RCG outed.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Harvard Economist: Legalizing Drugs Suits Ideal of American Freedom
- Thread starter bigarrow
- Start date
RCG outed.
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
drug use would certainly go up but I don't think it would be near as toxic as a situation we have now.
You see the problem as it is now any drug use is seen as ABUSE, as opposed to impairment of daily living.
I propose most of those destined or with a predilection to have drug problems already do.
If you are envisioning a society of chaos the question to ask yourself is : did outlawing drugs stop or start the chaos?
Completely agree with this. Drug use would probably go up, because people who were scared of doing something illegal but wanted to try them, would. But most people who are prone to addiction.. already are addicted. I don't know about you older dudes, but my generation is full of druggies. I can't see any difference between them and a perpetual drunk. Also, violent crime would be virtually nonexistent in this country if drugs were legal.
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
Yep people are brainwashed into accepting the unintended consequences of limiting freedom as somehow nominal or normal.
I am glad smokers don't have the right to pollut the air where I go out to eat. One case where limiting smokers rights for public safety was a good thing.
That's complete bullshit as well.Quote from bigarrow:
I am glad smokers don't have the right to pollut the air where I go out to eat. One case where limiting smokers rights for public safety was a good thing.
You had a choice not to go where there are smokers.
Restaurants could easily make a no smoking section if it was important to their sensibilities or they thought it important for "your" business.
I feel the same way about squalling fucking babies in public. I think they should be banned by the federal nanny state gubbermint because they are nasty and pose health hazards.Quote from bigarrow:
I am glad smokers don't have the right to pollut the air where I go out to eat. One case where limiting smokers rights for public safety was a good thing.
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
I feel the same way about squalling fucking babies in public. I think they should be banned by the federal nanny state gubbermint because they are nasty and pose health hazards.
Be a big boy and say those words to the baby's daddy, then come back and tell us how that worked out for ya.
Quote from bigarrow:
1)Be a big boy and say those words to the baby's daddy, then come back and tell us how that worked out for ya.
1) I could but what would be the point?
2) More importantly why are you deliberately failing to see my legit comparison of a nasty stinking baby squalling it's lungs out when I'm just trying to have a peaceful meal. The guy quietly drinking his 24oz* coke and smoking a cigar reading the paper isn't bothering me at all?
*graciously outlawed to protect the public from itself as well.
How come I don't get the nanny state to work for my benefit and prejudices like they did for you?