nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 194:
Line 194: + + + + + +
User talk:HelpJazz (view source)
Revision as of 10:11, September 23, 2008
, 10:11, September 23, 2008→Politics: My I join in?
:Keeping my word is what I do :) And duh on my part about al Queda / Taliban. I totally knew that. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:48, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:Keeping my word is what I do :) And duh on my part about al Queda / Taliban. I totally knew that. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:48, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I hope you don't mind if I join in? Reading this, I have a few things I'd like to add.
* '''Foreign policy''': One of the ways that slavery was abolished was by Britain acting as the "world's policeman". That is, they declared slave-trading ships to be considered pirate ships, and therefore made slave traders subject to their navy. Saying that a country should keep out of things that are not its business may be okay up to a point, but when its righting a wrong, it ''is'' their business. Looking the other way when injustice is being done is to be part of that injustice. It's probably not that simple, admittedly, but allowing injustice to continue ''just because it's not your business'' is wrong. Not interfering ''for other reasons'' may be valid, but that would depend on those reasons.
* '''Abortion''': Abortion is murder (killing of an innocent human), pure and simple. The unborn child is unquestionably human, unquestionably alive, and unquestionably not part of his mother's body. That's solid facts and logic, not just what I "think and feel".
* '''Drugs''': I disagree that prohibition has never worked. From my reading many years ago (the books were borrowed, so I don't have them now), prohibition in the United States was a roaring success, even to the extent that prisons were being closed for lack of prisoners, as (alcohol-fuelled) crime was down.<br />''Regulating'' drugs rather than ''banning'' them is little more than playing with words. If you regulate drugs, you are really doing things like ''banning'' them to people under 18 years old, ''banning'' stronger versions in favour of weaker "safer" versions, ''banning'' them above a certain quantity per month, ''banning'' their sale without sales tax, or whatever. Every such "regulation" (partial ban) is potential black market. Although smoking (tobacco) is strongly discouraged here in Oz these days (and use is way down), it is still legal, yet black market trade in cigarettes has still been known to happen. And remember that such drugs (marijuana, heroin, etc.) are banned ''for a reason'', that being that they are ''inherently'' dangerous (some more than others). So by legalising and regulating them, you're basically ''encouraging'' people to take stuff that's dangerous! How is that in any way the responsible thing to do?
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:11, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
==Drugs==
==Drugs==