New Jersey legalizes medical marijuana...and bans gay marriage

[archimage_a]

Honestly, you lost me there. What are you trying to say again?

 

That laws exist so that the majority do not get exploited or offended by the minority.

There is no reason not to accept beastiality except that the majority of people are against it.

 

Are you saying the Salem "witch huntings" were legitimate?

 

Sometimes the few have logic on their side and the majority are a bunch of idiots. I think voting is kind of a lame concept. Let's say we're voting on how to build a rocket. There are scientists who know what they're doing but there are also a bunch of country boys who have never seen computers in their life. Everybody's vote counts as one. I don't think it's far of a stretch to say that a scientist-only rocket would be much better.

 

So I guess my point here is that it's outlandish to put everyone's opinions on par with each other.

 

In the words of Martin Luther King:

"Never forget that everything Hitler did was legitimate."

 

Legitimacy doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, it means that society believed and accepted it at the time.

 

And yes, a scientist-only rocket would be much better. But Civil Rights are surely the rights of the Civilian, and thus by your logic the Civilians should be the ones choosing how to run the country...which is what Democracy(supposedly) is.

If you were going to say that some people are more civil than other people then you are basically siding with the aristocracy and they seem to be the most opposed against people getting civil rights.

 

 

Voting is present in every system of government though. Even if the only vote that can be cast is 'Accept or Die'

[Perakp]

Going offtopic, but about gays:

 

 

A Young Man's War Against God in a Perverted World

Daniel is 18 years old and was saved by the Grace of God one year ago. This is his testimony of the saving Grace of God, after living in rebellion all of his life and at war with God, the Lord saved Him. Daniel grew up in the church but lived a life of shameful deeds in the dark.

 

 

 

Out of words to describe my thoughts.

kind of "good for him", but on the other hand, it's awful.

 

:???:

 

 

(and I'm aware that there are more testimonies like this and that they may even be "normal" in the US, but this was the first one i came across in my entire life, and it shocked me.)

[Zierro]

And yes, a scientist-only rocket would be much better. But Civil Rights are surely the rights of the Civilian, and thus by your logic the Civilians should be the ones choosing how to run the country...which is what Democracy(supposedly) is.

If you were going to say that some people are more civil than other people then you are basically siding with the aristocracy and they seem to be the most opposed against people getting civil rights.

 

Well, the fact is that some people are more civil than others. I wasn't really trying to comment on the government here. I was just addressing your point about how the majority should always get what the majority wants.

 

So back to that, what you are saying is that if the majority wants something (no matter how stupid) and the minority tries to defend themselves from TRUE exploitation and offensiveness, then the minority are the ones who are in the wrong here? If 4 burglars break into a house and there are 3 residents, does that make it wrong for the residents to defend their property? If a town full of 100 people want to put one "witch" to death, does that make it wrong for her to defend her right to live? Population really holds that much credence?

 

I think democracies can be good when it comes to certain situations (such as what we want our flag to look like or what's for dinner), but something like, "All in favor of seeing this child be mutilated alive, say I!" is over the top. We should look into the morals and logic behind the scenes of the situation rather than appeasing to the biggest crowd on a level that requires absolutely no thought. As a debater, you should favor that notion.

[Giordano]

Majority rules, minority rights.

[indy500fan]

That laws exist so that the majority do not get exploited or offended by the minority.

 

Wow, that is completely wrong (assuming you are talking about the US government). We don't have a democracy specifically because the founding fathers were fearful of the "tyranny of the majority". We have a democratic republic because it helps protect minority rights when the majority doesn't want to give them.

[Tribal]

I'm from Jersey as well and I think maybe you should leave our state to be honest.

 

You classify people who smoke pot as 'junkies'? You must live a pretty sheltered life man seriously do you know how many people smoke weed? I personally don't any longer but I'm all for it being legalized both medicinally and recreationaly. The government has a national debt of $12,295,245,276,746.55 as of January 13th and you really think the government should waste more money and resources locking up minor marijuana offenders instead of taking on bigger issues come on bro, really? The government would eliminate a huge underground black market and make BANK if marijuana were to be legalized completely and taxed correctly. Lets lock up the real drug offenders, heroin, crack, cocaine, methamphetamine etc, those are the real drug problems in this country not a few teenagers smoking a blunt after school to calm down or the mother who takes care of 4 kids day in and day out to relax after she finally gets them to go to bed. Lets go man be real. I'm ecstatic that the government has legalized medical marijuana and I hope it only continues to make strides to legalizing it recreationaly.

 

Gay marriage on the other hand is disgusting, I'm not against gays or anything but marriage is a sacred thing to be shared between a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I'm not going to go too far into this because I'm not attempting to offend anybody but I'm happy it was outlawed in New Jersey.

 

That is all.

[Zierro]

Gay marriage on the other hand is disgusting, I'm not against gays or anything but marriage is a sacred thing to be shared between a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I'm not going to go too far into this because I'm not attempting to offend anybody but I'm happy it was outlawed in New Jersey.

 

I must say I can't help but squirm when I see gays kissing, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's like picking your nose in my opinion. I might saw "ew" but I'm certainly not going to try to force people not to.

 

As for the sacredness of marriage, the term "marriage" has already been raped by heterosexual couples with all the divorces, domestic abuse problems, and gold-digging. Even after all that, I still don't understand how it effects heterosexual couples if gays were to marry.

 

I agree about the pot though. Marijuana doesn't ruin lives. Imprisoning someone just because they smoke it is ruining lives.

[archimage_a]

So back to that, what you are saying is that if the majority wants something (no matter how stupid) and the minority tries to defend themselves from TRUE exploitation and offensiveness, then the minority are the ones who are in the wrong here? If 4 burglars break into a house and there are 3 residents, does that make it wrong for the residents to defend their property? If a town full of 100 people want to put one "witch" to death, does that make it wrong for her to defend her right to live? Population really holds that much credence?

 

If one person has five loaves of bread and five people have no loaves of bread is it right for the one person to be forced to starve so that the other five people can eat?

Now consider the inverse, is it right for one person wielding a gun(symbolic of executive power) to force five people to starve so that they can survive?

 

Neither idea is right and, although the numbers are different, both come to the same end...Might is right and screw everyone else because they are not important.

 

I think democracies can be good when it comes to certain situations (such as what we want our flag to look like or what's for dinner), but something like, "All in favor of seeing this child be mutilated alive, say I!" is over the top. We should look into the morals and logic behind the scenes of the situation rather than appeasing to the biggest crowd on a level that requires absolutely no thought. As a debater, you should favor that notion.

 

Why?

The morals of it are 'We, the people, think that mutliating a child would be a good thing to do.' The logic is 'We, the people, would enjoy seeing a child mutilated.' The few are sacrificed in service of the many.

 

Going further it would be possible to assume that the crowd were of the mind set that their own right to enjoyment were superior to the child's right not to feel pain.

 

Similar in many respects to the argument on gay rights...The crowd subscribing to the mindset that it is better that other people suffer than they themselves suffer.

 

(Whilst it is possible to argue that Gay people should fight against oppression of their entire way of life; fighting unfairly against not being allowed to do something which only functions as a status symbol is not really fighting for anything more than enjoyment and the suffering which they, I, feel, is entirely psychological, not physical.)

 

NB:

I personally would object because I have a strict code of morals which would be offended by the notion of damaging another human being for any reason.

 

 

 

Wow, that is completely wrong (assuming you are talking about the US government). We don't have a democracy specifically because the founding fathers were fearful of the "tyranny of the majority". We have a democratic republic because it helps protect minority rights when the majority doesn't want to give them.

 

I am talking in general.

Traffic laws exist so that one cars do not kill pedestrians.

Anti-Trust laws exist to prevent industrialists from exploiting the majority.

Anti-Communist laws exist to prevent the 1% of American Communists from growing.

The War on Iraq exists to prevent a small country from exploiting rising Oil Prices...or to prevent a small country from deploying Nuclear Weapons.

Similarly The UN has sanctions against North Korea because it has Nuclear Weapons and the majority feels that it shouldn't.

[atronic92]

Bestiality should be illegal because it harms animals and there is no way to know if an animal is giving consent or not

Furies should be legal because they are not harming anyone else

Transexuals should be legal because they are not harming anyone else

BDSM should be legal because it doesn't harm people (if done correctly)

Nudists are arrested for indecent behavior, but there are certain areas where they are allowed to be where they do not harm anyone.

Cyclists are confined to their lanes because if they stray from their lanes, they might cause an accident and hurt someone

Motorists are confined to roads and speed limits and MOTs and Tax and Insurance because those rules prevent injuries

Slavery is illegal because everyone is equal

Child Labour is illegal because it hurts children

Capitalists have the Sherman Anti-Trust Bill because monopolies hurt the citizenry of a country

Communists have the McCarthy Trials and Homeland Security A belief that communism is a first amendment right and so is the right to petition the government that communism is a better social structure than capitalism

[archimage_a]

Bestiality should be illegal because it harms animals and there is no way to know if an animal is giving consent or not

Indeed, as does spaying or neutering an animal. One is an act of violation and the other is an act of mutilation done for the convenience of mankind. Banning gay marriage is a violation of the rights of the minority done for the convenience of the majority. Gay marriage is a violation of the rights of the majority for the benefit of the minority.

 

Furies should be legal because they are not harming anyone else

Indeed, and yet are treated with such repulsion that it may as well be outlawed because it can only ever be done in secret.

 

Transexuals should be legal because they are not harming anyone else

Indeed and slowly the world accepts this.

 

BDSM should be legal because it doesn't harm people (if done correctly)

Indeed, and yet the nosy neighbour can get them arrested under terms of false imprisonment or assault or even rape, due to the fact that one may shout 'No' as an involuntary response.

 

Nudists are arrested for indecent behavior, but there are certain areas where they are allowed to be where they do not harm anyone.

Indeed, nudists harm people when they leave their designated zones. Such a designated zone exists, such as Canada, in which gay people can marry without offending the majority.

 

Cyclists are confined to their lanes because if they stray from their lanes, they might cause an accident and hurt someone

Indeed, there is a clear and decisive reason. Cyclists, though obviously not dangerous in themselves, may lead to an experience, in which one or more people may have their lives altered forever. Just as gay people, while not inherently dangerous in themselves may, indirectly, lead to one person discovering their feelings for the same sex, leaving their partner of the opposite sex and children in order to pursue their feelings.

 

Motorists are confined to roads and speed limits and MOTs and Tax and Insurance because those rules prevent injuries

Indeed, another clear and defined reasons and the same applies. Motorists are not intentionally dangerous, they merely happen to be incorporated into a lump of metal which is deadly. Gay people, in themselves, are not inherently dangerous to society, but marry them they become offensive, invoking the hostility of others, the abandonment of marriage in others, the corruption in the minds of others of ideals that they hold dear. Laws are present to prevent others from being injured, even if the motorist themselves do not intend to injure.

 

Slavery is illegal because everyone is equal

Indeed, and yet should someone chose to become a slave there is no option to. They may chose to go though the motions, but they can never actually become a slave. Similarly gay people cannot become married. They may go though the motions but they can never actually become married.

 

Child Labour is illegal because it hurts children

Indeed, children are hurt every day by starvation and yet we refuse them the right to work. We refuse them the right to earn a wage, should they so choose to. We prevent someone from working, not because of any industrial reason, but because they are of a certain age, because we deem them to be too young to work. Similarly we prevent gay people from marrying, not because of any moral reason, but because they are both of a certain sex, because we deem them unsuitable for marriage.

 

Capitalists have the Sherman Anti-Trust Bill because monopolies hurt the citizenry of a country

Indeed, no one group should ever dictate the laws of the land, it must be a combination of the citizens collective mindset which decides the course of a country. Not the self appointed leaders of industry or morality. The Majority must decided and be protected from those wishing to control them.

 

Communists have the McCarthy Trials and Homeland Security A belief that communism is a first amendment right and so is the right to petition the government that communism is a better social structure than capitalism

Indeed, no one man should decide the path of a nation, nor one organization. People should make their own minds up, deciding for themselves, not being directed to a choice by the media or the government or any group.

 

 

Should gay marriage be legal? That is a matter for the majority to decide. Not as The Majority, the faceless masses, but The Majority, the Individuals. Each man, woman and child should decide, in their own mind, what is right and what is not and then live by that code. They should work in their own interest to promote their opinion, but never should they enforce it on another man, woman or child. To do so would undermine the very nature of individualism, the concept which gay marriage is built on, the concept that two people, regardless of sex, should be allowed to live in the style they chose.

Indeed we back ourselves into a corner. To fulfill our goal we must first betray our goal.

Thus we must win on our own terms. We must not betray freedom to achieve freedom. We must let people decide for themselves and once enough people have decided for themselves we will win our victory and not sit with the sword of Damocles above our heads.

[Saru Inc]

Just a question, are gay marriages really banned in most parts of the US? Seems really stupid to me, I mean, what is the reason that it is banned? Is it because the Christians don't like them?

 

I have a gay couple living a few doors from me and i've recently been to their wedding, and it was a pretty standard wedding. Also, none of the other neighbours in our block have anything against them because they are gay. They are perfectly normal, and very kind people and it sounds strange to me that they shouldn't be able to get married.

 

As for the marijuana part, if the use of it is well monitored and when it's only used for medical purposes It's alright with me.

 

 

It's not just Christian, or Consverative. Its the people, and their willingness or lack thereof to accept different life styles. I've seen gay friends come out to their VERY liberal and Atheistic parents and got kicked out, disowned, and shunned. I also have two friends (one close by, one moved away) who came out to their Conservative parents, my friend's Christian parents stated God didn't say he died for some people, but all people's sins. And they love her just as much. My other friend came out to her Atheistic Conservative parents (tbh thats a wierd combination, I've never heard of an atheistic conservative >.>) and they said they won't stop loving her, but to never come back home. =\ I however have still not told my parents, because they want every [bleep] on Earth dead; praise Jesus.

 

 

And weed is GROSS. I tried it once. Eww. It mighta just been bad weed though.

[Furah]

Just a question, are gay marriages really banned in most parts of the US? Seems really stupid to me, I mean, what is the reason that it is banned? Is it because the Christians don't like them?

 

I have a gay couple living a few doors from me and i've recently been to their wedding, and it was a pretty standard wedding. Also, none of the other neighbours in our block have anything against them because they are gay. They are perfectly normal, and very kind people and it sounds strange to me that they shouldn't be able to get married.

 

As for the marijuana part, if the use of it is well monitored and when it's only used for medical purposes It's alright with me.

 

 

It's not just Christian, or Consverative. Its the people, and their willingness or lack thereof to accept different life styles. I've seen gay friends come out to their VERY liberal and Atheistic parents and got kicked out, disowned, and shunned. I also have two friends (one close by, one moved away) who came out to their Conservative parents, my friend's Christian parents stated God didn't say he died for some people, but all people's sins. And they love her just as much. My other friend came out to her Atheistic Conservative parents (tbh thats a wierd combination, I've never heard of an atheistic conservative >.>) and they said they won't stop loving her, but to never come back home. =\ I however have still not told my parents, because they want every [bleep] on Earth dead; praise Jesus.

 

 

And weed is GROSS. I tried it once. Eww. It mighta just been bad weed though.

From what I've been told weed in America is really awful compared to the rest of the world, although Australia can't be that much better.

[____]

All comes down to the dealer and their source. Like all drugs in the word that are grown illegally, the more money behind it chances are the better the end product. And that is usually reflected in the sale price... it really is a market of 'you get what you pay for' although not always the case..

[Zierro]

If one person has five loaves of bread and five people have no loaves of bread is it right for the one person to be forced to starve so that the other five people can eat?

 

According to you, that would considered but right because it's what the majority wants, but I disagree. These are exactly the issues that need to be dealt with by logic and reasoning - the amount of people is almost irrelevant. The 5 could argue that they are more beneficial for the advancement of society. The 1 could argue that he worked hard for the bread, whereas the 5 were just being lazy. But no matter what, it shouldn't only come down to numbers. In my eyes, that's the lazy way out of arguing for your ideals.

 

Now consider the inverse, is it right for one person wielding a gun(symbolic of executive power) to force five people to starve so that they can survive?

 

Absolutely not. Sometimes the minority are the ones being unreasonable. My point is that we need to pay more attention to what is being said than how many are saying what.

 

Why?

The morals of it are 'We, the people, think that mutliating a child would be a good thing to do.' The logic is 'We, the people, would enjoy seeing a child mutilated.' The few are sacrificed in service of the many.

 

And that's where their "morals" and "logic" should be countered by the other side's morals and logic.

 

I don't even understand where the majority thing is coming from. Couldn't I just as easily say, "The minority should always get what they want,"? The many are sacrificed in service of the few? What makes the majority's needs more important than the minority's in every imaginable context (even when the minority are begging for mercy and the majority are craving sadistic torture)?

 

Similar in many respects to the argument on gay rights...The crowd subscribing to the mindset that it is better that other people suffer than they themselves suffer.

 

The most important thing here is that their "suffering" is not on the same level. The child is suffering much worse than the people in the room would "suffer" from not being able to mutilate him. They won't be writhing in pain if they don't get to kill him. The child will though. I would argue the same with gays and bigots. It's more important for gay people to have the right to be happily married than it is for the bigots to feel "comfortable", a word they're just throwing out there since their "logic" is fueled by nothing more than unreasonable hatred. (Of course there are some exceptions, but the majority of anti-gay rights voters only have those ideals because they straight up don't like gays. Not because they're trying to decide what's fair and what's not.)

 

I personally would object because I have a strict code of morals which would be offended by the notion of damaging another human being for any reason.

 

Thus, you think the majority should not always get what they want, so long as it's in breech of your personal strict code of morals. I was trying to appeal to your own sense of morals here. There are some things that mere numbers shouldn't get to decide.

[SanNo1]

Just a question, are gay marriages really banned in most parts of the US? Seems really stupid to me, I mean, what is the reason that it is banned? Is it because the Christians don't like them?

 

I have a gay couple living a few doors from me and i've recently been to their wedding, and it was a pretty standard wedding. Also, none of the other neighbours in our block have anything against them because they are gay. They are perfectly normal, and very kind people and it sounds strange to me that they shouldn't be able to get married.

 

As for the marijuana part, if the use of it is well monitored and when it's only used for medical purposes It's alright with me.

 

 

It's not just Christian, or Consverative. Its the people, and their willingness or lack thereof to accept different life styles. I've seen gay friends come out to their VERY liberal and Atheistic parents and got kicked out, disowned, and shunned. I also have two friends (one close by, one moved away) who came out to their Conservative parents, my friend's Christian parents stated God didn't say he died for some people, but all people's sins. And they love her just as much. My other friend came out to her Atheistic Conservative parents (tbh thats a wierd combination, I've never heard of an atheistic conservative >.>) and they said they won't stop loving her, but to never come back home. =\ I however have still not told my parents, because they want every [bleep] on Earth dead; praise Jesus.

 

 

And weed is GROSS. I tried it once. Eww. It mighta just been bad weed though.

I see your point, thanks for clearing that up, but it makes me wonder why those atheists are againsts gays. I mean, a lot religious people get told not to tolerate them, but an atheist should, in my eyes, be able to make a reasonable judgement. It's 2010, not the Middle Ages or something. Don't get me wrong, I know that there will always be people discriminating against gays, blacks, whites or whatever group of people you can come up with, but for a whole state, and even one of the most developed countries in the world to take actions so obviously based on discrimination is plain wrong. You should think that the people who make those decisions wouldn't allow themselves to be influenced by such an ignorant perception.

 

And to be honest, I've never tried weed, so I'm not entirely sure on the effects and experiences it offers, so I'm not entirely sure what side of that discussion I'm on, but from what I've read, legalizing weed won't have the negative effect that a lot of people may think it'll have, but it will have negative effects nonetheless. If I were to be asked now I would say that it should e legalized with a certain age requirement (18 or maybe 21), just like with alcohol and tobacco. Treat people like adults and let them make their own decisions as to whether they will consume it or not.

[Saru Inc]

Just a question, are gay marriages really banned in most parts of the US? Seems really stupid to me, I mean, what is the reason that it is banned? Is it because the Christians don't like them?

 

I have a gay couple living a few doors from me and i've recently been to their wedding, and it was a pretty standard wedding. Also, none of the other neighbours in our block have anything against them because they are gay. They are perfectly normal, and very kind people and it sounds strange to me that they shouldn't be able to get married.

 

As for the marijuana part, if the use of it is well monitored and when it's only used for medical purposes It's alright with me.

 

 

It's not just Christian, or Consverative. Its the people, and their willingness or lack thereof to accept different life styles. I've seen gay friends come out to their VERY liberal and Atheistic parents and got kicked out, disowned, and shunned. I also have two friends (one close by, one moved away) who came out to their Conservative parents, my friend's Christian parents stated God didn't say he died for some people, but all people's sins. And they love her just as much. My other friend came out to her Atheistic Conservative parents (tbh thats a wierd combination, I've never heard of an atheistic conservative >.>) and they said they won't stop loving her, but to never come back home. =\ I however have still not told my parents, because they want every [bleep] on Earth dead; praise Jesus.

 

 

And weed is GROSS. I tried it once. Eww. It mighta just been bad weed though.

I see your point, thanks for clearing that up, but it makes me wonder why those atheists are againsts gays. I mean, a lot religious people get told not to tolerate them, but an atheist should, in my eyes, be able to make a reasonable judgement. It's 2010, not the Middle Ages or something. Don't get me wrong, I know that there will always be people discriminating against gays, blacks, whites or whatever group of people you can come up with, but for a whole state, and even one of the most developed countries in the world to take actions so obviously based on discrimination is plain wrong. You should think that the people who make those decisions wouldn't allow themselves to be influenced by such an ignorant perception.

 

And to be honest, I've never tried weed, so I'm not entirely sure on the effects and experiences it offers, so I'm not entirely sure what side of that discussion I'm on, but from what I've read, legalizing weed won't have the negative effect that a lot of people may think it'll have, but it will have negative effects nonetheless. If I were to be asked now I would say that it should e legalized with a certain age requirement (18 or maybe 21), just like with alcohol and tobacco. Treat people like adults and let them make their own decisions as to whether they will consume it or not.

 

 

Remember, just because the years change, doesn't necessarily mean the mindset will change as well. And usually the religious are fingered for their intolerance, simply because they voice them. Many others may have the same mind set, but also not voice it.

[RpgGamer]

I'm from Jersey as well and I think maybe you should leave our state to be honest.

 

You classify people who smoke pot as 'junkies'? You must live a pretty sheltered life man seriously do you know how many people smoke weed? I personally don't any longer but I'm all for it being legalized both medicinally and recreationaly. The government has a national debt of $12,295,245,276,746.55 as of January 13th and you really think the government should waste more money and resources locking up minor marijuana offenders instead of taking on bigger issues come on bro, really? The government would eliminate a huge underground black market and make BANK if marijuana were to be legalized completely and taxed correctly. Lets lock up the real drug offenders, heroin, crack, cocaine, methamphetamine etc, those are the real drug problems in this country not a few teenagers smoking a blunt after school to calm down or the mother who takes care of 4 kids day in and day out to relax after she finally gets them to go to bed. Lets go man be real. I'm ecstatic that the government has legalized medical marijuana and I hope it only continues to make strides to legalizing it recreationaly.

 

Gay marriage on the other hand is disgusting, I'm not against gays or anything but marriage is a sacred thing to be shared between a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I'm not going to go too far into this because I'm not attempting to offend anybody but I'm happy it was outlawed in New Jersey.

 

That is all.

 

You may be from Jersey, but I think that's where our similarities end. I could see that legalized marijuana could be a good economic solution, but Im really tired of seeing our country put money before morals. Just because it's a quick and easy buck, doesn't make it the right solution. There is no way that you could possibly convince me that a pothead (marijuana user) is not a junkie. Just like I can't convince you that homosexuality is an okay thing. But to each his own.

[Range_This11]

And weed is GROSS. I tried it once. Eww. It mighta just been bad weed though.

Probably was...if you smoked in high school it's hard to find good weed. People just rip off high school kids with crappy weed. I'll hook you up with some cali stuff haha.

[ilya]

Sorry, I think both of those ideas are ridiculous, but it seems I'm outnumbered on the marijuana issue. Why exactly should a drug be legalized? And don't give me this "it's not a drug" cabbage - it's addictive and has detrimental effects on your health.

 

Marijuana buds have plenty of useful and wonderfull health benefits (helps with insomnia, very effective pain relief, helps with paranoia attacks and reduces stress, does wonders for people who have eating disorders, and has been proven to kill some of cancel cells).

Harmfull effects? Not a single report of a person dying or getting cancer from marijuana use. Sound surprised? Do some research :)

Nowhere near as bad as tobacco, but that doesnt matter. First off, smoking is not the only way of using weed, one can eat it or use a vaporizer which completely eliminates all the negatives of smoke. Second the ammount of smoke inhaled is minimal, and chances of you getting cancer are butt[bleep] low.

Oh and marijuana is not addictive :rolleyes:

 

Not to mention that it's america's largest crop (35billions which is more than wheat+corn combined). Goverment could tax the [cabbage] out of it and make plenty of money to help with the economy. It would also save alot of prison rooms, for actual criminals. Less drug dealers on the streets, and if one buys it off the goverment there will be no risk of getting weed mixed with other drugs and nasty things.

 

:)

[Furah]

You may be from Jersey, but I think that's where our similarities end. I could see that legalized marijuana could be a good economic solution, but Im really tired of seeing our country put money before morals. Just because it's a quick and easy buck, doesn't make it the right solution. There is no way that you could possibly convince me that a pothead (marijuana user) is not a junkie. Just like I can't convince you that homosexuality is an okay thing. But to each his own.

A junkie is one who is addicted to a narcotic, a marijuana user might only light up once or twice in a year, they might light up with mates on a weekend.

[JeremyM]

and they have Jersey Shore... great state

Totally just saw the new episode... Snooks gettin some action!

[archimage_a]

According to you, that would considered but right because it's what the majority wants, but I disagree. These are exactly the issues that need to be dealt with by logic and reasoning - the amount of people is almost irrelevant. The 5 could argue that they are more beneficial for the advancement of society. The 1 could argue that he worked hard for the bread, whereas the 5 were just being lazy. But no matter what, it shouldn't only come down to numbers. In my eyes, that's the lazy way out of arguing for your ideals.

 

I disagree as well. However there is a very simple example that can be used...Taxation. If I were to say, 'Ok, I have decided to increase my happiness by making the Star Control Movie, and to finance it I will charge every citizen of the United States and Britain 1 Cent/Pence per year.' There would be uproar...the very tinest amount of suffering, a mere 0.0004 decrease in something like 300 million peoples lives, while there would be a very massive increase in my happiness and the happiness of people who watched the film(A combination of Me and a Computer game, how could it go wrong?).

Its not lazy, it is merely the correct way of doing it. Not the way I like to do it, but it is the correct, societially correct, way of judging whether or not something is good for society.

 

Absolutely not. Sometimes the minority are the ones being unreasonable. My point is that we need to pay more attention to what is being said than how many are saying what.

 

Indeed. However this is not 'Gay people have the right to be gay' this is 'Gay people have the right to asks the government for a title.' There is a lot of emotion and such tied up in the request, and that should be counted...But there is also a lot of emotion tied up in the oppositions argument. Who are we to judge which has the greater extent of suffering? After all there could be one straight person who will kill themselves if marriage is 'corrupted'. Surely that is a greater suffering than say a gay person who is rather put out about not being able to marry.

 

Unless you were to go though society, somehow measuring the strength to which people believed in their argument and somehow measured the emotional weight related to it then Voting is the only real option. It assumes that everyone has a value of 1 and thus can decide whether they are for or against...measuring their own emotional weight and ect before delivering a considered view, in the form of a vote.

 

And that's where their "morals" and "logic" should be countered by the other side's morals and logic.

 

I don't even understand where the majority thing is coming from. Couldn't I just as easily say, "The minority should always get what they want,"? The many are sacrificed in service of the few? What makes the majority's needs more important than the minority's in every imaginable context (even when the minority are begging for mercy and the majority are craving sadistic torture)?

 

You could say that... It is one of the main arguments for slavery and eugenics(they were the two that sprang to mind, if I think of a good example I will add it). I suppose the main issue with that policy is how do you decide who is going to be the few?

There is also a much greater capacity to actual do with a minority....A majority will take years to do something, where as a minority can get it decided in a matter of hours and start the wheels turning within a day. But do they do great good....or great evil?

What if, after everything, it was decided that Sarah Palin was the leader of this 'Few'? It would roll back civil rights for hundreds of years, instead of advancing it by hundreds of years, as you want to do....I much prefer to see it take a natural hundreds of years and guide it as and when

 

(I have to go, so sorry for cutting this short)

[Romy]

Frankly if that is what people want then that is what people want.

 

We gay people have been at the bottom of the pile for the last 600 years(before that we owned, and in Russia we owned up until 1890 something), I hardly think that we should force people accept our ideas because we believe them to be correct. If more than 50% of people have a problem with me marrying another guy then why should I be given the right, by them, to make them feel uncomfortable...

 

Sort of like saying 'Hey, what we are going to do is kill you, but we thought that was a bit tiring so you are going to dig your graves and then shoot yourselves into the grave.'

 

Its pretty much morally wrong to force someone to do something they don't want to do, simply because we think it is right for them to do it.

 

Example, the British Empire taxing African people because we decided that African people were lazy because they wouldn't do what we said....The few should never dictate their will onto the many just because the few believe it to be correct and proper.

 

 

What if 'the many' are wrong?

 

Let's take that to the extreme, if a society (either one country's society, or the whole world's) would decide raping 12 year old girls is okay, because there are more guys than there are 12 year old girls, would you be okay with it? If your answer is 'no', then your argument of few dictating the many falls down the drain, as it happens so that 'the many' are worng, while the few aren't, and if that's the case, 'the many' should change their ways. If, however, for some reason, your answer is 'yes', then you have some serious issues and should see a psychiatrist ASAP.

[archimage_a]

...So essentially you have created a system in which I am either immoral or wrong...Or to put it another way I am wrong or I am wrong.

 

As a matter of fact I would say that it would probably be wrong, but if that is what they decided then there is not a huge amount that me thinking it is wrong would accomplish. I, myself, being a homoerotic asexual/frigid gay person(Depending on how insenitive you want to be), would probably not engage in raping 12 year old girls in any case.

 

 

Also, your view is based on the current majority belief that rape is wrong....Numerous tribes in Africa and South America though see it as being right. Furthermore Europeans considered it to be right(as a minority) as recently as the Iraq war and as recently as the second world war(as a majority).

Thus your idea is inherantly flawed, in that the majority is on your side and you are right because of that and because of that I am wrong in believing that the majority is entitle to enforce a view with promotes its own view at the expense of anothers.

 

Also, as a majority, it is decided that rapists are wrong, yet in the natural world they would not be considered wrong, and by morality they are also not considered wrong(since mankind has always taken what it has wanted, and a lot of animal species do the same). Thus you are just inflicting suffering on a minority, some of which have no control over their urges, any more than gay people have control over their urges. There is no real difference in broad terms...Neither gay people or 'child' people are intentionally hurting people, and in many circumstances the 'child' is not against the idea either, and thus is consenting... The only people who are hurt by this substrate(between two consenting human beings) are other people....People like you, who are in the majority and are willing to force people to suffer so you don't have to.

 

 

(Just to clear up any mis-understandings with the above...the answer to your question is 'If two consenting human beings decide to have sex I would not stop them' #

(NB: Rape is non-consential sex between two human adults... Which has 3 keywords...Non-consential, human and adults. Thus I would answer: Yes, it is right that they can vote to allow it. However it would be personally offensive if they actually did it wholesale, where as limited amounts, between consenting pairs, trios or whatever, would be fine.)

[Romy]

...So essentially you have created a system in which I am either immoral or wrong...Or to put it another way I am wrong or I am wrong.

 

As a matter of fact I would say that it would probably be wrong, but if that is what they decided then there is not a huge amount that me thinking it is wrong would accomplish. I, myself, being a homoerotic asexual/frigid gay person(Depending on how insenitive you want to be), would probably not engage in raping 12 year old girls in any case.

 

 

Also, your view is based on the current majority belief that rape is wrong....Numerous tribes in Africa and South America though see it as being right. Furthermore Europeans considered it to be right(as a minority) as recently as the Iraq war and as recently as the second world war(as a majority).

Thus your idea is inherantly flawed, in that the majority is on your side and you are right because of that and because of that I am wrong in believing that the majority is entitle to enforce a view with promotes its own view at the expense of anothers.

 

Also, as a majority, it is decided that rapists are wrong, yet in the natural world they would not be considered wrong, and by morality they are also not considered wrong(since mankind has always taken what it has wanted, and a lot of animal species do the same). Thus you are just inflicting suffering on a minority, some of which have no control over their urges, any more than gay people have control over their urges. There is no real difference in broad terms...Neither gay people or 'child' people are intentionally hurting people, and in many circumstances the 'child' is not against the idea either, and thus is consenting... The only people who are hurt by this substrate(between two consenting human beings) are other people....People like you, who are in the majority and are willing to force people to suffer so you don't have to.

 

 

(Just to clear up any mis-understandings with the above...the answer to your question is 'If two consenting human beings decide to have sex I would not stop them' #

(NB: Rape is non-consential sex between two human adults... Which has 3 keywords...Non-consential, human and adults. Thus I would answer: Yes, it is right that they can vote to allow it. However it would be personally offensive if they actually did it wholesale, where as limited amounts, between consenting pairs, trios or whatever, would be fine.)

 

If we are to cut to the chase and reach the bottom line, I think the mere fact that you think the minority shouldn't 'dictate' the majority is flawed for serveral reasons:

 

1) The fact that the majority thinks something is wrong/right, doesn't make it that way. It only means that that's what the majority thinks. Just to clear things up, I'm not saying the majority is automaticly wrong for thinking something different than the minority, only that the fact that more than 50% (or even 99.999999%) of place X's (X being any place, of any size, even the whole world) population believes somethines to be true, doesn't make it that way.

 

2) The majority COULD not know of/understand a concept. If to take the gay marriage example, many religious people find it as something of bad nature, basicly even unnatural, some even go as far as naming it "abomination". Religious people are, as you probably already know, not the only to think such things, which is exactly why many oppose gay marriage. In reality, one's sexual orientation, as once again you probably already know, cannot be chosen, and thus- gay men and women shouldn't be suffering, only because the majoirty doesn't understand that.

If to take the raping example (never thought I'd say/type that...), then on that specific hypothetical situation (in which the society doesn't see it as a bad thing), they probably wouldn't understand what psychological problems, or at extreme cases mental problems such activities could cause.

 

3) The majority wouldn't 'suffer' as much as you imply. And IF they would, I'm sure they'll get used to it. After all, they're not marrying to people of the same sex, and so it shouldn't be of their power to decide for those who wish to. To each his own, I always say.

 

4) Do you know what the concept behind the freedom of speech is?

Basicly (although in reality it's not all rainbows and butterflies, but that's what it's >supposed< to be like), the freedom of speech tries to eliminate the tyranny of the majoirty, and encourage pluralism, as to avoid said tyranny. It does so by allowing the minority to speak up, and perhaps even affect the majority by doing so. One of the fears the media "should be having" in a democratic and plural society is- missing on an opinion present amongst the people, even if only by a very tiny segment of the people. Infact, the media should be doing it's best at presenting all of the opinions prevailing amongst the people, in a democratic society that is.

 

5) Lastly, it's a matter of 'level of effect'. Surely, if we are to take the raping example again, if four very horny guys were to rape one woman, (correct me if I'm wrong) by your approach, they're not doing something wrong because the minority is taking one for the majority, as not to be selfish. Well, the 'level of effect' it has on said 4 man is a few minutes of... lets call it 'fun'. As opposed to them, the minority in this case not only suffered for X4~ time as much as the majority, but also kept on with it.

 

I'm sure you understand, after that bizzare example I gave (felt very weird to type that) that you should not feel selfish for 'forcing' such legalizations on the majority. After all, there's noting wrong with the consummation and institution of lovers of any gender's love.

 

Sorry for my bad English ;).