I never said they didn’t, and I never said that what you describe is right either.

There is no case to be made, or comparison to abortion. Getting high is a personal choice that you do to yourself. Abortion is killing another human:you don’t see the difference?

It is subjective at this point. Governement control is still governement control. In any form, it is wrong. What you toute is governement control through the George Soros plan.

That said, there is a concept here and that is that as long as it does not infringe upon your personal rights, society has a right to make laws to protect itself. Banning drugs or declaring them controlled substances falls well within that right.

government controls you anyway.. they educate you (public schools), train you (military) tax you, force you to drive on their roads, participate in theri ponzi scheme “retirement plan”:. you find a way to get “government control”out of my life, please: let me know.

As I said, governement control is governement control, and not justifiable unless to a certain extent (For example, taxation is fine in the traditional sense that our fore fathers alloted for, but not by todays standards as Congress no longer represent “we the people”).

That said Mike I must respectfully say you are being hypocritcal about this. You are against governement control, but for allowing these substances to be distributed, taxed and regulated to the populus by the governement endorsing that they track you usage.

This is entirely different from the populus of society declaring they do not want it on their street, in their society.

There is no case to be made, or comparison to abortion. Getting high is a personal choice that you do to yourself. Abortion is killing another human…you don’t see the difference?

government controls you anyway.. they educate you (public schools), train you (military) tax you, force you to drive on their roads, participate in theri ponzi scheme “retirement plan”…. you find a way to get “government control” out of my life, please… let me know.

So, justifying bad behaviour by pointing to worse behaviour is correct?

No- as I said, it is destructive behaviour in any case. In no case, should society condone it.

But you did make a case for SF liberal post 25, regarding abortion. You are also condoning governement control of people, via the George Soros plan.

Care to elaborate on that, Mike?

HA!!!! Society “condones” a hell of a lot worse… the murder and dismemberment of millions of unborn babies every year, the wholesale subsidy of diabetes and death for welfare recipients. Give me a fucking break, your so worried about some people getting high that are GOING TO DO IT NO MATTER WHAT.

my god.

As it stands, I am already being asked to foot the bill for a drug addict that is homeless. Somehow it became my responsibility to take care of a person that does drugs, can’t hold a job and as a result, can’t afford food or shelter. Somehow, people like SF feel I should empathize with these people and that it is my responsibility to take care of them. Who will be paying for these distribution centers? Who sells the drugs, the pharmacutical companies? If that’s the case, the user won’t be able to afford the drug without insurance. Does that mean medicaid will foot the bill? Changing the status from illegal to legal is but a pittance of the entire scope of what we are talking about. For the sake of an arguement, let’s say that there are 5 million homeless people in this country. Let’s say 76% are alcoholics(although many are drug users): are these people alcoholics because they are homeless, or are they homeless because they are alcoholics and can’t hold down a job?

#30: You are exactly right. There is no comparison between a Meth addict and a casual potsmoker. Meth is far more addictive, and actually destroys, as you point out, the ability of the user to rationalize. It destroys both their mind and their body at a rapid rate.

Ever see pictures of 30-year old meth abusers who look like they are 60?

That’s inane. They will not cease their criminal activity, and you have no hard evidence that they will. You are equivicting a meth user with a light drug user such as a casual drinker or pot smoker. Meth adversly affects behaviour and judgement to the point of irrationality.

It isn’t always centered around their next fix either, as most meth users have a cheap source available (There are meth labs in every small town in America and supplies are easily bught at the local Wal-mart). It removes the ability to think rationally.

28

That’s akin to asking “What victories do you have on the war against murder?”. People still die. What is wrong is society condoning a self destructive behaviour, in both cases.