Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
what you are doing is interesting. why have you started to make up stuff to offer false support of your point? there is no "unanimous desire" for age restrictions and there is no scientific research supporting this. yes, people have conditioned to believe that the government should act as parent for other people because either they dont want to do their job as parent and/or they want to have control over other people.
the government has no right to enforce things that are a violation of individual liberty. it doesnt matter if the majority support it.
yes, i take things too far for people today but my positions will not be considered too far in the future. just like gay marriage and drug legalization were considered too far a couple of decades ago; in the future that will expand beyond marijuana to all drugs and prescription requirements will go away. Age limits will also change and go away eventually.
I'm not making anything up. I'm sure there is unanimous support on age restrictions for cigarets.
"The government has no right". I do believe in state's rights, so if a state wants to lower the minimum age limit for cigarets, I would disagree with it, but would support the state's right to do so. The trend has been going the other way, though--states are raising the age to 21.
The scientific evidence I was referring to is on brain development in adolescents. They should not be empowered to purchase harmful substances when the brain is in such a premature stage. The forces of peer pressure will be sufficient to get many school-age kids into cigarets. Even though the brain isn't fully developed at 18, at least it's almost fully developed.
Gay marriage is not the same type of thing at all. Society seeks to protect children from themselves and companies marketing harmful substances to them while they are immature and more likely to become dependant on these substances. Gay's marrying each other effects no one and the partnership is done between two consenting, fully mature adults.
You want to legalize all drugs? Fine, that's something I can sympathize with. But you also want to legalize all drugs and have no age restrictions? Lol. Not only is that a horrible idea, but it's also not going to happen--and if it does, we clearly don't have a society anymore. That's a society that doesn't look out for the young. I'm not the type of person who thinks we should only think about the children, but it seems obvious that a society that doesn't take any measures whatsoever to protect the vulnerable is an unhealthy and degenerate one.
I'm not making anything up. I'm sure there is unanimous support on age restrictions for cigarets.
"The government has no right". I do believe in state's rights, so if a state wants to lower the minimum age limit for cigarets, I would disagree with it, but would support the state's right to do so. The trend has been going the other way, though--states are raising the age to 21.
The scientific evidence I was referring to is on brain development in adolescents. They should not be empowered to purchase harmful substances when the brain is in such a premature stage. The forces of peer pressure will be sufficient to get many school-age kids into cigarets. Even though the brain isn't fully developed at 18, at least it's almost fully developed.
Gay marriage is not the same type of thing at all. Society seeks to protect children from themselves and companies marketing harmful substances to them while they are immature and more likely to become dependant on these substances. Gay's marrying each other effects no one and the partnership is done between two consenting, fully mature adults.
You want to legalize all drugs? Fine, that's something I can sympathize with. But you also want to legalize all drugs and have no age restrictions? Lol. Not only is that a horrible idea, but it's also not going to happen--and if it does, we clearly don't have a society anymore. That's a society that doesn't look out for the young. I'm not the type of person who thinks we should only think about the children, but it seems obvious that a society that doesn't take any measures whatsoever to protect the vulnerable is an unhealthy and degenerate one.
honestly, most people dont even give it much thought. the government has overstepped but over time it becomes viewed as normal. the trick is to get people thinking about it again and asking if we want the government to have this power. i am a part of various online communities that feel this way so i see that the support isnt unanimous. there are many people who think like me and we are growing.
i do not support state's rights any more than i do federal rights. the state has no greater right to infringe on individual liberty than the federal government.
your link isnt proof that i am wrong. is donald trump being president proof that support for trump is unanimous? politicians are corrupt as are all of their actions. they get into office often with less than 25% of the voting population's support. them doing something isnt proof of "unanimous support" or anything near it.
it is the same in certain ways. once it was forbidden and considered ridiculous. you are funny in that you dont see it. "you want to legalize drugs, fine. you want to eliminate age restrictions, lol you are insane." not long ago you would have said "you want to legalize marijuana, fine. you want to legalize all drugs, lol you are insane." people are always afraid to go that next step, they are even silly enough to lol at it. what you consider "LOL insane" today will be considered normal in 10 years or less.
honestly, most people dont even give it much thought. the government has overstepped but over time it becomes viewed as normal. the trick is to get people thinking about it again and asking if we want the government to have this power. i am a part of various online communities that feel this way so i see that the support isnt unanimous. there are many people who think like me and we are growing.
i do not support state's rights any more than i do federal rights. the state has no greater right to infringe on individual liberty than the federal government.
your link isnt proof that i am wrong. is donald trump being president proof that support for trump is unanimous? politicians are corrupt as are all of their actions. they get into office often with less than 25% of the voting population's support. them doing something isnt proof of "unanimous support" or anything near it.
it is the same in certain ways. once it was forbidden and considered ridiculous. you are funny in that you dont see it. "you want to legalize drugs, fine. you want to eliminate age restrictions, lol you are insane." not long ago you would have said "you want to legalize marijuana, fine. you want to legalize all drugs, lol you are insane." people are always afraid to go that next step, they are even silly enough to lol at it. what you consider "LOL insane" today will be considered normal in 10 years or less.
What kind of anecdotal evidence is that? You surround yourself with people who think like you online, but that doesn't mean you aren't still very much in the minority.
My link is proof that there is even momentum to further restrict cigarets. If there's growing support to further restrict cigarets, it logically follows that the majority supports at least maintaining the status-quo age-limit of 18 on cigarets. You're right that the majority isn't necessarily right, obviously. I just so happen to think this is a reasonable restriction.
Yeah, because it's inevitable that one day a 13-year-old kid will be able to legally purchase crystal meth. Sounds like an amazing future. Same thing as gay marriage? I'm pretty sure that most gay people would think that is a horrible idea. It's a different animal. One is dealing with individual rights as a mature adult and the other is dealing with hard drugs being offered to adolescents who are not capable of making rational decisions and are not developed enough to even realize the ramifications of their actions. It's funny that you can't see that.
What kind of anecdotal evidence is that? You surround yourself with people who think like you online, but that doesn't mean you aren't still very much in the minority.
My link is proof that there is even momentum to further restrict cigarets. If there's growing support to further restrict cigarets, it logically follows that the majority supports at least maintaining the status-quo age-limit of 18 on cigarets. You're right that the majority isn't necessarily right, obviously. I just so happen to think this is a reasonable restriction.
Yeah, because it's inevitable that one day a 13-year-old kid will be able to legally purchase crystal meth. Sounds like an amazing future. Same thing as gay marriage? I'm pretty sure that most gay people would think that is a horrible idea. It's a different animal. One is dealing with individual rights as a mature adult and the other is dealing with hard drugs being offered to adolescents who are not capable of making rational decisions and are not developed enough to even realize the ramifications of their actions. It's funny that you can't see that.
im aware that i am in the minority. you used the term "unanimous support." there are millions of people who dont support it. so it was a pretty simple thing to prove you wrong.
i know, the majority isnt with me. i understand that you think it is a reasonable restriction. but you dont really have the right to force restrictions on other people and neither does the government. its impressive to me how so many people get high on power for the tiny bitty things that they think they have a say in. people simply agree with something and then they then think its ok to legally force it on others. just because you dont think people under 18 should be allowed to purchase cigarettes doesnt give you the right to force that on others.
yes, one day that will be possible. in 1950 you would be just as offended by the idea of gay marriage as you are presently of children buying drugs. probably in 1980 or 1990 as well. you just dont see it because in 2019 gay marriage has been normalized. how about marriage between 3 or more people? should the government have a say in that?
also, you cant get anywhere if nobody is talking about it. i like to push the limits of what people think is ok because i see it as planting freedom seeds in people's minds. i always mention that we should stop requiring prescriptions for medication. i like it because its something that someone like you may say "people unanimously support" but the reality is that its something that most people dont support (at least not totally) but they just have accepted that as the way it is done and dont question it. i actually dont usually discuss age restrictions, its not as fun of a topic. but i see you have already accepted that meth will be legally sold since you have basically accepted that and now are simply shocked that it would be sold to a 13 year old. so that is a win for me. suddenly selling meth at a convenience store isnt so offensive to you as long as there are age restrictions.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 05-30-2019 at 10:54 AM..
im aware that i am in the minority. you used the term "unanimous support." there are millions of people who dont support it. so it was a pretty simple thing to prove you wrong.
i know, the majority isnt with me. i understand that you think it is a reasonable restriction. but you dont really have the right to force restrictions on other people and neither does the government. its impressive to me how so many people get high on power for the tiny bitty things that they think they have a say in. people simply agree with something and then they then think its ok to legally force it on others. just because you dont think people under 18 should be allowed to purchase cigarettes doesnt give you the right to force that on others.
yes, one day that will be possible. in 1950 you would be just as offended by the idea of gay marriage as you are presently of children buying drugs. probably in 1980 or 1990 as well. you just dont see it because in 2019 gay marriage has been normalized. how about marriage between 3 or more people? should the government have a say in that?
also, you cant get anywhere if nobody is talking about it. i like to push the limits of what people think is ok because i see it as planting freedom seeds in people's minds. i always mention that we should stop requiring prescriptions for medication. i like it because its something that someone like you may say "people unanimously support" but the reality is that its something that most people dont support (at least not totally) but they just have accepted that as the way it is done and dont question it. i actually dont usually discuss age restrictions, its not as fun of a topic. but i see you have already accepted that meth will be legally sold since you have basically accepted that and now are simply shocked that it would be sold to a 13 year old. so that is a win for me. suddenly selling meth at a convenience store isnt so offensive to you as long as there are age restrictions.
Lol, why are you assuming I'm anti-gay marriage? Like I'm some hardcore conservative just because I don't think a society where teenagers can purchase heroin and meth is desirable? If I was alive in the 1950's I probably would have saw gay-marriage as less controversial than legalized hard drugs with no age restrictions. Again, it's not the same thing at all. Generally, I don't think LGBT activists from the 50's were for legalizing all drugs.
It's just your opinion that the government can't tell people what to do in any way shape or form. That is ridiculous. The future isn't going to be some libertarian utopia and I'm not sure why you think it is going to be. In regards to drugs, it may be, but in other areas it surely will go the other way. Your philosophy would have us return to the jungle where it's pure natural selection and social Darwinianism. In that society, all drugs would be legal but it would be too chaotic for their to be retail outlets that sell them safely. Some philosophies say that freedom is a heavy burden; unlimited freedom isn't some glorious thing as you seem to think it is.
Where in history can you point that indicates hard drugs won't have age restrictions? When we didn't have age restrictions on alcohol we were scientifically backward and had no understanding of brain development. That is backward thinking, not progressive thinking. In this future there won't be universal healthcare, right? Otherwise, the taxpayer will have to bite the bullet of skyrocketing healthcare costs due to adolescents legally purchasing and consuming heroin. That's fine if they're on their own. So not only are they too young to understand what they're doing but they will have to face the consequences of their actions, even if the consequences are fatal, with no bailout. Sounds great.
I don't think it's very important to the discussion but I doubt meth will ever be sold at convenience stores--at least I hope not--just as marijuana isn't sold at convenience stores (yet). It would make more sense to just have dispensaries that sell various drugs.
Lol, why are you assuming I'm anti-gay marriage? Like I'm some hardcore conservative just because I don't think a society where teenagers can purchase heroin and meth is desirable? If I was alive in the 1950's I probably would have saw gay-marriage as less controversial than legalized hard drugs with no age restrictions. Again, it's not the same thing at all. Generally, I don't think LGBT activists from the 50's were for legalizing all drugs.
It's just your opinion that the government can't tell people what to do in any way shape or form. That is ridiculous. The future isn't going to be some libertarian utopia and I'm not sure why you think it is going to be. In regards to drugs, it may be, but in other areas it surely will go the other way. Your philosophy would have us return to the jungle where it's pure natural selection and social Darwinianism. In that society, all drugs would be legal but it would be too chaotic for their to be retail outlets that sell them safely. Some philosophies say that freedom is a heavy burden; unlimited freedom isn't some glorious thing as you seem to think it is.
Where in history can you point that indicates hard drugs won't have age restrictions? When we didn't have age restrictions on alcohol we were scientifically backward and had no understanding of brain development. That is backward thinking, not progressive thinking. In this future there won't be universal healthcare, right? Otherwise, the taxpayer will have to bite the bullet of skyrocketing healthcare costs due to adolescents legally purchasing and consuming heroin. That's fine if they're on their own. So not only are they too young to understand what they're doing but they will have to face the consequences of their actions, even if the consequences are fatal, with no bailout. Sounds great.
I don't think it's very important to the discussion but I doubt meth will ever be sold at convenience stores--at least I hope not--just as marijuana isn't sold at convenience stores (yet). It would make more sense to just have dispensaries that sell various drugs.
im not making that assumption. that is just how it was back then for the majority. not too long ago barack obama was against gay marriage. things changed very quickly recently thanks to people like me who believe in individual liberty above anything else.
it isnt just my opinion. it is a lot of people's opinion that we do not have the right to delegate authority to government that we dont have ourselves. most people dont think of it that way but it is a constant conversation of how far is government allowed to intrude into our lives.
im not sure what you think you are doing but you dont have any evidence that age restrictions are necessary. you have assumptions and you have the fact that government has done and it most people dont object. so dont bother trying to make a case that isnt there.
why do you feel more comfortable with the term dispensaries rather than convenience stores? that is funny, that the name of the store matters to you when the action is the same. you are comfortable selling via a store named a "dispensary" vs a store named a "convenience store." you have these illogical ideas because government isnt rational. the fact is that the government has no right to determine what store can sell what. you have been convinced to believe that the government's distinctions matter.
im not making that assumption. that is just how it was back then for the majority. not too long ago barack obama was against gay marriage. things changed very quickly recently thanks to people like me who believe in individual liberty above anything else.
it isnt just my opinion. it is a lot of people's opinion that we do not have the right to delegate authority to government that we dont have ourselves. most people dont think of it that way but it is a constant conversation of how far is government allowed to intrude into our lives.
im not sure what you think you are doing but you dont have any evidence that age restrictions are necessary. you have assumptions and you have the fact that government has done and it most people dont object. so dont bother trying to make a case that isnt there.
why do you feel more comfortable with the term dispensaries rather than convenience stores? that is funny, that the name of the store matters to you when the action is the same. you are comfortable selling via a store named a "dispensary" vs a store named a "convenience store." you have these illogical ideas because government isnt rational. the fact is that the government has no right to determine what store can sell what. you have been convinced to believe that the government's distinctions matter.
I'm not a doctor but I am sure you could find a ton of scientific studies that show how adolescents have poor decision-making skills. What are you trying to argue, that they have superb decision-making skills? That their brains are fully developed? I would love to hear that case made. Or do you simply think freedom of choice trumps everything else and that kids should be able to easily ruin their lives if they want to?
It's not arbitrary at all and it's not just about the name. A convenience store is a place everyone frequents to buy gas and maybe go inside for a snack. I don't think we need to make it so convenient (hence the name) to purchase hard drugs. A dispensary that sells various kinds of drugs is not a place you would step into unless you wanted to buy drugs. Do we sell pornographic content in convenience stores? No. You have to go to an XXX video store or sex toy shop. It's the same concept.
Update on the bill: The bill passed the House and its fate now lies in the hands of the Senate. Even if the Senate does approve it, unless they obtain a 2/3rds majority vote, Sununu will veto it.
What do people think about full legalization? Is it time to join our neighboring states and fully legalize it for recreational use? I understand the argument that Sununu recently approved a decriminalization bill and that this may be too much too soon after that.
I theorize that the reason NH is so against marijuana has to do with 3 possible reasons: 1) the state liquor commission, which holds a lot of sway in this state, doesn't want it legal for obvious reasons. 2) NH police carry with their opinions quite a bit of sway in the state house. Without petty marijuana busts, cops are then much more bored and may have to actually do some real police work 3) the state wants to fully control the industry in a unique way that states like Colorado do not. Why else would the state be so hypercritically and paradoxically opposed to marijuana legalization despite being a libertarian-ish state? Wouldn't surprise me if the state doesn't legalize it until it can figure out how to run the dispensaries--as they do with state-run liquor stores. In other words, greed is getting in the way. It's not enough to tax the **** out of the plant; the state wants to operate the dispensaries themselves, whereas states like Colorado and Massachusetts do not actually run the dispensaries, although the state obviously does collect a lot of money in taxes.
This bill probably won't pass this time, and most likely NH will be the last state in New England to fully legalize whenever it does. It will probably happen within 4 years. It's just really stupid that NH is wasting time delaying the inevitable and remaining an island of prohibition.
Ohio was prepared to pass their legislation until they recognized that a few would control the distribution, which killed it.
I have relatives that live in Ohio so I was actually aware of that bill and remember when I found out it didn’t pass. It was always a log shot, though, from what I remember.
Would it have had a decent chance at passing even if more people controlled distribution?
I'm not a doctor but I am sure you could find a ton of scientific studies that show how adolescents have poor decision-making skills. What are you trying to argue, that they have superb decision-making skills? That their brains are fully developed? I would love to hear that case made. Or do you simply think freedom of choice trumps everything else and that kids should be able to easily ruin their lives if they want to?
It's not arbitrary at all and it's not just about the name. A convenience store is a place everyone frequents to buy gas and maybe go inside for a snack. I don't think we need to make it so convenient (hence the name) to purchase hard drugs. A dispensary that sells various kinds of drugs is not a place you would step into unless you wanted to buy drugs. Do we sell pornographic content in convenience stores? No. You have to go to an XXX video store or sex toy shop. It's the same concept.
i am arguing that the government doesnt have the right to set these limits. what us individuals should allow government to control should be as little as possible.
what is the benefit of having a specific type of store selling drugs vs a convenience store?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
