Hence the apprehension.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thompson
Printable View
Hence the apprehension.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thompson
Some people will do the hard stuff regardless if it's illegal or not. I guess the greatest penalty remains the fact that it will destroy your life. Of course, we are uncomfortable with letting anyone suffer, regardless if it is self-inflicted or not. Though public assistance to drug users will be killed quick. Yet, the costs of law enforcement related to drug law enforcement in terms of $ and liberty is not cheap.
I don't see any easy answers. Do you?
I am not that naive, but I do know that allowing it means more guns. Period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
No. I was just wondering what your position was. I'm not really a libertarian, although I do wonder how such things would play out.
If it was legalized, I would be opposed to racking up even more debt to provide 'free' healthcare for drug addicts. I don't think the country/politicians have the guts to just stand there and watch people die though.
Even if they did, you'd probably have to worry about other factors: would traffic accident fatalities rise significantly? Even though the costs would drop as it was no longer illegal, would addicts nonetheless not be able to maintain jobs and resort to theft/crime to obtain funds for their habit? On and on.
The Chinese were worried at one point a few hundred years ago that rampant opium use would destroy an entire generation. I don't know what would happen if the floodgates were opened, but I tend to think unless the nation is prepared to stand and watch them die in the streets (and serve as a warning to others), we'll end up providing "free" healthcare to drug addicts, and a decadent America would collapse at an accelerated rate.
Maybe they should try it out on a smaller scale (state level - give California what they want). California wouldn't let them die though; people would have less reason to avoid drugs, California would beg the federal government for bailout money, and we'd end up paying for it anyway.
im glad concerned parents like ploto are willing to fork up 40,000+ a year so that their kids will be protected from gun laws
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208079.pdf
This says a lot of things but one important one is that most illegal guns are stolen. Having guns on campus means a higher probability of a stolen gun on campus.
its funny because everyones acting like students + faculty will all flock to get their concealed licenses just so they can bring guns on campus.
wake up people.
theyre proposing this legislation so youll talk about all this shit about bringing guns on campuses, which will amount to nothing in the long run, instead of talking about the real issue - them axing huge chunks off higher education funding.
wake up.
now private corporations will take the opportunity to fund the missing budget from colleges, and youll see campuses (and whats going on inside classrooms) dramatically change.
and i go to a school where someone brought an sks/ak47 and blew their brains out all over the library earlier this school year. nobody on campus is talking about it. nobody is talking about gun laws. everyones hella more worried about funding, and rightfully so.
thats why my university is so great :makemyday
the odds of somebody having a gun on them at that instant, and being able to respond right then without second thought, are fairly low. more people die driving to school than getting shot at school, anyway.
Higher education accounts for 12.5% of the state budget but 40% of the proposed cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reckoning
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vici
What?
Dude no wonder you think college is a "high stress job".
Good lord.