Home | Community | Message Board

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Capsules   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | Next > | Last >
OfflineSlavich
Full-time mad dude
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/23/09
Posts: 269
Loc: Tasmania
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: niteowl]
    #10783607 - 08/02/09 12:28 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

niteowl said:
Quote:

In Portugal the sale and trafficking of illicit drugs is still a crime. So you can't just walk to a shop and buy some Heroin or Acid. This is where the problem will be. This is what will increase drug use due to making drugs more available.




More assumptions.

Do you have any proof of your 'theory'
Or is it just a 'gut feeling'




It's just an assumption. The effects of making illicit drugs readily available have never been tested. IMO it's not the illegality that stops people from doing drugs, but their scarcity. If people want to take drugs, and they're available, they'll do it. If people want to take drugs, and they're unavailable, then they can't.


--------------------
If every day is the same as the last, why live to see tomorrow?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleniteowl
GrandPaw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc: Flag
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: Slavich]
    #10786039 - 08/02/09 02:08 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

The effects of making illicit drugs readily available have never been tested. IMO it's not the illegality that stops people from doing drugs, but their scarcity. If people want to take drugs, and they're available, they'll do it. If people want to take drugs, and they're unavailable, then they can't.




Keeping drugs illegal has not stopped the flow or availability of drugs.
Illegal drugs are easily available for those who want them.

Keeping them illegal only damages the society, by allowing criminals to disperse them.
There is nothing keeping drug dealers from selling to kids.

As it is now, illegal drugs are much easier for kids to get, than legal ones.
Should we continue allowing our children access to illegal drugs?

I think not.

The only solution is to allow legitimate businessmen to sell drugs.
This makes the whole situation much safer for everyone involved.


--------------------
Live for the moment you are in now
Don't be bogged down by your past
Don't be afraid of what lies in your future


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKestrelj
Stranger

Registered: 07/30/09
Posts: 31
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: Robo]
    #10793177 - 08/03/09 04:04 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Ombient said:
I'm all for non-physiologically addictive drugs being legalized and the physiologically addictive ones (methamphetamine,heroin,cocaine) being regulated by government, but still available to those that make the choice to use those said substances.





I got clean from coke over 20 years ago.  My daughter died, and 9 other friends, between Feb & November of 2006, my father's cancer recurred, and I was in the middle of moving, so I lost my stability to properly cope with those traumas and recover.  The end result is I lost my sobriety for 14 months.

It's ridiculous to say that "Well, I'm only interested in letting people use drugs they can't become addicted to".  Coke isn't physically addicting.  There's no withdrawal during detox.

Due to injuries I sustained in an assault 7& 1/2 years ago, I use two 60mg Oxycodone IR tablets every 6 hours.  I probably have what doctors call a "medically necessary chemical dependency", and I notice that I just don't feel good if I go 36 to 48 hrs without a dose.  I get good pain relief, but no high, inspite of a dose that would knock most people on their asses.

I can guarantee I'm not addicted to coke.  I have an active allergy to pot, but I CAN use hashish, I can't drink beer, my doctors prescribe Ritalin, Provigil or Benzedrine for a sleep disorder, but I'm not addicted to that crap, either.

Drugs, ALL DRUGS could be sold through various outlets.  I worked out a kind of table, a couple of years ago

IF drugs are sold, they should be sold to people over 21, just like alcohol.  The precedent has been set, why screw with it.  Legalize drugs FIRST, attack the minimum age of use LATER!

Create a certification class, and issue a certification, attached to the ddrivers license and ID cards, to show the card-holder has been educated about the drug and it's effects. 

Drugs like Pot could be sold with a special license, made available with the fewest strings attached of all the drugs.  Call it a class 4 license.

A class 3 license could be for things like mushrooms, & perhaps some of the enthiogens, but I don't know much about them.  I don't know much about most enthiogens, but I don't want some stupid newby using Ayhuesca and walking into traffic, cuz he's so fouled-up he doesn't know what he's doing.

A Class 2 license could be things like LSD, and the entheogens that were too heavy-duty to be class 3.

Class 1 drugs would be your opiates, cocaine, and amphetamines.


As for licensing who sells them, do it like a liquor license.  Most places could sell pot, without much licensing problem.  Selling the class 3,2, & 1 drugs would require stricter licensing, higher licensing fees and stricter enforcement.

Any dispensary caught without the proper licenses for the drugs on it's shelves gets a stiff fine and a license suspended for let's say a month.  Further violations could result in higher fines and revocation of license.

Pharmaceutical drugs require papers of pedigree.  Those papers document where the drug originated, and every handler who posses & transfers the drug, on it's way to your local pharmacy.  DEMAND that recretional drugs provide the same kind of pedigree.  If someone CAN'T provide that pedigree, then it should be a violation of the license agreement for the dispensary to buy that drug, or that quantity, from the supplier, and if dispensaries can't provide appropriate pedigrees, then fine the Hell out of them, suspend their licenses, & revoke them if necessary.

Continue with the laws that make it unlawful to take one drug and mix it around and cook it down, until it gets strong enough for your tastes.  This is bootlegging, and we already have laws to deal with this.  Re-write them to include recreational drugs.  Fine anyone you catch doing it, cuz if the government does this right, then we don't need to do that anyway.  Bootlegging would then become the only major street crime, involving drugs, at that point.

Tax the drugs, put the money into social services, rehab, education, enforcement and, put anything left-over into the general budget.

Charge for the various licenses.  If a vendor can qualify for the Class 1 license, and the class 4 license they should get those.  Special education should be in place for vendors selling enthiogens and hallucinatory drugs., In general ALL vendors need a class like that.


Let's say a Class 1 license is $10,000.00 and you must pass a background check.  A Class 2 License is  $10,000.00 plus a background check.  A Class 3 & 4 license could be $5,000.00 plus a background check.

Charge for the background check

Charge for the classes vendors must take, to make them aware of the regulations you must obey and the consequences for NOT obeying.

Charge for the license

Charge people for the certification class to get a card certifying they know what they are doing when they buy and get high with whichever class of drugs they use. 

Make the certification card part of the drivers license or state ID card, fine anyone who posses drugs without their certification card.

Fine dispensaries who don't swipe the cards of every single person who purchases drugs in their store.

Charge taxes on the drugs themselves, in whatever way they already tax the movement of pharmaceuticals.

Make selling any drug illegal, unless you are licensed, punishable by fine, jail, community service, whatever.

Make "shoulder tapping" illegal.  Precedent carries over from alcohol.  Fines, jail time,community service, (You know the schtick)

Providing drugs to minors, bootlegging, selling to someone without the proper certificate, selling if YOU aren't properly certified or providing drugs for a shoulder tapper become felonies, with heavy duty fines, jail time & community service.  The exception to this rule is if you are reimbursing someone.

Charge anyone who sells drugs without a license of bootlegging, tax evasion, fraud, or whatever they can possibly be charged with, to discourage street sales.

It's actually illegal to sell tobacco and alcohol without special licenses, so people who sell packs of smokes on the street are already in violation of the law.  Enlarge the law to encompass the unlicensed sale of recreational drugs by persons on the street.

 

IN FACT, if someone becomes an EXTREME addict, this provides a way to help them NOT use, cuz now you can cut them off from purchasing drugs by REQUIRING the vendor swipe every ID card that comes in, to show what level drugs you are allowed to buy.  IF someone is in a drug treatment program, or has had arrests for DUI or committing acts of violence on drugs, or whatever, the dispensary agent is advised by the card that he CANNOT legally sell to this person!  But this shouldn't just happen unless the person has really bad, nasty, behavior problems with their roots in addiction.

In fact, if you go to the psych ward you have to have a special hearing in order to buy a fire-arm.  Use that same principal of a special hearing and allow the addict his day in court, with his attorney, to plead the case that he SHOULDN'T have his certifications revoked!

Allow certifications to expire, and have each person take a refresher course.

For those of you who don't want the government in your business, even if they DO legalize drugs on this kind of scale, DREAM ON!

IF you want legalized drugs the government is going to want some assurances that those drugs are transferred, possessed, stored, sold and used in a way that will profit the government and pay for the ills of society when the inevitable addict arises.\, AND that they have a way to haul YOUR ass out of the fire, if you start making yourself sick on them!

The government will want a penalty for every aspect of sales, possession and usage that could be abused, and they will want to track usage.  The government might reserve the right to restrict the quantity you may buy during a discrete window of time, for example: you may only purchase half  a pound of dry magic mushrooms at a time, or in a week, or month, or whatever, or 80 ounces fresh/un-dried weight.

So, these are some of the compromises we will probably have to make, that is if we WANT the drugs to be legal.

Can anyone think of anything I missed?  Any way to make this plan better?

If you want the drugs you have to deal with the government and make compromises.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineIma TrooperS
Chilldog Extraordinaire
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/21/08
Posts: 13,533
Loc: United States
Last seen: 2 days, 17 hours
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: Kestrelj]
    #10793416 - 08/03/09 04:48 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

It started off good, but the ability to selectively "cut off" users, as well as the possibility of people not "being approved" for certain classes of drugs makes at least these parts a terrible idea. Especially if you take into account the fact the it would be so much more difficult to obtain the classes of drugs you aren't approved for by illegal means.

The problems with the "cut off" law idea is pretty self explanatory...I feel that people should be able to ingest pretty much whatever the fuck they want.

This is slightly off topic, but I don't even believe that they should be REQUIRED to be informed about the dangers of use. Having said that, it would obviously be optimal is everyone DID research the drugs before they do them, but I don't feel it should be required.

The other problem I have is experimentation. Experimentation goes hand in hand with recreational drug use IMO, and requiring different "levels" of classification before being allowed to try new things would be a hassle. And what if the government, in their infinite wisdom (a little sarcasm:lol:) decided that for medical reasons, or any reason to be honest, that I wasn't ALLOWED to be classified for certain classes of drugs?

Say I am approved for class 4 and 3 drugs, yet I want to get some opiates. I'm not approved for them and would likely be unable to obtain them since this program would eradicate most street dealers.

Although I like your way of thinking, (legalize the drugs, then work on getting them easier to obtain) its just too many compromises for my taste, while making it necessary to trust the government for your fix or fun.


--------------------
"Its moving of its own accord...and I like that in a shirt!" - Me, tripping.

deCypher said:
Schizophrenia beats dining alone, you know.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKestrelj
Stranger

Registered: 07/30/09
Posts: 31
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: Ima Trooper]
    #10793651 - 08/03/09 05:23 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Ima Trooper said:
It started off good, but the ability to selectively "cut off" users, as well as the possibility of people not "being approved" for certain classes of drugs makes at least these parts a terrible idea. Especially if you take into account the fact the it would be so much more difficult to obtain the classes of drugs you aren't approved for by illegal means.




If this kind of thing were set into place, then it should be fairly easy to get certified.  It's only with stupidly abusing the drugs, and showing that you AREN'T responsible, that I'm suggesting that someone be controlled.


Quote:


The problems with the "cut off" law idea is pretty self explanatory...I feel that people should be able to ingest pretty much whatever the fuck they want.




Until they show that they get psychotic on a drug like speed - which usually happens if you over-ingest.  What I'm saying is give everyone the classes, certify them.  If they show they can't handle it, and are or become through their inebriation, what is considered "A danger to themselves or others", or a 51/50 in common parlance, THEN we have a means of controlling if they can get it legally.

IF you read further, and I hope you dd, you'll see that I also said that to restrict someone you must first have a hearing, much the same as a person who is a 51/50 getting out of the psych ward and wanting to buy a gun.

Being in the psych ward doesn't make yo ineligible to own a fire-arm, but it DOES take a hearing with your doctors and psych personnel, a judge, and your legal rep.  I DON'T believe that anyone should just be cut-off on a whim of government.

Quote:


This is slightly off topic, but I don't even believe that they should be REQUIRED to be informed about the dangers of use. Having said that, it would obviously be optimal is everyone DID research the drugs before they do them, but I don't feel it should be required.





Yeah, I know.  I feel the same, but you know that the government would fight this line of thinking.  I figure that if we give them less to fight about the more likely we are to get what we want.  Plenty of people won't like the idea, just on principal.  I also think it will encourage more responsible use.

Quote:


The other problem I have is experimentation. Experimentation goes hand in hand with recreational drug use IMO, and requiring different "levels" of classification before being allowed to try new things would be a hassle. And what if the government, in their infinite wisdom (a little sarcasm:lol:) decided that for medical reasons, or any reason to be honest, that I wasn't ALLOWED to be classified for certain classes of drugs?




In theory, if you complete the classes, much like driver's ed, the government would certify you.  Perhaps the certification classes could even have the drugs available TO try, so you can decide if you want to be able to get everything.  The biggest certification hurdle, for me, has to do with making people who SELL the drugs get the certificates.  That matters a little more to me than people using. 

But what if someone ONNLY wants mushrooms?  I don't see a reason to make him sit through a section on amphetamines and heroin just because he wants to drop shrooms or acid at home.
Quote:


Say I am approved for class 4 and 3 drugs, yet I want to get some opiates. I'm not approved for them and would likely be unable to obtain them since this program would eradicate most street dealers.





The POINT is to eliminate street dealers, and crime.  If the certification classes were set up so you could only take the sections you want, OR you could take them all, and decide later what you want to use, that would make the system easier for most people.  I'd go through the whole system, personally, so I would have the freedom to do what I want. 

Quote:


Although I like your way of thinking, (legalize the drugs, then work on getting them easier to obtain) its just too many compromises for my taste, while making it necessary to trust the government for your fix or fun.




Well, this is just a rough draft.  I can see where you're coming from, but getting the certification should be only SLIGHTLY more difficult that getting your drivers license.  My concern is that these compromises allow the government room to move, and a way to assess penalties, and exert control.  The laws would have to be written in such a way as to guarantee our rights to GET certified, STAY certified, while protecting us from the idiots who don't ever learn how to use recreational drugs responsibly.

If we can't protect society from the absolute idiots we will never convince the government to legalize.

Mind you, I'm not sure drugs ought to be legalized, but this kind of system is what I think we can expect if they are.  I would vote to end the criminalization just so we can make it less profitable for the drug cartels.  Why should they get rich while the government taxes us into the ground to support social services, some of which we might not need if people had legal access to drugs, WITHOUT the stigma attached to ILLEGAL drugs?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineIma TrooperS
Chilldog Extraordinaire
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/21/08
Posts: 13,533
Loc: United States
Last seen: 2 days, 17 hours
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: Kestrelj]
    #10793793 - 08/03/09 05:47 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Kestrelj said:
Quote:

Ima Trooper said:





Quote:


The problems with the "cut off" law idea is pretty self explanatory...I feel that people should be able to ingest pretty much whatever the fuck they want.




Until they show that they get psychotic on a drug like speed - which usually happens if you over-ingest.  What I'm saying is give everyone the classes, certify them.  If they show they can't handle it, and are or become through their inebriation, what is considered "A danger to themselves or others", or a 51/50 in common parlance, THEN we have a means of controlling if they can get it legally.




I don't feel that someone being "a danger to themself" should be illegal in any way. It sounds good at first, but when it comes right down to it, its highly subjective as to what constitutes a high enough level of danger to self to be controlled. Should the government have stepped in when Evel Knievel jumped busses? Why are there seatbelt laws? Why should the government "hold our hands" so to speak while we cross the road of Life?


Quote:

Kestrelj said:
IF you read further, and I hope you dd, you'll see that I also said that to restrict someone you must first have a hearing, much the same as a person who is a 51/50 getting out of the psych ward and wanting to buy a gun.

Being in the psych ward doesn't make yo ineligible to own a fire-arm, but it DOES take a hearing with your doctors and psych personnel, a judge, and your legal rep.  I DON'T believe that anyone should just be cut-off on a whim of government.




I did read further, I read your post in entirety. Like I said before, it SOUNDS like a good idea, but at the end of the day you're doing away with street dealers (your only other alternative) and putting your faith in a bunch of people who think of you as a SSN.


Quote:


Say I am approved for class 4 and 3 drugs, yet I want to get some opiates. I'm not approved for them and would likely be unable to obtain them since this program would eradicate most street dealers.





Quote:

Kestrelj said:

The POINT is to eliminate street dealers, and crime.  If the certification classes were set up so you could only take the sections you want, OR you could take them all, and decide later what you want to use, that would make the system easier for most people.  I'd go through the whole system, personally, so I would have the freedom to do what I want.

Quote:

Ima Trooper said:
Although I like your way of thinking, (legalize the drugs, then work on getting them easier to obtain) its just too many compromises for my taste, while making it necessary to trust the government for your fix or fun.




Well, this is just a rough draft.  I can see where you're coming from, but getting the certification should be only SLIGHTLY more difficult that getting your drivers license.  My concern is that these compromises allow the government room to move, and a way to assess penalties, and exert control.  The laws would have to be written in such a way as to guarantee our rights to GET certified, STAY certified, while protecting us from the idiots who don't ever learn how to use recreational drugs responsibly.

If we can't protect society from the absolute idiots we will never convince the government to legalize.

Mind you, I'm not sure drugs ought to be legalized, but this kind of system is what I think we can expect if they are.  I would vote to end the criminalization just so we can make it less profitable for the drug cartels.  Why should they get rich while the government taxes us into the ground to support social services, some of which we might not need if people had legal access to drugs, WITHOUT the stigma attached to ILLEGAL drugs?




I can see where you're coming from as well, and you make some good points. I guess like I said earlier, at the end of the day we're giving up our only alternative and placing our trust in an institution that I do NOT believe has anyone's best interests at heart but their own. Its a calculated risk, and given the track record of our government at abusing power, I just don't like the odds.


Edited by Ima Trooper (08/03/09 05:53 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMichiaelJackson
Cynic
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/27/09
Posts: 175
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: suburbanned]
    #10793871 - 08/03/09 06:02 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

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.




Sex feels good. I like sex. I want to have sex as much as possible.

Smoking weed feels good. I like weed. I want to have sex as much as possible.

Smoking meth feels good. I like meth. I want to have meth as much as possible.

If we define addiction as the propensity to repeat an action based on the fact that we enjoy that sensation, then the laws turn into nothing more than a law over a vice. I won't say that we should outlaw fatty foods/sugar/chocolate/masturbation just because once someone has done it their chances of doing it a second time are greatly increased. I will say that we shouldn't outlaw a drug because we are likely to enjoy it.

Quote:

Leahmon said:
and it shouldn't be used as a tool for validation as to why meth should be legal..

that's kind of retarded.



Quote:

suburbantoker said:
These drugs shouldn't be legal because it is simply making the government an enabler.
Quote:



It isn't possible for a government to be an enabler of one of its citizens. It is not our governement's responsibility to ensure that I make wise choices.

Does the government enable me to drink and smoke cigarettes? Does the prohibition of marijuana stop people from using it?

The basis that it is our governments responsibility to keep us from making unwise decisions at the cost of personal liberties is at best a poor logical argument.

Quote:

suburbantoker said:
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.




There are few problems with the above statement.

It is a gross over generalization to link drug usage with violent behavior, regardless of the drug. There are many people taking many substances who are able to both handle their habits and get their supply without breaking non drug related crimes. Due to prohibition of substances, it is impossible to get much of an accurate representation of how many otherwise law abiding persons there are who don't turn to crime to get their new fix.

The latter half of your arguement is nothing more than a poor use of the logical fallacy, appeal to emotion/argumentum ad metum. Please, if you are going to argue, don't use shady tactics. They don't prove your point.

Please see the below quote.

[Quote]Appeal to emotion

Appeal to emotion is a potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. Also this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one's reasoning process. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies...




Quote:

suburbantoker said:
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.




Without giving any sort of definitive scale in which you base your beliefs on, that statement is completely useless. In order to further discussion and expect a reasonable response you must state 1. what it is you believe and 2. why it is you believe that. I would be more than willing to discuss the reasons for why you have your beliefs to further the knowledge of human kind, but in order to do so you must present them.

There is a line in which you draw, than once the consequences have passed, you believe that it becomes everyone else's responsibility to tell you that you can not do a certain action. The argument lies around where you place that line. Stating that something is "...super super common sense." Does not help define where that line is nor why you draw it there.


--------------------
Wanna hear something depressing? One out of four Shroomerites wants to lock me in a government cage for using a substance they don't like.

Hard to believe, right? Read it for yourself:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7874721#Post7874721


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMichiaelJackson
Cynic
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/27/09
Posts: 175
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: Slavich]
    #10793977 - 08/03/09 06:26 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Ima Trooper said:
Yet that is EXACTLY what they strive for, a 100% catch rate. They'll never get it, thats impossible of course, but that isn't the point.




I don't believe that is true. There is more money to be made in prolonging the problem than solving it.

Quote:

Leahmon said:
If it only keeps a few people from -maybe, maybe not- road, that's fine with me. Try to understand that I'm not advocating the relinquishment of personal freedom, I'm simply setting it aside for a moment because I feel something else is more important.




If I read this correctly, you are stating that keeping a percentage of people from doing an action that is potentionally harmful to them is a fair trade for creating a black market that is riddled with violence among participants and non-participants alike. Sounds like a poor trade off to me.


Quote:

Leahmon said:
Well, alright. You guys can go to sleep tonight having the satisfaction that you beat me in an online argument. Congratulations, you were complete assholes to someone who was only trying to express their compassion for the unfortunate pool of people who have fucked up their lives.  :bow2:




Perhaps stating in a emotionally charged environment that you support that you believe that it is your right to tell me what I can and can not do with my body isn't the best way to show compassion.

Quote:

Slavich said:
-All the kids that can't afford drugs will be able to.
-All the kids that can't find drugs will be able to.




Kids don't buy drugs, they don't have any money.

In a time long ago and far away, I was much much more worried about selling alcohol to a minor than selling him a bag.


--------------------
Wanna hear something depressing? One out of four Shroomerites wants to lock me in a government cage for using a substance they don't like.

Hard to believe, right? Read it for yourself:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7874721#Post7874721


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineIma TrooperS
Chilldog Extraordinaire
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/21/08
Posts: 13,533
Loc: United States
Last seen: 2 days, 17 hours
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: MichiaelJackson]
    #10794001 - 08/03/09 06:30 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

MichiaelJackson said:
Quote:

Ima Trooper said:
Yet that is EXACTLY what they strive for, a 100% catch rate. They'll never get it, thats impossible of course, but that isn't the point.




I don't believe that is true. There is more money to be made in prolonging the problem than solving it.





Might be true for the higher ups, but I would say that MOST of the people tasked with making the busts aren't given the big picture, just trained to bust people.


--------------------
"Its moving of its own accord...and I like that in a shirt!" - Me, tripping.

deCypher said:
Schizophrenia beats dining alone, you know.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesilosighbin
this is the apocalypse
Male


Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 1,757
Loc: isla vista baby!
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: robbyberto]
    #10951990 - 08/27/09 10:54 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

nice all-or-nothing logic ya got there, OP


--------------------

i am caustic


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinettsk8r
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/23/07
Posts: 53
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: robbyberto]
    #11031339 - 09/09/09 10:50 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Knowledge is power


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGrizzdude
Twistificated
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/19/09
Posts: 994
Loc: The year of the Big Dirty
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: ttsk8r]
    #11147913 - 09/29/09 12:34 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

How can anyone vote against? IGNORANT PEOPLE! That's why "Oh your gonna invade my privacy for home land security..OK! Those are the shroomerites who voted for drug control.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNeuron
Tek Savant
Male


Registered: 12/28/08
Posts: 5,778
Loc: @meriKa
Last seen: 13 years, 4 months
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: Diploid]
    #11147964 - 09/29/09 12:48 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
Select the option you most agree with. (No STAL. If you don't know what your opinion is, don't vote.)




this is a very biased poll, therefore invalid. You didn't include the millions of uninformed users who don't enjoy drugs in the privacy of their own home.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePartyMarty4000
Boofilet
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 646
Loc: South Flodah
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: Diploid]
    #11148125 - 09/29/09 01:37 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Its should be legal to do outside the home also for certain drugs. I wanna smoke a joint and get baked in the sun at the beach, I want to roll up a sliff in a restaurant to smoke in the parking lot after a meal, I wanna take my pipe out and take a huge hash rip before the roller coaster goes down the first drop and see how long I can hold it in though out the ride. ya feel me dawg? Poll FAIL!


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: Chubba]
    #11178706 - 10/04/09 03:35 AM (14 years, 3 months ago)

I wasn't going to post till I read to whole article.... but jesus  christ Cubba... *faith in humanity reduced to zero*...

Behaviors are transmittable this is a scientific FACT with supporting evidence, so for example: If your friend regularly eats fast food, you are 30% more likely to start regularly eating fast food (assuming you don't already). Even if only a friend of a friend eats fast food, it is still increasing your chances of becoming a regular fast food eater by 11%. This works the same with most if not all behaviors varying only % of likeliness.

SO if 100% of these methheads you know and criminal and violent it does not mean, nor even make it likely, that meth is the causal factor. It could merely mean that by dealing with the people who make and sell meth the violent and criminal behaviors are not just transmitted but also compounded among this meth using subgroup of people.

Why might that be true of meth more then other drugs? You have to be one crazy dude to cook meth with out a proper lab and proper safety nets(i.e. an eyewash station, googles, breathing apparatus). Would you say most cookers have these things at their disposal? or are they just free-ballin it? Get your head out of your biased ass and do some research that doesn't involve walking up and down you neighborhood watching degenerates.

Now hopefully you will spend less time typing out responses and more time reading up on the facts.

EDIT: edited for more accuracy.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly


Edited by mozhual (10/07/09 10:19 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHanky
wiffle bat.
Male User Gallery
Registered: 08/30/03
Posts: 56,993
Loc: Great Southern Land.
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: mozhual]
    #11178716 - 10/04/09 03:49 AM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

mozhual said:
  Meth is fucking dangerous as hell to make, you have to be one crazy psyco to cook meth. Get your head out of your biased ass and do some research.




Meth is no more dangerous to make than any other synthesized drug, you do some research.

mozhual said:Now hopefully you will spend less time typing out responses and more time reading up on the facts.




LOL, just LOL.


--------------------
Coaster is an idiot...
[quote]Coaster said:
but i thnk everything thats pure is white?
[/quote]




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: Hanky]
    #11178977 - 10/04/09 07:32 AM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Are you serious? do you have any idea how easy it is to accidentally make some phosphine gas? add to that the fact that cookers rarely use any sort of lab protection what so ever... really? I'm shocked you would even jest about that...

Here's a little tidbit from wikipedia's methamphetamine page:
"Methamphetamine is most structurally similar to methcathinone and amphetamine. When illicitly produced, it is commonly made by the reduction of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. Most of the necessary chemicals are readily available in household products or over-the-counter cold or allergy medicines. Synthesis is relatively simple, but entails risk with flammable and corrosive chemicals, particularly the solvents used in extraction and purification. Clandestine production is therefore often discovered by fires and explosions caused by the improper handling of volatile or flammable solvents."
Also a little farther down on the page:
"Methamphetamine labs can give off noxious fumes, such as phosphine gas, methylamine gas, solvent vapors; such as acetone or chloroform, iodine vapors, white phosphorus, anhydrous ammonia, hydrogen chloride/muriatic acid, hydrogen iodide, lithium/sodium metal, ether, or methamphetamine vapors. If performed by amateurs, manufacturing methamphetamine can be extremely dangerous. If the red phosphorus overheats, because of a lack of ventilation, phosphine gas can be produced. This gas is highly toxic and if present in large quantities is likely to explode upon autoignition from diphosphine, which is formed by overheating phosphorus."

EDIT: also edited for more accuracy


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly


Edited by mozhual (10/07/09 10:22 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: mozhual]
    #11179320 - 10/04/09 09:14 AM (14 years, 3 months ago)

do you have any idea how easy it is to accidentally make some phosphine gas?

All the more reason to legalize these drugs. So people who want them can buy them from a regulated commercial source instead of from a backyard meth cook working next to where other people live.

It's a given that drug production and consumption is not going to stop. There are decades of time and trillions of dollars attesting to this fact. The drug war is lost. Anyone who insists on continuing it and so perpetuating the profit motives that create meth cooks in the first place is an idiot.

How many alcohol pushers do you know? Answer none because they were all put out of business when alcohol prohibition ended.

The stupidity of the American sheeple continues amaze me. :shake:


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDoctor_Dick
Forgiveness
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/03/09
Posts: 6,289
Loc: top of the tower
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: Hanky]
    #11179331 - 10/04/09 09:16 AM (14 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Hanky said:
Quote:

mozhual said:
  Meth is fucking dangerous as hell to make, you have to be one crazy psyco to cook meth. Get your head out of your biased ass and do some research.




Meth is no more dangerous to make than any other synthesized drug, you do some research.

mozhual said:Now hopefully you will spend less time typing out responses and more time reading up on the facts.




LOL, just LOL.




ya that was right out of a government anti-drug ad


--------------------
:minifo:] "This promise constitutes the heart of my Christian beliefs and my call to natural-scientific research: we will attain to knowledge of the universe through the spirit of truth, and thereby to understanding of our being one with the deepest, most comprehensive reality, God."
-Albert Hofmann


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemozhual
Amateur Omnologist
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 283
Loc: New England
Re: Drug Legality Poll [Re: Doctor_Dick]
    #11181721 - 10/04/09 05:13 PM (14 years, 3 months ago)

I'm sorry, have you cooked meth before? or Maby you saw a video and saw how easy it was... do tell, what video, what source of information tells you it is as safe to cook meth as to biosynthesize coke, acetylatise morphine, or synthesize mdma. Please, enlighten me... If you feel my sources are inadequet say so, and I find you more articles to pour over.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly


Edited by mozhual (10/04/09 05:24 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | Next > | Last >

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Capsules   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* What happens when drugs are legalized? ( DEA arguments) Annom 2,101 4 09/08/04 03:42 PM
by BleaK
* I need good websites about drug policy, legalization, etc. thepodman 1,040 11 09/22/04 10:44 PM
by thepodman
* Drug Banners!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
EffedS 13,608 172 12/24/08 01:24 PM
by ltd
* Drugs are needed for our society to continue...
( 1 2 all )
DailyPot 6,153 23 03/06/17 09:13 PM
by triphead9428
* Drugs -- 25 years from now. 20? 10? 5? 1? adamj 921 8 10/02/04 10:00 PM
by F0SS1L
* Legalized drugs = crap?
( 1 2 all )
IAmTheWalrus212 4,263 30 05/03/11 08:36 PM
by Yacub
* The Rise in the Use of Hallucinogenic Drugs in the 1990s I_Fart_Blue 2,751 9 10/03/16 04:31 PM
by g00ru
* no more vavorite drug!!!!???? notapillow 852 10 12/15/03 07:11 PM
by The_Red_Crayon

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
65,940 topic views. 2 members, 91 guests and 173 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 13 queries.