04-02-2002 12:11									#61
	Tired of ads?

DanS -

quote: Not at all a pack full of lies. It's a very direct connection. If somebody buys crack, for instance, they are responsible for all of the acts down the line that got them that crack. Same too with oil, although the responsibility is scrubbed somewhat by the blind-buyer, blind-seller commodity market.

These "acts" were committed because of the illegality of drugs, that means the users are not to blame, but the people who created the black market with their laws. Am I also responsible for terrorism if I pay taxes and the politicians give that money to the Taliban? OBL and Al Qaeda have been in Afghanistan for quite a while after the embassy(s) and Cole attacks, yet the Congress was giving the Taliban our money after those attacks. It is a lie to accuse someone of funding terrorism when it is "government" policies that created the black market being used as a source of revenue. It's also the worst kind of hypocrisy, the kind used to hurt the innocent. Btw, where is the proof buying heroin will fund OBL now?

quote: Only a tenuous responsibility in that instance. By buying a pack of cigarettes, you are enabling further tobacco advertising.

"Tenuous"? C'mon! If no one bought cigarettes, millions would not have died from tobacco-related diseases, so buying cigarettes enabled more than just advertising. Of course, I don't think like you, people are responsible for their own actions so this "responsibility" you try to impose on the innocent is illusory IMO.

quote: But in the instance of drugs, the responsibility is much clearer. If you buy cocaine or crack cocaine, you directly trigger a long list of actions to supply you that cocaine, all of which are necessarily on the other side of the law.

"Necessarily"? The first "step" in this chain of events was making cocaine illegal in the first place thereby creating both the incentive of enormous profits and farmers growing the crop to seek out "protection" from people outside of the "government" attacking the farmers.

quote: Yes, it's illegal.

Clem didn't say it wasn't illegal or criminal, he said you're assuming it is inherently criminal. It isn't and nothing you said proves otherwise.

quote: Because of the ill effects of using it on a personal and societal basis, and the reasons for which it's used, I don't contemplate it ever being legal.

And that's where we get down to the immorality of the drug war. That because some people use a drug and hurt others - "society" - ALL people who use it are being punished (or would be if caught). Apply this logic to cars, guns, and so on, and we'd all either be in cages or guarding them.

quote: -"The reponsibility lies equally with the criminalizers."

quote: That sounds like a BS whitewash of drug use to me, clem.

No BS there! You are the one making arguments based on a "step by step" chain of events to indict drug users, but you ignored the first step that created the situation - criminalization!

quote: The representatives of the people have merely codified the people's wishes.

Irrelevant! Then those who "wished" for the results of codifying the laws they like - the black market and all it's nasty effects - should acknowledge what they've done instead of blaming people for exercising their freedom.

quote: These wishes seem reasonable because of the ill effects of drug use. Nobody wants crack heads taking over the neighborhood.

You mean like "crackheads" do now? When was the last time we had "speakeasies" in this country? Alcohol prohibition! How can you be surprised to see crackhouses under prohibition? It is immoral to put people in cages for using drugs because SOME drug users hurt others. I think you'd understand this if you were put in a cage because I murdered someone, true?

Imran -

quote: So, if you buy a pack of cigarettes then you are responsible for the deaths of those that die of lung cancer from cigs? How far do you go?

Far enough to "justify" incarcerating millions of people for using drugs not popular enough to be kept legal while trying to ignore the same "logic" when it comes to other potentially dangerous products like alcohol and tobacco.

"The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini

	04-02-2002 12:30									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I thought the commercial was very effective!

I'm going to stop all drug use now, because I know how much weed funds Osama Bin Laden's operations.

	04-02-2002 12:32									#63
	Suffering from ads?

Yep, even if you buy your weed from people growing it in their backyards, you are helping Bin Laden, because that was his plan. Getting Americans to do drugs because their trade towers are gone.

	04-02-2002 12:39									#64
	Remove this text

DanS -

quote: Imran: You can continue to paint a utopia where drug use it totally legal, but you ignore the fact that in no instance would drugs like crack cocaine be safe.

I tried it a few times with no noticable effect so I quit.

quote: Therefore, distribution for recreational use would be illegal in any event.

Then don't blame the users for the effects of it's criminalization.

quote: Re making sales of alcohol illegal, there's nothing stopping you. It is prohibited in many jurisdictions. I see nothing wrong with that.

And that's the problem with supporters of the drug war - they can't see the hypocrisy and immorality of putting millions of people in cages for what others do.

quote: Clem: You fall under the same spell as Imran. You can't get it through your thick skulls that this stuff can only be sold through illegal channels on a mass basis.

You're the one using circular arguments. Make drugs illegal and then blame the people who use the drugs for the results of the black market created by your action - making drugs illegal.

Dinodoc -

quote: For the most part, OBL himself and his connections in Saudia Arabia as you stated. He is a multi-millionaire from the Arab equivilant to the Rockefellers after all.

OBL, Al Qaeda and the Taliban got money from the US, the Saudis and Pakistan - and much of it was from oil proceeds. Does that mean oil users are responsible for the attacks? That is the logical implication of the ads, but one ignored by the ad's producers...

quote: Of course it has. That still doesn't change the truth value of the statement that the drug trade funds both criminal & terrorist organizations though. The only difference is the conclusions you draw from such a statement. The commercial drew the wrong one.

Where was the proof that buying pot or speed funded the terrorists? There is none, therefore the ad was dishonest.

	04-02-2002 18:08									#65
	Remove this text

Fine, let's all take a jaunt to happy-happy land. Where drug users don't hallucinate, don't OD, don't have their senses impaired, don't have an addiction far worse than addictions to other products, don't harm others while in an altered state of mind. Sure, then maybe we can legalize drugs, but until then, no.

Alcohol probably shouldn't technically be legal too. Tobbacco on the other hand, AFAIK only seriously hurts the user, and does not alter the mind, in which case I say one less idiot.

	04-02-2002 18:43									#66
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone Fine, let's all take a jaunt to happy-happy land. Where drug users don't hallucinate, don't OD, don't have their senses impaired, don't have an addiction far worse than addictions to other products, don't harm others while in an altered state of mind. Sure, then maybe we can legalize drugs, but until then, no.

The vast majority of drug users don't OD, don't hallucinate when driving or doing other things where being high is dangerous, don't harm others because of their highness, and most people who get killed by drugs are killed because of impurities or because they don't get the stuff they think they get. Seriously, most drugs I know of are no more harmful in any way than alcohol. I have my doubts about heroine and several other seriously addictive hard drugs, but tobacco and alcohol seem to be more addictive than speed, xtc, mushrooms or cocaine. Sure, all of them are harmful, especially when used very frequently, but that's no reason to outlaw them, just to tax them heavily in order to compensate for the costs they make on society. Good regulation anyway will decrease most of the problems you mentioned above, BTW. Just look at the Dutch marijuana policy as a good example of why you're wrong.

quote: Alcohol probably shouldn't technically be legal too. Tobbacco on the other hand, AFAIK only seriously hurts the user, and does not alter the mind, in which case I say one less idiot.

Good that you realise that alcohol is no better, but why do you think that alcohol should be outlawed too? Afraid of people deciding for themselves what they want to do with their body? And I'd appreciate it if you'd have a bit more respect for smokers, thank you.

BTW, Blue Monday is by New Order.

	04-02-2002 19:32									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I am glad to see people talking about these commercials. They are perfect Americana. I mean c'mon, they played them during the most watched show on the tele in the US. All these rural white dads and moms who have no clue about the global scene now are gonna go after little johnny j-bar smoker like he was in the taliban. Perfect. They now are trying to fan the flames of hatred and ignorance by capitalizing on our newfound cruisade vibrations and trying to carry these go get 'em sentiments into the ever-struggling war on drugs. Next comes the war on music and art, then perhaps a war on the homeless or two. Go America, Go Patriots, We're #1. You're son or daughter is a pothead, so crack down on them or they'll be the next John Lind. Gee, look at that Martha, the TV says drugs are the taliban....let's go get 'em!!! Wait for the big game to be over and for me to finish my beer first. *belch*

Ahhhh... america

-FMK.

	04-02-2002 19:42									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh I am glad to see people talking about these commercials. They are perfect Americana. I mean c'mon, they played them during the most watched show on the tele in the US. All these rural white dads and moms who have no clue about the global scene now are gonna go after little johnny j-bar smoker like he was in the taliban. Perfect. They now are trying to fan the flames of hatred and ignorance by capitalizing on our newfound cruisade vibrations and trying to carry these go get 'em sentiments into the ever-struggling war on drugs. Next comes the war on music and art, then perhaps a war on the homeless or two. Go America, Go Patriots, We're #1. You're son or daughter is a pothead, so crack down on them or they'll be the next John Lind. Gee, look at that Martha, the TV says drugs are the taliban....let's go get 'em!!! Wait for the big game to be over and for me to finish my beer first. *belch* Ahhhh... america -FMK.

Regardless of whether this commerical is true or not, I do agree with you - I forsee this "war on terrorism" to become something of a witchhunt, like how communism was treated during the coldwar.

	04-02-2002 22:50									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Berzerker, nothing is "inherently" criminal. Laws are made by lawmakers and in our country the lawmakers are voted into office by securing a majority of votes. There is no power from on high that deems criminality, except perhaps through common law.

Y'all seek to make this an individuals versus government argument, but you can't hide from the fact that the lawmakers and police are just carrying out the wishes of the majority. The majority hates drug use and is well within its rights to tell you that you can't use whatever it sees fit that you can't use--whether in your home or otherwise. If you use drugs, despite the fact that you know it's illegal, the "I don't think it's inherently illegal" defense will get you nowhere in any court that I know of and doesn't expiate your responsibility one iota.

The burden is on you to make the case that the minority should be protected from the will of the majority. Where will you find the reasoning to thwart the will of the majority?

The argument then goes on to the practical aspects of criminalization of various substances. This is the strongest argument for legalization and for some substances seems compelling. MJ, for instance, is used by a wide swath of society and seems on the lower end of nastiness. I think it highly unlikely that a going concern could survive the lawsuits that would result, but it's worth a look.

But for most other drugs, if you follow the practicalities down the line, you will see that this is just nasty sh!t--inherently unsafe products. Nobody, including the gov't, is going to make the bargain you're asking and sell these inherently unsafe products. It's just a fantasy "what if" of drug users! Certainly nothing to base a broad policy on.

Last edited by DanS on 04-02-2002 at 22:55

	04-02-2002 22:53									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Actually, the war on terrorism and war on drug run along a similiar vein, and that is the deluded belief that a TRULY free society can also be a TRULY safe one. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, if you believe that then you deserve neither.

I for one am sick and tired of my country turning into a nanny-state that bolsters a huge prison-industrial complex just so we can send the 'right message' to our youth. The Bill of Rights has been slowly eroded with law after law that is meant to save us from ourselves.

And the overall effect? Third-world destablization. Mass Imprisonments of the most disenfranchised in the US, with harsh sentences instead of treatment for those who truly want to help themselves. And from a public health perspective, a problem of pandemic proportions stemming DIRECTLY from Criminalization.

You can never be truly free and truly safe.

	04-02-2002 23:04									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: The burden is on you to make the case that the minority should be protected from the will of the majority.

Funny, I thought protecting the rights of the minority from the mob rule of the majority was what the Constitution was about .

quote: inherently unsafe products.

You mean like tobacco and alcohol? Can you start being consistent? If you make the case that marijuana and lsd should be illegal because they are unherantly unsafe, you should also be crusading for Prohibition again and an end to cigarettes.

	05-02-2002 00:48									#72
	Full PM-box? Change here!

"You mean like tobacco and alcohol?"

I am being consistent. Practically speaking (since we're talking practicalities here), these are another class of substances. They are ingrained in our society. Tobacco has been embedded in our culture for about 500 years, alcohol for time immemorial. But even with a 500 year head start, tobacco is quickly coming to be a business conducted on the other side of the law.

"Funny, I thought protecting the rights of the minority from the mob rule of the majority was what the Constitution was about"

Quite so. And those protections stand. But the constitution doesn't say anything about recreational drug use and distribution, as far as I know.

Look, it makes you feel good to be on the side of individual rights. But the argument is weak in this instance.

	05-02-2002 02:28									#73
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by DanS "Funny, I thought protecting the rights of the minority from the mob rule of the majority was what the Constitution was about" Quite so. And those protections stand. But the constitution doesn't say anything about recreational drug use and distribution, as far as I know.

Exactly. It says nothing. So where the hell does the power to outlaw substances YOU put into YOUR OWN BODY come from?

And how, exactly, do alcohol and tobacco constitute a "different class" of substances, apart from they being legal? They are every bit as deadly (or worse) as illegal drugs. People have been using illegal drugs (in various forms) for just as long as they've been using legal drugs.

	05-02-2002 02:51									#74
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Legal/Illegal aside, I found the commercials interesting in that there was a distinct shift in the message that the drug "war" had originally/previously been pushing. Originally it the approach was "don't do drugs because it really hurts you," to this new approach being "don't do drugs because it hurts other people." Certainly this new campaign has a much healthier dose of guilt injected into it than previous commericals.

	05-02-2002 04:31									#75
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

"Exactly. It says nothing. So where the hell does the power to outlaw substances YOU put into YOUR OWN BODY come from?"

Congress. Duly elected by the people.

"And how, exactly, do alcohol and tobacco constitute a "different class" of substances, apart from they being legal?"

A much greater %-age of our population use alcohol and tobacco than they do illegal drugs. MJ is more borderline. I would be willing to discuss it.

	05-02-2002 05:46									#76
	Tired of ads?

DanS

quote: Laws are made by lawmakers and in our country the lawmakers are voted into office by securing a majority of votes.

votes do not equal a majority of actual support for a candidate by the citizens of that area, first many citizens are prohibited from even being able to register to vote, people under 18, people with felony convictions and others, secondly many people who do have the right to register to vote don't, third many people who have registered don't vote, fourth many times voting is choosing between two evils instead of actually getting to make the choice you want, where is the none of the above category? plus because winning a majority of the votes almost invariably is only made possible by accepting vast sums of money from various special interest groups it is the interest groups and not the voters that really help dictate policy

quote: Y'all seek to make this an individuals versus government argument, but you can't hide from the fact that the lawmakers and police are just carrying out the wishes of the majority. The majority hates drug use and is well within its rights to tell you that you can't use whatever it sees fit that you can't use

i disagree, as pointed out above congress does not represent the will of the majority, and if you added up all of the people that have used either an illegal substance, or a legal substance illegally (including underage smoking and drinking), then i am sure you can say that more people have abused drugs than have voted for any president

probably the most widely abused drug in my area is OxyCotin, a prescription painkiller, of which the proceeds most certainly do not fund UBL, closely following OC abuse (possibly even surpassing) is weed, i live in a rural area and much of the weed comes from this area, funding rednecks not islamic revolutionaries
of course underage drinking and smoking easily surpass all illegal drug use, and morally it is on the same level with illegal drug use

quote: Duly elected by the people

the people have little to do with the election process, in the past presidential election, no candidate won a majority of the votes, and even the candidate who won a plurality of the votes lost


i am not a drug user, and i do agree with your fundamental point that many drugs are harmful to people, however i disagree with how to best manage the harm, i think that drug legalization is the best way to eliminate many of the risks and crimes associated with drug abuse, and it is certainly the most effective way to end terrorists making money off of drugs (which i think is overblown anyways); also when it comes to weed, it is less dangerous than alcohol, yet it is criminal to use it while beer ads run right along side "drugs fund terrorists" ads...it doesn't seem right to me

	05-02-2002 07:18									#77
	Increase the size of your Attachments

If drugs are legalized I will advocate for no health for them. It's their own goddamn fault they're ****ed up, and I refuse to pay for their mistakes. I already hold the drug community at large for any deaths caused by drug usage.

BTW, Korn, if you don't vote it's your own fault, if you don't find a candidate, it's your own fault (you can run on your own ticket for smaller offices), and special interest groups are really only used to sway about 10% of the people. 45% almost always vote Repub, and the last 45% almost always vote Dem., so you can start blaming your party for those faults you see. Although I agree that special interest funding should be drastically reduced.

	05-02-2002 07:38									#78
	Put an end to popups!

quote: They are ingrained in our society. Tobacco has been embedded in our culture for about 500 years, alcohol for time immemorial.

So they are ok because they are ingrained in our society? This is consistancy?

quote: Congress. Duly elected by the people.

So Congress has the right to violate the Right to Privacy that the USSC indicated existed in Griswold v. Connecticut?

quote: Look, it makes you feel good to be on the side of individual rights. But the argument is weak in this instance.

Actually the argument is very strong. If you want to be on the side of individual rights and individualism, then banning drugs is something that clashes with that view, and you have to reconsile that.

What is the argument? That the 'majority' believes that it should be banned? So is the majority always right? What about the South during the slavery period? Prohibition?

It is better for society? Aren't individual rights more important than societal rights if you believe in individualism (or capitalism).

	05-02-2002 08:33									#79
	Full PM-box? Change here!

DanS -

quote: Berzerker, nothing is "inherently" criminal. Laws are made by lawmakers and in our country the lawmakers are voted into office by securing a majority of votes.

Ever hear the phrase "crimes against humanity"? These were "legal" crimes committed by governments against the people as in Nazi Germany. Imagine we are part of a small group of people before government came into existence, and I murdered your family, would you react as if I had done nothing wrong? Of course not! Why? Because murder is inherently criminal.

quote: There is no power from on high that deems criminality, except perhaps through common law.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Either government "invented" crime by writing laws or government was invented to combat crime.

quote: Y'all seek to make this an individuals versus government argument, but you can't hide from the fact that the lawmakers and police are just carrying out the wishes of the majority.

I'm trying to "hide" from majority rule? Slavery was once "legal", does that make it right? Would you be extolling the virtues of majority rule if the majority enslaved your family?

quote: The majority hates drug use and is well within its rights to tell you that you can't use whatever it sees fit that you can't use--whether in your home or otherwise.

The majority has no rights, only individuals.

quote: If you use drugs, despite the fact that you know it's illegal, the "I don't think it's inherently illegal" defense will get you nowhere in any court that I know of and doesn't expiate your responsibility one iota.

Who said anything about "inherently illegal"?

quote: The burden is on you to make the case that the minority should be protected from the will of the majority. Where will you find the reasoning to thwart the will of the majority?

Our form of government is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The burden is on the victims to convince the perpetrators not to harm them?

quote: But for most other drugs, if you follow the practicalities down the line, you will see that this is just nasty sh!t--inherently unsafe products.

Are cigarettes inherently unsafe? I was unaware the Constitution allowed Congress to protect me from myself, maybe you can quote the Constitution.

quote: Nobody, including the gov't, is going to make the bargain you're asking and sell these inherently unsafe products.

Umm...drugs are being sold, so how can you claim nobody would sell them?

quote: Practically speaking (since we're talking practicalities here), these are another class of substances. They are ingrained in our society. Tobacco has been embedded in our culture for about 500 years, alcohol for time immemorial.

Marijuana was brought to the New World by Europeans - it has a much longer history in "our culture" than tobacco and was grown by George Washington among others.

quote: -"Funny, I thought protecting the rights of the minority from the mob rule of the majority was what the Constitution was about"

quote: Quite so. And those protections stand. But the constitution doesn't say anything about recreational drug use and distribution, as far as I know.

Make up your mind, first you tell us all about majority rule and then admit our system was not meant to be a democracy. The Constitution says nothing about eating ice cream either, that doesn't mean eating ice cream is not a right. The Bill of Rights was not meant to be a comprehensive list of our rights, that's why Madison added the 9th Amendment. Furthermore, the Constitution is a charter that enumerates certain powers to be exercised by the 3 branches of the federal government - and the Constitution contains NO congressional power to decide what we ingest beyond the Foreign and Interstate Commerce clauses. Btw, ever hear of the 1st Amendment? It says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Many people happen to use illegal drugs as part of their religions.

quote: Congress. Duly elected by the people.

So Congress can do whatever it wants? Why have a Constitution then?

	05-02-2002 08:46									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

DanS - One last point, the Constitution was amended to allow for the prohibition of alcohol. Why was amending the Constitution required if Congress and the majority can outlaw alcohol or any other "drug"? Because Congress doesn't have the constitutional power to ban drugs!

MacTBone -

quote: If drugs are legalized I will advocate for no health for them. It's their own goddamn fault they're ****ed up, and I refuse to pay for their mistakes.

Then I trust you won't try to compel me to pay for your health care. For all I know, you're a sugar "junkie" on the road to diabetes...

quote: I already hold the drug community at large for any deaths caused by drug usage.

Do you hold the alcohol and tobacco communities responsible for the millions of deaths caused by those products? I don't... I believe in personal responsibility, not "collective" responsibilities.

	05-02-2002 08:50									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

MacTBone

quote: Korn, if you don't vote it's your own fault, if you don't find a candidate, it's your own fault (you can run on your own ticket for smaller offices), and special interest groups are really only used to sway about 10% of the people. 45% almost always vote Repub, and the last 45% almost always vote Dem., so you can start blaming your party for those faults you see. Although I agree that special interest funding should be drastically reduced.

i don't belong to a party (no single party holds even the majority of my veiws), but i have voted in every election since i've turned 18 except for one in 96, including primaries most years, so far i voted in the republican primary in 2000 though i eventually ended up voting for Nader, and i voted in the democratic primary in 2001,

though even in your 45/45 figures were right, then special interest groups are only trying to buy a majority of the swing voters, so without proper funding even if you cover your party base and get the 45% from your party, the person who got all of the donations will beat you, even if 49% voted republican in every election, and 49% voted democratic, the politicians would still have to campaign to win the remaining 1%, and that would take money, and whoever had a bigger war chest would have a better chance of winning, and relying on well funded special interest groups would be the way to win elections, and while it might not completely make a candidate beholden to a group it certainly seems that way

	05-02-2002 11:58									#82
	Increase Your PM Length

"One last point, the Constitution was amended to allow for the prohibition of alcohol. Why was amending the Constitution required if Congress and the majority can outlaw alcohol or any other "drug"? Because Congress doesn't have the constitutional power to ban drugs!"

Says who? Berzerker? Congress has the authority, which has been tested in the Supreme Court many times. Even if the congress didn't have the authority, then the states would have the authority. This is a really bogus argument. The constitution offers only a fig leaf on these issues.

"Read the Declaration of Independence."

Is that case law?

"Are cigarettes inherently unsafe? I was unaware the Constitution allowed Congress to protect me from myself, maybe you can quote the Constitution. "

Sure, the congress is allowed to do it. They do it all the time. If they feel like it, they'll do it some more.

"Umm...drugs are being sold, so how can you claim nobody would sell them? "

I'm talking on the right side of the law. The liabilities for a legitimate business trying to sell this crap are just astounding.

"Marijuana was brought to the New World by Europeans - it has a much longer history in "our culture" than tobacco and was grown by George Washington among others."

While I recognize the validity of this argument, you've got a long row to hoe. What %-age of the populace are regular users? Compare to the %-age of tobacco and alcohol users and you can see why my practicality argument makes sense. Compare further to the %-age of regular cocaine users and you start to get a feel for what is practical and what isn't. It is perfectly practical to outlaw most drugs.

"So they are ok because they are ingrained in our society? This is consistancy? "

Imran: Sure, it's consistent. If everybody does it, then it's hard to make illegal. It would be like banning cannibalism in a cannibal tribe.

"So Congress has the right to violate the Right to Privacy that the USSC indicated existed in Griswold v. Connecticut?"

Why hasn't the USSC struck down all of these laws, if that's the case? Cert denied.

"That the 'majority' believes that it should be banned? So is the majority always right?"

Of course not. But normally what the majority says, goes. Re the slavery bit, that is a case in point supporting my argument. The majority, construed in its broadest scope, didn't want slavery. So they abolished it. Simple enough.

	05-02-2002 14:22									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

drugs are bad

why can't you people get a clue?

yes I know alcohol is bad as well. I don't make the laws, I just obey them.

I don't drink heavily or smoke either.

I don't do things that are harmful to me.

drug users are stupid. there I said it. what are you going to do about it.

	05-02-2002 21:22									#84
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dissident drug users are stupid. there I said it. what are you going to do about it.

I guess I'll go support some terrorists.

*Kaboom!*

-FMK.

	06-02-2002 04:53									#85
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

DanS -

quote: Says who? Berzerker?

Not me, the 18th Amendment. You still haven't explained why the 18th Amendment was required if Congress had the power to ban alcohol under the Constitution...

quote: Congress has the authority, which has been tested in the Supreme Court many times.

Who do you think confirms members of the Supreme Court. There is the Constitution and what it says, and there is what the Democrats and Republicans claim it says. Only people who don't care what the Constitution says would argue Congress has the authority because Congress says it has the authority - more circular "logic".

quote: Even if the congress didn't have the authority, then the states would have the authority.

That would depend on what the various state Constitutions said, and a number of states don't share the fed's desire to wage the war on drugs.

quote: This is a really bogus argument. The constitution offers only a fig leaf on these issues.

You're largely ignorant of the Constitution.

quote: Is that case law?

You claimed there was no power from on high determining what was or was not criminal, I merely pointed to the Declaration of Independence to show the Founding Fathers disagreed with you.

quote: Sure, the congress is allowed to do it. They do it all the time. If they feel like it, they'll do it some more.

Are you agreeing that cigarettes are inherently unsafe? If so, that refutes your claim that no one would sell inherently unsafe products. As for Congress, the fact they are doing something doesn't mean they have the constitutional authority.

quote: I'm talking on the right side of the law. The liabilities for a legitimate business trying to sell this crap are just astounding.

More astounding than the liabilities of alcohol and tobacco dealers? The fact we need tort reform is another matter.

quote: While I recognize the validity of this argument, you've got a long row to hoe. What %-age of the populace are regular users? Compare to the %-age of tobacco and alcohol users and you can see why my practicality argument makes sense.

Your position is not about practicality, it's about the comparative power of lobbies and voters and their "drugs" of choice. Practicality would have us ban alcohol and tobacco because they are the 2 deadliest drugs in the country.

quote: Imran: Sure, it's consistent. If everybody does it, then it's hard to make illegal. It would be like banning cannibalism in a cannibal tribe.

Then explain how the 18th Amendment was ratified.

quote: But normally what the majority says, goes.

Might makes right is not a moral argument.

quote: Re the slavery bit, that is a case in point supporting my argument. The majority, construed in its broadest scope, didn't want slavery. So they abolished it. Simple enough.

Why did it take centuries for a "majority" to make this decision?

Dissident -

quote: drug users are stupid. there I said it. what are you going to do about it.

I will applaud your bravery for insulting people from behind a computer.

	06-02-2002 04:55									#86
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Dissident drug users are stupid. there I said it. what are you going to do about it.

Agree with you.

	06-02-2002 05:55									#87
	Got spare money?

quote: Why hasn't the USSC struck down all of these laws, if that's the case? Cert denied.

Ask them while your at it why they've ripped apart the ****ing 4th Amendment!

quote: Of course not. But normally what the majority says, goes.

So that is right? What if the majority said alcohol was illegal? Oh wait, they did once!

	06-02-2002 06:05									#88
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Osweld quote: Originally posted by Dissident drug users are stupid. there I said it. what are you going to do about it. Agree with you.

Me too.

	06-02-2002 06:16									#89
	Support Apolyton

A relevant point worth considering revolves around the reasons why people use mind altering substances in the first place. Most of you are tackling this issue from a moral and legal perspective but little insight has been placed (aside from "drug users are stupid")in analyzing the motives behind drug use. Because I'm ignorant, maybe those of you who drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes/marijuana/crack, inhale cocaine and/or inject heroin, etc. choose to willfully consume a product that you very well know has harmful side effects on health in both the short and long terms. The question is sincere and not meant as a slight. I do not look down upon drug users but wonder what forces compel them to use drugs.

With that in mind, I was also wondering if anyone here can think of an example of a society wherein recreational drug use has been prohibited in its entirety with little to no deviance to that effect by its members. Is the curiousity aroused in the potential drug user produced by a natural force or by the structural and moral aspects of his/her society?

To those of you who live in Belgium or Amsterdam, how has the decriminalization of "soft" drugs affected the general ambience of your society and would you say your nation is better or worse off after the introduction of that legislation?

- Maj

	06-02-2002 06:20									#90
	Full PM-box? Change here!

"Because I'm ignorant, maybe those of you who drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes/marijuana/crack, inhale cocaine and/or inject heroin, etc. can explain why you choose to willfully consume a product that you very well know has harmful side effects on your health in both the short and long terms"

Proof read BEFORE you post you idiot :P

- "You"