Your INTELLECTUAL political ideologies

Medical attention is eminent, with and without legalization of all drugs. If all drugs were legalized, I'm sure that the ambulance service would go through the roof and would actually make people start paying the outrageous bills that they propose. More money back into the economy and in EMCs pockets. As most EMCs are volunteer, if they were given a salary, or something like a taxi-payment for the person being treated.

 

Im sorry buddy, but if they legalized hard drugs, more people would do them. And lets face it, if someone tries pot, chances are they won;t get addicted. Trying something that has a high addiction rate will lead to way more addicated coke heads.

I dont agree with that at all. It would cause hell.

Your solution sounds more like, fuck it, legalize it, use the money from taxing it to pay more ambulance drivers and build more hospitals to accomodate the amount of people.

Leagalizing it, and using that money to pay for the health problems associated with legalizing it is just stupid.

 

would you say spend it all on weapons? dissent on the war in iraq has actually entered pop culture!
but the fair tax thing where it's just sales tax sounded cool too.

 

anarcho-communism is basically having no leaders, (either agreement-based or people do whatever they want), but with property shared. this is what often happened on hippy communes.

 

Anarcho-commune is like complete freedom in a small society of people. True/Pure communism is a lot like anarchy. The people all decide everything in a community type of atmosphere. Anarchy is just mass freedom, but with communistic principles you have a small scale environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism for more info.

 

I'd also like to see some more space programs, I like that post-terrestrial evolutin shit from R.A.W. and leary and them

 

I personally wouldn't, but I can picture masses of the rednecks who surround me (in life, not on here, lmao) screaming "Kill 'em god-damn A-rabs!" and making huge weapons a priority... But really, I think that you had an awesome idea with that. Just... like I said, I don't know much about politics so I just try to... explore possibilities, you might say.

 

^see but the rednecks could do that, because it would be the will of the people. but the rednecks are such a small part, and nobody else would choose weapons, so we would still end up with less weapons now. also, rednecks are often less rich, thus pay less taxes, thus decide what happens.

 

ohh! The less-rich thing... that never occurred to me. Lmao, I think i'm just gonna stop posting in here...

 

But I don't believe that government should be able to tell us what to put inside our own bodies. Who gives them the right to say they are anymore of a person than you are on this Earth? They try to act like a higher power in controlling and destroying our lives.

 

Because a hard drug user will bitch and complain when the hospital wont help him because hes an idiot and has been using meth or heroin.

 

Even when it's illegal the hospital will help, so why wouldn't they when it's legal?

 

Thats the problem. If the hospital helps do you have any idea how much money that will cost?

I just dont see the point in using the tax dollars to fuel the drug trade by building hospitals for the tweakers and junkies. People will overdose guaranteed.

 

I understand what you are saying, and I agree that our tax dollars shouldn't fuel the drug trade, but think of how much more money the hospitals would be making, they are legit about donating to organizations, etc. While it's a vicarious way of looking at it, it would help a good deal.

And yes, I know how much it would cost, since they have to run all the tests, observe the patient, etc, but it would be costing the patient. And if the patient is paying for their own stupid mistake, then what is wrong with that?

 

^ Minus the fact America is one of the few without Universal Healthcare meaning no, they dont pay. People like me pay in Canada.. The average tax payer.

 

hard drugs are so dangerous and life-consuming that it hurts more than just the user. drugs like meth,crac, pcp, heroin, etc.

the nature of the drugs in question have such an affect on an addicted user that they are willing to kill, rob, hurt others, whatever needs to be done to get the drug. i hate the idea of restricting what people can put in their bodies, but highly addictive and dangerous shit like that should never be allowed because it affects many more people than just the user. hard addiction becomes a social disease, one which affects many.

 

nobody else has opinions?

 

I don't think harder drugs should be abused, but making them illegal seems ridiculous.

 

^ You can't say that. It does not work. You cant say its legal but don't abuse it. People will abuse it then it will be the publics problem. I would love to have them legal to tax the fuck out of them, but then you have to deal with ODs and death, and people tweaking out and killing and stealing to get their fix when they put their house up for more drugs and kill their families. Its a stupid idea.

I also think the the no child left behind act is complete bullshit. Bullshit because its not being implemented correctly. George Bush recently denounced taxing cigs more to help fund childrens education. Word is he got quite the hefty cheque for doing so. And don't be fooled, pharmaceutical companies pump millions every year into the peoples pockets who matter when it comes to banning and legalizing drugs.

So in a way, I would like to eliminate all the corruption in the government, because for there to be ANY change in a positive way, the corruption has to dissipate. Granted, corruption will ensure regardless, people like money, money leads to greed. Politicians are all crooks and liars blah blah. It would be hard but re-shaping the government or or should I say dictatorship would be hard. That goes for America and Canada and whatever other political spectrum you want to apply this to.

 

gosh i hope George W. reads this thread