Libertarians Unite

[Nixit]

I would agree with you on the Marijuana issure Sav... but currently there's no way to effectively regulate it. Marijuana stays in the body for up to months after you use it... so if you had it awhile ago when you weren't driving, and then when you are driving months later, and someone pulls you over for reckless driving or something, even if you weren't under Marijuana influence... it would still be there and you could be arrested and convicted for it.

[Cookie]

Thats crap, have you never had a joint before man. It lasts for like three hoursat most.

[formerly known as hf]

Rehab clinics come under the NHS.

They are also often provided by local governement - often hand in hand with the probation services.

The problem is, is that the victims of addiction are still treated as criminals. This has changed somewhat, there is a movement towards prison sentences only in extreme / often repeating cases - but it doesn;t change the fact that they are labelled as, and to all intents and purposes, treated no differently from criminals.

My position is that they are victims, and criminal activity is a result of addiction and psychological damage.

EDIT: And Nixit, that is, as cooks said, a heap of crap.
I worked this summer in a Drug Treatment and testing department for a local probation office in my neck of the woods in London. Marijuana, unless used in very heavy doses, doesn't stay in blood or urine for very long at all. One joint will hang around as dectectable for a few days at the most.
Those that are very heavy users - 5+ 'joints' a day will test positive a week, maybe two after use.
And, as with alcohol and driving, there will be 'limits' as to the concentration - just because something is detectable - doesn't mean it is effective
(The dose makes the poison )...

[Cookie]

The police are there to help victims?
If victims are to be helped by the state - why make an exception for victims of drug addiction .

I was refering to this.

[Stan]

But Stan is arguing that because 1) he's Christian and 2) he's against state intervention in personal relations, he's a) against same-sex marriages, and b) for leaving people do what they want at home. I don't understand how 1 & 2 can lead to a ... that's all.

I agree it makes no sense. It all starts with my initial argument that I made after doing about 5 hours of drywall on my new kitchen. I think I was tired or something and made a sloppy argument...


Because I'm Christian I don't believe same sex relationships should occur. However, there are many things that I don't agree with but are frankly none of my business. So, as far as same sex relationships, people are free to do as they please. Why? Because, we will all do things that are not pleasing to God. I do things that are not pleasing to God because I'm a human. It is not my right or even job to dictate what everyone does. Having a homosexual relationship is no different than a heterosexual male looking at pornography. For that matter it is no different than me condemning someone for practicing homosexuality. It doesn't mean I sanction it, I just don't go around comdeming people.

Now as far as same sex marriage. I don't think the state should recognize same sex marriage. As I've mentioned, I believe it is wrong and we shouldn't sanction it. Legally recognizing something is different than allowing something to occur.

All that being said, I would have a beer with you or HF and wouldn't care whether you're gay or not. I have friends that do all kinds of things that I think are wrong...I do things I think are wrong, sometimes. I think that's part of being a person.

[Nixit]

Thats crap, have you never had a joint before man. It lasts for like three hoursat most.

Alright one, you are right, I have never had a joint. Two, that's not the issue. The high lasts for that long, but the actual marijuana stays in the body for much longer.


EDIT: Really, farmer? Dang... well, health class really taught me a lot.

[Cookie]

Yeh man don't drink and drive, get hi and fly!

[formerly known as hf]

Health class probably just tried to scare you with flase info nix

[Stan]

What's flase info?

[Nixit]

Probably fake, but I'd rather they do, rather than tell us it's not that bad.

[AoM]

When the body metabolizes a drug, like marijuana, a certain percentage of the dosage gets "caught" and binds to lipids in a process called "depot binding." These deposits don't get metabolized with the rest of the dosage and thus stay in one's system long after the initial "high" passes. Its the presence of these left over deposits that gets detected in blood and urine samples.

Gradually, the deposits come lose and metabolize normally, and then leave the body via secretion. Now if you take a very large dosage, the effects of a "high" can be reoccuring because the quantity of deposits coming loose can be enough to affect the body in the same way a normal dosage would. (And it's this possibility that your health class has scared you with, Nixit.) However, the depot binding from a small dosage is not enough to cause a person the same perception and personality-altering states that the initial dosage caused.

* * *

Next topic...

I think whether people want to admit it or not, government is already involved with the business of marriage. It affords certain rights and conditions to married heterosexual couples that homosexual couples at this point in time have no access to. Sadly, that means that the attitude of "letting sleeping dogs lie" is not right, because the government, through ignoring the pleas of the homosexual arguement, is creating an unequal division.

I think it's a bad thing to perceive homosexuality as the equivalent to looking at pornography. For one... homosexuality is not a choice. Looking at pornography is. Secondly, homosexuality is not just about the sexual act associated with it. When we see a married man and woman holding hands in public, we aren't immediately thinking to ourselves, "Oh, those two are probably going to have sex with each other." More likely, we might wonder about where they met, why they are good for each other, how each compliments the other, etc... But when we see two men or two women holding hands in public the only thought that can come to our minds is "Oh, those two are probably going to have sex with each other." We ignore or don't accept the fact that there can be more to a homosexual relationship than just the sex. These people can love each other and want to grow old with each other just as much as heterosexuals do.

So. Because homosexuality is not a choice, and because they are still human beings capable of the full range of emotions that everyone else is, and because the current state of the law denies them the same rights afforded to married heterosexual couples, my vote will always support the right to gay marriage.

Furthermore, while faith is an amazing and wonderful thing, there is good reason for the separation of church and state. A person's faith should not limit the rights of a person who does not share the same faith. If the Christian ban on gay-marriage is the only reason the law is unequal, then I believe there is a breach of the separation of church and state.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

[Racetyme]

AoM, I applaud you for that. I agree completely, but was too damn lazy to write it myself.

[Stan]

[quote="AoM"]
I think it's a bad thing to perceive homosexuality as the equivalent to looking at pornography.
[quote]

I hear you. I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying with this example is simple. I don't expect you'll agree but I want to clarify. In the Christian faith the guide for the faith is the Bible, of course. Without even addressing the homosexual issue, the point is that doing 1 thing that is displeasing God is the same as ALL the other other things that displease God. I only used homosexuality vs pornography as the best example I could come up with in a short time to relate the homosexual relationship with the heterosexual world in some crazy way. It was in the context of where I don't agree to condemn somebody for something when it is no worse than something that I or any other heterosexual may do. That was the only point.

Now, for the point about whether something is ok because you have a choice to do it or not...

I believe that some people are born with a leaning toward homosexual behavior. Which would mean in the case of a man, he is physically attracted to another man. I also believe that some people are born with a leaning toward addiction to alcohol. Just because someone may be born with this condition doesn't make it OK to feed the condition by drinking. If that person has a weakness they should avoid it not consume it. It is OK to be an acoholic that doesn't drink. I think it is OK to be a homosexual, but that person should not indulge in it.

I realize that I'm opening myself up for attack on this one. But hear me again. I don't condemn people for being homosexual. Some people seem to believe that you may believe something is wrong and that is OK to force onto other people or to scream at the top of their lungs that someone is a pervert or a fag, or whatever. I'm not one of those people.

I have the capacity to love a homosexual as a person as much as any other person. The fact that the person is human and made in the image of God is enough for me.

As far as separation of Church and State. I completely agree. However, I have a right as a citizen of a democracy to my one vote. There is nothing wrong with me excersizing my vote one what I believe to be right. I would expect you and everyone else to do the same.

I want to amend my position a little bit, too. If the people of California believe that recognizing gay marriage. Fine. If the people of Kentucky take up the issue and it passes, fine. I disagree, though, with the Federal Government passing a law on the issue.

[formerly known as hf]

I want to add a slight diversion to AoM's point about homosexuality as not a choice.

Agreed - it's not a choice on the same level as pornography is. Agreed that many homosexual people do feel that they were 'born' gay (therefore, wether homosexuality is genetic, is debateable - I would heavily disagree with the suggestion however)

But it can be a choice - like if I choose to dance with that sexy guy rather than the pretty girl (or vice versa)

EDIT: And thankyou Stan for being clearer on your position. Whilst I do disagree deeply with some of your sentiments, I appreciate the understanding you've reached in context with your own beliefs - it's more of an open view than I would expect from general society, and is especially welcome from someone with religious beliefs.

[Racetyme]

Stan, how do you expect people to be homosexual and not express it? That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. On that note, I forbid you, from here on out, to have sex. There, the gauntlet is laid. Let's see how long you can go before you are really feeling the need.