Make it Legal

[inglioti]

snip

snip

snip

Indeed I do see your point. However, you aren't quite acknowledging the situation "on the ground" as it were. Abortion is quite legal across most of the western world now, inspite of the fact that they are Christian nations. Homosexuality is now legal also, with the possibility of gay marriages now being mooted. However, in the (currently atheist) state of North Korea, you aren't allowed to even talk about homosexuality.

My point about Stalin was that you can get rid of religion altogether in a society, but there is no precident for it actually working out like you think. If you have a look at the list of states which have tried to suppress religion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism] they have resulted in a system as oppressive and evil as any theocracy.

This is a topic I know very well, if you want me to expand on this via PM I can give you a lot of information on it. However I would say that while your aim is laudable, your reasoning is not. It would be best if religion simply did not take a role in government decisions, rather than be suppressed or prejudiced (religious people are people too.)

you're understanding seems to be greater than mine.

i'm not advocating the removal of religion completely - merely that it should be a personal choice. i was raised agnostic because my father, who is a christian, believed i should make up my own mind.

however, this doesn't seem to be the case. in america, being an atheist politician is political suicide. religion seems to play to much part in politics. even here, in australia, the PM hopefuls have to make an appeal to the christian lobby groups, even though we aren't an extremely religious nation.

as for abortion and homosexuality, even though they are legal, i think the religious majority governments had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into legislating in the favour of basic human rights.

and again, for north korea... well... i don't know what to say. just because the idiot of a dictator has banned religion doesn't mean it's taken away any substance from my argument that there should be a more stringent divide between religion and politics. ditto soviet russia, ditto every other wacky dictator with atheist leanings. the contrary could be said to any number of insane religious nuts who want to reinstate the ten commandments as law - it doesn't detract from your argument that religion isn't that bad.

what i would like is a movement towards tolerance, religious and otherwise... like sweden, switzerland, norway etc that are super awesomely secular.

 

[turbosloth]

I'm sure people have died from cannabis use, just not as many as the adverts try to hint at (I'm pretty certain that too much of anything can be leathal).

Find me a single recorded case in medical history of someone dying from thc overdose and private message me your real address/paypal account/whatever on the forums, and i will personally send you $100 (australian). No kidding.

 

[dui29aghgb]

I don't drink, I don't smoke cigarettes, and I don't smoke weed, but I have read up on all three, and my conclusion is: either make cigarettes and alcohol illegal, or make weed legal. There is no reason why the least dangerous drug of the three should be the only one that's illegal.

Alcohol was illegal from 1920-1933. Worst 13 years of America. But I whole-heartedly agree with pot legalization and cigarette banning.

 

[Pilot Bush]

Cultivation should be treated as if it was any other vegitation.
Minimum age 18 for recreational use.
Medicinal use under-age should require prescription.
Under-age violations should fall under same rules as nicotine use.

 

[turbosloth]

Cultivation should be treated as if it was any other vegitation.
Minimum age 18 for recreational use.
Medicinal use under-age should require prescription.
Under-age violations should fall under same rules as nicotine use.

I agree, altho its more likely that cultivation will be controlled for taxation purposes, same as tobacco cultivation is controlled. I also wouldn't object to a legal age of 16/20 but 18's fine too. Whatever, so long as primary school kids can't buy it. Just make it the same as the legal drinking age in the country (which in my opinion should always be the same as the legal age of adulthood for all other purposes, by the way)

 

[Pilot Bush]

Cultivation should be treated as if it was any other vegitation.
Minimum age 18 for recreational use.
Medicinal use under-age should require prescription.
Under-age violations should fall under same rules as nicotine use.

I agree, altho its more likely that cultivation will be controlled for taxation purposes, same as tobacco cultivation is controlled. I also wouldn't object to a legal age of 16/20 but 18's fine too. Whatever, so long as primary school kids can't buy it. Just make it the same as the legal drinking age in the country (which in my opinion should always be the same as the legal age of adulthood for all other purposes, by the way)

Yeah, I think it should be the same laws and taxes as tobacco

 

[Flap Jack452]

In New York, to this day, it is illegal to plow a field with an elephant.

Ridiculous.
In Georgia it's illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone poll. What the hell am I supposed to with my giraffe when I go into town?

 

[Cavouku]

Well, I've always found that most laws (not all laws) are put into place for people who don't have the common sense not to do them.

I only support medicinal uses for this sort of thing. It's not a bad drug but it's still not a good one (NB, I don't support cigarettes or alcohol either).

I'm with this guy on cannabis. And still, after some idle research, it doesn't offer much that can't be done with a little belief in yourself, or other such stuff. Anyways, long reasons why I'm not too for marijuana, but I'm not seriously against it. I just know that if it gets legalized, there will be people stupid enough (and don't say there won't, you know we have such idiots) to get as blazed as humanly possible immediately following the passing of the bill. Or however the law's passed, I don't know much about politics.

And that just doesn't look good for anybody. If I were to get involved in the say of how marijuana is handled, well, educate kids young about drugs instead of just saying "don't do drugs." I don't see why so many people are for it for economic reasons and all that, but I know little about the economy, so I won't get into that.

To end this one; marijuana, as an inhaled drug, I'd think would be best to just be uninvolved in the law in general. Calling it legal or illegal gives someone reason enough to do it either way, but just saying there's not particular law might be effective... maybe. I wouldn't touch the stuff just because I don't need it, don't want it, and will never see a good reason for it.

Anyways, moving on; for places that haven't legalized gay marriage, I would say that should be allowed. There may be "religious" reasons, but I think that there has been, numerous times, loopholes found in the Bible about all that, so at least Christians should turn the other cheek and allow two people to be bound by law as husband and husband/wife and wife. I'm not sure about the statutes of gay rights in other religions.

I saw prostitution; I thought that the legalized forms of those were "brothels" or something, though I don't know for certain. I'm personally against such things, because I think it's a bit consenting of a girl to offer such an intimate act for something as shallow as profit, but in terms of its' correlation with the law; I'd prefer a communistic approach to it. I.e., some sort of business area, as apposed to someone on the streets doing it "unprofessionally."

I guess that about covers my views, have I been harsh?

 

[[TW]_Saviour]

Im up for cannabis being legalised, isnt that bad.
And probably murder.

 

[Cavouku]

Oh, I saw a thing on censorship; Well, for most things, I think we should get to know about things that at least concern us. I don't think things should be censored, no, but things like what celebrity fucked what animal are things I'm not particularly interested in, and people who are interested in such things needs to go fuck their own cat.

But yes, we should be allowed to know about things that can affect us, and it should be published if viewed as such. And if we want to know other things, we should be allowed to ask and get an honest answer. Oh, but the children!

Well, if you teach your kid this from that, they shouldn't be affected by this and that. If you teach your kid not to be violent the right way(s), they're not going to go Mortal Kombat on the bully at school (to which said bully might beat them to a pulp after the kid messes up the bicycle kick). If you teach your kid about what the consequences, affects and statistics are from things like sex, and drugs, chances are your kid will be better off knowing than experimenting. Think about it, would you prefer your kid learn from you, or find out on their own?

So, on censorship and children; be a good parent and they should do alright. On censorship in general; people should tell the public what is important for them to know, and if it's not valiantly important, people should have the right to ask and be answered.

Alright, think I'm done...

 

[Cavouku]

More research needs to be done on cannabis. There is a well documented correlation of cannabis use and certain types of serotonin and nervous disorders among a segment of the population. These can cause severe and life-long disabilities.

The segment of the population is small, but it does exist, so before widespread legalization occurs, especially of any means of intake that might cause others to also be exposed unwilling (such as smoking) there needs to be some serious studies done to determine whether the correlation has a causal link, and if so, what may be able to be done about it.

I agree that with that. Just because we know some things that weed does, that don't happen to be too bad, doesn't mean we don't know about it.

More research should be done before anything, at least. We don't know enough to call it as safe as everyone is so quick to do.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

What laws do you think should be repealed?

I think cannabis should be legalised, you have about 23 times greater chance of getting cancer from cigarettes and it is not as damaging as made out, plus with a Kaleidoscope you can have endless hours of fun.

Or he's a better idea so all you damn pot smokers will stop using this as an idea: Illegalize cigarrettes.

 

[Drakmorg]

I think everyone should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want, as long as it doesn't bring unwarranted harm to another person/living being other than pests because after all what's the better way of getting rid of those than killing them.

 

[Spaghetti]

It's probably best to legalise drugs and stick a stonking great tax on them. Might as well make a profit from it. The government will make a decent profit and would be a step forward in dealing with drug crime.

That's not to say people should be encouraged to use the stuff, god no. They should be treated like cigarettes - legal and expensive as hell, but looked upon with disdain.

 

[Arkzism]

gay marriage come on its not hurting anyone

 

[posom2]

Hemp and marijuana needs to be legalized. It creates a ridiculously disproportionate amount of oxygen in relation to most other plants and it grows fast as hell. With the power of pot we can fight global warming!

 

[paragon1]

yes..

snip

I agree with everything you said except the last line of your edit. First, do you really think its okay to treat religion as a monolith? Different religions forbid and allow different things. Most of them make sense. You know, like forbidding things like murder, theft, etc.
But I assume your talking about Christians in general, right? (also a pretty diverse group)
I guess I'm asking that you not treat religion(s) as a whole group with a single set of beliefs, or make the assumption that every idea those groups have come up with is bad.

no i'm going to treat religion as one big lump of horribleness for the one integral reason:
every religion with a god wants to convert people. thus the crux of religion is to "save" other people by making things illegal. abortion is to save the babbies, legislating against gays is to save everyone else (think Sodom and Gomorrah) and restricting stem cell research is to save the zygote 2 cell equivalent of a babby.

of course i'm only talking about christianity here but i could go for a while on islam's treatment of women, Hindu's manipulation of the caste system or the myriad of other problems associated with every. religion. ever. conceived.

but OT: i don't even think morality is derived from religion, simply from human sympathy and empathy. but i'll stop.

And how many Jews and Buddhists do you know that are trying to convert people? And religion also encourages people to do things. Like charity, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. And I don't think morality is derived from religion either. I think it is the other way around. It's just when people get bogged down in details, or other people try twist those details to their own ends, that you get the things you seem to be thinking of.
Another thing: there seems to be a jump in your logic with "religions want to convert people therefore the crux is to make things illegal". Would you care to explain that further?

 

[inglioti]

yes..

snip

I agree with everything you said except the last line of your edit. First, do you really think its okay to treat religion as a monolith? Different religions forbid and allow different things. Most of them make sense. You know, like forbidding things like murder, theft, etc.
But I assume your talking about Christians in general, right? (also a pretty diverse group)
I guess I'm asking that you not treat religion(s) as a whole group with a single set of beliefs, or make the assumption that every idea those groups have come up with is bad.

no i'm going to treat religion as one big lump of horribleness for the one integral reason:
every religion with a god wants to convert people. thus the crux of religion is to "save" other people by making things illegal. abortion is to save the babbies, legislating against gays is to save everyone else (think Sodom and Gomorrah) and restricting stem cell research is to save the zygote 2 cell equivalent of a babby.

of course i'm only talking about christianity here but i could go for a while on islam's treatment of women, Hindu's manipulation of the caste system or the myriad of other problems associated with every. religion. ever. conceived.

but OT: i don't even think morality is derived from religion, simply from human sympathy and empathy. but i'll stop.

And how many Jews and Buddhists do you know that are trying to convert people? And religion also encourages people to do things. Like charity, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. And I don't think morality is derived from religion either. I think it is the other way around. It's just when people get bogged down in details, or other people try twist those details to their own ends, that you get the things you seem to be thinking of.
Another thing: there seems to be a jump in your logic with "religions want to convert people therefore the crux is to make things illegal". Would you care to explain that further?

i think buddhism and judaism are innapropriate examples to bring up in this context. buddhism can hardly be counted as a religion - as religion implies belief in some sort of deity and, imo, is more of a philosphy. synonymous with a jail without walls? judaism as well has traditionally been associated with the israelites and that respective ethnic group. judaism does not wish to convert the masses because of this exclusivity / superiority complex. thus the two examples you brought up are void.

as with christianity and islam, it is in the very bible and koran to convert people. i will say that religion encourages people to do things, but that hardly detracts from the ills that it has caused society. i'm not saying that a completely secular society would be perfect, but i believe that religion is for duds.

 

[turbosloth]

More research needs to be done on cannabis. There is a well documented correlation of cannabis use and certain types of serotonin and nervous disorders among a segment of the population. These can cause severe and life-long disabilities.

The segment of the population is small, but it does exist, so before widespread legalization occurs, especially of any means of intake that might cause others to also be exposed unwilling (such as smoking) there needs to be some serious studies done to determine whether the correlation has a causal link, and if so, what may be able to be done about it.

I agree that with that. Just because we know some things that weed does, that don't happen to be too bad, doesn't mean we don't know about it.

More research should be done before anything, at least. We don't know enough to call it as safe as everyone is so quick to do.

Not really an issue for me, since I support the unconditional legalisation of all recreational drugs and all drugs for recreational purposes.

It's probably best to legalise drugs and stick a stonking great tax on them. Might as well make a profit from it. The government will make a decent profit and would be a step forward in dealing with drug crime.

That's not to say people should be encouraged to use the stuff, god no. They should be treated like cigarettes - legal and expensive as hell, but looked upon with disdain.

/Agree

 

[paragon1]

yes..

snip

I agree with everything you said except the last line of your edit. First, do you really think its okay to treat religion as a monolith? Different religions forbid and allow different things. Most of them make sense. You know, like forbidding things like murder, theft, etc.
But I assume your talking about Christians in general, right? (also a pretty diverse group)
I guess I'm asking that you not treat religion(s) as a whole group with a single set of beliefs, or make the assumption that every idea those groups have come up with is bad.

no i'm going to treat religion as one big lump of horribleness for the one integral reason:
every religion with a god wants to convert people. thus the crux of religion is to "save" other people by making things illegal. abortion is to save the babbies, legislating against gays is to save everyone else (think Sodom and Gomorrah) and restricting stem cell research is to save the zygote 2 cell equivalent of a babby.

of course i'm only talking about christianity here but i could go for a while on islam's treatment of women, Hindu's manipulation of the caste system or the myriad of other problems associated with every. religion. ever. conceived.

but OT: i don't even think morality is derived from religion, simply from human sympathy and empathy. but i'll stop.

And how many Jews and Buddhists do you know that are trying to convert people? And religion also encourages people to do things. Like charity, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. And I don't think morality is derived from religion either. I think it is the other way around. It's just when people get bogged down in details, or other people try twist those details to their own ends, that you get the things you seem to be thinking of.
Another thing: there seems to be a jump in your logic with "religions want to convert people therefore the crux is to make things illegal". Would you care to explain that further?

i think buddhism and judaism are innapropriate examples to bring up in this context. buddhism can hardly be counted as a religion - as religion implies belief in some sort of deity and, imo, is more of a philosphy. synonymous with a jail without walls? judaism as well has traditionally been associated with the israelites and that respective ethnic group. judaism does not wish to convert the masses because of this exclusivity / superiority complex. thus the two examples you brought up are void.

as with christianity and islam, it is in the very bible and koran to convert people. i will say that religion encourages people to do things, but that hardly detracts from the ills that it has caused society. i'm not saying that a completely secular society would be perfect, but i believe that religion is for duds.

Right, so if an example of a religion is inconvenient for your world-view, then you just say it isn't a religion? And I suppose the fact that Judaism forms the basis for Christian and Islamic thought is irrelevant as well? How about Hindus then? It's impossible to become a Hindu unless your born a Hindu. Would you say it's not a religion as well?
Now, I'm not familiar with the content of the Koran, but Jesus commanded his disciples to "spread the word amongst all the nations." He didn't say, "go kill everyone that disagrees with you." Which is what most atheists (you're atheist, right?) seem to think, at least when they get into an argument. Frankly, what my problem is, is that you seem to be practicing the same close-mindedness that you accuse religions and the religious to be unanimously guilty of.