Make it Legal
- Thread starter Michael S. Azrael
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Empirically false.inglioti said:
Pro faith, pro choice [http://www.rcrc.org/programs/clergy_resources.cfm].
Atheist and Agnostic pro-life league [http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html].
When Stalin took over the Soviet Union, people didn't all tear their clothes off in the streets and start their new lives free from religion by having free love, loads of drugs and gay orgies.
Sure. Make weed legal. I just got off of a political thread, so I think I could smoke a bowl or two...or twenty.
well i didn't know about those exceptions, granted. however, i don't think it takes away from my main point - religion is integral to someone, where as atheism is not.cuddly_tomato said:
a christian's view on abortion and gay rights is influenced by the belief system they ascribe to, where as an atheist's view is based on logic and reason (to a lesser extent personal convictions.) the atheists in your aforementioned group ascribe to the belief that life is important - by way of logic or some other un-religious reason. the christians are pro-choice because they have found justification in the bible. do you see the point i'm making?
also, in soviet russia, i hardly think freedom from religion is comparable to life under a dictator.
1000 times yes, its no worse than cigarettes or alchohol, you act just as dumb haha, but at least you dont kill 
Indeed I do see your point. However, you aren't quite acknowledging the situation "on the ground" as it were. Abortion is quite legal across most of the western world now, inspite of the fact that they are Christian nations. Homosexuality is now legal also, with the possibility of gay marriages now being mooted. However, in the (currently atheist) state of North Korea, you aren't allowed to even talk about homosexuality.inglioti said:
My point about Stalin was that you can get rid of religion altogether in a society, but there is no precident for it actually working out like you think. If you have a look at the list of states which have tried to suppress religion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism] they have resulted in a system as oppressive and evil as any theocracy.
This is a topic I know very well, if you want me to expand on this via PM I can give you a lot of information on it. However I would say that while your aim is laudable, your reasoning is not. It would be best if religion simply did not take a role in government decisions, rather than be suppressed or prejudiced (religious people are people too.)
you're understanding seems to be greater than mine.cuddly_tomato said:
i'm not advocating the removal of religion completely - merely that it should be a personal choice. i was raised agnostic because my father, who is a christian, believed i should make up my own mind.
however, this doesn't seem to be the case. in america, being an atheist politician is political suicide. religion seems to play to much part in politics. even here, in australia, the PM hopefuls have to make an appeal to the christian lobby groups, even though we aren't an extremely religious nation.
as for abortion and homosexuality, even though they are legal, i think the religious majority governments had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into legislating in the favour of basic human rights.
and again, for north korea... well... i don't know what to say. just because the idiot of a dictator has banned religion doesn't mean it's taken away any substance from my argument that there should be a more stringent divide between religion and politics. ditto soviet russia, ditto every other wacky dictator with atheist leanings. the contrary could be said to any number of insane religious nuts who want to reinstate the ten commandments as law - it doesn't detract from your argument that religion isn't that bad.
what i would like is a movement towards tolerance, religious and otherwise... like sweden, switzerland, norway etc that are super awesomely secular.
Find me a single recorded case in medical history of someone dying from thc overdose and private message me your real address/paypal account/whatever on the forums, and i will personally send you $100 (australian). No kidding.Iron Mal said:
Alcohol was illegal from 1920-1933. Worst 13 years of America. But I whole-heartedly agree with pot legalization and cigarette banning.Fanitullen said:
Cultivation should be treated as if it was any other vegitation.
Minimum age 18 for recreational use.
Medicinal use under-age should require prescription.
Under-age violations should fall under same rules as nicotine use.
Minimum age 18 for recreational use.
Medicinal use under-age should require prescription.
Under-age violations should fall under same rules as nicotine use.
I agree, altho its more likely that cultivation will be controlled for taxation purposes, same as tobacco cultivation is controlled. I also wouldn't object to a legal age of 16/20 but 18's fine too. Whatever, so long as primary school kids can't buy it. Just make it the same as the legal drinking age in the country (which in my opinion should always be the same as the legal age of adulthood for all other purposes, by the way)Pilot Bush said:
Ridiculous.Lexodus said:
In Georgia it's illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone poll. What the hell am I supposed to with my giraffe when I go into town?
Well, I've always found that most laws (not all laws) are put into place for people who don't have the common sense not to do them.
And that just doesn't look good for anybody. If I were to get involved in the say of how marijuana is handled, well, educate kids young about drugs instead of just saying "don't do drugs." I don't see why so many people are for it for economic reasons and all that, but I know little about the economy, so I won't get into that.
To end this one; marijuana, as an inhaled drug, I'd think would be best to just be uninvolved in the law in general. Calling it legal or illegal gives someone reason enough to do it either way, but just saying there's not particular law might be effective... maybe. I wouldn't touch the stuff just because I don't need it, don't want it, and will never see a good reason for it.
Anyways, moving on; for places that haven't legalized gay marriage, I would say that should be allowed. There may be "religious" reasons, but I think that there has been, numerous times, loopholes found in the Bible about all that, so at least Christians should turn the other cheek and allow two people to be bound by law as husband and husband/wife and wife. I'm not sure about the statutes of gay rights in other religions.
I saw prostitution; I thought that the legalized forms of those were "brothels" or something, though I don't know for certain. I'm personally against such things, because I think it's a bit consenting of a girl to offer such an intimate act for something as shallow as profit, but in terms of its' correlation with the law; I'd prefer a communistic approach to it. I.e., some sort of business area, as apposed to someone on the streets doing it "unprofessionally."
I guess that about covers my views, have I been harsh?
I'm with this guy on cannabis. And still, after some idle research, it doesn't offer much that can't be done with a little belief in yourself, or other such stuff. Anyways, long reasons why I'm not too for marijuana, but I'm not seriously against it. I just know that if it gets legalized, there will be people stupid enough (and don't say there won't, you know we have such idiots) to get as blazed as humanly possible immediately following the passing of the bill. Or however the law's passed, I don't know much about politics.lostclause said:
And that just doesn't look good for anybody. If I were to get involved in the say of how marijuana is handled, well, educate kids young about drugs instead of just saying "don't do drugs." I don't see why so many people are for it for economic reasons and all that, but I know little about the economy, so I won't get into that.
To end this one; marijuana, as an inhaled drug, I'd think would be best to just be uninvolved in the law in general. Calling it legal or illegal gives someone reason enough to do it either way, but just saying there's not particular law might be effective... maybe. I wouldn't touch the stuff just because I don't need it, don't want it, and will never see a good reason for it.
Anyways, moving on; for places that haven't legalized gay marriage, I would say that should be allowed. There may be "religious" reasons, but I think that there has been, numerous times, loopholes found in the Bible about all that, so at least Christians should turn the other cheek and allow two people to be bound by law as husband and husband/wife and wife. I'm not sure about the statutes of gay rights in other religions.
I saw prostitution; I thought that the legalized forms of those were "brothels" or something, though I don't know for certain. I'm personally against such things, because I think it's a bit consenting of a girl to offer such an intimate act for something as shallow as profit, but in terms of its' correlation with the law; I'd prefer a communistic approach to it. I.e., some sort of business area, as apposed to someone on the streets doing it "unprofessionally."
I guess that about covers my views, have I been harsh?
![[TW]_Saviour](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/61/61525.jpg?1620556660){kind=avatar}