone knows it's just a trick to convince the brainwashed masses in order to remove the peoples ability to fight the state should they grow tired of tyrannical government overreach. (The pot is getting hotter and not everyone is a frog) Funny how the "conservatives" fall for the same tricks, when it comes to other inanimate stuff like drugs, to justify ever growing and out of control government control of the people. We deserve everything coming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 11:16:29 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except it’s not freedom if the participants are shielded by the state for the results of their own poor choices. I highly doubt that Oregon will say, “can’t keep a job because you are a junkie? No welfare for you.” Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: FREEDOM!!!* *Unless it's something I don't like or agree with,then I want the gov to force everyone else to comply. Except it’s not freedom if the participants are shielded by the state for the results of their own poor choices. I highly doubt that Oregon will say, “can’t keep a job because you are a junkie? No welfare for you.” How many junkies are maintaining a job now? How is this going to change that? How many lives have been ruined by getting busted for drugs? obama did drugs,as well as harris-either one of them could have been screwed for life if they were an average person and got busted. There has always been a percentage of the population that uses drugs/alcohol. I doubt the vast majority are going to start using because of this law. And yes,the State should not be in the welfare business. The chances of changing that are less than 0. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 11:19:52 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So are they allowing people to smoke in restaurants or inside buildings again? I'm just confused why cigarettes are bad, but smoking pot and doing hard drugs is gooood. They'll legalize everything and tax and regulate the shit out of obtaining and using it. They'll end up banning this state in a more complex and round-about way down the road. What self respecting Communist government actually allows it's subjects to use drugs when that time and income could be better used serving The Party?? There are signs for pot shops on the highway but they can't advertise cigarettes on billboards anymore. I'm trying to figure out when it was exactly that I woke up in the alternate universe where stupid assed shit was better than dumb shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 11:21:01 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's under that whole "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" portion. Let's follow that train of thought. So, anything that is considered a "pursuit of happiness" should be OK?? Are you serious? Liberals would be executing conservatives in the streets just for fun as a "pursuit of happiness". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 11:23:09 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let's follow that train of thought. So, anything that is considered a "pursuit of happiness" should be OK?? Are you serious? Liberals would be executing conservatives in the streets just for fun as a "pursuit of happiness". Are you serious? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 11:24:04 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let's follow that train of thought. So, anything that is considered a "pursuit of happiness" should be OK?? Are you serious? Liberals would be executing conservatives in the streets just for fun as a "pursuit of happiness". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It's under that whole "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" portion. Let's follow that train of thought. So, anything that is considered a "pursuit of happiness" should be OK?? Are you serious? Liberals would be executing conservatives in the streets just for fun as a "pursuit of happiness". Pursuit of happiness,as long as you aren't interfering with someone else. And your example could work both ways... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 11:25:37 PM EDT
[#48]
Now if we could just burn up all the Narcan and let nature take it’s course.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 11:26:51 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wut?? The "why" matters here...you're just gonna ignore WHY we should all be free to own guns? I missed the part where the founders thought drugs were necessary for self defense and necessary for the people to be able to fight a tyrannical government. Apples to oranges man. That doesn't mean I think all drugs should be illegal...but your argument there is illogical, and you should stop using it. This is the root of the issue. Libertarians and conservatives have different "why"s. Conservatives look to how something will facilitate a particular vision of society they wish to create. Libertarians look to how something will facilitate an individual's right to autonomy and free will. Conservative: Why should drugs be illegal? Because they are dangerous and ruin lives. Libertarian: Why should drugs be legal? Because no one has a right to force another person to live their life in a particular way. Both: If you harm an innocent person, on drugs or otherwise, you should be punished by the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 11:29:01 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is the root of the issue. Libertarians and conservatives have different "why"s. Conservatives look to how something will facilitate a particular vision of society they wish to create. Libertarians look to how something will facilitate an individual's right to autonomy and free will. Conservative: Why should drugs be illegal? Because they are dangerous and ruin lives. Libertarian: Why should drugs be legal? Because no one has a right to force another person to live their life in a particular way. Both: If you harm an innocent person, on drugs or otherwise, you should be punished by the law. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wut?? The "why" matters here...you're just gonna ignore WHY we should all be free to own guns? I missed the part where the founders thought drugs were necessary for self defense and necessary for the people to be able to fight a tyrannical government. Apples to oranges man. That doesn't mean I think all drugs should be illegal...but your argument there is illogical, and you should stop using it. This is the root of the issue. Libertarians and conservatives have different "why"s. Conservatives look to how something will facilitate a particular vision of society they wish to create. Libertarians look to how something will facilitate an individual's right to autonomy and free will. Conservative: Why should drugs be illegal? Because they are dangerous and ruin lives. Libertarian: Why should drugs be legal? Because no one has a right to force another person to live their life in a particular way. Both: If you harm an innocent person, on drugs or otherwise, you should be punished by the law.  Attached File |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
