Wolfpack

And I find it interesting that there are people who think if you are small government, you must therefore support a virtual state of anarchy lest you be labelled a hypocrite since any laws are a direct opposition to "small government."

shirtsleeve

Soros is a snake.

But I advocate the legalization of all recreational drugs, along with regulation and taxation.

History has shown what prohibition has done to stimulate illegal gang activity, all the way back to the prohibition of alcohol. Striking down all prohibition will do more to stabilize our streets than hiring a thousand street cops to patrol them. It will do more to stabilize our borders than hiring a thousand border and contradiction agents to stop them.

chicowalker

Of course, I haven't said anything like that, so nice job with the strawman.

Rather than assume your stance, I'll ask: do you, too, think we should have laws curtailing adults' freedoms if those actions may offend others?

If so, how do you reconcile that with your alleged "small government" point of view?

More specifically: should adults be prohibited from smoking pot simply because sone people don't like the smell? Does that fit with the notion of small govt in your opinion?

chicowalker

And the truly sad thing is that nobody will be able to offer a rational and consistent argument against the view you've put forth here -- yet plenty of people will still oppose it.

shirtsleeve

They call them "controlled substances" but they are some of the most uncontrolled substances on earth. They could be stepped on with any thing from vitamins to drain cleaner to battery acid. Legalization would also stabilize all of the hospitalizations that occur today too.

Wolfpack

No you haven't said it, but it's certainly what you're implying so nice job running away scared of your own statements.
This question is so ridiculously vague that it cannot be answered. "Offend" could mean just about anything so I will not be giving you the chance to deliberately twist and distort my words.
I said it before and I guess I have to say it again since it didn't take the first time: I favor small government, but that doesn't mean I support anarchy. Intelligent people can understand the difference between small government and anarchy, but clearly you cannot.

chicowalker

You said that I believe anybody who doesn't support "...a virtual state of anarchy lest you be labelled a hypocrite..." and whether you like it or not, that's nothing like what I've said.

So you either can't read or you've got a wild imagination.


It's sad that you're so afraid of people "twisting an distorting" your words on the internet, but your point that the question is vague is a fair one.

So let's get to specifics...


So you decide not to answer the question specific to this thread and BF's comments. Guess you're really afraid....

Intelligent people can understand that permiting doesn't adults to smoke pot doesn't equal anarchy, but clearly you cannot.

You're not for small government. You're just like the people you would deride as nannystaters, you just want different laws and regs than they do.

chicowalker

I should have specified that my comment was regarding pot. There are legit arguments against legalizing drugs like coke and heroin due to their addictiveness and relative dangers. I don't know where I stand on those drugs, but there are legit arguments.

On pot there aren't any that are rational, unless you subscribe to the nannystate view of government. And there aren't any that are consistent, unless you also want alcohol to be prohibited again -- something few marijuana legalization opponents also want, I suspect.

BelichickFan

I'm not going to argue with you, it's where I stand and how I'm voting. I'd be against alcohol if it resulted in big puffs of smoke spewing out into the public air too.

Wolfpack

Nice job of lying and selective editing there. You conveniently left out the part where I said "There are people who think if you are small government, you must therefore support a virtual state of anarchy lest you be labelled a hypocrite. If you see yourself in that statement, I think that speaks more to your own state of mind than it does mine.
In other words I pre-empted you from distorting my statements just like you did with my "there are people" one.
Now you're just showing how full of crap you are. I will gladly answer any specific question you ask me. But your "offend" question was - by your very own admission - ridiculously vague.
Is this how you show you aren't calling small government people who support laws against drugs as being hypocrites?

Too bad you're not smart enough to realize how all you've done is prove the very point I was making!