{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
This thread is inspired by another: view original post
Edited by Cultmeister:
4/25/2013 1:16:07 PM
22
What's the difference between the Gun debate and the Drug debate?
so guns should be allowed but drugs shouldn't?
please someone, explain the logic behind this because they seem like basically the same arguments to me.
Note: 'drugs' means all drugs, not just weed.
EDIT: i am NOT saying drugs and guns are the same, but that the arguments people use to ban one can easily be used against the other.
[u]arguments for banning either guns or drugs:[/u]
they can be dangerous to inexperienced users
they can harm or kill you and others
[u]arguments for not banning guns or drugs:[/u]
using them is a fun activity and when used properly and safely pose little risk to the user (note: in the case of drugs 'used properly and safely' does not include getting addicted)
a person has a right to the freedom to own and/or use them so long as they are not putting others in any harm or otherwise infringing their rights.
why should we treat them differently?
-
1 ReplyEdited by Cultmeister: 4/24/2013 10:41:11 PMwell the only difference i can see is that one of them isn't mentioned in the Constitution. unless the right to 'bear arms' is implying you are on a hallucinogenic trip and you need to tear someone's legs off.
