neal said:
ok mr kiyardo:
perscirption drugs are abused just as much as 'ellicit' drugs. and sure i admit that smoking weed isnt healty. smoking ANYTHING isnt healthy, but the argument was that cigs are worse becuase they have some pretty horrible chemicals in them, are provent to cause cancer, are addictive, and fucking stink.
Cigarettes are bad news that's for sure, but marijuana joints have no filters and even if they did, they still have 4 times the carcinogens of a regular cigarette, and they also contribute to memory loss. On a related note, a news story just released today says that medical studies have indicated that long term use of tobacco smoking can lead to mild memory loss for middle aged adults
well then i guess we should ban fucking mcdonalds becuase that makes us fat, cars becuase they pollute and a billion other things that are lightyears worse than smoking a little ganja from time to time. "drugs are bad for you so they're illegal" is fucking facsit hypocracy.
I never made that particular argument. If I did, then your assessment would be correct. The "bad for you" argument is more of an incentive to stop the activity, not a justification for banishment. The argument I use for keeping marijuana and other drugs illegal is based on the infringment of liberty and life of those surrounding the user. Obviously one on PCP is more dangerous than one high on ganja for sure, but any drug that alters the mind is an "enemy of reality" and a potential for a dangerous situation that could harm someone else. The line is drawn at those drugs which provide an instant unpredictable intoxication. Marijuana certainly falls in that category. Cigarettes and Alcohol can be taken in moderation.
and the whole 2nd amendment shit is kind of funny becuase im pretty sure back when they wrote that with a fucking musket in their hands they werent thinking of ak-47s and bazookas an shit that'll blow people apart. im not saying guns should be banned completely, but come on. do you realy need a fucking uzi for pretection? i think not.
The 2nd ammendment does not distinguish between types of firearms but it is explicit in it's meaning that US Governement shall not infringe on the liberty to own and bear any type of weapon. During the revolutionary period the militias and ordinary people carried the same types of arms the military carried (Flintlocks, muskets, etc.) This matched firepower, just short of cannons, provided an equal playing field and kept the Government in check to prevent tyrrany. The 2nd ammendment was written to provide that kind of protection from oppresive governments. Today, that would mean the ability to own fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines utlitizing armour piercing ammunition. These types of weapons should not be regulated at all. The only laws that should be in place with regard to these types of weapons should be the penalties of crimes committed using such firearms, and any firearm for that matter.
so there ya go, i addressed some arguments AND didnt call you any names.
-neal
You sure did. Your arguments were good, well thought out, and respected. And, no, you didn't call me any names. Thanks. It makes the debate so much more interesting when we can exchange ideas without all the slander. I've found new respect for you , neal. Thanks again, man.
