Legalisation of Marijuana and the textiles industry

[Berzerker]

Buck -

I'm a civic republican (on the traidtional freedom scale) and a radical.

There's a traditional freedom scale? Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. You make it sound like we can believe in some coercion and constraints on choice or action and still believe in freedom.

Which means I believe that freedom is power over your own governance to as large an extent as possible.

And yet you believe millions of people should be punished for using pot, so much for this "freedom" you claim to believe in.

And that drug users are currently a weak group with little power in society.

So are babies, should we put them in jails too? Would you support enslaving minorities within society because they are politically weak?

And that this can only be rectified by stopping the harmful effects of drugs, that are keeping them back.

Let us know when you get back from Planet Whoopie. In case you haven't noticed, the drug laws don't stop people from using drugs (as if we were all put here to play the roles in "society" you've assigned us).

Unlike an american-style liberal I'm not for a ban for their own best, but because I believe society would be a better place if they had a bigger voice.

If they want to have that bigger voice, they can speak for themselves. You don't speak for us.

I don't want to rule over them, I want them to rule over me on an equal basis.

You don't want others ruling over you, but you do want to rule over others. I rarely see a post full of so much arrogance and BS.

[Graag]

I rarely see a post full of so much arrogance and BS.

Well said. And so much in such a short space!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by statusperfect
Hemp clothing will NEVER return. Too uncomfortable. It's like wearing clothes made out of pubic hair.

And we all know, "Fur pie doesn't sell!".

[darkgrendel]

Originally posted by Berzerker
And yet you believe millions of people should be punished for using pot, so much for this "freedom" you claim to believe in.

He said: "freedom is power over your own governance".
He didn't say "freedom is the ability to do whatever the hell you want with nobody stopping you".

Pay closer attention.

You don't want others ruling over you, but you do want to rule over others. I rarely see a post full of so much arrogance and BS.

Actually, you've got that ass-backwards. Here's what he said:
"I don't want to rule over them, I want them to rule over me on an equal basis."
And here's what you seem to be saying he said:
"I want to rule over them; I don't want them to rule over me."
See the difference?

The point he's trying to make, I think, is that if there were effective drug laws, the people that would otherwise be rendering themselves incoherent would be better able to have a say in their governance, and therefore would have more power and more freedom.

[Graag]

more power and more freedom.

But less drugs! So they'd probably all be drinking themselves to death anyway.

[monolith94]

FUR PIE DON"T SELL!

[Berzerker]

darkgrendel -

He said: "freedom is power over your own governance".

And he wants to punish millions of people for using pot. Does that mean these millions have the freedom over themselves or does that mean he is assuming the power to "govern" them against their will?

He didn't say "freedom is the ability to do whatever the hell you want with nobody stopping you".

When did I say either he believed freedom meant doing whatever we want? Use quotes if you dare.

Pay closer attention.

Good advice, try using it.

Actually, you've got that ass-backwards. Here's what he said: "I don't want to rule over them, I want them to rule over me on an equal basis."

And he said it should be illlegal to use pot, that means he wants the power to dictate what everyone else can or cannot ingest. This "equality" nonsense is just that, he'd have to defend slavery if the majority wanted slavery as long as the enslaved had an equal vote on who to enslave.

And here's what you seem to be saying he said:
"I want to rule over them; I don't want them to rule over me." See the difference?

Notice how I referred to his post as BS? What he says one minute is refuted by what he says the next. If you can't see his contradictions, pay closer attention. Since when are you obliged under the penalty of incarceration to vote or have a voice in politics? That is his argument, that because pot smokers allegedly don't vote or express themeselves politically (which is BS too), they need to be punished so they may learn the value and necessity of engaging in politics.

The point he's trying to make, I think, is that if there were effective drug laws, the people that would otherwise be rendering themselves incoherent would be better able to have a say in their governance, and therefore would have more power and more freedom.

Which is a contradiction. You cannot say we should allow government to decide what we ingest so we will be free, that's hilarious. It reminds me of the "we had to destroy the village to save it" argument. If a person who doesn't use pot refused to vote or get politically involved, should they be punished by the same standard?