so are you pro-government or believe in less government?

I am pro-government doing the things a government should do.

I'm something like that. A totalitarian/libertarian crossbreed, which is fucked up, I know, but hey. There are a couple of things that a government (and only a government) should do, and they should be done hard.

@mdkI get ya.

Government DOs [+]

Gun control (exceptions). We can all agree: no civilian needs an AK-74 with a 10000 bullet drum. The rest can get murky, but that needs to be a basic assumption. Drugs (exceptions). Meth is bad. So is crack/cocaine/heroin/whatever the fuck they are doing now. Weed and steroids are murky, but enforce the dangerous ones. Basic law. Murder: Kill them or life imprison them. Whichever costs less. Drugs(Possession): The reason our systems suck dick. Try forced rehab-sans prison record. They need help. If they hurt somebody, then thats an assault charge. Otherwise, it really doesn't affect anybody else. Drugs(Selling)/Rapists: Torture chamber. Plenty of fun ideas. Enforce these.

Why does the government have the right to arrest someone for having drugs? Meth is bad, yeah, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Like at all-- a hard drug user isn't going in without knowing what they're doing is bad for them.

@Darcs I totally agree with that point. My problem is that legalizing it allows to be marketed to children. Similar to smoking.

If a commodity that is illegal is made legal, it will become more widely consumed as a result.

@mdkI get ya.

Government DON'Ts [+]

Economy. At all. Never. GTFO. Anything that does not affect others. None of their fucking business. Citizen surveillance. You got a warrant? Then stay the fuck off my facebook page. Immigration. Jobs cannot be 'taken'. Nobody wants the jobs they do take. They also aren't cheap labor if you give them minimum wage.

Government DOs [+]

Gun control (exceptions). We can all agree: no civilian needs an AK-74 with a 10000 bullet drum. The rest can get murky, but that needs to be a basic assumption. Drugs (exceptions). Meth is bad. So is crack/cocaine/heroin/whatever the fuck they are doing now. Weed and steroids are murky, but enforce the dangerous ones. Basic law. Murder: Kill them or life imprison them. Whichever costs less. Drugs(Possession): The reason our systems suck dick. Try forced rehab-sans prison record. They need help. If they hurt somebody, then thats an assault charge. Otherwise, it really doesn't affect anybody else. Drugs(Selling)/Rapists: Torture chamber. Plenty of fun ideas. Enforce these.

I have to disagree on your notion that government shouldn't handle the economy, making the economy non governmental would probably still lead to mismanagement in my opinion

Meth is bad, yeah, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Like at all-- a hard drug user isn't going in without knowing what they're doing is bad for them.

If the rest of us weren't on the hook for the drug user's medical treatment, and all the extra law enforcement costs (cops, legal fees, etc) associated with the statistically inevitable consequences of that hard drug use -- then sure. As it stands, if you consider it the government's job to let me do whatever the fuck I want, then they have to enforce a modicum of common sense on the small outlier-percentage of people who are too stupid to stay out of my way. And as long as I need the feds to do that, I need them to take it seriously as hell. In a perfect world, you shoot up with whatever you want and it doesn't bother me in the least. I'd love to be there. Until there's a way to eliminate my liability for someone else's bad decisions, then it's in my interest to keep them from making bad decisions. And that's why my government has to regulate drugs.

My stances on drugs is that if it were up to me then I would try get rid of all of them with affirmative action, my government would do it gangster squad style by smashing all of the suppliers and taking down drug cartels and their allies. Drugs fuck up and as a person living in a city I can tell you that it does screw people up

@Darcs I totally agree with that point. My problem is that legalizing it allows to be marketed to children. Similar to smoking.

Marketing and being able to sell to are two different things.

If a commodity that is illegal is made legal, it will become more widely consumed as a result.

Yeah, I think the current predictions are something like 10% of the population of America would become permanent drug addicts if we made chasing the dragon legal, with millions more using with less devastating effects.

If the rest of us weren't on the hook for the drug user's medical treatment, and all the extra law enforcement costs (cops, legal fees, etc) associated with the statistically inevitable consequences of that hard drug use -- then sure. As it stands, if you consider it the government's job to let me do whatever the fuck I want, then they have to enforce a modicum of common sense on the small outlier-percentage of people who are too stupid to stay out of my way. And as long as I need the feds to do that, I need them to take it seriously as hell. In a perfect world, you shoot up with whatever you want and it doesn't bother me in the least. I'd love to be there. Until there's a way to eliminate my liability for someone else's bad decisions, then it's in my interest to keep them from making bad decisions. And that's why my government has to regulate drugs.

That's fine, you don't want people doing drugs because you don't want a junkie holding you up for their next dime bag. I won't sit here and pretend like the right to do drugs is some divine natural right, but I do think that people should be able to take any action, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Shrooms don't make me want to go harm people, the risk that I'll become a mushroom crazed junkie is there, I'm sure, but then-- with most things there's a risk that maybe one day I just snap and decide to fuck with people. Does consuming psilcybin increase that risk? Probably. But it doesn't make the action taken against the welfare of others certain. I would rather exist free with an increased risk for personal harm than willingly trade away some of my freedoms for a security that isn't even promised.

My stances on drugs is that if it were up to me then I would try get rid of all of them with affirmative action, my government would do it gangster squad style by smashing all of the suppliers and taking down drug cartels and their allies. Drugs fuck up and as a person living in a city I can tell you that it does screw people up

I know. I'd rather drug use be legal and have money spent helping those who do them than 1 ounce of the stuff get someone 5 years.

That's fine, you don't want people doing drugs because you don't want a junkie holding you up for their next dime bag. I won't sit here and pretend like the right to do drugs is some divine natural right, but I do think that people should be able to take any action, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Shrooms don't make me want to go harm people, the risk that I'll become a mushroom crazed junkie is there, I'm sure, but then-- with most things there's a risk that maybe one day I just snap and decide to fuck with people. Does consuming psilcybin increase that risk? Probably. But it doesn't make the action taken against the welfare of others certain. I would rather exist free with an increased risk for personal harm than willingly trade away some of my freedoms for a security that isn't even promised.

Agreed on all points. The only trouble is that our current reality doesn't allow personal risk to be personal. That's a whole other (much more imporant) can of worms. Drug enforcement is a band-aid that protects me from some morons, and not others, while leftists dick around with the notion of social responsibility. Once we can hold a person accountable for *themselves* and *only* themselves, we don't need the band-aid anymore, and we get rid of it, because unnecessary authority is super bad for everyone. There's smart people using 'ILLEEEEEGUL' drugs responsibly -- the way I see it, if you can do drugs and not get caught, you're probably one of the ones I don't need to be worrying about. So go for it. Some doors get closed on you, employment-wise -- which isn't fair, but it's part of the math you should be doing before you smoke. But if that's what you wanna do, and you aren't affecting anyone (totally doable), more power to ya. I mean it. Lick that toad, eat that flower, live your life however you damn well please. It's yours. We really need to get back to a place where that means something to the government. edit: It's not just about getting held up though. That junkie is gonna wanna clean up someday and he doesn't have the money to go to rehab. But he needs the help, you know? So *obviously* the government should be helping him, right, to become a productive citizen again! What could be more justified? Then they'll take money out of my pocket and subsidize my mugger's medical bills.

Agreed.

@Darcs I totally agree with that point. My problem is that legalizing it allows to be marketed to children. Similar to smoking.

Marketing and being able to sell to are two different things.

If a commodity that is illegal is made legal, it will become more widely consumed as a result.

Yeah, I think the current predictions are something like 10% of the population of America would become permanent drug addicts if we made chasing the dragon legal, with millions more using with less devastating effects.

If the rest of us weren't on the hook for the drug user's medical treatment, and all the extra law enforcement costs (cops, legal fees, etc) associated with the statistically inevitable consequences of that hard drug use -- then sure. As it stands, if you consider it the government's job to let me do whatever the fuck I want, then they have to enforce a modicum of common sense on the small outlier-percentage of people who are too stupid to stay out of my way. And as long as I need the feds to do that, I need them to take it seriously as hell. In a perfect world, you shoot up with whatever you want and it doesn't bother me in the least. I'd love to be there. Until there's a way to eliminate my liability for someone else's bad decisions, then it's in my interest to keep them from making bad decisions. And that's why my government has to regulate drugs.

That's fine, you don't want people doing drugs because you don't want a junkie holding you up for their next dime bag. I won't sit here and pretend like the right to do drugs is some divine natural right, but I do think that people should be able to take any action, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Shrooms don't make me want to go harm people, the risk that I'll become a mushroom crazed junkie is there, I'm sure, but then-- with most things there's a risk that maybe one day I just snap and decide to fuck with people. Does consuming psilcybin increase that risk? Probably. But it doesn't make the action taken against the welfare of others certain. I would rather exist free with an increased risk for personal harm than willingly trade away some of my freedoms for a security that isn't even promised.

My stances on drugs is that if it were up to me then I would try get rid of all of them with affirmative action, my government would do it gangster squad style by smashing all of the suppliers and taking down drug cartels and their allies. Drugs fuck up and as a person living in a city I can tell you that it does screw people up

I know. I'd rather drug use be legal and have money spent helping those who do them than 1 ounce of the stuff get someone 5 years.

would you be fine with groups of government vigilantes taking it to the suppliers and cartels and smashing their empires and operations? That would mean that rather than going after the small time dealer and abuser, we go after the big boys and take them down. That alone would shatter most of our drug problems

would you be fine with groups of government vigilantes taking it to the suppliers and cartels and smashing their empires and operations?

YES

would you be fine with groups of government vigilantes taking it to the suppliers and cartels and smashing their empires and operations?

YES

have you seen Gangster Squad?

would you be fine with groups of government vigilantes taking it to the suppliers and cartels and smashing their empires and operations?

YES

have you seen Gangster Squad?

No, I have a few hours to kill though. Do you know if it's on Netflix?