". . . And when they came for the (insert your group here) there was no one left to stand up." Jewish Proverb
After several recent discussions and debates online I find a common thread. On the gun rights chat room they are pro gun, but not pro anything else. On the socialist workers party they are pro socialist workers but nothing else. On the chat room for doctors don't bring up alternative medicine.
This is what I like to call, 'The Great Polarization'.
Our defense of our personal issues has brought a tunnel vision to other people life rights. I propose a filter, a self help room, group, area or device that takes people and reminds them of the fact that no matter what your view on an issue it does not give you jurisdiction over your fellow man. For example, you may disagree with homosexual lifestyles, but this does not give you the right to take my tax dollar to try and stop this lifestyle. The one(s) you disagree with.
I do not use drugs, but I see no logic in taking the right of people to use drugs away. I see no jurisdiction in it. Yes, if someone uses drugs and steals, rapes, attacks or in any way violates the rights of another, then we have pure jurisdiction over them to stop their actions.
To put it another way, 'Tax dollars should not be wasted on consenting adults'. KPL (Can I quote myself from another source???)
Being pro-choice is hard sometimes. I've seen friends go through rough times, but this does not jurisdiction give. Not to mention that the econimics of the black market keep the gangs in money and the prisons packed with men who, for the most part, get harder and rougher AND meet new dealers while 'in'.
Ever wonder what causes these guys to repeat. A system that appears to have no interest in them other than to incarcerate them for violations. Ever see kids rebel just to get the attention of the parents?
I believe one thing should stay illegal about drugs. Dealing to kids. This is clearly something that the state has the right to step in and stop. The proper role of the govt. is to protect the rights of citizens who can not do defend themselves.
Scott
After several recent discussions and debates online I find a common thread. On the gun rights chat room they are pro gun, but not pro anything else. On the socialist workers party they are pro socialist workers but nothing else. On the chat room for doctors don't bring up alternative medicine.
This is what I like to call, 'The Great Polarization'.
Our defense of our personal issues has brought a tunnel vision to other people life rights. I propose a filter, a self help room, group, area or device that takes people and reminds them of the fact that no matter what your view on an issue it does not give you jurisdiction over your fellow man. For example, you may disagree with homosexual lifestyles, but this does not give you the right to take my tax dollar to try and stop this lifestyle. The one(s) you disagree with.
I do not use drugs, but I see no logic in taking the right of people to use drugs away. I see no jurisdiction in it. Yes, if someone uses drugs and steals, rapes, attacks or in any way violates the rights of another, then we have pure jurisdiction over them to stop their actions.
To put it another way, 'Tax dollars should not be wasted on consenting adults'. KPL (Can I quote myself from another source???)
Being pro-choice is hard sometimes. I've seen friends go through rough times, but this does not jurisdiction give. Not to mention that the econimics of the black market keep the gangs in money and the prisons packed with men who, for the most part, get harder and rougher AND meet new dealers while 'in'.
Ever wonder what causes these guys to repeat. A system that appears to have no interest in them other than to incarcerate them for violations. Ever see kids rebel just to get the attention of the parents?
I believe one thing should stay illegal about drugs. Dealing to kids. This is clearly something that the state has the right to step in and stop. The proper role of the govt. is to protect the rights of citizens who can not do defend themselves.
Scott
Comments