Opinions - Free country? I think not

[flipthecandy]

Now this may not be the most original sentence, nor the less unpredictable, but:

Any country where the people are not allowed to CHOOSE what they put in their own body is NOT a free country.

That's MY opinion, what's yours?

[Nature Boy]

SWIM wholeheartedly agrees. Freedom, within sound reason, should be across the board on almost everything granted others are not harmed.

[robert whitfield]

SWIM could not agree more, it's wrong that some politicians decide what we can and can't do to ourselves (providing we are not harming anybody else.

Robert

[Nagognog2]

Originally Posted by robert whitfield

SWIM could not agree more, it's wrong that some politicians decide what we can and can't do to ourselves (providing we are not harming anybody else.

Robert

Politicians can decide to inject you with barbituates, potassium chloride, and tubu-curanine. They can also withold pain medication on the orders of a doctor. Or force your kids to take drugs tthat cause brain damage. And they can arrest us for objecting to this and arrest us for making our own decisions.

This is not freedom. This is Fascism.

[flipthecandy]

You can drink, smoke and eat yourself to death anyway, why not have more fun with acid/shrooms? (Ok bad example as acid and shrooms won't kill you, and the other three that, in excess, can kill you, are all coincidentally taxed by the government!) And as Jimi Hendrix said "I'm the one who has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life how I want to."

[enquirewithin]

Originally Posted by flipthecandy

And as Jimi Hendrix said "I'm the one who has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life how I want to."

If the paramedics had put him the right way up, he'd probably still be alive today!

[HelloToAll]

Originally Posted by flipthecandy

You can drink, smoke and eat yourself to death anyway, why not have more fun with acid/shrooms? (Ok bad example as acid and shrooms won't kill you, and the other three that, in excess, can kill you, are all coincidentally taxed by the government!) And as Jimi Hendrix said "I'm the one who has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life how I want to."

Your reasoning says that drinking, smoking, and eating in excess can kill you and is taxed by the government, while acid/shrooms in excess will NOT kill you but is illegal & therefore not taxed by the government

there have been maybe 1 or 2 governments ever in history that did not take advantage of every tax possible, so why would any government make illegal and not tax things that can be consumed in excess of others?

[mugsirhc]

the original constitution stated that you could put whatever you wanted in yr body. the pure food and drug act of the early 1900s changed that. My opinion is that if we honor or forefathers, why did we amend the constitution to take away the freedom they fought to give us?!

[Salvinorin A]

The government doesn't care about you individually, if it were about that they'd let you do anything.

It's the complaints they get from angry parents when their kids get hit by drunk drivers.

Assuming you have a brother (and u like him), some random guy takes acid, decides he's ok to drive, hits and kills himself and ur brother in a crash. Sure, the person who took the acid made a decision that risked his life, and that's his problem.....but it's the government's job to make sure it's not your problem...and the best they can do is try to avoid idiots getting ahold of drugs that can be dangerous.

It's swim's personal opinoin that if every drug was legalized out of the blue, this country would kill itself within days.

Some drugs need regulation (SWIM never appreciated people walking around stoned out of their minds on PCP).

Freedom comes with responsibility, the gov doesn't trust that people are gonna do drugs, and stay in their houses not hurting anyone (or themselves cus that's bad publicity). Statistically...there are a lot of irresponsible people out there that families can't afford.

Peace.
Sal-A

[Sitbcknchill]

The thing that gets me the most is how laws are enacted due to a few stupid people and the fact that they don't seem to ever hold the right person responsible for their actions. Instead we are all forced to suffer at the hands of the stupid doing idiotic things. No credit is given to the responsible users who don't really break real laws that need to be enforced and hold jobs, pay their bills etc. All all are lumped into the dirty user catagory instead or the persons with problems.

[Nagognog2]

"They why the fuck don't you go home and hang yourselves in your closets!?" - Abbie Hoffman

[Sitbcknchill]

too easy....

[ISmokeCigarettes]

Swim takes this stand:

In England the government does not make drugs illegal to protect or ensure the longevity or safety of the people for any reason other than people who live longer and avoid things which aren’t necessary to survival and are at least potentially hazardous work harder and work for longer, for a society which doesn’t respect and trust its inhabitants enough to even offer them choice of what they put into their own bodies.

The government doesn’t care if we LIVE as long as we SURVIVE…so we work…and work…and work…make children who do the same and reproduce the current classes. It is all hegemony.

Swim is a libertarian and believes strongly in Mill’s idea of liberty. Swim will do exactly as Swim pleases as long as Swim causes no intentional harm to anyone else; Swim does not believe offence constitutes harm. Swim disregards the double standards, laws and hypocritical values and stances of western society. Swim doesn’t consider herself anyway affiliated with the values of Western society, any values Swim shares with those of Western society is pure coincidence.

Swim doesn’t sign contracts. Swim uses a different name to that on her birth certificate. Swim left high school at the age of twelve because Swim wanted to enjoy her youth and Swim then squatted and wandered and engaged in ‘unacceptable’ activities. Swim taught herself while experiencing life. When Swim left school everyone said Swim had ruined her life, Swim used every drug imaginable (bar crack and acid) on a regular basis, went to raves, experienced homelessness and at the same time Swim taught herself by her own means, not according to government curriculum. By the time Swim returned to education (purely by choice) Swim had an IQ (assessed by a fully qualified educational psychologist) in the 140s range. At the age of eighteen, Swim secured a university place at a London university. Swim secured all A’s at university while also using heroin daily and Swim did not become an addict.

Swim has no national insurance number, Swim uses whatever drugs she pleases and Swim does exactly as Swim pleases. Swim has tattoos and has had over twenty piercing and would not change her appearance to gain work. Swim fully supports her lifestyle and takes responsibility for her actions. Swim helps others and supports her friends and family. Swim lives life as Swim pleases because unlike Western society Swim values life and her individuality. Swim knows living life to its fullest does not necessarily mean taking drugs, but Swim chooses to use drugs. Swim respects the choices of others and their beliefs, whether they are similar to Swim’s or not.

Enough said.

[Kakkoii]

We need an Atheist Young person to be president.

People who are not swayed by religion.

I agree with you, Who is to say what we can and can't put in our bodies. If I want to slowly kill myself, That is my choice. You don't control me!. They need to learn, Laws don't do anything. If humans want to do something bad enough, then they will do it NO MATTER WHAT. It's better for them to control these substances, make they're own, and bring it onto the market, so that people have a safe source to get these drugs, and put warning labels on the drugs. That way people will get safer drugs that aren't laced, resulting in less deaths, less addictions, less hospital trips, less street violence over drugs, one less thing the country has to spend billions on to fight. Were already putting billions into the whole Iraq stupidity. Why waste even more billions on trying to win this War On Drugs that can NEVER be won. It's very ridiculous, and I don't see why they don't realize this. Arnold Schwarzenegger outlawed hemp, Like what the hell? That doesn't even have THC in it. And I saw him say on Pimp My Ride, when the guys put hemp seats in the guys car. "Eh eh, You caunt put thaut in there, The kids weel smoke eet and get highg"

It's all so ridiculous.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Kakkoii

We need an Atheist Young person to be president.

People who are not swayed by religion.

I've met plenty of atheists who are complete dicks too. Being religious isn't the problem, being a self righteous asshole is (or just a power grabbing one).

[Kakkoii]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

I've met plenty of atheists who are complete dicks too. Being religious isn't the problem, being a self righteous asshole is (or just a power grabbing one).

No, But so many decisions made by the government are heavily influenced by religion. Which needs to stop. Religion has NO PLACE in politics. Atheist people generally have a more open view on life, without the heavy watch full eyes of god on they're shoulder.

[Mescaloid]

Originally Posted by Kakkoii

No, But so many decisions made by the government are heavily influenced by religion. Which needs to stop. Religion has NO PLACE in politics. Atheist people generally have a more open view on life, without the heavy watch full eyes of god on they're shoulder.

I don't believe most of atheist people have such an open view on whatever. Or maybe it's is a fact and I'm the choosen unlucky folk who is surrounded by tons of selfish/superficial/greedy atheists...

By the way, I consider myself an open-minded atheist.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Kakkoii

No, But so many decisions made by the government are heavily influenced by religion. Which needs to stop. Religion has NO PLACE in politics. Atheist people generally have a more open view on life, without the heavy watch full eyes of god on they're shoulder.

Agree that religion shouldn't be mixed with politics and with most of the other stuff you said, but I still don't agree that atheists as a group would somehow have more candidates that would be optimally equipped to be the leader of a nation. I also strongly disagree with your statement that atheists generally have a more open view on life. I could provide specific examples and provide theories to support them but thats pretty much useless, as you can't generalize atheists, just like you can't any other major group. Everyone is different, even if they appear to be the same.

I agree with your train of thought, but please don't make sweeping generalizations on a whim. Its a pet peeve of mine, even if it can be hard to avoid given our human desire to simplify things (dammit I just think I did it!).

[Mescaloid]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

I've met plenty of atheists who are complete dicks too. Being religious isn't the problem, being a self righteous asshole is (or just a power grabbing one).

Totally agree.

But I think Kakkoii refered to those hypocritical bastards who uses the word as argument to support their own political view, which in fact does not lead to enlightment/knowledge or whatever a religion should, but only to profit and empowerment.

In a certain way, it (religion) look pretty much like a drug. Depending on the use, a cure or a poison.

[ISmokeCigarettes]

Thing is with an atheist government is that England, though there are many atheists here, isn’t an atheist country. The fundamental laws in England come direct from the Bible, it is a Christian country. If you abandon the bible you suffer a moral vacuum…if England no longer believes in fundamentally Christian doctrine then where do we get the basis and foundations of our morals and values from?
Like, everyone could say ‘we keep the laws etc whether we are Christian or not’ as that is pretty much what happens now, but at the moment we know they originate from the bible, from somewhere…if we disregard religion where do we get what is right from and what is wrong?
Cant just say ‘this is right’ or ‘this is wrong’ it needs some foundation, it needs reason or religion or something…

Reputation Comments on this post:

intelligent post, good point

[Kakkoii]

Originally Posted by ISmokeCigarettes

Thing is with an atheist government is that England, though there are many atheists here, isn’t an atheist country. The fundamental laws in England come direct from the Bible, it is a Christian country. If you abandon the bible you suffer a moral vacuum…if England no longer believes in fundamentally Christian doctrine then where do we get the basis and foundations of our morals and values from?
Like, everyone could say ‘we keep the laws etc whether we are Christian or not’ as that is pretty much what happens now, but at the moment we know they originate from the bible, from somewhere…if we disregard religion where do we get what is right from and what is wrong?
Cant just say ‘this is right’ or ‘this is wrong’ it needs some foundation, it needs reason or religion or something…

It's called common sense, and a conscience.

People don't need some book to tell them what is right, and what is wrong. This is something people should learn for themselves, not have shoved down they're throat, and told they will burn in hell if they don't obey.

Atheist's aren't people without morals.

[Kakkoii]

(sorry for double post, I can't edit yet

For example, Apparently same sex marriage is not aloud because the bible says so. Which shouldn't be. Even if you're so called God doesn't want it. It should be the people's choice if they want to get married or not.

Bush has said that god influences him in a lot of the things he does. And many candidates seem to use Christianity as a way to try and boost votes.

You don't need the bible to know what is wrong, and what is right. We as a community know what is wrong and right. Religion does not belong in politics and laws.

[ISmokeCigarettes]

If the law has no foundation people will have no reason to believe in it, to follow it…punishment (when laws are broken) is not enough lol. Plus, people wouldn’t like the idea that the punishment is the only thing deterring them from committing a crime or breaking a law…and you’d have no basis for creating knew ones if the punishment was the only reason not to break the current ones.

Its all murky waters.

[Psych0naut]

We used to have a liberal goverment here in the Netherlands, the general opinion was:"As long as you don't bother other people with what you do, you can do whatever you want" the Netherlands has been a liberal country for a long time, but since the recent elections, we now have a very right wing christian goverment, who is doing everything it can to ban any drug, except ofcourse for alcohol, nicotine and cafeine. Half of the amount of coffeeshops in the Netherlands are going to be closed in the next few years. A ban on mushrooms will probably take effect soon. Growing up to 5 cannabis plants for personal use is probably going to be banned. The police now has a zero tolerance policy at festivals and parties regarding drugs, if your caught with even a small amount for personal use, you can be prosecuted. There have been several raids recently on smartshops, several have been closed for good. Everything of our liberal drug policy is going to be lost or is already lost due too the influence of the US and our right wing christian goverment.

[ISmokeCigarettes]

The 'do as you wish as long as it doesn't bother others' attitude is as Mill advocated in 'On Liberty'. Its what Swim believe in....the harm principle dictates that the individual should be allowed to do as they want as long as no one else is harmed...it has its problems though...like what constitutes harm isn't out lined and there's other issues, but the way England's going the problems libertarianism faces are nothing. (sorry for any spelling / grammar errors, Swim's in a rush)