16 Comments:

• At 11/6/06 11:18 PM,  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,  Anonymous 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,  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,  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,  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,  Anonymous 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,  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 2:12 PM,  Anonymous 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,  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,  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 8:16 PM,  Anonymous 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 20/6/06 9:57 AM,  Anonymous 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 1:53 PM,  Anonymous 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 21/6/06 8:40 AM,  Anonymous 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 22/6/06 12:27 PM,  Anonymous 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 30/6/06 1:26 PM,  Anonymous 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