No he didn't, he undestands it means trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastDays
Printable View
No he didn't, he undestands it means trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastDays
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Cartel vs US military?
Cartel vs Swedish military?
I guess even the Dutch could kick off their wooden shoes in the general direction of cartel mercs. Maybe scaring them a little.
Jokes aside, no, the cartels are no threat what so ever to a western country. Only power they have, they have because it is illegal here (and there) to grow and use drugs.
45% of cannabis the US consumes is grown in the US. The rest largely comes of Canada, very little comes from Mexico, as little as 11%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuchip
The Cartels thrive on cocaine and heroin. That is where the money is. There is no serious money in dealing cannabis, when compared to the hard stuff or prescription drugs.
What I find extraordinary is how ingrained myths about drugs are. Go talk about God, not drugs, that's something you seem to know about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Now now, no need to insult him. There is way to much flaming on this forum without the moderators adding to the fuel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychonaut
I am no stranger to drugs, and I am all for some use and legalizing. With that said, he is not actually wrong.
Well, only part I would say he is wrong is that hash seriously blunts your intellect even when moderately used. He is of course right short term, but not in a longer perspective. Same as saying alcohol blunts the intellect, I do not exactly get all Einsteinian when drunk. Does not affect me half a year afterwards though, same as with THC.
So again, he is mainly right with what he say. But with that said - legalize for crying out loud!
If someone want to ruin their life with heroine - then by all means do.
If someone wants to eat a bit too much candy with a big smile on their face while playing Total War under the influence of Marijuana - then by all means do.
Legalization would bring about better quality control. Many of the harmful physical effects of the harder drugs are caused by the crap the dealers put in it to cut the product. Proper refining and manufacture would eliminate many side effects.
Fragony, the legalization, and more importantly taxation, would eliminate the cartel's power and influence. Nothing gets a government's ire up more than the non-payment of revenue. The cartels wouldn't stand a chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibumi
For the win. So... much... misinformation in this thread...Quote:
What I find extraordinary is how ingrained myths about drugs are. Go talk about God, not drugs, that's something you seem to know about.
I would never claim to "know" about God, but thanks for the compliment anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychonaut
But, actually, I do know something about drugs and their effects on people. I come from a poor farming community and use of canabis and cocaine is 9or rather was) quite widespread. There were several men in their twenties who had heart attacks when I was a teenager, and I watched several friends descend into drug addiction, most of them are recovered now, but not all. Having said that, I also know alchoholics - fewer of those have recovered.
Here's the thing I don't understand, some of these drugs are much, much worse than alchohol. Also, "alchohol" is merely a component of many fine beverages, it isn't the point of them the way snorting cocaine on the back of a toilet is just about getting high; but the that doesn't extend to cheap manky cider designed to yet to smashed. I don't believe heroin should be legalisd, or cocaine, or meth, because taking them doesn't involve "risks", it's pretty much a sure thing. Meth will rot you from the inside out, as will Acid, Cocaine WILL knacker your heart at about four times the normal rate.
With Pot and things like LSD I am more ambivelant, given that most of the people I know who did Hash stopped more or less when they became legal adults I'm not convinced that legalising it is particularly worthwile on a cost/benefit basis. My major problem with Hash is is can cause long term psychological problems and damage your short-term memory. I lived with a guy for a year, spent two weeks drinking someone else's milk because he forgot he wasn't buying his own (he thought he was), and that was the whole in his short term meory from smoking Hash as a teen. Still sharp otherwise, but he's stuck with that handicap now.
Legalization won't help... unless they legalize all the drugs... There will always be something forbidden to attract more and more people, especially, if they have tasted something legal and "lighter". But if you legalize all the drugs... how would you take care of people who need to cope with a heroin addiction. Or simply wait for them to commit crime after robbing their parents to pay them some attention?
You were saying that in general/sum, alcohol was bringing families together. Saying that it depends on the family is not to retract that, it fits nicely with the idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Let's see...one obvious way that a particular bond would not be formed, would be because the persons met in a pub, and without alcohol, the pub would not be there. Granted. This bond could then be replaced by another one instead, that is no problem.Quote:
But the interaction is not purely a physical one. The alcohol has created a bond between people that otherwise would not have formed. I'm not denying that people love to talk to other people, I am just saying that alcohol has helped that process more than anything else.
The other way a bond would not form, is to say that without alcohol one of the persons would not be in mood to make contact - in one way or the other. That is a really suspiciously sounding statement. First of all, it sounds a bit like the socialisation could only occur when they are intoxicated - they won't go along otherwise. Secondly, it sounds a bit like alcohol could lead to dependency: let's say one of the persons is nervous when it comes to making contact with new people. He indulges some alcohol to overcome his nervousness. It works for him, so he is tempted to use alcohol again for this purpose. What he instead could have done, is to take the initiative without alcohol one time, and succeed. It could cure hime from his nervousness, and he would not "need" alcohol to initiate contact with other people.
In sum, it is hard to spot any necessity.
As per above, by using in alcohol this way, you could simply be pushing the problems ahead of you. Humans adapt to their surroundings.Quote:
I hate most people. I need some alcohol in me before I start talking with idiots from the local kegger. Yes, humans are social, but alcohol amplifies it to a new level. Yes, you can make friends without alcohol, but you can make more, in an easier fashion when you do indulge in it with others. Some people do need to relax a bit before they cozy up with anyone. I am one of them.
Yes, more respected than what Nazi-Germany was - that was my point.Quote:
Respected? Forgive me, but from what I have read in this very forum, the idea of a unified Europe or any sort of co-dependence between European nations is very much not liked by more than a few Europeans. Does Greece respect Germany when they want bailouts without cutting back fiscally? Does the UK respect Germany when many UK citizens don't want to dive in and become part of the Euro/EU fold?
Nation's now respect Germany? Didn't wikileaks reveal that the US killed a German citizen by accident in a counter-terrorist operation and then told the German government to keep it under wraps?
It is respect. They can treat each other more like equals now. The relationships between the relevant countries are better now, that is the point.Quote:
No, wars don't lead to any meaningful "peace". When wars are done, everyone holds hands to remember those that have died, then go about being nations again. WW2 simply shifted the power structure away from Germany towards other nations, and thus the super powers treated Germany less as a threat and more as a pawn. This isn't respect.
Your assertion is that alcohol works as a positive force, and that it is good because it can act as tool of forming/strengthening social ties. Underlying this, however, is also both a perceived necessity as well as a positive total sum (for society) - and these two elements are what I have been contesting. You may not have said these things explicitly, but it is hard not to not interpret your posts this way.Quote:
EDIT: The more I read your responses, the more I think they mean nothing. You list the consequences of alcohol abuse and then are asserting that that applies to a majority of households. This isn't true. Alcohol use is extremely high, almost everyone drinks alcohol at least on holiday's, and if the situation was even 15% what you put it as, then the reality would be much different than it is today.
Basically I have said this:
"Alcohol brings more people together than anything else."
You reply with this:
"But it also brings people apart."
That does not negate my statement.
I am not contesting that alcohol could have a positive effect in sum on many people. Not because I accept it as a fact, but because it is hard to analyse the subject with a casual approach.
That was so unnecessarily douchey. Your a moderator cant you express your disbelief with what he said without expressing yourself in that manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychonaut
Also Frags ACIN your whole scenario is absolutely bizarre and ridiculous to debate about. Frags the cartels come rolling into america with armored vehicles!!!!!!!!!!!! I lol'ed. Then simply to humor it I thought about what Phillip Morris could do. They could if they wanted to buy something like Blackwater contractors and literally rape the drug cartels with experienced veteran fighters and high tech equipment.
So much fail in this thread.
Yeah, like when alcohol was decriminalized, all the alcohol mafias that were there before were just the tip of the iceberg and tons of alcohol mafias sprung upon that moment when there was no more profit to be gained and too much to be lost.
Seriously, how are people giving the same dumb arguments 60 years later?
~Jirisys ()
Fragony, your whole scenario is simply ridiculous.
The only reason cartels are powerful is because drugs are expensive, and drugs are only expensive because they're rare, and they're only rare because they're illegal.
There are already lots of people growing pot in the US, and there have been for much longer than the cartels have existed.
And nothing you spoke of has happened.
You say it's better to not rock the boat - but you live on a different freaking continent. You aren't in the middle of a warzone fueled by illegal drug sales (since the cartels get so much money from buyers in the US, legalization here would cripple them in Mexico) or in a country with civil liberties under siege.
Plus none of what you warn about will come to pass.
CR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The argument that drugs are worse than alcohol because some alcohol is in the form of "fine beverages" is laughable. If drugs of any type are illegal the so should alcohol. The abuse of any causes social problems. The argument I like is that if drugs are legalised then the "softer" types become more acceptable socially. "Harder" drugs will continue to be less socially acceptable because they are simply less social in nature. The abuse (and/or addiction to) any drug should be a health issue rather than a criminal issue IMO. Forgive me if this is a ramble, since I have been drinking (my drug of choice).
Cocaine is often considered a very "social" drug. The only one which isn't really is heroin as you're zonked... but even as I type people gather to drink vast quantities of ethanol, so why not gather for heroin?
If they were legal, better ways of delivery would quickly be found - a transdermal patch to keep you happy for the whole night out for example.
~:smoking:
GIMME GIMME GIMME!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
You sir are my new hero.
Forget Cocaine, get MDMA!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibumi
~Jirisys ()
This is a little something for those who may believe that by decriminalising certain substances you will not be increasing their use and thereby increasing addiction rates.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...illers-florida
The procees by which beer is brewed produces alchohol, it is ultimately a side product of sterilising water to make it both drinkable and palatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
Snorting something or sticking a neadle in you arm or snorting something up your nose is entirely different
For beer and wine, yes. How does distillation fit into the equation though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
You don't have their budget, how would they not have a chance. You can't hurt them without cutting youself in a most painful way, Columia has been fighting the FARC for how long, and well Mexico. Why go any further than decriminalising the end of the foodchain. Keep it in Mexico.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
@all who make fun of armoured vehicles, try google
Also, how do you intend to outprice them if you want to tax it?
Alright then. Noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
But what guarantee is there that the bond would be replaced? What if the only thing that two people have in common is that they love their gin and tonic and they find each other both drinking it on a Tuesday afternoon at their local pub and start talking? If there is no gin and tonic, are they both going to the bowling alley?Quote:
Let's see...one obvious way that a particular bond would not be formed, would be because the persons met in a pub, and without alcohol, the pub would not be there. Granted. This bond could then be replaced by another one instead, that is no problem.
Yes, there are quite a few people who are dependent on alcohol to carry them into socialization land. They are sad cases but they exist nonetheless.Quote:
The other way a bond would not form, is to say that without alcohol one of the persons would not be in mood to make contact - in one way or the other. That is a really suspiciously sounding statement. First of all, it sounds a bit like the socialisation could only occur when they are intoxicated - they won't go along otherwise. Secondly, it sounds a bit like alcohol could lead to dependency: let's say one of the persons is nervous when it comes to making contact with new people. He indulges some alcohol to overcome his nervousness. It works for him, so he is tempted to use alcohol again for this purpose. What he instead could have done, is to take the initiative without alcohol one time, and succeed. It could cure hime from his nervousness, and he would not "need" alcohol to initiate contact with other people.
From your perspective yes. But in the mind of someone who has been a hermit all his life, never going outside to parties or hanging out with large groups of people, the only way they might mentally break themselves out of their shell is by reasoning that the alcohol might make them a different, perhaps cooler person. Otherwise they might just psych themselves out mentally to do anything sober.Quote:
In sum, it is hard to spot any necessity.
This has a good chance of being true. But it probably depends on the individual and I guess in retrospect neither mine nor your conjecture should be applied sweepingly across all people. Some people might need it, some might not. I know a few in both categories.Quote:
As per above, by using in alcohol this way, you could simply be pushing the problems ahead of you. Humans adapt to their surroundings.
Alright, I will concede that Germany is more respected than when it was run by Nazi's.Quote:
Yes, more respected than what Nazi-Germany was - that was my point.
I disagree there. Just because they can't stop their feet on each other due to the US being the super power nowadays, does not mean it is real respect. It is artificial respect that is dependent on some external factor, the wealth/military strength of the nations. Respect for someone else is not dependent on whether or not they have something you want or if they can beat you up, it stems from an understanding of someone else's character and judging it to be correct with your own views. I don't respect the bully that could beat me up in 4th grade even though I was completely kind to him so he wouldn't steal my Snack-Pack. I don't see how wars create an understanding of some other nation through bombing it.Quote:
It is respect. They can treat each other more like equals now. The relationships between the relevant countries are better now, that is the point.
I guess I should clarify that it is not completely necessary for alcohol to enter the social equation here. But I do think that may, may people find it necessary themselves. I do think that it still has a net positive effect for various reasons that I can't put out as facts (for every drunken angry husband, how many socializing college parties are happening at the same time?).Quote:
Your assertion is that alcohol works as a positive force, and that it is good because it can act as tool of forming/strengthening social ties. Underlying this, however, is also both a perceived necessity as well as a positive total sum (for society) - and these two elements are what I have been contesting. You may not have said these things explicitly, but it is hard not to not interpret your posts this way.
I am not contesting that alcohol could have a positive effect in sum on many people. Not because I accept it as a fact, but because it is hard to analyse the subject with a casual approach.
And yes, I agree with your last statement, this is very hard to just glance over from a single perspective and try to make sense of it all. The sociologist's will crack this one open for us.
It doesn't really, except as an exploration of an existing type of intoxicant. One can argue that fine wisky is a pleasure quite aside from it's intoxicating effect but clearly a greater level of intoxication is intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Changing tack though, caffine is is coffee and tea, but lots of people drink them for the pleasure of the taste, even though caffine is more addictive than alchohol.
I'm not saying "ban ALL drugs" or even that all the currently illegal drugs should be illegal, but Ice's desire to "legalise everything" is wrongheaded, it stems from the assumption that people should be able to do whatever they want, "so long as they don't hurt anyone else". That completely ignore the effect that addiction has on the family of the addict, even if the addict doesn't turn to crime.
Ultimately, there is no harm you can do to yourself that does not affect your family and your comunity. Demanding the legalisation of all drugs just so you can walk down the street smoking a spliff is selfishness, not Libertarianism.
Ah, Frags has you there. Look at the millions upon millions of illegal cigarettes that support organised crime in the West.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Now at first I didn't want to join this discussion as it's slightly OT and I'm not so sure on where to place my "vote" here anyway but this statement does deserve some thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
My question is:
How many socializing college parties (that could happen without alcohol, not in the same extent though, I agree on that) is one beat up wife worth?
Now, I don't really believe there is more socializing college parties than angry, violent husbands because of alcohol but just for the sake of the argument let's assume the "socializing party:domestic abuse"-ratio is 3:1
Okay, now let's assume without the alcohol 2 out of 3 parties wouldn't happen, or there is a general loss of two thirds of "effectiveness" for the socializing parties.
So you'd lose "2 parties" for every wife that doesn't land in hospital - I'd take that deal...
This debate never fails to produce some of the worst types of justifications for the status quo.
The questions are:
1 - Does criminalisation reduce drug use in society?
2 - Is the criminalisation/legalisation of drugs in our society based on a rational understanding of the evidence/damage of particular drugs?
3 - Is criminalising drug users effective in reducing their drug use?
4 - Does criminalisation of drugs reduce aquisitive crime?
5 - Should it be up to the state to decide in which way people get high?
I don't see how anyone can argue a yes to any of these.
As for PVC's claiming that booze is noble and all about taste, and all other drugs are just about getting high - that's just socialisation. But seeing as he is perhaps the most conservative person on the board, it's useful to have him setting up these straw men.
Ok - bonus round.
Name two drugs where the withdrawl can actually kill you.
I agree with you, but I don't know how to quantize pleasure and pain in a form able to be categorized and compared as a raw number of some sort, so the reasoning is up in the air for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastDays
How many beaten wives do we save by banning alcohol again? Idk. How many Al Capones running amok is one beat up wife worth? A thousand? Ten thousand? Maybe there are 100,000 women being beaten right now due to alcoholic husbands. These are all difficult questions that don't seem to have a definitive answer.
You are of course right and I am not advocating to make alcohol illegal as it wouldn't help at all... I'm just saying, the assumption that the positive effects of alcohol outweigh the negative ones is one that I can't easily make, especially when I can live without the positive effects and the negative effects are dramatic.
I think the positive effects of alcohol are more subtle and do indeed effect us all. Deals of all kind, from Wall Street dealings to Hollywood pitches could be done somewhere over a drink. The socializing effect of it might be what tips the balance in favor of a manufacturer agreeing to produce the new iphone for a cheaper price or a production company making the next blockbuster movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastDays
EDIT: Eh, I hate that example. Makes it seem like Wall Street and Hollywood isn't about the bottom line 100% of the time.
Like I said, I don't fully believe that it has a net positive effect, but I feel as if it is so ubiquitous that the probabilities in my head churn out a result resulting in a net positive.