View Full Version : The Drug War Quagmire
saysmydoctor
05/20/10, 11:38 PM
http://reason.com/blog/2008/05/13/rachel-hoffman-more-collateral
This is just one story of countless. Another pointless victim in a pointless "war."
I think we have an blatantly obvious failure of public policy--but not to mention politicians who don't see what they could gain from the market.
Discuss your thoughts.
open mind
05/21/10, 12:16 AM
just think of all the poor construction workers, lawyers, police officers, correctional officers, judges, bail bondsmen, probation officers, manufacturers, paper pushers, piss analyzers, redundant substance abuse counselors, violent criminals, and bureaucratic douche bags that would be out of a job if we treated our citizens like adults and legalized drugs.
loveisdead
05/21/10, 12:33 AM
There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't completely legalize drugs.
reckoner
05/21/10, 01:27 AM
I think we should decriminalize them.
ayerock
05/21/10, 03:38 AM
There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't completely legalize drugs.
Whaaaaaat?
thatwasamoment
05/21/10, 04:04 AM
I think we should decriminalize them.nope. legalized, taxed, regulated.
perceptrons
05/21/10, 04:49 AM
There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't completely legalize drugs.
I'm not sure I agree, but there's definitely not good enough reasons not to at least legalize a bunch of drugs.
Jake Gyllenhaal
05/21/10, 06:36 AM
When doing research on drug policy, I came across L.E.A.P... Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php). They've seen the failure of the war on drugs and advocate legalization and regulation of all drugs.
NORML (http://norml.org/) is also a credible organization about reforming marijuana laws.
letitenfoldyou
05/21/10, 07:03 AM
Oh dear, cue all the stoners advocating cannabis use. When you've seen the amount of people as I have in my line of work with cannabis psychosis, you wouldn't be so supportive of it. That's not to say I don't think the drug system needs an overhaul - I'm extremely open minded (and slightly in favour) of the idea of legalising and regulating all drugs - however people need to have more open eyes to how dependent a lot of people are on smoke to keep them 'balanced'. It is an addiction, and it fucks your brain and personality.
paper halo
05/21/10, 07:13 AM
Oh dear, cue all the stoners advocating cannabis use. When you've seen the amount of people as I have in my line of work with cannabis psychosis, you wouldn't be so supportive of it. That's not to say I don't think the drug system needs an overhaul - I'm extremely open minded (and slightly in favour) of the idea of legalising and regulating all drugs - however people need to have more open eyes to how dependent a lot of people are on smoke to keep them 'balanced'. It is an addiction, and it fucks your brain and personality.
You seriously think legalisation would have a huge affect on cannabis use? It's already easy to get, people who want to smoke it already do. Oh, and I don't believe governments should have any control over what people do to their own bodies.
Jake Gyllenhaal
05/21/10, 07:18 AM
You seriously think legalisation would have a huge affect on cannabis use? It's already easy to get, people who want to smoke it already do. Oh, and I don't believe governments should have any control over what people do to their own bodies.
From NORML (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3381)...
Decriminalization does not lead to greater marijuana use.
Government studies conclude that marijuana decriminalization has had virtually no effect on either marijuana use or beliefs and related attitudes about marijuana among American young people in those states that have enacted such a policy.
REFERENCE: L. Johnson et al. 1981. Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth 1975-1980. Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper Series: Paper No. 13. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Citizens who live under decriminalization laws consume marijuana at rates less than or comparable to those who live in regions where the possession of marijuana remains a criminal offense.
REFERENCE: E. Single et al. 2000. The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalization in Australia and the United States. Journal of Public Health Policy 21: 157-186.
There is no evidence that marijuana decriminalization affects either the choice or frequency of use of drugs, either legal (such as alcohol) or illegal (such as marijuana and cocaine).
REFERENCE: C. Thies and C. Register. 1993. Decriminalization of marijuana and demand for alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. The Social Sciences Journal 30: 385-399.
States and regions that have maintained the strictest criminal penalties for marijuana possession have experienced the largest proportionate increase in use.
REFERENCE: Connecticut Law Review Commission. 1997. Drug Policy in Connecticut and Strategy Options: Report to the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut Assembly. (http://www.cga.state.ct.us/lrc/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicyRpt2.htm) State Capitol: Hartford.
Rates of hard drug use (illicit drugs other than marijuana) among emergency room patients are substantially higher in states that have not decriminalized marijuana use. Experts speculate that this is because the lack of decriminalization may encourage the greater use of drugs that are even more dangerous than marijuana.
REFERENCE: K. Model. 1993. The effect of marijuana decriminalization on hospital emergency room episodes: 1975-1978. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88: 737-747 as cited by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/), 103.
letitenfoldyou
05/21/10, 07:28 AM
You seriously think legalisation would have a huge affect on cannabis use? It's already easy to get, people who want to smoke it already do. Oh, and I don't believe governments should have any control over what people do to their own bodies.
Did I say anywhere I thought it would have a huge affect on cannabis use? Did I not say I'm actually slightly in favour of legalising drugs? I was saying that users shouldn't have such a unhinged view of it.
Legalize everything from marijuana to LSD to heroin. Let individual persons decide what they do or do not want to put into their body.
The Indigo
05/21/10, 07:39 AM
Damn, that story really bums me out. I don't know that I agree that all drugs should be legalized, but I agree that most should be, and the others, decriminalized. But I understand the other viewpoint. My father is a crackhead. I wish just once he'd been caught and thrown in jail. It'd be better than him being on the streets or dying within the next few years.
paper halo
05/21/10, 07:39 AM
Did I say anywhere I thought it would have a huge affect on cannabis use? Did I not say I'm actually slightly in favour of legalising drugs? I was saying that users shouldn't have such a unhinged view of it.
It was implied by the patronising tone of your post. This discussion is about the legality of drugs, it seemed logical to suppose you were alluding to your views on the subject of legality. Obviously I was wrong to assume that you were making a relevant point.
letitenfoldyou
05/21/10, 07:44 AM
It was implied by the patronising tone of your post. This discussion is about the legality of drugs, it seemed logical to suppose you were alluding to your views on the subject of legality. Obviously I was wrong to assume that you were making a relevant point.
I was making a pre-emptive statement. Obviously by missing that the relevance from my post went straight over your head, leading to a tangent of totally unimplied 'logic'. Apologies, you probably got distracted by all the cogs turning upstairs, I'll try to make sure I include a colour-by-numbers in my next posts to try and keep your attention a little longer.
Damn, that story really bums me out. I don't know that I agree that all drugs should be legalized, but I agree that most should be, and the others, decriminalized. But I understand the other viewpoint. My father is a crackhead. I wish just once he'd been caught and thrown in jail. It'd be better than him being on the streets or dying within the next few years.
If cocaine was legal, he would be able to buy it at a reasonable price and not be "on the streets." It would also be free of adulterants, which are generally more harmful to the body than the cocaine itself.
xshady121
05/21/10, 07:55 AM
I can't be the first to do this:
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Quacker1/poster1.jpg
paper halo
05/21/10, 08:02 AM
I was making a pre-emptive statement. Obviously by missing that the relevance from my post went straight over your head, leading to a tangent of totally unimplied 'logic'. Apologies, you probably got distracted by all the cogs turning upstairs, I'll try to make sure I include a colour-by-numbers in my next posts to try and keep your attention a little longer.
Your post had no relevance. You made a patronising generalisation, and attempted to cite your own authority on the subject. As you're apparently so very intelligent, you should be able to see how your post could easily be misconstrued.
Also, try to use correct grammar when attacking someone's intelligence, it would make your ad hominem remarks seem less pathetic.
letitenfoldyou
05/21/10, 08:21 AM
Your post had no relevance. You made a patronising generalisation, and attempted to cite your own authority on the subject. As you're apparently so very intelligent, you should be able to see how your post could easily be misconstrued.
Also, try to use correct grammar when attacking someone's intelligence, it would make your ad hominem remarks seem less pathetic.
i) How was it an ad hominem remark? Your going off on a tangent linked to my comments. As you're apparently so very intelligent, you should be able to see how your post could easily be targeted.
ii) It could easily have been misconstrued if I wasn't supporting the idea of legalising drugs.
iii) A person's response really does appear desperate when attacking grammar. Not using a semi-colon on a forum? Such a crime surely warrants Mr. Paxman himself being allowed the bullet in my firing squad.
iv) Please pull your head out of your own arse and not bother responding to this post; it would make the entirity of all your remarks seem less pathetic.
The Indigo
05/21/10, 08:22 AM
If cocaine was legal, he would be able to buy it at a reasonable price and not be "on the streets." It would also be free of adulterants, which are generally more harmful to the body than the cocaine itself.
The price of crack is reasonable already. It's been $10 since the 80's. The problem is it's so addictive, people just spend all their money on it, smoking until they're completely broke and ready to do anything for it (for instance, my Dad stole my car for a week and rented it out to his dealers). I can imagine the situation being mildly better if it were legal and regulated, but I feel as if addicts would still spend all their money on it.
letitenfoldyou
05/21/10, 08:24 AM
The price of crack is reasonable already. It's been $10 since the 80's. The problem is it's so addictive, people just spend all their money on it, smoking until they're completely broke and ready to do anything for it (for instance, my Dad stole my car for a week and rented it out to his dealers). I can imagine the situation being mildly better if it were legal and regulated, but I feel as if addicts would still spend all their money on it.
At least then however the money would be circulated back in the economy for use in rehab centres etc. Surely a better alternative to being in the hands of criminals?
<*)))><
05/21/10, 08:25 AM
Legalize everything from marijuana to LSD to heroin. Let individual persons decide what they do or do not want to put into their body.
Great idea considering now we are paying for their health care.
The Indigo
05/21/10, 08:28 AM
At least then however the money would be circulated back in the economy for use in rehab centres etc. Surely a better alternative to being in the hands of criminals?
Isn't that kind of roundabout though? Legalize drugs and use the money from the sales to fund rehab centers? Again, I believe most drugs should be legalized, and all drugs decriminalized, but I'll admit that I believe this in spite of the way I feel personally having seen first-hand what drugs did to my family.
The price of crack is reasonable already. It's been $10 since the 80's. The problem is it's so addictive, people just spend all their money on it, smoking until they're completely broke and ready to do anything for it (for instance, my Dad stole my car for a week and rented it out to his dealers). I can imagine the situation being mildly better if it were legal and regulated, but I feel as if addicts would still spend all their money on it.
No, it's not reasonable. $10 for what, as in 1/4 gram, 1/2 gram, or what? Whatever the price, it would be drastically cheaper if it was legal. Whenever a product such as drugs is sold illegally the prices, as a rule, are hugely inflated. The most hardcore of addicts wouldn't be able to blow (pun intended) all their money on it without it going to waste. The same way I couldn't smoke cigarettes fast enough to blow all my money buying tobacco.
Why can an alcoholic continue to be an alcoholic without going broke? Because cheap alcohol is very cheap.
Great idea considering now we are paying for their health care.
I imagine the prices would be offset with a.) the huge cost of the war on drugs being removed and b.) taxation.
The Indigo
05/21/10, 08:39 AM
No, it's not reasonable. $10 for what, as in 1/4 gram, 1/2 gram, or what? Whatever the price, it would be drastically cheaper if it was legal. Whenever a product such as drugs is sold illegally the prices, as a rule, are hugely inflated. The most hardcore of addicts wouldn't be able to blow (pun intended) all their money on it without it going to waste. The same way I couldn't smoke cigarettes fast enough to blow all my money buying tobacco.
Why can an alcoholic continue to be an alcoholic without going broke? Because cheap alcohol is very cheap.
Isn't that also why alcohol is one of the most abused drugs though?
Isn't that also why alcohol is one of the most abused drugs though?
What's your point? That people shouldn't have the freedom to destroy themselves?
Marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms (can not believe that something you can literally just pick from the ground is illegal) and a few other substances should be legalized. Not sure what my feelings are pertaining to harder drugs because I can't view them objectively.
The Indigo
05/21/10, 08:51 AM
What's your point? That people shouldn't have the freedom to destroy themselves?
I've already said five times that I don't think drugs should be illegal, so I don't know where you're getting that. People should have the right to do drugs and kill themselves if they want, but I'm just not convinced of the arguments that legalizing drugs will change anything for addicts and their families.
I've already said five times that I don't think drugs should be illegal, so I don't know where you're getting that. People should have the right to do drugs and kill themselves if they want, but I'm just not convinced of the arguments that legalizing drugs will change anything for addicts and their families.
They will be getting a pure, cheaper product, which would be economically beneficial and also healthier (although virtually no drug addiction could be considered "healthy," but healthier). Drug abuse would also be considered a health issue, not a criminal issue. This fact alone would serve to augment prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation procedures.
paper halo
05/21/10, 09:05 AM
i) How was it an ad hominem remark? Your going off on a tangent linked to my comments. As you're apparently so very intelligent, you should be able to see how your post could easily be targeted.
ii) It could easily have been misconstrued if I wasn't supporting the idea of legalising drugs.
iii) A person's response really does appear desperate when attacking grammar. Not using a semi-colon on a forum? Such a crime surely warrants Mr. Paxman himself being allowed the bullet in my firing squad.
iv) Please pull your head out of your own arse and not bother responding to this post; it would make the entirity of all your remarks seem less pathetic.
Jesus fucking christ.
i) You attempted to attack my intelligence rather than my argument, that is an ad hominem.
ii) You didn't profess support for legalising drugs, you said you were 'slightly in favour' of it, and then appeared to question said rationale.
iii) Whoosh. That was the sound of my point flying over your head.
iv) Irony at it's finest.
This is beyond pointless now.
paper halo
05/21/10, 09:08 AM
I imagine the prices would be offset with a.) the huge cost of the war on drugs being removed and b.) taxation.
This is the main point for me. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the potential benefits to people in countries that import these drugs.
Mibabalou
05/21/10, 09:14 AM
fuckin hippies
<*)))><
05/21/10, 09:20 AM
This is the main point for me. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the potential benefits to people in countries that import these drugs.
The price would go down so how can it benefit them?
DrStrong
05/21/10, 09:22 AM
There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't completely legalize drugs.
Sarcasm?
<*)))><
05/21/10, 09:27 AM
I imagine the prices would be offset with a.) the huge cost of the war on drugs being removed and b.) taxation.
I don't think the taxing could really offset the price to help treat these people that are addicted. I really can't put together a solid number because I don't know how much an average crack addict smokes a day or how much it cost to treat them. If you could find some numbers I'd greatly appreciate it.
caveBEAR
05/21/10, 09:28 AM
Oh dear, cue all the stoners advocating cannabis use. When you've seen the amount of people as I have in my line of work with cannabis psychosis, you wouldn't be so supportive of it. That's not to say I don't think the drug system needs an overhaul - I'm extremely open minded (and slightly in favour) of the idea of legalising and regulating all drugs - however people need to have more open eyes to how dependent a lot of people are on smoke to keep them 'balanced'. It is an addiction, and it fucks your brain and personality.
Cannabis psychosis? You're going to have to explain that one to me.
The price would go down so how can it benefit them?
Their coca fields wouldn't be randomly razed and burned to the ground, for one.
I don't think the taxing could really offset the price to help treat these people that are addicted. I really can't put together a solid number because I don't know how much an average crack addict smokes a day or how much it cost to treat them. If you could find some numbers I'd greatly appreciate it.
Yeah, I have no idea about the numbers. But the $15 billion Obama wants to spend in 2011 on the War on Drugs, which goes up every year, would be cut.
loveisdead
05/21/10, 09:47 AM
Sarcasm?
No.
<*)))><
05/21/10, 09:55 AM
Yeah, I have no idea about the numbers. But the $15 billion Obama wants to spend in 2011 on the War on Drugs, which goes up every year, would be cut.
How does that compare with the estimated 1.5trillion of healthcare?
<*)))><
05/21/10, 09:58 AM
Cannabis psychosis? You're going to have to explain that one to me.
Their coca fields wouldn't be randomly razed and burned to the ground, for one.
Who is burning it?
How does that compare with the estimated 1.5trillion of healthcare?
We would have to find out what percentage of people receive health care for problems directly related to illicit drug use.
caveBEAR
05/21/10, 10:05 AM
Who is burning it?
Armies of their respective countries funded by either their own governments or ours, all under the umbrella of 'The War on Drugs'.
<*)))><
05/21/10, 10:16 AM
We would have to find out what percentage of people receive health care for problems directly related to illicit drug use.
I'm gonna try and find this out because now I'm pretty interested.
Armies of their respective countries funded by either their own governments or ours, all under the umbrella of 'The War on Drugs'.
I always thought these drug lord had armies of their own and had major lobbying power within their own government.
caveBEAR
05/21/10, 10:39 AM
I always thought these drug lord had armies of their own and had major lobbying power within their own government.
In most countries there is a back and forth between the drug lords and their intervention in their government and our DEA agencies trying to combat that with the same people working with the drug lords.
It's generally not black and white or honest, and the little people (surprise, surprise) are the one's that suffer.
stoner advocating cannabis use....oh wait, make your own fucking choices. but yeah that'd be sweet if it was legal. my munchies and sitting around with a group of good people listening to music isn't hurting anyone.
simplejack
05/21/10, 02:08 PM
I thought this thread was about Quagmire...
/giggity
open mind
05/21/10, 03:08 PM
I've already said five times that I don't think drugs should be illegal, so I don't know where you're getting that. People should have the right to do drugs and kill themselves if they want, but I'm just not convinced of the arguments that legalizing drugs will change anything for addicts and their families.
addicts have to want to change for anything to change, but at the very least addicts (well, more than just rich addicts) wouldn't be routinely thrown into rape and abuse farms and be expected to come out better.
Do you honestly know anyone who refuses to do drugs simply because it's illegal?
Jake Gyllenhaal
05/21/10, 03:48 PM
Do you honestly know anyone who refuses to do drugs simply because it's illegal?
I do. The reason I never tried marijuana because I thought of the consequences if I was to get caught / arrested. I've been offered it, but I think I turned it down because I knew I had to drive home that night and wasn't sure how it'd affect my driving. I've gotten drunk many times before I turned 21 but I guess because it was at college where it was more accepted and any penalties wouldn't be harsh. I'm still all for marijuana legalization and if that comes to be, I will at least try it once.
ace1112
05/21/10, 03:52 PM
Legalize everything from marijuana to LSD to heroin. Let individual persons decide what they do or do not want to put into their body.
this but especialy legalize dmt
katyara
05/21/10, 04:33 PM
nope. legalized, taxed, regulated.
QFT. Have an age limit like cigarettes and alcohol. And while we're at it, make the drinking limit age 18.
caveBEAR
05/21/10, 04:48 PM
this but especialy legalize dmt
Yeah man, DMT's gotta be the first thing we legalize!
:rolleyes:
mattmatumbo
05/21/10, 05:16 PM
fuckin hippies
Oh haha, you would.
saysmydoctor
05/21/10, 06:26 PM
Opponents to legalization are demanded to explain why the fuck salvia is legal since they are supporting a ridiculous status quo as is.
myplanforescape
05/21/10, 06:54 PM
Do you honestly know anyone who refuses to do drugs simply because it's illegal?
I do. I have friends who smoke pot, and it would be readily available to me/has been offered to me. But I hope to become a high school history teacher one day and while I'm not sure how a misdemeanor drug charge would affect my employment chances (on the off chance I ever got busted), it's not something I'm really willing to risk. So I abstain from it.
I do. I have friends who smoke pot, and it would be readily available to me/has been offered to me. But I hope to become a high school history teacher one day and while I'm not sure how a misdemeanor drug charge would affect my employment chances (on the off chance I ever got busted), it's not something I'm really willing to risk. So I abstain from it.
I guess I should rephrase...marijuana is hardly considered a "drug" anymore, is it? I was more referring to the hard stuff. But I got your point.
<*)))><
05/21/10, 07:27 PM
Opponents to legalization are demanded to explain why the fuck salvia is legal since they are supporting a ridiculous status quo as is.
It is? I guess what I know I'm doing this weekend.
Jake Gyllenhaal
05/21/10, 07:28 PM
I guess I should rephrase...marijuana is hardly considered a "drug" anymore, is it? I was more referring to the hard stuff. But I got your point.
In that case, I choose not to engage in coke, heroin, meth for the sole reason that TV and movies has taught me how much it fucks up your body. Pop culture has taught me that marijuana is the greatest thing ever, though.
In that case, I choose not to engage in coke, heroin, meth for the sole reason that TV and movies has taught me how much it fucks up your body. Pop culture has taught me that marijuana is the greatest thing ever, though.
My point was simply that the drug war is as silly as prohibition. Those who want to do drugs generally will, regardless of the legal consequences.
caveBEAR
05/21/10, 07:53 PM
My point was simply that the drug war is as silly as prohibition. Those who want to do drugs generally will, regardless of the legal consequences.
I got your point, and agree. The stuff I do partake in, such as (EDITED FOR CONTENT), I'm going to partake in no matter the legality. The stuff I won't touch, like heroin, meth, etc., I won't take because I don't need to deal with the symptoms and crashes they bring.
Legality is nothing but a hassle to me.
saysmydoctor
05/21/10, 08:05 PM
Coke could be worse for you. Depends on frequency.
Heroin and meth, no argument.
Jake Gyllenhaal
05/21/10, 08:19 PM
My point was simply that the drug war is as silly as prohibition. Those who want to do drugs generally will, regardless of the legal consequences.
I agree!
caveBEAR
05/21/10, 09:04 PM
Coke could be worse for you. Depends on frequency.
Heroin and meth, no argument.
Indeed. :-)
Smash Adams
05/21/10, 09:17 PM
In that case, I choose not to engage in coke, heroin, meth for the sole reason that TV and movies has taught me how much it fucks up your body. Pop culture has taught me that marijuana is the greatest thing ever, though.
But marijuana makes you think O.A.R. is good, is that really worse than winding up dead in a bathtub at 27?
saysmydoctor
05/21/10, 09:26 PM
Indeed. :-)
Indeed. ;-)
But marijuana makes you think O.A.R. is good, is that really worse than winding up dead in a bathtub at 27?
Ian, you always provide perspective.
I do not like O.A.R.
caveBEAR
05/21/10, 09:37 PM
But marijuana makes you think O.A.R. is good, is that really worse than winding up dead in a bathtub at 27?
I've smoked enough to be served at a BBQ, and I've never been able to tolerate O.A.R. :shudder:
loveisdead
05/21/10, 09:38 PM
But marijuana makes you think O.A.R. is good, is that really worse than winding up dead in a bathtub at 27?
This made my life. Thanks, Ian.
Jake Gyllenhaal
05/21/10, 09:40 PM
But marijuana makes you think O.A.R. is good, is that really worse than winding up dead in a bathtub at 27?
I know of O.A.R... I have never listened to them. I tend to keep it that ways (drugs or no drugs).
saysmydoctor
05/21/10, 09:43 PM
I've smoked enough to be served at a BBQ, and I've never been able to tolerate O.A.R. :shudder:
I don't get it.
caveBEAR
05/21/10, 09:54 PM
I don't get it.
The BBQ, or the not liking O.A.R.? I would hope you understand why I dislike O.A.R., so I'll assume the joke didn't land; I was trying to say that I have smoked a large amount of marijuana in my day. I took the active verb of smoke and turned it on myself as if I was 'smoked', like someone may order their food to be prepared at a BBQ. Visa-vi, I compared myself to a piece of smoked meat, as per all the smoking that I have partaken in, and said that I've been smoked enough to be served at a BBQ. Don't know if it was all that good or clever, but as we've established, I've smoked a lot of weed in my day, so the synapses aren't what they used to be.
If it's the O.A.R. thing, they're just not for me. Like Tokio Hotel. No thanks.
saysmydoctor
05/21/10, 09:56 PM
I can't believe I didn't fucking get that.
caveBEAR
05/21/10, 10:07 PM
I can't believe I didn't fucking get that.
It's OK. It's all the :coke:
Moderation,my friend. It's all in the moderation.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 09:26 AM
When elected officials have to make decisions, especially big ones such as this (only because of all of the hassle/attention), its never about wrong or right or hurting someone. The only thing that matters is they're personal beliefs and they tend to have the mindset of bible wavers so it doesn't matter what the people think. Put it on a ballot and all of a sudden drug legalization just got a lot simpler and more likely.
Aren't we supposed to be in the land of the free? Freedom to have the government control our decisions is not what this country is all about.
loveisdead
05/22/10, 01:40 PM
When elected officials have to make decisions, especially big ones such as this (only because of all of the hassle/attention), its never about wrong or right or hurting someone. The only thing that matters is they're personal beliefs and they tend to have the mindset of bible wavers so it doesn't matter what the people think. Put it on a ballot and all of a sudden drug legalization just got a lot simpler and more likely.
Aren't we supposed to be in the land of the free? Freedom to have the government control our decisions is not what this country is all about.
I'll be honest, I don't have a clue what you're trying to say.
And it's their.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 03:23 PM
I'll be honest, I don't have a clue what you're trying to say.
And it's their.
Yes I know grammar, and probably much better than anyone here, but I don't care if i put the wrong their/there/they're when I'm online and anyone who cares is retarded. It's not like I'm writing with stupid contractions and shit like that every other word.
And what I'm trying to say is that when elected officials feel strongly about something they'll do whatever they want and heres a perfect example: 80% of Detroit/Michigan residents (cannot remember which) were fine with Kevorkian but there were still elected officials trying their hardest to put him in jail because they were religious men who completely disregarded the communities that they are supposed to be representing.
saysmydoctor
05/22/10, 03:42 PM
Yes I know grammar, and probably much better than anyone here, but I don't care if i put the wrong their/there/they're when I'm online and anyone who cares is retarded. It's not like I'm writing with stupid contractions and shit like that every other word.
And what I'm trying to say is that when elected officials feel strongly about something they'll do whatever they want and heres a perfect example: 80% of Detroit/Michigan residents (cannot remember which) were fine with Kevorkian but there were still elected officials trying their hardest to put him in jail because they were religious men who completely disregarded the communities that they are supposed to be representing.
Fuck, dude, that was easy.
Fuck, dude, that was easy.
:lol:
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 04:05 PM
Yes I know grammar, and probably much better than anyone here, but I don't care if i put the wrong their/there/they're when I'm online and anyone who cares is retarded. It's not like I'm writing with stupid contractions and shit like that every other word.
And what I'm trying to say is that when elected officials feel strongly about something they'll do whatever they want and heres a perfect example: 80% of Detroit/Michigan residents (cannot remember which) were fine with Kevorkian but there were still elected officials trying their hardest to put him in jail because they were religious men who completely disregarded the communities that they are supposed to be representing.
Did the guy who can't form a proper sentence really just call people adhering to proper grammar on the internet 'retarded'? Now I've seen everything.
Yeah, you seem to really have a proper grasp on grammar. I love the opening gem; 'Yes I know grammar'.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 04:53 PM
Fuck, dude, that was easy.
As in ttyl, brb, kjuff, widu. I said stupid contractions, be a dick if you want and if you feel smarter than me, well they say ignorance is bliss.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 04:56 PM
Did the guy who can't form a proper sentence really just call people adhering to proper grammar on the internet 'retarded'? Now I've seen everything.
Yeah, you seem to really have a proper grasp on grammar. I love the opening gem; 'Yes I know grammar'.
Again, if you feel the need to use spell check and make sure that your post would make an english teacher proud then go ahead. You cannot even fathom how intelligent I am and I am sure you wouldn't stand so tall if you weren't behind a computer screen.
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 05:02 PM
Again, if you feel the need to use spell check and make sure that your post would make an english teacher proud then go ahead. You cannot even fathom how intelligent I am and I am sure you wouldn't stand so tall if you weren't behind a computer screen.
:lolatpost:
Holy shit, this is great. By the way, I stand 6' no matter where I am. I can't alter my height.
Can 'you cannot even fathom' be our new 'they pay taxes'?
saysmydoctor
05/22/10, 05:08 PM
As in ttyl, brb, kjuff, widu. I said stupid contractions, be a dick if you want and if you feel smarter than me, well they say ignorance is bliss.
Those are not contractions, dumbass. Those are acronyms.
Ignorance is definitely bliss.
loveisdead
05/22/10, 05:09 PM
This guy is fantastic.
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 05:11 PM
This guy is fantastic.
You cannot even fathom how fantastic he is.
saysmydoctor
05/22/10, 05:13 PM
You cannot even fathom the insurmountable nature of what you cannot even fathom.
loveisdead
05/22/10, 05:13 PM
You cannot even fathom how fantastic he is.
The contractions thing was my favorite.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 05:14 PM
:lolatpost:
Holy shit, this is great.
Can 'you cannot even fathom' be our new 'they pay taxes'?
You can believe it or not, but I have an IQ of 160, higher than 99.99% of the population and equal to Stephen Hawking. It's real easy to think you're smarter than someone and if you really want to think you're smarter than me go ahead because you may be that 1 in 10000 that actually is smarter than me.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 05:14 PM
Those are not contractions, dumbass. Those are acronyms.
Ignorance is definitely bliss.
sorry i stand corrected
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 05:18 PM
You can believe it or not, but I have an IQ of 160, higher than 99.99% of the population and equal to Stephen Hawking. It's real easy to think you're smarter than someone and if you really want to think you're smarter than me go ahead because you may be that 1 in 10000 that actually is smarter than me.
Ha ha ha ha, based on your posts I'm going to have to assume you're more along the lines of 'Rainman' than 'Stephen Hawking', but who am I to judge? I guess when you were filling your mind up with all that quantum mechanics gobbledigook you forgot to discover what things like 'acronym' and 'contraction' mean, but again...who am I to judge?
I'd love to compare IQs, but I don't keep mine memorized because I'm comfortable with my dick's length. Congrats on your unfathomable IQ, though.
saysmydoctor
05/22/10, 05:20 PM
sorry i stand corrected
I know.
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 05:20 PM
The contractions thing was my favorite.
I mean, technically, he's correct; the same way 'don't' is merely 'do not' with the extra 'o' removed, 'btw' is just 'by the way' with the extra 'y he ay' removed.
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 05:21 PM
I know.
:lol:
Steiny29
05/22/10, 05:27 PM
Ha ha ha ha, based on your posts I'm going to have to assume you're more along the lines of 'Rainman' than 'Stephen Hawking', but who am I to judge? I guess when you were filling your mind up with all that quantum mechanics gobbledigook you forgot to discover what things like 'acronym' and 'contraction' mean, but again...who am I to judge?
I'd love to compare IQs, but I don't keep mine memorized because I'm comfortable with my dick's length. Congrats on your unfathomable IQ, though.
Yea you don't have your IQ memorized because your probably average and that just means you have an IQ of 100. When you're 5 years old and every adult around you is fascinated by the number you remember something like that especially with a photographic memory. And to make fun of someone who uses a word like fathom is true ignorance. I'm sorry I don't have a 100 word vocabulary. The statement is valid because as smart as I am I still know people who are so much smarter than that me I can't fathom it so it works both ways.
nope. legalized, taxed, regulated.
i think if weed (i haven't read the article i just realized, i just assumed it was weed) were legal, it would completely change society. i even see how it has changed my friends who do it often.
and then what about driving regulations? are you allowed to drive on it? if so, how much can you legally before hand? what about the one little girl who is killed by a high driver?
im open for discussion on it, but im still not 100% convinced it should be legal. its not that hard to get anyway, though i understand the argument that it fuels crime. it should at very least be decriminalized.
loveisdead
05/22/10, 05:31 PM
i think if weed (i haven't read the article i just realized, i just assumed it was weed) were legal, it would completely change society. i even see how it has changed my friends who do it often.
and then what about driving regulations? are you allowed to drive on it? if so, how much can you legally before hand? what about the one little girl who is killed by a high driver?
im open for discussion on it, but im still not 100% convinced it should be legal. its not that hard to get anyway, though i understand the argument that it fuels crime. it should at very least be decriminalized.
You can't even fathom how much it would change society.
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 05:32 PM
Yea you don't have your IQ memorized because your probably average and that just means you have an IQ of 100. When you're 5 years old and every adult around you is fascinated by the number you remember something like that especially with a photographic memory. And to make fun of someone who uses a word like fathom is true ignorance. I'm sorry I don't have a 100 word vocabulary. The statement is valid because as smart as I am I still know people who are so much smarter than that me I can't fathom it so it works both ways.
The last time I had an IQ test it was ~130, but I was in first grade, so who knows now?
I wasn't mocking you because you used the word 'fathom', I was mocking you because you sounded like a tool. 'You cannot even fathom how intelligent I am'. Ha ha ha ha, holy shit, it still gets me.
Ha ha ha ha, based on your posts I'm going to have to assume you're more along the lines of 'Rainman' than 'Stephen Hawking', but who am I to judge? I guess when you were filling your mind up with all that quantum mechanics gobbledigook you forgot to discover what things like 'acronym' and 'contraction' mean, but again...who am I to judge?
I'd love to compare IQs, but I don't keep mine memorized because I'm comfortable with my dick's length. Congrats on your unfathomable IQ, though.
I'm not. Kindly remove it from my sofa cushions.
Yea you don't have your IQ memorized because your probably average and that just means you have an IQ of 100. When you're 5 years old and every adult around you is fascinated by the number you remember something like that especially with a photographic memory. And to make fun of someone who uses a word like fathom is true ignorance. I'm sorry I don't have a 100 word vocabulary. The statement is valid because as smart as I am I still know people who are so much smarter than that me I can't fathom it so it works both ways.
Yea is spelled with an H. Also, Mr. Hawking, please refrain from run-on sentences. You can't fathom how annoying that is.
You can't even fathom how much it would change society.
:lol:
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 05:35 PM
You can't even fathom how much it would change society.
So many things become unfathomable once you're high. Like donuts, for instance.
I'm smarter than everyone. Don't even bother disagreeing with me, you'll just end up looking stupid, which you are. All you jokers might as well just kill yourselves now, because you'll never be as smart as I am.
macabre
05/22/10, 05:40 PM
That exchange made my night. Thanks for delivering, AP Politics board.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 05:42 PM
The last time I had an IQ test it was ~130, but I was in first grade, so who knows now?
I wasn't mocking you because you used the word 'fathom', I was mocking you because you sounded like a tool. 'You cannot even fathom how intelligent I am'. Ha ha ha ha, holy shit, it still gets me.
You're IQ is you're IQ it doesn't change. Differences in values just show how inexact it is, but it is still a reliable quota.
And It's a true statement. If Steven Hawking said that you wouldn't be laughing because you really don't know how smart he is. It's a fucked up thing to say, but when you're arguing with people who are basically wearing blinders and closing their ears when you talk (I know its online, and you know what I mean and to say something about it would just be petty) you need some way for it to reach them. Kind of like not a single person acknowledged what I initially posted about anyway they just didn't know what I was saying/ couldn't understand it/saw one mistake or whatever and took it to here.
macabre
05/22/10, 05:43 PM
I'm smarter than everyone. Don't even bother disagreeing with me, you'll just end up looking stupid, which you are. All you jokers might as well just kill yourselves now, because you'll never be as smart as I am.
I have an IQ scor iof 400 but you culd nmever tell that by the way that I epxoress myslef oin the internet, Im as inteligent as Einstein and I could porobaly find a cure for cancber but I just choose not to cause Im that smrt.
You're IQ is you're IQ it doesn't change. Differences in values just show how inexact it is, but it is still a reliable quota.
And It's a true statement. If Steven Hawking said that you wouldn't be laughing because you really don't know how smart he is. It's a fucked up thing to say, but when you're arguing with people who are basically wearing blinders and closing their ears when you talk (I know its online, and you know what I mean and to say something about it would just be petty) you need some way for it to reach them. Kind of like not a single person acknowledged what I initially posted about anyway they just didn't know what I was saying/ couldn't understand it/saw one mistake or whatever and took it to here.
YOU'RE IQ IS YOU'RE IQ. --- my new band name.
:lol: Keep going, please. This is fun.
loveisdead
05/22/10, 05:47 PM
YOU'RE IQ IS YOU'RE IQ. --- my new band name.
:lol: Keep going, please. This is fun.
Haahahahahaha I'm glad I chose to stay in tonight. This is more entertaining than whatever bar I would be at.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 05:48 PM
I'm not. Kindly remove it from my sofa cushions.
Yea is spelled with an H. Also, Mr. Hawking, please refrain from run-on sentences. You can't fathom how annoying that is.
:lol:
Well I'm glad to have been able to annoy you, and like I've said 4 times now who the fuck really cares about grammar/spelling in a forum as long as you can comprehend what is being said. You must feel real smart to point out a spelling mistake on a website where only people who feel like starting fights care about shit like that.
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 05:49 PM
You're IQ is you're IQ it doesn't change.
Holy fuck, Hawking. I know grammar is below 9th level intelligence beings such as yourself, but for the rest of us, please, at least try.
Well I'm glad to have been able to annoy you, and like I've said 4 times now who the fuck really cares about grammar/spelling in a forum as long as you can comprehend what is being said. You must feel real smart to point out a spelling mistake on a website where only people who feel like starting fights care about shit like that.
Who's starting fights here, douchewaffle? You're the one who strutted into the politics forum waving your huge IQ about and expecting everyone to plant dewkisses on your derriere. If you're going to pretend to be smart, pony up and type like it.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 05:50 PM
YOU'RE IQ IS YOU'RE IQ. --- my new band name.
:lol: Keep going, please. This is fun.
Yea I wondered if people still care that much about grammar considering thats what all this shit is about. And apparently its still a yes. If you want to stop with petty little interjections and say something substantial let me know.
Yea I wondered if people still care that much about grammar considering thats what all this shit is about. And apparently its still a yes. If you want to stop with petty little interjections and say something substantial let me know.
Naw, I'm cool with the dynamic we've struck. On with the petty interjections! If you want substance, head on over to the personal forums.
loveisdead
05/22/10, 05:53 PM
Yea I wondered if people still care that much about grammar considering thats what all this shit is about. And apparently its still a yes. If you want to stop with petty little interjections and say something substantial let me know.
Remind me of your position on this topic. I'll do my best to debate with your unfathomable genius.
Remind me of your position on this topic. I'll do my best to debate with your unfathomable genius.
Dude, don't get cocky now...regardless of how hard you may try...the fact remains...
you're IQ is you're IQ.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 05:56 PM
Who's starting fights here, douchewaffle? You're the one who strutted into the politics forum waving your huge IQ about and expecting everyone to plant dewkisses on your derriere. If you're going to pretend to be smart, pony up and type like it.
I came here to post my opinion on this drug quagmire and the only thing people picked up was the stupid little error in it. I was not the person to start shit. And I don't expect people to bow to me. I avoid telling people about it, I avoid telling people about skipping grades, I even avoid telling people I'm going to school to be a physics researcher. When people bring it up, I try to change the subject but if someone is being a dick I'll pull out everything just to demean them (sorry that should be him/her but I'm sure you wouldn't have picked that grammar mistake out because its not glaring you in the face), but only people who deserve it.
loveisdead
05/22/10, 05:57 PM
Dude, don't get cocky now...regardless of how hard you may try...the fact remains...
you're IQ is you're IQ.
That's gonna be the title of the next general thread.
Lueda Alia
05/22/10, 06:00 PM
Haahahahahaha I'm glad I chose to stay in tonight. This is more entertaining than whatever bar I would be at.
Lets drink!
I came here to post my opinion on this drug quagmire and the only thing people picked up was the stupid little error in it. I was not the person to start shit. And I don't expect people to bow to me. I avoid telling people about it, I avoid telling people about skipping grades, I even avoid telling people I'm going to school to be a physics researcher. When people bring it up, I try to change the subject but if someone is being a dick I'll pull out everything just to demean them (sorry that should be him/her but I'm sure you wouldn't have picked that grammar mistake out because its not glaring you in the face), but only people who deserve it.
I can just see you in a physics lab, researching away...while Avenged Sevenfold and Atreyu blast in the background.
Bitch, please.
That's gonna be the title of the next general thread.
To hell with that, it's now the slogan by which I'm going to live my life from now on!
loveisdead
05/22/10, 06:01 PM
Lets drink!
Haahahahahaha you got it.
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 06:11 PM
I came here to post my opinion on this drug quagmire and the only thing people picked up was the stupid little error in it. I was not the person to start shit. And I don't expect people to bow to me. I avoid telling people about it, I avoid telling people about skipping grades, I even avoid telling people I'm going to school to be a physics researcher. When people bring it up, I try to change the subject but if someone is being a dick I'll pull out everything just to demean them (sorry that should be him/her but I'm sure you wouldn't have picked that grammar mistake out because its not glaring you in the face), but only people who deserve it.
Trust me, you haven't demeaned anyone.
Now, what is your position on this drug quagmire?
saysmydoctor
05/22/10, 06:12 PM
The IQ test is a notoriously shitty test and really means nothing.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 06:14 PM
I can just see you in a physics lab, researching away...while Avenged Sevenfold and Atreyu blast in the background.
Bitch, please.
Even though I don't listen to Atreyu, I'm not going to argue that. As someone who is a poster on a website like this you are a music lover. Someone who really do loves music should realize that music is a form of art. All music, from Atreyu to Lady Gaga to Brokencyde is art. You may think it's stupid, and you can write off what I say by saying its not music or it doesn't count because they do it for the money. There is no such thing as bad music, just music that you don't like. And to be righteous about the music you listen to is a step above that because who are you to judge other people's preferences. I'm sure your parents and pretty much every adult you know thinks your music is stupid and they may even consider it an embarrassment to music. If not, lucky you because that would be the first time I've met someone whose music taste is enjoyed by everyone.
The IQ test is a notoriously shitty test and really means nothing.
Only to those who can't fathom its implications.
Lueda Alia
05/22/10, 06:15 PM
Haahahahahaha you got it.
I'll start making ribs + mashed potatoes + broccoli in a bit for Tristan and myself. And we have a lot of nice beer. Come over!
Even though I don't listen to Atreyu, I'm not going to argue that. As someone who is a poster on a website like this you are a music lover. Someone who really do loves music should realize that music is a form of art. All music, from Atreyu to Lady Gaga to Brokencyde is art. You may think it's stupid, and you can write off what I say by saying its not music or it doesn't count because they do it for the money. There is no such thing as bad music, just music that you don't like. And to be righteous about the music you listen to is a step above that because who are you to judge other people's preferences. I'm sure your parents and pretty much every adult you know thinks your music is stupid and they may even consider it an embarrassment to music. If not, lucky you because that would be the first time I've met someone whose music taste is enjoyed by everyone.
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/68/csb1.jpg
loveisdead
05/22/10, 06:16 PM
I'll start making ribs + mashed potatoes + broccoli in a bit for Tristan and myself. And we have a lot of nice beer. Come over!
You act like i'm down the street haha. I'm starving and you're making it worse cause I can't be there.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 06:16 PM
The IQ test is a notoriously shitty test and really means nothing.
Yea I know its not the greatest test, but it is sufficient for its job. The difference between 104 and 105 is nothing, but between 100 and 140 is and the comparison means something. It's the same thing as the BMI scale
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 06:17 PM
Even though I don't listen to Atreyu, I'm not going to argue that. As someone who is a poster on a website like this you are a music lover. Someone who really do loves music should realize that music is a form of art. All music, from Atreyu to Lady Gaga to Brokencyde is art. You may think it's stupid, and you can write off what I say by saying its not music or it doesn't count because they do it for the money. There is no such thing as bad music, just music that you don't like. And to be righteous about the music you listen to is a step above that because who are you to judge other people's preferences. I'm sure your parents and pretty much every adult you know thinks your music is stupid and they may even consider it an embarrassment to music. If not, lucky you because that would be the first time I've met someone whose music taste is enjoyed by everyone.
My dad loves Alkaline Trio and Against Me!. He's not so big on AM!'s back catalog, but no one's perfect.
open mind
05/22/10, 06:17 PM
Yea I know its not the greatest test, but it is sufficient for its job. The difference between 104 and 105 is nothing, but between 100 and 140 is and the comparison means something. It's the same thing as the BMI scale
the bmi is also crap.
Yea I know its not the greatest test, but it is sufficient for its job. The difference between 104 and 105 is nothing, but between 100 and 140 is and the comparison means something. It's the same thing as the BMI scale
What was you're IQ again? I forgot.
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 06:18 PM
Yea I know its not the greatest test, but it is sufficient for its job. The difference between 104 and 105 is nothing, but between 100 and 140 is and the comparison means something. It's the same thing as the BMI scale
You ever going to get around to the drug position, or are you having too much fun in our circle jerk here?
Steiny29
05/22/10, 06:18 PM
Trust me, you haven't demeaned anyone.
Now, what is your position on this drug quagmire?
I don't doubt that and don't think that I'm proud because I think I did.
And this was my addition: What I'm trying to say is that when elected officials feel strongly about something they'll do whatever they want and heres a perfect example: 80% of Detroit/Michigan residents (cannot remember which) were fine with Kevorkian but there were still elected officials trying their hardest to put him in jail because they were religious men who completely disregarded the communities that they are supposed to be representing.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 06:19 PM
You ever going to get around to the drug position, or are you having too much fun in our circle jerk here?
Sorry, all of you are responding to me, and I'm respond to everybody so it takes some time
loveisdead
05/22/10, 06:20 PM
I don't doubt that and don't think that I'm proud because I think I did.
And this was my addition: What I'm trying to say is that when elected officials feel strongly about something they'll do whatever they want and heres a perfect example: 80% of Detroit/Michigan residents (cannot remember which) were fine with Kevorkian but there were still elected officials trying their hardest to put him in jail because they were religious men who completely disregarded the communities that they are supposed to be representing.
So...that's cool. What's your position on the drug quagmire?
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 06:21 PM
I don't doubt that and don't think that I'm proud because I think I did.
And this was my addition: What I'm trying to say is that when elected officials feel strongly about something they'll do whatever they want and heres a perfect example: 80% of Detroit/Michigan residents (cannot remember which) were fine with Kevorkian but there were still elected officials trying their hardest to put him in jail because they were religious men who completely disregarded the communities that they are supposed to be representing.
No shit? Awesome addition to the debate, bro.
GUYS! HEY GUYS! Water? It's wet! I know, I couldn't believe it either!
So...that's cool. What's your position on the drug quagmire?
Ditto. What?
CURSE my inability to fathom!
Steiny29
05/22/10, 06:22 PM
the bmi is also crap.
Yes it is a pretty bad tool, but for the general population it's good for statistics and comparison or whatever. On the BMI scale LaDanian Tomlinson is considered to be an obese man and we all know that's not true.
It was just an analogy, and I would say that the IQ scale is better, but not by much. Believe me I don't pride myself on the number and I don't define myself by it its just a number.
Sorry, all of you are responding to me, and I'm respond to everybody so it takes some time
It's cool. We realize you've got beakers full of physics-juice you're tending to in the background. Take your time.
Yes it is a pretty bad tool, but for the general population it's good for statistics and comparison or whatever. On the BMI scale LaDanian Tomlinson is considered to be an obese man and we all know that's not true.
It was just an analogy, and I would say that the IQ scale is better, but not by much. Believe me I don't pride myself on the number and I don't define myself by it its just a number.
Man, and here you had all of us completely fooled.
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 06:24 PM
It's cool. We realize you've got beakers full of physics-juice you're tending to in the background. Take your time.
:lol: Ha ha ha ha ha, if only I could fathom the inherent sarcasm in this post. Damn my impaired cortex!!
Steiny29
05/22/10, 06:25 PM
No shit? Awesome addition to the debate, bro.
It was an interjection that I didn't think would be that much. It's also a pretty big debate. I'm not going to talk about statistics and if I say anything about legalizing It'll just start another drug user v straight-edge forum where people tell other people how to be.
If you're going to make fun of my post would you mind showing me an acceptable one o great forum master.
loveisdead
05/22/10, 06:25 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: thank you geebee
Lueda Alia
05/22/10, 06:26 PM
You act like i'm down the street haha. I'm starving and you're making it worse cause I can't be there.
If Obama could win an election in the United States, you can definitely make it here on time.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 06:27 PM
Man, and here you had all of us completely fooled.
Yea you can just stop replying because you're obviously half reading my posts looking for shit to point out. This is the first time I brought up that number in a very long time and my replies have mostly been defending myself from people. It's not like all I'm saying is "Shut the fuck up I'm smarter than you" but I guess thats what you're reading.
loveisdead
05/22/10, 06:27 PM
If Obama could win an election in the United States, you can definitely make it here on time.
Haha on time? I guess for your nocturnal ass.
loveisdead
05/22/10, 06:29 PM
It was an interjection that I didn't think would be that much. It's also a pretty big debate. I'm not going to talk about statistics and if I say anything about legalizing It'll just start another drug user v straight-edge forum where people tell other people how to be.
If you're going to make fun of my post would you mind showing me an acceptable one o great forum master.
this one (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=67790352#post67790 352) is ok. States a position and backs it up in a clear and concise way.
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 06:30 PM
It was an interjection that I didn't think would be that much. It's also a pretty big debate. I'm not going to talk about statistics and if I say anything about legalizing It'll just start another drug user v straight-edge forum where people tell other people how to be.
If you're going to make fun of my post would you mind showing me an acceptable one o great forum master.
My position on this debate is plastered throughout the thread, feel free to read up on it.
As well, there's no straight edge v. stoner debate here, it's stoner v. Christians, generally.
Lueda Alia
05/22/10, 06:30 PM
Haha on time? I guess for your nocturnal ass.
Potatoes take a while to get ready! I don't make mashed potatoes from boxes.
I love trolling threads.
loveisdead
05/22/10, 06:31 PM
Potatoes take a while to get ready! I don't make mashed potatoes from boxes.
I love trolling threads.
Haha. Someone seems to have beaten you to that.
Lueda Alia
05/22/10, 06:32 PM
Haha. Someone seems to have beaten you to that.
They're not as cool.
Instead of going to NYC, fly to Buffalo and I'll cover your SoCo ticket in August..
It's not like all I'm saying is "Shut the fuck up I'm smarter than you"
Far be it for me to besmirch your stellar record thus far in this thread, but...
You cannot even fathom how intelligent I am and I am sure you wouldn't stand so tall if you weren't behind a computer screen.
My position on this debate is plastered throughout the thread, feel free to read up on it.
As well, there's no straight edge v. stoner debate here, it's stoner v. Christians, generally.
You could also classify it as "Fathomers vs. Unfathomablers"
loveisdead
05/22/10, 06:34 PM
They're not as cool.
Instead of going to NYC, fly to Buffalo and I'll cover your SoCo ticket in August..
I can't. There's too many people i'm going with that are equally as excited as you and I.
Lueda Alia
05/22/10, 06:37 PM
I can't. There's too many people i'm going with that are equally as excited as you and I.
....
They're not as cool.
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 06:37 PM
Far be it for me to besmirch your stellar record thus far in this thread, but...
:appl:
Steiny29
05/22/10, 06:38 PM
My position on this debate is plastered throughout the thread, feel free to read up on it.
As well, there's no straight edge v. stoner debate here, it's stoner v. Christians, generally.
Well just because I didn't write it down in a simple manner doesn't mean I didn't take a stance. From my post I think it's clear that my stance is: pro-legalization with an emphasis on the political part of it because that is the only thing that matters in the real world debate of this. You can wave as much information as you want pro or con but it still wont matter because, like I said, the politicians are making this policy decision strictly on personal feeling, and not in the republican way it should be done.
And I guess you don't remember me, but the last time we responded to each other this is what happened: Originally Posted by Steiny29
I'm not for sending them all back, I'm all for them getting w.e they need to become citizens and its ok. But I'm not the type of person who's going to ignore information just because it's not for my side of the argument. I never said anything about how I feel. I don't see how stating their living or working conditions means I'm a xenophobe. True I don't like the fact that they send money out of the country, but I'm for making them legal so when they do whatever they want with the money they earned its all taxed and accounted for.
After that I could really give two shits either way because it's not like their becoming research physicists (not affecting my job availability) or affecting my immediate neighborhood either way.
BEERfortheBEAR:Ha ha ha, well that's good, but you presented some of the same arguments that the bigoted assholes who frequent here do...so it was kind of 'if it walks like a duck...' syndrome, you know?
loveisdead
05/22/10, 06:38 PM
....
Hahahahaha you make a good point. Now drink!
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 06:39 PM
Alright guys, this has been far too fun, but I'm going out to get lit now.
Everyone have an enjoyable and safe night!
:wave:
Well just because I didn't write it down in a simple manner doesn't mean I didn't take a stance. From my post I think it's clear that my stance is: pro-legalization with an emphasis on the political part of it because that is the only thing that matters in the real world debate of this. You can wave as much information as you want pro or con but it still wont matter because, like I said, the politicians are making this policy decision strictly on personal feeling, and not in the republican way it should be done.
And I guess you don't remember me, but the last time we responded to each other this is what happened: Originally Posted by Steiny29
I'm not for sending them all back, I'm all for them getting w.e they need to become citizens and its ok. But I'm not the type of person who's going to ignore information just because it's not for my side of the argument. I never said anything about how I feel. I don't see how stating their living or working conditions means I'm a xenophobe. True I don't like the fact that they send money out of the country, but I'm for making them legal so when they do whatever they want with the money they earned its all taxed and accounted for.
After that I could really give two shits either way because it's not like their becoming research physicists (not affecting my job availability) or affecting my immediate neighborhood either way.
BEERfortheBEAR:Ha ha ha, well that's good, but you presented some of the same arguments that the bigoted assholes who frequent here do...so it was kind of 'if it walks like a duck...' syndrome, you know?
Yes, but what are your thoughts on the drug war quagmire?
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 06:41 PM
Well just because I didn't write it down in a simple manner doesn't mean I didn't take a stance. From my post I think it's clear that my stance is: pro-legalization with an emphasis on the political part of it because that is the only thing that matters in the real world debate of this. You can wave as much information as you want pro or con but it still wont matter because, like I said, the politicians are making this policy decision strictly on personal feeling, and not in the republican way it should be done.
And I guess you don't remember me, but the last time we responded to each other this is what happened: Originally Posted by Steiny29
I'm not for sending them all back, I'm all for them getting w.e they need to become citizens and its ok. But I'm not the type of person who's going to ignore information just because it's not for my side of the argument. I never said anything about how I feel. I don't see how stating their living or working conditions means I'm a xenophobe. True I don't like the fact that they send money out of the country, but I'm for making them legal so when they do whatever they want with the money they earned its all taxed and accounted for.
After that I could really give two shits either way because it's not like their becoming research physicists (not affecting my job availability) or affecting my immediate neighborhood either way.
BEERfortheBEAR:Ha ha ha, well that's good, but you presented some of the same arguments that the bigoted assholes who frequent here do...so it was kind of 'if it walks like a duck...' syndrome, you know?
Don't know why I would remember you, a lot of newbies/trolls/tools frequent these parts.
Have a glorious night, try to cure cancer or something, Mr. Hawkins.
Smash Adams
05/22/10, 06:42 PM
Yes, but what are your thoughts on the drug war quagmire?
You don't get a perfect IQ doing drugs now do you?
Steiny29
05/22/10, 06:42 PM
Far be it for me to besmirch your stellar record thus far in this thread, but...
Yes, and like I just told you stop picking shit out when you don't read the whole post, because as I said earlier that was directed at 1 person and everybody else jumped on. I know its online for everyone to see, but I only meant it at that 1 person (who I cant even remember who it was anymore) and not anyone else. Since I know you'll go find it I also said it like 2 more times very early on but my last 90% of posts have mostly been defensive with the only talk about my intelligence or any one else's intelligence in reference to the initial posts.
Yes, and like I just told you stop picking shit out when you don't read the whole post, because as I said earlier that was directed at 1 person and everybody else jumped on. I know its online for everyone to see, but I only meant it at that 1 person (who I cant even remember who it was anymore) and not anyone else. Since I know you'll go find it I also said it like 2 more times very early on but my last 90% of posts have mostly been defensive with the only talk about my intelligence or any one else's intelligence in reference to the initial posts.
Sounds good, bro. You've officially tired everyone in this thread out. Thanks for the threadjack and the humorous distraction. I'm out.
loveisdead
05/22/10, 06:45 PM
You don't get a perfect IQ doing drugs now do you?
:lol: tell me you've been lurking this? I honestly don't know if I've ever had so much fun on this site.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 06:45 PM
Don't know why I would remember you, a lot of newbies/trolls/tools frequent these parts.
Have a glorious night, try to cure cancer or something, Mr. Hawkins.
Yea I know it was a small post, but I have a pretty good memory (explanation not bragging) and I was just showing you that you've already noted once that I have posts that can be offensive or whatever but its all in the spirit of debate
Smash Adams
05/22/10, 06:46 PM
:lol: tell me you've been lurking this? I honestly don't know if I've ever had so much fun on this site.
No sadly I just found it like 10 minutes ago
loveisdead
05/22/10, 06:47 PM
Yea I know it was a small post, but I have a pretty good memory (explanation not bragging) and I was just showing you that you've already noted once that I have posts that can be offensive or whatever but its all in the spirit of debate
You haven't said anything debatable! You're posting a whole lot of nonsense about politicians acting in their own self interest. That has nothing to do with this thread. Should we legalize all drugs? Just some? Decriminalize them? Ban all drugs? You have a lot d choices.
open mind
05/22/10, 06:48 PM
Yes, and like I just told you stop picking shit out when you don't read the whole post, because as I said earlier that was directed at 1 person and everybody else jumped on. I know its online for everyone to see, but I only meant it at that 1 person (who I cant even remember who it was anymore) and not anyone else.
photographic memory failure?
loveisdead
05/22/10, 06:48 PM
No sadly I just found it like 10 minutes ago
You can't even fathom how much fun it has been to take part in.
loveisdead
05/22/10, 06:48 PM
photographic memory failure?
Hahahahahaha.
photographic memory failure?
No thanks, I'm full.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 06:57 PM
You haven't said anything debatable! You're posting a whole lot of nonsense about politicians acting in their own self interest. That has nothing to do with this thread. Should we legalize all drugs? Just some? Decriminalize them? Ban all drugs? You have a lot d choices.
By legalization I mean everything. And to say that politicians have nothing to do with the drug quagmire is ignorant because the politicians are the ones creating the quagmire. They're the ones throwing money at a fire while they should be following the will of the people. Whether it be legalization for people who want that or something like keeping addicts out of jail and focusing solely on the big players for people who want change but don't want drugs on the street. I was just stating that it doesn't matter what the people think and therefore its going to remain a quagmire.
loveisdead
05/22/10, 07:03 PM
By legalization I mean everything. And to say that politicians have nothing to do with the drug quagmire is ignorant because the politicians are the ones creating the quagmire. They're the ones throwing money at a fire while they should be following the will of the people. Whether it be legalization for people who want that or something like keeping addicts out of jail and focusing solely on the big players for people who want change but don't want drugs on the street. I was just stating that it doesn't matter what the people think and therefore its going to remain a quagmire.
I agree with you in favoring the legalization of all drugs. And of course politicians play a role in the discussion, but what you keep saying about them is adding nothing to the debate. It would be political suicide for a politician to come out in favor of legalizing all drugs even if it was what they believed.
Steiny29
05/22/10, 07:13 PM
I agree with you in favoring the legalization of all drugs. And of course politicians play a role in the discussion, but what you keep saying about them is adding nothing to the debate. It would be political suicide for a politician to come out in favor of legalizing all drugs even if it was what they believed.
Well that's just getting into the problems with the government in the first place. If the politicians did what they were supposed to, it wouldn't be political suicide because they would be legalizing the drugs ONLY because that is what the population wanted meaning that they will still receive votes. The only thing that can happen in the world that we live in that I would consider a success would be completely legalizing weed and only arresting/hassling dealers and whatnot for real drugs.
And the debate is about the drug quagmire, its a broad topic its not legalization v criminalization or anything of that nature. People seem to only talk legalization, pro or con, and I'm bringing another dimension of the drug quagmire into the forum. Just because you may resent me for the whole discussion earlier and the fact that I'm not talking about what you want me to does not invalidate my addition
Well that's just getting into the problems with the government in the first place. If the politicians did what they were supposed to, it wouldn't be political suicide because they would be legalizing the drugs ONLY because that is what the population wanted meaning that they will still receive votes. The only thing that can happen in the world that we live in that I would consider a success would be completely legalizing weed and only arresting/hassling dealers and whatnot for real drugs.
And the debate is about the drug quagmire, its a broad topic its not legalization v criminalization or anything of that nature. People seem to only talk legalization, pro or con, and I'm bringing another dimension of the drug quagmire into the forum. Just because you may resent me for the whole discussion earlier and the fact that I'm not talking about what you want me to does not invalidate my addition
Seriously, though- what are your thoughts about the drug war quagmire?
Steiny29
05/22/10, 07:42 PM
Seriously, though- what are your thoughts about the drug war quagmire?
Really that bored that you want to restart this?
If you're being serious though tell me specifically what you want my opinion of because that was definitely about the quagmire but not what you want to hear.
Really that bored that you want to restart this?
If you're being serious though tell me specifically what you want my opinion of because that was definitely about the quagmire but not what you want to hear.
Specifically- tell me what I want to hear about your thoughts about the drug war quagmire.
You can't even fathom how much it would change society.
are you saying that in the sense that there is no way anyone can know? or you agree that it would change it?
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 10:21 PM
are you saying that in the sense that there is no way anyone can know? or you agree that it would change it?
Psh, you can't even fathom it.
caveBEAR
05/22/10, 10:23 PM
Yea I know it was a small post, but I have a pretty good memory (explanation not bragging) and I was just showing you that you've already noted once that I have posts that can be offensive or whatever but its all in the spirit of debate
Posting child porn would be offensive. Exhibiting shitty grammar, braging about I.Q., and entertaining the regulars for the night is no where near 'offensive'.
Posting child porn would be offensive. Exhibiting shitty grammar, braging about I.Q., and entertaining the regulars for the night is no where near 'offensive'.
On the contrary...he did us a huge favor. I haven't had that much fun at someone else's expense on the internet since last I viewed porn.
caveBEAR
05/23/10, 06:59 AM
On the contrary...he did us a huge favor. I haven't had that much fun at someone else's expense on the internet since last I viewed porn.
I, myself, haven't had this much fun at someone else's expense since the last time I watched a bullfighter take a horn to the throat.
this thread is fantastic.
I, myself, haven't had this much fun at someone else's expense since the last time I watched a bullfighter take a horn to the throat.
Haha. I keep going back to look at it and savor the thought of what must have been going through that poor bastard's head at the moment when he realized his jaw was hung on that horn like a coat on a hook.
jwicklun
05/23/10, 11:41 AM
just reading this whole conversation made my day. You cannot fathom my joy right now.
mattmatumbo
05/23/10, 12:23 PM
Yea I know its not the greatest test, but it is sufficient for its job. The difference between 104 and 105 is nothing, but between 100 and 140 is and the comparison means something. It's the same thing as the BMI scale
Ok, here are two iq test scores, 85 and 125. One is my roommate's, and one is mine. Which one of us is on academic probation for failing classes? Furthermore, how does it correlate to one's deductive reasoning or intelligence?
caveBEAR
05/23/10, 12:37 PM
Ok, here are two iq test scores, 85 and 125. One is my roommate's, and one is mine. Which one of us is on academic probation for failing classes? Furthermore, how does it correlate to one's deductive reasoning or intelligence?
I'd explain it to you, but you wouldn't be able to fathom it. :shrug:
;-)
mattmatumbo
05/23/10, 01:51 PM
I'd explain it to you, but you wouldn't be able to fathom it. :shrug:
;-)
Oh no, i'm aware of the lack of fathom-ability in this thread ;-)
I also saw the argument of "it's just illegal and illegal's illegal", i need to see how that kid got lambasted for that remark.
loveisdead
05/23/10, 02:10 PM
Oh no, i'm aware of the lack of fathom-ability in this thread ;-)
I also saw the argument of "it's just illegal and illegal's illegal", i need to see how that kid got lambasted for that remark.
You're iq is you're iq was the best.
mattmatumbo
05/23/10, 03:02 PM
You're iq is you're iq was the best.
Oh
loveisdead
05/23/10, 03:10 PM
Oh
I was referencing this (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=67878522#post67878 522)
mattmatumbo
05/23/10, 03:17 PM
I was referencing this (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=67878522#post67878 522)
That went WHOOSH! over my head haha.
And i almost got on you about grammar haha. Now that i refer to pages 9-12, i see the relevance.
loveisdead
05/23/10, 03:27 PM
That went WHOOSH! over my head haha.
And i almost got on you about grammar haha. Now that i refer to pages 9-12, i see the relevance.
I figured. I couldn't figure out why you were being so short with me so I figured you just didn't realize what I was talking about.
caveBEAR
05/23/10, 06:57 PM
I figured. I couldn't figure out why you were being so short with me so I figured you just didn't realize what I was talking about.
Look, you're joke is you're joke, you have to stand by it.
perceptrons
05/23/10, 09:28 PM
Damn that was a great read, the fathomable parts, that is.
loveisdead
05/23/10, 09:31 PM
Damn that was a great read, the fathomable parts, that is.
:lol:
is it really that hard to type and spell correctly?
mattmatumbo
05/24/10, 07:59 AM
JqC--4G_hts
This video is total lol.
"Legalizing marijuana would make it easier for children to get it." WTF?
Jason Tate
05/24/10, 09:22 AM
Yea you don't have your IQ memorized because your probably average and that just means you have an IQ of 100. When you're 5 years old and every adult around you is fascinated by the number you remember something like that especially with a photographic memory. And to make fun of someone who uses a word like fathom is true ignorance. I'm sorry I don't have a 100 word vocabulary. The statement is valid because as smart as I am I still know people who are so much smarter than that me I can't fathom it so it works both ways.
I would think someone with a photographic memory could figure out the difference between "your" and "you're" -- just saying.
And your IQ when you were 5 means jack shit.
Yellowcard2006
05/24/10, 09:52 AM
You can believe it or not, but I have an IQ of 160, higher than 99.99% of the population and equal to Stephen Hawking. It's real easy to think you're smarter than someone and if you really want to think you're smarter than me go ahead because you may be that 1 in 10000 that actually is smarter than me.
But you only have 81 posts.
BornUnderPunches
05/24/10, 10:08 AM
I would think someone with a photographic memory could figure out the difference between "your" and "you're" -- just saying.
And your IQ when you were 5 means jack shit.
You just cannot even fathom how important you're IQ is when you're 5
Aphasia17
05/24/10, 10:21 AM
How can that guy's IQ be 160 when he listens to Buckcherry? Can someone help me fathom this?
saysmydoctor
05/24/10, 10:22 AM
Timberwolf did it better.
Jason Tate
05/24/10, 10:23 AM
You just cannot even fathom how important you're IQ is when you're 5
You're IQ is you're IQ.
loveisdead
05/24/10, 10:27 AM
You're IQ is you're IQ.
Might be the best post i've read on this website. That guy killed me.
saysmydoctor
05/24/10, 10:33 AM
And my thread.
guitarliketom
05/24/10, 10:36 AM
you just cannot even fathom how amazing this made my lunch break
guitarliketom
05/24/10, 10:39 AM
as for our resident physicist, do you have any published works i can read? i'm sure a student of your valor and merit with an iq of 160, skipping grades, resisting to brag about his intelligence levels (yet he does so on a public internet forum where he himself cannot be attacked nor can his statements be truly assessed and verified) has had SOME published works. on your schools webpage at least? actually, where ARE you attending at the moment? I have a few friends studying physics currently and i'm wondering if you are colleges. thanks, id love to hear back!
ps, there is a difference between me being lazy and not capitalizing anything and you just not knowing "you're" from "your" from "you are" from" ur." you can brag about how smart you are all day long but if you type like cletus spuckler no one will take you seriously. (you can google that one, i'm not sure if it's logged in your photographic memory)
saysmydoctor
05/24/10, 12:35 PM
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/good/lbvp/~3/26OzCHhuCYM/
Making dispensaries greener
For the record, IQ scores are generally pretty static.
What you test at when you're ten should be about the same score should you test again at 40.
/not defending the guy, but just sayin'
dpatrickguy
05/24/10, 12:58 PM
Ha ha ha ha, based on your posts I'm going to have to assume you're more along the lines of 'Rainman' than 'Stephen Hawking', but who am I to judge? I guess when you were filling your mind up with all that quantum mechanics gobbledigook you forgot to discover what things like 'acronym' and 'contraction' mean, but again...who am I to judge?
I'd love to compare IQs, but I don't keep mine memorized because I'm comfortable with my dick's length. Congrats on your unfathomable IQ, though.
SiMHTK15Pik
His IQ is over 9000!
I would think someone with a photographic memory could figure out the difference between "your" and "you're" -- just saying.
And your IQ when you were 5 means jack shit.
His finger painting was unfathomable
open mind
05/24/10, 03:44 PM
JqC--4G_hts
This video is total lol.
"Legalizing marijuana would make it easier for children to get it." WTF?
the norml guy could have argued his case a bit better.
mattmatumbo
05/24/10, 05:26 PM
ps, there is a difference between me being lazy and not capitalizing anything and you just not knowing "you're" from "your" from "you are" from" ur." you can brag about how smart you are all day long but if you type like cletus spuckler no one will take you seriously. (you can google that one, i'm not sure if it's logged in your photographic memory)
Let me help you fathom this, he only took the oral iq test, not the written iq test.
/sarcasm.
mattmatumbo
05/24/10, 05:31 PM
the norml guy could have argued his case a bit better.
Yeah, calling someone a hypocrite, especially when you're arguing about something like the legalization of marijuana, will lose you some argument points. that wasn't sarcasm
zion the lion
05/25/10, 04:37 PM
Do you honestly know anyone who refuses to do drugs simply because it's illegal?
I have, for a long time I wanted to try some harder drugs but I havent simply because they're illegal. And I know its ridiculous because I'm a pill popper (but I've created a system in my head that make them legal so there's no moral problem) but it is what it is.
Also, I've noticed when people talk about drugs/the drug war/legalizing drugs, its usually just marijuana that they're talking about, but I've been having cluster headaches for years now and from what I've heard LSD can maybe help, people need to consider making it legal for medicinal purposes. People need to at least start talking about it.
saysmydoctor
05/25/10, 05:33 PM
I'm pretty sure it's shrooms that help with cluster headaches, though I'm not denying LSD might as well.
Either way, having dabbled in harder drugs myself--well, let's just the DATELINE reports that ecstasy leads to huge orgies is a huge fucking lie.
paper halo
05/25/10, 05:41 PM
I'm pretty sure it's shrooms that help with cluster headaches, though I'm not denying LSD might as well.
Either way, having dabbled in harder drugs myself--well, let's just the DATELINE reports that ecstasy leads to huge orgies is a huge fucking lie.
I don't really see the justification behind keeping ecstasy illegal. Especially when you compare it's effects to those of alcohol.
saysmydoctor
05/25/10, 05:47 PM
Seriously.
Not to mention, its legal status probably contributes to its dangers more than anything else.
paper halo
05/25/10, 05:55 PM
Definitely. Dangerous additives, and misconceptions about it's effects, with regards to water consumption, are the biggest dangers, and could both be massively reduced through legalisation.
caveBEAR
05/25/10, 05:55 PM
Seriously.
Not to mention, its legal status probably contributes to its dangers more than anything else.
Well, sure, dealers can be dangerous, but as long as you play it smart and don't do something stupid like making an out of character purchase of a large amount of drugs and handguns, you should be safe and sound.
Oh, wait.
I don't really see the justification behind keeping ecstasy illegal. Especially when you compare it's effects to those of alcohol.
I think part of (maybe a huge part) of the problem is that so many people continue to think that taking a drug solely for recreation and its pleasurable effects is immoral.
They then, unconsciously or not, refuse to think of alcohol as a drug or else massive cognitive dissonance would occur. Or they justify it based on societal norms, which also helps them to avoid the dissonance.
Moreover, virtually everyone is guilty of illusory superiority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority) (which is related to the third-person effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_effect)). People that have taken illegal drugs in the past, or those who continue to do so but don't believe those drugs should be legal, assume that, although they can or have been responsible drug users, most everyone else cannot. These same notions probably apply equally to people who claim they wouldn't take any currently illegal drugs if they became illegal, but that other people would. I think this may be the core mechanism at work when people say that society would fall apart if all illicit drugs became legal.
Sean Rizzo
05/25/10, 07:16 PM
I think part of (maybe a huge part) of the problem is that so many people continue to think that taking a drug solely for recreation and its pleasurable effects is immoral.
I agree with this, but more so that it's just plain stupid, and I think that both immoral and stupid can be mutually exclusive. I've always felt that taking any drug that lacks some kind of practical purpose as a remedy is a bad idea. For me, that includes tobacco and alcohol. In other words, there are a lot of people who think all of it should be illegal just because they think doing drugs for fun is stupid and bad for society (namely the straight-edge crowd as an example), as opposed to simply their religion commanding them to oppose it.
I agree with this, but more so that it's just plain stupid, and I think that both immoral and stupid can be mutually exclusive. I've always felt that taking any drug that lacks some kind of practical purpose as a remedy is a bad idea. For me, that includes tobacco and alcohol. In other words, there are a lot of people who think all of it should be illegal just because they think doing drugs for fun is stupid and bad for society (namely the straight-edge crowd as an example), as opposed to simply their religion commanding them to oppose it.
Well certain drugs, namely illegal psychedelics, can have profound, life-changing experiences for a lot of people. For example, Steve Jobs has stated that the three most important/greatest things he's ever done in his life are marrying his wife, creating Apple, and taking LSD.
Also, both tobacco and alcohol do have practical purposes. For many people who smoke or use tobacco, the immediate stress relief is a fair trade off for the possible health risks in the long-term. Nicotine, moreover, increases both concentration and reaction time. In fact, if nicotine gums/pills weren't so expensive as compared to ciggarettes, I don't think I would even smoke. As for alcohol, one drink a day is healthier for a person than not drinking at all.
Although, the essential argument that "drugs are stupid" is irrelevant to my stance. I strongly believe that people should have a right from any impediment in pursuing their own happiness in whichever form they choose (so long as it's not directly harming anyone else), a right from government entities preventing one from doing dangerous/stupid things to one self, and a right from aversive legal consequences for merely ingesting a substance.
Edit: I didn't mean to imply that religion is necessarily the result of people seeing drug usage as immoral. I imagine many non-religious people may feel the same way.
Sean Rizzo
05/25/10, 08:40 PM
Well certain drugs, namely illegal psychedelics, can have profound, life-changing experiences for a lot of people. For example, Steve Jobs has stated that the three most important/greatest things he's ever done in his life are marrying his wife, creating Apple, and taking LSD.
Also, both tobacco and alcohol do have practical purposes. For many people who smoke or use tobacco, the immediate stress relief is a fair trade off for the possible health risks in the long-term. Nicotine, moreover, increases both concentration and reaction time. In fact, if nicotine gums/pills weren't so expensive as compared to ciggarettes, I don't think I would even smoke. As for alcohol, one drink a day is healthier for a person than not drinking at all.
Although, the essential argument that "drugs are stupid" is irrelevant to my stance. I strongly believe that people should have a right from any impediment in pursuing their own happiness in whichever form they choose (so long as it's not directly harming anyone else), a right from government entities preventing one from doing dangerous/stupid things to one self, and a right from aversive legal consequences for merely ingesting a substance.
I wasn't aware nicotine in and of itself had a practical purpose. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that any drug that can foster an addiction needs to be controlled by laws to prevent an unhealthy addiction that doesn't have some form of remedial purpose. If scientists were to find a responsible use for cocaine, I would support using that as well, in controlled doses. Narcotics can be addictive too, and they are legal. My real problem with drugs is their irresponsible use that produces other negative effects (e.g. smoking/inhaling/mixing pills to get high/taking pills not prescribed to you), and that includes using them solely for recreation.
This reminds me of the whole debate between Mormons whether caffeine is prohibited. One of our leaders made the point that if we didn't have caffeine, many of our painkillers would be useless. In reality, the only specific things the word of wisdom prohibits are alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee. Aside from that, everything else is subjective to abuse, so if you're taking a drug for something other than pleasure, fueling an addiction, or taking prescription drugs not authorized by a doctor, then it's ok no matter what the drug assuming the way it's administered (again, smoking/dosage/inhaling) doesn't produce other health problems. Besides the stuff I just listed, of course.
It's not the alcohol that is the healthy part though, it's the antioxidants present as a by-product of the fermentation process. That's why I'm all good with having foods that have wine/beer/whatever in them, provided the alcohol's been cooked out.
At that last one, should we also stop preventing suicide?
loveisdead
05/25/10, 08:48 PM
I wasn't aware nicotine in and of itself had a practical purpose. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that any drug that can foster an addiction needs to be controlled by laws to prevent an unhealthy addiction that doesn't have some form of remedial purpose. If scientists were to find a responsible use for cocaine, I would support using that as well, in controlled doses. Narcotics can be addictive too, and they are legal. My real problem with drugs is their irresponsible use that produces other negative effects (e.g. smoking/inhaling/mixing pills to get high/taking pills not prescribed to you), and that includes using them solely for recreation.
This reminds me of the whole debate between Mormons whether caffeine is prohibited. One of our leaders made the point that if we didn't have caffeine, many of our painkillers would be useless. In reality, the only specific things the word of wisdom prohibits are alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee. Aside from that, everything else is subjective to abuse, so if you're taking a drug for something other than pleasure, fueling an addiction, or taking prescription drugs not authorized by a doctor, then it's ok no matter what the drug. Besides the stuff I just listed, of course.
It's not the alcohol that is the healthy part though, it's the antioxidants present as a by-product of the fermentation process. That's why I'm all good with having foods that have wine/beer/whatever in them, provided the alcohol's been cooked out.
At that last one, should we also stop preventing suicide?
No. People should have the freedom to abuse themselves if they so desire.
Sean Rizzo
05/25/10, 08:51 PM
No. People should have the freedom to abuse themselves if they so desire.
Is suicide not an abuse of self, albeit terminal?
loveisdead
05/25/10, 08:52 PM
Is suicide not an abuse of self, albeit terminal?
Yes, it is. And people should have the freedom to do it.
<*)))><
05/25/10, 08:55 PM
Well certain drugs, namely illegal psychedelics, can have profound, life-changing experiences for a lot of people. For example, Steve Jobs has stated that the three most important/greatest things he's ever done in his life are marrying his wife, creating Apple, and taking LSD.
Also, both tobacco and alcohol do have practical purposes. For many people who smoke or use tobacco, the immediate stress relief is a fair trade off for the possible health risks in the long-term. Nicotine, moreover, increases both concentration and reaction time. In fact, if nicotine gums/pills weren't so expensive as compared to ciggarettes, I don't think I would even smoke. As for alcohol, one drink a day is healthier for a person than not drinking at all.
Although, the essential argument that "drugs are stupid" is irrelevant to my stance. I strongly believe that people should have a right from any impediment in pursuing their own happiness in whichever form they choose (so long as it's not directly harming anyone else), a right from government entities preventing one from doing dangerous/stupid things to one self, and a right from aversive legal consequences for merely ingesting a substance.
Edit: I didn't mean to imply that religion is necessarily the result of people seeing drug usage as immoral. I imagine many non-religious people may feel the same way.
Fun fact that study was done by Suny Potsdam one the towns with the highest arrest of public intoxication, underage drinking and driving while driving per person. I been to that school and I want to know where they found people willing to only drink once a day to conduct that study. Also professors are really good at beer pong.
caveBEAR
05/25/10, 08:56 PM
Is suicide not an abuse of self, albeit terminal?
People have no right to tell me what to do with my life, even if that means ending it.
Sean Rizzo
05/25/10, 08:56 PM
Yes, it is. And people should have the freedom to do it.
I disagree. I would argue that suicide is a self-violation of the right to life, not a liberty.
loveisdead
05/25/10, 08:57 PM
I disagree. I would argue that suicide is a self-violation of the right to life, not a liberty.
Even if we all take that stance, how do you regulate it? If someone wants to kill themselves there's not a heck of a lot you can do about it. Certainly no punishment.
caveBEAR
05/25/10, 08:58 PM
Even if we all take that stance, how do you regulate it? If someone wants to kill themselves there's not a heck of a lot you can do about it. Certainly no punishment.
Your eternal soul rotting in hell doesn't constitute punishment to you?
(:rolleyes:)
Sean Rizzo
05/25/10, 08:59 PM
Even if we all take that stance, how do you regulate it? If someone wants to kill themselves there's not a heck of a lot you can do about it. Certainly no punishment.
Prevention is all that can be done, and perhaps treatment. That's inherent with the idea of suicide.
loveisdead
05/25/10, 09:00 PM
Prevention is all that can be done, and perhaps treatment. That's inherent with the idea of suicide.
And I will back that up to no end. We should take steps to make sure people who are depressed or in any other extreme state have the means to get help.
caveBEAR
05/25/10, 09:01 PM
Prevention is all that can be done, and perhaps treatment. That's inherent with the idea of suicide.
Don't treat someone's wish to end their suffering like it's some disease or illness. Sometimes people don't want treatment, people just want out, especially when it comes to chronic, painful illnesses/diseases.
I wasn't aware nicotine in and of itself had a practical purpose. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that any drug that can foster an addiction needs to be controlled by laws to prevent an unhealthy addiction that doesn't have some form of remedial purpose. If scientists were to find a responsible use for cocaine, I would support using that as well, in controlled doses. Narcotics can be addictive too, and they are legal. My real problem with drugs is their irresponsible use that produces other negative effects (e.g. smoking/inhaling/mixing pills to get high/taking pills not prescribed to you), and that includes using them solely for recreation.
This reminds me of the whole debate between Mormons whether caffeine is prohibited. One of our leaders made the point that if we didn't have caffeine, many of our painkillers would be useless. In reality, the only specific things the word of wisdom prohibits are alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee. Aside from that, everything else is subjective to abuse, so if you're taking a drug for something other than pleasure, fueling an addiction, or taking prescription drugs not authorized by a doctor, then it's ok no matter what the drug assuming the way it's administered (again, smoking/dosage/inhaling) doesn't produce other health problems. Besides the stuff I just listed, of course.
It's not the alcohol that is the healthy part though, it's the antioxidants present as a by-product of the fermentation process. That's why I'm all good with having foods that have wine/beer/whatever in them, provided the alcohol's been cooked out.
At that last one, should we also stop preventing suicide?
I understand your position, although I do disagree with it. Your last question was answered above, which I agree with.
If scientists were to find a responsible use for cocaine, I would support using that as well, in controlled doses.
This is beside the point, but cocaine is still used today in, I believe, forms of eye and nasal surgery. That's why it's only a Schedule II substance in the United States. :-)
Sean Rizzo
05/25/10, 09:05 PM
Don't treat someone's wish to end their suffering like it's some disease or illness. Sometimes people don't want treatment, people just want out, especially when it comes to chronic, painful illnesses/diseases.
A good percentage of the time, their wish to end their suffering is caused by a disease/illness. Aside from that, there are other ways to end one's suffering apart from suicide. Look at all the people who have changed their lives after not committing suicide. Suicide is still a self-violation of the right to life, besides the fact that there are other ways to fix one's life.
Sean Rizzo
05/25/10, 09:06 PM
I understand your position, although I do disagree with it. Your last question was answered above, which I agree with.
This is beside the point, but cocaine is still used today in, I believe, forms of eye and nasal surgery. That's why it's only a Schedule II substance in the United States. :-)
also, ty for putting the ixnay on the name-calling.
caveBEAR
05/25/10, 09:12 PM
A good percentage of the time, their wish to end their suffering is caused by a disease/illness. Aside from that, there are other ways to end one's suffering apart from suicide. Look at all the people who have changed their lives after not committing suicide. Suicide is still a self-violation of the right to life, besides the fact that there are other ways to fix one's life.
I see where you're coming from here, but I view the 'right to life' as a protection from others. No one else has the right to violate your life; however, I feel that, being as it's my life, I have to right to do with it what I please, even if that means ending it. This doesn't extend to those who would end their life in a manner such as suicide bombing, etc., but someone OD'ing on sleeping pills? I feel that's their decision, and they only have themselves and whatever creator they believe in (or lack thereof) to answer to for that.
Jake Gyllenhaal
05/25/10, 09:39 PM
The government has NO right in telling hardworking individuals in corporations in limiting the salt and sugar content of its food or the chemicals in its cigarettes. Americans are smart enough and personally responsible enough to know what they are ingesting!! If an American wants to slowly kill themselves by ingesting food that is damaging to their health, then by God, they have the rights and liberty to do so!!!Keep in mind, that these corporations employ millions of hard working Americans!!!!
Junk food & tobacco = employed workers = happy Americans
It's so fucking simple!!!!!!!!!!
/sarcasm. :-(
Praetor
05/26/10, 03:51 AM
I disagree. I would argue that suicide is a self-violation of the right to life, not a liberty.
The right to life is ultimately based on property; my body is my property, therefore neither the state nor another governing body can violate it. If we look through that lens, then why should I not have the right to end my own life? I own this computer, what's stopping me from smashing it to bits? It's my right if it's my property.
perceptrons
05/26/10, 04:56 AM
A good percentage of the time, their wish to end their suffering is caused by a disease/illness. Aside from that, there are other ways to end one's suffering apart from suicide. Look at all the people who have changed their lives after not committing suicide. Suicide is still a self-violation of the right to life, besides the fact that there are other ways to fix one's life.
If I have a right to own a gun, can I choose not to own a gun?
also, ty for putting the ixnay on the name-calling.
Ha, you're welcome. I try not to hold grudges against people from thread to thread. And in the political forum I try to be somewhat serious and civil. PL is my release.
Edit: As to the alcohol thing, I've always been under the impression that it isn't the solely the antioxidants that are healthy, but the alcohol itself. Because, and I may be wrong, it makes your liver stronger by adequately working it each day. Sort of like flexing a muscle? I'm not entirely sure, though--I haven't researched the topic in quite some time.
alice+interiors
05/26/10, 11:38 AM
They will be getting a pure, cheaper product, which would be economically beneficial and also healthier (although virtually no drug addiction could be considered "healthy," but healthier). Drug abuse would also be considered a health issue, not a criminal issue. This fact alone would serve to augment prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation procedures.
You could almost apply this logic to any crime. Where do you draw the line?
caveBEAR
05/26/10, 11:44 AM
You could almost apply this logic to any crime. Where do you draw the line?
You're going to have to explain this one a bit to me.
You could almost apply this logic to any crime. Where do you draw the line?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "apply[ing] this logic to any crime."
But I think the answer is drawing the line at consensual, victimless "crimes" by adults.
alice+interiors
05/26/10, 11:59 AM
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "apply[ing] this logic to any crime."
But I think the answer is drawing the line at consensual, victimless "crimes" by adults.
Drug use isn't exactly victim-less, though, is it? A lot of other crimes affecting those who do not abuse substances stem from drug addictions - domestic violence, manslaughter, assault - people do a lot of stuff under the influence, I don't think you could really deny that.
If they have negative consequences, and should be made legal, what should happen to thieves and burglars? Should they be allowed to walk on the grounds that they may have returned what they have stolen?
caveBEAR
05/26/10, 12:01 PM
Drug use isn't exactly victim-less, though, is it? A lot of other crimes affecting those who do not abuse substances stem from drug addictions - domestic violence, manslaughter, assault - people do a lot of stuff under the influence, I don't think you could really deny that.
By that logic, alcohol should be illegal as well, and we all know how well that turned out.
If they have negative consequences, and should be made legal, what should happen to thieves and burglars? Should they be allowed to walk on the grounds that they may have returned what they have stolen?
You're really grasping at straws here.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.