I mean if you want a scientific answer, you shouldn’t do anything until the age of 25 as your brain isn’t fully developed until then. Smoking kills you,alcohol is a literal poison damaging your body to impair your mind. People should have to educate themselves on the topics/people before voting, and war...war never changes...
@kdogzzs, yes this is a big setup for a fallout 4 punchline
@kdogzzs, 4 great games in the franchise and you mention the mediocre one! Shame *rings bell*
@ConfusedWhat, well on the bethes-scale you got 3, 4, and 76.fallout 4 is better then 76 by far. 4 is at least an acceptable entry to the fallout franchise.
@kdogzzs, war can change. We just use Rock Paper Scissors to determine the winner of war
@BigJohnson86, steel cage match with the presidents and politicians duking it out would be better for determining winner of arguments
@Your Darkest Secret, have you seen Putin shirtless? We’d all be fvcked. In the best way possible
Yo smoking literally is only allowed because its so ingrained in our society anyway.
The whole premise of tobacco is that it literally only gives any decent "positive" effect when your addicted, even then its just giving you a nice feeling because your helping your addiction.
Of all the drugs, tobacco is one of the most dumb imo.
Ahh life is funny
Where do you not have to show id to vote? When i voted trump i believe i had to show id.
@BlazingBowman, I had to show ID and my signature had to match my license
@Prime Umbra, maybe its talking about what people believe should be the case? I remember the left complaining about voter id being racist a few years back?
@BlazingBowman, the argument is that it indiscriminately limits the poor from voting, those without the means to acquire a state or federal id. and more minorities per capita are poor. also as was previously stated, unless the IDs are free, which they arent, its a poll tax. this would drastically reduce minority turnout, most of whom statistically vote liberal, which is why this stricture is most often championed by conservatives
@BlazingBowman, the argument is that it limits the poor from voting, those without the means to acquire a state or federal id. and more minorities per capita are poor. also as was previously stated, unless the IDs are free, which they arent, its a poll tax. this would drastically reduce minority turnout, most of whom statistically vote liberal, which is why this stricture is most often championed by conservatives
@Hoban Washburne, dont know why it went twice, just tried to remove a word 🤷🏼♂️
@BlazingBowman, it’s illegal to ask for ID in CA at the polls.
@Hoban Washburne, its like 30 bucks at the dmv to get an id. Dont you think its a little condescending. That they cant save up 30 dollars to vote.
@big freedom, that should be illegal. For all they know felones and illegals could be voting. ( like that isnt the point.)
@BlazingBowman, yes. And they (CA) government wants them to be able to vote, because they overwhelmingly vote democrat.
@big freedom, why please your constituents when you can import voters.
@BlazingBowman, it varies state to state, but specifically in California and New York you definitely don’t have to show ID and voter roll purges have shown hundreds of thousands of votes have been cast ‘by’ dead people
@Hoban Washburne, ah yes, the racism of low expectations, my favorite
@Hoban Washburne, ahh yes, the racism of low expectations, my favorite
@big freedom, it is not illegal to ask for ID when voting in California. In most cases, ID is not required, but in some cases ID is required. Clearly asking for ID when required is incompatible with the statement that asking is illegal. It is a significant, and polarizing, misstatement.
@occasionalmutant, it was where I lived. Alameda county. I tried to show ID, and was told that it was illegal for them to check it.
@BlazingBowman, im not saying it full on stops the very determined from voting, but getting a license is a nontrivial act, you have to train in a car, practice for a test, pay money and invest considerable time that an individual on a shoestring, or with a family, could very likely not have. not to mention that access to a car to feasibly train for the drivers test is something a lot of people flat out do not have. all in all it makes for a real block for a poor person to vote, and a very trivial block for a wealthy person such as you or myself. coupled with the prior-stated demographic spread of poverty, per capita, it disproportionately negatively affects minorities
@Hoban Washburne, its 30 dollars and it doesnt even have to be a drivers liscense. It is a trivial matter and it is condecending to think that they cant afford it.
I know what subreddit this meme came from
The only reason they shouldn't ban smoking is because of the tax revenue. If you want people to smoke less, just up the taxation even more so that poor people and kids can't afford it even more
@Nudity Industries, they shouldn't ban smoking because consenting adults should be allowed to do what they want to their bodies, even if it's not good for them. It shouldn't be the government's job to babysit their citizens.
@Doctor Yak, ok but smoking affects more than just the person smoking. Secondhand smoking is just as deadly (it killed my great aunt a few months ago) and non smokers shouldn't have to be inconvenienced by smokers, i.e. stench and smoke breaks. I understand people should be free to do as they wish to themselves, but there's literally no benefit from smoking other than taxes and economic profit.
@Nudity Industries, totally true. A lot of countries do things now like ban smoking in public spaces etc. Which to me is totally fair because your harming other people.
I believe people should have freedom of choice so long as its not harming other peoples freedoms.
@Nudity Industries, you cannot tax people into morality or intelligence. Let people do what what want to do. It’s not up to you to decide what’s best for other people.
@big freedom, I mean, you can, it's just a matter of whether or not you should.
@Nudity Industries, umm, no... you can not. Unless you don’t understand what either of those words mean....
@Doctor Yak, by that logic, should any substance be illegal then?
@Banetersaurus Rex, I think so. As long as you don't endanger others you should be allowed to do it. If you do something stupid or violent you should have additional consequences, just like with alcohol.
I just realized you asked if they should be illegal, so I actually think none of them should be illegal. just figured I should clarify what I meant.
Unless IDs are free, needing one to vote is a poll tax, which Is illegal
@j2hugh, they give you a birth certificates and social security card when you’re born. But I’d also be for a voting card similar to a drivers license for free at the booth which through logistics means there would need to be one at a government building. You just have to submit paperwork and have a background check.
@j2hugh, so then they cannot be required to purchase a weapon.
@big freedom, voting is a fundamental right in our democracy that every citizen who can should do, and since we don’t have a national id system, it essentially discriminates against people who don’t have a photo ID (Ex: a driver’s license). An individual owning a firearm is regulated by the government. Ergo, they can create any requirement they wish, like it or not it’s spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. For instance, I believe felons cannot own firearms. Requiring ids to vote and own a gun are not the same issue
@Obi Kenobi, fundamental right applies to both. Your argument is fallacious. Voting is regulated as well. I cannot cross state lines to vote, or even town lines. Voting is the quickest way to change our government and people exploit that fact.
Ask black people if they have a hard time obtaining an ID and you will find out just how racist that thought is. It is incredibly condescending and presumptuous.
@Obi Kenobi, funny thing is, is that the right to vote for all wasn’t even ratified during the first Bill of Rights. The second amendment, and second in importance - according to the authors - was the right (meaning it’s something that the government cannot infringe upon) to own and carry firearms (without clarifying which ones and how many) Shall Not Be Infringed.
It wasn’t until 1870 that the right to vote was granted to anyone other than land owning white males as a Constitutional right.
@big freedom, you cannot cross state lines to vote because you are a citizen of a state and only have a say in your state of citizenship because of the electoral college and electing local representatives, that’s not regulation, that’s how the government functions. That also doesn’t put an undue burden on someone the way a photo id would. I think we should have a national id system but that’s neither here nor there. And I didn’t mention black people at all man. I said people without photo ID (They can be white too). Don’t assume I’m being racist, condescending, or presumptuous because you don’t like my argument. Also, voter fraud isn’t a problem and every study says that, so it’s a solution to a non-problem that only causes problems and restricts citizen votes. Firearm ownership is expressly allowed to be regulated by the constitution.
@Obi Kenobi, you don’t understand what the word “regulation” means and you don’t understand our system of government. The constitution does not allow me to do anything. The constitution specifically limits what the government is and is not allowed to do. The second amendment to the constitution does not grant me the right to own a gun. It’s specifically and categorically states that the government may not stop me from owning weapons.
@big freedom, by limiting what the government can do you, you inherently allow for rights. So yes, you have rights guaranteed by the constitution. And the 2nd amendment begins with the most important part: “A well regulated militia”. It says it cannot restrict the people (meaning the collective people ergo states) from owning arms and forming militias. And even then, it allows for regulation, hence the word regulation in there. Ask any constitutional lawyer and the majority of them would tell you that regulation of firearm ownership is totally constitutional. You cannot outright ban firearms, but you can restrict who can own them, how they’re stored, where they’re stored, all that good stuff
@Obi Kenobi, lmfao. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. But the use of big words sure does sound pedantic.
1. The “militia” is “the people”. everyone. All of the people are the militia.
It does NOT grant the collective people, ergo states ANY authority to limit weapons, hence the last part of the sentence “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. It’s a single sentence and not at all hard to comprehend. You can try to read into it all you want, the first part of the sentence applies to “all of the people” the second part of the sentence applies to “the government”
Our government does. Not. Grant. Rights.
Our government is specifically designed to protect those rights FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
You need an intro to civics class and history 101. Then come back and we can have an actual discussion.
I see what they did there
I'm not sure if this meme is in favor of showing ID for both or not.
@HappyBandit7, this meme is in favor of clowns. That was what I get.
@HappyBandit7, this meme is saying that the legal views regarding adult age are ridiculous right now. It's not necessarily in favor of anything.
I think the big point with the ID thing is they want MORE voters and LESS smokers