tripp23 said:

yes he did. all those chemicals required to make it were givin to us by god.. werent they.. meth is here for a reason and god helped make it as well.

---

Diploid said:

Diploid, seriously, you're fighting the good fight but you got to knock it off with the non sequitur/ad homm attacks.

I hear you my friend, but you've only been here a few days. Talk to me again after a few years of arguing with people who have more in common with fundamentalist Muslims who want to inflict their religion on me by force (read: put me in jail at the point of a gun so I conform to their idea of which chemical I should ingest) than with free thinkers, and you'll start flinging ad hominems and logical fallacies too.

Or maybe not. In any case, welcome to the Shroomery. I hope you stick around.

---

Quote:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same:
If you can bear to hear the truths you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginings
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and senew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute,
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son.

---

drkrobotnik said:

god didn't make meth.

---

Leahmon said:

drkrobotnik said:

god didn't make meth.

---

exactly.

---

suburbantoker said:

I think that there are some drugs that simply shouldn't be legal, yeah responsible use is the ideal but when a drug creates an actual physical pull for you to do it again, and this pull gets harder and harder every time you use, it is not a road to success.

---

laserpig said:

suburbantoker said:

I think that there are some drugs that simply shouldn't be legal, yeah responsible use is the ideal but when a drug creates an actual physical pull for you to do it again, and this pull gets harder and harder every time you use, it is not a road to success.

---

But if you make these drugs illegal, then you've got people who're addicted AND social outcasts. Isn't that worse than being just an addict?

---

suburbantoker said:

These drugs shouldn't be legal because it is simply making the government an enabler.  We've already seen what happens when a heroin addict can't get what they need (whether it be money or heroin) , imagine now that if instead of robbing a dirty heroin dealer they decide to pull out an uzi in a legal drugstore that caters to adults and children alike.  Do we want the scrounge of the earth peddling earthly desires killed (as it is now) or pharmacists and young children to be killed by a fiending dope head.  Nothing more too ti.

---

You act like this doesn't already happen.
I know a guy that used to rob only drug stores.
Because of the drugs, not the cash.

Quote:

If drugs are made legal, suddenly the responsibility isn't on the police to keep you from doing something you'll regret: it's on you.

---

Quote:

IMO it's complete hypocrisy to say that mushrooms should be legal but meth shouldn't be. They're both psychoactive drugs, they both have risks. Their effects differ and the risks do, too, but it's the same goddamn game. "I want to take substance X which has risks A, B, and C." "I want to take substance Y which has risks D, E, and F." Same thing, man.


Actually it isn't hypocritical at all.  Look at the physical side effects along with mental side effects of your average meth user compared to the damage done by mushrooms.  It isn't hypocrisy, it is super super common sense.

---

suburbantoker said:

laserpig said:

suburbantoker said:

I think that there are some drugs that simply shouldn't be legal, yeah responsible use is the ideal but when a drug creates an actual physical pull for you to do it again, and this pull gets harder and harder every time you use, it is not a road to success.

---

But if you make these drugs illegal, then you've got people who're addicted AND social outcasts. Isn't that worse than being just an addict?

---

These drugs shouldn't be legal because it is simply making the government an enabler.  We've already seen what happens when a heroin addict can't get what they need (whether it be money or heroin) , imagine now that if instead of robbing a dirty heroin dealer they decide to pull out an uzi in a legal drugstore that caters to adults and children alike.  Do we want the scrounge of the earth peddling earthly desires killed (as it is now) or pharmacists and young children to be killed by a fiending dope head.  Nothing more too ti.


No.

laserpig said:

Making any drug illegal assumes that people are children who can't control how they act or make rational decisions of their own. That's how it's been up until now, so that's what people are used to. That's what people are used to, so that's how they behave: like children. This attitude, fostered by drug prohibition laws, is itself what creates the need for said laws. It's just a self-reinforcing cycle of childishness.

As long as responsibility is removed from the hands of the people, the people will not act responsibly. If drugs are made legal, suddenly the responsibility isn't on the police to keep you from doing something you'll regret: it's on you. Will it take time for people to figure this out? Absolutely. Should we jump in with both feet and give the responsibility all at once? Probably not. But as long as responsibility for people's health is deferred from the people to their government, it is a guarantee that people will remain irresponsible.


IMO it's complete hypocrisy to say that mushrooms should be legal but meth shouldn't be. They're both psychoactive drugs, they both have risks. Their effects differ and the risks do, too, but it's the same goddamn game. "I want to take substance X which has risks A, B, and C." "I want to take substance Y which has risks D, E, and F." Same thing, man.

---

Actually it isn't hypocritical at all.  Look at the physical side effects along with mental side effects of your average meth user compared to the damage done by mushrooms.  It isn't hypocrisy, it is super super common sense.

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

If drugs are made legal, suddenly the responsibility isn't on the police to keep you from doing something you'll regret: it's on you.

---

As it should be.
It isn't the governments job to decide what I choose to consume or not.
It is MY decision.

---

niteowl said:

suburbantoker said:

These drugs shouldn't be legal because it is simply making the government an enabler.  We've already seen what happens when a heroin addict can't get what they need (whether it be money or heroin) , imagine now that if instead of robbing a dirty heroin dealer they decide to pull out an uzi in a legal drugstore that caters to adults and children alike.  Do we want the scrounge of the earth peddling earthly desires killed (as it is now) or pharmacists and young children to be killed by a fiending dope head.  Nothing more too ti.

---

You act like this doesn't already happen.
I know a guy that used to rob only drug stores.
Because of the drugs, not the cash.

Quote:

If drugs are made legal, suddenly the responsibility isn't on the police to keep you from doing something you'll regret: it's on you.

---

As it should be.
It isn't the governments job to decide what I choose to consume or not.
It is MY decision.

If I act irresponsibly on drugs, then the police get involved.
Not before.

Quote:

IMO it's complete hypocrisy to say that mushrooms should be legal but meth shouldn't be. They're both psychoactive drugs, they both have risks. Their effects differ and the risks do, too, but it's the same goddamn game. "I want to take substance X which has risks A, B, and C." "I want to take substance Y which has risks D, E, and F." Same thing, man.


Actually it isn't hypocritical at all.  Look at the physical side effects along with mental side effects of your average meth user compared to the damage done by mushrooms.  It isn't hypocrisy, it is super super common sense.

---

There you go again making gross assumptions about something you know little about.
I know MANY people that use meth.
They have jobs and pay their bills.
Just because a few people are addicts
should the rest of the population suffer because of their addiction?

I think not.

For those who believe that legalizing all drugs will cause a collapse
(or at least a decline) of our society should read up on Portugal

---

Leahmon said:

Do you mean suffer in the sense that because their drug and our drug (assuming you're not a meth head) is grouped together and we get the short end of the straw?

---

niteowl said:

Leahmon said:

Do you mean suffer in the sense that because their drug and our drug (assuming you're not a meth head) is grouped together and we get the short end of the straw?

---

I mean that our entire society suffers because of the war on drugs......not because of addicts.

The money that is spent on the drug war could be spent on education or health care.

It's a waste of resources to try and enforce drug laws.

Do you believe that addicts get better care from a prison guard or a Dr?

---