Are you sure I'm not a hallucination?
And ok, I will let you have the last word. Please post something after this post so we can finish this. I think on this level of discussion you will beat me with experience.
Printable View
Are you sure I'm not a hallucination?
And ok, I will let you have the last word. Please post something after this post so we can finish this. I think on this level of discussion you will beat me with experience.
Halucination no but I am not sure you are quite there
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. All the people i now who take drugs weren't talked into or asked to do it they made the decision to do it, anyone who doesn't want to take drugs and can just get talked into it would be worrying what else could you convince this person to do they obviously can't think for themself.
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.
Is there any drug impaticular your referring to here ? most drugs that i now the street prices of are quite expensive buying in small amounts but if you buy in a little bit of bulk you get quite a big saving, and the person on every step of the chain offers this so if your buying in bulk of the person who produces it would be dirt cheap, and that is with it being illegal. (im thinking manufactured drugs like xtc and phet) If they were made in bulk by one big distributor who wasn't worried about getting caught (and charging extra for it) prices would be dirt compared to what they are today.
Take weed as an example with a little equipment and some seeds weed can be grown very cheaply, for example lets say you pay 50 for some seeds then all you need is to keep a UV light running part of the time for a few months and give the thing some water. so for say 100 pound input you can get about 250 grams lets say. thats 1/4 of a kilo i have heard street prices on a kilo of just under 3,000 say those 250 grams would be worth 750 pound. So thats a 650 pound profit for one plant and selling it all in one go!
I now weed is a paticularly cheap drug but this is a good way of showing how the drug dealers work, they make ridiculous mark ups on price that would never happen in a legal situation.
Primarily heroin, yes.
well heroin is a bit different but heroin would be alot cheaper legalised so the uncontrollable monster wouldn't need to kill anyone for $10, i would probably support people being given thier heroin free because as i understand it, its one of the worse ones for crime funding it and it seems to stop people functionng normally.
on a side note i often wondered when i was younger why can't the goverment offer a service to junkies who want to quit, lock them up until the craving is offer and offer them treatment to help the process.
"freedom to not be forced into drugs by friends and pressure"?
It is only kids who can have the excuse of being weak willed, if your 30 and someone can talk into taking a drug you dont want that person could convince you to do plenty of nasty things. Fortunatly under grizzly's bluepint for legalisation (r) Drugs would be more difficult to get for kids than they currenty are.
To take away freedom for 10% to pursue extremistic PC ideology of "freedom".
What about these crazy people drinking alcohol impinging on my non-drinking freedoms ?!
and those spice girl fans impinging on my no listening to crap music freedom !?
freedom is being free to decide whether you want something out there or not, freedom is not freedom from something, i could make a damn longlist of things i don't like which i could say im not free because they are around for people to force on me
[B]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.[/B
well of the drugs i take i am still well aware (even probably more aware as im on edge) of police and the few times ive needed to the pure adrenalin rush has sent me running before anyone else even reacts (im also a very fast runner) i suppose when high off heroin this would apply.
All we need to do is reduce the number of buyers,
but that is extremly difficult to do, that is reduce by a large percentage.
and protect innocent children from exposure to drug-glorifying propaganda
Im assuming you mean movies ? It doesn't actually seem to be in the movies all that much, a few movies have drugs as thier main subject but outside of those drug use is very inrequent in films. i have to be honest i wouldn't want to see this as stoner comedies are amazing and movies like bad boys 2.
There are plenty of policemen, once one has been discovered, there is always a new one.
There are plenty of policemen but how many that truely wouldn't have a problem killing someone just because they're a drug addict, i would have a problem killing my worst enemy so i could never kill someone just because i considered thier habit dangerous. Im assuming a large number of people feel this way and then out of the small percentge left (of sickos!!) you have to narrow it down to those who would be willing to move after doing it as this person would have a targeton thier back.
Damn my friends outside and im not even showered yet!!
ill continue this later :)
So you think all who go through some phase in life where they're uncertain and easily affected are untermenschen who should be cleansed out of the gene pool by overdoses because nobody protected them from drug glorification? And perhaps you also claim to be such a perfect human being yourself that you have never doubted about yourself and have never been affected by herd mentality?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
That is bollocks. Especially teenagers in their low teens are very uncertain and easily affected by what they see and are told - I was no exception - often while believing they made the decisions freely when they "chose" what someone else persuaded them into doing.
I don't know why you mix weed into this discussion, as I've already pointed out that's one of the few drugs that could be possible to legalize. Whatever point you tried to make with weed is moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
It's mainly at ages such as 14-20 that drug addicts begun taking their drugs. People who start at the age of 30 are quite uncommon, and you know that too.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Yeah right, like it's harder for kids to get guns in USA than in say Britain...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
These are relevant points. If you give people the freedom to annoy and harass, sometimes you must consider either withdrawing these freedoms or correspondingly give people the freedom to fight back. If someone harasses you with spice girls music, there could for example be laws saying nobody is allowed to have so loud music that it can be heard by the neighbors. Or since you obviously can't revenge with playing loud music to such people, the law could allow you to punch them into the face. But since people are generally against violence, it's usually preferable to restrict the freedom to play loud crap music when people try to sleep. Freedom isn't only about removing laws, sometimes it's about passing them. Typically only an insane lunatic would have any true need to listen to spice girls so loud that the neighbors can't sleep at night. So restricting that freedom isn't really oppression. But it is oppression to force people to listen to spice girls by denying them any means of negotiation pressure to force the spice girls listening person in the example to stop destroying their sleep. So if you want a freedom of person A to hurt person B, then you had better simultaneously grant person B a freedom to hurt person A back. If drug users can persuade my children into drugs when they're uncertain teenagers and they have a freedom to do so, then I don't see why there should be no freedom for me to cut the throat off those who harm my children in such a way.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Yes, and I want the freedom to be able to choose NOT to have people trying to convince my children to take drugs. Abuse that freedom - a freedom which you have now - and I will surely work hard to take it away from you. If you can't behave well when you have the choice to behave bad or good, then I will work to take away that choice from you. It's up to you whether people like me have to vote for or otherwise struggle for harsher treatment of people who spread drugs, use them or glorify them. The best way for you to lose your dear beloved drugs is to be careless about these issues which I have posted. If you take care and show respect, you can keep your toys. If not, you're asking to get them taken away from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
NoQuote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
They're not killing any other people that those who have chosen freely to kill themselves. In the process they save the lives of thousands of children and teenagers.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
I'm so done with this thread. You just said all that needs to be said about yourself from that one sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
Enjoy crusading for your perfect moral world.
Rodian
This is a discussion on possible solutions to a failed drug policy, not a place to moralize, aggressively recruit for your crusade, or continually pound your views on the other readers with no variation. We have all read your views on the subject, often repeatedly and aggressively. I doubt that there is anyone perusing this thread that doesn't know about your pet witchhunt. Some of us would like to continue this discussion without being preached at everytime someone posts. Either contribute something new and insightful to this discussion, OR STOP TROLLING.
thank you in advance
I have the right to express my opinion just as much as you do,. I think it's you who are trolling who keep saying drugs are so great. Last time I checked the normal opinion was for people to not want their children becoming drug addicts. My discussion is very much on topic since it's always coming back to how to solve the drug problem by a policy that isn't driven by overly political correctness ways of thinking. You have to stop your pet witch hunt against people who don't want drugs for themselves and their children. You simply can't tolerate that you're addicted while I'm not. Stop trying to derail this thread, and stop trying to pretend you're a moderator. If you do, there's a risk the moderators may come and lock this thread, which would be a shame. But maybe that's what you want?
I love it when people advocate a new law based on fairness and proceed to condemn others for "moralizing" when they strongly disagree. Laws are morality. If you want to change them, expect moral opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by MerlinusCDXX
It's about which option hurts most innocent people and infringes most necessary forms of freedom. Naturally it's a matter of a discussion of morality. Either:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
1. "which option hurts/kills most people", or
2. "whose life is worth most", which I personally won't discuss since I believe all people have the same right to live
If the person who gets to choose is objective, he or she would pick the option that hurts the least people. And so the discussion is a matter of arguing why the other option hurts more innocent people.
Now, however, if you start thinking that some people are worth more than other, then you don't give a damn about which option hurts the most people, but instead start arguing that one side has a greater right to live the way they want, than do their victims. Starting to claim that drug users have a greater right to live lives with drug taking, than people that take the hit for this behavior have a right to live in peace and not be dragged into drugs or become victims of assault. Then it is obvious that that side in the discussion doesn't think all people are worth equal, and doesn't care about the lives of innocent people, and also cares so little about themselves that they do not care that they by speaking in favor of hurting innocents call the wrath upon these victims upon them, and give them justification for striking back in force and chastise them mightily, who hurt them when they only wanted peace.
So, what exactly am I addicted to? I don't recall saying anything about how I'm an addict and I want free drugs. You keep coming back to this irrational paranoia about "people will convince/force me or my kids to use drugs". If I didn't know any better I'd say you were telling me that I'm such a morally depraved character who gets kids addicted, as much as you use that argument whenever I post. I NEVER SAID EVERYBODY GET HIGH OR ELSE, I stated that I use herb, so I guess that makes me a "filthy dope pusher, eh". Amazing how you can be reasonable until someone makes the mistake of saying something that allows you to discount their opinions. You spoke like a reasonable person , albeit someone with very unalterable views, before I made the mistake of revealing that I sometimes use herb (that would be cannabis). I advocate a policy you happen to be against, so I must obviously be a junkie, correct? If your opening sentence is in fact true, why have you resorted to ad hominem attacks against me from almost the beginning of this discussion. Of course people don't want their children to become drug addicts, I don't want anyone's children to become drug addicts either. I would not invite your children to my home, as activities that are not child friendly may occur at times. I am an adult living in the US, and as such, I am entitled to all the protections of the US Constitution. I, and many people in my hometown, view the current policy as a failure, and unconstitutional besides. I did notice that you said that "marijuana could possibly be legalized, because it only causes low intelligence", and then proceeded with the you're a drug addict line. I realize that you think me of low intelligence, but I can call you on your faulty logic, for instance:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Gonzo
...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.
Where does he even mention others, besides the argument about pressure to drink? You seem to only read what you want into other people's posts, the exact same thing you accused me of.Quote:
originally posted by Rodion Romanovich
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.
As for me trying to derail this thread, just read the thread title. It's "legalize", not "persecute" all drugs.
Legalize all drugs. So what about date rape drugs? What about the drugs that increase the body temperature to dangerous rates?
Careful on what you want concerning legalization of drugs, there are drugs out there that people just should not take, but do because of the desire to get high. Drugs that do permant harm to the mind and body with just one time use.
How about Meth which rots the brain after just a few uses and is extremely addictive? Where the manufactoring of the drug creates extreme environmental hazards at the site that it is made.
When one speaks of legalizing drugs what does one mean? Is it free use or is it controlled use? Is it the state regulating the use through taxation like tobacco and achocal? Or is it legalization through something like a prescription through a paramcy?
Those who wish to rot their bodies and minds through the use of drugs can by all means to so, but careful on trying to make moral arguements on the use of drugs. Primarily because statues and laws make up the civic moral code and currently that code deems drugs as immoral.
Rodian, im just a little bit curios. Have you met any drug users and actually made friends with them? Had a conversation with them? Actually got high yourself?
Also, peer pressure is not as effective as you make it out to be. If I was actually influenced by peer pressure, I wouldnt be smoking marijuana. Iv seen people get very offensive when somebody presses drugs on them.
the thread title was already in existence, anyhow. all drugs-legalize, yes, but with ways of controlling/regulating which ones will actually be able to be used. Basically, legalistic trickery will have to be employed to minimize the use/ abuse of really harmful drugs. Make the "date rape drugs?" legal but unavailable. Drugs like ecstasy (I assume that's the temperature raising one to which you refer) should be subject to prescription. (I understand it is sometimes used in psycho-analysis) Those drugs that are physically addictive should be prescribed to only current addicts or those with a legitimate medical use. completely free use? dear God no, that would be anarchy. Classify them according to hazard level, for instance, cannabis-low, recreational use would be ok for adults, much like alcohol or tobacco.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
In order to implement an effective drug policy, a combination of controls and regulations would have to be employed to keep total chaos at bay. My main problems with the current policy are the emphasis on punishing the consumer, the heavy-handed "one size fits all" categorization of drugs, and the government moralism on substances that are less dangerous than the current 'legal' drugs, just because of corruption, corporate favoritism, and institutionalised racism. (in 1937 when cannabis prohibition began)
EDIT: spelling
BS- I know drug addicts. By a certain age you will see what their addictions have done to them. Good people transformed into monsters with life threatening health problems. Across the board it eats away at the will to live and function around those that you care about.Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
Then the arguement about legalization is a mute point. Your speaking of controlled drug use through regulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by MerlinusCDXX
Inconsistent arguement - date rape drugs should never be legal. That is using a substance to control another human being's behavior. Your arguement falls on its face when you speak of allowing such a drug to have any legal status.Quote:
Make the "date rape drugs?" legal but unavailable. Drugs like ecstasy (I assume that's the temperature raising one to which you refer) should be subject to prescription. (I understand it is sometimes used in psycho-analysis)
Again an inconsistent arguement with what you have presented.Quote:
Those drugs that are physically addictive should be prescribed to only current addicts or those with a legitimate medical use. completely free use? dear God no, that would be anarchy. Classify them according to hazard level, for instance, cannabis-low, recreational use would be ok for adults, much like alcohol or tobacco.
Again you only touch the surface. Your solution here is really no better then the current solution. Does something need to be done- that I agree with. Go after the wholesellers and the growers. Educate the people. Provide alternative cash crops for those who grow the substances. Lots of things can be done versus a not thought out plan of legalization of all drugs.Quote:
In order to implement an effective drug policy, a combination of controls and regulations would have to be employed to keep total chaos at bay. My main problems with the current policy are the emphasis on punishing the consumer, the heavy-handed "one size fits all" categorization of drugs, and the government moralism on substances that are less dangerous than the current 'legal' drugs, just because of corruption, corporate favoritism, and institutionalised racism. (in 1937 when cannabis prohibition began)
EDIT: spelling
I kinda want to give everyone here a great big bear hug as we all sing, "Why can't we be friends?" :dizzy2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I didnt say they didnt. Just that rodian paints of a picture of them as evil villians who steal old ladies purses and do anything or anyone for some quick cash, o and their skin burns when it touches the sunlight. Im wondering where this experiance of his comes from. My guess is goverment above the influence commericials.
So you think all who go through some phase in life where they're uncertain and easily affected are untermenschen who should be cleansed out of the gene pool by overdoses because nobody protected them from drug glorification? And perhaps you also claim to be such a perfect human being yourself that you have never doubted about yourself and have never been affected by herd mentality?
That is bollocks. Especially teenagers in their low teens are very uncertain and easily affected by what they see and are told - I was no exception - often while believing they made the decisions freely when they "chose" what someone else persuaded them into doing.
well i had friends who were curious and wanted to try and some who didn't want to try and they didn't that was at the age of about 15 or so and they had decided themselves whether they wanted to do it, im not sure how often this drug pushing thing really happens what ive mainly seen is people get offered and then make a decision. I don't think drugs should be in the hands of 13 year olds but thats why i think legalisation of drugs is a good policy because i think with the right restrictions in place you could make it harder for children to get thier hands on drugs.
I don't know why you mix weed into this discussion, as I've already pointed out that's one of the few drugs that could be possible to legalize. Whatever point you tried to make with weed is moot.
i realised after making the point that you mentioned that fair enough, but even though the production is more expensive for man made drugs they could still go through the same illegal chain as weed does which means the original production value which wouldn't be all much gets at least doubled in value most steps of the chain and your average customer would probably be quite a few steps down the chain
Yeah right, like it's harder for kids to get guns in USA than in say Britain...
Yes but with the right restrictions in place.
Only distributed by the goverment through pharmacys
a strict 21 and over limit and a limit on amounts you can buy
harsh penaltys for anyone handing drugs onto kids
people buying alot could be made to register and if something is suspected they could be checked out
and thats off the top of my head im sure theres more that could be put in place.
These are relevant points. If you give people the freedom to annoy and harass, sometimes you must consider either withdrawing these freedoms or correspondingly give people the freedom to fight back. If someone harasses you with spice girls music, there could for example be laws saying nobody is allowed to have so loud music that it can be heard by the neighbors. Or since you obviously can't revenge with playing loud music to such people, the law could allow you to punch them into the face. But since people are generally against violence, it's usually preferable to restrict the freedom to play loud crap music when people try to sleep. Freedom isn't only about removing laws, sometimes it's about passing them. Typically only an insane lunatic would have any true need to listen to spice girls so loud that the neighbors can't sleep at night. So restricting that freedom isn't really oppression. But it is oppression to force people to listen to spice girls by denying them any means of negotiation pressure to force the spice girls listening person in the example to stop destroying their sleep. So if you want a freedom of person A to hurt person B, then you had better simultaneously grant person B a freedom to hurt person A back. If drug users can persuade my children into drugs when they're uncertain teenagers and they have a freedom to do so, then I don't see why there should be no freedom for me to cut the throat off those who harm my children in such a way.
so your main point is your problem with drug legalisation is those drugs getting into the hands of children, one of my points is with the right restrictions we could make it harder for kids to get thier hands on drugs.
Yes, and I want the freedom to be able to choose NOT to have people trying to convince my children to take drugs.
well if it was legalised there would be no dealers to try and tell people to take it for profit there will be other influences but they are there with or without legalisation, so legalising would make it less cooler (legal but illegal for thier age) and there wouldn't be people tryng to get people hooked so they can make money
No
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point then...
They're not killing any other people that those who have chosen freely to kill themselves.
well someone who takes ecstacy once every few weeks has not chosen to kill themself anymore than a 40 a day smoker, i don't think your average drug customer is on a spiral that will kill them very soon anyway.
In the process they save the lives of thousands of children and teenagers.
i just don't see the plan working, people already have thier sources and i would say most drug sales come from word of mouth and making a contact, if your just killing people your not going to get far.
date rape drugs should never be legal.
I would agree, i don't think all drugs should be legal i think weed, ecstacy, amphetamines, cocaine and acid should be legal, im unsure on heroin i can see alot of good coming from its legalisation, crystal meth and other drugs i don't now enough about
Now we are getting somewhere - defining what type of drugs should be legalized. However one should be careful about including acid in the equation of legalized drugs. It has adverse effects that are not short term - and one can have flashbacks from the drug because it lies in the spinal cord for many years after use. I know of people who have been severely damaged from the use of LSD.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Drugs are a serious issue that goes beyond just a surface declartion of being made illegal or even legal. If one does not understand the effect of drugs on the human body or the pysic then on should be careful on the advocation of such substances. For instance crystal meth kills the brain and leaves a permament addiction to the user after just a few uses.
Now my own personal opinion is if the drug comes from nature - ie its grown such as Marijuna, opium, mushrooms, and yes even cocaine if it is sold in the leaf form then legalization through regulation and taxation could be a possible solution that I could accept - even though I am against drug use because of the waste that it normally results in to the human experience. To many lifes are wasted because of drugs.
Any drug made by man or distilled through a man-made process should be restricted to medical use only.
I don't think your suggested policy would make it harder for kids to get drugs. It IS illegal and has HARSH penalties already now to spread drugs to children. Also did this occur to you: if you get lower drug prices by having it legal for old enough people, then some 21 years old person can get very cheap drugs (much cheaper than smuggled stuff) and sell it to the kids. The kids will still pay quite a lot, since they can't acquire the stuff legally. What you just did then, is to make life a lot easier for illegal drug dealers.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
As for buying much, that hasn't worked either, there are plenty of physicians who can get hold of it easily in large quantities and some have been caught only after 10 years of incredibly much drug dealing, who knows how many latent and uncaught drug dealing physicians there are out there, and believe me there ARE strict controls over people acquiring suspiciously much.
The biggest influence isn't from drug dealers, it's from friends. Same as with tobacco, their commercials aren't particularly important, but movies and friends acting as influence, however are.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich