Your position is ok until you realize that the majority of "communities" out there don't function as communities any more. People have become disconnected with each other because of iPods, tv and internet to the point where we have very little face to face communication. Most people don't even know who their neighbors present day. Most people don't give a crap about their neighbors as long as what they are doing doesn't negatively affect them.
He says some good things but President? Hell no. He called people who were against GMO foods "racist", which is one of the stupidest things I've ever fucking heard. The last thing we need is another race-baitor. I've had a lifetime of minority's bullshit already, we don't need anymore hate speech against white people. We're set to become a minority soon, ourselves, so this shit needs to stop or else many of us may find ourselves in death camps. Thanks a lot there, Penn.
On the drug issue, I agree with his ethical stance in general. Try to influence your loved ones if you believe it is harmful, but leave the gov't out of it. However, he gets a bit pompous with his words about not associating with anyone that uses, because he doesn't see a benefit to drug use. I wonder what his feelings are on people who consume bacon (ie potentially harmful/little or no "good" value)? Does he shun them as well? Be careful not to cross the line into hypocrisy, Penn.
@rmcdaniel423 Nobody questions why a vegetarian doesn't want to go to a pig roast. It would stand to reason that many vegetarians do not want to become friends with avid meat eaters because it greatly restricts social interaction making the friendship less than it could be. What is wrong with someone, who has a strong dislike of drugs and their dangers, avoiding having users as close friends?
@Vegetix I find the hypocrisy in seeing things in a matter of degrees, and in the original premise that he considers drugs "potentially harmful" and therefore said he doesn't associate with anyone who uses. The pig roast correlates with a drug fest, which is easy enough to avoid. But why avoid one of the MANY people who use pot discreetly & remain highly functioning people?
"I know you occasionally toke a joint at home, so I can't have lunch with you today." Then he eats a baconburger alone?
While I think it's alright for police to step in and prevent a suicide, what should be done is the community should give the person who attempted to kill themselves as much love and attention as possible, through therapy, counseling, and friendship to uncover the person's motives and to ensure that that person will not make such an attempt again. On drugs, I agree w/ Penn. If we want to outlaw destructive lifestyles, we must also ban alcohol/smoking, which is impossible, as evidence by the 1920s
@TheLiberalAvenger You are moronic. A totalitarian government is one that controls all aspects of life, what Penn wants is completly opposite where he believes that people should be a able to run their own life without a large government breathing down ones neck. You liberals are far more totalitarion and anti American than he is.
@nimitz1983 Thank you, I understand what you're getting at.
However, I would point out that huge conglomerations of power and wealth don't necessarily have to take the form of governments. They can be private, yet equally tyrannical and authoritarian. This seems to me to be the biggest flaw in the so-called neo-libertarian philosophy, in that by tearing down the walls of "big government," the door is left wide open for the vacuum to be filled. And it will be filled.
@TheLiberalAvenger I don't agree with Penn on everything, but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about if you call him "totalitarian propaganda." How is promoting liberty and freedom from government control "totalitarian"? It's actually the exact opposite.
But I'm not sure you can understand that because you have a mental disorder. It's called Leftism. It prevents the mind from working correctly.
@TheLiberalAvenger Actually, you didn't. Your conclusion is baseless and has nothing to do with what Penn actually says. You merely called him totalitarian to get attention. If your explanation had any ground, you would have used it in your first post. But you waited for someone to react, then came up with a bullshit response to feel superior.
@zofspade My conclusion is that totalitarian organizations need not be governmental, they can also be private. Sure that has nothing to do with what Penn is saying in this video, but it's not baseless.
As for the strategy of using an attention grabbing comment to elicit a response, then responding to that response in a respectful, inclusive tone as a means of furthering meaningful debate...I'm not sure what the problem is there.
@TheLiberalAvenger Actually, your conclusion was that Penn is "totalitarian propaganda". Did you not read your own post? So yes, that is baseless, and the problem is you are an attention whore with two-bit political theory.
@zofspade I thought you were referring to the conclusion I made about the post eight posts below this one...the one you responded to, not the conclusion I made concerning the post I made eleven posts below this one.
It was an honest mistake.
You have said that it's baseless, I'd love to know why that is....but then again: If your explanation had any ground, you would have used it in your first post.
@TheLiberalAvenger So, I have to provide evidence for how you have no evidence? What? I'm sure that made sense on Opposite Day or whenever "Pwned" was cool (it never was), but here ye need logic.
You: "Penn is totalitarian propaganda." (Let's ignore how that sentence doesn't even make sense)
Me: "You have no evidence. If you did, you would have said it."
You: (ignoring my request for evidence) "No, YOU have no evidence! P4wned!!1!"
@zofspade No you have to provide evidence because you have provided no evidence in your claim that I provided no evidence. Also you have to provide evidence that what you claim is my conclusion is different that what I claim is my conclusion, although of all the points that could be argued that is the least substantive.
Your claims that what you claim is my conclusion is baseless and lacks (ground).
@zofspade Ha! Ok dude...so you won an argument by "proving" that a one sentence statement I made two months ago provided no evidence ( within that one sentence), focused on that one narrow argument while sidestepping every other point I made afterwards, and managed to be rude and condescending the whole time, insulting me numerous times.
@TheLiberalAvenger You didn't make any point about Penn afterward. I even condensed the conversation two posts ago. You. Never. Provided. Evidence. That. Penn. Is. "Totalitarian Propaganda".
Of course, saying a person IS propaganda is completely idiotic. When someone challenged you, you went off on a tangent about how Neo-libertarianism sometimes, maybe, might, could, probably leads to totalitarianism with no sources cited or anything connected to Penn.
@TheLiberalAvenger Then someone challenged you again, and you said "I already covered that". I replied to this, referring to your original post (is it all coming back you now?), and all you have is double talk. It's like a creationist asking an scientist to provide evidence of no evidence of creationism. Congratulations, you're as smart as a creationist.
Also, I'm not a Neo-Lib or a Teabagger you old fuck. I've destroyed every point you've made methodically.
Let me put it this way:Penn is know for spewing totalitarian propaganda. You know stuff like: " people should be able to run their own life without a large government breathing down ones neck."
And: "How is promoting liberty and freedom from government control "totalitarian"? It's actually the exact opposite."
Sure I'm not quoting him, just the usual bunch of Neo-Libertarian Ron Paul garbage that plagues civil discourse, that he also espouses.
@zofspade Proving that Penn IS totalitarian propaganda would be no small feat indeed, for reasons you have so thoroughly explained. Suffice to say that he is a proponent of the conventional Libertarian arguments in support of the laissez faire/ unfettered market approach to economic policy. The larger issue that I would prefer to prove is that this view is not in the best interests of society, and furthermore that those arguments in favor of such a worldview amount to little more than..(ahem)
@TheLiberalAvenger So...it's just inference is not backed by actual evidence? I already said that. It's OK, but my point is to say something like that and leave it is begging to be ripped apart for lack of evidence.
Once again, I am not a Libertarian. I disagree with Penn. Then again I don't dissolve the discourse by calling the other side "propaganda". He has a different view because he believes in the inherent good of people, something he talks about a lot. And I also disagree with this.
@IoEstasCedonta Yeah that's fine...Suffice to say that he is a proponent of the conventional Libertarian arguments in support of the laissez faire/ unfettered market approach to economic policy.
And he goes on Glenn Beck to make this argument. Therefore...
@IoEstasCedonta Ok fine...Suffice to say that he is a proponent of the conventional Libertarian arguments in support of the laissez faire/ unfettered market approach to economic policy.
And he goes on Glenn Beck to make this argument. Therefore...
I know Penn is an atheist, which I dislike, I would never FORCE him to do otherwise. God would never force him to obey his laws, likewise there are things people do that hurt themselves that hurt others, God allows this and would like to stop this but we have free will. Does the government have the right to violate our free will to hurt ourselves, I think not, should we harm ourselves, I think not...
What? We should use the community to support each other rather than the nanny state telling me how to take care of myself through the use of coercive force? Blasphemy! How will I ever eat my broccoli without someone putting a gun to my head?
Also the biggest myth about suicide is that its the "cowards way out" there is nothing cowardly about suicide. It is amazingly difficult to fight off and against one of natures strongest impulses which is the survival impulse. Once you cross that line there is no going back and you know that on many different levels. If someone is in so much pain and or in such a horrible situation from which there is only one escape.....
@Kyraji people who commit suicide are not worried about "problems" people who actually commit suicide or attempt to commit suicide usually only have one way out of a really shitty situation. in this sense life simply isn't worth living. to put it in a way you can understand being forced to watch barney the purple dinosaur isn't a problem but id rather gouge out my eyes and burst my ear drums. now the people who use suicide as a cry for help those people use that to get rid of their problems.
@Kyraji people who commit suicide are not worried about "problems" people who actually commit suicide or attempt to commit suicide usually only have one way out of a really shitty situation. in this sense life simply isn't worth living. to put it in a way you can understand being forced to watch barney the purple dinosaur isn't a problem but id rather gouge out my eyes and burst my ear drums. now the people who use suicide as a cry for help those people use that to get rid of their problems.
yes. but if you think about it, if one can overcome the impulse to survive, what does that tell you about his/her judgement? It may not be as hard once one has lost some part of functionality of normal mental procedures....
@AngryLlamaz it tells me absolutely nothing about his or her judgment. all it can tell me is that ones life is above or below the value of something. you are assuming that this person values life the same way you do. if a person values lets say freedom of their people more then they do their own life would you say that joining a rebel militia is an act of mental instability? if someone steps in front of a train to save a loved one and dies as a result do you call love a mental disorder?
I will put it simply the reason the government nor anyone else has the right to (ultimately) stop someone from committing suicide is the Declaration of Independence quite clearly says we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The thing about rights is that if you have the right to do something then you have the right NOT to do something. If you have a right to live then you have a right to die. If you can't respect someones death why should they respect your life?
man you gotta smoke weed at least once before you die. For a music and art and performance lover...Man, I can't even begin to tell you. When your layin there on your death bed or somethin, if your fortunate enough to get one, my God. Do it once. You get ONE life and then you're dead forever.
@iGrowlnvmbite I was just offering a friendly suggestion. If Penn was into pain and self mutilation and I was aware first-hand that getting one's arm cut off was the height of such experiences than I would make that suggestion. You sound like your trying to play the logic game and if that's the case you made a "false analogy" fallacy.
Profound statement at 4:45 -- Community can do short of force -- the government can add force -- and force is what takes away our freedoms. The root of the problem here -- about this issue, and every other issue that deals with our freedoms, is that a majority of OUR United States government doesn't believe that we could actually accomplish things as a community. They believe that people NEED policing and to be controlled, because we're incapable of doing that ourselves, AS a COMMUNITY.
is anyone on here out of high school and know what anarchy is??? because you guys make it sound like something you do. Like rebellion almost...anarchy is basically the failure of the government, which is a current problem because our government in a way is failing...
Drugs don't ruin people's lives, people ruin their lives
It truly saddens me that Penn, who preaches everything I believe in, cannot possibly see any potential good(though he even does make a small concession about jimmy) in the expansion of one's mind or recreational use of substances that make people happy and have virtually no health risks(marijuana)
More widespread exposure or use of drugs, in particular marijuana, would really open a lot of people's minds to athiesm/objectivism
Actually drugs can ruin people's lives. Food can ruin people's lives. Video games can ruin people's lives. Too much of anything can ruin people's lives, and many drugs have chemicals that help build addictions.
Marijuana is the only illegal drug that should immediately be made legal. Can marijuana be dangerous? In some situations, yes. Marijuana can also be abused and it can be addicting (mentally rather than chemically). Drugs used to get high (for fun) more often cause more harm than good.
No, nothing can ruin somebodies life but them self or other people. A substance cannot DO anything, a room full of 6,000 pounds of meth is just as dangerous as a room full of bean bag chairs.
The real problem is most people are quite stupid and cannot control themselves, but don't go blaming the substance for what stupid people do. It doesn't matter how strong of an addiction they may have(that's their fault in the first place), THEY are abusing the drug, THEY are the problem, not the drug
It would be so awesome if EVERYTHING was legal and all the stupid people got addicted and ruined all their lives. Hopefully it'll be enough to stop them from reproducing and evolution can be allowed to continue to happen and in just a couple generations everything would be all dandy
We are all responsible for our actions, but to say bean bag chairs are as harmfull as meth is plain stupid. Sure, if the person didn't use the meth, but meth is more dangerous for a user than bean bag chairs.
People, including you and me, have less control over our actions than what you think. Many actions are involuntary, and therefore just happen without much thought process. So someone hooked on dangerous drugs aren't just addicted because they are stupid, but because they are addicted.
No... The essence of government (one group having authority to encroach on another, in the name of X[common good, justice, national defense, whatever the buzz-topic of the year is]) is immoral. There is no such thing as 'good government'.
It appears to me Penn belittles the government. We need the government, and the government needs a certain level of power. Yes, we should have unlimited individual freedom, but taxes keep our country running. It keeps our military strong, it pays those that protect us from crime, even those that protect us from natural disaster. I may have gotten the wrong impression, but we do need a strong government.
Alastairguhn, you're contradicting yourself... To have a government is to limit freedom. The police don't protect from crime, they investigate crimes that have been committed (many times very poorly). It doesn't protect from natural disaster, or even help once it's happened (even though it might try, extremely ineffectively and inefficiently...). No, a strong gov. is not needed... A weak/lack of gov. is what's needed, in order to have freedom and prosperity...
But without a government, this country would be in complete chaos. We can have a strong government without limiting freedom. Our government should provide health care, protection like firefighters, police, military, things like that.
The police can, and do protect from crime. The problem is that we have so many incompetent officers.
Our government sucks, but we need some form to keep things running. Though, with our current government, we may be better off on our own.
I understand why practically everyone is under the misconception that without a traditional government society would be chaotic, but it IS a misconception... There are governing forces outside of traditional government that work 100 times better, and limit freedoms 100 times less. All services (police, judicial, firefighting, national defense, etc.) that the government currently has a monopoly over can be provided outside of the government, better.
But how is that possible? As long as there are religious zealots and criminals, we need some form of protection, and without government, we have no true national security. We wouldn't even have a military.
I'm just not getting how such a small government can provide for us what they should. A nation can have a large government controlled by its people. It's the greedy assholes that fuck everything up.
If people want protection it will be provided... With that logic, the corner store shouldn't resist the, or resent the for, mob collecting 'protection money'. They need protection. Also, there already are militaries outside of that provided by the government (Popular Mechanics, at one time, said there was nearly a 1 to 1 ratio of soldiers to mercenaries operating in Iraq), even though one isn't necessary for national defense (a good militia would be 6 fold more effective).
But those mercenaries were being paid out of government military funding, right?
I don't understand how these companies would be able to afford training for soldiers, and it seems to me that paying for military funding would cost less through taxes.
I'm really not understand how this would work, or even what you're suggesting. Are you implying we need no government, or just a very small government?
I'm suggesting that no traditional government is necessary in order to have a successful (moral, just, peaceful, prosperous, etc) society... I'd also suggest that as long as you have a traditional government, a lasting successful society is impossible. If there's any specific 'need' that you don't see how could be provided in a stateless society feel free to message me and I'll try to give you some references explaining how that particular issue might be, or might have been resolved.
You say that traditional run government is a misconception, and that there are better governing forces outside the government. Can you please provide an example?
gargamel, that's not what I said, but an excellent example is simply the market. Take, for example, standards organizations such as the W3. You don't have to write standards complaint, web pages, but people do, because it works and that's WHAT PEOPLE WANT. They do it because that's WHAT PEOPLE WANT. Not because the government wont approve their website if they don't.
Anarchy works for small tribes and maybe villages or towns, or it could work. But for a whole nation? Anarchy would lead to some people having more than others. Those people would then gain power because they have all the wealth. They lead the people who have nothing. This turns into monarchy. Monarchs form a government.
Anarchy always turns into monarchy. Prove it doesn't.
When people have no leaders, they always find someone to lead them. Absolutely always. When you have a lot of people, they form a government. Prove to me that I'm wrong. Name one large anarchy that lasted more than 10 years.
I can't find proof that anarchy doesn't work on a grand scale because anarchy has never grown to such a scale. I wonder why.
In theory, everything works on paper. Even government works in theory. But in practice, anarchy fails and government is flawed.
Character limits make real conversation here impossible... If you're REALLY interested, and not just arguing for the hell of it, feel free to message me...
Humans, when they get what they want then they start wanting more. Anarchy and communism is for those who would be happy living in a shit world as long as nobody has more than them. I on the other hand could care less if there are people out there with more than me, as long as I have what I want.
People who think anarchy could work on a large scale is a moron. Same with people who support communism and to an extent, socialism. They all sound noble, but humans ARE greedy by nature. That's a fact
txting instead of talking, talking instead of walking
living in a fucking fairytale, to facade a cheery smile over the mental slavery we endure on a daily basis because of social stigmas we're programmed to requite in tvland
humans are so fucking capitalistic by nature, the only reason to live is to be better than the others.
finaly somone that gets it you should have the freedom and the right to do what you want with your body as long as it does no harm to others and it should not be controlled by a government be it drugs sex or suicide it should be your right as a human being
I think the rule ought to be the consenting adult rule. If you're a child or if you're certifiable you should be stopped from using either drug or committing suicide.And if you're unsure,you hold that person for evaluation--If deemed sane he can do what he wants.
It doesn't matter whether the community takes these actions or the government. If the community is doing nothing, the government has to step in. Even with bureaucracy, there is alway at least 1 person behind it with a little bit of judgement. Without government, things would be stagnant and there would be less consequences for horrible things.
The legalization of drugs would convince children that it is okay to lead yourself to a different life. It makes somewhat sense, but the legalization of Marijuana makes sense for the fact that it can't kill you. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. So why is this not legal?
Hemp was banned because cotton companies (unionized labor backed by politicians) lobbied against it because of increasing competition, and FDR had been banning alot of narcotics during the 30's for economic reasons to prop up larger businesses.
I was born and raised in Nevada, and Penn fits in here like a glove. We are one of the more Liberatarian States, and when I see the FORCE used in other states, it makes my skin crawl. Gov forces some drug users into volunteer AA and NA after they are arrested, which by nature changes some of those mtgs. Govt can't help them, but they can? It's classical hypocrisy. Some of these mtgs have a duality that is f upped and they are still using presciption drugs. GET GOVT OUT! Thanks Penn...again
I'm voting for Wayne Root on Tuesday, November 6, 2012! We need to let Root end statism in America. Abolish the Federal Reserve, abolish American communism. Vote Libertarian!
@brt5470 Show me the Penn for Prez petition, and I'll sign it! But you gotta wonder if Penn would want to do it. Cause i can totally seeing him saying "No", and that it's too much for him. It may not really be his area, ya know? Then again, maybe not.
i agree with penn about both subjects my thery is f*ck the government they want to much money and thats all they want is cash if some one kills themself they arnt paying taxes same for drugs they would be leagle if the government could tax them
@scottrjmatmsncom its easy to think that, and im "not" saying your wrong, but thats very close to being raciest or stereotyping, only its use vs. the Gov. Those ppl who make up the gov are ppl with families too, and not all of them are in it for the power or the fatcat lifestyle. now theres no way for me to know for sure that im right, but reason tells me that i am. so its not greed thats making the gov act this way its deeper than that.
@scottrjmatmsncom its easy to think that, and im "not" saying your wrong, but thats very close to being raciest or stereotyping, only its used vs. the Gov. Those ppl who make up the gov are ppl with families too, and not all of them are in it for the power or the fatcat lifestyle. now theres no way for me to know for sure that im right, but reason tells me that i am. so its not greed thats making the gov act this way its deeper than that.
As a recovering addict I'll put my 2cents in. Drugs can definitely have a damaging effect on people's professional, personal, and spiritual lives(coming from an atheist). While there are people out there who can recreationally use drugs and moderate their use just fine, I have noticed that those people really don't go far beyond the experimentation phase and tend to stop all together eventually. I am all for getting the gov out of our bodies and our drug policies. Fund treatment, not prisons.
call the wawa police where did all the passion and fury go. sorry for constructive critisicm. we will do as we please. drugs? one form or another low blow what a way to halt the perfect reason to express difference in oppinion. what about natural potent as shit just as damaging exsist. they need to focus on topics of true debate
Much appreciated Penn. If you read this, or if any one else out there in tube land reads this. ( This sceptical bunch of folk).
I am faceing a weird dilema.. One of my friends., A very intellegent guy, has taken notice of my recent vocal scepticisem. I tend to vocalize my sceptical veiw towards him amongst the group. I do this because he is the most likely to "get it" or have a "smart ass" remark..
He takes this as a personal attack on what he thinks.
combined, yet we are the only country who is waging a war against it. Almost every other country is against prohibition because it makes no sense where as the U.S. would rather lock up decent hard working people. There is never going to be an end to drug use and sales, they might as well pull their heads out of their asses and try to make some money from it rather than funding violence and terrorism. Politician are too scared to jeopardize their carreers to right this wrong but it's time.
suddenly I have a positive for marijuana, well now Im no longer fit to be in the building. Despite the fact that I've been a pot head since I started and have been for 9 years. It's ridiculous and hypocritical to deem me unsafe and an insurace risk because I smoke and yet I can be a raging alcoholic and come to work hung over as shit everyday and no one cares. If I could I would move to a country much more logical and free then the U.S. This country consumes more drugs than the rest of the world
I agree for the most part, But Im a huge drug user and it has never affected me negatively. What has affected me is random drug testing where I work. I don't give a shit if it's illegal, you have to be a totall dumb ass to get caught with drugs and a totall dumb ass to fuck up your life with drugs. If you do you probably would have anyway with some other means. What I resent is that im one of the best hardest working people where I work, yet im judged not only by my performance but my urine.
i think drugs are ok as long as there is no negative effect on your life. for instance, someone wants to smoke some marijuana on their day off at their home, its ok
i think suicide is ok as long as the person doing it has no debts to be paid.
anything is ok as long as it is a more positive choice than the other choices for that situation
The big trubile is there is no comunity anymore my husbend has been unemployed for almost 2 mounths in TX we are now two or three days from being homeless . We could have never seen it coming just a few small rong choices and if hade they been doing drugs and going to jail finding a job would be easy here. All 4 of us would not be homeless. It was not always this way..Signed One Pissed Off Solber
I think there is a role for government here. If someone wants to die I think it is appropriate to require a hearing to determine whether they have the capacity to make informed decisions (not insane, not a minor). If they have capacity then that's the end of the Government's role.
Penn the question of government intervention on suicide should easy for you. I was just watching another Penn says (on gun control) in which you vehemently expressed that freedoms trumps not only safety, but life itself. You said that even if it were proven than freedom to own guns will increase murder rates it should still be allowed.
However, my mother died of cancer. In the last month of her life she had a broken leg, arm, neck, collapsed lung, was blind, in unimaginable pain and on a morphine drip.
She had morphine pills and asked me to get them so she could leave. I refused for what I now consider very selfish reasons.
Now, 12 years later, I would give anything to go back and grant her that reprieve even though were I to be discovered I would be prosecuted.
I think i totally agree with everything you said here. Although i have used drugs and on occation still do. I dont think drugs are as bad as you think, but your ethics are in exactly the right place.
first of all i wanna say that i either need glasses or the little codes youtube makes u type when u comment alot seem so hard to read for sum reason...k...penn is awsome but he made one of the dumbest statements i think i have ever ehard from almost anyone..."i dont think there is much more to discover"......wut?!....coming from someone as intelligent as penn that is pretty mind boggling
Continued...well I now live life sober, but I do not look back at all my drug experiences in a negative way. Some were great and some got out of hand and I became addicted 1st to cocaine 2nd to Crystal meth I quit those two on my own..but #3 was a pain medication given to me by my doctor.Oxycontin. That one was the worse of all and I am still in treatment to this day (Methadone clinic) over that one.
You have to realize that not all drugs are created equally. when you said you would do everything possible to stop Emily from using did you mean all drugs? Pot is arguably better for you than booze. I think experiences brought on by the effects of various kinds can be enlightening and fun, the real danger is when you OVER DO things. I am speaking from experience, I have done tons of Acid (LSD) and had a great time also about every other kind of drug as
The way i see it is it wasn't your choice to come into this world so why cant it be your choice to leave. Im by no means for killing yourself but i dont think you should ever forcibly stop someone from it. suicide should be a right.
fuck yeah, YOU fucking get this existence. exactly what I was waiting for someone to have written.
who gave you a choice to be spawned into this "reality", no one and if you think you deserve a better or worse existence then by all means make the choice!
fuck what the government thinks as if they care if one of their citizens are killed while they send hundreds to die in a war with no cause!!!
different drugs have diffent effects. LSD is different from coke and heroin and cannabis is different from booze. but also its the own persons self control. i smoke marijuanna on weekends and do the acasonal acid trip but have a very productive life. its not so much the drug as it is the person, however sometimes the drug can take controll. god bless america.
I very much see the point of Government not intervening and that being left to community. That would be a great and very loving way to go about suicide prevention and stopping drug abuse. But unfortunately, community DOESN'T intervene most of the time. People seem to be to busy, self centered, or just simply not caring enough to love and help their fellow man and I think that the Government is forced to step in because of the selfishness of mankind and the lack of caring and community.
Read J.S. Mill for a more comprehensive and comprendable response. "On Liberty" covers pretty much everything to do with personal freedom and the role of the state.
black and white is borderline shit. it's disordered to think that things should be either allowed or disallowed, wholly.
does it make sense that maybe suicide could be legal, but the punishment the same? one wakes up in a hospital, guaranteed, after a failed attempt, right?
drugs are the same I think. like, let them smoke crack and buy it at the "drug store," but when they are caught smoking it near their children, the fed's get involved and monitor them.
i believe the goverment should be able to step in and use force to stop drugs because the user could not just hurt them self when under the influence and as far as suicide i think they should have the choice more so if they are old and suffering but the flip side is if some one try's to make a person kill them self cos that person can gain from his/her death but at the same time drug wars probably kill more then the drugs them self but id rather that then have pot heads floting around everywhere
Maybe you will get a little mindfuck from the libertarian ideology, summarized within Penn's words: "I'm okay with people dying if we have more freedom"
Don't know, no and no.
crumblingimages 7 months ago
Your position is ok until you realize that the majority of "communities" out there don't function as communities any more. People have become disconnected with each other because of iPods, tv and internet to the point where we have very little face to face communication. Most people don't even know who their neighbors present day. Most people don't give a crap about their neighbors as long as what they are doing doesn't negatively affect them.
chrissawsam 7 months ago
Why cant this guy be president? He's totally no BS.
neuralburn 7 months ago
@neuralburn
He says some good things but President? Hell no. He called people who were against GMO foods "racist", which is one of the stupidest things I've ever fucking heard. The last thing we need is another race-baitor. I've had a lifetime of minority's bullshit already, we don't need anymore hate speech against white people. We're set to become a minority soon, ourselves, so this shit needs to stop or else many of us may find ourselves in death camps. Thanks a lot there, Penn.
crumblingimages 7 months ago
@crumblingimages He'll be dead before we're a minority.
Iwatchtrek 6 months ago
@neuralburn Ironically, he owns a show called Bullshit.
Gerstein1 5 months ago
This comment section has fulll of replies. Should I get involved?
DarkKnight360LA 7 months ago
On the drug issue, I agree with his ethical stance in general. Try to influence your loved ones if you believe it is harmful, but leave the gov't out of it. However, he gets a bit pompous with his words about not associating with anyone that uses, because he doesn't see a benefit to drug use. I wonder what his feelings are on people who consume bacon (ie potentially harmful/little or no "good" value)? Does he shun them as well? Be careful not to cross the line into hypocrisy, Penn.
rmcdaniel423 7 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 Nobody questions why a vegetarian doesn't want to go to a pig roast. It would stand to reason that many vegetarians do not want to become friends with avid meat eaters because it greatly restricts social interaction making the friendship less than it could be. What is wrong with someone, who has a strong dislike of drugs and their dangers, avoiding having users as close friends?
Vegetix 7 months ago
@Vegetix I find the hypocrisy in seeing things in a matter of degrees, and in the original premise that he considers drugs "potentially harmful" and therefore said he doesn't associate with anyone who uses. The pig roast correlates with a drug fest, which is easy enough to avoid. But why avoid one of the MANY people who use pot discreetly & remain highly functioning people?
"I know you occasionally toke a joint at home, so I can't have lunch with you today." Then he eats a baconburger alone?
rmcdaniel423 7 months ago
this videos thumbnail was UGLY
MaTSuFlEX344 8 months ago
While I think it's alright for police to step in and prevent a suicide, what should be done is the community should give the person who attempted to kill themselves as much love and attention as possible, through therapy, counseling, and friendship to uncover the person's motives and to ensure that that person will not make such an attempt again. On drugs, I agree w/ Penn. If we want to outlaw destructive lifestyles, we must also ban alcohol/smoking, which is impossible, as evidence by the 1920s
TheGuyWithTheSniper 8 months ago 2
bla bla bla bla bla
norcal420life 9 months ago
0:55 I didn't know we were in the rainforest. o.O
SinfulGaming1 9 months ago
this is something worth thinking about ... thats why hes Penn!
robertmck12 1 year ago
I support the right to arm bears. philipnute com
"Right now there is a mad man walking the streets of the town where you live"
zsezse215 1 year ago
Would you fuck a conservative dog up the ass who was atheist Penn? WOULD YOU?
SwayWithTheAK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
my god is he fuckin ugly
ANTBOND004 1 year ago
When is the new season of Bullshit starting?
bigvato20 1 year ago
change the c to a g from the intro -l;-
jimmyjimmy6699 1 year ago
one helluva drug
stab456 1 year ago
Jesus WTF is that on his forehead
1987Challenger3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HE SCARED ME :(
wow247yeah 1 year ago
HE SCARED ME :(
wow247yeah 1 year ago
Penn Jilette is totalitarian propaganda.
TheLiberalAvenger 1 year ago
@TheLiberalAvenger You are moronic. A totalitarian government is one that controls all aspects of life, what Penn wants is completly opposite where he believes that people should be a able to run their own life without a large government breathing down ones neck. You liberals are far more totalitarion and anti American than he is.
nimitz1983 1 year ago
@nimitz1983 Thank you, I understand what you're getting at.
However, I would point out that huge conglomerations of power and wealth don't necessarily have to take the form of governments. They can be private, yet equally tyrannical and authoritarian. This seems to me to be the biggest flaw in the so-called neo-libertarian philosophy, in that by tearing down the walls of "big government," the door is left wide open for the vacuum to be filled. And it will be filled.
Please don't insult me.
TheLiberalAvenger 1 year ago
@TheLiberalAvenger I don't agree with Penn on everything, but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about if you call him "totalitarian propaganda." How is promoting liberty and freedom from government control "totalitarian"? It's actually the exact opposite.
But I'm not sure you can understand that because you have a mental disorder. It's called Leftism. It prevents the mind from working correctly.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
@ebeatworld I have covered this exact issue four posts below yours.
TheLiberalAvenger 1 year ago
@TheLiberalAvenger Actually, you didn't. Your conclusion is baseless and has nothing to do with what Penn actually says. You merely called him totalitarian to get attention. If your explanation had any ground, you would have used it in your first post. But you waited for someone to react, then came up with a bullshit response to feel superior.
zofspade 1 year ago
@zofspade My conclusion is that totalitarian organizations need not be governmental, they can also be private. Sure that has nothing to do with what Penn is saying in this video, but it's not baseless.
As for the strategy of using an attention grabbing comment to elicit a response, then responding to that response in a respectful, inclusive tone as a means of furthering meaningful debate...I'm not sure what the problem is there.
TheLiberalAvenger 1 year ago
@TheLiberalAvenger Actually, your conclusion was that Penn is "totalitarian propaganda". Did you not read your own post? So yes, that is baseless, and the problem is you are an attention whore with two-bit political theory.
zofspade 1 year ago
@zofspade I thought you were referring to the conclusion I made about the post eight posts below this one...the one you responded to, not the conclusion I made concerning the post I made eleven posts below this one.
It was an honest mistake.
You have said that it's baseless, I'd love to know why that is....but then again: If your explanation had any ground, you would have used it in your first post.
Pwned
TheLiberalAvenger 1 year ago
@TheLiberalAvenger So, I have to provide evidence for how you have no evidence? What? I'm sure that made sense on Opposite Day or whenever "Pwned" was cool (it never was), but here ye need logic.
You: "Penn is totalitarian propaganda." (Let's ignore how that sentence doesn't even make sense)
Me: "You have no evidence. If you did, you would have said it."
You: (ignoring my request for evidence) "No, YOU have no evidence! P4wned!!1!"
Yeah, you're an idiot.
zofspade 1 year ago
@zofspade No you have to provide evidence because you have provided no evidence in your claim that I provided no evidence. Also you have to provide evidence that what you claim is my conclusion is different that what I claim is my conclusion, although of all the points that could be argued that is the least substantive.
Your claims that what you claim is my conclusion is baseless and lacks (ground).
TheLiberalAvenger 1 year ago
@TheLiberalAvenger Yawn, moving on.
zofspade 1 year ago
@zofspade Ha! Ok dude...so you won an argument by "proving" that a one sentence statement I made two months ago provided no evidence ( within that one sentence), focused on that one narrow argument while sidestepping every other point I made afterwards, and managed to be rude and condescending the whole time, insulting me numerous times.
Straight out of the Neo-Lib/Teabagger playbook.
You win young man!!
TheLiberalAvenger 1 year ago
@TheLiberalAvenger You didn't make any point about Penn afterward. I even condensed the conversation two posts ago. You. Never. Provided. Evidence. That. Penn. Is. "Totalitarian Propaganda".
Of course, saying a person IS propaganda is completely idiotic. When someone challenged you, you went off on a tangent about how Neo-libertarianism sometimes, maybe, might, could, probably leads to totalitarianism with no sources cited or anything connected to Penn.
zofspade 1 year ago
@TheLiberalAvenger Then someone challenged you again, and you said "I already covered that". I replied to this, referring to your original post (is it all coming back you now?), and all you have is double talk. It's like a creationist asking an scientist to provide evidence of no evidence of creationism. Congratulations, you're as smart as a creationist.
Also, I'm not a Neo-Lib or a Teabagger you old fuck. I've destroyed every point you've made methodically.
Grow up and learn to lose gracefully.
zofspade 1 year ago
@zofspade Geez tone it down dude...
Let me put it this way:Penn is know for spewing totalitarian propaganda. You know stuff like: " people should be able to run their own life without a large government breathing down ones neck."
And: "How is promoting liberty and freedom from government control "totalitarian"? It's actually the exact opposite."
Sure I'm not quoting him, just the usual bunch of Neo-Libertarian Ron Paul garbage that plagues civil discourse, that he also espouses.
TheLiberalAvenger 1 year ago
@zofspade Proving that Penn IS totalitarian propaganda would be no small feat indeed, for reasons you have so thoroughly explained. Suffice to say that he is a proponent of the conventional Libertarian arguments in support of the laissez faire/ unfettered market approach to economic policy. The larger issue that I would prefer to prove is that this view is not in the best interests of society, and furthermore that those arguments in favor of such a worldview amount to little more than..(ahem)
TheLiberalAvenger 1 year ago
@TheLiberalAvenger So...it's just inference is not backed by actual evidence? I already said that. It's OK, but my point is to say something like that and leave it is begging to be ripped apart for lack of evidence.
Once again, I am not a Libertarian. I disagree with Penn. Then again I don't dissolve the discourse by calling the other side "propaganda". He has a different view because he believes in the inherent good of people, something he talks about a lot. And I also disagree with this.
zofspade 1 year ago
@TheLiberalAvenger I am very, very sure you don't know what "totalitarian" means.
IoEstasCedonta 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IoEstasCedonta Yeah that's fine...Suffice to say that he is a proponent of the conventional Libertarian arguments in support of the laissez faire/ unfettered market approach to economic policy.
And he goes on Glenn Beck to make this argument. Therefore...
TheLiberalAvenger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IoEstasCedonta Ok fine...Suffice to say that he is a proponent of the conventional Libertarian arguments in support of the laissez faire/ unfettered market approach to economic policy.
And he goes on Glenn Beck to make this argument. Therefore...
TheLiberalAvenger 1 year ago
where did this guy come from? i have never heard of him before. and what is his show?
reppincville 1 year ago
he looks like a nutsack
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 1 year ago
@SUpersaiyajinjerkbag
A nutsack that could kick your ass
VegitoVai90 1 year ago
Marijuana - Sativa , the head high is one that is energetic and has a more cerebral effect. - no reported deaths.
LSD - Non addictive, provides a cerebral high as well, also has been recorded to treat pain ala analgesic. - No reported deaths.
DMT -Very powerful psychedelic, known to cause ego death, and many mind altering phases - 0 reported deaths.
These "drugs" aren't addictive, the people using them have addictive personalities. Many people are weak minded, this is only par for the course.
PrisonCipher 1 year ago
I know Penn is an atheist, which I dislike, I would never FORCE him to do otherwise. God would never force him to obey his laws, likewise there are things people do that hurt themselves that hurt others, God allows this and would like to stop this but we have free will. Does the government have the right to violate our free will to hurt ourselves, I think not, should we harm ourselves, I think not...
tatorsal 1 year ago
What? We should use the community to support each other rather than the nanny state telling me how to take care of myself through the use of coercive force? Blasphemy! How will I ever eat my broccoli without someone putting a gun to my head?
xy8015 1 year ago
Government is force.
magickid777 1 year ago
Drugs: Either do them, or don't give a shit if other people do. Simple as that.
murphfb 1 year ago
"government is violence."
fayder743 1 year ago
Penn, you are amazing.
AYcheBAY 1 year ago
Also the biggest myth about suicide is that its the "cowards way out" there is nothing cowardly about suicide. It is amazingly difficult to fight off and against one of natures strongest impulses which is the survival impulse. Once you cross that line there is no going back and you know that on many different levels. If someone is in so much pain and or in such a horrible situation from which there is only one escape.....
karn33333 1 year ago 2
@karn33333 Thats not why its called the cowards way out. Its called that because you are running from ALL YOUR PROBLEMS instead of facing them.
Kyraji 1 year ago
@Kyraji people who commit suicide are not worried about "problems" people who actually commit suicide or attempt to commit suicide usually only have one way out of a really shitty situation. in this sense life simply isn't worth living. to put it in a way you can understand being forced to watch barney the purple dinosaur isn't a problem but id rather gouge out my eyes and burst my ear drums. now the people who use suicide as a cry for help those people use that to get rid of their problems.
karn33333 1 year ago
@Kyraji people who commit suicide are not worried about "problems" people who actually commit suicide or attempt to commit suicide usually only have one way out of a really shitty situation. in this sense life simply isn't worth living. to put it in a way you can understand being forced to watch barney the purple dinosaur isn't a problem but id rather gouge out my eyes and burst my ear drums. now the people who use suicide as a cry for help those people use that to get rid of their problems.
karn33333 1 year ago
@karn33333
yes. but if you think about it, if one can overcome the impulse to survive, what does that tell you about his/her judgement? It may not be as hard once one has lost some part of functionality of normal mental procedures....
AngryLlamaz 1 year ago
@AngryLlamaz it tells me absolutely nothing about his or her judgment. all it can tell me is that ones life is above or below the value of something. you are assuming that this person values life the same way you do. if a person values lets say freedom of their people more then they do their own life would you say that joining a rebel militia is an act of mental instability? if someone steps in front of a train to save a loved one and dies as a result do you call love a mental disorder?
karn33333 1 year ago
I will put it simply the reason the government nor anyone else has the right to (ultimately) stop someone from committing suicide is the Declaration of Independence quite clearly says we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The thing about rights is that if you have the right to do something then you have the right NOT to do something. If you have a right to live then you have a right to die. If you can't respect someones death why should they respect your life?
karn33333 1 year ago
man you gotta smoke weed at least once before you die. For a music and art and performance lover...Man, I can't even begin to tell you. When your layin there on your death bed or somethin, if your fortunate enough to get one, my God. Do it once. You get ONE life and then you're dead forever.
zach9899 2 years ago
Saying that is like saying you gotta get one of your arms cut off at least ONCE in your life.
iGrowlnvmbite 1 year ago
@iGrowlnvmbite I was just offering a friendly suggestion. If Penn was into pain and self mutilation and I was aware first-hand that getting one's arm cut off was the height of such experiences than I would make that suggestion. You sound like your trying to play the logic game and if that's the case you made a "false analogy" fallacy.
zach9899 1 year ago
Penn, good sir.
You misspelled pornographer.
LinuxPython 2 years ago
I'm not against drugs, but there needs to be regulations and limits on it similar to alcohol.
People driving while high, meth labs a certain distance away from other neighborhoods or just places in general.
I don't need some meth head coming to some guy near me to buy stuff and it turns out the stuff blows up and I end up being a paraplegic.
Suicide is dumb, and if they want then go ahead, the world will keep spinning without them.
SherlockH33 2 years ago
Profound statement at 4:45 -- Community can do short of force -- the government can add force -- and force is what takes away our freedoms. The root of the problem here -- about this issue, and every other issue that deals with our freedoms, is that a majority of OUR United States government doesn't believe that we could actually accomplish things as a community. They believe that people NEED policing and to be controlled, because we're incapable of doing that ourselves, AS a COMMUNITY.
surgeyX 2 years ago
is anyone on here out of high school and know what anarchy is??? because you guys make it sound like something you do. Like rebellion almost...anarchy is basically the failure of the government, which is a current problem because our government in a way is failing...
hugsforevery1 2 years ago
Drugs don't ruin people's lives, people ruin their lives
It truly saddens me that Penn, who preaches everything I believe in, cannot possibly see any potential good(though he even does make a small concession about jimmy) in the expansion of one's mind or recreational use of substances that make people happy and have virtually no health risks(marijuana)
More widespread exposure or use of drugs, in particular marijuana, would really open a lot of people's minds to athiesm/objectivism
TurtleHydro 2 years ago
Actually drugs can ruin people's lives. Food can ruin people's lives. Video games can ruin people's lives. Too much of anything can ruin people's lives, and many drugs have chemicals that help build addictions.
Marijuana is the only illegal drug that should immediately be made legal. Can marijuana be dangerous? In some situations, yes. Marijuana can also be abused and it can be addicting (mentally rather than chemically). Drugs used to get high (for fun) more often cause more harm than good.
NoNameC68 2 years ago
No, nothing can ruin somebodies life but them self or other people. A substance cannot DO anything, a room full of 6,000 pounds of meth is just as dangerous as a room full of bean bag chairs.
The real problem is most people are quite stupid and cannot control themselves, but don't go blaming the substance for what stupid people do. It doesn't matter how strong of an addiction they may have(that's their fault in the first place), THEY are abusing the drug, THEY are the problem, not the drug
TurtleHydro 2 years ago
It would be so awesome if EVERYTHING was legal and all the stupid people got addicted and ruined all their lives. Hopefully it'll be enough to stop them from reproducing and evolution can be allowed to continue to happen and in just a couple generations everything would be all dandy
TurtleHydro 2 years ago
We are all responsible for our actions, but to say bean bag chairs are as harmfull as meth is plain stupid. Sure, if the person didn't use the meth, but meth is more dangerous for a user than bean bag chairs.
People, including you and me, have less control over our actions than what you think. Many actions are involuntary, and therefore just happen without much thought process. So someone hooked on dangerous drugs aren't just addicted because they are stupid, but because they are addicted.
NoNameC68 2 years ago
fuck the government.
period.
I approve this message....
El Bog
Fennias 2 years ago
Government is good if run properly. Saying "fuck the government" is ignorant.
NoNameC68 2 years ago 2
No... The essence of government (one group having authority to encroach on another, in the name of X[common good, justice, national defense, whatever the buzz-topic of the year is]) is immoral. There is no such thing as 'good government'.
stealthyeliminator 2 years ago
So you support anarchy?
'nuff said.
NoNameC68 2 years ago
Watch the movie Andersonville stealthy. You know nothing about government you stupid bk, without government THAT is what we turn into.
Kirbzy998 2 years ago
It appears to me Penn belittles the government. We need the government, and the government needs a certain level of power. Yes, we should have unlimited individual freedom, but taxes keep our country running. It keeps our military strong, it pays those that protect us from crime, even those that protect us from natural disaster. I may have gotten the wrong impression, but we do need a strong government.
alastairguhn 2 years ago
Alastairguhn, you're contradicting yourself... To have a government is to limit freedom. The police don't protect from crime, they investigate crimes that have been committed (many times very poorly). It doesn't protect from natural disaster, or even help once it's happened (even though it might try, extremely ineffectively and inefficiently...). No, a strong gov. is not needed... A weak/lack of gov. is what's needed, in order to have freedom and prosperity...
stealthyeliminator 2 years ago
But without a government, this country would be in complete chaos. We can have a strong government without limiting freedom. Our government should provide health care, protection like firefighters, police, military, things like that.
The police can, and do protect from crime. The problem is that we have so many incompetent officers.
Our government sucks, but we need some form to keep things running. Though, with our current government, we may be better off on our own.
alastairguhn 2 years ago
I understand why practically everyone is under the misconception that without a traditional government society would be chaotic, but it IS a misconception... There are governing forces outside of traditional government that work 100 times better, and limit freedoms 100 times less. All services (police, judicial, firefighting, national defense, etc.) that the government currently has a monopoly over can be provided outside of the government, better.
stealthyeliminator 2 years ago
But how is that possible? As long as there are religious zealots and criminals, we need some form of protection, and without government, we have no true national security. We wouldn't even have a military.
I'm just not getting how such a small government can provide for us what they should. A nation can have a large government controlled by its people. It's the greedy assholes that fuck everything up.
alastairguhn 2 years ago
If people want protection it will be provided... With that logic, the corner store shouldn't resist the, or resent the for, mob collecting 'protection money'. They need protection. Also, there already are militaries outside of that provided by the government (Popular Mechanics, at one time, said there was nearly a 1 to 1 ratio of soldiers to mercenaries operating in Iraq), even though one isn't necessary for national defense (a good militia would be 6 fold more effective).
stealthyeliminator 2 years ago
But those mercenaries were being paid out of government military funding, right?
I don't understand how these companies would be able to afford training for soldiers, and it seems to me that paying for military funding would cost less through taxes.
I'm really not understand how this would work, or even what you're suggesting. Are you implying we need no government, or just a very small government?
alastairguhn 2 years ago
I'm suggesting that no traditional government is necessary in order to have a successful (moral, just, peaceful, prosperous, etc) society... I'd also suggest that as long as you have a traditional government, a lasting successful society is impossible. If there's any specific 'need' that you don't see how could be provided in a stateless society feel free to message me and I'll try to give you some references explaining how that particular issue might be, or might have been resolved.
stealthyeliminator 2 years ago
You say that traditional run government is a misconception, and that there are better governing forces outside the government. Can you please provide an example?
gargamel6699 2 years ago
gargamel, that's not what I said, but an excellent example is simply the market. Take, for example, standards organizations such as the W3. You don't have to write standards complaint, web pages, but people do, because it works and that's WHAT PEOPLE WANT. They do it because that's WHAT PEOPLE WANT. Not because the government wont approve their website if they don't.
stealthyeliminator 2 years ago
Anarchy works for small tribes and maybe villages or towns, or it could work. But for a whole nation? Anarchy would lead to some people having more than others. Those people would then gain power because they have all the wealth. They lead the people who have nothing. This turns into monarchy. Monarchs form a government.
Anarchy always turns into monarchy. Prove it doesn't.
NoNameC68 2 years ago
Good argument, Make a wild, bold claim and immediately shift the burden of proof. Even though that's ridiculous and ignorant, I'll humor you.
Somalia.
stealthyeliminator 2 years ago
When people have no leaders, they always find someone to lead them. Absolutely always. When you have a lot of people, they form a government. Prove to me that I'm wrong. Name one large anarchy that lasted more than 10 years.
I can't find proof that anarchy doesn't work on a grand scale because anarchy has never grown to such a scale. I wonder why.
In theory, everything works on paper. Even government works in theory. But in practice, anarchy fails and government is flawed.
NoNameC68 2 years ago
Again with the "prove I'm wrong"s?
You're missing the point.
Character limits make real conversation here impossible... If you're REALLY interested, and not just arguing for the hell of it, feel free to message me...
stealthyeliminator 2 years ago
i would think in anarchy money wont rule
Will would
if u catch what im saying
flyingblind92 2 years ago
Humans, when they get what they want then they start wanting more. Anarchy and communism is for those who would be happy living in a shit world as long as nobody has more than them. I on the other hand could care less if there are people out there with more than me, as long as I have what I want.
People who think anarchy could work on a large scale is a moron. Same with people who support communism and to an extent, socialism. They all sound noble, but humans ARE greedy by nature. That's a fact
NoNameC68 2 years ago
community is obsolete.
human nature and the government's made this so.
thanks to media and technology.
everyone's socially antisocial
txting instead of talking, talking instead of walking
living in a fucking fairytale, to facade a cheery smile over the mental slavery we endure on a daily basis because of social stigmas we're programmed to requite in tvland
humans are so fucking capitalistic by nature, the only reason to live is to be better than the others.
psychotic organic matter
Nihility420 2 years ago
finaly somone that gets it you should have the freedom and the right to do what you want with your body as long as it does no harm to others and it should not be controlled by a government be it drugs sex or suicide it should be your right as a human being
420puffpuff420 2 years ago
when you say harm do you include the emotional harm that suicide causes to the family7 and friends of that person?
cheesegolem7 2 years ago
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
airondee 2 years ago
That's a double negative...
MusicHipE 2 years ago
That's like a triple negative.
RichardKeithVaughn 2 years ago
Are you retarded, Look Up how Elvis Persly Died Lol!
MrCssPwnage 2 years ago
I think the rule ought to be the consenting adult rule. If you're a child or if you're certifiable you should be stopped from using either drug or committing suicide.And if you're unsure,you hold that person for evaluation--If deemed sane he can do what he wants.
sleedolfine15 2 years ago
It doesn't matter whether the community takes these actions or the government. If the community is doing nothing, the government has to step in. Even with bureaucracy, there is alway at least 1 person behind it with a little bit of judgement. Without government, things would be stagnant and there would be less consequences for horrible things.
evsystem 2 years ago
The legalization of drugs would convince children that it is okay to lead yourself to a different life. It makes somewhat sense, but the legalization of Marijuana makes sense for the fact that it can't kill you. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. So why is this not legal?
~Z4rifion from Norml(.)com
Z4rifion 2 years ago
Hemp was banned because cotton companies (unionized labor backed by politicians) lobbied against it because of increasing competition, and FDR had been banning alot of narcotics during the 30's for economic reasons to prop up larger businesses.
floydclaptonblues 2 years ago
Exactly. Most of our hemp was being imported by Mexico at the time as well.
Z4rifion 2 years ago
this is very true =D it just stinks!!!
raventears69 2 years ago
I was born and raised in Nevada, and Penn fits in here like a glove. We are one of the more Liberatarian States, and when I see the FORCE used in other states, it makes my skin crawl. Gov forces some drug users into volunteer AA and NA after they are arrested, which by nature changes some of those mtgs. Govt can't help them, but they can? It's classical hypocrisy. Some of these mtgs have a duality that is f upped and they are still using presciption drugs. GET GOVT OUT! Thanks Penn...again
dons123111 2 years ago 5
I have to reiterate that (in my personal experience) forceful rehab is VERY harmful to the recovery of willful recoverers
nomoneysonny 2 years ago
"Get together and do adze?" Isn't that some kind of a stone axe? Aaaaah, You're talking about Aztec human sacrifice. Gotcha.
libertarianjury 2 years ago
You mean you're not in favor of mass suicide spectator gameshows? Even for the beautiful yet totally stupid and fascist?
Where's the downside?!!
...just kidding! Geez!
libertarianjury 2 years ago
I'm voting for Wayne Root on Tuesday, November 6, 2012! We need to let Root end statism in America. Abolish the Federal Reserve, abolish American communism. Vote Libertarian!
libertarianjury 2 years ago
Penn should run for president.
brt5470 2 years ago 30
omg i was just but to write this and saw someone already did
jasontd1984 2 years ago
@brt5470 Would be pretty cool to have a president with one red fingernail.
bosshonu 1 year ago
@brt5470 Show me the Penn for Prez petition, and I'll sign it! But you gotta wonder if Penn would want to do it. Cause i can totally seeing him saying "No", and that it's too much for him. It may not really be his area, ya know? Then again, maybe not.
snikt2k10 1 year ago
i agree with penn about both subjects my thery is f*ck the government they want to much money and thats all they want is cash if some one kills themself they arnt paying taxes same for drugs they would be leagle if the government could tax them
scottrjmatmsncom 2 years ago 8
@scottrjmatmsncom its easy to think that, and im "not" saying your wrong, but thats very close to being raciest or stereotyping, only its use vs. the Gov. Those ppl who make up the gov are ppl with families too, and not all of them are in it for the power or the fatcat lifestyle. now theres no way for me to know for sure that im right, but reason tells me that i am. so its not greed thats making the gov act this way its deeper than that.
nsramir82 1 year ago
@scottrjmatmsncom its easy to think that, and im "not" saying your wrong, but thats very close to being raciest or stereotyping, only its used vs. the Gov. Those ppl who make up the gov are ppl with families too, and not all of them are in it for the power or the fatcat lifestyle. now theres no way for me to know for sure that im right, but reason tells me that i am. so its not greed thats making the gov act this way its deeper than that.
nsramir82 1 year ago
i want penns goatee
Mikers29 2 years ago
As a recovering addict I'll put my 2cents in. Drugs can definitely have a damaging effect on people's professional, personal, and spiritual lives(coming from an atheist). While there are people out there who can recreationally use drugs and moderate their use just fine, I have noticed that those people really don't go far beyond the experimentation phase and tend to stop all together eventually. I am all for getting the gov out of our bodies and our drug policies. Fund treatment, not prisons.
mygaffer 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you are like an ugly fat bret michaels.
IBG67 2 years ago
So you think the real Bret Michaels is cute?.........Fag.
IndiMusicLover 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yea nigga
YOU UGLY AND FAT ni99999a
bum asss niggga
shit on u ma NIGGA
FUCK YOUUU
tekmatic38 2 years ago
call the wawa police where did all the passion and fury go. sorry for constructive critisicm. we will do as we please. drugs? one form or another low blow what a way to halt the perfect reason to express difference in oppinion. what about natural potent as shit just as damaging exsist. they need to focus on topics of true debate
MsMlpowell 2 years ago
Much appreciated Penn. If you read this, or if any one else out there in tube land reads this. ( This sceptical bunch of folk).
I am faceing a weird dilema.. One of my friends., A very intellegent guy, has taken notice of my recent vocal scepticisem. I tend to vocalize my sceptical veiw towards him amongst the group. I do this because he is the most likely to "get it" or have a "smart ass" remark..
He takes this as a personal attack on what he thinks.
nicholi2212 2 years ago
combined, yet we are the only country who is waging a war against it. Almost every other country is against prohibition because it makes no sense where as the U.S. would rather lock up decent hard working people. There is never going to be an end to drug use and sales, they might as well pull their heads out of their asses and try to make some money from it rather than funding violence and terrorism. Politician are too scared to jeopardize their carreers to right this wrong but it's time.
shiftymerchant 2 years ago
suddenly I have a positive for marijuana, well now Im no longer fit to be in the building. Despite the fact that I've been a pot head since I started and have been for 9 years. It's ridiculous and hypocritical to deem me unsafe and an insurace risk because I smoke and yet I can be a raging alcoholic and come to work hung over as shit everyday and no one cares. If I could I would move to a country much more logical and free then the U.S. This country consumes more drugs than the rest of the world
shiftymerchant 2 years ago
I agree for the most part, But Im a huge drug user and it has never affected me negatively. What has affected me is random drug testing where I work. I don't give a shit if it's illegal, you have to be a totall dumb ass to get caught with drugs and a totall dumb ass to fuck up your life with drugs. If you do you probably would have anyway with some other means. What I resent is that im one of the best hardest working people where I work, yet im judged not only by my performance but my urine.
shiftymerchant 2 years ago
i think drugs are ok as long as there is no negative effect on your life. for instance, someone wants to smoke some marijuana on their day off at their home, its ok
i think suicide is ok as long as the person doing it has no debts to be paid.
anything is ok as long as it is a more positive choice than the other choices for that situation
andyviana162 2 years ago
"the government is violence"
imhoteptafari 2 years ago
define drugs. . .
M1NDC0N7R0L 2 years ago
"Drug" has a fairly broad, but well established definition.
Theonewhoclimbs28 2 years ago
You go Penn. A fair man. You stand your ground while not trampleing someone else.
admiralcrash1 2 years ago
The big trubile is there is no comunity anymore my husbend has been unemployed for almost 2 mounths in TX we are now two or three days from being homeless . We could have never seen it coming just a few small rong choices and if hade they been doing drugs and going to jail finding a job would be easy here. All 4 of us would not be homeless. It was not always this way..Signed One Pissed Off Solber
montacap 2 years ago
I think there is a role for government here. If someone wants to die I think it is appropriate to require a hearing to determine whether they have the capacity to make informed decisions (not insane, not a minor). If they have capacity then that's the end of the Government's role.
Icharys 2 years ago
Penn the question of government intervention on suicide should easy for you. I was just watching another Penn says (on gun control) in which you vehemently expressed that freedoms trumps not only safety, but life itself. You said that even if it were proven than freedom to own guns will increase murder rates it should still be allowed.
So this question should be very easy for you.
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
hmm. about suicide... im curious what the government COULD do to do anything about it.
you cant exactly send them to jail if theyre guilty of it... :-T
quarkenzyme89 2 years ago
In Britiain, the penalty for attempted suicide used to be death.
steve0281 2 years ago
That's hilarious! I bet those chums learned they're lesson.
petknitter 2 years ago
I don't mean to be morbid.
However, my mother died of cancer. In the last month of her life she had a broken leg, arm, neck, collapsed lung, was blind, in unimaginable pain and on a morphine drip.
She had morphine pills and asked me to get them so she could leave. I refused for what I now consider very selfish reasons.
Now, 12 years later, I would give anything to go back and grant her that reprieve even though were I to be discovered I would be prosecuted.
Dejoblue 3 years ago 2
I think i totally agree with everything you said here. Although i have used drugs and on occation still do. I dont think drugs are as bad as you think, but your ethics are in exactly the right place.
PygmyLepper 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Penn i see here i so different from the Bullshit show! you taught me drugs are cool now i'm a junkie!!
blackspittle 3 years ago
first of all i wanna say that i either need glasses or the little codes youtube makes u type when u comment alot seem so hard to read for sum reason...k...penn is awsome but he made one of the dumbest statements i think i have ever ehard from almost anyone..."i dont think there is much more to discover"......wut?!....coming from someone as intelligent as penn that is pretty mind boggling
toolkills 3 years ago
Continued...well I now live life sober, but I do not look back at all my drug experiences in a negative way. Some were great and some got out of hand and I became addicted 1st to cocaine 2nd to Crystal meth I quit those two on my own..but #3 was a pain medication given to me by my doctor.Oxycontin. That one was the worse of all and I am still in treatment to this day (Methadone clinic) over that one.
mrmynx 3 years ago
You have to realize that not all drugs are created equally. when you said you would do everything possible to stop Emily from using did you mean all drugs? Pot is arguably better for you than booze. I think experiences brought on by the effects of various kinds can be enlightening and fun, the real danger is when you OVER DO things. I am speaking from experience, I have done tons of Acid (LSD) and had a great time also about every other kind of drug as
mrmynx 3 years ago
The way i see it is it wasn't your choice to come into this world so why cant it be your choice to leave. Im by no means for killing yourself but i dont think you should ever forcibly stop someone from it. suicide should be a right.
splein23 3 years ago 3
fuck yeah, YOU fucking get this existence. exactly what I was waiting for someone to have written.
who gave you a choice to be spawned into this "reality", no one and if you think you deserve a better or worse existence then by all means make the choice!
fuck what the government thinks as if they care if one of their citizens are killed while they send hundreds to die in a war with no cause!!!
LesLegionsNoires 2 years ago 2
I avoid aspirin and caffeine, they kill people. Weed on the other hand...
ratzskinakie 3 years ago 3
different drugs have diffent effects. LSD is different from coke and heroin and cannabis is different from booze. but also its the own persons self control. i smoke marijuanna on weekends and do the acasonal acid trip but have a very productive life. its not so much the drug as it is the person, however sometimes the drug can take controll. god bless america.
maximus426 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Its spelled OCCASIONAL. I smoke weed on the weekends also. But how productive of a life can you live if you cant even spell?
jasonsaw76 3 years ago
I very much see the point of Government not intervening and that being left to community. That would be a great and very loving way to go about suicide prevention and stopping drug abuse. But unfortunately, community DOESN'T intervene most of the time. People seem to be to busy, self centered, or just simply not caring enough to love and help their fellow man and I think that the Government is forced to step in because of the selfishness of mankind and the lack of caring and community.
C
AmazeNYou 3 years ago
I appreciate Penn's reasoned and measured stance on these issues. I would agree at the same time with his positions.
LeGioNoFZioN 3 years ago
Read J.S. Mill for a more comprehensive and comprendable response. "On Liberty" covers pretty much everything to do with personal freedom and the role of the state.
LordRushbrookGCSE 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Word, if by "bore" you mean "whore," of the corporate variety, like all the other propaganda shills at the Cato Institute.
>>> "Looking at Penn's misshapen pumpkin head and listening to his droning lunacy makes me lose the will to live. Fat fucking unfunny dishonest bore."
tonzimala 3 years ago
It is difficult, but I agree with Penn whole heartedly.
lombard34 3 years ago
black and white is borderline shit. it's disordered to think that things should be either allowed or disallowed, wholly.
does it make sense that maybe suicide could be legal, but the punishment the same? one wakes up in a hospital, guaranteed, after a failed attempt, right?
drugs are the same I think. like, let them smoke crack and buy it at the "drug store," but when they are caught smoking it near their children, the fed's get involved and monitor them.
FREEPIRATE!
wijgego 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i believe the goverment should be able to step in and use force to stop drugs because the user could not just hurt them self when under the influence and as far as suicide i think they should have the choice more so if they are old and suffering but the flip side is if some one try's to make a person kill them self cos that person can gain from his/her death but at the same time drug wars probably kill more then the drugs them self but id rather that then have pot heads floting around everywhere
gottsein234 3 years ago
Maybe you will get a little mindfuck from the libertarian ideology, summarized within Penn's words: "I'm okay with people dying if we have more freedom"
xoxgodofgodsgodxx 3 years ago 2
heh on your fav is a weed video of corse your ok with people dieing as long as you get your fix
gottsein234 3 years ago
says the dumbass who knows nothing about weed.
dylantuzyk 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Looking at Penn's misshapen pumpkin head and listening to his droning lunacy makes me lose the will to live. Fat fucking unfunny dishonest bore.
bumpyjjeans 3 years ago
bumpyjjeans:
Who forced you to watch this video?
harryogre 3 years ago