All drugs should be legal for over 18s

TheVat said:
It's the greatest dance craze since Chubby Checker.
Click to expand...
Chubby would not have liked you.
TheVat said:
And you still danced away from answering what should be a simple question: why is it okay for corporations to restrict people's freedoms but not for governments?
Click to expand...
You can walk away from the corporations.
TheVat said:
Concerning hard drugs, both have the same reasons of public safety. United Airlines doesn't want its planes to crash. The federal government wants the same thing, representing the vast majority of citizens who also want planes not to crash.
Click to expand...
United can forbid employees to be under the influence while on the job.

TheVat said:
But you're only okay with it if United forbids the drugs. Huh.
Click to expand...
Again, you can walk away from United.
 
Last edited:
Wizard of Whatever said:
You can walk away from the corporations.
Click to expand...
Really? So our citizen is financially independent and doesn't need to stick with the job?

Wizard of Whatever said:
United can forbid employees to be under the influence while on the job.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's just while on the job. Most companies, where a clear head is so critically important, there is testing that can tell if you're using at home. As I recall, THC can stay in your system for up to a month and thus show on a urine test. And some, even if you're clean on a test, you're still undergoing withdrawal symptoms that would be quite undesirable on a flight crew. Bill would know more on this, obv.

You still have a double standard. Corporations restricting drugs for the public good: WoW approves. Gubment restricting drugs for the public good: evil fascist pigs.
 
TheVat said:
Really? So our citizen is financially independent and doesn't need to stick with the job?
Click to expand...
If he has to choose between drugs and job it is up to him.
TheVat said:
I don't think it's just while on the job. Most companies, where a clear head is so critically important, there is testing that can tell if you're using at home. As I recall, THC can stay in your system for up to a month and thus show on a urine test. And some, even if you're clean on a test, you're still undergoing withdrawal symptoms that would be quite undesirable on a flight crew. Bill would know more on this, obv.
Click to expand...
In the final analysis it is up to the companies to police their workers.
TheVat said:
You still have a double standard. Corporations restricting drugs for the public good: WoW approves. Gubment restricting drugs for the public good: evil fascist pigs.
Click to expand...
Corporations restrict drugs for corporate good. That's their right. Governments restrict drugs because they are totalitarian fascists. That's not their right.
 
I think we have gone far enough. Nobody is going to change their view point, least of all me.

My closing statement is this. Any individual or government that wishes to, tries to, or succeeds in restricting mine and others' right to use whatever substances we wish (except antibiotics) if over 18, and not restricted by job, is an evil, totalitarian, fascist pig. I am sorry if this fits you, but it is the way I truly feel and see it.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
Of course not
Click to expand...
So you advocate restricting the rights of good drunk drivers just because bad drunk drivers can't control their cars to your standards.


Any individual or government that wishes to, tries to, or succeeds in restricting mine and others' right to use whatever substances we wish (except antibiotics) if over 18, and not restricted by job, is an evil, totalitarian, fascist pig.
Click to expand...

So since you want to restrict the right of drunk drivers to drink and drive, can we take it that you are an evil, totalitarian, fascist pig? Or does that moniker only apply to people OTHER than you who restrict other's rights?
 
billvon said:
So you advocate restricting the rights of good drunk drivers just because bad drunk drivers can't control their cars to your standards.

So since you want to restrict the right of drunk drivers to drink and drive, can we take it that you are an evil, totalitarian, fascist pig? Or does that moniker only apply to people OTHER than you who restrict other's rights?
Click to expand...
Good-bye twister. You have shown me what you are, and you are recognized now, and it is useless to reply.
 
What I love about WoW:

In one thread he says "Paint everyone on the other side with the same brush and your chances of finding any real solutions approach zero."

A few days later in this thread: "Any individual or government that wishes to, tries to, or succeeds in restricting mine and others' right to use whatever substances we wish (except antibiotics) if over 18, and not restricted by job, is an evil, totalitarian, fascist pig."

But that's different, because his "evil, totalitarian, fascist pig" brush is superior to everyone else's!
 
This is one of the reasons why drugs should not be made legal, it should be very difficult then become people are not strong, they become habitual users and become damaged.
What % of people on the streets are there because of drugs?
In prison?
In the ground?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top