Legalising drugs will be quick way to reduce population I suppose.
As long as they get junkie in a controlled manner then it should be fine. Its the thrill of being a rebel which makes those junkies a addict.
Printable View
Legalising drugs will be quick way to reduce population I suppose.
As long as they get junkie in a controlled manner then it should be fine. Its the thrill of being a rebel which makes those junkies a addict.
Granted, banalizing the stuff into a legal, largely safe, as-such accepted phenomenom ought to remove most of the "forbidden fruit" attraction.
And then you can drive usage rates down with the same methods that are working right fine with tobacco.
People saying: Yes to soft drugs, no to hard drugs, need to agree on what constitutes a hard drug.
I've seen people say that cocaine isn't all that bad, and that LSD isn't a hard drug. Both of these are fairly nasty to the best of my knowledge.
If you ask me that'd be a largely pointless solution anyway; roughly comparable to making beer legal and keeping hard liquors banned.
Three guesses if the gun-toting kneecapping gangsters are going to go anywhere with that arrangement...?
Here it is between weed and the rest. But we have another thingie as well, for example in some city's they are giving junks heroin for free, I don't like it but the wellbeing of the user is of lesser importance then the trouble he causes. And cocaine indeed isn't that bad, been using it weekends since I was 18, and most of my friends as well. Pretty harmless, but it can make some people agressive when combined with alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Charlie will feck you up mate. Trust me.
Every time I read this thread, Cypress Hill songs go through my head...
Hmm, I think this issue would be a lot less contentious if the decriminalization were restricted to marijuana, which is a massively popular drug. Not as destructive as alcohol, not as addictive as nicotine, a long history in our culture, I'd say it's a prime candidate for decriminalization.
Legalizing all drugs would be almost impossible to pull off, both practically and politically. Let's not get into the same trap abortion fell into decades ago, an all-or-nothing fallacy. Realistic, pragmatic compromise is what democracy is all about, after all.
Let the potheads have their weed and call it a day.
The survey I saw said that 30% of of Americans had tried Marijuana and 70% hadn't. It also said 30% of Americans supported legalization and 70% didn't. Funny stuff. Don't think the numbers are high enough for legalization though.Quote:
Hmm, I think this issue would be a lot less contentious if the decriminalization were restricted to marijuana, which is a massively popular drug. Not as destructive as alcohol, not as addictive as nicotine, a long history in our culture, I'd say it's a prime candidate for decriminalization.
Sure, fine, force me to go look up the polls. Here's the gallup from '05 (warning: PDF). As of two years ago, 35% are in favor of decriminalization, 60% opposed. Independents are more likely than Republicans or Democrats to favor decriminalization, no surprise there.
Positions vary widely from state to state. There seems to be substantially more support for allowing states to set their own policies than a nationwide fiat.
Decriminalisation of 'soft' drugs is totally pointless. It does nothing to guarantee quality and purity, does nothing to dissolve criminal networks and does nothing to combat crime and self harm from those addicted to 'hard' drugs.
The real question with legalisation is whether it is better for the government to be directly responsible for drug users and their levels of crime and mortality, or for criminal gangs to be responsible.
Well call it boiled coke over here, it is much more potent and yeah that is trash but hardly anyone uses it. It would amaze you how many 'normal' people use a line in the weekends, it hardly has any effect except a temporalily boost for the long hours. 'Charlie' and heroin is simply not done here, and I had to learn here what meth is. No problem here. In fact I think xtc is much much worse, use xtc and the next day you feel like youknow, completily empty and drained, no such problems with a little sniff.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
What a strange thing to say. Are you aware of how much money there is in marijuana? Are you aware of how much criminal activity is funded this way? By your logic, Al Capone should not have benefited from Prohibition in the 1920s, since alcohol's status as legal or illegal would be immaterial to the Chicago mob.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
And what's with the red herring about how partial legalization won't affect those addicted to hard drugs? Oh, so taking several hundred billion dollars out of the black market doesn't matter? We have to legalize everything or criminalize everything, otherwise ... what, exactly?
By your logic, why shouldn't we re-criminalize alcohol and tobacco? Since apparently the size and quality of the criminal economic sphere does not matter.
The funniest thing is that people in favor of changing the laws In the US would be more interested in changing the opinions and practices of 60% of the population than they would be about changing the opinions and practices of 7.3% of the population.
I've never personally used anything "heavier" then cannabis because I don't trust myself enough for it, I know I've got a tendency for addiction. But if I wanted to I could get either effortlessly. I know at least a dozen people who've done cocaine, XTC or both but except two they're all occasional users, and even the other two I wouldn't call "addicted" in the strict sense.
Drugs can certainly plunge you in the gutter, but more often then not addicts have at least one foot in the gutter before their first snort.
lol let me guess, you got 'adhd'? I will risk my left nut on at least these idiots telling you so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I'm pretty sure the law wouldn't force the 60% to begin taking drugs...Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
No, it's not that. Nor do I have any other mental condition as far as I'm aware. I've been smoking pretty heavily for the last two years though, and everytime I try to quit I end up starting again with an increased consumption rate. Most people say that cocaine's less addictive then nicotine, but trying it myself no thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I hope you still have your right one ~;)
[QUOTE=Kralizec]No, it's not that. Nor do I have any other mental condition as far as I'm aware. I've been smoking pretty heavily for the last two years though, and everytime I try to quit I end up starting again with an increased consumption rate. Most people say that cocaine's less addictive then nicotine, but trying it myself no thanks.
I may be nuts but I am not stupid, at least not completily and I have to have an ear which does tend to register just about everything, you can't fool me. You got 'adhd', no? Well that is bull.
i never used the word force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Well have it that is fine as well, my bank-account salutes you $$$Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I think that if Kralizec offers his opinion and experience, it is not polite to accuse him of trying to fool anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Especially when you are apparently trying to justify and promote cocaine use - which is borderline, even within the context of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
cocaine use is foolish, regardless of what cocaine users think.
I am someone who enjoys it in the weekends something a sxual being such as yourselve should at least apreciate, but there is nothing I can do so file me right there, I won't try to resist anyway. It's like alcohol, if you aren't a complete idiot there is no problem, in the case of cociane even less so then alcohol. It is a heroin or meth problem, that would be right over there where you live so deal with it. Not going to say sorry when you guys mess up.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
@Fragony:
Some people are inherently more addiction prone then others (something to do with certain neurotransmitters in your brain, I don't remember it exactly) and I know myself well enough to stay away from stuff like cocaine. I couldn't care less about what you do with either your money or your nose.
so sad...the "Drugs support terrorists" argument-a US propaganda campaign designed to kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Ever see the commercials where you see a kid smoking weed and then he says "i supported terrorists", well that is total :daisy:. most informed people (in the US) know that over 90% of the cannabis consumed in the US is grown in either the US or Mexico. the hard drugs support terrorism argument is also full of holes. for instance, obtaining coca leaf from the small farmer or indigenous Andean tribesfolk cuts out the cartels, same with the Opium poppy (which can be grown almost anywhere) the finished product could be refined/produced locally from raw materials, and COULD BE CONTROLLED so that it is not necessarily (instantaneously) deadly, some actual standards of safety could be enforced. This program of regulating the means of refinement could also create jobs by having local facilities and employing local people. + additional tax revenue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
EDIT: I don't know all that much about hard drugs, so some of this post could be total BS, but really, filling up the jails so full that violent criminals and thieves have to be released early so that you can fill more cells with pot smokers, ******* BRILLIANT.
Haven't read the rest of the thread so forgive me if I say anything that has been previously discused
IMO, some drugs may be legalized for worthwhile purposes like medical marijuana, but all drugs should not. The thing is, illegal drugs are Illegal for a reason: they're very addictive and deadly if taken improperly.
One can say that people can control their addiction and not become overly dependent on the drug, but that is wrong. It's like alcoholics who swear that they're never going to drink again, but then only last for a day or two before drinking heavily again. People overestimate the power of the human mind. These aren't some run of the mill drugs, but serious chemicals that will mess up your brain so even if you never had the intention of becoming seriously addicted, you still will
What crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
Please, someone show this guy some links to explaining how marijuana was outlawed in the U.S. It doesnt have ANYTHING to do with the well-being of american citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
IIRC there were quite a few drugs outlawed without having been really tested at all or not enough tests run too conclusively prove anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
Well over 75% of the problems caused by drugs are caused by the prohibition of those drugs and their being controlled by the black market. People in favour of prohibition see all the problems as being innate to the drugs (and of course only the illegal ones are actually 'drugs'). They say - our problems are bad enough now - if we legalised it, things would get worse from here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MerlinusCDXX
But what government will take responsibility? What will they do when we get 200 deaths a year from government supplied heroin (rather than the current 800 deaths)?
The sad truth of politics is that politicians would rather 5000 deaths and 100,000 crimes that they could say weren't their fault, than 10 deaths that could be attributed to them by tabloid headlines.
c'mon...if the way the US gov't has acted in foreign policy in recent yrs is any indication ie the coverups (silencing the dissenting media), "it's not our fault" tm , well lookee here, *(insert heinous crime/criminal of the day) is down, we've made real strides in this area. don't you think it would be even easier just to release only the "drug policy" related information that was meant to be disseminated. all it would take is a statement like, our new drug policy is working, the police now have the resources to investigate more *_____________ , why just last week we've apprehended more *________ than we have all last year. add in a feel-good news piece about some new revolutionary method of treatment for addiction, a nice shiny new "rehab center" works well for this. oh, and the prison population in this country is now at an all-time low.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
if I could figure out how to spin this to the masses, don't you think gov't officials could come up with something even more convincing?
I disagree, drug addicts are responsible for a very large percentage of crimes, and desperate people trying to get money to pay for the next piece of drugs commit some of the most brutal, inhumane and disgusting crimes there are in society. The only crimes that are worse, are those committed by child molestors. Morevoer, the war on drugs is extremely easy to win, if you concentrate on hitting their weakest part: the actual drug users. The following policies could be used:Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
- If anyone is found on drugs, stash them away in prison forcibly or send them to forced labor. The drug users are weak, drug-high and with the decreased mental capabilities that drug-highness causes they won't know what hit them.
- When the buyers and thus the demand goes away, the suppliers will start fighting each others over the few remaining buyers, and the police can save plenty of money.
- Combine this strategy with making sure people get higher hopes for the future and don't need to drench depressions in drugs, and you will also decrease the amount of new-production of buyers.
- Also consider passing laws censoring all explicit drug use scenes in movies.
If all those methods don't work, start having undercover policemen act as drug dealers, but handing out lethal substances with guaranteed-to-kill overdoses instead of drugs. Then with enough casualties we'll spread fear of drug usage among all childish youth drug users, and then we'll see just how cool these young people think it is to start taking drugs at parties. There should be no moral reason to be against this, considering just how lethal drugs are anyway, so you aren't exactly fooling the buyers when they ask for lethal drugs and get lethal stuff. At the same time, the state can earn some money by having these foolish drug users pay money for these lethal dose fake drugs, instead of paying this money to drug dealer criminals.
I'd say this would solve the drug problem quite effectively in less than 5 years, without much spending and without any immoral actions or innocent victims.
The criminals are responsable even if they're under the influence of some substance which can enduce euphoria or another altered state, that doesn't make them less guilty, most of the time all their actions under the influence can be considered the manifestation of their personality, that's enough. So the argument you're making is no different than what can be said of alcoholics or other addicts, the only difference is that drug addiction is more expensive for the addict, a problem that can be solved by legalizing it. Hitting the weaker spot, the addicts as you say, is unfair and has showed how much injustice it brings to the crowded prisons of many countries, mine for example. The weaker spot is not guilty of anything according to my Constitution (and I know the US Constitution has at least one amendment in the same vein) and they can't be judged, their actions are private, but it seems it's a constitutional violation that we all can live with...err, unless you're the poor wretch under the addiction and get convicted to who knows how many years in jail. Try to explain me why don't you see that as unfair and then we can continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
That's not progressive, nor effective, neither original. Is just what many countries are doing right now. But most of all, it's not just.Quote:
The following policies could be used:
- If anyone is found on drugs, stash them away in prison forcibly or send them to forced labor. The drug users are weak, drug-high and with the decreased mental capabilities that drug-highness causes they won't know what hit them.
The demand will never go away, you thing nobody has thought that? That's the main problem with drugs. Eventually you'll have to jail almost all your population, specially the poor and marginalized (which already suffer enough under their condition).Quote:
- When the buyers and thus the demand goes away, the suppliers will start fighting each others over the few remaining buyers, and the police can save plenty of money.
Not all people enter drugs for depression, many do it to experiment, others do it because a friend introduces them to it and others... well others are just forced into doing drugs. Did you consider that last possibility?Quote:
- Combine this strategy with making sure people get higher hopes for the future and don't need to drench depressions in drugs, and you will also decrease the amount of new-production of buyers.
Are you being sarcastic?Quote:
- Also consider passing laws censoring all explicit drug use scenes in movies.
Ok, you definitively are being sarcastic...There's no way you're being serious on this last post.Quote:
If all those methods don't work, start having undercover policemen act as drug dealers, but handing out lethal substances with guaranteed-to-kill overdoses instead of drugs. Then with enough casualties we'll spread fear of drug usage among all childish youth drug users, and then we'll see just how cool these young people think it is to start taking drugs at parties. There should be no moral reason to be against this, considering just how lethal drugs are anyway, so you aren't exactly fooling the buyers when they ask for lethal drugs and get lethal stuff. At the same time, the state can earn some money by having these foolish drug users pay money for these lethal dose fake drugs, instead of paying this money to drug dealer criminals.
Like the consumers?Quote:
...or innocent victims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
Stalin would've been proud. :tongue:
If you take drugs, you remove most of your self-control, and so can't be judged for your actions while on drugs. That's why the very taking of drugs should be considered a horrible crime, since it is an ugly, hypocritical trick to try and remove responsibility for your actions from yourself. Given how many crimes are committed on drugs, to make yourself high unless locked inside in your home safely, should be considered a crime. Also, making yourself become addict should be considered a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Legalizing drugs to make them cheaper, that sounds like an anti-solution. They will still cost a lot because some of them are quite expensive to produce even if legal. The probem will remain to a large extent still, unless all non-drug-addicts are to work their ***** off to provide free drugs for the addicts. And so the drug addicts will keep killing innocent people for $10 more contribution to their next drug dose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
How so unfair? They're part of the supply chain that ends up making our children take drugs and die. The more idiots who take drugs around my children, the more likely my children are to have some maniac put drugs in their glasses at the bar or a party, or herd mentality dragging my children into drugs. I say we have all right in the world to use self-defense to protect our children against this menace. It is only sound military strategy when fighting an enemy, to hit the weakest part of their line. We have failed to block their logistics, so we should focus on fighting their frontline, which is extremely weak, and driving it back. And I think we'll in fact help those drug addicts by taking the drugs away from them and locking them up in jail until they learn to forget about drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Lol, how so is it not just to lock up people who deliberately deprive themselves of their self-control so they will become uncontrollable monsters that kill people for $10?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Most people don't take drugs, even if you count people who "experiment". If you count out all non-regular addict drug users, then you end up with a very small minority of the population. If they wouldn't cost society so much with their parasitism, the state would be able to send that tax money directly to their benefit, and make their poverty-situation history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
We need to put an end to friends introducing it, and experimenting, as well as drugs due to depression. I have proposed substantial, concrete measures for achieving this. When it comes to people forced into drugs, you can hardly mean we should keep it that way? The police should stand up for and protect any victims of such horrendous crimes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
No, I'm not being sarcastic. If you use drugs and try to destroy your own country and yourself, and deprive yourself of free will, self-control and responsibility for your actions, then you're not innocent. Then you're a hyocrite who tries to escape judgement for your crimes by stating you lost control due to drugs, failing to keep in mind you deliberately chose to put yourself into such a state when you are likely to commit crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
hm... :inquisitive: The last point may sound brutal, and perhaps not needed, but if it is, it would save thousands of innocent lives, and protect hundreds of thousands of innocent, uncertain children from ending up within drugs against their will, because they couldn't resist herd mentality. The current system is far more brutal than even a system including the last point. Now, the system is trying to remove people from the gene pool just because they aren't strong enough to withstand the herd mentality pressure. But all people have some period in life when they're uncertain and can't think for themselves, so nobody is really safe from being killed by drugs as it is now, no matter how much you like to call yourself above herd mentality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Letting drug users take drugs, you give "freedom" to the minority <1% who want to use drugs, but in doing so also take away freedom from 10% of the population, not to mention how many innocent victims of drug crime that are killed each year because the drug addicts aren't dealt with.
I think it's disgusting beyond reason that some Hollywood productions try to glority drugs, or even displaying it as a good way to drench depressions. Showing drug usage as something glorious is neither artistic nor of any use in society-critical movies with a message.
If there's any proposal that would make Stalin proud, it's the current system when drug using zoombies just go to work every day, are too dumbed down by drugs to question society, and either just do as they're told, or be really brutal and disgusting criminals almost on par with child molestors, that can be used as propaganda to justify and gain legitimacy for making a more centralized police state and infring the freedom of the people, instead of solving the problem while maintaining our freedom and a minimal government.
Don't think this will work too well in the risk seeking culture we have in the US. A more sedate country shouldn't have too much problem with this general theory. It would still be pretty horrible though. Who knows if it would be worse than the current situation.
The whole money angle is silly. Why don't we just bring back slavery?
This is the core of the issue here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
If you take drugs, you remove most of your self-control, and so can't be judged for your actions while on drugs.
Really ? Whats your personal experience here Rodion ?
Ive taken ecstacy amphetamines and cannabis and the most of out control ive ever been is on alcohol. The ecstacy and phet just make me energetic lively and well a nicer happier person, Cannabis just makes me relaxed and a mix of happy and giggly. Alcohol also makes me happy but it makes me more aggressive as well ive never lost control of alcohol but i can tell im less in control.
Which sounds like the dangerous mind altering drug there ?
That's why the very taking of drugs should be considered a horrible crime, since it is an ugly, hypocritical trick to try and remove responsibility for your actions from yourself. Given how many crimes are committed on drugs, to make yourself high unless locked inside in your home safely, should be considered a crime.
This would apply to drink more if we take into account higher prices due to prohibiton as a cause of alot of drug funding crime.
Legalizing drugs to make them cheaper, that sounds like an anti-solution.
well its the solution to drug funding crime
They will still cost a lot because some of them are quite expensive to produce even if legal.
Drugs would be a hell of alot cheaper if legal, every single dealer along the chain take his cut (and a big one its risk pay as well) the ones who buy of the main supplier get dirt cheap prices compared to street prices, with the goverment in control the customer would only be one step down the chain.
The probem will remain to a large extent still, unless all non-drug-addicts are to work their ***** off to provide free drugs for the addicts.
We could probably pay for most drugs just with money saved on policing drugs and theres the tax we would charge on the drugs, but i believe that people should still have to buy the drugs for themself not get them free, unsure about heroin as thats a different matter.
Lol, how so is it not just to lock up people who deliberately deprive themselves of their self-control so they will become uncontrollable monsters that kill people for $10?
I assume your talking about heroin here, the self control bit applys to alochol as well but the unctrollable alcoholic monsters can get thier drink cheaply so they don't need to kill people for $10
If they wouldn't cost society so much with their parasitism, the state would be able to send that tax money directly to their benefit, and make their poverty-situation history.
I now we waste a hell of alot of money on drug policing but enough to eliminate poverty ? if thats true then i just ive just lost any hope i had for humanity....
We need to put an end to friends introducing it, and experimenting
legalisation would add age restrictions to it though obviously kids could still get thier hands on it i remember before i turned 18 it was sometimes easier to get an illegal substance then a legal drink. I would have drugs sold through pharmacys with tough age legislation only 21 and over.
I have proposed substantial, concrete measures for achieving this.
No democratic goverment would try it for obvious reasons but lets have a look back at the plan.
If anyone is found on drugs, stash them away in prison forcibly or send them to forced labor.
If you think about it we kind of do, swap forced labour for community service. Im assuming you mean much harsher sentencing though ? since when did the threat of the law stop people taking drugs (as it doesn't now) if you had harsher sentencing it would just make the need to get away if almost caught all that more.
The drug users are weak, drug-high and with the decreased mental capabilities that drug-highness causes they won't know what hit them.
Wrong Wrong and wrong, lets start with weak shall we ? I am one of the most stubborn strong willed people i now
decreased mental capabilities ? just checked and im still far more intelligent than alot of non-drug users i now
When the buyers and thus the demand goes away, the suppliers will start fighting each others over the few remaining buyers, and the police can save plenty of money.
locking a few buyers up will not make the demand go away, going to catch all the buyers ? i think the goverments trying that it doesn't seem to be working though...
If all those methods don't work, start having undercover policemen act as drug dealers, but handing out lethal substances with guaranteed-to-kill overdoses instead of drugs.
Only a few sickos would do that but assuming you find hitler reborn and send him out with his lethal substances, people are going to find out pretty soon not to go to him, i think maximum he could sell to/kill 1 or 2 people before being discovered as unfortunatly drug takers are not as stupid as you seem to think, that guy would need to be moved and have protection as he would be just as big a vigilante target as your average child molester.
Then with enough casualties we'll spread fear of drug usage among all childish youth drug users, and then we'll see just how cool these young people think it is to start taking drugs at parties.
Don't drugs have deaths off them anyway, don't the kids get told these substances have killed people, doesn't all this make it seem cool and dangerous to kids. Don't these kids still take drugs anyway ?
There should be no moral reason to be against this, considering just how lethal drugs are anyway, so you aren't exactly fooling the buyers when they ask for lethal drugs and get lethal stuff.
So there would be no morale case against filling cigerettes with a lethal substance ? (a quicker lethal substance)
Wouldn't that also apply to alcohol ? as alcohol is more deadly than some of the substances ?
the only way there could be no moral case against it is if the drug user was going to die of his next 'hit' anyway
At the same time, the state can earn some money by having these foolish drug users pay money for these lethal dose fake drugs, instead of paying this money to drug dealer criminals.
The state can earn loads of money (or stop wasting so much money and earn a little bit) its called legalisation :D
I'd say this would solve the drug problem quite effectively in less than 5 years
No it wouldn't. Im sure in some of the most repressive regimes in the world they still have a drug problem even with thier stalin style solutions to the problem
Ive taken ecstacy amphetamines and cannabis and the most of out control ive ever been is on alcohol. The ecstacy and phet just make me energetic lively and well a nicer happier person, Cannabis just makes me relaxed and a mix of happy and giggly. Alcohol also makes me happy but it makes me more aggressive as well ive never lost control of alcohol but i can tell im less in control
I don't do emphetamines or xtc because it makes me aggresive but I do occasionally use coke or GHB, and I enjoy the occasional joint, once a week or so, nothing to it if you keep your head. Like with all things moderation is key.
Not everyone uses it as a trick... But let me ask you a question: You say that when you're under the influence of such substances you lose self-control correct? Then how can anyone use it as a trick to justify their acts? Since they're not acting by definition, they cannot control themselves. But you're incorrect anyway, if the person knows what the effects of the drugs are (which the odds say that in this day an age with the many campaings of the desinformation by the States and the international organizations he doesn't) then he should not take it in the first place, he cannot be forced to not take it though, just like you shouldn't be forced to use a safety belt. Legalizing it will force the vendors to inform the consumers of the effects and side-effects of their products as all legal products so you'll have one less problem to worry about: misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
Why is that? I assume you believe that all psychotropic drugs lead to the fantastic effect of the "psychotropic trip" in which you see illussions and are induced into an schizophrenic state... This is untrue, just look around the internet and make your own investigation on the true effect of currently illegal drugs. Even if they do, they're still a personal issue, if you consume and you commit a crime you're responsable, again if you knew the effects of the product you consumed, which as I said, is a problem with the current state of things since you cannot be more desinformed: rule one of talking about anything, try to taste that thing before you talk about what it does, if you cannot then read about people who give you their expericiences or scientists who interview them or run tests on the drugs and publish honest conclusions (i.e. a conclusion which is deduced from the content of the test).Quote:
Given how many crimes are committed on drugs, to make yourself high unless locked inside in your home safely, should be considered a crime. Also, making yourself become addict should be considered a crime.
First of all, don't take the words out of context, what I said is that it will be a solution for the poor bastard who has to steal to get his next fix, not to the general drug issue.Quote:
Legalizing drugs to make them cheaper, that sounds like an anti-solution.
I don't know their cost, do you? But I don't need too, is just common sense, today the price of the drugs responds to an infinite demand and to the will of the producers who aren't nice people and will do as they see fit with the prices, even if it seems too much for you, if you were an addict I bet you'll buy it anyway.Quote:
They will still cost a lot because some of them are quite expensive to produce even if legal.
Why free drugs? I bet you're still of the mind that a criminal is not responsable for being under the influence of a substance willingly consumed...Quote:
The probem will remain to a large extent still, unless all non-drug-addicts are to work their ***** off to provide free drugs for the addicts.
Killing people? The addicts? The ones who can't even see their fingers? Why? How? When? You're just throwing hyperbole here...Quote:
And so the drug addicts will keep killing innocent people for $10 more contribution to their next drug dose.
Do you have children? Did they enter that "chain"? If they did, how would you feel about them? Of course they're part of the chain, they're the ones exercising their personal freedoms to consume whatever the hell they want, they're not commiting any crime, but then again this is the point of contradiction beetween most Constitutions and the Penal statutes of every State.Quote:
How so unfair? They're part of the supply chain that ends up making our children take drugs and die.
The more it adds to my argument that the consumers are just innocent, ignorant and poorly treated. Each an every case of a consumer thrown behind bars is an small tragedy in itself.Quote:
The more idiots who take drugs around my children, the more likely my children are to have some maniac put drugs in their glasses at the bar or a party, or herd mentality dragging my children into drugs.
You're confusing concepts here, self-defense or third party defense can only be exercised on the act, it has nothing to do with societal criminal prevention as you suggest.Quote:
I say we have all right in the world to use self-defense to protect our children against this menace.
Saddly, beyond the title, this is not a real war, and if it was the consumers would be only bystanders.Quote:
It is only sound military strategy when fighting an enemy, to hit the weakest part of their line.
I'll suggest that you stop thinking of this as a war, or a strategic game, it has nothing of war and it has nothing of game.Quote:
We have failed to block their logistics, so we should focus on fighting their frontline, which is extremely weak, and driving it back.
Yes, I think that if someone did that to me I'll be forever grateful to them. Are you serious?Quote:
And I think we'll in fact help those drug addicts by taking the drugs away from them and locking them up in jail until they learn to forget about drugs.
Uncontrollable monsters?Quote:
Lol, how so is it not just to lock up people who deliberately deprive themselves of their self-control so they will become uncontrollable monsters that kill people for $10?
Are you sure? Do you've proof? Do you want to bet on the quantity of drug users between the lower classes of your society or mine? Does it make it justifiable that the quantity of people consuming is small? This are all important questions that you deny with you passion.Quote:
Most people don't take drugs, even if you count people who "experiment". If you count out all non-regular addict drug users, then you end up with a very small minority of the population. If they wouldn't cost society so much with their parasitism, the state would be able to send that tax money directly to their benefit, and make their poverty-situation history.
Those measures you proposed are nothing new, they've been implemented, tested and proved to fail once and again. You can think of the restriction imposed by the Constitutions on personal liberties (i.e. the State will not rule over them) as a pragmatic disposition, but it's much more than that, it's a question of principles, principles won with the blood of many innocent generations, principles that you fail to recognize it seems.Quote:
We need to put an end to friends introducing it, and experimenting, as well as drugs due to depression. I have proposed substantial, concrete measures for achieving this. When it comes to people forced into drugs, you can hardly mean we should keep it that way? The police should stand up for and protect any victims of such horrendous crimes!
I think I've answered all your points above, the thing with prohibiting scenes with drugs in movies is overly interventionist, haven't you heard of the thousands of times on which a government tried to restrict freedom of speech and the serious consequences it entails.Quote:
No, I'm not being sarcastic. If you use drugs and try to destroy your own country and yourself, and deprive yourself of free will, self-control and responsibility for your actions, then you're not innocent. Then you're a hyocrite who tries to escape judgement for your crimes by stating you lost control due to drugs, failing to keep in mind you deliberately chose to put yourself into such a state when you are likely to commit crimes.
I think you seriously have to take a look at the broader picture here.
EDIT: Spelling
Just because you can handle it doesn't mean all can. And it doesn't mean everyone want their children having to be exposed of pressure from friends that they're not cool unless they take drugs. People must be allowed to not take drugs if they don't want to, and have the freedom to make this decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
No, I just think you want it because you want to pay less for your drug usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
A lot of things are expensive despite low production and transport costs. It's about supply and demand. Drug addicts usually are prepared to pay high prices because they're addicted. Prices are likely remain quite high even if there's legalization.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Primarily heroin, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Is it more democratic to be overly PC and give "freedom to use drugs" and thereby remove "freedom to not be forced into drugs by friends and pressure"? To take away freedom for 10% to pursue extremistic PC ideology of "freedom". It's not freedom, it's repression to make the people slaves under drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
I mean when you're high. The police will not have much trouble capturing you when you've lost coordination and control over your mind after becoming high. And if you do resist and become inhumanely strong by one of those drugs that make you stop feeling pain, well then they have a right to use their guns in self-defense. Like I said: just send the police out and the drug addicts won't know what hit them.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
All we need to do is reduce the number of buyers, and protect innocent children from exposure to drug-glorifying propaganda or pressure from "friends" (not really friends, if they try to make you start taking drugs).Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
There are plenty of policemen, once one has been discovered, there is always a new one. Sounds sick to you? Well, then what about the drug addicts that fool friends and strangers into drugs with their victims later dying of an overdose after 5 years in the gutter? Or families shot to death by drug addicts for $10? That's what I call sick. Drug addicts who can't tolerate people who aren't addicted, and at all costs want to spread their drug usage to others. People who try to infringe the freedom of choice of their fellow citizens, and threaten democracy. People who fear nothing more than the righteous, deserved judgement for their sins.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Most people think they can take drugs once, then never get addicted to it. They know overdoses usually don't come until after years of addiction, because that is a well-known truth. But many of them on their first try become addicts despite their prior beliefs, or become addicts after "trying" 5 times, suddenly before they realize it it became a habit because they discovered they "didn't get addicted after all when taking it only once a month, so now I might as well start taking it every week because I don't seem to get addicted". And then even though they didn't mean to, they end up taking that overdose 2-5 years later, often after killing many innocent people. If there would be poison in their drugs so they could potentially die on their first try, that would be a very effective deterrent, and it would to 100% defeat the glorification and herd mentality part of drug spreading. It's mainly the latter we want to end.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Cigarettes kill more slowly, and although spread by herd mentality and pressure from friends, it's not quite as addictive and dangerous. Besides, cigarettes are accepted by general consensus of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
That's because they keep recreating a demand from drugs, by having repressive regimes and stimulate depression among the people. To have the population indoctrinated and enslaved under drugs because of naive political correctness, is a Stalinist "solution".Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Hm, but wouldn't both conservative forces, socialists and liberals endorse the idea of protecting the children from drugs and destroying the organized crimes? Or do the hippies have too much influence? Drugs kill hundreds of thousands each year, directly or indirectly. Terrorism kills less than 1000. Yet there's a Guantanamo where people are kept and tortured with little or no evidence of terrorism, while the government hesitates to with a firm hand strike down at the parasites who try to make their children get hooked up on drugs, parasitic people who won't tolerate non-addicts and try to destroy the entire next generation, turning them into slaves under drugs, and undermining the democracy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I agree, money is the least important argument. The most important argument is that of the drug users, the majority have been fooled into it by drug glorification and persuasion from so-called friends (real friends don't want you in the gutter and addicted to drugs).Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Rather logical that junkies tried it at some point. And the drugs that instantly hook you are a myth there is no such things. I have been a what we call recreational user since I was 16 never got me addicted in any way. Did get me into trouble though because I have a rather short fuse and things like speed and xtc don't help there, got into a few fights and stopped doing it. Coke and pot, mellow. GHB (and coke) is great with sex, none of these are (very) addicting.
It should be illegal to damage oneself in a manner that makes you later become a danger to others. People may be free to kill themselves, but not turn themselves into addict monsters who kill people for $10. As for seatbelts, if you sit without a seatbelt in a car behind someone else's seat, and you come into a crash, you are likely to kill the person in the seat ahead of you, whereas if you keep a seat belt, the person in front of you has much greater chances of survival.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Yeah right! As if a package of cigarettes contain full info on all indirect and direct damages made to the smoker. I doubt drug packages will contain more than a carefully selected subset of the effects of drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Wow, I didn't realize the world had seen such great moral decline, as to start speaking about that "wow, some drugs really aren't making you a monster, so of course we must try them, and it's oppression if we can't".Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Drug related crimes are among the worst crimes in society, and account for almost all murder cases where someone gets killed by a complete stranger. The drug addict criminals get desperate and often think so stupidly and desperately that they'll kill plenty of children, policemen and innocents to try and get rid of witnesses, usually they end up caught anyway. They completely lose all rationality when they become addicts, and lose all human characteristics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
If my children would get hooked up in drugs, I would kill the persons who introduced the drugs to them, and send my children to a detoxication clinic. If the detoxication failed and they would have ended up addicts, I would be very happy over any policeman putting them in jail, where they can't access drugs, and stay there for a very, very long time until they realize how worthless drugs are. If they would become brutish heroin addicts who can't recognize their father or right from wrong, I wouldn't hesitate to kill them in self-defense if need be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Do you realize how stupid that sounds? "Oh, the poor drug addicts, most of them are led into it by friends, tricked by herd mentality, so we can't under any circumstances strike hard against the drug addicts and prevent them from glorifying drugs and bringing others into addiction". That's what you just said. The thing is, once you become a drug addict, you become one of them, and you start trying to trick others into becoming drug addicts too, losing all loyalty to your former self. To mix in some weird PC morality into this seems pretty contra-productive. The drug users need to be contained and limited, and the non-users must be protected from them. For this to be possible, the users must be struck firmly and their glorification campaigns hampered. They're the attacker, we are the defenders. We didn't want this war, they brought it upon us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Wow, you just made the typical Political Correctness fallacy statement: "we shouldn't stop the horrible thing that drugs are, because doing so would be to destroy our constitution". That's BS, I say. If there's one thing that threatens the constitution it's the transformation of the people into a morally declined drug-high horde of zoombies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
It's not a matter of restricting freedom of speech, but a matter of people using their freedom responsibly. With freedom comes responsibility. But if you make movies that glorify or display usage of drugs, then you're abusing freedom and threatening democracy for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Like you, who want a future where the entire people is a drug addict zoombie horde?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
:inquisitive: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Dear Rodian, I am one of these people that know what they are talking about for various reasons and among those many regrets but tons of experience nevertheless. Unlike you and that shows.
Yeah right, and 1+1=3
If you want it to be 3 anything will do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
lol, you're such a stereotype drug addict, "really people, believe me I can end any time I want, and it's just lies that it's dangerous, just try it. Omg you don't know it's dangerous if you haven't tried it so listen to me the drug addict instead of the physicians and experts..."
First of all two corrections to your incorrect statements:
1. heroin is a drug that has been reported to cause addiction on first try in several cases
2. most drug addiction of other drugs than heroin doesn't begin as a deliberate attempt to become a drug addict, but by experimenting. The people use it a few times, with long time intervals in between. Then they feel: wow, I made it, I don't get addicted. And so their confidence rises and they begin taking the drugs with shorter intervals, and convince friends to join them in it. When that starts happening, the addiction begins to evolve over a few years. Suddenly, after a few years, they discover that once a month has turned into once or more than once a week, and they're hooked up. But it is also common that they keep believing they can end any time they want until the very moment they take the final overdose and die.
And secondly, a word of friendly advice: try to end your drug addiction right now. You will most likely discover that you can't when you really try it. If so, have the self-discipline to seek help in a detox facility. If you still have any self-discipline left, use it before it's too late. You're a nice guy (though with some odd opinions I strongly disagree to :tongue: ), it would be shame to see you dying from drug usage.
Nice
Hmmm, that wasn't what it originally said, ah well I guess drugs isn't the only thing that makes people lose control. Nope, I am not an addict, sometimes use it in the weekends, when I go to party's, next day you are perfectly fine. Once every month or so, less probably.
I think alot of posters in this thread need to step back, and realize that not all drug users are evil people that lurk in shadows waiting to slit a old lady's throat for her purse-money.
Seriosly, normal people use drugs as well as homeless guys. Iv met many a person whos going to college, getting good grades, is sociable, and IS USING DRUGS. Unfortunately, they shy from telling anyone but their closest friends for fear of blatant stereotyping and criticism.
And as for the "First time your addicted", thats opinion. If your weak willed, you might get addicted the first time. And im curious as to where the sources are for this myth, as iv yet to see some. Im guessing its off some episode of "cops".
WowQuote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
Arrogant, yes?
Of course you are an addict. DRUGS ARE EVIL FRAGONY, BE AFRAID.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
(SARCASM) Using hard drugs once a month definitely makes you an addict. (sarcasm)
Rodian you're using hyperbole after hyperbole, making bold claims and not supporting them, I could easily ignore you and let you go on as you see fit since you're not interested in a debate, you're interested in a monologue. But I won't, this discussion about drugs legalization is as old as this forum but for some reason I can't look away when someone takes the extreme line on the topic.
Let's start by the principle: Following your statement, do you think that any personal freedom should be allowed at all? If yes, then why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
Again with the same frase. I wonder which case this is. I wonder if you paid any attention at how a person is still responsable for his acts under the influence of a psychotropic substance... I bet you didn't.Quote:
People may be free to kill themselves, but not turn themselves into addict monsters who kill people for $10.
A bit contrived, but out of topic so I'll just pass.Quote:
As for seatbelts, if you sit without a seatbelt in a car behind someone else's seat, and you come into a crash, you are likely to kill the person in the seat ahead of you, whereas if you keep a seat belt, the person in front of you has much greater chances of survival.
And you're right, people are also misinformed about the effects of smoking tabacco, but you still can easily know what every cigarrette contains, that's not the case with drugs. Today you can easily go buy some pot and get a mixed substance with some marihuana in it but a lot of other things you wouldn't want to smoke. Must importantly you're suffering the effects of the misinformation, the government only worries about making you feel that drugs are "evil" but they do not tell anything specific, it's just sensationalist.Quote:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Yeah right! As if a package of cigarettes contain full info on all indirect and direct damages made to the smoker. I doubt drug packages will contain more than a carefully selected subset of the effects of drugs.
It's opression if we can't and they do not make anyone more a monster than he already is. You just told it yourself. Monsters only exist in fairytales Rodian, you must realize that.Quote:
Wow, I didn't realize the world had seen such great moral decline, as to start speaking about that "wow, some drugs really aren't making you a monster, so of course we must try them, and it's oppression if we can't".
And the source is?Quote:
Drug related crimes are among the worst crimes in society, and account for almost all murder cases where someone gets killed by a complete stranger.
I see... The source?Quote:
The drug addict criminals get desperate and often think so stupidly and desperately that they'll kill plenty of children, policemen and innocents to try and get rid of witnesses, usually they end up caught anyway.
Really, have you seen any addict in your life? Why don't you hear the advice of people who have done drugs and have talked to you in this very same thread. Even if all that were truth, which it isn't, it still has nothing to do with drug legalization.Quote:
They completely lose all rationality when they become addicts, and lose all human characteristics.
Wouldn't it be better if you punish them the usual way? Do you know what jail is? Are you seriously a father?Quote:
If my children would get hooked up in drugs, I would kill the persons who introduced the drugs to them, and send my children to a detoxication clinic. If the detoxication failed and they would have ended up addicts, I would be very happy over any policeman putting them in jail, where they can't access drugs, and stay there for a very, very long time until they realize how worthless drugs are.
So you abruptly fall from your moral mountain and hit the ground... Again, are you seriously a father?Quote:
If they would become brutish heroin addicts who can't recognize their father or right from wrong, I wouldn't hesitate to kill them in self-defense if need be.
That doesn't sound stupid to me, but I wouldn't find it strange for someone who admits he'll give his sons to the police or kill them if necessary to also find that statement difficult to comprehend.Quote:
Do you realize how stupid that sounds? "Oh, the poor drug addicts, most of them are led into it by friends, tricked by herd mentality, so we can't under any circumstances strike hard against the drug addicts and prevent them from glorifying drugs and bringing others into addiction". That's what you just said.
Did you prove any of the illegal drugs? If not, then what gives you the authority to talk about them in such detail?Quote:
The thing is, once you become a drug addict, you become one of them, and you start trying to trick others into becoming drug addicts too, losing all loyalty to your former self.
You like to use the term "PC" don't you? Do you know what politically correct means? If so, do you know what compassion means?Quote:
To mix in some weird PC morality into this seems pretty contra-productive.
I see, because the drug user is the evil and the non-user is a good person, just like you right Rodian?Quote:
The drug users need to be contained and limited, and the non-users must be protected from them.
I wonder what experience has made that impression on you, since when does society glorify drug users?Quote:
For this to be possible, the users must be struck firmly and their glorification campaigns hampered.
But didn't you say that the consumers are part of the chain, that the chain must be cut at their level and that many consumers turn to drugs because they follow the counsel of someone else?Quote:
They're the attacker, we are the defenders. We didn't want this war, they brought it upon us.
Do you know what a fallacy is my friend Rodian? There's no logical problem with the argument I presented. I don't know from which country you come from but odds are you've such a Constitutional principle, the principle says "NO A" the statute says "A". A simple constradiction which shouldn't exist...Quote:
Wow, you just made the typical Political Correctness fallacy statement: "we shouldn't stop the horrible thing that drugs are, because doing so would be to destroy our constitution". That's BS, I say. If there's one thing that threatens the constitution it's the transformation of the people into a morally declined drug-high horde of zoombies.
Wake me up when the movie about "zoombies" ends please...
Nobody is glorifying anything but you. You're glorifying the use of violent means to achieve unfair ends it's not even a case of using the wrong medium to achieve a wanted end. And what you propose is a case of simple and plain restriction of freedom of speech, and also untrue, for one you're making the same fallacy here, this is a fallacy: if people watch violent movies --> they commit violent crimes. People commit violent crimes --> so they must watch violent movies. That's the most typical case of logical fallacy and notice how I didn't use the case of drugs here, because, as you know, the same things have been said about the display of almost anything in any media since they were created. But enough of this, it has nothing to do with the topic.Quote:
It's not a matter of restricting freedom of speech, but a matter of people using their freedom responsibly. With freedom comes responsibility. But if you make movies that glorify or display usage of drugs, then you're abusing freedom and threatening democracy for everyone.
Oh...The movie, it was bad wasn't it..."zoombies" are so cliché...Quote:
Like you, who want a future where the entire people is a drug addict zoombie horde?
I find it funny how rodian speaks of violent crimes by druggies, yet I can truly say without a doubt that marijuana has turned me into a pacifist.
Marijuana should be legalized simply because the potheads I know are hilarious when stoned. ~;)
That said, it's not like the law is stopping them at all, nor are they hurting people.
...Should I?
Yeah, I will... I have nothing better to do right now...
Rodion, I am not even going to try to address all of what you have said, because that would be like trying to make headway through a blizzard. A blizzard of ignorance, in this case.
I will just tell you this. It is the honest-to-god truth.
I smoke marijuana. I DO NOT commit crime to support my habit. I DO NOT threaten others in any way. I DO NOT impose upon others to use drugs; in fact, I recently got into an argument with someone because they were trying to push someone else into drinking when they did not want to.
When I get high, the worst thing I will do is play "Big Brother and the Holding Company" full blast. Honestly, there's nothing funnier than seeing someone get pissed off about music that is almost 40 years old. Other than that, I may eat some baked chicken, watch a movie or go for a walk.
There you go. That is your stereotypical, depraved, borderline-psychotic drug addict, hell-bent on getting your children addicted to smack and angel dust and robbing his elderly rape victims at knife-point. What a load of crap.
You are the one that needs help, not me.
same here Gonzo, though I prefer my homemade lamb curry to baked chicken though * not only do I not impose on others to smoke herb, half the time I don't even wanna share, herb is EXPENSIVE given the current prohibition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Gonzo
@ Rodion
People need to stop blindly believing all the moralist propaganda about this subject and do some independent research before making sweeping moralistic statements. And for the love of God, STOP with the kill-em-all bit, it makes you sound like a violent psychopath with absolutely no grip on reality whatsoever.
Yeah yeah, suddenly it's "moralist propaganda" to not want your children hooked up in drugs and other decadence. What has the world come to? I though drug usage was still below 10%, as in most of Europe, but it turns out in the now growing up generation it's used by up to 40%... I daresay that if it has gone that far, even a religious fundamentalist Christian oppressive regime is better. But then I realize that USA is very much Christian and still doesn't take proper actions against the drugs.
It didn't really occur to me until now, how crazy sum you get when putting together the American laws of gun control, drug usage and Christian fundamentalism over there... So it's an infringement of freedom unless every citizen can be a Christian fundamentalist, drug himself and while doing so carrying a gun???
Wow, talk about political correctness gone far... And now I think I finally understand why the consevatives talk about hippies and liberal conspiracies, they're damn right. Unfortunately it seems that the republican party and Bush would be part of such a liberal conspiracy seeing as they took no proper actions against the drug menace or the hippie problem.
"Elp Elp I'm being repressed because I can't run around drug high with a gun all the while quoting bible verses on God's judgement of man!!!!"
Hypocrisy, this post of yours is drug glorification. You're indeed part of the problem with spreading drug usage to others by diminishing the dangers of its impact, and talking about how "fun" it is to get others hooked up. Think of how many read your post right now. Maybe 10 people. Out of them, statistically 1-4 may become drug addicts. Out of these 4, 1 may become a heroin user who kills innocent men, women and even children for $10 contribution to his next drug dose. If you really want to be able to retain your morality while using drugs, you have to use them hiddenly, not tell others that you're using them, and above all not try to diminish the danger of them. Finally, you're contributing to the herd mentality pressure. This generation, drug usage is going from less than 5-10% to almost 40% usage. People haven't changed in this time, but what has changed is the propaganda - now it's strongly pro-drugs, and drug addicts survive long enough - several years even on heroin - that young people, who usually have no concept of long term consequences of their actions - take their survival as proof that drugs are harmless, and so more get hooked up in the zoombie horde of drug addicts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Gonzo
Edit: by buying drugs, you're also supporting organized crime that infiltrates bribes and threatens politicians and thus democracy, crime gangs which also get protection money from innocent restaurant owners and shoot innocent witnesses. (by the way, legalization of drugs wouldn't remove these gangs, they still have other activities to do, such as protection money). If you've bought and used drugs for several years, chances are great you've part responsibility for 1. child labor creating drugs in some South American country, 2. some murder. The silliest thing of them all is when socialist hippies against world trade go take drugs: "omg it's so bad with child labor, STOP buying goods produced by children!" and then sing kumbaya and buy drugs thereby supporting child labor and mafia in South America, and murder in their own country.
---
Hopefully Iran will invade Europe and America in around 30 years to bring back morals (should be easy when a majority is drug high and can't aim their guns, much less coordinating large military operations), too bad only way we can get morals back is through becoming fundamentalist muslims and have death penalty and chopped off hands for stealing.
Yes, Marijuana could be legalized, since it only reduces intelligence, and doesn't cause violence (quite few known cases).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
It's true. Just having to read this stuff has forced me to trip some pretty serious paracetamol. :wink3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
Crikey. Are you channeling Navaros and all without the aid of psychotropic substances? :shocked2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
I don't know what Navaros thinks about drugs, but I agree to most of his very sensible opinions except about abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
More impressively, he's also the only Bible reader I've met who actually understood the methaphorical meaning of chapter 3-6 of Genesis.
Wow what a groupthink mentality...you seem to have no concept of people being individuals. If you really think every American is a drug using, gun-toting Christian fundamentalist you have some really serious problems in the information department. I would see a psychiatic professional if I were you, before you get yourself incarcerated for murdering someone (although it would only be some depraved dope fiend, so what's the big deal right?):dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
but seriously, thanks for bringin' me back to the roarin' '30's (Reefer Madness was a great flick-and sooooooo accurate[SARCASM] ):laugh4: :laugh4:
Given that you're the drug user, and reading things which aren't in my post, I think it's quite obvious who is imagining things.Quote:
Originally Posted by MerlinusCDXX
What do you think I'm imagining then? Just because I like to smoke a bit of herb now and again IN THE PRIVACY OF MY OWN HOME (not, as you say "running around with my gun in one hand and a Bible in the other") I suddenly have no ability to discern uneducated hatemongery from someone who seems brainwashed into going on a crusade to "rid the world of the evil dope fiend tm? I don't know what country you live in and what the drug policy is there, but if the majority feel similar to what you've posted, I should think living there would be hazardous to my health, why, I'd say I had a good chance of being lynched. While there may be problems here in the US, the majority of us at least have stopped lynching folks for no reason.
To me freedom means the abilty to live one's life as one chooses, provided he does not harm others. If you say I am harming others with my private activities, it's on YOU to provide proof. well, good day
Rodian this is me
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...agony/BLAH.jpg
this is the drughole where I live
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/002.jpg
In this godforsaken place
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/006.jpg
Feel free to pity me but I am having a blast, despite.
I don't pity you, because I know from previous posts of yours that you're a completely trouble-free upper class person who has nothing at all to worry about and has quite small chances statistically speaking of ending up in crime or drugs. Someone who keeps telling that all other people who commit anything bad are monsters and refuses to show understanding for anything because you haven't ever experienced any hardships worth mentioning, and the few sufferings you have experienced have been few and not consistently pressuring you and well compensated by a safe environment in all other aspects. Someone who has no idea what it means to let loose drugs among poor people without hope for the future, who live in a ghetto. Someone who is just a cynical person who cares nothing about the suffering of others and only for own short term pleasure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I do feel pity for the poor people who get hooked up into drugs seriously and later end up murdering someone or killing themselves.
For those glorify drugs, I don't feel pity, I feel disgust.
You are rather assuming by nature aren't you.
You are rather cynical about other people's suffering by nature aren't you.
I am rather cynical about you caring
You seem unable to phrase any longer or coherent posts with thinking more than 1 step, or to focus on arguments instead of persons.
You don't seem to understand that you just have been pwnd.
You seem to lack enough connection with reality to realize a political debate is about who has the strongest arguments not about who makes the most animalistic display of coolness. Which, by the way, you failed at too this time.
Me and reality connect just fine thank you
And which reality are you connected fine to right now?
The one where I am having fun with you probably