....In the past few weeks, I have been gathering signatures for I-1068, an innovative to remove criminal penalties for marijuana. I have yet to hear one coherent and rational opposing argument for ending the war on drugs. The essence of virtually every argument supporting state-sponsored controls and regulations is based on unreasonable assumptions rather than being based on or supported by statistical data. I would challenge anyone to give me one reason that logically trumps individuals' rights and justifies social control over others. I would also like a source as to where this authority is derived, as it is clearly a Constitutional infringement to have the federal government encroaching on State's rights.
I have patiently listened to emotional ploys and irrational and poorly thought-out arguments to oppose the ballot measure. Arguments range from people telling me about their child's abuse of the drug to empty allegations of its conflict with their faith. I have listened to people say it would increase car accidents and lead to the use of other drugs. Of course, it is a gateway drug; do you know why? It is primary because it is illegal and forces minorities of society to be pushed together into communities exposing users to all sorts of crimes and other drugs they may have otherwise never witnessed. Logical fallacies, propaganda, and lack of critical thinking are the initial difficulties to overcome in this debate.
One of the most fallacious statements I've heard is, "By supporting individual rights, one is promoting or advocating the use of a substance or action of an individual." I don't support or endorse the use of marijuana; however, like the first amendment, I will fight for your right to use it regardless. What I think is right, or just, might be good for my family and me, but I have no right to use corrosion or the state to tell you what is right for you and your family. I simply lead by example.
If it is true that people are “too stupid to make the right decision,” does that justify coercing me to participate in the central planning of their lives? Moreover, what is “right” is highly subjective to the individual; where do you draw your unquestionable wisdom to know how others should act and live? Because I support Aristotle's assertion that “different men seek for happiness in different ways and by different means, and so make for themselves different modes of life and forms of government,” I will conclude by stating that I love America and believe we have great potential to be a free society. Our Constitution outlines a government that is formidable for all walks of life as long as we do not allow people's individual biases to interfere with one another personal freedoms.
I have patiently listened to emotional ploys and irrational and poorly thought-out arguments to oppose the ballot measure. Arguments range from people telling me about their child's abuse of the drug to empty allegations of its conflict with their faith. I have listened to people say it would increase car accidents and lead to the use of other drugs. Of course, it is a gateway drug; do you know why? It is primary because it is illegal and forces minorities of society to be pushed together into communities exposing users to all sorts of crimes and other drugs they may have otherwise never witnessed. Logical fallacies, propaganda, and lack of critical thinking are the initial difficulties to overcome in this debate.
One of the most fallacious statements I've heard is, "By supporting individual rights, one is promoting or advocating the use of a substance or action of an individual." I don't support or endorse the use of marijuana; however, like the first amendment, I will fight for your right to use it regardless. What I think is right, or just, might be good for my family and me, but I have no right to use corrosion or the state to tell you what is right for you and your family. I simply lead by example.
If it is true that people are “too stupid to make the right decision,” does that justify coercing me to participate in the central planning of their lives? Moreover, what is “right” is highly subjective to the individual; where do you draw your unquestionable wisdom to know how others should act and live? Because I support Aristotle's assertion that “different men seek for happiness in different ways and by different means, and so make for themselves different modes of life and forms of government,” I will conclude by stating that I love America and believe we have great potential to be a free society. Our Constitution outlines a government that is formidable for all walks of life as long as we do not allow people's individual biases to interfere with one another personal freedoms.
Comments
Post a Comment