| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
| |||||||
 EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 15 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Evolving writes:
"So, just so I understand where you're coming from, any and all forms of deciding how one should act is a government even if it is totally voluntary, involves no coercion and there is no organized body (or individual) to enforce codes... " I agree with you that tribal customs, laws, taboos, etc. do not constitute a "government" by any strict definition of that term, but it should be pointed out that obeying or not obeying those laws/customs/taboos was not, as you claim, "totally voluntary" or that it "involves no coercion." First of all, people in primitive hunter/gatherer communities did not have highly developed conceptions of individualism, and they did not have access to sources of information or ideas that were at odds with the prevailing cosmology and worldview. The fact is that the thought of not obeying customs and taboos simply wouldn't have even crossed their minds. Even if it DID momentarily cross their minds, the possibility of being ostracized and abandoned by the community would have been seen by them as a fate literally worse than death. It's not as if they could just take off with their MasterCards and make a new start of it, and they certainly didn't attach as much value to their own opinions as contemporary Americans do. If they felt they had been treated unfairly or wronged in some way they could protest but eventually would have to submit to some kind of third-party mediation. Cooperation was not a luxury for them, it was a matter of survival.
| |||||||
|
nugsarenice Carpal Tunnel Registered: 06/04/00 Posts: 3,442 Loc: nowhere Last seen: 18 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Was their one part in the green party platform that you can cite as appearing socialist?
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Great_Cthulhu, your stance on the use of drugs is inconsistent, no matter how you squirm and wiggle to justify it. In essence you are saying it is OK to legalize SOME recreational drugs, but only the ones YOU believe are good, or can be used "responsibly".
How is that different from the current WOD? The US government has decided that caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol are good, and can be used responsibly. To that list YOU would be willing to add some hallucinogens and marijuana. Your reasons for leaving opiates, amphetamines, PCP and cocaine criminalized substances seem to be twofold: 1) You claim that people under the influence of these drugs MAY harm others. 2) You claim that these drugs are injurious to the user. Let's address 1) first. The vast majority of the harm that those addicted to cocaine and opiates inflict on others comes not from some psychotic rage produced by the drug itself (junkies, for example, are about the most non-violent people you will ever meet), but by the need to come up with enough money to BUY the stuff in the first place. Wealthy junkies are not a danger to the populace at large. If these drugs were decriminalized, why do you think they would be any more expensive than cigarettes, coffee, or alcohol? Coca bushes and opium poppies are no more difficult to grow than coffee bushes. If I need my caffeine fix, I don't mug someone to get the money necessary to buy a cappucino. PCP and amphetamines do tend to make a higher percentage of users more aggressive than opiates or cocaine, but so what? I have seen WAY more bar brawls take place than fights between tweakers. In the eyes of the law, assaulting someone because you were drunk is no excuse. Neither would assaulting someone because you were "speeding". I fail to see the problem. As for 2), how can you say that the user is injuring himself more by being addicted to cocaine or opiates than to nicotine or alcohol? England's programs have shown that a junkie able to obtain heroin by prescription can function perfectly normally and hold down jobs just as well as non-addicts can. As a matter of fact, they can function better than most alcoholics can. But that is irrelevant. The philosophical principal at stake here is whether or not an individual has the right to put whatever substance he chooses into his body, whether it be heroin or arsenic. You say: I don't subscribe to the theory herion,coke,crack,PCP, etc. can be used responsibly in any way..except use by the medical field. How is someone who gets stoned on beer or marijuana or mushrooms acting any more "responsibly" than someone who gets stoned on smack or coke? The idea in each case is to get wasted, no? If the act of getting stoned on bud is not to be considered irresponsible, how can the act of getting stoned on coke be? If someone pursues happiness at my expense or other innocent people's expense then yes there should be laws to prevent it. Agreed. There are such laws already, i.e. "driving under the influence". Even if it's something(hard drugs) that may start out with it only causing themselves harm then turn into them causing harm to others to aquire their artificial happiness. The point is, there are laws against causing harm already, regardless of the motive behind the harm. Does every thief who steals a TV do so to sell it and buy drugs? Nope. Some do so because they would rather steal a TV than buy one. The legal penalty is identical regardless of the motive behind the theft. As for your stance on suicide... that is completely indefensible rationally no matter what arguments you make. Whose life is it, anyway? It's MY life. If I choose to terminate it prematurely, for WHATEVER reason, delusional or not, that is no one's business but my own. No one has the right to FORCE me to remain alive. You may try to persuade me that I am making a mistake, true. But that's as far as it goes. As soon as you attempt to restrain me forcibly, YOU are in the wrong. This presumes, of course, that my manner of suicide doesn't involve harming others. If I decide to strap a bomb to myself and trigger it in the midst of a schoolyard you have every right to stop me. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
 wingnutx  Registered: 09/24/00 Posts: 2,287 |
| ||||||
|
Lots of right-leaning people support decriminalization of some oor all drugs. You posted to my thread about Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico, who is a Republican who calls for an end to the war on drugs. A huge chunk of the Republican party are basically free-market libertarians who would let the market decide. Many more would rather leave it up to the states. The Libertarian Party, of course, is pro-decriminalization.
Go browse www.freerepublic.com and do a search for drug-related threads. That's pretty much the flagship of conservative/libertarian bulletin boards, and War On Drug threads are prevalent. They are a lot of fun, in fact. The National Review, a long-standing conservative magazine run by Bill Buckly, has an official editorial policy opposing the WOD. You are operating under a false assumption.
| |||||||
|
nugsarenice Carpal Tunnel Registered: 06/04/00 Posts: 3,442 Loc: nowhere Last seen: 18 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
I might look around the sites, but mainly I compare lp. or republicans to to primitive reptiles. They eat meat! But the point is that if Gary Johnson wants the wod to stop then why is he part of the republican party? I support his stance, but just because he supports that idea, does not mean I am going to support his party, In fact it makes his whole party look bad, I mean what kind of political party is one that can't even keep it's members at a standard platform? The libertarians look the same, they are trying to push republican propagandizing through a pro teen anti wod viewpoint, it's basically selling out, that's why I don't trust their party. They have been around so long, but with nothing done. The green party got more votes the lp, and this is about a couple years running for them, The green party is going to spread like wild fire. Their stance is unequivicol, and they appear trustworthy, the dress in hemp, speak about hemp, and their main stance is in fact hemp legalization, I suggest we work at the simple things first.
Who knows what the world's political parties would bring to the green parties doorstep. If they were to show a sign of trustworthyness and ability, like legalizaing hemp, increasing hemp trade, this would be an economic and political peacful bloom for the world. however we would have to vote green, and have green party members in office to achieve this simple goal of hemp legalization.
| |||||||
|
wingnutx Registered: 09/24/00 Posts: 2,287 |
| ||||||
|
Nader and the Green party have my gratitude, btw, for keeping Al Gore out of office. Not as good a spoiler as Perot, but a damn good one in any case
| |||||||
|
Great_Cthulhu enthusiast  Registered: 05/21/01 Posts: 311 Loc: R'lyeh |
| ||||||
|
"I see that you have never met an addict; that would explain your cofusion to what I posted ie. "I was/am addicted to cocain".
The act of admitting an addiction is that one is addicted for the rest of one's life. I was an addict when I used and I continue to be an addict even if I don't use. If I ever use cocaine or any amphetamine, ever again, I will probably die; no, I will die. That is the essence of being an addict. Once an addict ALWAYS an addict." I've seen many addicts. I've lost friends to crack cocaine in fact. It's turned them into SHIT. It's taken normal people and turned them into the scum of the Earth and I witnessed it. Yeah your right many "addicts" usually don't stop wanting a drug he/she is addicted too. Once an addict stops destroying their body and life though they are RECOVERED addicts. They have shown they have the incredible will power it takes to do what's right and stop it either with help our on their own. I do not consider them "addicts". "Thanks for admitting to knowing how to live my life better than me. Thanks for making laws to allow you to intrude on my personal life. I appreciate it, especialy since my parents gave up on raising me when I was 30. It's nice to know that there are so many people willing to stand up and tell me how to live. Now, where's my allowance, I hear the crack truck coming down the street. " I'm tired of trying to tell you why SOME things should not be allowed so...your welcome. 
-------------------- "That is not dead which may eternal lie..and with strange eons even death may die." Vote Great Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?
| |||||||
|
Great_Cthulhu enthusiast Registered: 05/21/01 Posts: 311 Loc: R'lyeh |
| ||||||
|
"So according to you, a tribal society with no complex of political institutions and laws, where there is no coercion and no organized body (or individual) to enforce codes, just voluntary compliance does indeed have a government? "
With any laws/rules there IS coercion. Doesn't matter if there is an organized body or individual to enforce codes as the people living by them do the enforcing. Yes voluntary compliance to a set of rules is a form of self governing. Albeit a simple form of governing but government nevertheless. "Yes, I see how that fits the defintion "Government : 5.b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out" (I noticed you picked definition 5. b. I guess the other more commonly used definitions were even further removed from your personal definition). " It is one of several different definitions of government, but that definition is no less valid than the others. "So, just so I understand where you're coming from, any and all forms of deciding how one should act is a government even if it is totally voluntary, involves no coercion and there is no organized body (or individual) to enforce codes... Wow, even a two people living alone on a desert island not claimed by any political entity, with only their own morals handed down from their upbringing in their society are living under a government. " You are correct. When people limit themselves from doing certain acts they are governing themselves in some way...which constitutes a form of primitive government. "Anarchy could never exist (even for a brief moment) under your definition because all societies are actually governments. " Anarchy exists when you have total lawlessness...say like a riot in L.A.(or anywhere) THAT is Anarchy.
-------------------- "That is not dead which may eternal lie..and with strange eons even death may die." Vote Great Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?
| |||||||
|
Great_Cthulhu enthusiast Registered: 05/21/01 Posts: 311 Loc: R'lyeh |
| ||||||
|
"Great_Cthulhu, your stance on the use of drugs is inconsistent, no matter how you squirm and wiggle to justify it. In essence you are saying it is OK to legalize SOME recreational drugs, but only the ones YOU believe are good, or can be used "responsibly". "
I'm not squirming or wiggling. Your are correct. I believe some drugs are all around bad for recreational use. I think most with common sense see this as well. "How is that different from the current WOD? The US government has decided that caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol are good, and can be used responsibly. To that list YOU would be willing to add some hallucinogens and marijuana. " It is different as I see clearly that some drugs are NOT as bad as claimed. Some drugs currently illegal like Marijuana for example. The U.S. government hasn't decided caffiene,alcohol, and nicotine are good. They have just decided they are not SO bad as to be outlawed. In the case of nicotine they are actively saying it is VERY bad yet it is still legal. "Your reasons for leaving opiates, amphetamines, PCP and cocaine criminalized substances seem to be twofold: 1) You claim that people under the influence of these drugs MAY harm others. 2) You claim that these drugs are injurious to the user." 3 They cannot be realistically be used responsibly for recreational purposes. "The vast majority of the harm that those addicted to cocaine and opiates inflict on others comes not from some psychotic rage produced by the drug itself (junkies, for example, are about the most non-violent people you will ever meet), but by the need to come up with enough money to BUY the stuff in the first place. Wealthy junkies are not a danger to the populace at large." How many wealthy junkies do you know? "If these drugs were decriminalized, why do you think they would be any more expensive than cigarettes, coffee, or alcohol? Coca bushes and opium poppies are no more difficult to grow than coffee bushes. If I need my caffeine fix, I don't mug someone to get the money necessary to buy a cappucino." Many people commonly STEAL cigarretes and alcohol. "PCP and amphetamines do tend to make a higher percentage of users more aggressive than opiates or cocaine, but so what? I have seen WAY more bar brawls take place than fights between tweakers." That's because alcohol is LEGAL and easily accessed. "In the eyes of the law, assaulting someone because you were drunk is no excuse. Neither would assaulting someone because you were "speeding". I fail to see the problem." Why should we increase the number of violent outbreaks due to legalizing drugs that cause them? The state may claim it's the person's responsibility for the actions they take under the influence, but that's only to keep them in check..and hopefully keep them from abusing substances. This doesn't change the fact that it's a drug they've taken voluntarily that's influencing them to act that way. "As for 2), how can you say that the user is injuring himself more by being addicted to cocaine or opiates than to nicotine or alcohol?" Because he/she IS. Do you believe cocaine and herion are not as damaging as alcohol or nicotine? Alcohol is only damaging if it's ABUSED and not used responsibly. Nicotine is only damaging in lethal doses. It's not the nicotine in a cigaretted that kills you. It's the tar and Carbon Monoxide. Cocaine and herion are directly damaging to your health mental and physical if used for extended periods. "How is someone who gets stoned on beer or marijuana or mushrooms acting any more "responsibly" than someone who gets stoned on smack or coke? The idea in each case is to get wasted, no? If the act of getting stoned on bud is not to be considered irresponsible, how can the act of getting stoned on coke be?" You keep spouting these things..but it's the same just a different angle. Smoking a bud is not like smoking crack because MJ doesn't grab you and make you rob,cheat,steal to get more if you run out of money. It doesn't hook you physically and take over your life to the point the drug is all that matters. It CANNOT be used responsibly recreationally by responsible adults. I use crack as an example ...because you would be legalizing crack along with everything else if you had your way wouldn't you? "Agreed. There are such laws already, i.e. "driving under the influence"." Yeah...and laws like "you can't smoke crack and do smack" as well. "The point is, there are laws against causing harm already, regardless of the motive behind the harm. Does every thief who steals a TV do so to sell it and buy drugs? Nope. Some do so because they would rather steal a TV than buy one. The legal penalty is identical regardless of the motive behind the theft. " Yes the penalties are the same but why not stop the source of some of things that persuade people to do such things...sometimes agains't their true will? "As for your stance on suicide... that is completely indefensible rationally no matter what arguments you make. Whose life is it, anyway? It's MY life. If I choose to terminate it prematurely, for WHATEVER reason, delusional or not, that is no one's business but my own. No one has the right to FORCE me to remain alive. " No one has the POWER to force you to remain alive you are insane and do not wish it, but we can discourage it by making laws agains't killing yourself...so that it is known to be a bad thing and not something socially acceptable. As I said earlier above if someone REALLY wants to kill themselves they are going to do it(.) "You may try to persuade me that I am making a mistake, true. But that's as far as it goes. As soon as you attempt to restrain me forcibly, YOU are in the wrong. This presumes, of course, that my manner of suicide doesn't involve harming others. If I decide to strap a bomb to myself and trigger it in the midst of a schoolyard you have every right to stop me." Should we not restrain a crazy man that's going to kill himself then? Because a physically healthy individual that's going to kill himself is NOT sane. -------------------- "That is not dead which may eternal lie..and with strange eons even death may die." Vote Great Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?
| |||||||
|
Great_Cthulhu enthusiast Registered: 05/21/01 Posts: 311 Loc: R'lyeh |
| ||||||
|
Primitive reptiles because they eat meat? Is it a requirement of the Green Party to be a bovine grazing animal with bad gas? I'm sure not all of you are bovines.
Eating meat has NOTHING to do with how someone thinks or what beliefs they carry. Nor does eating vegatables. I believe your Green Party will wither and die. You can't have a party that's main stance and promotion is JUST legalization of Hemp and have it succede. Everything else the Green Party stands for is just environmentalist socialist pablem.
-------------------- "That is not dead which may eternal lie..and with strange eons even death may die." Vote Great Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Great_Cthulhu writes:
I believe some drugs are all around bad for recreational use. I think most with common sense see this as well. Then I have no common sense. Different drugs have different effects. Different people have different ideas of which effect suits them more. For example, many people hate the loss of control they experience on an LSD trip, but love the energetic euphoria they attain from a line of coke. IN YOUR OPINION, a psychedelic loss of control is superior to an energetic euphoria. 3 They cannot be realistically be used responsibly for recreational purposes. Of course they can. By the way, I have yet to see from you your idea of exactly what "responsible" means, or, for that matter, "recreational". How many wealthy junkies do you know? I know more than a few well-to-do people who are addicted to opiates. I know one in particular who has been a junkie for over two decades. Apart from his chronic constipation, which doesn't affect ME in the least, he is as normal as most other people I know. Many people commonly STEAL cigarretes and alcohol. If you mean hijacking truckloads of either, agreed. These same people also hijack truckloads of VCRs and washing machines. How many people mug old ladies in order to buy a pack of smokes? Why should we increase the number of violent outbreaks due to legalizing drugs that cause them? Ah... the prior restraint argument. "Some people, sometimes, in some situations, may become violent under the influence of some drugs, therefore these drugs must be made illegal." Please differentiate between that statement and "Some people, sometimes, in some situations, may become violent after viewing pornography and rape someone, therefore pornography must be made illegal." Or "Some people, sometimes, in some situations, may become violent after reading a Tom Clancy novel or watching a Rambo film or viewing a news report of a postal worker who shot up a MacDonald's, therefore movies or books or news reports detailing violent acts should be made illegal." This doesn't change the fact that it's a drug they've taken voluntarily that's influencing them to act that way. If that is their reaction to a given drug, then they have the responsibility to take that drug in the privacy of their homes rather than in public. There are already laws against drinking in public places, or being intoxicated in public. Do you believe cocaine and herion are not as damaging as alcohol or nicotine? I do. And I am not alone in that. The limited medical information we have from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when both cocaine and opiates were freely available in over the counter patent medicines supports my belief. Alcohol is only damaging if it's ABUSED and not used responsibly. The same is true of opiates, amphetamines, and cocaine. Nicotine is only damaging in lethal doses. Not true. It damages the body in sub-lethal doses as well. Decreased lung capacity, hardening of arteries, loss of elasticity in connective tissue, and a host of others. It's not the nicotine in a cigaretted that kills you. It's the tar and Carbon Monoxide. Not true. Nicotine is in itself a carcinogen. Tobacco chewers may not get lung cancer to the same degree that smokers do, but they get throat and mouth cancer. Cocaine and herion are directly damaging to your health mental and physical if used for extended periods. No more so than alcohol and less so than nicotine. But all of that is irrelevant. A high fat diet is damaging to your health, too. What is relevant is not whether you are shortening your life expectancy by taking drugs, but whether you are violating another's rights. Clearly, you are not. Smoking a bud is not like smoking crack because MJ doesn't grab you and make you rob,cheat,steal to get more if you run out of money. Wait a minute, wait a minute. You just said that people steal alcohol and cigarettes. Are you saying that people don't steal marijuana? It doesn't hook you physically and take over your life to the point the drug is all that matters. For what it's worth, I and many of my friends used to buy coke maybe twice a year. We'd buy some smack maybe once every two years, smoke opium maybe four or five times a year. When we didn't have the money, we did without. Most of the time, even if we DID have the money, we did without. But we ALWAYS had hash or weed on hand. ALWAYS. From what I have read on this message board, there are MANY members who can say the same thing. What does that tell you? It CANNOT be used responsibly recreationally by responsible adults. Nonsense. I just showed you it could. Yeah...and laws like "you can't smoke crack and do smack" as well. Lame. The two statements are not related, and you know it. There is an enormous conceptual difference between getting stoned and watching TV on the couch and getting stoned and operating a two ton vehicle at high speeds on a public thoroughfare. The law recognizes the distinction. So do you. Yes the penalties are the same but why not stop the source of some of things that persuade people to do such things...sometimes agains't their true will? Prior restraint. Asked and answered above. Should we not restrain a crazy man that's going to kill himself then? For a moment? Perhaps. That could conceivably be be argued either way. Permanently? Nope. Because a physically healthy individual that's going to kill himself is NOT sane. Bullshit. Physically healthy people are still capable of suffering emotional anguish... grief or shame, for example. That doesn't make them insane. It is the utmost arrogance to presume that YOU should decide that an individual must keep living. That is clearly the choice of the individual. As a matter of fact, it is SO obviously the choice of the individual that if you can justify THAT violation of his rights, you can justify ANY violation of his rights, and there is no point even having a legal system at all. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
nugsarenice Carpal Tunnel Registered: 06/04/00 Posts: 3,442 Loc: nowhere Last seen: 18 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
It's not my part, it's the party I support.
Also, like they say, red meat cause a temper. Just look at Bush!
| |||||||
|
wingnutx Registered: 09/24/00 Posts: 2,287 |
| ||||||
|
I share a house with a ill-tempered vegan. I eat plenty of meat, and I am very hard to anger. You are operating under a false assumption.
Hitler was a vegetarian. Jonas Saulk ate meat. Diet is irrelevant.
| |||||||
|
nugsarenice Carpal Tunnel Registered: 06/04/00 Posts: 3,442 Loc: nowhere Last seen: 18 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
that reminds me of this ill tempered vegan I once knew....
I saw him at this std clinic with a girl and then I went to this concert a few weeks later. Me and his ex girlfriend were dancing and then he came and jumped me from behind and then his ex girlfriend left, all crying, like I knew he still loved me Yeah, so you maybe be right. but still Bush is one ill tempered revenge inciting want to be practicing Baptist mother fucker. He in no way should associate himself with going to church, until he admits that violence is not the only way. I think it may be the cheese, a peaceful breaking point, that vegans don't eat.
| |||||||
|
wingnutx Registered: 09/24/00 Posts: 2,287 |
| ||||||
|
If Bush truly thought that violence was the only way, then the middle east would be one vast glass parking lot by now. The US has been amazingly restrained.
| |||||||
|
Great_Cthulhu enthusiast Registered: 05/21/01 Posts: 311 Loc: R'lyeh |
| ||||||
|
"Then I have no common sense. Different drugs have different effects. Different people have different ideas of which effect suits them more. For example, many people hate the loss of control they experience on an LSD trip, but love the energetic euphoria they attain from a line of coke. IN YOUR OPINION, a psychedelic loss of control is superior to an energetic euphoria."
I never said anything criticizing the affects of any drugs...besides perhaps PCP which can make users pyschotic. It's not the physical pleasure achieved from any of them that's the problem. "Of course they can. By the way, I have yet to see from you your idea of exactly what "responsible" means, or, for that matter, "recreational"." Of course they can be used responsibly? You include something like crack in this do you? Give me a hypothetical situation where crack cocaine can be used responsibly. Here is my definition of responsibly..." 1 : the quality or state of being responsible : as a : moral, legal, or mental accountability b : RELIABILITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS" Here is my definition of Recreation... ": refreshment of strength and spirits after work; also : a means of refreshment or diversion : HOBBY" Straight out of the dictonary. I do not apply my own definitions. "I know more than a few well-to-do people who are addicted to opiates. I know one in particular who has been a junkie for over two decades. Apart from his chronic constipation, which doesn't affect ME in the least, he is as normal as most other people I know." Do you think all the masses could handle opiate addiction as good as your friend? What do you think your friend would be like if he was suddenly without his beloved opiates? What would his pet King Kong do to him? Anyway I'm not so concerned with opium as I am with Herion in particular. H is synthetically made from the M in opium. Herion is not natural. I don't have a problem with most (natural) drugs. "If you mean hijacking truckloads of either, agreed. These same people also hijack truckloads of VCRs and washing machines. How many people mug old ladies in order to buy a pack of smokes?" No I mean someone walking into a store and stealing alcohol and tobacco. It happens every day. "Ah... the prior restraint argument. " No. I'm not telling you what to watch..or what fiction books to read. Normal sane people have no problem with these things and interpreting them just for what they are...entertainment. Books and films do not alter your body chemistry. They do not alter your perception. Though they may influence your views your free will is there and not unnaturally altered. Once you've taken enough crack or smack(sometimes takes only one time) the drug is in control not you. Sure your fine and dandy just as long as your pet monkey is happy...if he gets angry though your in for it. Your going to do what he asks or suffer the consequences(WD) and I'm not talking the jittering quick to anger jaunce from quiting cigarettes. WD's from these drugs are PURE HELL. Just ask an addict. Few can handle and use these drugs responsibly without getting a pet monkey,Gorilla,King Kong on their back. Are they still using smack or crack responsibly when it's not them talking it's the drug DEMANDING them "TAKE ME! TAKE ME OR ELSE!"? Therefor they are ILLEGAL and should stay that way to discourage widespread use. Call it prior restrain if you wish, but do not compare hard drugs to films and books. "If that is their reaction to a given drug, then they have the responsibility to take that drug in the privacy of their homes rather than in public. There are already laws against drinking in public places, or being intoxicated in public." Already answered above. "I do. And I am not alone in that. The limited medical information we have from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when both cocaine and opiates were freely available in over the counter patent medicines supports my belief. " No it doesn't. These things were usually sold as folk remedies..as cure alls. All they did was disguise any symptoms and addict the user which happened to usually be house wives mainly because they couldn't socially drink in public without being scandalous back then. Show me a crack/smack addict that's in top physical form. Shall we compare the number of nicotine O.D.'s to smack and coke? Compare the number of those in coma's due to O.D. ? Truth is that an addict with a big gorilla on his back will probably just stop giving a shit about their health. I've personally seen it happen to a former friend on crack. He went from 160# to around 90# in about 2 month's time These drugs are NOT less or equally damaging as alcohol and nicotine. They are far more damaging sometimes in the shortrun for things like crack/cocaine and long run for things like herion. I'd point out some studys but I don't feel like looking for them and I don't think it would do any good for you anyway:D . Besides the majority of people know these things are more damaging anyway and would admit it even when asking for legalization. It's only the uneducated,the junkie, or the idiot philosopher that think otherwise. " "Alcohol is only damaging if it's ABUSED and not used responsibly." The same is true of opiates, amphetamines, and cocaine." Already answered above. " "Nicotine is only damaging in lethal doses." Not true. It damages the body in sub-lethal doses as well. Decreased lung capacity, hardening of arteries, loss of elasticity in connective tissue, and a host of others." You are correct. I was tired when posting and not thinking totally straight...I do know these things. Maybe I didn't have enough "meat slow down amino acids" in me at the time. " "It's not the nicotine in a cigaretted that kills you. It's the tar and Carbon Monoxide." Not true. Nicotine is in itself a carcinogen. Tobacco chewers may not get lung cancer to the same degree that smokers do, but they get throat and mouth cancer." You are correct again. I was partially correct in my partly delirious state however. Carbon monoxide and tar are major contributers as well as nicotine in regards lung damage from smoking. "No more so than alcohol and less so than nicotine. But all of that is irrelevant. A high fat diet is damaging to your health, too. What is relevant is not whether you are shortening your life expectancy by taking drugs, but whether you are violating another's rights. Clearly, you are not." Answered above. Here's what's relevant...shortening your life, possibly causing others harm directly/indirectly, and becoming a worthless noncontributing shitty stain on soiciety. "Wait a minute, wait a minute. You just said that people steal alcohol and cigarettes. Are you saying that people don't steal marijuana?" People will always steal. Always there will be thieves. Your missing the point. Marijuana doesn't cause pet monkeys or make you psychotic. "For what it's worth, I and many of my friends used to buy coke maybe twice a year. We'd buy some smack maybe once every two years, smoke opium maybe four or five times a year. When we didn't have the money, we did without. Most of the time, even if we DID have the money, we did without. But we ALWAYS had hash or weed on hand. ALWAYS. From what I have read on this message board, there are MANY members who can say the same thing. What does that tell you?" It tells me you were lucky enough to not get a more permanent pet monkey. ""It CANNOT be used responsibly recreationally by responsible adults." Nonsense. I just showed you it could." Nonsense all you did was show me your idiot philosophy. I was refering to crack in particular with that statement you took out of context. I ask again for you to give me a hypothetical responsible use for crack. "Lame. The two statements are not related, and you know it. There is an enormous conceptual difference between getting stoned and watching TV on the couch and getting stoned and operating a two ton vehicle at high speeds on a public thoroughfare. The law recognizes the distinction. So do you." Why did we create the driving under the influence law? Can't we trust people to act responsibly and not do it? How can I trust you not to become an addict. How can I trust your monkey once you do? Pet monkeys have no conscience when they are not satiated. I do recognize the difference between driving under the influence and doing certain hard drugs. I was making the point... They are both illegal. They are both (bad) things to do.. I know not just because my government has told me "you can't do that" . Nor do I know because a religion has told me so. I know because of clear facts not lies,laws, or propaganda. " "Yes the penalties are the same but why not stop the source of some of things that persuade people to do such things...sometimes agains't their true will?" Prior restraint. Asked and answered above." Call it what you want, but I don't buy that crap. There are hundreds of examples of this "prior restraint". According to your logic any law limiting the cause of something bad before it happens is prior restraint. Driving under the influence(stop accidents before they (might) happen). Speeding(same as previous).Obeying Traffic lights...etc..etc..etc..etc. So sure "prior restraint" is apart of any government and necessary. " "Should we not restrain a crazy man that's going to kill himself then?" For a moment? Perhaps. That could conceivably be be argued either way. Permanently? Nope." Why not permanently? Why not attempt to cure him of his mental illness regardless until he dies naturally. Your only answer could be to just get him out of the way and save money. Where is it morally acceptable to kill people for this reason? "Because a physically healthy individual that's going to kill himself is NOT sane. "Bullshit. Physically healthy people are still capable of suffering emotional anguish... grief or shame, for example. That doesn't make them insane. It is the utmost arrogance to presume that YOU should decide that an individual must keep living. That is clearly the choice of the individual. As a matter of fact, it is SO obviously the choice of the individual that if you can justify THAT violation of his rights, you can justify ANY violation of his rights, and there is no point even having a legal system at all." Emotional anguish, grief, or shame. These are not emotions a sane and sound person would have to the extent they wished to kill themselves. Your argument is bullshit. I could argue agains't it with a quasi-relegious argument, but that would get no where would it? Being an atheist simplifies so much eh? You can make up your own morals...or try to. So I will ask again what animal in nature kills itself over emotional trauma? Do not deny we are not apart of nature. We may be the only truly sentient being on this planet, but man was created from the Earth and if you deny any creator being it just emphasises how apart of nature we are. It could be argued everything even artificial creations we make are apart of nature without some type of religion/belief in the supernatural. Whoops...getting off track. Regardless of how you believe we got here suicide for emotional stress is wrong...and it is NOT in any way natural. AS I SAID BEFORE AND BEFORE THAT if someone wants to truly kill themself they will do so. They will do so in a place and situation where none may stop them or talk them down. We have these laws to DISCOURAGE physically healthy people from killing themselves when they are MENTALLY disturbed..emotionally or otherwise. To let them know it is NOT RIGHT.. it is NOT natural. I don't see what your problem is. If you want to die kill yourself. No ones going to actually charge you with commiting suicide once YOUR DEAD. It's a no brainer.
-------------------- "That is not dead which may eternal lie..and with strange eons even death may die." Vote Great Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?
| |||||||
|
Great_Cthulhu enthusiast Registered: 05/21/01 Posts: 311 Loc: R'lyeh |
| ||||||
|
Reminds me of a story from news of the weird all the talking about bovines.
A bovine fellow was found dead in his bedroom. Several Emergency response personel had to be removed from the location of death due to extreme nausia and one having to be temporarily hospitalized due to it. Apparently the man was a rather large vegetarian whose diet was composed mainly of beans and cabbage. Unfortunately for him his bedroom was small and had extremely poor ventilation...and due to his bad gas...he had actually farted himself to death in his sleep..lol. Methane poisoning. I swear this is a true story...look it up.   
-------------------- "That is not dead which may eternal lie..and with strange eons even death may die." Vote Great Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil? Edited by Great_Cthulhu (06/01/02 03:31 PM)
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Look out Chavez,Peru's Garcia may buck leftist wave |  Luddite |
753 | 2 | 06/12/06 03:08 PM by Luddite |
|
 |
Leftist thinkers (  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
 airclay |
6,593 | 124 | 09/30/15 11:50 AM by The Ecstatic |
|
|
Leftist Chavez backs Narco-terrorists in Colombia (Declares War) |  bodynotdead |
1,035 | 16 | 03/07/08 11:37 AM by vonhumboldt |
|
|
Leftist Accomplices to Terror ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Great_Satan |
5,432 | 54 | 09/14/04 02:59 PM by luvdemshrooms |
|
|
Mojahedin and leftists executed in Iran | Great_Satan |
1,167 | 9 | 09/13/04 07:33 PM by Phred |
|
 |
?Something? felled an M1A1 Abrams tank in Iraq ? but what? |  SquattingMarmot |
1,214 | 19 | 11/01/03 08:13 PM by monoamine |
|
|
Mexico: Leftist militants strike at Pemex oil line (corporate systems disruption 101) ( 1 2 all ) |
 The_Red_Crayon |
4,447 | 39 | 07/14/07 07:27 PM by zorbman |
|
|
Why the "tanks on the planes" 9--1 conspiracy theory is shit ( 1 2 all ) |
RandalFlagg |
4,971 | 35 | 09/13/04 12:45 AM by Zahid |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 7,012 topic views. 1 members, 9 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||