How can anyone....

Say that they are against the government telling you what drugs you cannot do by force of law.... But in the very next breath support vaccination mandates?

Am I the only one who sees a glaring contradiction?

 

Machiavelians rarely admit to being machiavelian. But they sure are making themselves easy to spot these days. Be greatful for that.

 

There is a person here ( he knows who he is and is free to participate in this thread...)

Who stated that anyone that does not take the vaccine should be incarcerated for one year and find $1,000 and their children permanently removed from them....

And then I recently heard him say that the government should not tell anyone that they cannot take whatever drug they want...

I'm not sure how one can exist while simultaneously holding two so conflicting points of view.

Naturally you would have to belong to a specific political party to do such a thing. . .


Then this person had the nerve to say that anyone with common sense would be a Democrat....

I can't... I just can't.... No way in hell will I ever be a Democrat

 

Republicans are against mandated vaccines yet belive the government should mandate what drugs you can't use...so whatever.
The issues can't really be conflated because drug use is not contagious, and a single unvaccinated person can decimate an entire community.

I am not the person you were talking about.

 

So, you opened a thread to discuss what another poster supposedly said, but you won't say who it was, and what was actually said. All I know is that I am not that person

I have to assume one drug refers to vaccine to stop spread of contagious disease, and the latter refers to recreational drugs.

What is your take on:
1. Vaccine mandate
2. Government mandate to ban on recreational drugs

Either you are against both, or you are as hypocritical as the person you are calling out. Most Republicans are against one and for the other, so they fall in the same bucket of hypocrisy as the one you attack. Can't you see that?

 

the contradiction is between meek submission to mandatory urinalysis by the same people who go full patrick henry at the sight of a needle.

 

Well it's obvious I can't name the person by name but if he has the courage of his convictions he's welcome to participate.

Would you let me share my position before you go making your usual assumptions? I'm against government doing both things.

 

Did you go around and take a poll of every Republican or are you just making assumptions about a broad group of people again?

 

You would legalize meth and heroin? Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

I'm afraid that anyone who says they are against big government interfering with our personal lives in one breath and then says that government has the right to interfere with women's bodies in the next loses all credibility. As for this particular 'big government' thread, if one cannot see the difference between controlling a substance versus vaccinations, then it is difficult to participate in the discussion.

 

I'd like to know where the government derives the authority to regulate it. Is that a question that you've ever bothered to ask?

I don't make the law so all I can do is have an opinion

 

Read my signature line it looks like you believe in it

 

The Drug War is Nixon's revenge against hippies. It's makes things worse, but nobody has the balls to kill it.

Most have no idea how much damage it's done.

It has nothing to do with medical science, the CDC, or vaccines. We've had vaccine mandates longer than you've been alive. Longer than we've had the Drug War.

We really need an Olympic Conclusion Jumping event. The American Right would sweep the medals, every time, without breaking a sweat.

 

It is derived from its power to regulate interstate commerce.

So, you would legalize all drugs then?

 

Take a look at Portugal..

 

For adults, yes. Would you not?

 

What about it?

They didn't legalize drugs, they decriminalized them.

It would almost certainly have a negative impact on the nation as whole, so I believe it is the duty to keep at least hard drugs illegal. IMO such action is mandated in Constitution general welfare clause.

 

It's not an assumption when it's their platform.

 

Exactly, and it worked.

 

The laws are still in the books, so there is still a consequence for using them, and they also do not sell them in stores and gas stations. You have to buy them from the street. I have been there many times, and I can tell you there are LOT of drug dealers. You will be asked at least 5 times per day if you want drugs. I don't know the latest news now that fentanyl is around. ODs might have spiked.

If drugs are legalized in US, it means anyone can buy them from stores and there is zero consequence.

 

I didn't say legalized.

As long as there is demand, there will be supply. We need to attack demand. I'd like to see us do a better job than Portugal, but the idea is sound.

One of the problems Portugal has is that it's one of many, what we need is a national policy. That's one way we could improve on what Portugal did. I'd also like to see the drugs be safe, no fentanyl. That means regulating them, and wiping out the black market.

That would reduce crime dramatically, and reduce deaths, and the required treatment should help some get off the drugs.

 

Believe it or not.... Individuals within the party are allowed to hold their own opinions.

I know that's a hard concept for some people to understand. So it's easier to just pull out your broad brush and make giant assumptions with it.

It took Democrats the better part of forever to start pushing for legalized marijuana... Where are they on that right now?

Looks like their platform has been pretty anti-drug as well. Don't listen to what they say watch what they do. That's all that matters. Talk is cheap.

 

Well look how well prohibition has worked out...

How many people do you think are sitting in correctional facilities across the Nation for it right now? Do you think that's beneficial to the nation?

It sounds like your belief in my body my choice only goes so far.

 

It waa repealed. The Gov was missing out on too much tax income.

Sentencing guidelines certainly should be changed. The current ones are ridiculous. They could change it to a point where you can get away with a ticket for possession of small amounts. The fine should increase with each repeated offence, until jail time is considered.

You won't find me ever saying that "my body" line. I am pro-life BTW, but I understand that full abortion ban is not an effective way to reduce them

 

I remember stating this same concept with the gun debate.
For most unwealthy Republicans I've met, the only reason they vote red is to support those rights, because the lefts stance on guns does not appeal to them.

This is a similar situation for those on the left, some may want to vote red, but can't look past the fact they are supporting government authoritarianism on woman's body's and what drugs one can take. Essentially giving up their right to privacy. For a group of people who reject the concept of universal Healthcare due to their assumption that government will dictate what type of care one can receive, it's safe to assume they are full of it with that excuse now.

If you are as pro choice as you claim, then there is no way you could align with Republicans, unless you are just ignorant to their position on the matter. One need only look at the Louisiana law that failed to pass regarding abortion, because that is their full agenda. Abortion is murder in their eyes, and they will prosecute with the full extent of their power.