|
Election time again (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| S_madis |
| study enough politics at uni so really couldn't be bothered to get into any form of political discussion in the place where I usually come to get away from it all, BUT I am voting greens simply because they have a plan in place for the decriminalisation of our little best friend, Mr E! |
|
|
| A.J. |
| There's no fookin' way that i would ever vote for Howard. |
|
|
| waXology |
 |
|
|
| amnesiak |
| yay for legalisation, go greens, you buncha mushroom eating tree hugging hippies |
|
|
| 00soups00 |
| quote: | Originally posted by waXology
im voting Howard.
i just dont think latham can cut it |
i have to agree |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
for the first time i aint voting at all. I disagree vehemently with latham's plan to pull out of iraq, and no matter what is happening in the world i shall never lower myself to vote for the "liberals".
and as for the independents, they just push my preference one way or the other. so on ballot day i shall enjoy not having to leave the house. |
|
|
| 00soups00 |
| quote: | Originally posted by S_madis
I am voting greens simply because they have a plan in place for the decriminalisation of our little best friend, Mr E! |
thats :crazy:
what is there plan???
you could argue maybe that by de-criminalising a substance that it takes away some of its appeal, but you cant seriously make a drug like that legal.... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by 00soups00
you cant seriously make a drug like that legal.... |
why on earth not? no different to going out for a few drinks. govt shouldnt stick there nose into what i stick in my body. |
|
|
| 00soups00 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
why on earth not? no different to going out for a few drinks. govt shouldnt stick there nose into what i stick in my body. |
no different to going out for a few drinks??
you must be kidding arent you... like how can you take a post like that seriously.
as least get real about it...
and governments role is to attempt to protect the society they govern.. now you could argue that present government may not do all they can to protect their society, and may even put there own needs ahead of the society's, however they cannot ACTIVELY allow something which is known to be bad for health... |
|
|
| Antistatic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Adnan1999'ing
Some young liberal policies i digged up from their website.
*SHOCK* (this is what they are drumming into their future liberal leaders) |
Almost all Young Libs are right-wing freaks that bear no resemblence to the senior party. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by 00soups00
no different to going out for a few drinks??
|
actually soups, im not kidding. the reason i just said the basics is coz i didnt wanna have to type all the following ;o)
firstly, its kinda arbitrary to suggest that the "governments role is to attempt to protect the society they govern" -you'll find a lot of literature exists that argues for all different kinds of roles for govt. while i do agree that govt should protect its citizens from various social, economic & political issues, i do not think that govt should protect an individual from themselves. if you think that they should, then there are countless legal things that exist that cause all kinds of social degradation & death that should also be banned:
cars, gambling, alcohol, cigarettes (just to name a few).
so yeah, govt *does* "ACTIVELY allow something which is known to be bad for health" and always has. if youre going to be against the decriminalisation of particular substances, you would need to show how the drugs that are banned are inherently different from the ones that are not. i simply do not see the difference between going pilling during an event and getting totally pissed. they may differ in terms of the relative danger, but surely that is an individual's choice rather than the role of a nosy govt.
the major result of banning substances is that it creates a criminal power structure, just as prohibition did in the US. as long as such a profit-margin exists, there will always be those willing to take the risks & deal and produce narcotics. now, that being the case, i would much rather go buy stuff from a govt laboratory than being forced to trust someone at a party. harm minimisation.
prohibition certainly hasnt worked, has it?
once you start allowing govts to tell a citizen what they can and cannot do to themselves, youre essentially pandering to an elitist morality that enforces their view of what's right for my conduct (in the context of my conduct towards myself). why is their morality superior to my own, especially when we are discussing my body?
now, are we taking me more seriously now? ;o) |
|
|
| Xavier |
| quote: | | [i][b]Originally posted by so on ballot day i shall enjoy not having to leave the house. |
isn't there a fine
I'm only going to vote just to get free tea and coffee plus the obligational "election day" theft of the Scotch fingers. :D |
|
|
|
|
