Drug war by dreamtrove

Legalization.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 7, 2006 1:33 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Legalization.

Ditto.

---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."

http://richlabonte.net/tvvote - Vote Firefly!

(by Kelai)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 7, 2006 1:45 PM

Legalisation has a proven track record of reducing, rather than exasperating the problem.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 7, 2006 3:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I suspect that govt. should mount a force, shoot first and ask questions later, but I'm open to any more reasonable suggestions. Yes, I've tried reasoning with the army of zombies. I've finally hit the point where i think what I'm dealing with is orcs. There is no possible solution.

DT, you are kidding, right?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 7, 2006 3:30 PM

America loves a winner!

Here in Atlanta, an 88 yr old lady was murdered by the APD. The cops were issuing a 'no knock 'arrest warrent on her house, based on the informaiton of a narc. A squad of civilian clothed officers knocked down her door and entered unannounced. She greeted them with gunfire, as her Constitutional right permits. 3 officers were hit, but all survived.

THe 88 yr old lady died at the scene, protecting her home. No crack cocain was found in the residence, as the informant claimed.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 7, 2006 4:30 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Legalization, aided by Darwin, will solve the drug problem. Those unable to make the personal choices needed to survive will die - hopefully before they breed.

Yes. Geezer is in a bad mood tonight.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 7, 2006 4:35 PM

I agree that the "war on drugs" approach has been a disaster, and made thing even worse than legalization. But legalization is not the answer. This problem is pretty bad in places where it's been tried. I'm not looking for the lesser of two evils, I'm looking for a solution.

I think legalization could be *part* of a solution, but not the solution itself. Education and interruption of the trafficking has to be part of the solution.

Many asian nations have adopted zero tolerance, which works a lot better than what we have, but I think that's a kind of brutal approach. Auraptor's story would back up that idea.

At the moment, in the absence of a workable solution "kill em all and let god sort em out" is probably not that far off base. Accept that I oppose killing. But maybe relocation to somewhere else. The Magic Candy Kingdom.

Sgt. X.

No, of course I'm not kidding. Drug addiction is a serious problem. It leads to a degeneration of mental process, loss of perspective, and irrational behavior. It's not anywhere on a road towards a higher state of consciousness. Everyone I've known who has developed a fondness for serious substance abuse has completely lost focus, dropped out of school, lost or quite their jobs, quit their own creative hobbies and vegetated. Society as a whole fails to produce, fails to compete, and fails to pick good leadership, or to care. If you ask the typical hardcore druggie these days what their idea of a good leader is, if they're white they'll probably tell you "Adolph Hitler." I don't know what a hispanic or black addict would tell you, but I suspect it wouldn't be sound.

I recognize there are people who would be on this forum who would have substance abuse problems of their own, because it is all pervasive. I hope those people realize that the first step is to admit you have a problem, rather than to take it out on me.

So far, I've gotten no response agreeing that this is a serious problem, and so I have to wonder what all this anti-bush stuff was about. If the goal isn't a stable society, then who cares about the nitpicking along the way?

Auraptor,

You do realize that the number of deaths involving drugs is going to far outway that involving anti-drug crusaders.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 7, 2006 5:25 PM

Look a little deeper DT.

As usual with a 'War on ...", the war on drugs is a misplaced political campaign that's band-aid at best, and a deeply damaging campaign at worst. Blaming the symptoms of social ills is nonsense and only diverts attention away from the real problems. Much like the 'War on Poverty', the 'War on Violence', the 'War on Terror', or whatever other crap they cook up, focusing on drugs is a red herring.

Western society pushes people into very unnatural places and they break. They're drawn to drug abuse, sexual obsession, violence, or any number of destructive behaviors to distract them from their painful lives. You can punish them further, outlaw their vices, throw them in jail, or just kill them... and it won't make a single dent in the real problem. It'll probably make it worse.

In the wake of your efforts to keep people from being anti-social and self-destructive you'll punish the rest of us. The fact of the matter is, a large majority of people who use recreational drugs don't have a problem. Sucking them into your vendetta against those who do is unjust and pointless.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 7, 2006 5:36 PM

Strange that it make seem for me to agree with Asshat, but on this one (and probably gun rights in general) I most certainly do.

Some clarifications.

The officers approached the house of Ms. Kathryn Johnston discretely and then broke through the burglar bars and began busting the door down prior to identifying themselves (IF they ever did, and considering the rest of this mess, I doubt it), and Ms Johnston, living in a bad neighborhood and fearful of intruders/home invaders, snatched up an old, rusty revolver and fired six shots, striking three of the five officers before they were even able to return fire.

Then the officers returned fire, killing her.
I'll note here that her gun was empty, and a revolver, and so-called professionals should have KNOWN that, although I doubt even if they did, it would have ended otherwise because any time someone dares challenge the might of the sponsored blue street gang, death will be in the offering, just as surely as a beating upon arrest is.

Substantially after the fact, the PD *says* they recovered a bag of weed, but in light of all the other factors not even the rest of the department believes it wasn't planted.

The so-called informant came out to explain that the police called him AFTER the event to 'encourage' him to back up their so-called story, and he wants no part of it - leading to the obvious conclusion that, like most "anonymous tip" warrants, the PD shovelled a load of BS to a judge who simply rubberstamped it without even the most cursory inspection of the case or evidence.

The entire narcotics squad of that particular dept is on paid leave and the matter is being investigated at the federal level, not that I think they'll get much more than a reprimand, for what accounts to down and out murder, after all, the boys in blue are the lords, and we're just the serfs, right ?

And one has to wonder.... just how often does this crap occur when it DOESN'T get into the news, and doesn't get investigated ?

Probably a lot - the whole no-knock thing is just as insane as every other aspect of the drug war, and the militarization of the blue street gang has made them more of a threat to the general populace than drugs ever were.

Legalization is prettymuch the only answer, cause even the most completely justified attempt at self-defense usually results in the death of the person attempting it, or their loved ones (Google: Ruby Ridge).

So when you look at it, which is really more dangerous to society ?

Drugs ?

Or "The War on Drugs" ?

Prohibition of this sort has failed spectacularly every time it's been tried, and will continue to do so at the expense of all of us.

(Warning: Potentially Offensive Statement Ahead)
================================================

If Ms. Johnston had been a little more accurate, justice WOULD have been served, even a little bit... I honestly would feel just a smidge better about the whole thing if she'd taken one or more of the sumbitches with her.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 7, 2006 5:51 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Drug war -

My drugs are better than your drugs.

OOOOOoooooohhhhhhh YEAH !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 7, 2006 6:41 PM

Geezer,

That was awesome.

The only problem is that it's a disease which infects the young, and it does so very well. The disease, as such, fights for its own survival.

Quote:
Sgt X:
As usual with a 'War on ...", the war on drugs is a misplaced political campaign that's band-aid at best, and a deeply damaging campaign at worst.

really not arguing. War on drugs, to channel pirate news, was run by the drug lords. After all, why wouldn't they? It was a logical place for them to position themselves.

Quote:
Western society pushes people into very unnatural places and they break

Again, I agree. The society of "no sex" for example. Teens have a choice, drugs+sex+music or no_drugs+no_sex+no_music, then it's obvious what they pick. But that doesn't mean they'd all pick drugs over no_drugs if all other things were equal.

Quote:
The fact of the matter is, a large majority of people who use recreational drugs don't have a problem.

This is pure fantasy. The recreational user without a problem is very rare, and the idea that society needs to endure the problems to protect this right is absurd. True, I would be opposed to a strict control over what people can ingest, on an absolute scale, because such a system is open to some horrible abuses. But at the moment, this situation has hit a critical level.

What I want to do is remove them from my society. They not only have no potential for forwarding the advancement of society, they drag it back by spreading their counterproductive behavior, and that's not an opinion, it's a statistical fact. A society with a drug problem does not perform as well as one without a problem. The majority of our youth are engaged in some sort of substance abuse that permanently alters their psyche as a long term side effect.

Frem,

Sure, this is why we shouldn't have armed police.

Legalization, at least by itself, is a proven non-answer. Societies which are dominating the world today are east asian cut your head off on a first offense style societies. So, in order to work, a solution has to have advantages over the zero tolerance, not just in livability, but also in effectiveness.

Rue,

Really not in a laughing mood about this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 7, 2006 8:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
The fact of the matter is, a large majority of people who use recreational drugs don't have a problem.

This is pure fantasy. The recreational user without a problem is very rare, and the idea that society needs to endure the problems to protect this right is absurd....

Actually it's not. We're told incessantly by the anti-drug zealots that any use of recreational drugs is an abuse problem, but that's just not the case. You tend to hear about the addicts, but most people who use alcohol or marijuana lead happy productive lives. Numerous studies back this up. Even most people who have tried heroin don't become addicted.

That said, drugs are addictive and I'm not denying that it happens nor that it's a problem when it does. But equating use with abuse is unfair and unwarranted.

Quote:
But at the moment, this situation has hit a critical level.

What I want to do is remove them from my society. They not only have no potential for forwarding the advancement of society, they drag it back by spreading their counterproductive behavior, and that's not an opinion, it's a statistical fact.

Who are you talking about here? I'd agree if you're talking about those mired in serious, destructive drug addiction, (and even then, doesn't rounding up undesirables and removing them from your society seem just a tad fascist?) but, as I've pointed out, that's a minority of drug users - just as alcoholics are a minority of drinkers. It's not a fantasy. The fantasy is the notion that wiping out drug use is going to eradicate bad behavior in society, or that people who use drugs are nothing but a drag on society.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 7, 2006 8:27 PM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The recreational user without a problem is very rare, and the idea that society needs to endure the problems to protect this right is absurd.

Beg to differ.

I like to have a drink on the weekend. Or two. Or six. That qualifies me as a recreational drug user.

I hold a steady job. Pay my taxes, more or less on time. Have never abused my wife or children. My recreational drug use does not interfere with my life. In fact, I think it rather enhances it, by encouraging me to relax and socialize. And the vast majority of American drinkers do not ruin their lives with drink.

Oh, you could argue that alcohol is different. But alcohol is a drug. A particularly powerful and addictive one, in fact. Unlike some others, it is a metabolic poison, one whose inebriating effect is entirely dependent upon its poisonous nature.

A hundred years ago, one could enter a pharmacy and purchase tincture of cannabis, cocaine, and opium derivatives, including heroin, as legal as church on Sunday. Most users held steady jobs (or social equivalents, such as home maintenance), paid their taxes on time, and had family lives no better or worse than the vast majority. And the damage to society was, by modern standards, at rock bottom.

Since the drugs were legal, they were relatively inexpensive, so the users were not forced into illegal acts to sustain their usage. And, since they could count on a steady supply, they could choose to moderate their usage, and generally did, limiting themselves to levels that allowed them to continue to function in society.

I'm not saying the use was without some social cost. Just because alcohol hasn't ruined my own life, doesn't mean alcoholism isn't a real problem. And their were certainly enough addicts that moralists and do-gooders were able to convince people that the answer was to outlaw these substances. That'd end the problem, once and for all!

Well, that sure worked out didn't it?

They managed to make the ban apply to Alcohol as well, for thirteen years. Thirteen years that entrenched organized crime in this country to a degree previously inconceivable. I thank whatever Gods may be that we had the sense to toss that law aside.

In my opinion, the only difference between alcohol and other recreational drugs is legality. And in the end analysis, it is that factor that causes 95% of the social problems associated with recreational drug use, without in any way reducing the original 5%.

So yes, society does need to endure the problems associated with the right to alter one's consciousness--because the alternative, as demonstrated by history, is to make the problem much, much worse.

I don't give a damn about the moral high ground. I want damage control. And that means legalization. IMHO.

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 12:55 AM

Quote:
The majority of our youth are engaged in some sort of substance abuse that permanently alters their psyche as a long term side effect.

This is big, huge can of worms with me, and in the interest of brevity (cause I could go on for pages, believe it!) I'll just point out that maybe instead of attacking the symptoms (drug use) would should attack the problem, that being the fact that our whole so-called society is incredibly malicious to our own humanity in general and youth are struck by that adjustment the hardest.
Pages and pages worth, on that topic, if you want em... even editorials, some of them published, cause this is a massive peeve of mine.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 3:08 AM

Quote:
But legalization is not the answer. This problem is pretty bad in places where it's been tried. I'm not looking for the lesser of two evils, I'm looking for a solution.

No it isn't. Holland is doing just fine, I suppose abandoning prohibition was a bad idea?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 4:03 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Auraptor,

You do realize that the number of deaths involving drugs is going to far outway that involving anti-drug crusaders.

Try as a I might, I don't know what you're trying to say. Deaths involving drugs. Is that suppose to mean deaths from those who over dose? Deaths from deals gone bad between buyers / sellers ? Deaths from shoot outs between law enforcement and drug pushers? Deaths from shoot outs between law enforcement and inocent bystanders ?

It was reported that one of the shots fired by the 88 yr old lady hit an officer square in the chest. He was wearing a vest, which likely saved his life. That time. How many officers have died in vain trying to fight this unwinable war ? Decriminalize drugs, and you remove the incentive for violent gangs , the robberies go down, and thousands of lives will be saved. Rather, spend that money for rehab services, instead of legions of law enforcement and court cost, and we all come out way ahead.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 4:42 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ideas, anyone?

Poison.

Rather then intercept and destroying illegal drugs. Intercept them, poison them, and then reintroduce them to the pipeline at local, regional, and national levels.

That will very quickly eliminate the problem by eliminating a large number of users and forcing most of the rest to go cold turkey. Those who succeed...good. Those who don't, die.

Problem solved.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 4:49 AM

Quote:
Sgt x:

Actually it's not. We're told incessantly by the anti-drug zealots that any use of recreational drugs is an abuse problem

I'm not making this stuff up, or getting it from anti-drug zealots, whoever they are. I just look at the situation on the ground, and calling it as I see it.

About 1/2 the people I know stopped using drugs by college graduation age, and went on to lead happy productive lives. Of the other half, one mj-only user, leads a happy productive life (after quitting, decades of no one, not even his own kids talking to him, he was so down,) and none of the other users are leading happy productive lives, all the way down to holed up in a cabin with an AK47, and of course, a good number who are dead.

I admit, a casual user isn't as bad as an addict, but I think to say use is not a problem is short-sighted. Users create more users through peer pressure, which i think follows two types of logic: 1) if five of us go to rob a bank, and one of us stays home, he's not a bank robber, he might rat us out; and 2) dealers creating customers. Not all dealers are addicts themselves.

But also, there's the future situation, that many of todays users will become addicts in time, or burnouts, or dead. Very very few will go on to continue to use at a casual level and go on to lead happy productive lives. Long term users of even things like prozac develop long term chemical effects. Illicit drugs tend to be more dangerous, because they tend to be, though not exclusively, things which didn't pass the FDA.

Many of these users who will become productive citizens will stop being users before they do.

Alcohol is really not on the same level unless its taken in high doses. Daily use will only lead to a long history of military defeats, and some cheese eating habits. But seriously, if used in lesser amounts, it's more on a level with caffeine or nicotine, but alcoholism is still a problem.

Quote:
I'd agree if you're talking about those mired in serious, destructive drug addiction

Sorry, I wasn't clear. that's who I meant. The others are redeemable.

Quote:
(and even then, doesn't rounding up undesirables and removing them from your society seem just a tad fascist?)

Not at all. Just about anyone would remove terrorists and criminals from their society. It's just a matter of protecting your own.

Fascists, btw, were very pro-drug. This problem is very much in large part do to them. I think communist would have been a better accusation. More historically accurate.

Quote:
The fantasy is the notion that wiping out drug use is going to eradicate bad behavior in society, or that people who use drugs are nothing but a drag on society.

No one claimed it would. But these folks are a drain, there's no question about that. They're worse than a drain, they're a disease. They get worse, like a disease, and they infect others, like a disease. Frequently, they also bring disease.

Rocket jock,

Alcohol isn't really a drug problem more than smoking or coffee. Alcoholism may be, sure. I think that there are a whole bunch of people myself included, who know the chemistry involved. Lots of things we take have drug-like nature to them, but they're not devastating.

Quote:

Since the drugs were legal, they were relatively inexpensive, so the users were not forced into illegal acts to sustain their usage.

This is a point I would concede, but legalization would have to be *part* of a solution, not the entire solution.

Quote:
So yes, society does need to endure the problems associated with the right to alter one's consciousness--because the alternative, as demonstrated by history, is to make the problem much, much worse.

This is really a strawman. Because one alternative didn't work, no alternatives are possible.

Also, calling the opposition moralism is really a cop out. The opposition is trying to survive as a functioning society.

Quote:
Frem: our whole so-called society is incredibly malicious to our own humanity in general and youth are struck by that adjustment the hardest.

An excellent point. Society creates the need to escape and offers nothing as a reward. The world of no sex no dancing no parties no music no friends no fun is really not very appealing. Even the professions we offer are nothing compared with what they were a century ago, instead of setting yourself up as a physician or merchant or engineer, the bulk of employment is really "be a slave of an angry boss in this field" which is really not all that fun either.

I think it's also important that in addition to this we need to recognize another problem. If I take a particular friend whose casual use has turned into a problem, and that that problem has turned into a problem for other families because said user has started dealing, then the issue of why he's a drug dealer is not that "he's a bad person" but, sure, is totally situational. But part of that situation is availability.

There is a huge distribution network in place which seeks to create customers, like any other business. It would be pretty easy to take out, if the govt. cared to do so, but the people who run the govt., bushes and clintons, are dealers themselves.

Citizen,

I'm sure I could dig up some problems on Holland, but I know at the moment they have some other major problems, overpop, immigration, ethnic tensions and a new rise in aids, Amsterdam is will known for how "fine" it is doing with its drug situation.

You what countries are doing "fine," re: their drug problems? A whole bunch in east asia, that lock tourists away for life because they have a bad of weed.

Auraptor,

So I take it you're not much on the conservative side then.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 5:19 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Auraptor,

So I take it you're not much on the conservative side then.

It would be helpful to me if you'd answer my initial question by defining what you meant by deaths involving drugs.

Also, what specifically about my post did you not agree ? Instead of fretting over which side I'm on, why not deal w/ the actual issue and how best it may be solved. If you have any questions about how I feel about this issue, please, ask away.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 8:13 AM

STORYMARK

I for my part, have know, and still know several people who lead productive professional lives, and indulge in recreation drug use of varrying types. I don't see much peer pressure there, some partake, others do not. No one cares either way. Of all those people over the years, only one has had his life really fall apart, and he a destructive dishonest person to begin with.

On the other hand, I have known several people who's lives have been destroyed or permanently diminished due to Alcohol.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
I'd agree if you're talking about those mired in serious, destructive drug addiction

Sorry, I wasn't clear. that's who I meant. The others are redeemable.

LOL... right. Anyone who ever gets high is in need of redemption? I suppose anyone who's ever had a drink of wine is just dead weight on society as well, eh?

You really don't seem to have a realistic view of this issue at all. Maybe you've seen some hard core abusers - I know they're bad news - but that's not the norm. Just like hard core alcoholics don't represent everyone who drinks.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Poison.

Rather then intercept and destroying illegal drugs. Intercept them, poison them, and then reintroduce them to the pipeline at local, regional, and national levels.

That will very quickly eliminate the problem by eliminating a large number of users and forcing most of the rest to go cold turkey. Those who succeed...good. Those who don't, die.

Problem solved.

Exactly how we should deal with lawyers. Poision the bastards and the world will be a better place.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 11:26 AM

CHRISMOORHEAD

Being someone who refuses to consume caffeine, and severely monitors his sugar intake, I have very strict personal beliefs about the introduction of drugs and narcotics in to my body. But they are personal beliefs. I think drugs should be legalized, with the same restrictions we put on alcohol (public use, driving, etc.). Creating legitimate businesses out of them seems like it would severely undermine the criminal enterprise's monopoly on the products, hopefully bankrupting them in the long run. It might also make it easier to control and monitor the substances themselves.

And in the long run, if whatever nation ends up turning into a giant cesspool of crime and debauchery, well, what's really changed?

[IMG]

Place my body on a ship and burn it on the sea,
Let my spirit rise, Valkyries carry me.
Take me to Valhalla where my brothers wait for me.
Fires burn into the sky, my spirit will never die.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 11:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,

I'm sure I could dig up some problems on Holland, but I know at the moment they have some other major problems, overpop, immigration, ethnic tensions and a new rise in aids, Amsterdam is will known for how "fine" it is doing with its drug situation.

You what countries are doing "fine," re: their drug problems? A whole bunch in east asia, that lock tourists away for life because they have a bad of weed.

So you're proving that legalisation is bad by pointing to countries where drugs are illegal. Oookay...

Legalisation is the best anwser, that crap about wanting a solution not the lesser of two evils is exactly that. Crap. In the real world there's no such thing as a perfect solution. I think you know legalisation is better, but you're ideologically opposed to it so you want 'something else'.

Okay, something else, forcibly adjust everyone's brains at Birth to not be effected by drugs maybe? Or maybe pump some sort of drug into the atmosphere that makes people 'better' so that they 'voluntarilly' choose not to take the drugs that the government (or you, whatever) decide are 'bad'. You can call it the Packs because it sends drugs a packin'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 12:48 PM

Quote:
And in the long run, if whatever nation ends up turning into a giant cesspool of crime and debauchery, well, what's really changed?

*spews coffee out his nose laffin*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 1:10 PM

Quote:
Hero:Poison.

Rather then intercept and destroying illegal drugs. Intercept them, poison them, and then reintroduce them to the pipeline at local, regional, and national levels.

That will very quickly eliminate the problem by eliminating a large number of users and forcing most of the rest to go cold turkey. Those who succeed...good. Those who don't, die.

Problem solved.

Hero, I take back everything I ever said about you. You're a genius. You wouldn't have to fataly poison them, just ruin the experience. Of course, I'm against vigilante action, but if the govt. want to do something like this, it would be like that beer that makes you puke. That's really not a bad idea.

Citizen,

Some of us represent that remark.

Auraptor,

It's anecdotal counter-argument stuff, you're essentially taking a pro-drug position in a clever way. Since you know that the war onm drugs has been basically agreed by everyone here to be a failure, that attacking it is not going to make a strong point.

Drug deaths include overdoses, gang warfare, suicides in large numbers, and homocides, abundantly. There was this recent methhead case of the guy coming back from canada with the bloody chainsaw, not to mention, the drug use in our military, and the incidents there, or in past militaries.

I'm not arguing this point. I don't have any interest in doing so. You're essentially asking me to prove that there is a problem, and I think we're way passed that. It's a form of backtracking, like the president asking people to prove global warming. It's already been proven enough.

Moving on.

Storymark,

Heavy alcohol use is a serious problem., not really disagreeing with you there. The point on the other is that you may see that situation, but it's really not very common, because I've seen a fair amount, and I've never seen that, and I don't imagine that if someone compiled a statistical database that you'd find that passive situation to be common.

Sgt. X.

All I've seen, basically. Thousands of them. I don't believe in your fairy tale casual user. The only causal users I've met are ones who later turn out to either redeem or be ones with serious problems, not fun la-di-da perpetual casual users.

Quote:

You really don't seem to have a realistic view of this issue at all.

Whatever. I'm sure I have a very realistic view of it.

Quote:
CMH:
Creating legitimate businesses out of them seems like it would severely undermine the criminal enterprise's monopoly on the products, hopefully bankrupting them in the long run.

Because it's worked so well with alcohol and tobacco

Quote:
It might also make it easier to control and monitor the substances themselves.

This I'll grant.

I think we have a bunch of users on the board. The nation is undoubtedly doomed. Isn't there a christian here who isn't also a meth-head, or someone who can weigh in on the idea that Brave New World is not in fact a desirable state of affairs, or that Reavers are really in part a reference to these sort of fringe junkies?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 1:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think we have a bunch of users on the board. The nation is undoubtedly doomed. Isn't there a christian here who isn't also a meth-head, or someone who can weigh in on the idea that Brave New World is not in fact a desirable state of affairs, or that Reavers are really in part a reference to these sort of fringe junkies?

Jesus DT. Did I ever have you wrong. You've struck me as someone with a decent respect for freedom and tolerance, and with fair clarity regarding politics. What have you been smoking?

Seriously, we're all doomed because some people use drugs? Gimme a break, people have used drugs pretty consistently throughout history. At least consider the possibility that you're overreacting here.

Quote:
Paul Harvey
"In times like these, it helps to recall that there have always been times like these."

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 1:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,

Some of us represent that remark.

Huh?

Quote:
Because it's worked so well with alcohol and tobacco

Much better than prohibition yes.

There isn't many choices, there's illegal or legal, there's no middle ground between the two, no a little bit illegal but mostly legal. You either legalise it or you don't.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 2:10 PM

Sgt. X.

The first step is to admit you have a problem.

Sure, I'm on the side of the free society. Our free societies right to have a free society. I'm attacking what I, imho, and quite objectively, as its #1 threat, which is not terrorists, it's drugs. It's not the minor background drugs that there used to be, but hardcore highly concentrated everywhere drugs, and the neanderthal chaos that ensues.

Surely, Sgt. X., you have to realize this, even if you're in intense denial re: your own habit. What is it? Marijuana? Do you want to compromise on that? A grow your own law? I could support that. But I think that the legalization / commericalization route would be social suicide.

And how could you have me wrong, I think I've said about 500 times I support every societies right to set it's own rules. If someone wants to set up the society of Acid City, then sure, they can go ahead. But what we have is acid city everywhere, and no right to set up an "our kids won't kill their brains and become paranoid losers" society, which is, imho, what I think we need in order to not be left completely in the dust here by the asian nations who are willing to shoot offenders on the spot. I don't want to go that level, I like our free society, but this is not a free society, man, when it's being run by the crackheads, skinheads and gangstas.

If you weren't using yourself, you'd see this clearly. The rest of us are completely unable to do our own thing because your own thing is fucking it up. You're free to do your own thing somewhere else, but not in our homes with our kids bringing your dealers and addicts and their AK47s and everything. No way, no gorram way. Not on my boat.

Quote:

Quote:
Because it's worked so well with alcohol and tobacco

Much better than prohibition yes.

Citizen, what are you on?

You really think that the commercialization of beer and cigarettes has reduced their consumption? Give me a break.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 2:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen, what are you on?

You really think that the commercialization of beer and cigarettes has reduced their consumption? Give me a break.

Obviously nothing aproaching the strength of what your on if you think prohibition was better, they recinded that for very good reasons you know. I think I could make a fairly good case for many of your present day social problems stemming from your 1920's flirtation with prohibition. You really think prohibition was better? Give ME a break.

There's no way someone who was looking at the evidence objectively could think that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 2:27 PM

HKCAVALIER

I think the big, big problem here is that our society looks at life as a souless mechanism. We look at ourselves as souless machanisms. Objects. If it breaks down, ya fix it. If it's going too slow, you add some chemicals to speed it up. If it's getting too big, you cut off its food supply. If the problem gets overwhelming, lock it away or destroy it outright. Ad infinitum.

You know, like the diet industry. All this quackery and damaging garbage because we only want to see mechanisms, the simpler the better. "Hmmmm, I must be fat because I put stuff in my body and it stays there. So if I put less stuff inside this thing it will get smaller."

And when I say "souless" you gotta know I don't mean everybody's gotta go to church. Church can be just as souless as watching the WWF. Though it's true, most churchgoers I've met up with don't see themselves as souless mechanisms so much as they see themselves as li'l factories of evil that need constant monitoring and reclamation. To them, the solution isn't getting to know yourself better and become a better person; the solution is to go to church, read the Bible. Still having a problem? Go to more church and read more Bible. They've just found another mechanistic solution, another fix.

The soul I'm talking about, is the part of us that is in no need of reclamation. The soul I'm talking about sees no greater good than to know itself and see itself reflected in all others. That soul, when we are conscious of it and nurture a co-creative realationship with it--'cause, you know, when we commune with our souls, the soul gives us ideas--that soul, I say, has much better things to do than waste its time on drugs.

People don't know their children as human beings, they know them as objects. I'm reminded of that cop who thought his kids were "safe" from drugs because he brought home a drug sniffing dog for a pet. So the kids found drugs the dog couldn't sniff. That is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Guy doesn't have even the slightest inclination to develope a meaningful relationship with his kids--hell, I'm sure he thought he already had one--but for him they're really just a potential problem to circumvent.

Humans are not machines, much as they might wish it otherwise. You take away a mechanism that a human is participating in or relying upon without understanding why, humans will simply find another mechanism.

I've had friends who've gotten too serious about drugs and I noticed, right off. Of course, I'm not immune to conditioning, so I haven't usually confronted them about it until it's gotten a good deal more serious, but looking back I could always track the problem to the night or the weekend it started. Drugs are powerful dang things and they change a person if you're paying close attention. (And yeah, sometimes problems sneak under the radar, nobody's perfect, but missing a few really stealthy problems is not what Dreamtrove is talking about. I dare say, he's talking about the pervasive evasive soulessness of American life.)

Paying close attention. That's what having a relationship means: knowing people. Wanting to know people. Letting people know they matter to you because you ask them uncomfortable questions sometimes and don't take fishy answers. And you aren't gonna have much luck getting to know other people, if you're not serious about getting to know yourself--asking yourself the uncomfortable questions and not taking your slippery, fishy, all to familiar answers.

Srg. X is right. Our society thrives on breaking people up. It thrives on distraction. Yeah, the fascists love the porn and they love drugs, anything to anesthetize people from what's really going down in their world.

Relationships take time and a whole lot of effort, honesty and self-honesty. They're often uncomfortable and they hurt. Unless you value intimacy and relationships very, very highly, unless you're very motivated--unless you really, really value your soul--you will find that relationships are too painful to keep up with. You will find some later hours to work, or some TV to watch, or some drinking to do, or bong hits, or obsessive hours at the gym; any or all of which promise to be far more "rewarding" and instantly gratifying than really getting to know anyone. And what's more, no honesty will ever be required of you.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 2:28 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Heavy drug use - especially methamphetamine and OxyContin - is most common in rural areas not suburbs or cities.

I couldn't find figures on the estimated percentage of 'habitual users'. Most studies asked about use in the last month or year. However, this result is interesting:
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/ots/enforcement_programs/Training_Info/Snar
eSept2005.doc
Overall, positive drug tests for amphetamine use among current employees stayed level at 4.5 percent.

But alcohol and cigarettes don't get the pass DT gives them. They are both addictive, have serious health consequences, and are widely used. They are far more damaging to the US health and economy than methamphetamine use, for example (not counting the costs of running the penal system to deal with illegal drugs).

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/health_consequences/mortali.h
tm
Tobacco ~418,000 deaths/ yr in 2001
one in every five deaths in the United States is smoking related.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1448502
Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of death and disease in the United States.

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm
Alcohol ~76,000 deaths /yr in 2001
Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States (1) and is associated with multiple adverse health consequences, including liver cirrhosis, various cancers, unintentional injuries, and violence.

------------------------------------
Personally, I think that not only should drugs be made mostly legal, they should be prescribed and provided by the government. You get them in drab government-run dispensaries in plain-wrap packaging. No profit, no glamour, no lure of the unknown.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 2:39 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Auraptor,

It's anecdotal counter-argument stuff, you're essentially taking a pro-drug position in a clever way. Since you know that the war onm drugs has been basically agreed by everyone here to be a failure, that attacking it is not going to make a strong point.

Drug deaths include overdoses, gang warfare, suicides in large numbers, and homocides, abundantly. There was this recent methhead case of the guy coming back from canada with the bloody chainsaw, not to mention, the drug use in our military, and the incidents there, or in past militaries.

I'm not arguing this point. I don't have any interest in doing so. You're essentially asking me to prove that there is a problem, and I think we're way passed that. It's a form of backtracking, like the president asking people to prove global warming. It's already been proven enough.

First things first. Nothing about my position is 'anecdotal'. I firmly take the libertarian position that an individual ultimatly has the right to control his/her own body. In case you've missed the memo, I'm a conservative, but of the libertarian variety.

Death by drugs is greatly glossed over by your definition to include both self induced and violent deaths resulting from the illegalization of drugs. I find that argument to be intellectually dishonest. Were the 'war on drugs' ended, and more funds directed toward treatment and recovery, far fewere O.D's and suicides would occur.( I suggest you check out the CATO study on this matter )

I for one still am looking for the proof for the human causation of global warming. I do not subscribe to it being man made. The Earth's enviroment is in constant flux. Having studied Paleontology for over 20 yrs has taught me that fact, and a great deal more. I ask you this question, and anyone who buys into the global warming hysteria. Why has Mars' polar caps receeded at exactly the same time the Earth's temp has allegedly risen a fraction of a degree ?

Think about it.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I for one still am looking for the proof for the human causation of global warming. I do not subscribe to it being man made. The Earth's enviroment is in constant flux. Having studied Paleontology for over 20 yrs has taught me that fact, and a great deal more. I ask you this question, and anyone who buys into the global warming hysteria. Why has Mars' polar caps receeded at exactly the same time the Earth's temp has allegedly risen a fraction of a degree ?

Think about it.

Why has the global temperature increased at an unprecedented rate in step with the industralisation of human technology?

Think about it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 3:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Ohhh pplease, not this old canard again "Why has Mars' polar caps receeded at exactly the same time the Earth's temp has allegedly risen a fraction of a degree ?" Anyone who does even a cursory look will find that ONE polar cap is receeding, while the OTHER is expanding ....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 3:28 PM

Thanks for the threadjack, seriously, I'm through. There's a civil war in america, and I think almost everyone is on the wrong side.

Maybe this is no longer the land of american know how, and it has become the land of american feel good.

Maybe I should outsource myself.

U.S.A. R.I.P.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 3:28 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 3:32 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Thanks for the threadjack, seriously, I'm through. There's a civil war in america, and I think almost everyone is on the wrong side.

Maybe this is no longer the land of american know how, and it has become the land of american feel good.

Maybe I should outsource myself.

U.S.A. R.I.P.

Sorry for the side track, but it wasn't I who brought up the nonsense of global warming. That was your doing. All I did was reply. My bad.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 5:19 PM

Auraptor,

1. No, I wasn't sidetracking, I was blissfully unaware that there was a global warming denier, I was using it as a hypothetical.

2. I wasn't irked by the threadjack, I'm really convinced that there's no one who takes this issue seriously.

Personally, I feel pretty sure that virtually all the other issues we discuss are minor compared with this one, and that, to quote jurasic park, the only one I've got on my side is the bloodsucking lawyer. No offense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 5:25 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Personally, I feel pretty sure that virtually all the other issues we discuss are minor compared with this one, and that, to quote jurasic park, the only one I've got on my side is the bloodsucking lawyer. No offense.

..bloodsucking lawyer. I love that line!

No worries.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 5:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DT,

You are not the only one.

Standing on the tracks, watching the train come down ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 8:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sgt. X.

The first step is to admit you have a problem...
Surely, Sgt. X., you have to realize this, even if you're in intense denial re: your own habit. What is it? Marijuana?...
If you weren't using yourself, you'd see this clearly....

Now you're just making me giggle. I haven't smoked pot in over a year. And I rarely drink. But I've done them both before and plan to do them again. And I don't want to be skulking around in back alleys dealing with gangsters because insecure, misguided morons are waging war on ghosts.

Quote:
You're free to do your own thing somewhere else, but not in our homes with our kids bringing your dealers and addicts and their AK47s and everything. No way, no gorram way. Not on my boat.

Listen to yourself. Dealers and addicts with AK47s are the result of anti-drug paranoia and the subsequent legislation, not my freedom to use. I've never suggested I should be allowed to come into your home with drugs and I fully support keeping them away from kids.

You're clearly looking for a scapegoat, and it seems you've found it. I guess it's easier than addressing the real problems of society.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 8:52 PM

ROCKETJOCK

I'm interested, Dreamtrove, on why you choose to separate alcohol, tobacco & caffeine from the "real" recreational drugs. Is it because you don't hear about rival gangs killing each other over tobacco turf, or see folk being mugged by alcoholics looking for their next bottle of MD-20/20? Illegalize them, and I guarantee, you'll see a black market as corrupt as the trade in crack develop at warp factor 10.

On the subject of "Drug-related death", does anyone remember the "EX-POLICE" sketches on the original Saturday Night Live?

The basic scenario ran like this: Some person, or group of persons, would be indulging in a consensual activity, which might or might not be illegal -- (say smoking a joint) -- when suddenly Dan Akroyd and Bill Murray would break down the door, declare themselves to be "Ex-Police" -- ("We were dismissed from the department for excessive force--but that's not going to stop us!") They would then beat the offending citizens unmercifully, usually to death, whereupon they would shake their heads sadly, while announcing, "How tragic--yet another marijuana related death."

I included the above, not to make light of your concerns, but to make a serious point: most of the deaths attributed to the drug trade are actually the result of their illegal status. The reason people jest about the tragic situation your thread addresses is that, at this point, it's either laugh or cry--and we've already cried a river.

It isn't that I'm not taking the situation seriously--I am--but that, upon long and serious consideration, I have reached the conclusion that no program to reduce the drug problem will succeed unless it includes, as a cornerstone, some form of legalization. At the very least, it must incorporate a legal avenue for hardcore addicts to received their "fix" without having to deal with a black market. Eliminate the profit motive, and the impetus for cultivating new addicts--for hooking children--vanishes. After that, it's just a matter of waiting for Darwin's dues to be paid.

"Think of it as evolution in action" -- Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle

(Edited to include further comment)

Just wanted to add, considering your above argumentum ad hominem against SergeantX, that I had thought better of you. What you said boils down to this: "You don't agree with me about drugs. Therefore, you must be a drug addict. And if you don't admit your problem, that constitutes proof that you have one."

I must come to the conclusion that you aren't really interested in finding a workable answer to America's drug problem, unless it agrees with your preconceived notions.

And that kind of thinking is the bedrock reason why the problem persists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 8, 2006 11:52 PM

Quote:
Is it because you don't hear about rival gangs killing each other over tobacco turf

Ironically, thanks to lunatic attempts at prohibition-via-taxation, there's now been a couple incidents of EXACTLY that up here, which will only increase as smuggling and phony tax stamps become more and more profitable.

It's worth noting that such taxes are in part an attempt to force a certain morality on people (that being why they're oft referred to as "sin taxes") at the behest of a religion, breaching the wall of separation between church and state.

The Temperance movement, later to become prohibition was almost completely inspired and pushed by religion - in essence, a form of state-sponsored religion (when it became prohibition) in direct contravention of the constitution and the founding fathers ideals.

So you've got a trioka of piss-frem-off right there, senseless taxes, government religion, and subversion of free choice all in one.

As for addiction, there's been reams of stuff written on the common sense perspective of treating it as the purely medical issue that it is, rather than a legal one - worth your time to read up on it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 9, 2006 5:09 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sgt. X.

If you weren't using yourself, you'd see this clearly. The rest of us are completely unable to do our own thing because your own thing is fucking it up.

How about this? I don't use any substances (not even caffeine) with the exception of alcohol, which I don't even keep in my own house (the only time I drink is beer with dinner at a restaraunt or socializing at a party, and that happens rarely), and I think you are off your nut on this one, DT.

I don't think Sarge has the problem here. I'm full-on in favor of the legalization of MJ, and a few other "soft" drugs. This notion that you have that every casual user is an addict waiting to create the Burger King Chainsaw Massacre is ludicrous. I know dozens of causual users, and I think every person I know over 21 but 3 or 4 are drinkers, and not once has it ever made me fear for my life or prevent me from "doing my own thing." I also think that if we fixed the root problems of poverty and education we'd cut down on most of the "hard" drug issues, like Crystal Meth or Crack.

IMO, and IANAP*, but I think you had a problem in your family or life with a drug abuser, and are trying to take your bad experience out on everyone who wants to get a buzz. You're the only one in this thread (well, I can't tell if Hero was serious or not) that took that position, Hell, I'm even agreeing with Auraptor this time (which might be more than the 5th time we've agreed, but certainly less than 10). Come back to the rational.

_____
*(I) (A)m (N)ot (A) (P)sychiatrist

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 9, 2006 5:29 PM

Sgt. X.

That was the dumbest analysis I think I've read on this forum outside of maybe Kaneman.

I understand the situation very very very very very very very very very very very very very very well. I think I understand a lot of the problems of society.

Scapegoat my ass.

Drugs make people crazy, that's why there are crazy people. They used to be people who used drugs and weren't crazy, and then they got crazier, and it happened to 100% of the users of hard drugs, and 0% of the non-users. Pretty straightforward stuff. A monkey could figure it out.

Not interested in arguing with your habit.

Quote:
I'm interested, Dreamtrove, on why you choose to separate alcohol, tobacco & caffeine from the "real" recreational drugs.

Because I'm a realist. They're harder to get rid of. Alocohol is even healthy in small amounts, yes, unlike mj.

Moreover, we know the long-term effects of all of these compounds. All drugs are not created equal. I actually have a priority of ones I'd like to get rid of.

I'm also substance free because it would not be in keeping with my religion, but I have known coffee drinkers and drinkers of occasional alcohol to not degenerate into psychotic episodes or suffer major memory loss, loss of mental acuity or other brain damage. Alcoholism, however, is much more like a drug problem. I think the simple rule of limiting alcohol intake would be a good one, but I don't know how to implement that.

I'm not here to argue "drugs are bad" I've lived a life, and have learned very well the pretty undeniable fact drugs are bad. Some young twit coming up with "drugs are good" as a counted argument isn't going to undo that experience. "drugs are good" is just a dumber position than "war is good", imho. I'm looking for solutions.

It's like an RTL thread I posted a while ago, clearly looking for other RTLers with their view, how far does rtl extend. Such a discussion isn't looking for the argument "abortion is good" and isn't going to argue it, because that's not item at the table. Similarly, a pro-choicer might post a thread like "what's the safest way to do abortion" is not going to want to argue with my "don't do it" attitude.

Go ahead, a thread is waiting to be created by Sgt. X. called "which drug is the best high." Have fun.

Anyway, I believe that the illegal alcohol traffic would turn bad, I don't think it would be so bad with caffeine.

The fact that hallucinogens impair logic is important to the situation. As one long term friend and addict told me "My first hit of crack has to be free, because I won't buy it, so they give it to me. My second hit I pay anything because I'm all f^
Not going to happen with your caffeine dependents.

I already knew Sgt. X. was an user because he defended mj in an earlier thread. The drug defends itself. It's pretty telltale. Maybe I'm being unfair, but I'm not dumb, and I call it as I see it. I don't put up with a lot of BS which is what I'm hearing basically.

Quote:
I must come to the conclusion that you aren't really interested in finding a workable answer to America's drug problem, unless it agrees with your preconceived notions.

What a load of unadulterated cr@p.

Frem,

I'm dealing with a common sense medical perspective. I am increasingly living in looney vegetable land, and I can in fact see what's right in front of my eyes. I'm not calling these guys gone because a moral perspective, I'm calling it because I can see it because it's in front of my eyes. You know perfectly well that a taoist is not a christian, and doesn't force their beliefs on others. We do, however, have the right to defend ourselves. The druggies don't see it because they're drugged, just like the bushies can't see that there's something wrong with bush while he's paying their bills in the military industrial complex or whatever. People tend not to see what's inconvenient for them to see.

7%,

Actually, we have a societal problem here, where each kid becomes a loser and shoots themselves or someone else or becomes a total do nothing loser if they stay on it, after being introduced to drugs usually by city folk and it has happened about 150 times in succession pretty close to without exception.

So, I'm the lone reactionary looney on the board, but everyone I know who isn't taking takes the same position I do. It's a serious situation. We used to have a society. Now we have a trashcan. And there's no scapegoating going on here, me and everyone else here knows exactly what's causing it because there's only one thing that's changed and it shows up at the scene of the crime 100% of the time and nowhere else. Add it together, it all spells duh.

I'm not backing down, I'm not off my nut, I'm not nuts, stupid, misguided, or misinterpreting the situation. I'm calling the lot of you out on your buckets of BS. This is a problem, and I am looking for a solution, and if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

What I'm saying basically is that we've got gorram reavers at my front door, and what I'm hearing is "let them in." I can't help but think that some of those voices are themselves, gorram reavers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 9, 2006 6:31 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

7%,

Actually, we have a societal problem here, where each kid becomes a loser and shoots themselves or someone else or becomes a total do nothing loser if they stay on it, after being introduced to drugs usually by city folk and it has happened about 150 times in succession pretty close to without exception.

Okay....so it's staying on any type of drug that makes one a loser? Because I thought at the beginning of your argument you were saying that just the act itself made one unable to become a success, a fact that 95% of the PoTUSA, multiple members of congress, many prominent businesspeople, et. al. would have to disagree with. Some people's brain chemistry can't handle substances - and that's an argument for banning it all? That's like saying 'since blind people shouldn't get behind the wheel, no one should be allowed to drive.'

Quote:
So, I'm the lone reactionary looney on the board, but everyone I know who isn't taking takes the same position I do.

I'm not taking, and I disagree with your position 110%. Maybe you should call it everyone sans one. Unless, your respose will be, well, since you don't agree, you must be a heroin-using junkie just lying to me anonymously on a message board, but I think you know better than that.

Quote:
It's a serious situation. We used to have a society. Now we have a trashcan. And there's no scapegoating going on here, me and everyone else here knows exactly what's causing it because there's only one thing that's changed and it shows up at the scene of the crime 100% of the time and nowhere else. Add it together, it all spells duh.

Last time I walked outside we still had a society.

I went to work yesterday, taught some kids grammar, joked in the faculty lounge, bitched about my congressmen, saw the idiot that sped past me get caught in a speedtrap on my way home, had dinner with the wife, went to the show. Not once was I accosted in the street by a wild-eyed marijuana user who just finished gunning down a busload of nuns in pursuit of a fix, and I talked to a lot of people yesterday.

What impacts the drug culture is poverty, education, and general hopelessness about life getting better. Help people get off the streets, give them an education, and show them that their children will have opportunities and I bet you will have the same number of drug users and one tenth the crime and 'societal degradation.'

Quote:
I'm not backing down, I'm not off my nut, I'm not nuts, stupid, misguided, or misinterpreting the situation. I'm calling the lot of you out on your buckets of BS. This is a problem, and I am looking for a solution, and if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I disagree that you aren't misinterpreting the situation. I think you are. I don't recall saying you were nuts (and if I did I meant it in a more sarcastic way, not a literal one), even though I stand by my assessment that you had a traumatic experience with a drug user you are taking out on the rest of us.

Seriously though, as someone who does not drink often, does no drugs (I don't even take cold medicine unless I'm dying), doesn't even drink caffeine - how do you figure that my disagreement with your post makes me 'part of the problem?' I've given what I think is the problem, what about that is BS?

Forget Sarge, forget Frem (no offense to you all - he's picking your argument apart as addicts defending your addiction, he can't do the same to me). Convince me, a non-drug user who interacts with today's youth, of your position if you can, because you haven't so far.

Quote:
What I'm saying basically is that we've got gorram reavers at my front door, and what I'm hearing is "let them in." I can't help but think that some of those voices are themselves, gorram reavers.

Are you from Missouri? Did someone set up a crystal meth lab in your backyard? Did a crackhead shoot your dog? What gives with you on this issue?

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 9, 2006 6:36 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Forget Sarge, forget Frem (no offense to you all - he's picking your argument apart as addicts defending your addiction, he can't do the same to me). Convince me, a non-drug user who interacts with today's youth, of your position if you can, because you haven't so far.

Yes, and kindly convince the (until-now lurking) non-drug user youth, too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 9, 2006 8:49 PM