As much as I think public affection is embarrassing, humiliating, and immoral I also believe in freedom of expression and do not believe people should be punished for such actions unless it becomes pornographic. I personally think public affection is embarrassing and think that affection should be saved for the bedroom. I also think people should have the right to scold affectionate couples, with their freedom of expression, in order to embarrass them into stopping their public affection . However force and government are both unnesccesary ways of handling public affection.

It doesn't make a difference what you think but when you state a false fact i.e. Blacks were the last to be enslaved, I'm going to call you out on it. It also does not matter whether it is legal or not, it is happening. And not much is being done to stop it other than verbal condemnation on the part of the UN and developed countries. I am sure the Slaves of today are just as persecuted as Black slaves in the 1700's just because it is not legal does not mean they are not victims. You have the right to your opinion but when you say it is because of said fact either that fact ought to be true or you should expect criticism. I am not criticizing your opinion I am criticizing your facts.

The question is what pops into your mind when you hear of slavery, Blacks or Whites. Your answer was Blacks, because they were the last to be enslaved. They were not the last to be enslaved. Therefore your argument is Blacks for no good reason. If you want to say that you have no reason other than your opinion than we have no debate but you still want to argue your point without any real facts to support it. Now the new argument you have made is that slavery was legal then and not now and thus you are justified in thinking of slavery as a Black issue. Legality aside, there are actually more slaves today than there were four centuries ago. Read the attached article. From a numerical perspective there is more slavery today.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kralis/060719

"first thing that pops in my head is the thought of "modern" slavery and how blacks were the last to become slaves.."

This is specifically what I was talking about. Blacks were not the last to become slaves. If that is what pops into your head it is not true. That is why I bring up the point of human trafficking. I realized you did say all races have been slaves but I was keying in on the part I quoted. Just because slavery isn't mainstream does not mean that it isn't wide spread. Modern Human Trafficking occurs in all countries. More developed countries are just more likely to be destination countries so you do not see the effect of slavery as it is hidden and often confused for things such as prostitution.

Blacks were not the last to become slaves. Modern slavery goes on under the politically correct term Human Trafficking. And the institution is alive and far from over. Sure blacks were enslaved but any race can be.

All Races can be slaves although a majority of slaves are female. Slavery is rampant today despite what people think. The typical slave is a younger woman used for prostitution. Slaves come from all races and groups of people however a majority of slaves around the world today come from Eastern European ex-Soviet countries.

Typically the victim is somehow lured into slavery through promises of job opportunity. Other times children are sold into slavery to pay off debt. Regardless of how the people become enslaved they are then removed from their country and usually brought to a place with a different language far from their home. The slaves are usually kept in line through violence and intimidation and the fact that they are displaced.

Once in captivity the women are often used as domestic servants or prostitutes. Males which make up no more than a fourth of all enslaved individuals are often enslaved to be used for manual labor. Escaping slavery is difficult because it is often in a legal gray area that can be confused for other illegal things such as prostitution. Often women who try to get help because they are a slave face an uphill challenge trying to get any actual help.

Slavery is not limited to one specific race despite the fact that in America slavery was. Today the most likely people to be enslaved are white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking

First off in the initial few paragraphs I am talking about any leisure in general and not just cannabis, remember you said people are morally/ethically wrong if they stop working, and especially if they enjoy something. You also seem to think I am saying it would be okay to do leisurely activities while on the job which I didn't. However if your responsibilities are finished it is better you enjoy yourself than be a robot who thinks its wrong to enjoy things be it cannabis, alcohol, food, sex, whatever. Either way, ethics or morals it doesn't matter I still don't see why someone else ought to live by your personal ethics/morals.

And your correct that leisure does not require marijuana however some people enjoy using marijuana in their leisure time. And unless we want to set up a draconian system to make all pleasures wrong (which you would probably support) it is hypocritical to allow some substances and not others, especially if those other substances are less harmful.

You still have not given a reason to keep drugs illegal. It is an inconsistent argument and if we want to start taking away one persons right to what they enjoy in their spare time when will it stop? I may not know what you personally enjoy but I should not have the right to deprive you of your enjoyment if your not harming anyone else.

As far as a study that proves happier workers are more productive here is one of the first articles that came up with google, mind you I didn't search for long...

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/workinglife/article990727.ece

The use of marijuana hurts no one but the individual who choses to use it. Why should it be anyone else's choice whether they hurt themselves or not. And if they do abuse marijuana to the point of harming themselves how is it the substances fault? Should we criminalize knives because I could possibly slit my own wrists? I really don't believe your completely consistent with your line of thinking. But you could be. My question is who gets to determine these arbitrary rules? Because that is all drug criminalization is, for the most part just a random arbitrary law for no reason other than control.

"That's a societal waste though. Anytime you sit back you're wasting time, like I am right now, and you, reading this."

I completely disagree with this statement and it goes against any scientific proof. Studies have been done that prove if you take breaks and have more leisure time you are a much more effective worker. Now obviously if you are neglecting your responsibilities leisure is bad. But that in no way implies that you have to be always working.

In your next response you talk about how you morally think doing things that are unproductive or enjoyable are wrong. I have several problems with this. First off, honestly I'm not you and neither is anyone else why should we have to be held accountable to your unreasonable and arbitrary morals. Second off if we never did stop working productivity would fall because everyone would be unhappy. Unhappy people are not productive. Society would not operate like this so it is unreasonable to expect people to operate without leisure time.

If you are going to tell people whether they can or cannot use substances such as Cannabis; than at least have a better reason than your supposed morals that almost half the country disagrees with. You admit to being hypocritical about your no-leisure rule by being on the internet rather than doing something productive and who is to say that is all your hypocritical about. So even you don't follow your own ethics/morals.

But that is besides the point, as a completely productive citizen who works full time and goes to school full time, why do I have to go through illegal channels to enjoy a healthier substance (Cannabis) than a legal substance (Alcohol) in my spare time. Decriminalization is not enough. The game is over, we know that Cannabis is no worse and possibly better than Alcohol and denying people the right to a trustworthy and accountable Cannabis industry is authoritarian at best.

Your right I was thinking about it and they could perhaps include more issues (like 6) and than have your preference of candidate count as a tie breaker or 7th option. But still the idea would be that you would have to know why you are supporting your candidate otherwise essentially your vote is a random vote anyways. But this would serve to offset guaranteed republican/democratic territories because people might be further to the right or left than they realize.

But really we just need to get reform elections the game is rigged in the favor or republicans and democrats when 3rd parties or more widely appealing candidates such as Ron Paul should be able to get elected when they are most relevant; such as right now.

I was thinking what might work to hinder stupid voters but still allow them to vote is to have a short quiz on what the presidential policy differences are. Ask 5 Basic questions on the most important policy differences between the candidates. Whichever candidate they agree most with then becomes their candidate and if they are too stupid to know the difference between the candidates policy it will basically be a random vote so 50% either candidate.

Ron Paul - Just Google or Youtube Ron Paul. He is an amazing republican congressman from Texas. He has a perfect record on voting when it comes to constitutionality and decreasing government spending and taxing.