Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes. The goal is to help people with chronic pain and depression in the least damaging way possible. Cannibis is a very powerful substance and over time probably has negative effects. I am not denying that. But given that it is currently the only viable option to Opiates that kill 60,000 Americans per year and push millions more into hardcore addiction, Pot is the better alternative IMO.I assume you mean Pot not Opiates. My opinion is based on years of studying the subject of drugs and the drug industry and my personal knowledge with people I know with terrible chronic pain and depression. I believe Pot is a far superior solution for them than Opiates. I do not believe as you infer that Pot is addictive. I also know that it does not have the devastating characteristic of requiring you to use more and more to get the same result as is the case with Opiates.I'm an Independent but align more with GOP and definitely support President Trump. I do not agree with spending 25 billion (which will be 100 billion+) to build a Southern border wall. I don't know if it's a GOP policy but I am for getting Pot changed to a schedule 2 drug and legalizing it. The Opiate industry has killed enough people and destroyed enough lives.
Why do you think people should be able to interact with that particular substance without being violently kidnapped and thrown in a cage?
Oh no, I know that pot is not addictive, and yes, opiates are really hard to break. So the reason you think pot usage should not be met with abduction is because it's not particularly dangerous and can even be helpful?
Yes. The goal is to help people with chronic pain and depression in the least damaging way possible. Cannibis is a very powerful substance and over time probably has negative effects. I am not denying that. But given that it is currently the only viable option to Opiates that kill 60,000 Americans per year and push millions more into hardcore addiction, Pot is the better alternative IMO.Oh no, I know that pot is not addictive, and yes, opiates are really hard to break. So the reason you think pot usage should not be met with abduction is because it's not particularly dangerous and can even be helpful?
Yes. The goal is to help people with chronic pain and depression in the least damaging way possible. Cannibis is a very powerful substance and over time probably has negative effects. I am not denying that. But given that it is currently the only viable option to Opiates that kill 60,000 Americans per year and push millions more into hardcore addiction, Pot is the better alternative IMO.Oh no, I know that pot is not addictive, and yes, opiates are really hard to break. So the reason you think pot usage should not be met with abduction is because it's not particularly dangerous and can even be helpful?
Well, I certainly agree with you on that - pot is less dangerous than opiates, in my experience, and it may also have many beneficial properties. I don't agree that this is the reason why we should not cage people for using it, however. The reason why we shouldn't cage people for pot is because it's a human rights violation to cage anyone who has not violated the rights of another.
The government is simply a group of people, there's nothing they can do that the people can't do on their own.
The government is simply a group of people, there's nothing they can do that the people can't do on their own.
That's the whole thing right there. This is what's such cause for such dismay - that so many find it difficult to cut through to the core reality. We're just talking about other human beings, and no amount of political ritual changes that fact.
Imagine being at a party with 20 people, and some say, "Hey, let's all chip in and get more beer!" Would anyone deem it a viable solution to have the group vote one person to decide whether or not this will happen, and if he decides that it will, the others should all be made to comply with his decision under threat of violence? That would be recognized as insane by nearly every person in the world.
And yet, through pervasive mind control, they are made to believe this very thing to be appropriate in a governmental context. A lucid, principled, moral person could never come to this conclusion, regardless of circumstance or scale.
The government is simply a group of people, there's nothing they can do that the people can't do on their own.
That's the whole thing right there. This is what's such cause for such dismay - that so many find it difficult to cut through to the core reality. We're just talking about other human beings, and no amount of political ritual changes that fact.
Imagine being at a party with 20 people, and some say, "Hey, let's all chip in and get more beer!" Would anyone deem it a viable solution to have the group vote one person to decide whether or not this will happen, and if he decides that it will, the others should all be made to comply with his decision under threat of violence? That would be recognized as insane by nearly every person in the world.
And yet, through pervasive mind control, they are made to believe this very thing to be appropriate in a governmental context. A lucid, principled, moral person could never come to this conclusion, regardless of circumstance or scale.
The problem is that drug abuse is directly correlated to crime. People who are drug abusers cannot usually hold down a job, and therefore have no money to buy their drugs, so they rob and steal or do whatever to get them. Rather than the drugs being the actual problem, it is the people using them who are the problem.
The problem is that drug abuse is directly correlated to crime. People who are drug abusers cannot usually hold down a job, and therefore have no money to buy their drugs, so they rob and steal or do whatever to get them. Rather than the drugs being the actual problem, it is the people using them who are the problem.
Yes, and so when they commit an actual moral crime against another human being, that's the time for defensive action. Anyone who believes the creation, distribution or use of drugs should be punishable based on the idea that they may lead to harmful behavior, should also support punishment for reading certain books, listening to certain music or speakers, and using certain types of speech, by the very same logic.
The problem is that drug abuse is directly correlated to crime. People who are drug abusers cannot usually hold down a job, and therefore have no money to buy their drugs, so they rob and steal or do whatever to get them. Rather than the drugs being the actual problem, it is the people using them who are the problem.
Yes, and so when they commit an actual moral crime against another human being, that's the time for defensive action. Anyone who believes the creation, distribution or use of drugs should be punishable based on the idea that they may lead to harmful behavior, should also support punishment for reading certain books, listening to certain music or speakers, and using certain types of speech, by the very same logic.
Do you understand that in order to have nice roads and other "services" that we need to pay taxes. Who in the hell would pay for it otherwise? Taxes are a way to pool our money together to get things done that need to be done in order to have a successful country and economy!
Drug use is DISCOURAGED for some very good reasons.
So I want to know what are YOUR great ideas for a healthy and well functioning society of people? Most grownups realize there is a need for government and government services.
Drug use is DISCOURAGED for some very good reasons.
Are we calling kidnapping people at gunpoint and throwing them in cages "discouragement" now?
Kidnapping people? People are aware of the laws they are breaking. I don't feel sorry for them. If you CHOOSE to do drugs and break the law, then the consequences are yours to deal with. Dummy.
Do you understand that in order to have nice roads and other "services" that we need to pay taxes. Who in the hell would pay for it otherwise? Taxes are a way to pool our money together to get things done that need to be done in order to have a successful country and economy!
I would pay for roads because I like roads. Wouldn't you? If enough people wouldn't pay for it, then roads do not have the required support to justify their existence. Considering that fidget spinners exist by this very same free-market, supply and demand principle, I'm sure roads wouldn't be a problem once the sleeping masses awoke to the fact that society is their personal responsibility.
Having roads doesn't justify robbing people under threat of violence in order to do it. Only via a fundamental, species-wide moral breakdown would people think any differently. The worst case scenario in a moral society is that there is no road, just as there wasn't one yesterday. In other words, nothing happens. In an immoral society, millions are enslaved (having their labor claimed by another party under threat), and that money is wastefully spent, or squandered through corruption, and used to do all sorts of things that people would never support voluntarily, like foreign wars costing billions, etc.
Kidnapping people? People are aware of the laws they are breaking. I don't feel sorry for them. If you CHOOSE to do drugs and break the law, then the consequences are yours to deal with. Dummy.
Ok, so if I could get enough people to agree that that the new law should be "A woman must obey the commands of a man under any and all circumstances, under punishment of death", and you are aware of this law, but break it, should I feel sorry for you? Hey, you chose to break the law - so deal with the consequences dummy?
You're arguing that law is not subject to moral review. It's totalitarian logic, and not even in keeping with the vision of the founding fathers, no less my personal anti-authoritarian position.
No, I don't believe we are under any obligation to obey the commands of another as it regards which states of consciousness we are free to experience, or what substances to put in our own bodies. Anyone who claims the right to make such commands is making a claim to ownership over the body of any person subject to that command, which is slavery.
Kidnapping people? People are aware of the laws they are breaking. I don't feel sorry for them. If you CHOOSE to do drugs and break the law, then the consequences are yours to deal with. Dummy.
Ok, so if I could get enough people to agree that that the new law should be "A woman must obey the commands of a man under any and all circumstances, under punishment of death", and you are aware of this law, but break it, should I feel sorry for you? Hey, you chose to break the law - so deal with the consequences dummy?
You're arguing that law is not subject to moral review. It's totalitarian logic, and not even in keeping with the vision of the founding fathers, no less my personal anti-authoritarian position.
No, I don't believe we are under any obligation to obey the commands of another as it regards which states of consciousness we are free to experience, or what substances to put in our own bodies. Anyone who claims the right to make such commands is making a claim to ownership over the body of any person subject to that command, which is slavery.
Do you understand that in order to have nice roads and other "services" that we need to pay taxes. Who in the hell would pay for it otherwise? Taxes are a way to pool our money together to get things done that need to be done in order to have a successful country and economy!
I would pay for roads because I like roads. Wouldn't you? If enough people wouldn't pay for it, then roads do not have the required support to justify their existence. Considering that fidget spinners exist by this very same free-market, supply and demand principle, I'm sure roads wouldn't be a problem once the sleeping masses awoke to the fact that society is their personal responsibility.
Having roads doesn't justify robbing people under threat of violence in order to do it. Only via a fundamental, species-wide moral breakdown would people think any differently. The worst case scenario in a moral society is that there is no road, just as there wasn't one yesterday. In other words, nothing happens. In an immoral society, millions are enslaved (having their labor claimed by another party under threat), and that money is wastefully spent, or squandered through corruption, and used to do all sorts of things that people would never support voluntarily, like foreign wars costing billions, etc.
IF we lived in CANDY LAND, then your ideas might be valid. Lol.
