View Single Post
Old November 19th, 2012 (6:17 PM).
von Weltschmerz von Weltschmerz is offline
the first born unicorn
    Join Date: Oct 2012
    Posts: 135
    Originally Posted by PiemanFiddy View Post
    Eating too much sugar? Umm... If you're implying that the government is allowed to monitor the average diet of the American People, then PLEASE point me in the direction of another country. That is just downright ridiculous...

    In my opinion, the only interference there should be between Rapists and Potheads is the Police force. They have their own towns/states under control, and they can decide for themselves if the punishment is deemed worthy for Imprisonment or Probation.

    Personally I think the only reason weed was legalized was because a large majority of americans who voted 'yes' were either Delinquents or Potheads. They only thought of themselves and how awesome it would be to smoke weed, but NEVER thought of the effects it could have on the other demographic. Dishonest voters.

    Well.. this has derailed a bit.. but my moot point is that the Government really shouldn't bother with anything, since all they do is either make a big deal out of it, or go to war with it. =/
    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 things not denoted as crimes by the federal government.. 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.
    Being wrong isn't "bad", failing to admit that you are, is.
    Reply With Quote