MSimon wrote:Pot is good for some people and bad for others.Skipjack wrote:Well, it was actually meant to give some more spice to my often made point that secularism is important. Certain people are all for religious freedom and religious intrusion in the government as long as it is "their" religion and not somebody elses. My point was always "better no religion in the government than somebody elses". But that kinda goes under in discussions about "how great religion is for morale" and other nonsense.It is interesting how this got high jacked into being another MSimon campaigning for drug use thread when it started out as a perfectly typical Skipjack look at the stupid hayseed American Republican joke thread.
Of course Msimon turned around and made it (yet another) "oh drugs are soo great for mankind" threat which is about as one sided a look at the world as Diogenes' "ohhh religion is so great for mankind".
My point is that there is no black and white and that things are very dark grey....
Alcohol is good for some people and bad for others
Peanuts are good for some people and bad for others.
There is nothing (currently) in the US Constitution that allows the government to ban any of them.
The Section of the Constitution that allows us to ban drugs is the same section that allows us to ban fissile material... And for the same reason.
You want to make an argument that pot should be excluded? Go ahead. Pot certainly appears more harmless than alcohol, and I sometimes think that much of the opposition to legalizing it is just because people are freakin annoyed with all the people who keep pushing for it.
MSimon wrote: I take the same position on substances you do on religion. Let people make heir own choices.
Of course our Christian Democrat Party has its own ideas on all the above.
I personally think there are beliefs that serve the advancement of mankind, and I think there are beliefs that degrade the advancement of mankind. There are others that are mostly a wash. I think that a widespread belief in Hell created a "Santa Clause Effect" that helped tamp down and moderate the more violent tendencies of the animalistic man. I think the better stability thus created is responsible for fueling scientific advancement, which in turn fueled mankind's ability to better mitigate the various threats against the human species.
I think that had another religion dominated, we would still be at the technological advancement stage of the Romans, or the Chinese, who pretty much remained mostly stagnant for 5,000 years.
Being stagnant is not as bad as regressing. Some religions would have us do that. People can believe whatever they want. If they believe in something that looks like a threat to me, i'm going to treat them like they are a threat.
Dhimmitude is contrary to principles I believe in. People may not realize it, but we are in a battle of memes. Whether they know it or not, they have a stake in which one wins.
