Hicksey

Your question is like the proverbial "have you stopped beating your wife yet? - answer yes or no" question. That question presumes that the person beat his wife at some point in time. Anyone being asked such a question has no choice but to refuse to answer or attack the question.Your question is similar since it also rests on assumptions which are not valid for all people. For that reason you cannot expect people to give you a straight answer. Obviously you missed the whole point. The point was for people to look at the question conceptually. I asked for personal opinion for a reason. Your answer was essentially useless. There is no right or wrong answer to the question. The point was for each side to tell why they chose as they did so we could learn a little about what each other is made of. A child cannot be killed because it was a result of rape or incest. Anyone who takes the position that abortion in the case of rape or incest is ok is really saying that somewhere between conception and birth a fetus turns into something that cannot be destroyed simply because of how it was created. This arbitrary line between killable and non-killable status is exactly the same line that abortion supporters draw. This line exists because the overwhelming number of people agree that there is a difference between the human life represented by a fetus and the human life represented by a baby. As far as I am concerned, those exceptions are from a personal responsibility standpoint. For me abortion isn't just about life or death, it is a personal responsibility issue. How can we hold someone accountable for actions in which they did not participate freely? The humanitarian within demands that I afford those two exceptions to the victim. For everyone else that is stupid enough not to adequately protect themselves I have no such pity, and as such I wonder why a child must die so they can live irresponsibly.

If I were say........ pro abortion and anti CP and if I picked either one or another....I would then be picking another one or that I didn't believe. So basically it is worthless becasue it would not reflect what we believe but some arbitray choice akin to a kids game that determice who you will marry...... The point is to make people think. Is one issue very important to you? Important enough for you to endure something to get it? Or is the other so distasteful that you would sacrifice something to see it not come to fruition? I thought that instead of starting a debate that I knew would end where I started here, I decided to start here and set the debate on different terms to see where it went. What I see is that instead of people attacking this conceptually they continually complain that they weren't given the choices they wanted. That was the whole point of the thread. If I give you what you want, the decision is an easy one. But if I give you one that requires that you prioritize which of your beliefs and which of the two issues are most important to you we learn a little about what makes each other tick. I thought that perhaps that insight might spark a debate.

You continue to ignore that this is a hypothetical. You are not being asked to change what you believe. You are being asked to take what you believe, apply it to the question and make a choice based on that. Based on WHAT YOU BELIEVE, consider the choices, make one and tell us why. I know that people will likely not subscribe part and parcel to the choices above and that WAS BY DESIGN. The exercise will tell more about how people think than anything. Your actual answer and your justification for it are really not that important. I am more interested in how people come to their decision.

You are missing the whole point of the exercise. The point is to prioritize and decide which of your views you feel the most strongly about. I am not asking you to answer the question to label you as if answering it means something or will change what you believe. It is a hypothetical. I realize that almost nobody will have beliefs that will mesh with the choices -- that's why I asked. It forces one to put to thought which is more important to them.

When you do not want to answer a question, then you attack it I suppose. Every time we get into a debate about abortion the someone from the left always questions how the right can be both for the death penalty and against abortion. "If life is sacred, why not all life? Why not the life of a murderer?", they ask proceeding to proclaim that such a stance reeks of hypocrisy. And conversely someone from the right will ask "Why if you can kill an innocent fetus, having committed no crime but inconvenience, with impugnity -- then why not the life of someone who has done something wrong to deserve it?", and then throw out the obligatory hypocrisy reference. What I wondered was if we removed the hypocrisy from the equation and you had to choose either life or death, which would you choose? This is hypothetical situation. I am not asking you to change your views, just pick one and tell why. It's a pretty simple question and yet still a hard one to answer. Our differing beliefs and the nuances we add to the two general positions make this a difficult choice. I personally would pick life over death simply to protect the innocent lives -- even if that meant we had to pay to keep a murder alive. Why would people seek to protect a non-existant life? The whole pro-life movement is based upon the belief that the life is a life worth saving from the moment of conception. I disagree. All of the pro-life people I know allow for those exceptions, but not for that reason. We believe that people who did not consent to the action that caused the pregnancy, should not have to be held to account for actions under which they did not portake in voluntarily.

Over and over I hear the hypocrisy conplaint when the left and right get to debating about abortion/death penalty. It gets tired. So I thought, lets take the hypocrisy out of the equation which begged the question: If you HAD to choose life or death, which would you choose? For the purposes of this thread: 1) A vote for death would be a vote for both abortion on demand and the death penalty. 2) A vote for life would be a vote for an abolition of both abortion on demand and the death penalty.

So what then? Since they are going to do it anyway wrong becomes right?

So, the owness should be on those that play by the rules to let those who don't do whatever the hell they want? If these people would do as the rest of us do and obey the law, there would be little to no cost associated with enforcement. In the last 20 years, the lax enforcement has caused anti-drug laws to be regarded as little more than affront to drug users' freedom. Bubber Miley is a great example of this. And while we do have the freedom to do what we please, nobody has bothered to educate these same people that that freedom does not include immunity from the consequences of their actions. This far into this grande miscarriage of justice, people that get arrested for their transgressions view themselves as the victims, when it is really the rest of us that are paying for their actions and are the true victims. It is assumed that the onus for solving this problem should be on the legal system to fix this, instead of being on those whose actions create this whole mess. The onus to fix this should be on drug users. A simple change of behavior fixes it all.

That is just an overly wordy way of saying that you will do whatever the hell you want all else be damned. Freedom is not absolute, it is relative. We are free, but only in the relative sense that we are more free than others in the world. We are far from free. And even if you believe in 'personal freedom', I'm sure ven you realize that in a civilized society there will always be rules and limits to how far that freedom extends. The laws in question here are an example of just that.

I'm not whining about being victimized. In fact, I'm not even sure I personally want marijuna decriminalized because I like the fact that it's readily available, tax-free, and of good quality. I don't think it's likely I'll be busted, but if I am, I can take what they dish out. I just recognize that the law is irrational and counter-productive to what it sets out to do. If you potheads would obey the law it wouldn't cost the rest of us. You're the ones out there breaking the law and then blaming society for punishing you. The grand total of your argument is telling me that because you refuse to obey the law (as if it is our fault that enforcement costs are high, God forbid we blame the lawbreakers for that) we should reward your actions and just make it legal.

Like how you've gone back and forth on whether people should just be able to take personal responsibility for their drug use? No, I haven't. I have made isolated comments regarding different scenarios. You keep applying them wherever you please and then proceed to make accusations. In a perfect world people would just be smart enough not to do drugs and this whole issue would be moot. The only reason we are here is because a bunch of you potheads refuse to obey the law. Taking responsibility doesn't mean changing the rule. It means adhering to it. Taking responsibility means that if you choose to do drugs even though they are illegal and you get caught, you don't whine about being victimized -- you swallow your pride and take the punishment your actions garnered.

Apparently that's not the case. You can read Riverwind explain HERE that we would be farther off to pull out and let law enforcement deal with it. The think that we should essentially ignore terrorism upon our militias/citizens outside our own border and equate terrorists with schoolyard bullies. He'll even explain for that if we just ignore them they will go away. Of course, I agree with you. But if you want some interesting reading I recommend it.

Too bad criminalization makes that necessary, with all the costs of enforcement, incarceration, loss of tax revenue. Not to mention how it fuels organized crime and an unfettered black market that sells drugs to kids in school. What were your reasons for defending the status quo again? So that hypocritical puritans can create artificial consequences for what would otherwise be harmless pleasure? If I were to pick between the burdens of paying for your screwups and paying to keep it illegal, I'll keep things as they are now. IMO if you need drugs to have a good time you've got a wire or ten crossed. Try being high on life instead.

Only the victimless crimes. You can count them on one hand, so it shouldn't be too big a deal. You don't think the 15 year old kid that gets approached by the adult dealer in a school yard is a victim? Truly, your moral compass needs re-alignment. Like the truest of liberals, when they cannot win the game they move the goal/goalposts to suit their needs instead of seeking to become a better player within the rules. So instead of obeying the rules, they seek to make up their own. Jamie Hynerman of mythbusters says it best. "Well, I reject your reality ... and subsitute it with my own."

I though you said personal responsibility didn't apply in this case? What I said is that those that do not do drugs should have to bear the responsibility for your mistakes. And that response was to the comment quoted. If someone doesn't mind being known as a crack whore, let them do crack and be a whore. I hope you don't mind if I quote you on that.

One could argue that the criminalization of their disease isolates them from society, contributing to the social problems you describe. No, their choices in life and their refusal to take responsbility for those choices in life does that. In society today if you do not know that drugs are addictive and that if you take drugs you are likely to become addicted, you are an idiot of the highest order. People too often confuse the freedom to do something with being free of the consequences of doing it. If you do not wish to be known as a crack whore, it is smart not to do crack and not to be a whore.

Unless their screw up affects society. A heroin addict is not a social problem. Crime committed by that heroin addict is. Who's going to pay for the inevitable rehab for our addict? And if our addict has children who is going to step up and take care of them when their addiction prevents them from doing so themselves? How many addicts can hold down a job? Who's paying for the inevitable welfare check? This IS a social problem. That's been my whole point all along. The argument that drugs only hurt the user is false. My point was that the laws that exist, exist not only to protect people from themselves, but also to protect society from drug users. The other examples I listed were other areas of precedence where society previously did so (Medicare) and currently is debating (Child Care) stepping in to protect people from their own irresponsibility as laws that forbid drugs already do. The real question that remains is where that line is between government intervention and and government intrusion. Where and when is it appropriate for government to step in? A co-worker suggested this to me at work tonight and it almost made sense ... Maybe a systemic approach to drug legalization could be worked out. Only the government could produce and sell drugs. They would be sold by a single crown controlled corporation in stores much like liquor stores. They would be taxed as cigarettes are in that about 20% would be the actual cost and 80% taxes to pay for the effects on social, law enforcement and health care programs. In purchasing their indulgence drug users would be paying in advance for any and all care they may need as a result. And they would be portaking in the activity at their own risk and defacto give up any rights to sue the government for compensation from the side effects of the drugs. If we can nationalize everything else why not this?

Interesting he feels he needs to go to liberal population centers to get support for that ... There are major cities in the state of Texas in which to raise funds, why does he have to go out of state to get support for a policy he wishes to initate in Texas? Could it be he knows he'd never get it in largely conservative Texas?

Laugh at yourself. That is exactly what we do now.What are YOUR goals for a justice system? I want a justice system that punishes people for the crimes they commit. I want it to try to rehabilitate those who will allow themselves to be rehabilitated and be prepared to keep those who do not incarcerated until they do. I want a reasonable expectation of safety for our citizenry and victim's rights to have as much weight as a criminal's rights in matters of punishment. 3 indicatable offenses indicate that someone cannot function within the rules of society and should be removed from it. I want to rid society of the nonsense that a criminal is just someone who hasn't been adequately been subsidized/coddled by our paychecks. Criminals do not commit crimes because of social ills -- they do it because they are either too lazy to ply a trade honestly or because of pure greed. IMO a crime committed against a person or their property is not just committed against them, but also against society. If they cannot function within the rules of our society they should be removed from it.

If someone smokes too much weed and screws up their life, that's their problem. If parents screw up their kids, that quickly becomes society's problem. And just who is going to be there outside big brother to take care of the drug addict? He'll be just as much of a problem to society as the child. Again, if it is in the interests of society to prevent people from screwing up lives, why then would we allow people to do that with drugs?

So, instead of punishing people for crimes we are going to send them on a taxpayer funded vacation? That's worth a laugh.

No, we don't all know that. In fact, it's rubbish. I've smoked pot every day for years and can assure you I'm not moving on to anything more destructive. The only credence I give to that argument is that criminalization of marijuana mainstreams the black market subculture. Kids see weed as fun, harmless, and irrationally illegal. This makes them consider drug laws stupid in general and are therefore more willing to disregard these laws and try other, more harmful drugs. I've seen it happen first hand and attented the funeral. And IMO the notion that because pot is illegal young people turn to other drugs is nonsense. I have no doubt that it never enters their minds. My life is far from screwed up. It's funny, it's the conservatives who want government out of their lives and people to take personal responsibility, and here they are demanding a nanny state. commercial somewhere You are confusing conservatives with Libertarians. Both Liberals and Conservatives are okay with government intrusion into core issues they hold dear when they believe it is in the public interest. Actually the child care debate was just about a lack of affordable daycare spaces and having a plan to provide them. Parents would still have a choice who looked after their children. You set up some rather off-topic strawmen when your argument gets desperate. Apparently you missed all the bantering about what the opponents of the tory child care plan really thought. You don't remember the 'beer and popcorn' comment? They didn't trust parents with the responsibility of providing proper child care for their children and were concerned that the children would be irreparably harmed. Because of my life experience, I don't trust drug users not to screw up their lives, and I don't think that society should have to pay for their mistakes. I think there is a greater reason than to just say no. Sometimes there are rules to protect people from themselves. I made the point about the nanny state because the liberals of this country have gone to great pains at the expense of the rest of us to establish that we are unable to act responsibly as citizens and that everyone else should have to pay for our mistakes. And as much as I hate that mentality, life experience dictates to me that (as much as it hurts to admit it) in this instance they are right on the money.

I never mentioned anything about the gun registry. I just mentioned that countries with fewer guns have few gun crimes. And you completely ignored the point being made. You don't know who has illegal weapons. How do you rid a coutry of those? All you can do is reduce and eliminate legal ownership. And as pointed out by me, that would do almost nothing to eliminate gun crime because the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by illegal arms. Were you purposely being overly simplistic? Did I miss something or do you have some sort of magic way to make them all disappear?

How would they know what would happen eventually? You would likely still feel violated that someone was rooting through your personal property and taking stuff. Until that object is thrown out, it's theft with an identifiable victim. How so? They may not have known, but the person who would have been indentified as the victim knew and would likely have just laughed it off and silently thanked the thief for saving them the trouble of throwing it out. I can speak from experience on this one. I have had this happen to me. Again, you can't predict the future. There could have been a last-minute call from the governor. It is not in that prisoner's power to take the law into his own hands. Society as a whole is victimized by vigilantism because the authority of the state is compromised. While I agree with your point on vigilantism, the future of the example wasn't unknown -- we knew the future. Jails don't randomly execute prisoners. In 99% of executions there is no last minute call. That man was going to die anyway. I agree: what's wrong is wrong. And if it doesn't hurt someone and can't potentially hurt someone, then it's never wrong. There are way too many ways for marijuana use to go wrong. It starts from intoixcation while driving which we cannot measure for to determine if one is fit to drive, and we all know that marijuana has been proven to be the springboard from which people jump to other, more destructive drugs. There are more ways that allowing marijuana use can harm society as a whole than there are ways it can help. Its funny, its the liberals that want to nanny people through life and here they are demanding to let people screw up their lives. Speaking of double standards ... Parents cannot be trusted their own money to provide child care for their own children, but we can trust illicit drug users to not screw up their lives. I'm sure if we contact the people at Mastecard we can get this into a commercial somewhere. Before you scream strawman, consider this: these are two positions taken by the parties representing the two sides in this dispute that both are personal responsibility issues. The question is why we can trust a drug user to not mess up their life and a not parent to choose who would care for their children. It sets a precedent of the government stepping in to prevent someone's life from possibly being irreparably damaged. If we can do it with child care, why not drug use?

Slavery was once a rule. Congratulations. Your social outlook is enlightening. Are you open to changing "rules"?? I am open to changing rules. But I see no benefit to legitimizing a bad habit, nor how allowing a few potheads to get high legally improves any "social outlook". And likening yourself to a slave is an insult to all who have been such a victim. They were true victims who were truly oppressed, you are merely whining because you wish your indulgences to be legalized.