|
Post by Tye Hyll on Oct 22, 2011 13:51:50 GMT -5
legalizing all drugs is intellectually- disabled. The consequences would be pretty bad. I wouldnt feel safe knowing my neighbor could be doing pcp and other stuff, its great if they want to kill them selves, have fun but itst he fact it can bring harm to others. How many people get killed by others drinking and driving? amplifying that isnt the best idea.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 22, 2011 13:54:42 GMT -5
legalizing all drugs is intellectually- disabled. The consequences would be pretty bad. I wouldnt feel safe knowing my neighbor could be doing pcp and other stuff, its great if they want to kill them selves, have fun but itst he fact it can bring harm to others. How many people get killed by others drinking and driving? amplifying that isnt the best idea. And they'll get punished for whatever crimes they commit. Are you for outlawing alcohol and cigarettes?
|
|
|
Post by Tye Hyll on Oct 22, 2011 13:57:12 GMT -5
legalizing all drugs is intellectually- disabled. The consequences would be pretty bad. I wouldnt feel safe knowing my neighbor could be doing pcp and other stuff, its great if they want to kill them selves, have fun but itst he fact it can bring harm to others. How many people get killed by others drinking and driving? amplifying that isnt the best idea. And they'll get punished for whatever crimes they commit. Are you for outlawing alcohol and cigarettes? I dont think we should have them. But I wouldnt feel safe in this country if all drugs became legalized. I would actually move because I just didnt feel safe with that any longer.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 22, 2011 14:00:57 GMT -5
And they'll get punished for whatever crimes they commit. Are you for outlawing alcohol and cigarettes? I dont think we should have them. But I wouldnt feel safe in this country if all drugs became legalized. I would actually move because I just didnt feel safe with that any longer. But do you think they should be outlawed? The people who do drugs aren't going to suddenly become crazy maniacs if it's legal. They already do them. I don't know how many people will start doing drugs just because it is legal. I know I wouldn't start doing them. Even if Paul gets in, I doubt the very first thing he'd do is legalize all drugs because he'd most likely leave that up to each state. He'd end the drug war for sure and it needs to be ended, it's doing us no good.
|
|
|
Post by Tye Hyll on Oct 22, 2011 14:06:39 GMT -5
I like ron paul, i dont like how he thinks all drugs should be legal. legalize pot, go ahead but people smoking need to understand it will have the same rules as alcohol. no driving under the influence, no publicly carrying open containers, no smoking in public, etc. Harsh drugs should be kept away, they are just bad. If you legalized drugs and didnt regulate them into america selling the drugs then people would still have to outsource them and it would be illegal contraband so for them to be legalized wouldnt america have to sell them? If not wouldnt America have to make deals with drug lords in other countries etc? I dont like where all of that can be going. My biggest issue with the drug scene isnt so much the product itsel, which i dislike. Itst he environment around them. Its always sketchy and trashy, I just do not like it and arguing on an internet forum isnt going to change how I feel about my real life experiences.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 22, 2011 14:11:58 GMT -5
I like ron paul, i dont like how he thinks all drugs should be legal. legalize pot, go ahead but people smoking need to understand it will have the same rules as alcohol. no driving under the influence, no publicly carrying open containers, no smoking in public, etc. Harsh drugs should be kept away, they are just bad. If you legalized drugs and didnt regulate them into america selling the drugs then people would still have to outsource them and it would be illegal contraband so for them to be legalized wouldnt america have to sell them? If not wouldnt America have to make deals with drug lords in other countries etc? I dont like where all of that can be going. My biggest issue with the drug scene isnt so much the product itsel, which i dislike. Itst he environment around them. Its always sketchy and trashy, I just do not like it and arguing on an internet forum isnt going to change how I feel about my real life experiences. Of course they will be punished for any crimes they commit. It's not going to become a lawless society. For legalizing the drugs, you'd go to the gas station or a drug store (literally) and get them just like you can go to a liquor store. We don't have to make deals with other countries pertaining to their drug issue. Let them do what they want about it. If the Afghans want to grow and sell drugs, that's their problem not ours. Who is arguing? Can't even have a discussion without someone saying it's an argument.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 22, 2011 14:15:23 GMT -5
I like ron paul, i dont like how he thinks all drugs should be legal. legalize pot, go ahead but people smoking need to understand it will have the same rules as alcohol. no driving under the influence, no publicly carrying open containers, no smoking in public, etc. Harsh drugs should be kept away, they are just bad. If you legalized drugs and didnt regulate them into america selling the drugs then people would still have to outsource them and it would be illegal contraband so for them to be legalized wouldnt america have to sell them? If not wouldnt America have to make deals with drug lords in other countries etc? I dont like where all of that can be going. My biggest issue with the drug scene isnt so much the product itsel, which i dislike. Itst he environment around them. Its always sketchy and trashy, I just do not like it and arguing on an internet forum isnt going to change how I feel about my real life experiences. 1) Alcohol is worse for you than almost any of the "bad" drugs you're talking about. 2) I think we all agree that people who are ed up on drugs shouldn't be operating vehicles. 3) Our country once tried to ban alcohol entirely. Do you know what happened? It was still available. Unfortunately, the prices were through the roof due to limited supply and only CRIMINALS sold it. Thus, there was massive amounts of violence and many of the biggest gangs this country has ever seen grew from it. 4) Legalizing all drugs - pot included - will remove the "criminal" aspect of it, thus allowing legitimate companies to provide the drugs. No longer do you have to go to some sketchy place in the middle of nowhere to get your drug. You go down the street to "Heroins R Us" and buy it over the counter. 5) Because the drugs would be legal, prices would dramatically drop (again, see Prohibition) and people would be able to get what they want without needing to prostitute themselves, rob people, steal, etc. to pay for it.
|
|
|
Post by extreme on Oct 24, 2011 4:10:28 GMT -5
Ron Paul wants to get rid of Federal Student Loans. My support for this man is growing.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 24, 2011 8:21:39 GMT -5
Ron Paul wants to get rid of Federal Student Loans. My support for this man is growing. He does that and there will be tons of bitching and whining because students will no longer be able to get loans. The reason student loans are federally backed is because students tend to have little or no credit. Take away federal backing and those loans dry up pretty fast. If that is your goal, then that's fine. You will make a lot of people unhappy though.
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Oct 24, 2011 9:01:44 GMT -5
I support getting the government out of the student loan business completely.
A lot of people who get these loans, should not be getting them.
|
|
|
Post by extreme on Oct 24, 2011 10:31:56 GMT -5
Ron Paul wants to get rid of Federal Student Loans. My support for this man is growing. He does that and there will be tons of bitching and whining because students will no longer be able to get loans. The reason student loans are federally backed is because students tend to have little or no credit. Take away federal backing and those loans dry up pretty fast. If that is your goal, then that's fine. You will make a lot of people unhappy though. Federal Student loans are what's keeping the price of education as high as it is right now though. Schools know that students who can't pay for tuition will take out loans and have they'll have the government pay for it. Graduates can't even find jobs right now so eventually the whole program is just unnecessary spending. If you get rid of the federal student loans, almost no one except the rich kids will be able to afford to go and schools will have to lower their prices or they'll tank. I think Ron Paul's whole point was so students shouldn't have to be getting loans for education in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 24, 2011 10:58:06 GMT -5
He does that and there will be tons of bitching and whining because students will no longer be able to get loans. The reason student loans are federally backed is because students tend to have little or no credit. Take away federal backing and those loans dry up pretty fast. If that is your goal, then that's fine. You will make a lot of people unhappy though. The government gives loans at artificially low interest rates which the private companies cannot compete with. Perhaps if people are not getting massive loans provided from the government and instead have to settle for smaller loans from smaller companies, the EDUCATION market will dry up, thus causing lower prices in the area of the currently INSANELY EXPENSIVE college tuitions across the country?
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Oct 24, 2011 11:41:38 GMT -5
I got my bachelors in 2001, and I know tuition at UGA is probably double what I was paying then.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 24, 2011 12:01:18 GMT -5
He does that and there will be tons of bitching and whining because students will no longer be able to get loans. The reason student loans are federally backed is because students tend to have little or no credit. Take away federal backing and those loans dry up pretty fast. If that is your goal, then that's fine. You will make a lot of people unhappy though. The government gives loans at artificially low interest rates which the private companies cannot compete with. Perhaps if people are not getting massive loans provided from the government and instead have to settle for smaller loans from smaller companies, the EDUCATION market will dry up, thus causing lower prices in the area of the currently INSANELY EXPENSIVE college tuitions across the country? That's not entirely true. Sallie May is a private company. The loans are backed up by the feds. Basically the feds guarantee that if you default, they (the feds) will pay. Without that backing, interest rates on loans will go much higher. They will probably still be available, but will be scarcer and interest rates will be higher.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 24, 2011 16:00:44 GMT -5
That's not entirely true. Sallie May is a private company. The loans are backed up by the feds. Basically the feds guarantee that if you default, they (the feds) will pay. Without that backing, interest rates on loans will go much higher. They will probably still be available, but will be scarcer and interest rates will be higher. Notice how Student Loan debt is the only debt that can't be forgiven in bankruptcy, too. Interesting, eh? If you take the government out of it entirely, it will go down. Why would it be any different than any other loans? But like I said, the most important thing is that, if people can't afford school, prices of school will go down if the government doesn't stick its ing nose in it.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 24, 2011 16:03:11 GMT -5
That's not entirely true. Sallie May is a private company. The loans are backed up by the feds. Basically the feds guarantee that if you default, they (the feds) will pay. Without that backing, interest rates on loans will go much higher. They will probably still be available, but will be scarcer and interest rates will be higher. Notice how Student Loan debt is the only debt that can't be forgiven in bankruptcy, too. Interesting, eh? If you take the government out of it entirely, it will go down. Why would it be any different than any other loans? But like I said, the most important thing is that, if people can't afford school, prices of school will go down if the government doesn't stick its ing nose in it. It can't be forgiven because it's federally guaranteed. Honestly, I think a lot of debt should be that way.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 24, 2011 16:19:46 GMT -5
It can't be forgiven because it's federally guaranteed. Honestly, I think a lot of debt should be that way. Well yeah, that's kind of what I was saying. I can't say I agree. I don't want the government involved in anything regarding lending money. Instant trainwreck. Let the free market give out loans if they want to, to the best candidates. That's how ALL loans should be.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 24, 2011 16:42:37 GMT -5
It can't be forgiven because it's federally guaranteed. Honestly, I think a lot of debt should be that way. Well yeah, that's kind of what I was saying. I can't say I agree. I don't want the government involved in anything regarding lending money. Instant trainwreck. Let the free market give out loans if they want to, to the best candidates. That's how ALL loans should be. The feds got involved in the first place because no one would loan to students and it was very, very hard for students to get loans. That is why the feds got involved in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 24, 2011 19:17:39 GMT -5
The feds got involved in the first place because no one would loan to students and it was very, very hard for students to get loans. That is why the feds got involved in the first place. Probably because they knew how ing insanely expensive it was, how likely non-repayment was, etc. It's a bad investment that taxpayers end up paying for.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 24, 2011 19:23:42 GMT -5
The feds got involved in the first place because no one would loan to students and it was very, very hard for students to get loans. That is why the feds got involved in the first place. Probably because they knew how ing insanely expensive it was, how likely non-repayment was, etc. It's a bad investment that taxpayers end up paying for. But you're arguing that if they pulled out college costs will go down. When they weren't in the loan business college was still expensive.
|
|