To preface, I don't smoke. But are we really land of the free if, for a long time, we didn't allow people to smoke marijuana?

[crmoore]

Has America lost its way? What happened to freedom and liberty? Is it freedom when "you're free to do what you want as long as we agree with it"?

Updates

1 y

With all due respect, I think a number of you are being pedantic. Hardly anyone advocating for freedom is advocating for the legalization of theft, murder, or rape. They're not advocating for anarchy. They're advocating for freedom within reason.

[NaultD]

Take a peak at actual history, weed only got outlawed because it made cheaper textiles during ww1 shortages or materials. It only then got demonized under nixon to lock up hippies and black people anti Vietnam war.

"You want to know what this was really all about,”Ehrlichman, who died in 1999, said, referring to Nixon’s declaration of war on drugs.

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying. We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

[VanillaSalt]

That’s what it’s always been. Free as long as it don’t effect the status quo. As long as we’re able to vote, maintain taxes, and don’t riot they don’t care.


You can’t be allowed to rape, murder, and pillage… and when you argue within reason… we believe today it’s within reason to teach k-12 about drag and intersexuality… we fight to define what is a woman… the fact is society is built by the strong and as long as the strong lead society well we’re good… still not really free. You do not have the right to do what you think is right without the scrutiny of society and punishment if they disagree… that’s the very meaning of society.

[Anonymous]

Remember when they outlawed smoking indoors in public? The selfish smokers lost their minds over that, because they said they were losing their freedom? Your freedom ends where my freedom begins.

[Shamalien]

There are still establishments you can smoke inside. You can smoke outdoors so long as it’s not near kids. You can smoke on your property. Weed is illegal and that’s messed up

[Opinion Owner]

@Shamalien

I was referring to America. You can smoke outside of the restaurant or other business, but you have to be 25 feet of the door. It's all about not being selfish about YOUR rights, and thinking about other people's rights.
There was a vote to get hard booze out of the hands of the government, and let the private sector sell it. Many people freaked out. They didn't think that the private sector was as smart as the government, and they'd be selling it to five year olds

They vast majority of voters told the government to fuck off. Now you can buy it in about any store in town.

And they finally got smart and legalized weed in my state. Now all the drug dealers had to get jobs at McDonald's. They're run like a Starbucks. No more back-alley bullshit and crime.

[crmoore]

Private companies should be different, though. Like you have freedom of speech is something you should have unless you're in my home. Like if you were in my home and you said you hate my wife I should be able to tell you to get out. Another example is you shouldn't be allowed to "peaceably assemble" inside of my house.

So that argument doesn't, or shouldn't, apply to someone's right to smoke Marijuana in their own home, for one example.

[Opinion Owner]

You never mentioned your own home in your opening statement. And what do you mean by private companies should be different?

[crmoore]

Well, yeah, it was a broad question that didn't specifically regard the home.

And if I own private property, do you think people should be able to "peaceably assemble" on it without my consent, or against my will?

[Opinion Owner]

No because that would be a crime.

[crmoore]

But the constitution says people can peaceably assemble. It doesn't mention any restriction.

So perhaps the constitution does not apply to, or should not apply to, private property?

[Opinion Owner]

@crmoore When we were young buggers, my papa took us camping. Nothing is better than that. We got to sleep in a tent, sit around a campfire, eat marshmallows and sing and play our guitars. Life doesn't get better than that. But papa told us to never get between a mama bear and her cubs, because you will lose.
I have two handguns locked and loaded. I pray to God I never need them. But if you mess with my cubs, you're going to be pushing up daisies.

[Agape93]

America was never free, the government is always trying to limit one's freedoms and rights.

[D_Bone_Steak]

I don't know how these laws get made... alcohol abolition was done all at the same time by so many countries. Obviously, that didn't work out. I'm just wondering why different countries tried that shit at the same time.

We went through this COVID lockdown shit and it was sort of the same thing. I'm probably not answering the question at all here and I just stoner tripped into a different wonder.

[exitseven]

B. F. Skinner wrote that freedom is a myth. He has a point. People cannot do whatever the hell they please. I was in the city yesterday and I could smell weed wherever I went. I sort of forgot how gross it is. I would not want to deal with it on a daily basis.

[jshm2]

Eh... you've not read much American history, have you? Prohibition? Apartheid? Slavery? Natives land theft? Mass incarceration? Racial inequality?

You never were were a "land of the free" - it's a personal joke you have, is all.

[crmoore]

Yeah, I didn't know we had slavery, my bad.

Are you being serious, right now? And are you not making precisely the same point I am?

[ChrisMaster69]

You are the land of free speech, however it seems to end there.

you do not appear to have safe freedom of expression or freedom of choice.

How much safe personal freedom is there in the US?

[slatyb]

We also don’t allow use of cocaine. Nor is it legal to offer sex for money in most places. We’re still much freer than citizens of China or Russia. We can at least protest against laws we don’t like.

[RingusUrDingus]

The government just shown with the Covid lockdowns, they can control your body. They can control where its allowed to go. What they can keep out, or put in.

But sure, pot.

[crmoore]

You can misplace your condescension elsewhere. Any reasonable person isn't assuming that the legality of marijuana is of the utmost importance regarding freedom. I was simply using it because it's a well-known and illegal activity that a majority of people view ad relatively harmless, and it isn't stricken with firm bias like the lockdowns were.

If I were to use your example, I'd have half the people in this comment section debating why the lockdowns were good or necessary, which would have made the point less effective. Just because someone uses a less significant example doesn't mean they view it as the most serious or concerning. And even if I'm wrong and your example wouldn't have caused unnecessary issues in the comment section, that still wouldn't mean I view marijuana as more important than the lockdowns.

[RingusUrDingus]

First off, take that aggression and redirect it. Its not my fault your premise sucks, im just the one pointing it out. And I say that as a heavy smoker whos smoking as I type this and pro-individual liberty person

Secondly You wouldve had a better example, if it wasn't already decriminalization and legalized in more than half the country; and an industry you can invest in the stock market.

I used the example I used because
1. It was recent, no historical gray area.
2. Its a far more clear, and extreme example of your larger point of freedom (specifically bodily autonomy)

If you're worried about how people would discuss the topic, phrase it better. People showing their bias will inevitable happen if you're trying to frame a discussion around a principle.

[RingusUrDingus]

@crmoore

That said, it doesn't have to be what I said. But there are far better and stronger lynch points than pot.

[crmoore]

Oh, I see. My aggression is unfounded, but your condescension is justified.

So when you are (wrongfully) condescending, than any sort if oppositional response is simply not okay. Do you think perhaps bias may play a role in your judgement?

And my premise doesn't suck, as I've already explained and as I will again. And no, I wouldn't have had a better example if it wasn't already decriminalized in more than half the country. That actually bolsters my point. Because it's something that, in recent memory, people remember being overtly illegal. And now, indisputably, it is be decriminalized, so people can't deny the legitimacy of its decriminalization.

I don't know what your view on homosexuality is, but let's so 80 or so years ago I said the exact same thing except about gay people, I'd have people commenting "but homosexuality IS wrong and evil and psychotic and disgusting." Not very productive, is it? Now, compare that to after homosexuality has been partially decriminalized or legitimized by same-sex marriage? Perhaps the discussion about that particular example would be more productive?

If perhaps you were more civil, I'd be kinder. But since not, I can definitely say that YOUR rationale "sucks and its not my fault."

[RingusUrDingus]

@crmoore,

If pointing out that reality is condensending to you, then indepth discussions are not for you. I said your point sucks, but you're taking it incredibly personal. So yes it is justified. Because its not condescension, its telling you it sucks. If your feelings are personally affronted by that, thats a you issue not a me issue.

And I havnt made a judgment, so no. There is no bias. What I've done is try to educate you for your benefit.

"Its something in recent memory that..."
Right, I picked a far more recent event that pot.
"People remember being overtly illegal"
Yeah, only in my example it still is illegal.

Mine impacts nearly every single person. Yours impacts a small subsection of society.

So I find an example thats more recent, also illegal, more impactful on lives, impacts more people and yet somehow you're suggesting my rational for telling you there's stronger points sucks?

You've yet to even bring up bodily autonomy. Can we specify what freedom is specifically? Are there any limitations of freedom? What are they? How does this relate to bodily autonomy? How does it relate to government authority? Is it moral? Ethical? Are there limitations on those? I could go on.

there's literally 5 dozen other questions you're painfully unaware of on the subject. But if you wanna pull a Jerry Seinfeld "pots illegal in America? Whats up with that!" routine, fine but its a fucking stupid premise. realize your premise is trash not because its my opinion, but because you not only didn't mention the base fundamental questions the entire point rests on. You instead are actively arguing with someone whos bringing them to your attention.

I dont need your civility dawg. you're 0 threat to anyone in any capacity. Dont put your ego in your shitty debate premises, you'll grow up very sad and depressed from being told how much they objectivley suck and are shitty.

[crmoore]

No, it is condescension. "But sure, pot" is sarcastic remark and a clear attempt at being dismissive. It's certainly not constructive criticism, you were actively trying to be rude. And I don't know if it makes you feel more validated if my feelings were hurt, or why you might be trying to assert as much, but calling someone out of their BS doesn't mean your feelings are hurt. I don't know you and your opinion means very little to me. I don't care if you think my example sucks, especially after hearing your rationale behind it.

And I see. You "haven't made a judgement" but you'd declared that my "aggression" should be "redirected" elsewhere. That's judgement, my friend. And according this judgement of yours, you can sarcastically mock, and you can say someone's example "sucks," but if they regard your response as condescension, then their "aggression" needs to be "redirected." You can be rude to others, but others can't be rude to you. Bias.

And your attempted refutation falls flat. You cherry-pick two factors among many, addressing what your example has, and ignoring what it lacks. As I've already stated, I wanted a well-known illegal activity that a vast majority of people agree is harmless, because I wanted to avoid the unproductive derailment of "well it SHOULD be illegal!" or "but if they didn't do it, people would have been harmed" to then instead focus on the fact that freedoms are being restricted.

[crmoore]

If I used your example, half the people would argue that the lockdownds should have halpened. With weed, most people have probably tried it, and even if not, most people see it as fairly harmless to do. A lot of people do not view avoiding lockdowns as "harmless" (quite the contrary, actually). Additionally, it was a HIGHLY politicized and recent event, so it being highly politicized in and of itself will result in bias and especially so since it was a recent politicization that everyone was affected by. Marijuana, however, people are much less emotional about.

And yes. Your example is greater and more serious example. But it's an example that will cause emotion, bias, and unproductive discussion. Thus, it would have been less effective to use. If I'm trying to make a point, and by doing so I cause many derailments, you're going to lose people along the way.

And I'm not "unaware" of these other questions just because I haven't explicitly brought them up (of which actually was brought up, though much more generally, in the update to the question). I'd point out that you, too, in your first, second, and third response did not bring up those questions. So I guess you, too, we're painfully unaware of those aspects. (Or perhaps you can admit that your rationale, again, might not be as solid as you were hoping).

And thanks, "dawg." I couldn't be more appreciative of the enlightenment that "you suck" has bestowed upon me. I can't even begin to express what a profound impact this conversation has had on my life. And yeah, I'm sure people aren't very threatening from behind that screen.

[Adronicus]

No we are not free, as soon as the first law was made that ceased to be reality. REAL freedom is chaotic & unpredictable.

[Adronicus]

Since the post was changed felt the need to leave another response. Freedom with "reason". What all can reason be construed? = anything desired. Corruption of language is a thing, in 200 years time forward or back you'd fail to understand your own language. People will never be free, there will always be those that seek to control the free thus making them not free.

[Paul09]

Governments are a bunch of rich idiots. Which I find very irionic. Because legalization of marijuana everywhere, will make them a huge profit. I guess they just love power and money..

[superdonkey]

We live in a society where people think words hurt we live in a society where it's okay too ban books we live in a society where if you're in a group you can burn Loot murder (BLM)

[-Asca-]

The US isn‘t and has never been the „land of the free“ that idea was a scam all along. The fact that weed is illegal is just one of countless examples that prove my point.

[ArtemisSilver]

It's related to racism towards the groups who use it.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

It's legal in certain states. That us because we have the right to self govern

[CloudMassacre]

Freedom unless you want to do something with your own body, then the state gets involved

[idkIoI]

It isn't actually the land of the free lol. Land of the fee and you are welcome to be exploited

[PatriceONeal]

Are you free to murder 10 people. K Kindly shut up dude...

[crmoore]

Read the update and work on your pedantic 4th grade arguments.

[PatriceONeal]

Shhhhutup dummy

[crmoore]

Damn, you got me good.

[PatriceONeal]

You do plenty to "get" yourself

[crmoore]

Well if you said it then I'm sure it must be true. No need for substantiation, PatriceONeal himself asserted it.

[PatriceONeal]

Keep going. A man championing abortion.

[crmoore]

I rest my case.

And I don't recall abortion being mentioned. But am I mistaken or is a man who thinks "women have nothing worthwhile to say" and "women should entertain men, since men do all the work" grilling me on morality?

[PatriceONeal]

Rest your case already
You're obviously an anti-American cuck, I don't need to talk to you to know what you think.

The type to search my history. Take it out of context. Repost it. And not even make a claim of your own. Why talk to nihilist losers like you? You're just an avatar taking out of your childish ass.

[crmoore]

I did. I already said "I rest my case."

Quite frankly, I'm the real American. America was founded on the concept of freedom and liberty. And America has lost it's way. If you disagree with the stances on freedom, you're the anti-American.

And there isn't much room to "claim" anything when the conversation devolves to "shhhhutup dummy." (And think I'M the childish one, lmao)

And feel free to add context to those points, if you'd like.

[MannyFrs]

lol government has the word GOVERN in it. control, influence, or regulate. we need less of this

[007kingifrit]

freedom should never be absolute. that's not a meaningful freedom

[BillyBalls]

Legalize all drugs and let all druggies out of prison.

That will lower the crime rate!!!

[Snakeyes7]

Nope, I don't agree to the practice either but it should be treated like alcohol in my opinion.

[jimmy2]

Well with the Pademic and Democrats off the chain we look like American trash