 |
| |
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Actually, no. Where's your proof? Do you want me to run down a list of the negatives wrought by the drug war? I can if you want. All these negatives MUST be outweighed by your utter lack of proof for your statement to be true. First and foremost, you need to show that pot consumption would radically increase and you can't even show that using US history (when all drugs were legal) or contemporary history in those countries where pot is legal or ignored. |
I WASN'T STATING IT AS A FACT, GODBLEEPIT!!!
*sigh*
You had made a stupid quibble as to my wording, I corrected it.
quote:
My knees are blown out from all the sports I've played, and I'm hardly alone. There are countless former athletes suffering from the effects of too much time on the playing field. Now, what permanent damage was done to me by pot or other drugs? Nada, at least nothing I can see or feel. Would you like to compare the effects of all illegal drugs to just one legal drug? Great! Let's look at all the people with diabetes induced by processed sugar. Then we can look at those graveyards filled with former cigarette smokers and alcoholics. |
Sports are a behavior, not a substance. The analogy doesn't work and doesn't apply.
quote:
Nonsense! They didn't become more likely to try other drugs because they tried one, they were more likely to try other drugs for the same reason they tried the first one - that's their nature just as it is the nature of athletes to try other sports. |
No, after being convinced that they aren't harmed at all by a gateway drug, the next logical step is for them to believe that a slightly more dangerous drug won't harm them all that much... and so on.
quote:
Never said it was, can you stick to what I did say instead of inventing stuff? Btw, sure it's okay to use tobacco, your freedom doesn't require my approval or permission. I can advise against it, but I sure won't put you in a cage for your well-being.  |
You've been inventing stuff too. You somehow complain about my stance on alcohol and tobacco, despite the fact that I have CLEARLY STATED that I am against them.
quote:
There's a difference? Physically or physiologically, they both mean a physical addiction. |
There is no such thing as a "physical" addiction. It is psychological or chemical (chemical can be called physiological). Physical would imply measurable forces acting on your body to force you to consume more of the drug 
quote:
Addiction use to mean physical withdrawals, but it has been expanded to include "psychological" withdrawals, i.e., "bummer, I have no more pot". That ain't addiction and I reject the BS thrown around by "psychologists" who are trying to call just about every desire under the sun an "addiction". |
However, there IS a physiological effect when you stop using marijuana. Because the dendrites have set themselves to interpreting a certain level of neurotransmitters as the norm, they will react in alarm if neurotransmitter levels drop back down to the true norm.
quote:
"Seriously"? Where's the proof? I knew a woman who drank tea during her pregnancy and the result was a highly agitated new born who cried constantly. The fact is pregnant women ingest all sorts of things that effect their babies. A Canadian team of doctors did a study on the effects of alcohol, tobacco, and crack cocaine on fetus'. Their findings? By far, alcohol was the worst and tobacco and crack had similar effects. |
So it's absolutely fine for them to smoke, drink, and use marijuana while pregnant, because Hey, I'm doing stuff that could hurt it anyway?
quote:
Is that damage permanent? Like I said, my brain cells are mine, not yours, so butt out. Your argument is dis-ingenuous since your reaction to us killing our brain cells is harassment, even jail. So don't persecute people in the name of helping them. |
Yes, the damage can often be permanent. The effects can wear off, but often do not. Even if they do wear off, they never go away completely. It's like a stroke - you could be paralyzed forever, regain some motor functions, or regain all of them, but still have a little difficulty (though in the case of marijuana you aren't paralyzed).
And the goal isn't to protect the people who are already lost to it; the goal is to protect people who aren't from the ones who are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
Fez,
quote:
Because drug use is morally repulsive, I don't see a problem with executing drug users possessing more than 200 grams of marijuana or other illicit drugs where ever they are. |
Drug use is morally repulsive? Why?
Further, many people will also say that homosexuality is morally repulsive. A great many people. Should we execute people for being homosexuals?
The real question is, "On what do you base your sense of morality?" Another question is, "Why is it that smoking pot is morally repulsive but shooting someone for smoking pot is not morally repulsive?" I mean, stealing is morally repulsive, but we don't shoot people for it, right?
What I'm getting at is that "morally repulsive" is not a good enough reason to ban something, unless you can define a set of absolute morals. I believe that absolute morals exist, but I also believe that you aren't able to adequately define any 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
Skywalker,
quote:
You've been inventing stuff too. You somehow complain about my stance on alcohol and tobacco, despite the fact that I have CLEARLY STATED that I am against them. |
You are against alcohol and tobacco, or you think they should be illegal?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
Why would a law against alcohol be impossible?
Oh, you mean that ENFORCEMENT would be impossible, right? Well, I have two responses to that. First of all, if something is WRONG, shouldn't it be illegal regardless of enforcement potential? At the very least, punish those you catch, right? Secondly, hasn't the WoD proven to us that laws against drugs are ultimately unenforceable? Drugs are still incredibly rampant in the US, despite years and years of the WoD.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanielXY
|
|
Germany
Dec 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
How about we implant everyone at birth a device that sends, as soon as some illegal subtance is used, signals to the nearest police station to arrest the offender?
In the fez version we could of course just have the device to explode instead of sending any signals.
Maybe this way drug laws can be truly enforct....
Other than that its a lost battle anyways
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
We aren't talking about SCOTUS, we're talking about right and wrong. If an act is absolutely wrong, in this case, drinking or smoking pot, then shouldn't there be a law against it? Why should enforceability matter, when the real question is right and wrong?
Further, saying the WoD can be successful is sort of like saying that Prohibition could have been successful. That's utterly false - the WoD can't be successful because too many people want to do drugs. The demand is too high, and no amount of government programs are going to change that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
How about we seriously encrease enforcement and penalties towards MINORS. |
How about we let parents be responsible for the punishment of their children, when their children commit non-coercive acts?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Because most of the parents today are hardly more responsible than their children. |
That's your opinion. Would you say that parents who let their children drink at home are irresponsible? Would you say that parents in Europe who let their kids drink in pubs are irresponsible?
Further, why is it any of your business? We've already established that the act of drinking doesn't hurt anyone. It can't. Obviously, what you do while drunk can harm people, and that's why we have laws against drunk driving. But saying that me having a beer hurts someone else is patently ridiculous.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Because the POINT of passing a law is to stop the activity you are making illegal. If you can't stop the activity anyway, why bother? You will expend effort to no gain. Save the effort for things that will work. |
Laws against murder don't stop murder, unless you buy into the argument that laws are a deterrent. They really aren't, by and large. So by your argument, we shouldn't have any laws. Obviously the laws don't stop crime, because we still have a crime rate.
Now, you might argue that laws REDUCE the crime rate to some degree, but I'd turn around and argue that a law against alcohol would DECREASE the drinking rate to some degree.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
We've established that drinking doesn't hurt people? When? Alcohol causes liver damage (and IIRC brain damage). |
It can potentially hurt YOU, but so what? You can do any number of things that can put your life in danger. Excessive cholesterol can cause heart attacks. Sugar is very bad for you. Caffeine is drug like in its properties. These are just a few examples, and we aren't even getting into examples such as extreme sports.
The point is, what business is it of the government what you do TO YOURSELF?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
THis guy sounds like he will crack down on drugs so its a good choice. As for those of you who approve of drug use you only hate the person because he wants to take your pot away. Drugs are harmfull to society and cause a lot of problems. THey are harmfull to your health, and cause harmfull addictions. Why do you want to say to people its all right to use this crap??
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
In all of your examples, the substances have a far lower toxicity level than alcohol. |
Really? So heart attacks as a result of high cholesterol don't kill tens of thousands of people each year?
quote:
We're trying to do it because it could completely destroy our society. If we legalise all drugs like you say then within a generation 90% of middle-aged Americans will be drug addicts (hyperbole, yes, but not much). |
That's incredibly wrong. 90% of the people I know wouldn't even TOUCH anything harder than marijuana, legal or not. In any case, even if your statistic is right, if 90% of the population is addicted to drugs, isn't that their choice? Why should the government step in and say, "Sorry, even though 90% of you want to do this non-coercive act, we're going to throw you all in prison for it."?
But seriously, man. 90%?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
Jack,
quote:
Why do you want to say to people its all right to use this crap?? |
I'm not saying it's all right for people to do drugs. I'm saying it's not all right for the government to tell them they can't.
Skywalker,
quote:
The difference is, how many people are going to start doing that (and IIRC it is illegal btw)? Drugs are far more worrisome. |
Sorry, this argument fails. Wrong is wrong is wrong. If something is wrong, it should be banned, right? Even if there was only gonna be 1 murder per year, shouldn't murder still be illegal?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Really? So heart attacks as a result of high cholesterol don't kill tens of thousands of people each year? |
They have a lower toxicity level and a higher usage level. And they aren't addictive, unless you consider food an addictive drug
quote:
That's incredibly wrong. 90% of the people I know wouldn't even TOUCH anything harder than marijuana, legal or not. In any case, even if your statistic is right, if 90% of the population is addicted to drugs, isn't that their choice? Why should the government step in and say, "Sorry, even though 90% of you want to do this non-coercive act, we're going to throw you all in prison for it."?
But seriously, man. 90%? |
First, notice I said hyperbole, and within a generation 90% of MIDDLE-AGED (i.e., the teenagers right now). I'm a member of that demographic. A lot of high schooler around here, a LOT, would use drugs if they didn't think they'd get in trouble. A lot DO use drugs. Luckily, I go to a science and tech magnet school, so drugs aren't a problem.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2003 07:15
.
|