Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Suicide should be illegal for one simple reason: not all people who want to commit suicide are mentally capable of making that decision for themselves.

In many cases, drugs and mind-altering substances can screw you up so bad you're not capable of making a rational decision. Also, certain people have biological reactions to certain substances that can screw up their brains badly as well. For example, there are many drugs used to treat chronic conditions that induce hallucinations in about 0.3% of the population. Those people aren't in their right mind and aren't capable of making a rational decision.

Various disorders also induce severe depression, like bipolar disorder, and while your mind is screwed up from this biological condition, you're not capable of making a rational decision. Most of these are treatable or curable, but while suffering from them, you just aren't in your right mind.

Since, in all of these cases, the people who consider committing suicide are not in their right minds, aren't capable of making a rational decision, and can recover from the unbalanced mental state, it is the duty of society to protect them until they are capable of making a rational decision. Otherwise, what's the point of society if children would run wild, without parents, all mind-altering substances would be legal, the mental institutions would let everyone go free, those with Alzheimer's would be left to fend for themselves, and drunk driving would be perfectly acceptable? Society is supposed to protect people from themselves and others when they are not capable of doing it themselves. When your brain is screwed up because of a biological disorder or mind-altering substances, you're not capable of making rational decisions yourself, and thus not capable of protecting yourself.

So the situation is simple: some people can't make rational decisions, so they are unable to decide for themselves to commit suicide. However, when people are actually about to commit suicide, there is rarely enough time to research the person extensively to discover whether or not they have justification and whether or not they are capable of making a rational decision. For this reason, all suicide must be illegal to make it possible for the Police to stop those who are incapable of deciding their own fate. It is Society's responsibility to protect that group of people, and any sufficiently intelligent person can still commit suicide, so suicide must be illegal for Society to fulfill its duties to the people.

Why should we impeach Bush? If our entire legislative system supports a new law, and the people accept it, how is Bush now liable? There is nothing to impeach him over, thus he can not be impeached.

Iraq? Everyone supported the start of the war, and the good deeds we have done there can't be ignored, regardless of our original motivation. We're creating the first Middle Eastern democracy, we're restoring the ancient lands of Mesopotamia, which Saddam butchered wholesale, we're acting to stabilize a critical region of the world and suppress terrorism, we're vastly improving the lives of people in that region of the world, and no terrorist can possibly stop what we've started. Sure, we've lost 2,000 soldiers, but they voluntarily sacrificed their lives for something good and we will honor them, and their number is nothing even near the ~52,000 dead in Vietnam, ~53,000 dead in Korea, and 410,000+ dead in WWII. There's nothing to regret, so why would we impeach Bush over something that isn't a problem?

Bush's support has actually increased during his presidency. He barely won the first election and didn't actually have a majority, but in the last election he gained supporters and held a majority vote as well as a strong electoral vote. Sure, the Anti-Bush people have become more and more desperate as the Democratic party has floundered and the Republicans have grown, and Bush has been a bad money spender recently, but he's been doing pretty damn well considering the situations he's been stuck in.

What's always funny is the hypocritical critics. They completely supported starting a war in Iraq based on the same evidence the President had, but now they claimed he lied and cheated to illegally attack another country solely for oil and the war is evil-- yet none of that is true and they supported it, too, based on the same evidence everyone had (and Bush isn't the one who started the war; he doesn't have that legal power, only Congress does, and they are the ones who took us to war, not Bush).

Addendum: Many ignorant people also make another major mistake when discussing Evolution and Creationism (ID).

Evolution never was, never will, and never should be an explanation of the Origin of Life. Evolution only conflicts with the official Catholic history, it does not conflict with Religion itself or anything of that sort.

The Heterotroph Theory is the only part of Science that truly conflicts with Religion because the primary tenet of religion is an explanation of origin. No other part of Science actually prevents Spiritualism-- it just might conflict with the human histories written my humans who happen to run a human religious organization. Those humans just don't want to be proven wrong. Science doesn't conflict with Religion, it conflicts with the many of the human traditions and power structures related to Religion.

At 12/12/05 07:12 PM, wvjmaff wrote: The problem in saying that you should not teach proven facts in school is that ALOT of material we learn in school in not proven. Take, for instance, quantum mechanics in chemistry.

We have never PROVEN alot about the structure of atoms, it is just theorization from observation. On that same idea, we may not have proven gravity, i.e. the "THEORY of Gravity", but it is still taught because we have been able to theorize through observation that it probably exists. We have done the same with evolution.

The concept of "proven" does not apply to Science. Theories are as well supported and as close to proven as you can possibly reach in Science! Theory is the highest level of Scientific Ideas. There is no "probably" involved, a Theory is the best we can manage at that time.

How do people not understand such a simple, critical concept which you simply cannot confuse without completely misunderstanding the entirely of Science?

At 12/13/05 02:04 PM, Pandaman64 wrote: Why not teach the ID theory? As long as you keep in mind that it's a THEORY, there's no reason not to teach it.

It's simple: Intelligent Design is NOT a Theory, nor a Hypothesis, nor even Scientific! According to the definition of Science, Intelligent Design is not Science or even close. It's not a complex issue.

At 12/12/05 03:14 AM, Wadger wrote: Homosexuality is a product of both Nature And Nurture

Please present proof that "Nature" has anything at all to do with it. According to my knowledge, there are no known genes that select for sexual preference, and there are no animal populations with solely homosexual members (bisexual does not count).

Put simply, we don't give a damn.

Sexuality, unlike race, religion, or nationality, is part of the realm of private life. Most people just don't care what you do in private and won't discriminate against you unless you shove it in their face, and even then rarely. Most people just don't care about gays.

Sexuality is not something inescapable and at all limiting in life, even under extreme descrimination, while the things we will react to, like race or nationality in particular, are not escapable and are obvious at a glance. The stupid Dyke joke was repeated too often, but honestly, most people just don't care. It's that simple.

At 12/10/05 04:33 PM, wvjmaff wrote: I just ca't imagine a company working to make money would purposely distribute a defective system. They would know that problems would conme out of it. Their reputation would be hurt and they would have to redcall ALL of them. That is definitely not going to save them any money. A defective system would be such a big hit to the company. It IS Microsoft, so it won't be crippling, but it WILL be bad. The dude just need to call Tech Support and get over himself.

Think about it... Microsoft is sticking a ultra high-end gaming computer in the XBox360. It has only a small number of fans due to its size. Of course it is going to freakin overheat, just like any computer would! Give it good ventilation and an extra fan, you fools!

It's really very simple: Africa's problems are AFRICA's fault.

So the Europeans mucked around in Africa. The Africans were the dumbasses who let genocidal, maniacal dictators into power all around the continent and still can manage their own damn countries.

It's no one else's responsibility but their own to govern their countries. It's a little concept called "Personal Responsibility."

At 12/10/05 08:00 AM, -Fudge- wrote:

At 12/10/05 05:32 AM, Redbob86 wrote: Man + Woman = Baby.

What about infertile couples? Should they not be allowed to get married also?

Most infertile women can still carry babies. Most infertile men can be replaced with sperm donations. The child will still be born and raised perfectly normally.

Man + Man = Bloody anal mess.

I'm pretty sure that's not really true, and even if it is, why the fuck do you care? It's not affecting you is it?

If Gay Marriage is legalized, then it is affecting us. Anal sex is disgusting and I'd hate to see Marriage bastardized into a Lust-Based Tax Break.

At 12/9/05 03:51 PM, hellsgift wrote: The entire point of this thread was to prove that marijuana is nowhere near as harmful as other drugs.

(short on time)

AND THAT IS NOT SUFFICIENT REASON TO LEGALIZE IT!

Just because it's not the smelliest shit in the lot doesn't mean you should pick it up! It's still shit and still a problem! If we could get rid of Tobacco and Alcohol, even better; Tobacco is definately on the way out, but Alcohol is too popular and has been used for too many years to ban. Marijuana is a new kid on the block, so we can ban it without too much trouble, and there is no reason we SHOULD legalize besides the flawed belief that no reasons to criminalize something is reason enough to embrace it.

At 12/8/05 12:09 PM, hellsgift wrote: Do you have any proof to back up that statement?
And alos, if weed turns people int bumbling idiots like you say, then how are we able to put up a argument as good as this?
The fact of the matter is that MJ has no bad effects on a persons intellect, or thier sanity.

Honestly, I believe you're a dumbass. I was low on time and only had a chance to put up a response before logging off. It's nice to see you're a politically bigoted asshole, though-- lowers my opinion of you even more.

By the way, have you seen anyone post while they were high yet? I sure haven't heard anyone mention that, so lack of possible proof = lack of possible point in your statement. Put simply, Mariajuana does, by definition, have negative effects on your intellect during use. It's a fucking narcotic!

I don't have much time to finish this post, but I'd like to show a nice little exerpt for the last link. Any quick search will provide a long list of Marijuana-related murders and damage.

"John Nahale Miranda used ... marijuana before taking several people hostage at his former workplace Feb. 6...."

Yeah... I swear, it has no effects on your brain. Surrre. Cmon, there is a hard link between drug use and totally fucked up lives and crime. You're not gonna get by claiming it has no negative effect. That's the weakest bullshit I've ever seen.

Links:
http://www.police.na..edia/2005/06/29c.htm
http://www.coastnews.com/ch22.htm
http://www.drugwatch..Drug%20Tragedies.htm

I'm getting some retarded non-existant HTML bug, so the links will have to be text-only.

Are you kidding me?

We have a ten frame video with no sound at all and no contextual video or story and no information from the opposing side and only ten or so seconds of stillshots.

There is no absolute proof of a tasering even occuring in the video-- it was not accurate enough to even notice convulsions.

There is no proof of multiple extra taserings-- we can't tell if he used it again or not and there is no reason to believe he did.

There is no proof of unreasonable cause; we assume innocent until proven guilty in America. There is no information about the prior words, the situation, or why he did it. There is no corroborating witnesses or additional evidence beyond her word. Hell, I could make a fake video many times better than that one, so how in the hell can you believe that?

I am disappointed in you guys. Pathetic automatic belief in miserably weak evidence simply because it is the Police and an Old Woman.

By the way, that video is actually fake. Do a bit more research.

If you are fired from your job for saying "Merry Christmas" and they do not have a written policy banning the use of the word "Christmas," the can sue for false termination. If they do have the word "Christmas" banned, you can sued for violation of religious freedom.

The only people expected (or even really allowed) to police themselves into being inclusive are government agencies and federally funded educational establishments (universities in particular). Those guys are supposed to be entirely seperate from religion, so they've got reasons.

Anyone can be sued for specifically banning "Christmas" or anything related, especially if they favor any other religion. If your company makes your pull down a Christmas tree on your desk but allows your neighbor to have a Manorah, you can sued the company for violation of religious freedom. Keep that in mind and sue the pants off any politically correct assholes.

No, Dredd, that is not a valid reason. You can show one case of a Cop shooting a Pothead. For every one of those cases there are at least 50 Potheads shooting a civilian.

That is no justification at all for the legalization of Marijuana, it's just an unfortunate incident. In fact, that's just more of the same avoiding my real question bullshit I always see from Pro-Marijuana people. Hand me a real reason for recreational legalization, a BENEFIT we should want and why that outweighs the negatives.

At 12/1/05 04:09 PM, brown_recluse wrote:

I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why it should be banned from public consumption. The fact that it is a mind altering substance doesn't hold any weight because, as was mentioned earlier, tobacco and alcohol are both perfectly legal. The fact that it may have long term negative side effects doesn't hold up either because the same could be said about many of the the substances we Americans imbibe including the food we eat. I see no benifit to society from spending tax dollars and police manpower to stop users from taking it. The laws against the possession of MJ seems a bit arbitrary to me. I don't smoke myself, I'm just wondering on what basis did the U.S. gov't decide that it was worse than what we already use.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why it should not be banned from public consumption.

All this stupid BS leads to one point: the benefits of legalizing it are shitty, the reasons for keeping it criminalized are shitty, but legalizing it won't make it any better. For every "benefit" there are much better options already available. For every "danger" there is a cloud of confusion; the current research base on Marijuana is terrible, contradictory, and unreliable.

There's no reason to legalize Marijuana itself, even if some derivatives are useful (pain killers). There's no reason to add a narcotic onto the legal market, regardless of how much Potheads enjoy it. There's decent reasons to try and eliminate it entirely, but our past Drug War attempts have been useless and mismanaged. Marijuana is fine decriminalized (for users, not dealers), but it is not worth it as a legalized drug and never will be.

Avian Flu = non-issue.

It could be dangerous, but it's done nothing up to this point and the chances of it doing anything are extremely low.

The chances of it turning into a true epidemic that spreads to America is the same chance that a basket-ball size asteroid will fly in from space and smash through your skull in the next five minutes. The chances of you dying in a car crash tomorrow are greater than your chances of ever dying to any flu.

Oh yeah, and we've got enough nukes to "sterilize" China of Avian Flu if you want to be cynical about it.

No.

Nothing is "perfectly harmless" and there are always negatives. Marijuana provides no particularly useful benefits, but is connected with many negatives, like:

1. Smoking anything regularly will encourage lung cancer

2. Substance abuse (of which Marijuana is the most popular illegal substance) has been very strongly linked to crime.
Example: Offenders abused some substance shortly before the crime in 95% of assault cases.

3. We don't need another vice-- we've got enough trouble controlling Tobacco and Alcohol already.

4. Drug Lords (often gangs) will fight violently against armed, dangerous opponents already for control of distribution. There's no reason they won't continue that against unarmed, vulnerable opponents if Marijuana is legalized. Or in other words, they'll still control distribution and none of the problems will get better.

5. Marijuana chemical content is extremely hard to control (and completely impossible if it is grassroots control of the drug). There's no reason to support unnecessary (potentially) dangerous chemical intake.

6. There's no reason to support Marijuana simply because it is a narcotic, something most everyone frowns on and which is completely unnecessary within our society.

7. The positives of completely eliminating Marijuana from our society far outweigh the possible benefits of completely embracing Marijuana. Both are equally unlikely, but eliminating it is the better choice, overall.

8. I've yet to see a good justification of why you, directly, the reader, should want to smoke Marijuana. If there's no justification for personal use among the readers, then why should the readers support Marijuana's legalization as a recreational drug? Unless you can convince me to use it (or at least present some sort of reasoning), there is no reason you should be wasting your time and money on a narcotic.

9. Marijuana smoke makes a room smell like shit. Tobacco is just as bad in that respect, but Tobacco is okay to smoke outdoors because it is not mind-altering.

At 12/4/05 04:50 PM, Cycloptic_Man wrote: weed should be legalized its not as bad as alchohal and not as canerous as ciggrates. it helps certain diseases too.

Then let's restrict alcohol and ban tobacco. Problem solved.

(we can't ban alcohol because it has many secondary uses we don't want to lose)

Masturbation is not similar to Marijuana, thus the entire argument is pointless.

One is illegal, why?
-- Smoke (second-hand inhalation)
-- Narcotic
-- "Unnatural"
-- Use is completely unjustifiable
-- Substance abuse is a major factor in criminal activity (proven)
-- Addictive
-- Frowned on by society (stupid action)
-- Fairly easy to catch potheads

One is legal, why?
-- Completely personal
-- Completely natural
-- Use is justifiable (if awkward)
-- Never (to my knowledge) a factor in criminal activity of any sort
-- Uncatchable without impossible security
-- Accepted within society

There's no reason why you should be a pothead, so why are you? (to those that are)

The meaning of life is really very simple:

If you have to ask what is the meaning of life, you obviously don't understand life itself.

Meaning doesn't even come into the issue of life. The question for you is not "What is the meaning of Life?" but "What is Life?"

I would absolutely join.

Too bad I'm unable to join.

Tolerance is accepting others, even if you have no wish to look deeply into their side of the issue.

Acceptance is tolerating others after you've looked deeply into their side and realized it isn't any better than you thought.

So. . . why the hell should we care about the 1,000th death row criminal to die?

16,000 people are murdered each year.

Why isn't there anything on the 16 landmarks right there? No mourning for the 1,000th innocent person murdered in a year.

Why isn't there anything for the 1,000th innocent person who dies in a car crash each year? What about fires deaths? Cancer deaths?

Why should we recognize the deaths of SCUM, but ignore the deaths of GOOD people?

Sorry, but only a minority of the white population is afflicted by your (mostly accurate) description of "white guilt." The majority, myself included, consider it a foolish, distasteful, pathetic phenomenon that is, in fact, more harmful than an equal number of racists.

Labelling the entire white population (not race) with this psychological disorder is truly racist. No stereotype is universally true among any human group, so claiming anything of the sort is pure folly.

Killing all differences is not a solution.

It's eliminating the problem entirely, not solving it.

At 11/30/05 03:55 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote: in particularcheck.. polls and history. An excellent non-bias resource.

Sorry, but that's not a "non-bias" source. By it's very nature it will be severely skewed in favor of Marijuana. 99% of Anti-Marijuana people do not actively search for topics relating to it on the internet and instead only react when it is brought forward. Marijuana supporters are, by definition, actively supporting it and most likely to search for websites relating to Marijuana on the internet.

Sorry, but your links are, by their nature, extremely biased.

Satanism is equivalent to binge drinking in that self-absorbed, emotionally disturbed people grab onto something unreliable and, with some distance, obviously a severe negative influence. Satanism is not a religion or a philosophy, it's a teenager's dark Teddy Bear. It's a temporary, deluded comfort for the lost and confused, not a serious adult subculture.

Simple Answer: Satanism is neither a religion nor a philosophy, it's a self-concept crisis and a refuge for false supporters and the weak.

At 11/29/05 08:13 PM, hellsgift wrote:

At 11/29/05 08:06 PM, Altois09 wrote: Well if its for medical reasons, I say " yes" and if not i say "no"

If you read this entire thread then you will understand....... all of the bullshit that the government and the MAJORITY of the religious community (not all) say about MJ.

If you read this entire thread then you will understand....... all of the bullshit that the minors (<18, inexperienced, unable to make accurate statements on lifestyles) and the MAJORITY of Potheads (not all) say about MJ.

Reverse bigotry was all the rage in the 80s and 90s. It will take awhile to clean up the mess the politicians in those eras created. Those history months are one example.

What people forget is that those accidents happened in the past. Technology has progressed significantly since those occurred, and both were caused by poor technological capabilities. The first, Chernobyl, was caused by idiocy and a very bad design based on inferior technology. Three Mile Island was caused by misinformation from inferior sensors and is easily preventable using modern technology.

Put simply, the newest national design standard for Nuclear plants is literally thousands of times safer and better than any of the US plants in operation. Our technological capabilities have increased by leaps and bounds, and we can eliminate all the factors that caused the only two accidents in the entire history of Nuclear Power. The only thing holding is back is irrational public fear.

Nuclear Power is the only true solution to our energy problems. Every other choice has severe detrimental effects on the environment. Fission isn't the absolute best choice because of the radioactive waste, but nothing beats Fusion. Any of the dangers of Fission Plants are easily controlled using modern technology; there's no reason to be afraid of it.