So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT

[East Coast Hustle]

in other words, almost everyone ITT aside from Pent, TGRR, and myself is missing the fucking point. It's not about whether pot is good or bad or drugs in general are good or bad or whether prohibition is costing us more than legalization would financially and socially, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES FOR OURSELVES. Period.

[BabylonHoruv]

in other words, almost everyone ITT aside from Pent, TGRR, and myself is missing the fucking point. It's not about whether pot is good or bad or drugs in general are good or bad or whether prohibition is costing us more than legalization would financially and socially, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES FOR OURSELVES. Period.

I'm an Anarchist,  I'm in favor of people being allowed their own choices.  However that doesn't mean that my freedom to choose something I enjoy is worth the risk of children hurting themselves.  if we HAVE to have government, might as well have it protect children at least right?

My problem with prohibition is that it doesn't.  It may protect a few from trying drugs, but at the cost of causing more to move from pot to hard drugs, and at the cost of others getting shot.

[East Coast Hustle]

in other words, almost everyone ITT aside from Pent, TGRR, and myself is missing the fucking point. It's not about whether pot is good or bad or drugs in general are good or bad or whether prohibition is costing us more than legalization would financially and socially, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES FOR OURSELVES. Period.

I'm an Anarchist,  I'm in favor of people being allowed their own choices.  However that doesn't mean that my freedom to choose something I enjoy is worth the risk of children hurting themselves.  if we HAVE to have government, might as well have it protect children at least right?

My problem with prohibition is that it doesn't.  It may protect a few from trying drugs, but at the cost of causing more to move from pot to hard drugs, and at the cost of others getting shot.

you're an anarchist who wants the government to legislatively protect children?

wut?

government's sole purpose is to protect us from other governments and to regulate taxation and commerce. They have no business protecting us from ourselves and they have no business pre-emptively protecting us from others. period.

[Jasper]

Ideally, a government would fulfill it's regular duties at the Federal level, and empower individual state governments to make life better in general for its people.

[BabylonHoruv]

in other words, almost everyone ITT aside from Pent, TGRR, and myself is missing the fucking point. It's not about whether pot is good or bad or drugs in general are good or bad or whether prohibition is costing us more than legalization would financially and socially, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES FOR OURSELVES. Period.

I'm an Anarchist,  I'm in favor of people being allowed their own choices.  However that doesn't mean that my freedom to choose something I enjoy is worth the risk of children hurting themselves.  if we HAVE to have government, might as well have it protect children at least right?

My problem with prohibition is that it doesn't.  It may protect a few from trying drugs, but at the cost of causing more to move from pot to hard drugs, and at the cost of others getting shot.

you're an anarchist who wants the government to legislatively protect children?

wut?

government's sole purpose is to protect us from other governments and to regulate taxation and commerce. They have no business protecting us from ourselves and they have no business pre-emptively protecting us from others. period.

Sure, if they're gonna be there, and protect anyone, why not children?

[Salty]

in other words, almost everyone ITT aside from Pent, TGRR, and myself is missing the fucking point. It's not about whether pot is good or bad or drugs in general are good or bad or whether prohibition is costing us more than legalization would financially and socially, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES FOR OURSELVES. Period.

I'm an Anarchist,  I'm in favor of people being allowed their own choices.  However that doesn't mean that my freedom to choose something I enjoy is worth the risk of children hurting themselves.  if we HAVE to have government, might as well have it protect children at least right?

My problem with prohibition is that it doesn't.  It may protect a few from trying drugs, but at the cost of causing more to move from pot to hard drugs, and at the cost of others getting shot.

you're an anarchist who wants the government to legislatively protect children?

wut?

government's sole purpose is to protect us from other governments and to regulate taxation and commerce. They have no business protecting us from ourselves and they have no business pre-emptively protecting us from others. period.

Sure, if they're gonna be there, and protect anyone, why not children?

Because they're not the government's children?

[fomenter]

Sure, if they're gonna be there, and protect anyone, why not children?

the effect that eating fast food every day has on people is BAD.

we should outlaw fast food. for the children

the effect that unplanned pregnancies and STDs have on people is BAD.

we should outlaw unprotected sex.for the children

the effect that regressive social policies have on people is BAD.

we should outlaw voting republican. for the children

ad infinitum.

[East Coast Hustle]

in other words, almost everyone ITT aside from Pent, TGRR, and myself is missing the fucking point. It's not about whether pot is good or bad or drugs in general are good or bad or whether prohibition is costing us more than legalization would financially and socially, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES FOR OURSELVES. Period.

I'm an Anarchist,  I'm in favor of people being allowed their own choices.  However that doesn't mean that my freedom to choose something I enjoy is worth the risk of children hurting themselves.  if we HAVE to have government, might as well have it protect children at least right?

My problem with prohibition is that it doesn't.  It may protect a few from trying drugs, but at the cost of causing more to move from pot to hard drugs, and at the cost of others getting shot.

you're an anarchist who wants the government to legislatively protect children?

wut?

government's sole purpose is to protect us from other governments and to regulate taxation and commerce. They have no business protecting us from ourselves and they have no business pre-emptively protecting us from others. period.

Sure, if they're gonna be there, and protect anyone, why not children?

because that's not their fucking business nor is it a valid reason to restrict my rights. Including my right to do stupid shit and fuck myself up any way I see fit.

what kind of anarchist are you? I think you should revisit the definition of the term.

[Lies]

in other words, almost everyone ITT aside from Pent, TGRR, and myself is missing the fucking point. It's not about whether pot is good or bad or drugs in general are good or bad or whether prohibition is costing us more than legalization would financially and socially, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES FOR OURSELVES. Period.

It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom, keep that in mind at all times, ok? -Bill Hicks.

[BabylonHoruv]

in other words, almost everyone ITT aside from Pent, TGRR, and myself is missing the fucking point. It's not about whether pot is good or bad or drugs in general are good or bad or whether prohibition is costing us more than legalization would financially and socially, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES FOR OURSELVES. Period.

I'm an Anarchist,  I'm in favor of people being allowed their own choices.  However that doesn't mean that my freedom to choose something I enjoy is worth the risk of children hurting themselves.  if we HAVE to have government, might as well have it protect children at least right?

My problem with prohibition is that it doesn't.  It may protect a few from trying drugs, but at the cost of causing more to move from pot to hard drugs, and at the cost of others getting shot.

you're an anarchist who wants the government to legislatively protect children?

wut?

government's sole purpose is to protect us from other governments and to regulate taxation and commerce. They have no business protecting us from ourselves and they have no business pre-emptively protecting us from others. period.

Sure, if they're gonna be there, and protect anyone, why not children?

Because they're not the government's children?

Sure are.  If you are gonna accept a government they really own all of you.  Children and adults, and, according to our body of laws, children more than adults.

[BabylonHoruv]

in other words, almost everyone ITT aside from Pent, TGRR, and myself is missing the fucking point. It's not about whether pot is good or bad or drugs in general are good or bad or whether prohibition is costing us more than legalization would financially and socially, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES FOR OURSELVES. Period.

I'm an Anarchist,  I'm in favor of people being allowed their own choices.  However that doesn't mean that my freedom to choose something I enjoy is worth the risk of children hurting themselves.  if we HAVE to have government, might as well have it protect children at least right?

My problem with prohibition is that it doesn't.  It may protect a few from trying drugs, but at the cost of causing more to move from pot to hard drugs, and at the cost of others getting shot.

you're an anarchist who wants the government to legislatively protect children?

wut?

government's sole purpose is to protect us from other governments and to regulate taxation and commerce. They have no business protecting us from ourselves and they have no business pre-emptively protecting us from others. period.

Sure, if they're gonna be there, and protect anyone, why not children?

because that's not their fucking business nor is it a valid reason to restrict my rights. Including my right to do stupid shit and fuck myself up any way I see fit.

what kind of anarchist are you? I think you should revisit the definition of the term.

The kind who doesn't think that allowing the government to define what rights you do and don't have is a very good idea.  But that if you are going to do it you have to actually let them do so. and one of the rights they haven't chosen to grant you is the right to fuck yourself up.

What kind of statist are you not letting your duly elected representatives choose how they wish to represent you?

[Salty]

in other words, almost everyone ITT aside from Pent, TGRR, and myself is missing the fucking point. It's not about whether pot is good or bad or drugs in general are good or bad or whether prohibition is costing us more than legalization would financially and socially, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES FOR OURSELVES. Period.

I'm an Anarchist,  I'm in favor of people being allowed their own choices.  However that doesn't mean that my freedom to choose something I enjoy is worth the risk of children hurting themselves.  if we HAVE to have government, might as well have it protect children at least right?

My problem with prohibition is that it doesn't.  It may protect a few from trying drugs, but at the cost of causing more to move from pot to hard drugs, and at the cost of others getting shot.

you're an anarchist who wants the government to legislatively protect children?

wut?

government's sole purpose is to protect us from other governments and to regulate taxation and commerce. They have no business protecting us from ourselves and they have no business pre-emptively protecting us from others. period.

Sure, if they're gonna be there, and protect anyone, why not children?

Because they're not the government's children?

Sure are.  If you are gonna accept a government they really own all of you.  Children and adults, and, according to our body of laws, children more than adults.

Accept? Who's accepting what? What would a real, live, tangible alternative to accepting it?  They own all of you? What does that mean?

As far as I understand it, if you're over 18 you have rights. If you are under, your parents are responsible for your actions, and you have less rights, if any. Sure, the government can take your kids away, but then they are responsible.

So, you don't want any government, but if we have to have it they should be directly responsible for our children's well-being?

[BabylonHoruv]

in other words, almost everyone ITT aside from Pent, TGRR, and myself is missing the fucking point. It's not about whether pot is good or bad or drugs in general are good or bad or whether prohibition is costing us more than legalization would financially and socially, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES FOR OURSELVES. Period.

I'm an Anarchist,  I'm in favor of people being allowed their own choices.  However that doesn't mean that my freedom to choose something I enjoy is worth the risk of children hurting themselves.  if we HAVE to have government, might as well have it protect children at least right?

My problem with prohibition is that it doesn't.  It may protect a few from trying drugs, but at the cost of causing more to move from pot to hard drugs, and at the cost of others getting shot.

you're an anarchist who wants the government to legislatively protect children?

wut?

government's sole purpose is to protect us from other governments and to regulate taxation and commerce. They have no business protecting us from ourselves and they have no business pre-emptively protecting us from others. period.

Sure, if they're gonna be there, and protect anyone, why not children?

Because they're not the government's children?

Sure are.  If you are gonna accept a government they really own all of you.  Children and adults, and, according to our body of laws, children more than adults.

Accept? Who's accepting what? What would a real, live, tangible alternative to accepting it?  They own all of you? What does that mean?

As far as I understand it, if you're over 18 you have rights. If you are under, your parents are responsible for your actions, and you have less rights, if any. Sure, the government can take your kids away, but then they are responsible.

So, you don't want any government, but if we have to have it they should be directly responsible for our children's well-being?

Absolutely, if we have to have a government they should be directly responsible for everyone's well being.  if I stub my toe I expect a government employee to show up with a bandage.  It's the least they can do in exchange for the amount of power I've given them.

[Salty]

in other words, almost everyone ITT aside from Pent, TGRR, and myself is missing the fucking point. It's not about whether pot is good or bad or drugs in general are good or bad or whether prohibition is costing us more than legalization would financially and socially, IT'S ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES FOR OURSELVES. Period.

I'm an Anarchist,  I'm in favor of people being allowed their own choices.  However that doesn't mean that my freedom to choose something I enjoy is worth the risk of children hurting themselves.  if we HAVE to have government, might as well have it protect children at least right?

My problem with prohibition is that it doesn't.  It may protect a few from trying drugs, but at the cost of causing more to move from pot to hard drugs, and at the cost of others getting shot.

you're an anarchist who wants the government to legislatively protect children?

wut?

government's sole purpose is to protect us from other governments and to regulate taxation and commerce. They have no business protecting us from ourselves and they have no business pre-emptively protecting us from others. period.

Sure, if they're gonna be there, and protect anyone, why not children?

Because they're not the government's children?

Sure are.  If you are gonna accept a government they really own all of you.  Children and adults, and, according to our body of laws, children more than adults.

Accept? Who's accepting what? What would a real, live, tangible alternative to accepting it?  They own all of you? What does that mean?

As far as I understand it, if you're over 18 you have rights. If you are under, your parents are responsible for your actions, and you have less rights, if any. Sure, the government can take your kids away, but then they are responsible.

So, you don't want any government, but if we have to have it they should be directly responsible for our children's well-being?

Absolutely, if we have to have a government they should be directly responsible for everyone's well being.  if I stub my toe I expect a government employee to show up with a bandage.  It's the least they can do in exchange for the amount of power I've given them.

Man. I'm a strict anti-authoritarian (in that I get really pissed off whenever anyone tells me what to do. It's almost a biological reaction), but I'm starting to be glad about the system we have. The alternatives you're offering are more frightening than the shit W pulled. The implications. The horrible, horrible implications.

[Salty]

I mean, shit.

That's pretty black and white, man.