Self Defense?
Is there really a right to self-defense? If a gunman is threatening your life, can you kill him to save your life? Is it right? What if he's threatening your kid? Can you kill him?
The answer, according to the courts, is usually "Yes". It's okay to kill someone to save your own life. Or that of your child. You're even likely to be proclaimed a hero. If your life is threatened, the government will let you kill. Sounds good to me.
But what if it's not a gunman threatening your life? And what if it's not a gun you use to fight back?
Angel Raich, an Oakland, CA woman, is fighting for her life, and the government is trying to stop her. Now she has to fight the government too. She uses marijuana to treat a variety of medical conditions that her physician says are life-threatening.
So, when your life is threatened, it's okay to shoot someone, but not to smoke a joint? That sounds wrong to me.
Blog Tag: Opinion
Posted 3/30/2006 12:02:00 AM
L
On 3/30/2006 5:53 PM, 
said...
On 3/30/2006 11:45 PM, 
dkgoodman said...
On 3/31/2006 3:15 PM, Candace said...
On 3/31/2006 10:36 PM, Michelle said...
On 3/31/2006 11:21 PM, dkgoodman said...
5 Comments:
teee heee. I'm always amused at the lengths people will go to make what they believe in sound rational. Whether or not medical marijuana is ok... it just amuses me to see the "saving a life" routine.
I once read an article about a man who believed he had to drink human blood to live, and several psychiatrists had confirmed that he held this belief so strongly that he probably would perish without following the demands of his mind. Geeee.... if that one rationalization works, maybe this guy shouldn't have been imprisoned.
And you probably are anti-gun anyway.
Are you referring to me or Angel Raich?
I think what I am is anti-government. Government intrusion into people's lives really irritates me. I don't smoke or drink, but if someone wants to do that in the privacy of their own home, and it's not harming anyone else, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.
I'm against gun control, too. Just because some people misuse guns doesn't mean that all should be deprived of the ability to have them.
I don't know whether marijuana is ever a medical necessity. What I do believe is that the government isn't interested in the facts. It doesn't care if it can be scientifically proved or disproved, and that bothers me. Laws should be based on objective reality whenever possible, not on ideology. But we're talking about politics, so it's unrealistic for me to expect laws that make sense.
The guy with the blood... was he harming himself or anyone else by drinking it?
"If it harms no-one, do what you will."
If the government can't tax it and make money off of it, then it's illegal.
Alcohol is a mind-altering drug, but it is a socially accepted drug. Although many people use alcohol as a form of self-medication and many people are addicted to it, it is legal to use while marijuana is not. This is absurd.
Indeed, the government tolerates liquor in spite of alcoholism, drunk driving and the cost of human life that frequently goes with it. Why? They've managed to regulate it, tax it and make money off of it.
If the government could control the supply of marijuana, tax it accordingly and profit from it, it would be legal and Angel Raich would be able to treat her medical conditions without any fear of government intervention, but... at a price.
As they say "down under"...."only in America"!!
Self defence here is no excuse. However, the system will go easy on you if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was self defence. Still, it is against the law as is smoking dope...except in South Australia where your able to grow 2 plants for your own personal use LOL!!
So if someone is attacking you, and you can't get away, you're supposed to let them? aiieeee!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home