Quote:
Originally Posted by pedex
actually its just a continuation of the orwellian interpretation you have of the Constitution with respect to drugs
I understand your point completely, just pointing out how out of whack it is.
As it stands right now most drugs are illegal or semi-legal, I take it that isn't enough in your opinion? oh well, fortunately our country doesn't work like that
Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
I will say this again, and put it to rest: such direct distortions of arguments/discussion comments will not be tolerated here. If you understood my point, then there would have been no need to attempt to completely distort it publicly would there? Did I ever say anything about "euthanization?" No. Did I make any such comments? No. Is this debate about life or death? No. It's about selfish pleasures that are unnecessarily risky in more ways than one--even to those around the user. Did I say anything regarding killing people? No. Ironically, those were your words not mine.
I didn't interpret the Constitution in any way. The language in the Constitution is very clear. Your general welfare doesn't include smoking weed does it? That's not something that's required for a person to be happy. However, by using such selfish pleasures (selfish by definition, mind you), users create an environment for nonusers that is unpleasant, unhealthy, unpredictable, and sometimes potentially dangerous. That is a violation in
all contexts of the "general welfare," of the United States, and there's nothing to interpret there. I love how you're trying to twist my argument into some oppressive "Orwellian" style rhetoric. There's nothing oppressive about not being able to do drugs. Drugs are simple individualistic pleasures, nothing more..
They’re not needed for happiness, they’re not needed for
any aspect of human life. That goes against every context of the term "oppression,” and it’s laughable that you would call my argument against drugs “Orwellian” simply because you think individuals should be able to individualistically indulge without thinking or caring about the negative effects on those around them. The government
does care and has taken preventative action against such individualistic pleasures that also pose a risk to the well-being, health, etc. of people around the user and you’re calling my argument—which emphasizes that completely fair and reasonable government action—“Orwellian.” Interesting….