BLOG PODCAST ARCHIVES LINKS

 

 

 

 

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

American Conservative Web Ring
Members List
Previous - Next
Random - Join
Previous 5 - Next 5

Site Meter

 

 

 

Powered by Blogger

 

Sunday, June 11, 2006

More on Me

As promised, I'm going to write a post about where I stand on a multitude of issues and where that places me politically. Hopefully by the end of this post you'll have a better idea of who I am, and what I believe in.

In my last post I labeled myself a Conservatarian. Since I made up the word, it may be a good idea to explain what I mean by that now. First, if you hadn't guessed, Conservatarian is the words Conservative and Libertarian put together. Well, the philosophy is just that, two ideas put together and the best of both is pulled out. Economically, things don't change, at all. Conservatives and Libertarians both agree on a free market. It's the social issues that differ, and it's the social issues where I differ between both ideologies. I agree on some Conservative social issues and some Libertarian social issues, and then there are some issues by both that just repulse me.

The first big social issue is gay marriage. This is one of those issues where I'm not really for or against it, I'm sort of taking a third and probably more Libertarian option. I say, let them get married, but don't call in marriage, just call it a civil union. Okay, marraige is between a man and a woman, fine, I'll give you that, but what's wrong with civil unions? Shouldn't everyone be happy when marraige is untouched, and the gays have their own thing? Supposedly not according to Conservatives. This is one of those issues where I just plain don't understand where the Conservative viewpoint is coming from. Okay, I know you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, but if that's the case then I don't know if you're going far enough. My teacher made a good point to me a few days ago that if you want to protect marriages sanctity, don't you have to not only ban gay marriage but ban divorce as well? I wonder if Bush would stand up to protect marriage if it included divorce, since that's a greater cause of marriage being disrupted than anything else.

Another big one is abortion. I agree with Conservatives completely with this issue, and I believe only a true Libertarian would be pro-life. Think about it, Libertarians preach about this idea that every person deserves liberty, and the only time the government should step into their lives is when they plan on disrupting someone else's right to liberty. Don't you think killing a baby is disrupting it's chance at liberty, something all people deserve?

Then there's the death penalty. With this issue I tend to lean against it, but not because I don't want to see murderers fry, it has more to do with statistics. It has been proven to not be a deterrent for criminals. In a lot of cases the prisoner turns out to be innocent. And in the end it costs more in terms of trials to put a guy to death than leave him in a cage all of his life. Any reasonable person should think that's enough to be against the death penalty, but as I said earlier not even for ethical reasons. When it comes to people like Saddam Hussein I would love to let him get the chair.

Next we've got illegal immigration, an issue where I stand firmly Conservative on. Sure this idea of everyone has these liberties and no one can trample on them unless you plan on disrupting another persons liberties sounds nice, but how far can it extend? We can choose to have a free country that has borders to keep out diseases, drugs and criminals (who probably intend on disrupting our liberties) or we could have global anarchy. You take your pick.

When it comes to prostitution and other things in the bedroom between consenting adults I believe the government has no right to intrude. Now don't get me wrong, I believe prostitution is one of the most immoral things out there and I don't want people to do it, but on the other hand I still don't think it's right for the government to say people can't do it. It's not inflicting on others liberties is it? Nope.

Legalizing drugs however, I stand with the Conservatives and for this reason. When you are high on drugs you stand a much greater chance of disrupting someone else's liberties. Be it a car crash, rape or whatever. There is no denying that a man on drugs will more likely disrupt others liberties than a man who's not.

Censorship is something I am strongly against, especially being a blogger and all. Again, I agree with Conservatives that morality is important and should be supported, but by whom? I'll tell you right now I do not want police enforcement on morality. It's just so ridiculous. If you don't want your kids to see something, then you be the person to censor it. I believe it is not the governments job, but the parents job to keep children away from things immoral. And if a kid wants to go to an R rated movie, it should ultimately be up to the parents if that's okay or not, not the staff at the theater. I believe each and every family should be able to choose how they want to live and what they want to see, I do not want big brother making up our minds for us.

Okay, those are some of the big issues and as you can see I am pretty well balanced on social issues and Right on economic. So first I could not be a Liberal or Statist with my economic views so that leaves me with social views that would make me Conservative or Libertarian. Well, I'm pretty well split on social issues, so I must be a Conservatarian, huh?

23 Comments:

  • At 11/6/06 11:18 PM, Blogger Rebekah said…

    Good post. Wow, you mean Republican youth don't follow the party positions mindlessly?

    Let's see...
    Gay Marriage:
    Actually, that in itself is an oxymoron. Marriage is the union between a woman and a man and that should not be changed. Civil Unions? Well, I think that's just basically watered-down but the same thing.
    That being said, since the issue doesn't concern lives(i.e. assisted suicide, abortion) it should be left up to the states as much as possible.

    Abortion:
    Yeah, what you said.

    Death Penalty:
    Well, I would question where those statistics are coming from. Also, just because it doesn't deter crime doesn't mean certain people don't deserve to be kept alive by taxpayer money.

    Illegal Immigration: Yeah, what you said again.

    As for prostitution... I might agree, but in countries where prostitution is legal it's absolutely disgusting how adults and children are sold and used against their will. Anything that stands a chance of increasing those horrible things is something that doesn't need to happen.

    Drugs:
    Hmm. That's where I tend to be a little libertarian. I don't think most drugs should be legal, but it's highly hypocritical for marijuana to be illegal, even if someone is dying of cancer, but for alchohol and tobacco to be legal. It doens't add up. Legalize or illegalize all, but you can't have it both ways.
    But while I wouldn't have a problem with medical marijuana, I also would be worried about making it law, because some doctors would say anything...

    So anyway, I think I qualify as a Conservatarian, too.

     
  • At 12/6/06 2:54 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    but for alchohol and tobacco to be legal. It doens't add up.

    Only think I'd have to disagree with you on here. Tobacco yes I agree is dangerous, but it doesn't mess with your brain drastically like marijuana. And alcohol doesn't mess you up like drugs do, at least if you take it in moderation.

    Anyway, I'd be more libertarian except that most of them like abortion. (They claim that the government shouldn't prohibit it.)

    As for the death penalty I'm actually pretty liberal about that. It should only be used in extreme circumstances. It's a bad way to punish someone I think. Other than that I don't stray from conservative much. Libertarian is just too apathetical.

     
  • At 12/6/06 6:41 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Even though tobacco doesn't mess with your mind, it is responsible for the deaths of people not only who use it but even those who don't. To me that is the most dangerous because it directly affects the person doing it as well as everyone else in the surrounding area. I highly support restriction or illegalization of smoking (cigarettes).

     
  • At 12/6/06 10:35 PM, Blogger Rebekah said…

    As for tobacco, yes, I concur, it's mostly a danger just to the user. But alcohol is just as bad, if not worse than marijuana as far as impairing your abilities. And while there's any number of responses to alcohol, generally, marijuana just makes someone mellowly drunk.
    Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying pot should be legal. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense for it not to be legal for medical purposes while alcohol is legal for any reason.

    Anyway, I'd be more libertarian except that most of them like abortion.
    Yeah, me too. I will never vote for a person or party that doesn't oppose abortion.

     
  • At 13/6/06 6:46 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Even though tobacco doesn't mess with your mind, it is responsible for the deaths of people not only who use it but even those who don't."

    You're right, tobacco can be very harmful, but as addictive as it is, you are still conscious and able to make decisions. When you're on marijuana you can't control yourself like that. I do see a difference between tobacco/alchohol and illegal drugs. But I would however allow medical marijuana if it meant keeping someone alive, but in any other case I would say no.

     
  • At 13/6/06 7:41 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Even though tobacco doesn't mess with your mind, it is responsible for the deaths of people not only who use it but even those who don't.

    No allosoni, the ones who use it are responsible for thier deaths. I know what you're getting at though, it is extremely deadly. I would never use it. However it does not give you any debilitating effect right away, which is why it should remain legal. If people want to smoke after they've been warned of the dangers then they should have the right to do so. Marijuana on the other hand makes you stupid and dopey right away, and therefore is dangerous to other members of society even if used in small doses. Tobacco is only dangerous to the user and alchohol not dangerous at all if used responsibly, unlike harder drugs like Marijuana.

    To me that is the most dangerous because it directly affects the person doing it as well as everyone else in the surrounding area.

    Point taken. I think that to solve this problem we need to let private enterprises decide whether or not they want smoking in their stores or buildings. In public buildings it should be banned outright. This allows people to chose whether they want to be exposed to secondhand or not. If they go into a smoking-allowed enterprise it is therefore at thier own risk, and freedom of the private sector is still upheld.

     
  • At 13/6/06 2:23 PM, Blogger Old Soldier said…

    Marriage: relationship between husband and wife; so says Webster. Marriage is traditionally viewed as a joining of a man and a woman contractually and spiritually. Contractually, because it takes a divorce decree to dissolve it; spiritually because Jesus told us that a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Only a man and a woman can naturally join as one flesh; two women cannot naturally join as one flesh and two men can only unnaturally join as one flesh. The term “marriage” and the traditions thereof should remain the domain of a man and a woman. As for your teachers comment about banning divorce to protect the sanctity of marriage, that is a diversionary tactic. Divorce is a moral breakdown in the commitment between a man and a woman to remain contractually/spiritually married. It has nothing to do with the institution of marriage itself. Our liberal brethren have just made it exceedingly easy to become divorced these days. It was never intended to be so easy to break your word. Remember, what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. That directly applies to marriage.

    In regards to the death penalty, I support the penalty of death. Yes, there have been mistakes made and innocent lives taken in the administration of justice. However, to claim that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent is naïve. Current circumstances (appeals processes) make it near impossible for states to carry out timely executions. A death penalty that yields twenty to thirty more years of live in prison will not be a deterrent. However, the death penalty was never meant to be a deterrent rather as a penalty in the process of administering justice. By my way of thinking, someone who premeditatedly murders another person and is found guilty by a court of law, the only acceptable penalty is the death – not as a deterrent but as the only acceptable consequence. There are a couple other crimes I agree should yield the death penalty.

    I oppose drugs and that includes marijuana being used for “medicinal” reasons. Medical marijuana is a scam – there is no medical value to street type marijuana. Read some real research on the subject and you’ll be amazed at the hoax being perpetuated by the dopers. If marijuana or hashish had medical value, the pharmaceutical companies would be all over it making pharmaceutically pure hashish. The studies just do not support the application of marijuana to medical conditions versus other refined opiates that are available. As far as smoking and alcohol are concerned, the states have decided those issues already.

    I turn big time toward conservativism in the area of social welfare programs. I just do not agree with paying people to not work – at least not to a livable standard. The federal and state governments have over stepped their bounds by taking my hard earned income away (in the form of taxes) and giving it to people who do not (and in many cases will not) work. I do not object to helping people who are in need, but teach them to fish for themselves rather than filling their plate every day. There should be maximum durations for receiving welfare and other social programs based upon the recipient’s circumstances. Wealth redistribution is a liberalism that I absolutely detest.

    Cody, you have some wonderful values. Be sure to keep them close to your heart, because they will be severely challenged in the future.

     
  • At 15/6/06 1:02 PM, Blogger beeran3 said…

    And alcohol doesn't mess you up like drugs do, at least if you take it in moderation.

    Alcohol is a drug and a very addicting drug at that. I know alot of alcoholics and I sometimes want to think they harm society more than marijuana, cocaine users etc. I have also realized that people that do the hard drugs such as marijuana tend to stay out of public. So i believe alchohol has a bigger effect on society. I believe we should focus more on how it effects society( Tabacoo and Alcohol), not the individual( Marijuana) But thats just my opinion. I know i'm going to have those people that say marijuana affects society, but as i said above most marijuana users stay out of public when their smoking because it's illegal unlike tabacco and alcohol

    Even though tobacco doesn't mess with your mind, it is responsible for the deaths of people not only who use it but even those who don't. To me that is the most dangerous because it directly affects the person doing it as well as everyone else in the surrounding area. I highly support restriction or illegalization of smoking (cigarettes).

    I am with you on this one, I also highly support a restriction. If just the users would be affected, i might not have such a strong opinon. But it seems you can't go to a public place without smoke blowing in your face. Something needs to happen.

     
  • At 15/6/06 2:12 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Alcohol is a drug and a very addicting drug at that.

    The difference is that if you drink a little bit of alchohol every day for years you don't get addicted. With pot or harder drugs you only need to do it once to get addicted. Therefore if someone uses it responsibly it hurts no one, wheras if one uses marijuana in any way at all it hurts society.


    Even though tobacco doesn't mess with your mind, it is responsible for the deaths of people not only who use it but even those who don't.


    No beeran, the smoker is responsible, not the drug itself. That's like saying that the shooter didn't kill anyone, the gun did. As I said above if a smoker chooses to smoke and gets cancer it's his fault, he was warned. And if a shopowner decides to let people smoke in his store it is his fault for letting them. And if a consumer goes into a shop where smoking is allowed it is his fault for choosing to go into that shop. Smoking should only be banned in public buildings and outside. The government has no right to tell people whether they can smoke or not in their own homes because tobacco, unlike marijuana, does not have mental effects on the user which could potienally harm others.

    I highly support restriction or illegalization of smoking (cigarettes).

    I think you need to take a look at the prohibition era. Illegalazation of harmless drugs like tobacco and alchohal only lead to smuggling and illegal establishments for use of those drugs. And again no benefit to society comes from restricting trade of drugs that are harmless to anyone but the user.

     
  • At 15/6/06 2:16 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Robby said...
    "Point taken. I think that to solve this problem we need to let private enterprises decide whether or not they want smoking in their stores or buildings. In public buildings it should be banned outright."

    I agree there.

    old soldier said...
    "Marriage: relationship between husband and wife; so says Webster."

    I don't disagree. I don't want gays to get married, I just don't see a problem with them getting a civil union, which is something different. Really, who's it going to hurt? Help me out here.

    With the death penalty, the only pro I'm seeing is a satisfaction from the American people. We feel better when we kill the bad guys. But all of the statistics have more importance than a natural human emotion called revenge.

    "Medical marijuana is a scam"

    maybe in some cases, people are taking advantage of it. So, we can restrict medical marijuana from people who don't need it. But why say no to a sick person that can't keep down the medicine, and marijuana is there only chance of survival?

    "Cody, you have some wonderful values. Be sure to keep them close to your heart, because they will be severely challenged in the future."

    I'm glad we can respect each others' viewpoints.

    beeran said...
    "most marijuana users stay out of public when their smoking because it's illegal unlike"

    And guess what happens when it gets legalized? They come into the public and harm people natural rights and liberties. As for alchohol and tobbaco, as Robby said, it should be a decision made by the owners of property and harshly restricted or illegal in most public places.

     
  • At 16/6/06 12:45 PM, Blogger Old Soldier said…

    Cody,

    I wrote solely about marriage from a traditional perspective to which I hold dearly; and I believe traditional marriage should exclude gays. I do not condone the gay lifestyle – I believe it is purely a matter of a choice. I believe there is a better life available, but I do not condemn gays. To me the traditional family is a foundational block to human morality. When the family comes under attack either directly or indirectly it threatens our societal morality. Look at today versus just fifty years ago and tell me the erosion of the family has had no impact.

    I will not argue that gays cannot deeply love or be compassionate or be committed, etc, etc. To do so would be dishonest. Gays can be just as committed in a relationship as heterosexuals (and sometimes even more so). I would not want to dehumanize gays (although some of them are on the very outward fringe on humanity). Therefore, if gays desire some sort of civil union recognition, I truly don’t care. I do believe it is a matter for the states to decide and not the federal government. However, the institution of marriage should not be diluted just to accommodate a miniscule amount of the population.

    Lastly, I refuse to accept as legitimate the agenda of those who demand that I accept their deviate lifestyle – especially when they are clearly in the minority. Do your own thing, but don’t demand that I accept you as legitimate.

     
  • At 16/6/06 5:53 PM, Blogger beeran3 said…

    The difference is that if you drink a little bit of alchohol every day for years you don't get addicted.

    I'm sorry to tell you this but you must not understand how alchohol works. I didn't want to get personal with this but my dad is a alchoholic and he started out drinking a little bit and know he drinks everynight. He is very addictive to the drug and acts totally stupid when under the influence. If you go to the AA webstite they refer to an alcholic as someone who has more than an average of 2 drink a day.

    With pot or harder drugs you only need to do it once to get addicted.

    True, but not true, I have heard of quite of few people just trying it and ending up not liking it and quitting.

    Therefore if someone uses it responsibly it hurts no one, wheras if one uses marijuana in any way at all it hurts society.

    I don't believe this because once someone has one drink they are no longer responsible. They are refered to as under the influence. Like I said before since marijuana is illegal people can't use it in public unlike Tabacoo and alchohol, so i believe it has less influence on society.

    No beeran, the smoker is responsible, not the drug itself.

    Well obviously, but while smoking tabacoo they can affect others health.

    And again no benefit to society comes from restricting trade of drugs that are HARMLESS TO ANYONE BUT THE USER

    I really thought you were smart, but saying this is totally stupid. Alright lets see the harm Alchohol does. 1. People die in car accidents when people drink and drive( more often then people who are under the influence of marijuana). 2. Families get emotionaly hurt by drunk family members 3. Alchohol is responsible for alot of crimes ( so isn't marijuana and other drugs) Alright now the harms tabacoo does. 1. Second hand smoke( marijauan is allowed in public,so no second hand smoke) 2. Liter to public areas ( Illegal so now joints in public areas) 3. Fires caused by tabacoo products ( Some cases of fires caused by smoking marijuana). There are 3 reasons a piece how they harm society.

    And guess what happens when it gets legalized?

    Guess what I don't want it to be legalized i never said that. I just believe Marijuana, Tabacco and Alchohol should be illegal.

    harshly restricted or illegal in most public places.

    Defiently in public places. Maybe my opinion is so strong because i've had to deal with drinking problems in my family all my life.

     
  • At 16/6/06 8:16 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I'm sorry to tell you this but you must not understand how alchohol works. I didn't want to get personal with this but my dad is a alchoholic and he started out drinking a little bit and know he drinks everynight. He is very addictive to the drug and acts totally stupid when under the influence. If you go to the AA webstite they refer to an alcholic as someone who has more than an average of 2 drink a day.


    Again, it is not the alcohol’s fault that some people cannot drink responsibly. It is the alcoholic’s fault. They decide how much alcohol they want to drink. If they decide to drink too much then it is their fault, not the drink's.

    True, but not true, I have heard of quite of few people just trying it and ending up not liking it and quitting.


    Okay I think we all agree that marijuana is much more addictive than alcohol. Yet you say that people can get addicted to alcohol easily, but not pot? You're very inconsistent if you don't mind me saying so.

    I don't believe this because once someone has one drink they are no longer responsible. They are refered to as under the influence.

    Not true. You can drink a glass of wine say, or a glass of beer and not be above the impairing .08 BAC. The problem comes when people decide to abuse alcohol, not when they use it responsibly.

    Well obviously, but while smoking tabacoo they can affect others health.

    Right, which is why it should be banned in public. But in private areas people have the right to smoke if they want. If anyone goes into a place where they see that someone is smoking then that's their fault.

    1. People die in car accidents when people drink and drive

    Again beeran, it is not ALCHOHAL'S FAULT that people are stupid and decide to drink and drive. It is the drunk driver's fault. People are completely capable of not drinking debilitating amounts of alcohol. My parents drink socially (that means not a lot, but on occasion) and never get drunk and crash cars. This is because they drink responsibly.

    2. Families get emotionaly hurt by drunk family members

    Again, not alcohol’s fault, the family member's fault. You're blaming things that people do on inanimate objects.

    3. Alchohol is responsible for alot of crimes

    Again, it is not alcohol’s fault that the criminal decided to commit a crime after he decided to drink too much. If you really think alcohol is to blame for crimes then does that mean that if someone shoots someone else they should get off free? After all according to you they only did it because of alcohol.

    1. Second hand smoke

    Yeah, I SAID that tobacco should not be allowed in public places. But if someone wants to smoke in private they should be allowed to. Anyone who goes into somewhere where someone smokes KNOWS that they're putting themselves at risk.

    2. Liter to public areas

    I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this. It is NOT TABBACO'S fault PEOPLE litter.

    3. Fires caused by tabacoo products

    Again, again, tobacco does not cause fires, people cause fires by being irresponsible with tobacco. Your whole argument so far has been based on saying that it is a series of inanimate objects that are at fault rather than saying that people who use them irresponsibly are at fault. What you're basically saying is like saying that suicide bombers don't kill people, bombs do. It makes no sense.

    I just believe Marijuana, Tabacco and Alchohol should be illegal.

    There's a huge difference between alcohol and tobacco and marijuana. With alcohol and tobacco if you use it responsibly there is no risk to others. With pot no matter what amount you use you still get high.

    Maybe my opinion is so strong because i've had to deal with drinking problems in my family all my life.

    That argument doesn't fly with me. Using your problems to state a point is rather contemptible. Why don't you try to fix your problems rather than blame inanimate objects? I'm sorry if that's harsh but don't you think that trying to help yourself is better than doing nothing and blaming others?

     
  • At 19/6/06 6:54 PM, Blogger beeran3 said…

    Again, it is not the alcohol’s fault that some people cannot drink responsibly. It is the alcoholic’s fault.

    True,I know that but if alcohol was illegal you wouldn't have to worry about the person drinking it that is what i am trying to get it

    Okay I think we all agree that marijuana is much more addictive than alcohol. Yet you say that people can get addicted to alcohol easily, but not pot? You're very inconsistent if you don't mind me saying so.

    Both are very addictive, and i am not inconsistent i just didn't cleary explain it

    If anyone goes into a place where they see that someone is smoking then that's their fault.

    So your saying people that don't smoke shouldn't have the right to go into a public place feeling safe

    It is NOT TABBACO'S fault PEOPLE litter.

    If TABBACO were illegal you wouldn't have to worry about the PEOPLE littering

    Not true. You can drink a glass of wine say, or a glass of beer and not be above the impairing .08 BAC. The problem comes when people decide to abuse alcohol, not when they use it responsibly.

    Exactly, but alot of people can not do this

    Again, not alcohol’s fault, the family member's fault.

    WHAT, its the family members fault their loved one is a nasty drunk. How can you even say that.

    With alcohol and tobacco if you use it responsibly there is no risk to others

    This isn't a fact but I almost gurantee over 60% of drinkers don't drink responsibly

    That argument doesn't fly with me. Using your problems to state a point is rather contemptible.

    Why's that they say the best evidence is your expirence

    Why don't you try to fix your problems rather than blame inanimate objects?

    Trust me i've tried, you can't help an alcholic. The only that can help them is themselves.

    I'm sorry if that's harsh but don't you think that trying to help yourself is better than doing nothing and blaming others?

    Explain how I could help my self with this, you must not understand the situation. I'm not blaming i on others


    What you're basically saying is like saying that suicide bombers don't kill people, bombs do. It makes no sense.

    If the bombs weren't there the sucide bombers couldn't kill people

     
  • At 20/6/06 9:57 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    True,I know that but if alcohol was illegal you wouldn't have to worry about the person drinking it that is what i am trying to get it


    Actually you would. Research prohibition. In the 20's the goverment outlawed the sale of alchohal. Smuggling and illegal bars (speakeasys) ran rampant, as did crime and smuggling. People actually got drunk more because they felt that they had to drink it all at the speakeasy because it was the only place you could drink and not get caught.

    Both are very addictive, and i am not inconsistent i just didn't cleary explain it

    Then explain, I don't understand how you can say that people can't quit alchohal but they can quit marijuana, proven to be more addictive, easily.

    So your saying people that don't smoke shouldn't have the right to go into a public place feeling safe


    Beeran, how many times have I said that PUBLIC PLACES should be NON-SMOKING? I'm talking about PRIVATE buissnesses.

    If TABBACO were illegal you wouldn't have to worry about the PEOPLE littering


    Again, it would be the same as prohibition. The answer is not so simple as "just outlaw it." That didn't work with alchohal and it won't work with tobacco, which is even bigger than alchohal.

    Exactly, but alot of people can not do this


    Why not? What's to stop them? I've seen no scientific evidence of alchohal affecting one person more than another for physical reasons. I think it has more to do with responsibility, no offense.

    WHAT, its the family members fault their loved one is a nasty drunk. How can you even say that.

    No no, the faimily member who is the drinker I mean. It's the drinker's fault, not the alchohal's.

    This isn't a fact but I almost gurantee over 60% of drinkers don't drink responsibly

    I highly doubt that. I'd like to get a survey done on that before I took that as evidence.

    Why's that they say the best evidence is your expirence


    Right. And in my experiance the only people who I've seen drink heavily have been irresponsible. That arguement is two-edged becaus I can use it too.

    Trust me i've tried, you can't help an alcholic. The only that can help them is themselves.

    Then at least don't blame it on the drink, blame it on whomever it is who drinks irresponsibly. Alchohal is a chemical, alone it cannot hurt you. You have to decide how much to put in before it can hurt you.

    Explain how I could help my self with this, you must not understand the situation. I'm not blaming i on others


    You're blaming it on the drugs and on thier manufacturers. You're blaming it on alchohal and tobacco corporations.

    If the bombs weren't there the sucide bombers couldn't kill people

    Oh yes they could. They'd use a gun, or a knife, or thier hands. There is always a way to accomplish simple tasks, and killing people is unfourtuanatly very simple. You don't seem to understand that if things are not accesible, other things will take thier place. Such is alchohal and tobacco. Outlaw it and smuggling and crime bring it in anyway. Outlaw it and several million innocent people lose thier jobs at alchohal and tobacco industries (and if you wanna talk personal about your father, guess where my father works). It would hurt economy and raise crime and for what? So that you could feel safer, but you wouldn't be. The answer is not to ban these products, it's to use them responsibly. If people can do that, then the problem will be solved without crime sprees and unemloyment levels going through the roof.

     
  • At 20/6/06 11:25 AM, Blogger beeran3 said…

    Actually you would. Research prohibition. In the 20's the goverment outlawed the sale of alchohal. Smuggling and illegal bars (speakeasys) ran rampant, as did crime and smuggling. People actually got drunk more because they felt that they had to drink it all at the speakeasy because it was the only place you could drink and not get caught.

    But if the people that made the alchohol stopped making it you wouldn't have to worry about people getting it illegally.

    Then explain, I don't understand how you can say that people can't quit alchohal but they can quit marijuana, proven to be more addictive, easily.

    I didn't say they can quit marijuana, I was just stating that alchohol was very addictive. Marijuana is much more addictive I know that. That's why they made it illegal, just think if it was legal how much of a problem it would be. That's why I think if there was some kind of law on alchohol and tabacoo, there would be less problems related to the abuse.

    Again, it would be the same as prohibition. The answer is not so simple as "just outlaw it." That didn't work with alchohal and it won't work with tobacco, which is even bigger than alchohal.

    You say that marijuana is a problem, but since the illegalization use of it has dropped. Granted, it is still a very big problem. I still think there would be less problems related to alchohol and tabacco if something happened. I don't know exactly what would be the best way to slow down the use ( Laws or illegalization) , but I think it would help doing something.


    Why not? What's to stop them? I've seen no scientific evidence of alchohal affecting one person more than another for physical reasons. I think it has more to do with responsibility, no offense.

    What's to stop them?

    They get so addicted they become irresponsible with the use of the drug. Your correct it does have to responsibility. But when they become under the influence or addicted to the drug, they are no longer responsible.

    I highly doubt that. I'd like to get a survey done on that before I took that as evidence.

    Yeah , I figured that one out that why I said it wasn't a fact. But what is a fact is that one out of thirteen americans drink irresponibly or are alchoholics. I might have been exagerating a little bit with my guess, but one out of 13 is still a pretty big number. http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC4055.htm


    Oh yes they could. They'd use a gun, or a knife, or thier hands

    CORRECT, But then they would not be called suicide bombers, They would be called murderers. I think I got you on this on there bud.

    The answer is not to ban these products, it's to use them responsibly. If people can do that, then the problem will be solved without crime sprees and unemloyment levels going through the roof.

    CORRECT, but alot of people can't use these products responsibly that's the problem. Maybe the goverment needs to step in and help these people with their problems. You defiently have some very good points, such as the crime level up, i just wish there was a middle point to lower the abuse of the products but also keep crime level down.

     
  • At 20/6/06 1:53 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    But if the people that made the alchohol stopped making it you wouldn't have to worry about people getting it illegally.


    Do you understand the concept of smuggling? It would get imported from foreign countries, not to mention home-brews that would crop up.

    just think if it was legal how much of a problem it would be. That's why I think if there was some kind of law on alchohol and tabacoo, there would be less problems related to the abuse.


    But the difference is that with alchohal you can drink it responsibly, you can't with marijuana. It's a quanity issue.

    You say that marijuana is a problem, but since the illegalization use of it has dropped.

    It's not as common. The difference between illegalazation of marijuana and alchohal is that marijuana was not manufactured by legal companies and therefore was easy to outlaw, not so with alchohal and tobacco.

    They get so addicted they become irresponsible with the use of the drug. Your correct it does have to responsibility. But when they become under the influence or addicted to the drug, they are no longer responsible.


    They wouldn't become addicted if they used it responsibly in the first place.

    But what is a fact is that one out of thirteen americans drink irresponibly or are alchoholics. I might have been exagerating a little bit with my guess, but one out of 13 is still a pretty big number.

    That's less than 10%. Nowhere NEAR 60%.

    CORRECT, But then they would not be called suicide bombers, They would be called murderers. I think I got you on this on there bud.


    You're argueing over sementics? That's a little pathetic don't you think? Besides you could still kill people and then commit suicide. Like the Japanese kamekazi or banzaai.

    CORRECT, but alot of people can't use these products responsibly that's the problem.

    That's too bad. Is that any reason to kick people out of a job? That would be punishing many for the sins of few. Would it not be better to punish those few who do not use it responsibly? I think the middle point you speak of is to punish people for drunk driving etc. more harshly. At the moment there is a very lienent attitude.

     
  • At 20/6/06 8:56 PM, Blogger beeran3 said…

    Do you understand the concept of smuggling? It would get imported from foreign countries, not to mention home-brews that would crop up.

    Just like Marijuana



    But the difference is that with alchohal you can drink it responsibly, you can't with marijuana. It's a quanity issue.

    Some people can drink it responsibly, unfourtanatly others can't. I also suppose you could use marijuana responsibly if you just took one hit of a joint or something. There's 2 sides to everything and for some reason me and you are always on oppisite sides.


    They wouldn't become addicted if they used it responsibly in the first place.

    That's the thing, I don't think you understand how people become alchoholics. They start by just having a couple drinks say at a bar or social outing, then they get addicted to it and have to have MORE. Then they become irresponsible. I know your going to say your parents can just have one drink and blah blah blah. But, I don't care what you say, it affects people different. Depending on weight factors etc.

    You're argueing over sementics? That's a little pathetic don't you think?

    Actually, I was just joking around Guess people can't take jokes.

    Besides you could still kill people and then commit suicide. Like the Japanese kamekazi or banzaai.

    That would not be called suicide bombers. They would be called suicidal killers.

    That's too bad. Is that any reason to kick people out of a job?

    No, I didn't look at it at that view point.

    That would be punishing many for the sins of few. Would it not be better to punish those few who do not use it responsibly?

    Exactly, That's what I am saying.

    I think the middle point you speak of is to punish people for drunk driving etc. more harshly. At the moment there is a very lienent attitude.

    Yeah, that is more where I am coming from. I have come to think that legalization might not be a good thing.

     
  • At 21/6/06 8:40 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Just like Marijuana

    Right, but on a larger scale. As I said, marijauna was never really legally sold here, so it didn't take root like alchohal did.

    Some people can drink it responsibly, unfourtanatly others can't. I also suppose you could use marijuana responsibly if you just took one hit of a joint or something.

    The problem with that is that one hit will make you high and dopey and dangerous. One drink won't. That's the whole point of my support for legal alchohal and tobacco.

    I know your going to say your parents can just have one drink and blah blah blah. But, I don't care what you say, it affects people different.

    So wait a minute, YOUR family is a source for debate but mine just gets thrown out the window? I don't think so. My point is as valid as yours if you can use yours.

    Actually, I was just joking around Guess people can't take jokes.

    Maybe I was joking too. I wasn't seriously argueing that particular point. Why does it matter so much?

    Exactly, That's what I am saying.


    Yes, but your way would punish workers at industries rather than drinkers or smokers. In my scenario it's reverwsed.

    Yeah, that is more where I am coming from. I have come to think that legalization might not be a good thing.

    But lienancy is toward drunk dribvers, not corparations, at the moment. That's not fair to me because the drivers commited a crime, the corparations didn't.

     
  • At 21/6/06 9:35 AM, Blogger beeran3 said…

    The problem with that is that one hit will make you high and dopey and dangerous

    that's not true one drink does more that one hit does.

    So wait a minute, YOUR family is a source for debate but mine just gets thrown out the window? I don't think so. My point is as valid as yours if you can use yours.


    I didn't say that, I said that i knew what your argument was going to be. My point is that some people can handle it much better because of factors such as weight etc.

    Yes, but your way would punish workers at industries rather than drinkers or smokers. In my scenario it's reverwsed.

    I didn't look at it at an economic view. I looked at it as an enviromental issue. Your argument is a good point though. Your looking more toward economics while i'm looking toward the enviroment, so we have 2 different views.

     
  • At 22/6/06 12:27 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    that's not true one drink does more that one hit does.


    Beeran, you are going against scientific facts. One drink is proven less dangerous than one hit.

    I didn't look at it at an economic view. I looked at it as an enviromental issue. Your argument is a good point though. Your looking more toward economics while i'm looking toward the enviroment, so we have 2 different views.

    Yes, but isn't economics more important? I mean don't you think that our nation's money is a little more important than a bit of air pollution?

     
  • At 28/6/06 3:14 PM, Blogger beeran3 said…

    Beeran, you are going against scientific facts. One drink is proven less dangerous than one hit.

    I'd like to see the facts, not you just saying it.



    Yes, but isn't economics more important?

    Not always, money isn't everything

    I mean don't you think that our nation's money is a little more important than a bit of air pollution?

    I weren't just refering to just air pollution i was talking about deaths, and the harmful effects that drugs do to society.

     
  • At 30/6/06 1:26 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I'd like to see the facts, not you just saying it.


    Facts? Do you really need science to know that you get high with one hit of pot and not drunk on one drink of alchohal? It's common sense.

    Not always, money isn't everything


    Boy are you naive. Money is extremelly important. Without it we wouldn't have a strong country.

    I weren't just refering to just air pollution i was talking about deaths, and the harmful effects that drugs do to society.

    Then why did you use the word enviroment?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home