40-41 year old Millenials

#51
#51
If we legalized drugs I would bet usage wouldn't increase much if any. Anyone wanting to do drugs now can get them.

And since you asked, I'm also for legalizing prostitution, casino gambling (where it's currently illegal), manufacture of homemade hard spirits, drunk driving (but making drunk crashing a serious offense), making adulthood a single age, and there are others.
Individual freedom should be the standard. It isn't perfect. There are times where individuals make poor choices and times when they abuse that liberty and it affects others. But it is (or should be) the preferred default for America. We should desire individual freedom which may affect other individuals instead of government prohibition which affects all and only makes illegal those activities Americans will participate in anyway.
 
#52
#52
There is a difference between being on drugs which is a victimless crime and harming someone while under the influence which is not a victim less crime. If we are going to ban something because of the potential to harm someone then we should go back to Prohibition.
Isn’t this also the stupid ass argument for gun control.

But I digress
 
#53
#53
Legalizing drugs says to people that it's okay. Therefore it is a form of encouragement. People being addicted to drugs or doing them on a regular recreational basis creates lack of motivation. Lack of motivation leads to laziness. Laziness leads to people not wanting to work.

We need to be encouraging people to be responsible and to contribute to society in good ways.

What else are you okay with legalizing?

Some people do think legality means it's OK, but they're probably the same people who would do drugs anyway (whether they are people complicating their health with alcohol, pill-popping Moms, or rock-bottom tweakers).

What's worse is that the war on drugs encourages worse drug culture behavior.
 
#54
#54
Individual freedom should be the standard. It isn't perfect. There are times where individuals make poor choices and times when they abuse that liberty and it affects others. But it is (or should be) the preferred default for America. We should desire individual freedom which may affect other individuals instead of government prohibition which affects all and only makes illegal those activities Americans will participate in anyway.

I'd much rather live with the risks of freedom than the safety of oppression.
 
#60
#60
If we legalized drugs I would bet usage wouldn't increase much if any. Anyone wanting to do drugs now can get them.

And since you asked, I'm also for legalizing prostitution, casino gambling (where it's currently illegal), manufacture of homemade hard spirits, drunk driving (but making drunk crashing a serious offense), making adulthood a single age, and there are others.

For God sakes put a casino on every corner. Then maybe the Bjack and Craps tables at Cherokee won’t be 25 dollars.
 
#63
#63
Legalizing drugs says to people that it's okay. Therefore it is a form of encouragement. People being addicted to drugs or doing them on a regular recreational basis creates lack of motivation. Lack of motivation leads to laziness. Laziness leads to people not wanting to work.

We need to be encouraging people to be responsible and to contribute to society in good ways.

What else are you okay with legalizing?
What else? Why not everything?
 
#64
#64
What else? Why not everything?
@hog88 @LouderVol @volfanhill and others:

If a person gets themselves in a bad place by over indulging in their freedoms, should the taxpayers provide a pathway out of that bad place? Or, are those bad places a lesson learned about being a responsible adult who is now capable to self manage their freedoms?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#65
#65
@hog88 @LouderVol @volfanhill and others:

If a person gets themselves in a bad place by over indulging in their freedoms, should the taxpayers provide a pathway out of that bad place? Or, are those bad places a lesson learned about being a responsible adult who is now capable to self manage their freedoms?

What kind of pathway?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#68
#68
@hog88 @LouderVol @volfanhill and others:

If a person gets themselves in a bad place by over indulging in their freedoms, should the taxpayers provide a pathway out of that bad place? Or, are those bad places a lesson learned about being a responsible adult who is now capable to self manage their freedoms?
I feel like you are leading this somewhere but I will bite.

No bailouts. To expand on this, no public financial assistance. If there is some legal, moral(?), whatever "free" assistance I dont think it would bother me. Devil is in the details.
 
Last edited:
#69
#69
@hog88 @LouderVol @volfanhill and others:

If a person gets themselves in a bad place by over indulging in their freedoms, should the taxpayers provide a pathway out of that bad place? Or, are those bad places a lesson learned about being a responsible adult who is now capable to self manage their freedoms?

Ideologically? They should be left in their bad place.

Practically? If that most likely leads to jail/prison, which is super expensive (particularly over time), then getting them the help they need on the taxpayer dime becomes pragmatically beneficial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#70
#70
@hog88 @LouderVol @volfanhill and others:

If a person gets themselves in a bad place by over indulging in their freedoms, should the taxpayers provide a pathway out of that bad place? Or, are those bad places a lesson learned about being a responsible adult who is now capable to self manage their freedoms?
No taxpayer funds. A person can't help themselves until they admit they have a problem. Once they have reached that level plenty of charitable organizations exist, and would continue to exist, to assist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#71
#71
He could have cut spending had he really wanted to. Our military was in shambles at the time so there needed to be some spending there but Star Wars was boondoggle.
Star Wars and much more. He was preaching small government while at the same time the Beltway Bandits were building huge luxurious office space all over NoVa and the Maryland burbs. He, or his handlers, really boosted the corporate welfare culture.
There's a vast difference between Reagan's rhetoric (and his supporters' spin) and reality.
 
#72
#72
Ideologically? They should be left in their bad place.

Practically? If that most likely leads to jail/prison, which is super expensive (particularly over time), then getting them the help they need on the taxpayer dime becomes pragmatically beneficial.
This is why I said the devil is in the details, is welfare really cheaper than jail? I mean it is, but does it move the needle?

Until/unless we develop and practice aid that is effective and relatively short term, hooking them on the government teet is just as bad as hooking them on drugs imo.
 
#75
#75
I feel like you are leading this somewhere but I will bite.

No bailouts. To expand on this, no public financial assistance. If there is some legal, moral(?), whatever "free" assistance I dont think it would bother me. Devil is in the details.
Not leading at all.

I struggle with the idea of addicts and homeless getting themselves into a bind without a pathway out for two reasons. 1. some of those are mentally ill and aren't completely empowered to manage themselves. 2. so many of those people are simply trying to medicate themselves with alcohol, drugs, and rx meds. And unfortunately, many of those people gradually slide down to a level of dependence/ruin.
 

VN Store



Back
Top