Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« BAF Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Supreme Court won't extend reduced charges to low-level crack cocaine offenders 

By: ribit in BAF | Recommend this post (1)
Tue, 15 Jun 21 9:27 PM | 36 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Bash-a-Farter 		Msg. 05643 of 06530
(This msg. is a reply to 05641 by Decomposed)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

If we aren't hurting anyone, we should be free to act as we please. 

...ok by me.




Avatar

Liberals are like a "Slinky". Totally useless, but somehow ya can't help but smile when you see one tumble down a flight of stairs!

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Supreme Court won't extend reduced charges to low-level crack cocaine offenders
By: Decomposed in BAF
Tue, 15 Jun 21 4:57 PM 		Msg. 05641 of 06530

ribit:

Re: “Just saying it isn't wise. For every person who can "handle it" there are thousands who cannot.”Agreed - it's usually not wise. When I'm riddled with cancer and given but a few months to live, I may try something. Until then, no thanks.

But that's getting away from the legality issue. Are we to be a free country, or are we not? Is it a good precedent to have laws forbidding things on the assumption that we citizens cannot "handle" them? Once the precedent for banning drugs on that basis is founded, alcohol, guns, automobile ownership, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution, premarital sex, extramarital affairs, polygamy, going outside without a mask, hunting, participating in unconventional religions and clubs, learning bombmaking and countless other freedoms we have (or, in some cases, do not have) are on the chopping block. WHO IS THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL US WHAT TO DO???? JUST A BUNCH OF ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO "TSK TSK" AT BEHAVIOR THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THEIR OWN.

If we aren't hurting anyone, we should be free to act as we please.

BTW, some things like prostitution should be legal... but it is reasonable to have prostitution-free zones in order to safeguard neighborhoods, schools, churches, etc. As with driving, hunting, drinking, etc., rules for where people may and may not do these things may need to be established. But not banning. That's not a rule. That's the removal of a right.

« BAF Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next