Don't think these are the kind that I like with steak?

[Skip]

When people do stupid shit with guns, we should make more laws to make guns less available because people don't take responsibility for their actions.

Only after shifting negative consequences from the individual and forcing collectivization those consequences on third parties.

When was the last time we executed a mass shooter? Murderer? Rapist? Child molester?

When was the last time we let a junky die in the gutter?

IOW...

It's my body, I can do what I want!!!

Also... You can work to pay for my housing, healthcare, illegitimate spawn, and student loan forgiveness from the degree I'll never use. Oh, and I'll vote to take your guns away anyway because the politicians who promise all this free shit happen to also want you disarmed for "reasons."

And my body can be forced to work for all of the above because allowing me to keep my paycheck/own my labor doesn't suit TheParty. But drug use, in a socialist country, certainly does.

FREEDOM!

[Irving]

That's quite the jump Skip. Would you use those same arguments for alcohol, tobacco, and motorcycle helmets? What about something like forced contributions to retirement accounts? That'd be a long game move that would definitely be an overall positive change, but it eliminates the freedom to screw up your life.

[Skip]

That's quite the jump Skip. Would you use those same arguments for alcohol, tobacco, and motorcycle helmets? What about something like forced contributions to retirement accounts? That'd be a long game move that would definitely be an overall positive change, but it eliminates the freedom to screw up your life.

It's not a jump when it's happening right in front of you. You have to be intentionally obtuse to reject the reality of what has happened in this state.

The same argument absolutely apply to all other behaviors.

We can either have freedom or the fresh hell Liberals are creating for us. But not both. This will create competing interests (hypocrisy) that only the gov can resolve with force because morality, law, reason/sanity will fail to resolve them (as we now see in Colorado/Denver).

HI just introduced a bill to completely outlaw cigarettes by 2024, btw. You can rot your mind but not your lungs. Why? One thing is expensive to the collective and the other is currently a benefit (this will change).

In a collectivist utopia, all human behavior has a price tag as do most humans. Accept that or reject it. But don't piss on my back and tell me drug use with socialism is freedom.

[Irving]

It's too bad we can't peak into an alternate universe where Colorado never decriminalized, then legalized weed, so we could see all the similar trends of the state turning blue still in place.

I heard about the Hawaii law this morning. Do you agree with it?

[Skip]

It's too bad we can't peak into an alternate universe where Colorado never decriminalized, then legalized weed, so we could see all the similar trends of the state turning blue still in place.

I heard about the Hawaii law this morning. Do you agree with it?

I don't think you're understanding me...

I don't agree with it in principle. But if gov is putting a gun to my head and forcing me to pay for it (instead of providing for my own family), it becomes a Prisoner's Dilemma of sorts. This isn't freedom. And anyone who thinks advancing drug use of any kind in the status quo is freedom needs to do some critical thinking.

Rhetorical question: Why do the people who promote drug use, do so conditionally (based on substance) if this were a freedom issue?

I don't think the HI law will pass but who knows. It really wouldn't surprise me if it did! HI has a massive meth problem and a massive welfare state funded by tourism. They should have more important things to worry about.

Remove the socialism, restore individual consequences, then this becomes a freedom argument.

[Irving]

I better see why you've added all this talk of socialism to the discussion now. I was generally curious how you felt about the proposed law. I haven't made up my mind about it. I always thought growing up that if cigarettes were as dangerous as everyone knew them to be, then the government would just outright make them illegal instead of trying to milk more money out of people for them.

I get the added costs argument, but I feel like people should really ask themselves where they draw the line on personal responsibility vs collective responsibility. How badly do we want to live in a society where people just die in the gutter?

[68Charger]

I better see why you've added all this talk of socialism to the discussion now. I was generally curious how you felt about the proposed law. I haven't made up my mind about it. I always thought growing up that if cigarettes were as dangerous as everyone knew them to be, then the government would just outright make them illegal instead of trying to milk more money out of people for them.

I get the added costs argument, but I feel like people should really ask themselves where they draw the line on personal responsibility vs collective responsibility. How badly do we want to live in a society where people just die in the gutter?

Decades ago, Canada did a study on the cost of cigarettes on healthcare (they had socialized healthcare recently)... with the intention finding a high cost so they could justify banning them. The study came back that people who smoke 1+ pack per day did NOT cost more in healthcare- since they were more likely to contract a terminal form of cancer and the treatments were relatively inexpensive (just keeping the patient comfortable until the end), and that they were typically not contributing in taxes at that point in their life. All this was weighed against the tax they were collecting on tobacco.

It was an interesting exercise in just how much gov't cares.

Now maybe there are more health care costs now- but nobody can convince me gov't does anything for the people's benefit... unless it's on accident.

[Irving]

I agree. If cigarettes were killing people at an alarming rate in their 40's, the government would probably be thinking about how the social security ponzi scheme could last several more decades.

[BushMasterBoy]

I'm just curious, how many court cases involving psilocybe cubensis have there been in Colorado?

[Great-Kazoo]

I'm just curious, how many court cases involving psilocybe cubensis have there been in Colorado?

With it as the primary reason there was a court case, for possession of small qty, Zero.