emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
- Thread starter
- #61
The thing is potheads are too drug addled to understand what principles are.
The best thing to happen to them is an accident in the back of a patrol car.
"The thing is alcoholics are too drug addled to understand what principles are".
You see how this is a pointless and vague generalization?
An alcoholic can sober up. The damage that pot does is permanent.
The same process of spiritual healing that can eliminate the depression, abuse and addiction all together at the root source, in the mind and spirit,
can possibly allow the body to recover from the physical damage as well.
But you can't bring people back from the dead.
People killed from violence and/or crashes from either alcohol or drug-related
crime, driving, etc. cannot be recovered. I think that part is undeniable.
If the restitution from these fatal crimes, either negligent reckless or premeditated,
were invested in medical services and facilities we could treat more disease and prevent
a lot more deaths REGARDLESS of the cause.
there is much more benefit and effectiveness by focusing on what we agree on,
that doesn't even depend on us agreeing about the side points we may or may not resolve.
K&D I do not believe you need to justify your beliefs or stance against legalization.
If it is your belief, it should be respected regardless of your reasons you don't owe
to anyone to justify or explain. the First and Fourteenth Amendment do not require
you to justify your beliefs or creed, but just not abuse govt to impose either yours or others beliefs on each other.
Where we stick to policy points where we AGREE, then nobody's beliefs get violated.
That is where we will be protected equally under law, where no one's beliefs are competing with each other for dominance.
We can make the same key arguments we need to work out agreed reforms
WITHOUT going off on issues where people's beliefs don't agree.
The really important points will be universal. Nobody wants anyone to drive reckless and injure or kill anyone. Nobody I know would want anyone to suffer from addiction or abuse without access to free and effective help. Nobody wants to live in fear of crime.
I can see a lot more solutions come forth that people would agree on or be more open to consider trying and proving how well they work first, and we won't need to argue for and against these side issues after the fact that don't really solve the problems.
I think we have the different points of views and beliefs to "check and balance" each other.
So your view of absolute NO is important and should be included as well.
When we really redress all issues, that is where deserve to get a YES.