emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
I mentioned to my boyfriend when I got home from a community meeting, that as the convener was pulling out of the parking lot, he yelled to me that drugs should be legalized. I didn't have time to elaborate, but just replied that we needed to address the ADDICTION and ABUSE to stop the DEMAND (and Govt cannot do this internal work).
My bf first comment was "does this guy also say guns should be banned?" I said I didn't think so. His point was he found liberals to contradict themselves by wanting to LEGALIZE drugs (and not punish recreational users for the illegal abuses to hook people and get them involved in crimes in order to afford their habits) but when it comes to gun regulations, these same people don't hesitate to regulate or restrict the law abiding citizens along with the criminal abusers they are targeting.
I said the guy was a Green activist who blamed the govt for creating the addiction, instead of people addressing the INTERNAL causes and cures of addiction to REMOVE the demand for drugs; and Govt CANNOT handle or manage any of that process, the PEOPLE have to work on resolving the causes of all drug addiction, and abuse, before these lead to crimes where the govt has to intervene.
But I realized my bf brought up a really good point:
Why do liberal activists want to BAN guns even if this punishes and restricts freedom of law abiding citizens, or at least threatens their freedom.
While pushing to LEGALIZE drugs so that citizens are not criminalized for recreational drug use.
This really is a blunt way of pointing out the double standard, based on someone's political biases and agenda.
Can someone who holds this viewpoint explain to me
why you would want to regulate guns but not regulate drugs.
Is it because you don't feel drugs harm anyone but the person taking them, so they have the right to damage their own brain and become dysfunctional and unable to work to support themselves.
Doesn't that impose on the public?
So if you are for health insurance mandates, and requiring people to pay toward their health care costs, would you hold drug users responsible for paying for their health complications
instead of imposing on people who never agreed to legalize drug use?
If you can answer one or both questions, I'd like to understand
where you draw the line in these cases, and why. Thanks in advance!
My bf first comment was "does this guy also say guns should be banned?" I said I didn't think so. His point was he found liberals to contradict themselves by wanting to LEGALIZE drugs (and not punish recreational users for the illegal abuses to hook people and get them involved in crimes in order to afford their habits) but when it comes to gun regulations, these same people don't hesitate to regulate or restrict the law abiding citizens along with the criminal abusers they are targeting.
I said the guy was a Green activist who blamed the govt for creating the addiction, instead of people addressing the INTERNAL causes and cures of addiction to REMOVE the demand for drugs; and Govt CANNOT handle or manage any of that process, the PEOPLE have to work on resolving the causes of all drug addiction, and abuse, before these lead to crimes where the govt has to intervene.
But I realized my bf brought up a really good point:
Why do liberal activists want to BAN guns even if this punishes and restricts freedom of law abiding citizens, or at least threatens their freedom.
While pushing to LEGALIZE drugs so that citizens are not criminalized for recreational drug use.
This really is a blunt way of pointing out the double standard, based on someone's political biases and agenda.
Can someone who holds this viewpoint explain to me
why you would want to regulate guns but not regulate drugs.
Is it because you don't feel drugs harm anyone but the person taking them, so they have the right to damage their own brain and become dysfunctional and unable to work to support themselves.
Doesn't that impose on the public?
So if you are for health insurance mandates, and requiring people to pay toward their health care costs, would you hold drug users responsible for paying for their health complications
instead of imposing on people who never agreed to legalize drug use?
If you can answer one or both questions, I'd like to understand
where you draw the line in these cases, and why. Thanks in advance!
Last edited: