View Single Post
Old November 19th, 2012 (6:28 PM).
PiemanFiddy's Avatar
PiemanFiddy PiemanFiddy is offline
Dark-Type Gym Leader
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Florida
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by von Weltschmerz View Post
They don't exactly regulate the diet on such a personal level. But they seek to ban certain food items for consumption because they have too much of this, or too much of that. The question, however, isn't if their claims on the health affects are true, but whether or not they should get to decide that for people.

The "police force" is merely a legal extension of the government. It is through the government that they get their power. They cannot act in a way that defies the government. If the police were to arrest people for such things... the judicial system would see them free, and the officers reprimanded/fired. Also.. the way that you use rapists and pothead in the same sentence... is not so shockingly offensive. Those are two ENTIRELY different types of crime. One is non-violent and affects only the user. The other is EXTREMELY violent and affects someone other than the perpetrator of the crime. That being said... marijuana is NOT legalized... so I don't know where you are getting that tidbit about "delinquents" skewing the results of the vote. And that is just it... smoking weed will affect no one but themselves. But that debate is for another thread. So the question is drawn between the two crimes that you proposed.

It seems to me like you are a much more states right oriented person. That would not equate to the police force running the town, but the states would, themselves get to choose what works best. That is what the U.S. was originally founded upon, but meh...

I also wonder if you realize the implication of "no government control." That would be a state of anarchy. Anarchy in which people could murder, rape, and steal as they please. Without any government... the police force would have no value. They, themselves, cannot decide that people are criminals. That is for the courts to decide. So even if that was changed, and the police got to make the decision... The solution to getting out of any crime would be to murder the entire police force. With no one able to denote you as a criminal... you couldn't go to jail.

THIS is why my School Lunches are so crappy. Thanks for clearer confirmation on that matter. I know Obesity and Anorexia is a problem, but that doesn't have any business being in the hands of the government, let alone a School Board or Parent-Teacher conference.

You spoke of Personal Affairs and Legalized Marijuana. Most people who smoke Marijuana do it to make food taste better. Even though there ARE people who use it medicinally, the demographic of 'potheads' are much higher. I don't say this to be offensive, but if you seriously search 'legalized marijuana' on google, you'll get 1 of 3 things:

1. News Story coverage.
2. Reddit memes covering it.
3. Pictures of addicts living on the streets, or random 'bums'. (Often associated with Marijuana... idk why)

As for Personal Affairs, I assume it's either a family argument, domestic violence, or a rapist. Since most females (or males) that are raped tend not to tell anyone until they're given the help they need.

Oh well.. Maybe Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were the wiser of the founders since they knew how to run a country. Unfortunately, ever since Nixon, or even Bush, It's been devolving.

I never said the government couldn't have control over the police force... wait.. OK maybe I misunderstood myself. What I meant to imply was that the Government should ONLY be allowed to butt in with Police Force affairs as long as the crime was pre-meditated or etc. They shouldn't have COMPLETE control over the Police, otherwise the Police Force turns into the catalyst for spying on other Americans they have no business spying on.

Just what I always thought. Didn't mean to offend. If I did, I apologize.


So sleepy...
Reply With Quote