Can /pol explain to me how the same people who want non-regulated gun laws are the same that want heavy punishment and control on drugs like marijuana?
Isn't the argument based on individual freedom where they go mental on the very tought of someone trying to control their right to bear arms as a freedom, but people can't smoke a joint?
Not taking sides, just never understood how they make this logic sound, someone please explain.
Because those same people are dumb fat americuck hypocrites.
>drugs like marijuana
Marijuana is the only drug like marijuana so quit being a faggot and advocate for all drugs to be legal like meth and heroin.
I had a pretty thoughtful response planned out, outlining the recent history of the Rupublican party (who has been pretty in favor of personal liberties counterbalancing heavy punishments for crimes for a long time, but has only relatively recently become associated with nationalism and militarism) and of the public perception of drugs, but I don't feel like wasting it on a Scandanavian.
Drugs are not constitutional rights
He means medical drugs used as painkillers, idiot americunt.
You want it to be banned, because non-threatening junkies use it, but when a crazy fuck shoots up a school, you blame the government and the crazy fuck, but da gunz dindu nuffin.
Hypocrite.
I think drugs and guns should be legal but obv the guns are more important so I vote for them
Yes yurp, do tell me about ameriga.
Being an infidel is also not a constitutional right in Shariah controlled countries. Lots of laws are already out of date, so fuck off.
Pretty sure the bill of rights doesn't have "A well-rolled blunt being necessary for the chill of a cool dude, the right of the people to smoke weed every day shall not be infringed" in it.
Yet you wasted time posting that inane gibberish instead?
>Lots of laws are already out of date
No its is our society which is out of date. This world is a liberal mess.
>inane
a word you don't understand
Oh, I understand it and it's meaning. Nice try though faggot.
I want both unregulated gun laws and drugs legalized. Marijuana is harmless and should be available at 18 like cigarettes. Hard and addictive drugs should be treated like alcohol, where driving while under the influence will cause you to be fined and potentially have your license suspended.
This. To expand a little bit:
There are a variety of "classes" of rights in America. Guns are fundamental rights, because they are enumerated in the Constitution.
Typically, if the government seeks to impose a law or a regulation that infringes upon an enumerated right, then they must meet a very high burden, showing that the law serves a legitimate public interest, that the law is not overly broad, and that it is the least restrictive way to achieve their goal. Otherwise the law is unconstitutional.
For non-enumerated rights, the standard is much much lower. The government need only show that the law that infringes upon the right is rationally-related to a legitimate government purpose.
>government is bad for banning a substance I like because DUDE WEED, but it's totally alright for it to ban substances other people like
get fucked, you leftard hypocrite
I am against gun control and for legal marijuana.
so fuck you sweden.
Marijuana caused the state to baloon during the 60s and 70s when a whole generation of stoners whinged for more government control and interference.
Marijuana has no valid use outside of medical therapy. Guns have many uses and keep countries alive.
>we should ban * because it has no valid use outside of *
we should ban Sprite because it has no valid use outside of being a beverage.
With this logic i assume you want alcohol to be banned, as other substances are?
of course not. I want the other substances to be legally sold, as alcohol is.
>caused the state to baloon during the 60s and 70s when a whole generation of stoners whinged for more government control and interference.
Are you stupid? Hippies were anti government you retard.