Printable View
That's OK, I don't feel bullied by anyone's insistence that they have a "right" to their neighbor's industriousness, or that anyone not living in poverty is an evil oppressor or that those people who prefer a republican form of government are racist, homophobic, xenophiles and cretins. On this version of these forums, we're allowed to disagree, so it's all good.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
So Alan, how do you feel about the government interfering with the right of drug dealers To earn a living based on market demands and the right of their customers to choose what goes into their bodies?
I am genuinely curious as to your viewpoint.
I think it is great that Rob has found something to energize him and give his life meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
He likes Protesting and communing with neighbors in the 85006, and that is a good thing. I am sincere in that because I really am annoyed when healthy, first world people cannot seem to lead lives of purpose and contentment. I always wnder who they expect to be their mothers, to tell them what to do with their lives. We only get one life here, people!
That I think his purpose is misguided is of secondary importance although that wont keep me from arguing his logic.
Apathy is the disease of modern society and many indulge in it. Totally agree with IL's viewpoint.
I wonder how effective protesting actually is in changing anything anymore (I'm not against it, I just wonder if it's very effective). But if one is in it for their soul, maybe it doesn't matter. The thing about a corporation though is however harmful they might be in other ways, they do somewhat have to maintain decent PR as regards the customer experience unless they are a total monopoly, so it might be one of the areas where there is more influence.
I'm not sure where that came from but I'll do my best to accommodate with one caveat, if this is a test of some sort please let me know my final grade after you've had a chance to score me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicken lady
In my view, you can't have a discussion of man-made rights without also discussing the accompanying responsibilities. If you (the generic you of course) want to spend your days pumping opiates, or whatever your drug of choice may be, into your body. I say, go for it, it's your body you should do with it as you will. That's the "rights" side of the equation.
Now lets say that due to you exercising your "right" to consume your drug of choice, you become a burden on your family and society. I believe the counter-balancing "responsibility" of your "right" means that you must live with the consequences. There should be no expectation that your fellow citizens will finance your choices or the consequences of the same.
If you feel that you shouldn't have to bear the consequences alone and expect your neighbors (through the government's forcible collection and re-distribution of earned income) to take care of you, then you must also accept the need to regulate your "rights" through the application of appropriate laws to limit your friends and neighbors liability.
So, with that said, I'll always believe that if you want to take drugs, you should be able to do so. If you want to sell your excess to your friends, then you should be able to do so, but, if you want me to support your choices by any means other than personal approval, you have to live up to the rules society will put in place to protect itself from you.
I'm trying to imagine the "drug dealer or opiate addicted" reading that explanation*. All I can hear in my mind is "whoa dude".Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
*agreed
I agree with Alan re drugs. Get as buzzed, addled, high as you like--just don't let your decision adversely affect me--or society--and we'll do fine.
I'd love dabble in DMT if it were legal. Ditto psilyocybin and others.
And I agree with IrisLily too. I support anyone's right to discuss/argue/advocate--I just don't like the not-so-subtle undertones of "love it or leave it" (not so easy for most of us) and jibes of "slacker" because not everyone wants to work themselves to death in the service of our corporate masters. I always liked "change it or lose it" but I'm afraid it may be too late for that.
Not a test, simply curious. There is a spectrum from "the government shouldn't regulate anything" through "the government should regulate things I have issues with" to "the government should be our mom."
i just picked a point that falls near the center and often demonstrates logical inconsistency and wondered what your stance was. So, if I have to evaluate it, I'd say: logically consistent. Which I rather expected from your other writings.
There is always a cost to society if people get addled and buzzed etc., on whatever the drug Someone has to clean up the mess, legal, medical or a combo. If I come across someone who had OD's, I have to decide to intervene or not, call 911 or walk away, use the antidote if available or not. Drugs are very self-centred weapons against society and I mean weapons. There is always a cost. Abuse has a cost. How it is handled is a very different issue.
[QUOTE=JaneV2.0;268721]I agree with Alan re drugs. Get as buzzed, addled, high as you like--just don't let your decision adversely affect me--or society--and we'll do fine.
I'd love dabble in DMT if it were legal. Ditto psilyocybin and others.