So someone refresh me again.. is this topic about

A. Trolling
B. trolling
C. Pot
D. Politics
E. Religion
F. Cherry Pie
H. Popcorn
I. Popcorn toppings and pass procedure.

Those questions weren't for me BTW, and you know what a libertarians answer to those questions are.

I wonder if we can hit 20+ pages again.

Has anyone noticed that Mg never discusses what's at hand, he always jumps all over in an attempt to wear people down, similar to footwork in boxing.

This is why the thread covered 10 topics in very few posts, most people don't even know what is going on now without reading the thread twice.

Every MG reply is not a legitimate argument, but a diversion and attempt to get the attention off of his shortcomings.

True HardHead

W has to be confused as crap right now, he loves MG's pot and libertarian rants, but hairs how he fishes. Now, they are all coming to head in one epic thread, W would have blew this thread up if anyone else would have started it! Lmao

Drug legalization would be much easier for many people to accept if society insisted that the individual users themselves assumed all the attendant risks of drug use/misuse/abuse. This would be a true libertarian view.

Sure drug users can contribute to society. I am not saying they can't. However, I think recreational drug use/misuse/abuse tends to reduce the potential for individuals to contribute and tends to increase the risk of them becoming a burden to society through greater accident risk, unwanted pregnancy risk, disease risk, and reduced work productivity.

Your view is not just for drug users to be free to use drugs as long as they assume all the risk. Until and unless the welfare state (safety net) is dismantled (including health care), your position is that society as a whole should share the risks of increased medical costs, increased pregnancy risks, increased accident risks, increased disease risks, and reduced work productivity of unrestricted drug use/misuse/abuse.

There are many fields where drug use/abuse does not seem to significantly reduce the value of employees work production. There are other fields where the risks are obviously unacceptable. My point is that it is not the government's job to decide which are which. The owners and management of each individual business should be free to decide, except in cases where there are obvious public safety risks that require government oversight (airplane pilots, for example). The consequences for an employer deciding wrongly (foolish employment policy regarding drug use) should be left up to the free market. If an employer's policy is too restrictive, the business will be at a competitive disadvantage because he is failing to hire some great employees simply because they use drugs.

Employers and insurers should have complete freedom with regard to their drug testing policies.

Mature adults appreciate differences. W may disagree with how I fish, but I doubt he would advocate any legal restrictions. He probably appreciates our removal of gafftops and bull drum. It's just not something that he enjoys doing himself.

The LP needs to clarify its position on federalism. The 2012 platform is vague on their degree of willingness to use federal power to force states to adopt libertarian policies. They really seem to be retreating from Ron Paul's long held position that each state needs to be free to decide for itself which libertarian policies to adopt and which to reject.

Being for gay marriage is one thing. Advocating for the federal courts to ram gay marriage down the throats of all 50 states is something else.

Being for drug legalization is one thing. Advocating for the feds to force states to legalize drugs is something else.

wow.... i cant read those long posts... i give up... ya'll win.... gimme that popcorn back Ace !!

Pics of the smoking hot wife or it didn't happen!

New's at 11... "The Sky is still.... not falling" :cry:

Dang dude... i popped you an extra bag an errythang....

***?

Something about this thread has changed since I left....lol

Dude... Your not allowed to use tactical nukes in online intahnet warz.....


Sheesh....


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I wrote:

Employers and insurers should have complete freedom with regard to their drug testing policies.

AA replied:

Exactly where in the libertarian's platform do you see that they intend to be the new "Thought Police"? Could you please point it out?

Goooh advocated in this very thread for drug testing by private employers to continue, just as it does now. Presumably this means with all the government intrusion and Dept. of Labor regulations currently in force.

I advocate for something different. Real liberty. Just as any EMPLOYEE can currently quit (assuming no contract obligations otherwise) if their EMPLOYER refuses to voluntarily submit to a drug test requested by the EMPLOYEE or if the EMPLOYER tests positive, real liberty would allow employers to require testing of employees at will, with refusal to test or testing positive taken as grounds for immediate dismissal without all the federal government oversight and regulation that currently exists. Libertarians want smaller government and less regulation, right?

Likewise AceArcher has advocated universal healthcare in this very thread. Presumably this means insurance must be provided to all, regardless of their drug use. In contrast, I think the true libertarian position would be that any insurance company can decide to cancel insurance or charge more for drug users.

Please note that I make a distinction between "libertarian" as a political philosophy and "Libertarian" as a US political party.

I can't believe I fished through all this today. This is great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a low blow man......

why you have to cut me so deep!

Nice.... glad to see you came around and managed to disparage me.... I was beginning to lose faith in your skills.

I think if you re-read the actual post that i made you can see that i pretty clearly stated that it was an opinion of mine in which i diverged from the LP parties position...

Wait a second.... "if their EMPLOYER refuses to voluntarily submit to a drug test requested by the EMPLOYEE or if the EMPLOYER tests positive"

Exactly who is taking the drugs here??????????? Those damned pothead employeers!!!!! :pissed::pissed:

From the Wiki on GJ's political positions:

Treating drugs as a health problem sounds a lot like shifting a big burden to private insurers.

Johnson also seems to have a big regulatory and tax burden in mind for weed, "just like tobacco."

Maybe a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, and Marijuana?

I may just be in college and be around it more, but the movement seems to be building steam. I don't smoke the herb, just an observation