NationStates Jolt Archive

what do you think

ps. how do I make a poll :confused:

go to thread tools -> add a poll to this thread

as for drugs, i like em :)
any more specific?

I smoke teh wonder weed and eat the shrooms and acid from time to time :D

what do you think

which ones?and what about them?pro-/anti-legalisation etc?

I smoke teh wonder weed and eat the shrooms and acid from time to time :D

You've dropped acid? Jesus, respect. (To you - not Jesus. Ahahahahahaha. Kill me.) What was it like? I really do plan to try it one of these days - still working my way up at the moment.

I have a beer occasionally but I'm not dumb enough to take drugs, become a damn junkie.

lots of weed, shrooms, and recently a convert to ecstacy, myself

however i'm gonna lay off the drugs (of any sort) for a year or so...
i'll probably keep smoking teh mary jane but no longer daily - damn i'm gonna miss her :(

I have a beer occasionally but I'm not dumb enough to take drugs, become a damn junkie.

I really wouldn't go down that alley.

This poll stinks. Sorry everyone. I will try harder next time.

The poll's ok...except you've left off psychoactives. Otherwise, it's fine.

You've dropped acid? Jesus, respect. (To you - not Jesus. Ahahahahahaha. Kill me.) What was it like? I really do plan to try it one of these days - still working my way up at the moment.
my thoughts exactly... cooool :D

i did want to try acid - a lot - till i read this (http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/lsd/faq.htm) (first question) and realised i fit far too neatly into both categories, especially the second, to... be able to :(

Acid is some crazy shit. I had some fun but I think I've done enough for a lifetime. Mushrooms, on the other hand, is nothing but fun.

I think there are underlying dangers with any psychoactive - LSD's just stronger. I probably fit far too many of the listed categories, but I've never had a bad time on shrooms (yet) - and I think it'd be worth it in the long run.

(BTW: that's an excellent site.)

my thoughts exactly... cooool :D

i did want to try acid - a lot - till i read this (http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/lsd/faq.htm) (first question) and realised i fit far too neatly into both categories, especially the second, to... be able to :(
Ah...thanks for that link. Maybe I won't try LSD then. (I'm not kidding, you may just have saved my life).
I smoke weed occasionally...have tried 'shrooms, though not very often. And seeing as how prices will now be shooting up (no pun intended, honest) because of the recent law against selling them, I probably won't be trying them any more.

I smoked weed once. Coughed for 5 minutes non-stop, drank water by the pint for 30 mins and all I felt was the sdden urge to say "whee!".

Must try it again to see if it's any better the second time.

You've dropped acid? Jesus, respect. (To you - not Jesus. Ahahahahahaha. Kill me.) What was it like? I really do plan to try it one of these days - still working my way up at the moment.

good stuff everything's all melty and warpy and you can eat sounds(hard to explain)but I suggest you try it if you wanna

I don't do drugs. I have never done any drugs. I don't respect people who do drugs.

That being said, I think all drugs should be legalized for consenting adults.

good stuff everything's all melty and warpy and you can eat sounds(hard to explain)but I suggest you try it if you wanna

I understand how sound could change: it happens even with psilocybin. But, I wouldn't really do acid just for a few special effects - I'd want to really investigate its sacramental properties.

I think there are underlying dangers with any psychoactive - LSD's just stronger. I probably fit far too many of the listed categories, but I've never had a bad time on shrooms (yet) - and I think it'd be worth it in the long run.

(BTW: that's an excellent site.)
I'm not a doctor or anything, but I found the effects of LSD to be different in kind, not just in intensity. LSD makes you question the existence of the world around you and takes you on a journey to the limits of your consciousness, mushrooms make you see pretty colors and laugh at anything and everything.

I'm not a doctor or anything, but I found the effects of LSD to be different in kind, not just in intensity. LSD makes you question the existence of the world around you and takes you on a journey to the limits of your consciousness, mushrooms make you see pretty colors and laugh at anything and everything.

Yeah, I get that. I've certainly had perceptive trips, but only when on stronger shrooms (Colombian > Mexican any day of the week). I've always hoped that a good acid trip would take it to a new level: but I'm wary of building it up too much, for fear of crushing it.

I'd want to really investigate its sacramental properties.[/QUOTE]

we don't discuss these outside of "the brotherhood"

I smoked weed a few times. Didnt like it, never did it again.


I don't do drugs. I have never done any drugs. I don't respect people who do drugs.

That being said, I think all drugs should be legalized for consenting adults.

If you legalize all drugs youll increase the number of addicts. Laws against taking drugs like heroin are in place like laws for wearing a seatbelt, to protect people. You can make a civil rights issue out of it and say that people should choose to wear seatbelts or take drugs but ultimately you shouldnt have the right to serious self harm and drugs embody this to a great degree.

weed- the only thing i find to be really good, but once you've had really good stuff you can't ever really go back to the cheap shit.

pcp- horrible, i don't recommend it, unless you like being driven mad by annoying hallucinations for 36 hours and being mean for the duration.

crystal meth- again, no fun at all. tends to turn one into a dickhead. dont like it.

prescription drugs- i've only had them when in the necessary amount of pain to warrant them, but i'll be damned if morphine wouldn't be fun at home. i realy liked that one. too fun for my own good.

most other hallucinogens- get old really fast.

that's about all i've done personally, and with the exception of pcp and meth i had reasonably good times. man, i sound like a junkie. i'm really not, i was just a fairly experimental teen with good connections.
but, after a year or so of doing something on a regular basis (once every coupla weeks or so, excepting weed and booze) i eventually realised that most of the "mind-expanding" things that you hear about are absolute crap. at least for me. i couldn't do anything constructive while high. and the experiences i had weren't all that interesting. they were intense, sure, but they were empty experiences. the situations i experience in a non-altered state are far more compelling and thought-provoking and fun than when i was high. and it didn't cost nearly as much. so, i just stopped. i still smoke pot from time to time and have a drink if i feel like it, but not with the intention of getting completely fucked up.
i don't have any problems with drug-use whatsoever, provided it's done responsibly and not out of an addiction. the one exception to it is when i'm trying to do things (like, shoot a movie with friends, for instance) and someone introduces a drug to the mix to "enhance" the experience. in my opinion, they hinder constructive thought and it pisses me off that we're wasting our time, but they won't realise that until they're back to themselves again.

I don't do drugs. I have never done any drugs. I don't respect people who do drugs.

That being said, I think all drugs should be legalized for consenting adults.
the 2nd sentence is what redeemed your post :)

If you legalize all drugs youll increase the number of addicts. Laws against taking drugs like heroin are in place like laws for wearing a seatbelt, to protect people. You can make a civil rights issue out of it and say that people should choose to wear seatbelts or take drugs but ultimately you shouldnt have the right to serious self harm and drugs embody this to a great degree.

Sentiments like that really rack me off. We shouldn't have the right to self harm? What utter bullshit. Affecting others is one thing; doing something that is addictive, even. But not being allowed to do what (you claim) is harmful? No.

schmoke some haze and drink a choclit malted--its liquidy

Sentiments like that really rack me off. We shouldn't have the right to self harm? What utter bullshit. Affecting others is one thing; doing something that is addictive, even. But not being allowed to do what (you claim) is harmful? No.

oh sure let someone kill themselves. Do they have a right to it? Nope.

I smoke teh wonder weed and eat the shrooms and acid from time to time :D
God is in the High-and I mean that literal

oh sure let someone kill themselves. Do they have a right to it? Nope.

oh sure let someone kill themselves. Do they have a right to it? Yup.

I have a beer occasionally but I'm not dumb enough to take drugs, become a damn junkie.
the only people who become junkies are glutinous slobs--people shouldnt become a whore with their pleasure--they need to HONOR it

i dont see the attraction of drugs.i mean if you need to take drugs to have a good time you must be so damned bored most of the time.and i wouldn't want to end up some addicted junkie beggin on the streets to get the money for another hit

God is in the High-and I mean that literal
I discovered once while on shrooms that god is a purple duck riding jets and his prophet is the aflac duck

oh sure let someone kill themselves. Do they have a right to it? Yup.

bollocks

lots of weed, shrooms, and recently a convert to ecstacy, myself

however i'm gonna lay off the drugs (of any sort) for a year or so...
i'll probably keep smoking teh mary jane but no longer daily - damn i'm gonna miss her :(
abstinence fails because its a false idiology--why else do you think Bushs abstinence-only programs have caused the tremendous spike in the rate of abortions? When people are led to believe that they cant do something they enjoy it only makes the forbidden act more attractive

This poll stinks. Sorry everyone. I will try harder next time.
this was one of the best polls i ever encountered in my life

the only people who become junkies are glutinous slobs--people shouldnt become a whore with their pleasure--they need to HONOR it

Does it really matter how often you take it? Addictive chemicals can affect people at diferent rates. I'm sure everyone who started taking illegal drugs started out saying, "I won't get addicted." Yeah, good luck with that. :rolleyes:

bollocks

But why? My thought would be that it's our life. If we choose to end it, why should that not be allowed? Whose right is it to say that we MUST live?

Does it really matter how often you take it? Addictive chemicals can affect people at diferent rates. I'm sure everyone who started taking illegal drugs started out saying, "I won't get addicted." Yeah, good luck with that. :rolleyes:

Thank you.

I understand how sound could change: it happens even with psilocybin. But, I wouldn't really do acid just for a few special effects - I'd want to really investigate its sacramental properties.
thats my philosophy too--I believe thru drugs we access god consciousness

But why? My thought would be that it's our life. If we choose to end it, why should that not be allowed? Whose right is it to say that we MUST live?

i could only advocate for it if someone was in extreme physical pain and was going to die shortly anyway. Mental pain is different because the person isnt thinking rationally. Drugs are enormously addictive and have very serious side effects. Even hash can give you schizophrenic episodes if your genetically pre-disposed to it. So if they are that harmful I dont see why people should be allowed to willfully harm themselves. I mean if I was in the room with a suicidal person and they were going to slit their wrists I would try and stop them.

I'm not a doctor or anything, but I found the effects of LSD to be different in kind, not just in intensity. LSD makes you question the existence of the world around you and takes you on a journey to the limits of your consciousness, mushrooms make you see pretty colors and laugh at anything and everything.
thats a good description except for one tiny detail--there are no limits of your consciousness

I smoked weed a few times. Didnt like it, never did it again.




If you legalize all drugs youll increase the number of addicts. Laws against taking drugs like heroin are in place like laws for wearing a seatbelt, to protect people. You can make a civil rights issue out of it and say that people should choose to wear seatbelts or take drugs but ultimately you shouldnt have the right to serious self harm and drugs embody this to a great degree.
why must our laws be designed arounsd the worst examples? Just because some people abuse a substance is not a good enuf excuse to oppress the existence of everyone else. I reject this logic

i could only advocate for it if someone was in extreme physical pain and was going to die shortly anyway. Mental pain is different because the person isnt thinking rationally. Drugs are enormously addictive and have very serious side effects. Even hash can give you schizophrenic episodes if your genetically pre-disposed to it. So if they are that harmful I dont see why people should be allowed to willfully harm themselves. I mean if I was in the room with a suicidal person and they were going to slit their wrists I would try and stop them.

Are you actually going to respond? Why shouldn't people be allowed to harm themselves? What gives you the right to mandate to them what they may or may not do to their own body?

Thank you.

And luck is just what you'll need.

I smoked weed a few times. Didnt like it, never did it again.




If you legalize all drugs youll increase the number of addicts. Laws against taking drugs like heroin are in place like laws for wearing a seatbelt, to protect people. You can make a civil rights issue out of it and say that people should choose to wear seatbelts or take drugs but ultimately you shouldnt have the right to serious self harm and drugs embody this to a great degree.

I totally should have the right to self-harm. I own my body and nobody has a higher claim to my body than I do. If I want to jam needles in my arm, shave my head or tattoo 97% of the total surface area of my skin, I should be able to do it.

There's no justification for any infringement on my liberty.

And luck is just what you'll need.

I don't believe in luck. Just in being responsible. And being allowed to exercise my own interpretation of responsibility, however irresponsible in others' eyes.

oh sure let someone kill themselves. Do they have a right to it? Nope.
people dont DO drugs to kill themselves--death is just something that happens to us in any state of mind we're in--but would you rather die high or die of boredom?

drugs are too much of a risk, legalizing them will destabilize the cohesion of society.

Right seeing as most of you think you have every right to seriously harm yourself fair fucks to you. But if you were with someone who was going to do it tell me honestly would you stop them?

Drugs are enormously addictive and have very serious side effects. Even hash can give you schizophrenic episodes if your genetically pre-disposed to it. So if they are that harmful I dont see why people should be allowed to willfully harm themselves.
Okay, in that case, you surely want to ban alcohol and cigarettes too? And while you are at it, you surely want the government to enforce proper eating and exercise, correct? And nobody should be allowed to do dangerous work, right?

Because, you know, people shouldn't be allowed to willfully harm themselves, you said so yourself.

people dont DO drugs to kill themselves--death is just something that happens to us in any state of mind we're in--but would you rather die high or die of boredom?

its an analogy not a "uniquivocally".

I would absolutely try to stop them. And I would be wrong to do so.

i dont see the attraction of drugs.i mean if you need to take drugs to have a good time you must be so damned bored most of the time.and i wouldn't want to end up some addicted junkie beggin on the streets to get the money for another hit
nobodty needs to do drugs for a good time--we do them for a better time and again--addiction is for slobs with no sense of proportion or self control (but Im not saying that to be judgemental of addicts-im only seeking to diagnose a cure)

drugs are too much of a risk, legalizing them will destabilize the cohesion of society.

Right seeing as most of you think you have every right to seriously harm yourself fair fucks to you. But if you were with someone who was going to do it tell me honestly would you stop them?

I don't think drugs are good things - that's why I don't do drugs. If my friends or family developed a drug habit, I'd try to appeal to them as rational adults to stop. Does that mean I think that a nanny state should step in and force my friends or family to stop? No.

Also, the cohesion of society, if such a thing exists, isn't the business of government. Protecting my liberty is the business of government, even if I choose to ruin my body and do drugs with my liberty.

I don't believe in luck. Just in being responsible. And being allowed to exercise my own interpretation of responsibility, however irresponsible in others' eyes.

And if this version of responsibility starts to negatively affect the lives of others?

Does it really matter how often you take it? Addictive chemicals can affect people at diferent rates. I'm sure everyone who started taking illegal drugs started out saying, "I won't get addicted." Yeah, good luck with that. :rolleyes:
well it IS one way of finding out if you have an addictive personality or not

Okay, in that case, you surely want to ban alcohol and cigarettes too? And while you are at it, you surely want the government to enforce proper eating and exercise, correct? And nobody should be allowed to do dangerous work, right?

Because, you know, people shouldn't be allowed to harm themselves, you said so yourself.

i thought someone would say this. Your taking it totally out of context. Alchohol isnt addictive unless your an alchoholic or have a need to escape some problem. Drugs are different, they basically are addictive.

What do you think all those smoking causes cancer ad are about. And the fact that cigarrette companies are driven elsewhere to countries like africa.

Or Mc Donalds, surely you dont want a nation of obese people causing such a strain on the health services for their own self imposed corpulence.

Dangerous work, well sometimes it has to be done.

And if this version of responsibility starts to negatively affect the lives of others?

What does negatively affect mean? I could call you some obscenity right now and that'd 'negatively affect your life,' assuming you're a sensitive person. I don't think negatively affecting your life in that circumstance would justify any sort of infringement on my right to speech. (Note: since we're on a privately owned board, I recognize I have no right to speech here. I'm speaking in generalities.)

We are all on drugs, yeah
never getting enough
We are all on drugs, yeah
give me some of that stuff

I don't think drugs are good things - that's why I don't do drugs. If my friends or family developed a drug habit, I'd try to appeal to them as rational adults to stop. Does that mean I think that a nanny state should step in and force my friends or family to stop? No.

Also, the cohesion of society, if such a thing exists, isn't the business of government. Protecting my liberty is the business of government, even if I choose to ruin my body and do drugs with my liberty.

fine but i gauruntee it will interfere more with the efficient running of a country. Appealing to someone might on the remote chance work but I think forcing them to do cold turkey is a better idea. I mean they cant think rationally because theyre addicted. So you have to act for them.

We are all on drugs, yeah
never getting enough
We are all on drugs, yeah
give me some of that stuff

weezer?

What does negatively affect mean? I could call you some obscenity right now and that'd 'negatively affect your life,' assuming you're a sensitive person. I don't think negatively affecting your life in that circumstance would justify any sort of infringement on my right to speech. (Note: since we're on a privately owned board, I recognize I have no right to speech here. I'm speaking in generalities.)

How about when junkies start robbing people to get money to pay for another fix? How about the fact that when these addicts finally disintegrate in health we all have to end up paying for their treatment because they just had to have the freedom to make their own decision to hurt "only themselves".

We are all on drugs, yeah
never getting enough
We are all on drugs, yeah
give me some of that stuff

quoting that album which shall not be named is the utmost travesty to be committed on an internet message board. ever. but anyway...on with the drugs...

i thought someone would say this. Your taking it totally out of context. Alchohol isnt addictive unless your an alchoholic or have a need to escape some problem. Drugs are different, they basically are addictive.
Ah, but were we talking about addiction? You said this:
So if they are that harmful I dont see why people should be allowed to willfully harm themselves.
I thoguht we were talking about whether or not they are harmful, not whether or not they are addictive.
What do you think all those smoking causes cancer ad are about. And the fact that cigarrette companies are driven elsewhere to countries like africa.
Yes, smoking causes cancer, and there are ads about that, which is good.
But smoking is still legal, isn't it?
Or Mc Donalds, surely you dont want a nation of obese people causing such a strain on the health services for their own self imposed corpulence.
Err, I don't understand what you are trying to say by this bit.
Dangerous work, well sometimes it has to be done.
I will concede that that example was quite a bit of a stretch.

fine but i gauruntee it will interfere more with the efficient running of a country. Appealing to someone might on the remote chance work but I think forcing them to do cold turkey is a better idea. I mean they cant think rationally because theyre addicted. So you have to act for them.

Liberty isn't contingent on a person's ability to make good decisions - well, the decisions you think are good, anyway. I recognize that if we legalize drugs, a bunch of idiots will spiral into some drug-induced abyss. The issue isn't what will happen if we legalize drugs--for example, the cohesion of society, the efficient running of the country, increase in the number of drug addicts or whatever other excuse you want to pull out of your pocket. The issue is whether the government has the right to interfere at all. I maintain that it doesn't because I own my body. I also own the product of my labor because it results from my body. That's why I think drugs should be legalized, military drafts are unethical, and that taxes are coercive and wrong.

drugs are too much of a risk, legalizing them will destabilize the cohesion of society.

Right seeing as most of you think you have every right to seriously harm yourself fair fucks to you. But if you were with someone who was going to do it tell me honestly would you stop them?
legalizing drugs would ADD to the cohesion of society (read Brave NewWorld)

I would save someones life by telling them if they die it will innerupt the high

And if this version of responsibility starts to negatively affect the lives of others?
then it prolly means your not passing the bowl

How about when junkies start robbing people to get money to pay for another fix? How about the fact that when these addicts finally disintegrate in health we all have to end up paying for their treatment because they just had to have the freedom to make their own decision to hurt "only themselves".

The government must always default to liberty. A drug addict isn't instrinsically a criminal who is always going to rob or murder people. A person who drinks regularly or an alcoholic isn't always going to drunk drive. I know I'm not bestowing upon you some startling revelation, but the point is that there's no justification to violate a person's right to harm his own body because he might do something wrong with his liberty. If we banned everything that might be abused by free individuals--guns, drugs, alcohol, cars, knives, buckets, baseball bats, [insert random object here]--we'd be living in some police state. I'd rather enforce harsh penalties for people who commit crimes while drunk, on drugs or with guns.

I agree with you that it's RIDICULOUS that we'd have to pay for drug rehabilitation. That's why I don't think we should.

abstinence fails because its a false idiology--why else do you think Bushs abstinence-only programs have caused the tremendous spike in the rate of abortions? When people are led to believe that they cant do something they enjoy it only makes the forbidden act more attractive
well i haven't smoked in about 4 months now (bar a 2 week stint in Amsterdam :D) and i'm fine. abstinence, in this case, works just fine

I have a beer occasionally but I'm not dumb enough to take drugs, become a damn junkie.

depends what you get into if you get pissed and beat your wife an sit on your ass then i suggest you blow your mind and go loopy especialy if work food death routine bores you too

The government must always default to liberty. A drug addict isn't instrinsically a criminal who is always going to rob or murder people. A person who drinks regularly or an alcoholic isn't always going to drunk drive. I know I'm not bestowing upon you some startling revelation, but the point is that there's no justification to violate a person's right to harm his own body because he might do something wrong with his liberty. If we banned everything that might be abused by free individuals--guns, drugs, alcohol, cars, knives, buckets, baseball bats, [insert random object here]--we'd be living in some police state. I'd rather enforce harsh penalties for people who commit crimes while drunk, on drugs or with guns.

I agree with you that it's RIDICULOUS that we'd have to pay for drug rehabilitation. That's why I don't think we should.

Well, it doesn't really matter since these drugs are illegal already. :D

How about when junkies start robbing people to get money to pay for another fix?
This point goes a bit flat. The problem here is quite clearly that the people are being robbed, not that the person has used drugs.
Example:
If I were to rob someone at gunpoint because I wanted to eat, would that make eating wrong? If I were to rob someone because I wanted money, would that make capitalism wrong?
Also, the robbery is wrong whether or not the person is using drugs, so I don't see how the drug use itself is wrong. Combine that with the fact that there are drug users who are not robbers, and that point sort of loses its sting.
How about the fact that when these addicts finally disintegrate in health we all have to end up paying for their treatment because they just had to have the freedom to make their own decision to hurt "only themselves".
This one is a much better argument than your first point. It forces me into a corner of either choosing the position that it is right that drug-users get healthcare pay from taxes, or that healthcare should be private, as I don't think the middle ground of not having public funds for drug-users but having public funds for everybody else is internally consistent.

fine but i gauruntee it will interfere more with the efficient running of a country. Appealing to someone might on the remote chance work but I think forcing them to do cold turkey is a better idea. I mean they cant think rationally because theyre addicted. So you have to act for them.
your fears are irrational

depends what you get into if you get pissed and beat your wife an sit on your ass then i suggest you blow your mind and go loopy especialy if work food death routine bores you too

If I'm really desperate then I'll get drunk. Alcohol is at least legal.

legalizing drugs would ADD to the cohesion of society (read Brave NewWorld)

I would save someones life by telling them if they die it will innerupt the high

I have read it and i recall that they were used to keep everyone submissive. Also reduced life expectancy to 60. And that world was a kind of farcical dystopia.




Liberty isn't contingent on a person's ability to make good decisions - well, the decisions you think are good, anyway. I recognize that if we legalize drugs, a bunch of idiots will spiral into some drug-induced abyss. The issue isn't what will happen if we legalize drugs--for example, the cohesion of society, the efficient running of the country, increase in the number of drug addicts or whatever other excuse you want to pull out of your pocket. The issue is whether the government has the right to interfere at all. I maintain that it doesn't because I own my body. I also own the product of my labor because it results from my body. That's why I think drugs should be legalized, military drafts are unethical, and that taxes are coercive and wrong.

Right, dont pay taxes...because welfare systems= communism. You sound very selfish drugs increase the probability of people doing stupid things btw.

Well, it doesn't really matter since these drugs are illegal already. :D

It does matter because laws can be amended and changed.

How about when junkies start robbing people to get money to pay for another fix? How about the fact that when these addicts finally disintegrate in health we all have to end up paying for their treatment because they just had to have the freedom to make their own decision to hurt "only themselves".
make drugs more readily available so there cheaper and give people free health care--any other unfounded fears you want to bring up?

Ah, but were we talking about addiction? You said this:

I thoguht we were talking about whether or not they are harmful, not whether or not they are addictive.

Yes, smoking causes cancer, and there are ads about that, which is good.
But smoking is still legal, isn't it?

Err, I don't understand what you are trying to say by this bit.

I will concede that that example was quite a bit of a stretch.

if ciggies were banned in the first place we wouldnt have so many people dying of cancer, heart disease etc. Addictiveness and harm tend to go hand in hand. Alchohol isnt harmful in moderation, in fact beneficial. Obesity is a very serious problem for developed nations and should be irradicated. Its a cultural problem.

This point goes a bit flat. The problem here is quite clearly that the people are being robbed, not that the person has used drugs.
Example:
If I were to rob someone at gunpoint because I wanted to eat, would that make eating wrong? If I were to rob someone because I wanted money, would that make capitalism wrong?
Also, the robbery is wrong whether or not the person is using drugs, so I don't see how the drug use itself is wrong. Combine that with the fact that there are drug users who are not robbers, and that point sort of loses its sting.

The point I was trying to make was that it is their drug addiction that forces these people to steal to continue their addiction. If these drugs were not around then these other crimes would not occur.

I smoke teh wonder weed and eat the shrooms and acid from time to time :D
This, except instead of acid (wasn't a fan) nitrous (hippy crack). And even then it's been so long I don't know that you could really say I do that anymore.

I spent a year doing the occasional E, but decided I wasn't all that into that either. Me likey the weed and am happy with that, and for extra special occasions, shrums. Like, if I can swing it for Brothers Grimm or Mirror Mask....man, that aught to be sweet!

Ahem....anyway....

well i haven't smoked in about 4 months now (bar a 2 week stint in Amsterdam :D) and i'm fine. abstinence, in this case, works just fine
then it needs more time to fail

I have read it and i recall that they were used to keep everyone submissive. Also reduced life expectancy to 60. And that world was a kind of farcical dystopia.




Right, dont pay taxes...because welfare systems= communism. You sound very selfish drugs increase the probability of people doing stupid things btw.

I didn't say welfare system equals communism. Nice strawman there. I said taxes are coercive and unethical. If I had said, "I hate paying taxes 'cause I like to blow my money on DVDs and iPods, not stupid poor people," then you'd have a point. Kind of. I never commented either way about whether I like paying taxes. I made an ethical and logically consistent conclusion based on my libertarian philosophy about drugs, the draft and taxes. Also, even if I were selfishly motivated, that still wouldn't refute my argument since my motives are irrelevant.

Yeah, drugs increase the probability of people doing stupid things. So? Go back to an earlier post of mine where I said liberty isn't contingent on a person making good decisions with his freedom.

Well, it doesn't really matter since these drugs are illegal already. :D
true and we all see how many millions of innocent lives drug prohibiton has destroyed and cut short needlessly

How about when junkies start robbing people to get money to pay for another fix? How about the fact that when these addicts finally disintegrate in health we all have to end up paying for their treatment because they just had to have the freedom to make their own decision to hurt "only themselves".
not all drugs are addictive in this way :rolleyes:
in fact, only the hardest of the lot (heroin comes to mind first) is... throwing a blanket statement around all drugs and not recognising their different effects or dangers is silly.... you just can't say weed is as bad as smack for example :rolleyes:
(not that you were saying that but i'm generalising here :P )


I agree with you that it's RIDICULOUS that we'd have to pay for drug rehabilitation. That's why I don't think we should.
people make mistakes. junkies have mad bad ones - about the worst a person can make (to become addicted to something, a chemical, is a pretty awful mistake if you ask me)
they need help. to abandon them 'in their hour of need' is immoral imho - they can go on to live happy, productive lives if helped and successfully rehabilitated
the alternative is misery, an unacceptable substandard quality of life, and possibly death... not to mention all the crime you seem to be against. stop the junkies being junkies through rehabilitation and you'll cut the amount of people needing to steal stuff to feed their habbit.
they made a mistake and its all of our (societies') responsibility to help those in need when required (again imho)

make drugs more readily available so there cheaper and give people free health care--any other unfounded fears you want to bring up?

If they were legal I would bet they would still be expensive for the drug companies would drive prices up. Free health care though will never happen in the USA.

then it prolly means your not passing the bowl
Zing!


This legitimately made me laugh.

This point goes a bit flat. The problem here is quite clearly that the people are being robbed, not that the person has used drugs.
Example:
If I were to rob someone at gunpoint because I wanted to eat, would that make eating wrong? If I were to rob someone because I wanted money, would that make capitalism wrong?
Also, the robbery is wrong whether or not the person is using drugs, so I don't see how the drug use itself is wrong. Combine that with the fact that there are drug users who are not robbers, and that point sort of loses its sting.

This one is a much better argument than your first point. It forces me into a corner of either choosing the position that it is right that drug-users get healthcare pay from taxes, or that healthcare should be private, as I don't think the middle ground of not having public funds for drug-users but having public funds for everybody else is internally consistent.

Eating is a necessity. Drugs arent and the crime has resulted because of the need to get a fix. Capitalism can be equated in many instances to robbery/exploitation at a profit.However in this case the analogy falls down

then it needs more time to fail
optimistic little fellow aren't we?

If they were legal I would bet they would still be expensive for the drug companies would drive prices up. Free health care though will never happen in the USA.
If it where legal I'd have a garden.

optimistic little fellow aren't we?
I honestly think you two are talking about different things.

If I'm really desperate then I'll get drunk. Alcohol is at least legal.
when you obey immoral laws you legitimize them

I didn't say welfare system equals communism. Nice strawman there. I said taxes are coercive and unethical. If I had said, "I hate paying taxes 'cause I like to blow my money on DVDs and iPods, not stupid poor people," then you'd have a point. Kind of. I never commented either way about whether I like paying taxes. I made an ethical and logically consistent conclusion based on my libertarian philosophy about drugs, the draft and taxes. Also, even if I were selfishly motivated, that still wouldn't refute my argument since my motives are irrelevant.

Yeah, drugs increase the probability of people doing stupid things. So? Go back to an earlier post of mine where I said liberty isn't contingent on a person making good decisions with his freedom.

thats how it came across. If you belong to a society you have to play your role in it to keep it going. Taxes are a necessity. How are you going to keep welfare systems alive without paying taxes? You cant expect people to be charitable of their own accord to poor people. That would be akin to bushes trickle down system (no i mean the president) which is basically a sham.

People are more likely to do stupid things like harm someone physically if they are on drugs. Or mentally in a severe way. Its just unnecesssary and could easily be avoided.

Im under the impression that libitarianism is a selfish philosophy.

if ciggies were banned in the first place we wouldnt have so many people dying of cancer, heart disease etc.
Do you, then, support banning tobacco products?
Addictiveness and harm tend to go hand in hand.
You may have a case there, but only in one direction.
I don't believe that many of the toxic chemicals we know of are addictive. Is cyanide addictive? Is mercury addictive?
You may be correct that most of the addictive substances we know of are harmful. I don't think it is true for all of them though, because if memory serves, caffeine is addictive, and not noticably harmful.
Alchohol isnt harmful in moderation, in fact beneficial.
Perhaps. I have also heard it claimed that prolonged exposure to 'safe' evels of alcohol can cause slowly weaken and kill neurons, but I don't know enough about alcohol to provide solid evidence either way.

By the way, do you know where I could obtain information about the supposed beneficial effects of alcohol? I had read that it was proved, then I read that it was disproved, then I read that we weren't sure.

I honestly think you two are talking about different things.
well the dude could be thinking i was talking about smoking tobacco i guess (which i do smoke in my spliffs anyway, of course)... other than that i'm at a loss. care to explain? :confused:

people make mistakes. junkies have mad bad ones - about the worst a person can make (to become addicted to something, a chemical, is a pretty awful mistake if you ask me)
they need help. to abandon them 'in their hour of need' is immoral imho - they can go on to live happy, productive lives if helped and successfully rehabilitated
the alternative is misery, an unacceptable substandard quality of life, and possibly death... not to mention all the crime you seem to be against. stop the junkies being junkies through rehabilitation and you'll cut the amount of people needing to steal stuff to feed their habbit.
they made a mistake and its all of our (societies') responsibility to help those in need when required (again imho)

I have no problem with the government helping drug addicts as long as the government doesn't use coercive and involuntary taxes to do so. My problem isn't with the government's 'humanitarian' work; I only object to taxation. If you think it's immoral to not rehabilitate drug addicts, then I would salute you for donating your hard-earned money to charities and the government. I don't think you should force others to pay for drug addicts' rehabilitation, though. It's not my responsibility to help drug addicts, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't.

The point I was trying to make was that it is their drug addiction that forces these people to steal to continue their addiction. If these drugs were not around then these other crimes would not occur.
false--stealing would still exist

when you obey immoral laws you legitimize them

Are you talking about banning alcohol? :confused:

Do you, then, support banning tobacco products?

You may have a case there, but only in one direction.
I don't believe that many of the toxic chemicals we know of are addictive. Is cyanide addictive? Is mercury addictive?
You may be correct that most of the addictive substances we know of are harmful. I don't think it is true for all of them though, because if memory serves, caffeine is addictive, and not noticably harmful.

Perhaps. I have also heard it claimed that prolonged exposure to 'safe' evels of alcohol can cause slowly weaken and kill neurons, but I don't know enough about alcohol to provide solid evidence either way.

By the way, do you know where I could obtain information about the supposed beneficial effects of alcohol? I had read that it was proved, then I read that it was disproved, then I read that we weren't sure.

caffeine isnt addictive. Well thats what I find. I dunno where you can find out about it. Likewise Ive read it in magazines and newspapers. I would be for banning cigarrettes yes, you cant smoke in hotels or restaurants so why not go all the way and ban them outright?

false--stealing would still exist

Sorry, I mean the spinoff crimes occuring from the drug addiction.

Free health care though will never happen in the USA.
until the neocon enemies of humanity are overthrown

Zing!


This legitimately made me laugh.
:D --i just get pissed when anti-drug bigot try to assume the moral high ground

*sighs* this thread has lost it's humor

thats how it came across. If you belong to a society you have to play your role in it to keep it going. Taxes are a necessity. How are you going to keep welfare systems alive without paying taxes? You cant expect people to be charitable of their own accord to poor people. That would be akin to bushes trickle down system (no i mean the president) which is basically a sham.

People are more likely to do stupid things like harm someone physically if they are on drugs. Or mentally in a severe way. Its just unnecesssary and could easily be avoided.

Im under the impression that libitarianism is a selfish philosophy.

Taxes are a necessity? Even if that were true, would that mean the government had the right to tax us? The ends justify the means? We need taxes to fund X, Y, and Z, therefore taxes are justified? I'm sorry, that's not a good argument. I am presenting to you my libertarian philosophy of ethics and you're throwing "we need taxes" back at me. I don't have a problem with government activism as long as it doesn't derive its money from unethical means.

I don't much care how the government would keep welfare alive as long as it doesn't resort to involuntary and coercive taxation. And I do expect people to give to charities. Hell, we're taxed out of the freakin' ass as it is, yet people donate incredible sums of money to charities.

You're unable to move past my motives. Who cares if I am selfish? Does that knock down my philosophy? You might be selfishly motivated for believing in a welfare state. You might feel insecure and prefer a government safety net in case you can't take care of yourself. I don't know if that's true and I don't particularly care. The reason why I am a libertarian is irrelevant - what're important are the merits of my argument and the merits of your argument. And for your information, I don't oppose taxes because I am just selfish with the money. I don't even make a lot of money. I oppose taxes because the government shouldn't force me to give up my money.

hello, i am the benevolent dictator of schmeling, and i am no longer taking heroin (on a regular basis, at least), but i would like to be.

i'm sticking with the occasional hooch and allergy pill. for now.

well the dude could be thinking i was talking about smoking tobacco i guess (which i do smoke in my spliffs anyway, of course)... other than that i'm at a loss. care to explain? :confused:
I think it's a slight variation. On one hand you are talking about physical addiction and he is talking about the notion that you can enforce or impose total absenence on the populace-not so much that everyone will eventually smoke da weed, but that someone will, somewhere.

Though I haven't been paying that much attention.

optimistic little fellow aren't we?

but it MUST fail--abstinence is denial

Are you talking about banning alcohol? :confused:
no--im talken about legalizing everything good and fun--some people dont like to vomit so they want other drug options then alcohol that tastes like poison

I have no problem with the government helping drug addicts as long as the government doesn't use coercive and involuntary taxes to do so. My problem isn't with the government's 'humanitarian' work; I only object to taxation. If you think it's immoral to not rehabilitate drug addicts, then I would salute you for donating your hard-earned money to charities and the government. I don't think you should force others to pay for drug addicts' rehabilitation, though. It's not my responsibility to help drug addicts, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't.
taxation happens to be a very efficient way of organising and distributing this kind of help (economies of scale etc etc)
charities are an option, of course, but are supplamentary as the state should provide at least a minimum level of rehabilitation support, and the state tends to run on taxes...

besides i do think it is everyone's duty to pay: if you are against involuntary monetary donation then why support the government at all - why not just charity where the potential taxpayer really does have the option to choose whether or not to help, and where their help should go? if you are against taxes in this way do you oppose unemployment benefits also?

personally i choose to believe in something Gandhi once said (and i'm sure its been said many times before of course) "every man has responsibilty for every other man" - it may not be a natural or undeniable law of philosophy or whatever (lets not go there) but i choose to believe this is a ethical way to live. therefore, for me, the ethical thing to do is for all of society to come together to help those in need. which implies, the exact reverse of what you said above, that it is unfair for some to choose not to help those in need (as opposed to it being unfair to be forced to help against one's express wishes)

:D --i just get pissed when anti-drug bigot try to assume the moral high ground

You're not trying to claim some moral superiority by saying people have the right to take dangerous drugs?

Sorry, I mean the spinoff crimes occuring from the drug addiction.
what about the far more serios spin off crimes that result from drug prohibiton?

I think it's a slight variation. On one hand you are talking about physical addiction and he is talking about the notion that you can enforce or impose total absenence on the populace-not so much that everyone will eventually smoke da weed, but that someone will, somewhere.

Though I haven't been paying that much attention.
but it MUST fail--abstinence is denial

woah ok i don't know where this misunderstanding arose, but, to clarify, all i said was i'm going to lay off the weed for a while... next thing i remember i'm being told abstinence can't work...
its working for me but thats because i was a pothead and i want to move on in life.
as for the population of course abstinence or prohibition won't work! (agreed)

If you want to be against addictive drugs, thats your stint. Don't include Marijuana in that, however. Other than a small minority, most smokers are not addicted. They do it alot because they like to, but they dont go mugging for money, etc.

I have been doing it off and on for, I dunno, 8 months maybe? This includes multiple periods of weeks at a time where I dont do it, because its not easily available to me. Or because I need to pass a drug test, or what have you. I have only ever spent 5 dollars on this "addictive habit", because I smoke socially with friends.

Also, I have commited many more crimes when Im not high, than when I am, even including the act of using drugs.

hello, i am the benevolent dictator of schmeling, and i am no longer taking heroin (on a regular basis, at least), but i would like to be.

i'm sticking with the occasional hooch and allergy pill. for now.
allergy pills give you dry throats tho--I hate that

like alchohol, tobacco, caffeine (which the US congress contemplated outlawing during prohibition as well), and over-the-counter and prescriptions.
(and some mormans might add sugar)

grass is less harmful than beer or cigarettes.

the more addictive drugs, the ones in which you can go
through major withdrawl symptoms or o.d. just like that,
such as heroin or crack, users should be put on prescription
to help those that are sick kick the addiction, if they so choose.
They do this in parts of Europe, why not here?

The Drug War is worse than the drugs,
it has been a major infringement on our human/civil/bill of rights,
until the war on terrorism took over that job.
Grandmas can lose their house if their grandson is doing or dealing
drugs and he happens to live with her even if she knows absolutely
nothing of it. This has happened and such property is confiscated
before they go to trial. Property "suspected" of being bought with
drug money. Ever wonder how the cops end up with pick-up squad cars?
Police corrupt also occurs.


Then there is the whole matter of interferring in other people's countries.
Alfred McCoy wrote "The Poltics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade" and the late Gary Webb wrote "Dark Alliance:The CIA, The Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion" "Whiteout:The CIA, Drugs and the Press"
by the Counterpunch folks. Among others.
Basically what the titles say,
also the drug war has been used as an excuse to interfere
in other people's countries. Not just because they shouldn't and that is
wrong, although, yes, primarily this, but also because the US gov't does
has done this in countries to take sides in civil war on the side of some ultra-rich oligarchy. witness : Colombia which has had a 40 year civil war.


MJ & its sister plant hemp can be used for oh, so many purposes.
I'm sure we all know.

Other than that.
Actually, I don't ingest any drugs nowadays
except alchohol and caffeine.

You're not trying to claim some moral superiority by saying people have the right to take dangerous drugs?
no risk no gain

woah ok i don't know where this misunderstanding arose, but, to clarify, all i said was i'm going to lay off the weed for a while... next thing i remember i'm being told abstinence can't work...
its working for me but thats because i was a pothead and i want to move on in life.
as for the population of course abstinence or prohibition won't work! (agreed)
well you can always smoke when you done moving then

what about the far more serios spin off crimes that result from drug prohibiton?

I really don't understand the theory that legalizing everything will make a better society.

I really don't understand the theory that legalizing everything will make a better society.
its the same theory that elevates freedom over tyranny

its the same theory that elevates freedom over tyranny

Freedom going to the far extreme can only turn into anarchy. Freedom has to have a limit. It is where the limit should be that is the debate that will most likely never be agreed on.

Freedom going to the far extreme can only turn into anarchy. Freedom has to have a limit. It is where the limit should be that is the debate that will most likely never be agreed on.
its better to err on the side of anarchy then caution

well you can always smoke when you done moving then
i intend to :P

i intend to :P
thats all Im sayin ;)

taxation happens to be a very efficient way of organising and distributing this kind of help (economies of scale etc etc)
charities are an option, of course, but are supplamentary as the state should provide at least a minimum level of rehabilitation support, and the state tends to run on taxes...

besides i do think it is everyone's duty to pay: if you are against involuntary monetary donation then why support the government at all - why not just charity where the potential taxpayer really does have the option to choose whether or not to help, and where their help should go? if you are against taxes in this way do you oppose unemployment benefits also?

personally i choose to believe in something Gandhi once said (and i'm sure its been said many times before of course) "every man has responsibilty for every other man" - it may not be a natural or undeniable law of philosophy or whatever (lets not go there) but i choose to believe this is a ethical way to live. therefore, for me, the ethical thing to do is for all of society to come together to help those in need. which implies, the exact reverse of what you said above, that it is unfair for some to choose not to help those in need (as opposed to it being unfair to be forced to help against one's express wishes)

The government doesn't need to tax to operate - not if you eliminate Social Security, welfare, and other bloated government programs. I'm not an anarchist, but I'm something close. Taxation isn't efficient, at least not in its current state--US tax code, anyone?--but even if it were, I still wouldn't support it. I don't believe in stealing from one person to give to another no matter how "practical" or "efficient" or "effective" or whatever else. I don't object to what you think the government "ought" to do (provide rehabilitation) as much as I object to the means (involuntary taxation).

I totally agree with your second paragraph. And yes, I'm against unemployment benefits that rely on involuntary taxation. If a private employer wants to purchase unemployment insurance because he's just a nice guy or he wants to attract higher quality (more educated and more experienced) employees to work at his business, then that's fine with me. But any government-supported unemployment insurance (that funds itself using involuntary taxation or that forces private employers to comply) is unethical.

I don't disagree with you that the world would be a better place if everybody helped everybody else. I think that's a nice principle. But I can't promote theft to enforce my own good. I differentiate between the right and the good. The right: liberty; doing what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on anybody else's right to do what he wants. For example, the right to own your body, own property, speak freely, be gay, do drugs, be rich, etc. The good: your own principles, like sex before marriage is wrong; we should all take care of each other; tattoos are the work of the devil. The government should protect the right (liberty) so you can live freely and pursue your own good (your set of principles). The "right" is what's universal among human beings, one's natural rights. The "good" is your own set of principles about how you think the world should work. The "right" never infringes on liberty, which is why I respect your opinion about helping other people, but ultimately believe it's unethical because it forces others to surrender their liberty (via taxation). The problem is when people force their own "good" on other individuals.

allergy pills give you dry throats tho--I hate that
that's the point. i have to take them, because i have allergies. :]

that's the point. i have to take them, because i have allergies. :]

I guest thats one use for them

I have, in the past, smoked pot, dropped acid, and snorted coke. None of them , except acid, really did anything for me. Now, I don't do any drugs and don't drink.

I have, in the past, smoked pot, dropped acid, and snorted coke. None of them , except acid, really did anything for me. Now, I don't do any drugs and don't drink.

Smart decision to stop. Too many other people continue to hurt themselves with these drugs. :(

what about the far more serios spin off crimes that result from drug prohibiton?

Then we should learn how to take care of criminals with competance. We cannot be afraid to make things illegal out of fear of criminals.

The government doesn't need to tax to operate - not if you eliminate Social Security, welfare, and other bloated government programs. I'm not an anarchist, but I'm something close. Taxation isn't efficient, at least not in its current state--US tax code, anyone?--but even if it were, I still wouldn't support it. I don't believe in stealing from one person to give to another no matter how "practical" or "efficient" or "effective" or whatever else. I don't object to what you think the government "ought" to do (provide rehabilitation) as much as I object to the means (involuntary taxation).

I totally agree with your second paragraph. And yes, I'm against unemployment benefits that rely on involuntary taxation. If a private employer wants to purchase unemployment insurance because he's just a nice guy or he wants to attract higher quality (more educated and more experienced) employees to work at his business, then that's fine with me. But any government-supported unemployment insurance (that funds itself using involuntary taxation or that forces private employers to comply) is unethical.

I don't disagree with you that the world would be a better place if everybody helped everybody else. I think that's a nice principle. But I can't promote theft to enforce my own good. I differentiate between the right and the good. The right: liberty; doing what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on anybody else's right to do what he wants. For example, the right to own your body, own property, speak freely, be gay, do drugs, be rich, etc. The good: your own principles, like sex before marriage is wrong; we should all take care of each other; tattoos are the work of the devil. The government should protect the right (liberty) so you can live freely and pursue your own good (your set of principles). The "right" is what's universal among human beings, one's natural rights. The "good" is your own set of principles about how you think the world should work. The "right" never infringes on liberty, which is why I respect your opinion about helping other people, but ultimately believe it's unethical because it forces others to surrender their liberty (via taxation). The problem is when people force their own "good" on other individuals.

ah, i see. no offence but america has a lousy existant(?) "welfare system" so I can see where your coming from with the squandering of taxes. Nonetheless if your part of a society that gives to you education, a safe environment that you are a part of how is unreasonable to be expected to give something back? The alternative of everyone living by their own set of rules isnt feasible right now and seems to be isolating too. When i say libertarianism is selfish im not saying you are actually selfish. But comments like "everyone for himself" come across as selfish ones. Im not one to advocate for conformism either. I hate it when individuality is supressed or when people are persecuted because they are differant or stand out. But I also believe in universal solidarity as an ideal to be promoted and instilled in and among people.

If you can't beat em, join em!


Enjoy that flawed argument...

i thought someone would say this. Your taking it totally out of context. Alchohol isnt addictive unless your an alchoholic or have a need to escape some problem. Drugs are different, they basically are addictive.

The very nature of both alcohol and ciggeretts means that they are an addictive substance.
Case in point 1 : My father who went into surgery for lung cancer gave up ciggerettes after 20+ years of smoking, but was yelling at the doctors to take him off of his pain meds so he could have his daily drinks!!!
Case in point 2 : My mother has been saying for the last 3 years she is going to quit smoking also....Still sits on her porch and smokes all day long

Or Mc Donalds, surely you dont want a nation of obese people causing such a strain on the health services for their own self imposed corpulence.


Again, just as dangerous as any other drugs out there. How many people are addictide to junk food? Overeaters Anonymous anyone?
The simple fact of the matter is that ANY substance (or THING! Computers, for example) can be as addicting and more so than any other substance. There is no right or wrong. The only way to "control" these numbers is to legalize certain things, and make others available by perscription. Then the government can make the taxes they are missing out on and the big drug companies can make more money also!!


By the way:
Smoke weed daily
Tried coke
Tried meth
Tried acid
Tried alcohol
Tried ciggerette

Any questions?
;)

Nowadays, the only drug I do is weed. Back in the day I did Ecstacy, Acid (lots of it) Shrooms, Mescaline, and I was addicted to Morphine for several years. Yeah, I was a druggie.

Smart decision to stop.
I thought so.

Now to throw in my 2 cents worth on pot/and or stupidity.

If pot doesn't adversely affect you, then why is it that former NFL running back Ricky Williams gave up his $1,000,000+/year contract so he could smoke it. Also on a smaller scale I personally know 2 people who could have $50,000/year job, all the would have to do is give up the weed; instead they are making maybe $8,000/year.

Straight Edge here.

Shazam!

Never tried nothin', and don't plan on, either.

I hate junkies. And alcoholics. Some of the worst examples of mankind, IMAO.

Never tried nothin', and don't plan on, either.

I hate junkies. And alcoholics. Some of the worst examples of mankind, IMAO.

I don't really hate them; I mean, everybody has the right to do what they want, don't they? I just don't respect them, and I wish they would stop bothering me.

Never tried nothin', and don't plan on, either.

I hate junkies. And alcoholics. Some of the worst examples of mankind, IMAO.
Heh. Used to be a junkie myself and I hate junkies. But I REALLY hate alcoholics. If you're going to addicted to something, at least get addicted to a decnt drug (same can be said about crack, the ultimate rip-off drug)

Drugs are bad, m'kay?

here's what I see when the cops do a big drug bust it's
a)not going to stop drugs from circulating
b)going to make prices go way up
1)a byproduct of prices going up is heroin junkies and crack addicts and meth heads start killing each other for a fix when they can't afford it

the cops have good intentions but they have no idea what they're doing
I've seen all this happen

Drugs are bad, m'kay?
*pats Zexaland on the head*

Don't forget to shut the door on your way out.

I thought so.

Now to throw in my 2 cents worth on pot/and or stupidity.

If pot doesn't adversely affect you, then why is it that former NFL running back Ricky Williams gave up his $1,000,000+/year contract so he could smoke it. Also on a smaller scale I personally know 2 people who could have $50,000/year job, all the would have to do is give up the weed; instead they are making maybe $8,000/year.

Thats not really an adverse effect, at least not one thats fair to count. Alcohol could do the very same thing. Thats just people who have addictive personalities, not the drugs.

You also have to look at it as adverse, or not. If they choose to be high, rather than make money, thats their perogative. Its not nessecairaly adverse, if they prefer it that way.

Thats not really an adverse effect, at least not one thats fair to count.
Why isn't it fair to count?


Alcohol could do the very same thing.
True, didn't say otherwise



You also have to look at it as adverse, or not. If they choose to be high, rather than make money, thats their perogative. Its not nessecairaly adverse, if they prefer it that way.
How can it not be adverse? Money doesn't solve everything. but where I live you cannot afford housing and food on $8k a year. The only reason the one of them has an apartment and food is because he's on welfare.

Why isn't it fair to count?



True, didn't say otherwise




How can it not be adverse? Money doesn't solve everything. but where I live you cannot afford housing and food on $8k a year. The only reason the one of them has an apartment and food is because he's on welfare.

Its not fair to count because its not a direct effect of the drug. Its an effect of people who have addictive personalities.

And its not adverse, because if he's happier without the money, thats his deal. Why make them sadder?

And its not adverse, because if he's happier without the money, thats his deal. Why make them sadder?
Because I don't feel the need to pay for his happiness. If he could manage to do drugs and make enough money to live without government assistance, then I wouldn't have a problem with it; I'd still think he was stupid for doing it, but then that's just my personal opinion.

its the govts fault if people get addicted--they should be developing safer recreational drugs for the people to use that wont harm us

its the govts fault if people get addicted--they should be developing safer recreational drugs for the people to use that wont harm us
Are you an idiot? No offense meant, but why should the government spend money on recreational drugs?

its the govts fault if people get addicted--they should be developing safer recreational drugs for the people to use that wont harm us

:rolleyes:

i drink occasionaly and i have considered smoking hash a few times but have yet to do it, oh i'm sooooo clean, damn me

Shrooms once. (really fecked myself over there; what i thought were mexicans (very mild) were in fact colombians. not a fun trip. :rolleyes: ) Generally just alcohol.

Are you an idiot? No offense meant, but why should the government spend money on recreational drugs?
because its their job to SERVE the people

because its their job to SERVE the people

It's the governments job to get people high is it?

because its their job to SERVE the people
It's the governments job to get people high is it?
Apparently yes, it is, and by that reasoning, it's also the governments responsibility to fund all potentially dangerous recreational activities

Because I don't feel the need to pay for his happiness. If he could manage to do drugs and make enough money to live without government assistance, then I wouldn't have a problem with it; I'd still think he was stupid for doing it, but then that's just my personal opinion.

Then complain about how welfare lets people get away with things like this. Don't make arguments against drugs.

Then complain about how welfare lets people get away with things like this. Don't make arguments against drugs.
If they weren't on drugs they could get a good job that he is qualified for (and which he has stated to me that he enjoys) and wouldn't need to be on welfare.

If they weren't on drugs they could get a good job that he is qualified for (and which he has stated to me that he enjoys) and wouldn't need to be on welfare.
you can make the same argument against alcohol yet why is that legal when softer drugs are kept illegal?

If they weren't on drugs they could get a good job that he is qualified for (and which he has stated to me that he enjoys) and wouldn't need to be on welfare.

He obviously enjoys drugs more than a good job. He is obviously happy with his choice, or he wouldnt have made it.

You dont like the fact that your tax dollars are going to him. Then, again, complain about the welfare systems loopholes, not about drugs.

I dont like the fact that my tax dollars are going to war profiteers like Halliburton in Iraq and thats ALOT more money then the crumbs poor people get from welfare