May be getting arrested shortly - Page 7

On August 06 2009 14:36 Aegraen wrote:


No, I just guess all those documentaries with drug addicts who have such a shitty semblence of life and contribute absolutely nothing to society is made up.

I'm just wondering. Do you enjoy life when you are not doped up on narcotics? There is so much more to this world than pursuing the path you have chosen. In the end, its your decision, but don't play it off as if drugs are some introspective substance that cause no harm.

Oh yeah, since the drugs are so harmless, how come its so easy to OD with drugs like Crack, PCP, Meph, Cocaine, etc.

To deny drugs are harmful is quite frankly to be a completely misinformed ignorant. I shoot straight from the hip and tell it like it is, don't shoot the messenger for the message.

On August 06 2009 15:59 sArite_nite wrote:
Hey I just thought of something. Are those in the US who looked at this thread now accessories to the crime by not telling the police? Obstruction of justice or something, withholding of knowledge or a crime?

On August 06 2009 15:29 eMbrace wrote:
I know long time drug users who say "fuck no" to things like cocaine and heroin...

so maybe they aren't too safe.....i'm probably wrong though...

On August 06 2009 06:27 Frits wrote:
who the hell cares about drug dealers



If you legalize drugs it wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is illegally, the profit drug dealers make on it is very very large.

Drug dealers exploit addicts and ruin their lives, and then act like they're actually helping them.

On August 06 2009 12:13 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:


why would anyone do a bunch of illegal dangerous shit to move a legal product? do you see gangs of bandits with guns a-blazing robbing liquor stores to sell liquor to people? no, because people can go to the liquor store themselves, they don't need someone to steal it or grow it or force slave labor to refine it before they get theirs.

like, gangsters making and selling and fighting over liquor supplies ended immediately when prohibition ended in the US. i doubt that's an accurate analogy these days, but it's better than hypothetical situations

On August 07 2009 00:09 Boblion wrote:
You are talking like if alcohol = marijuana = hero = coke = ... like if all those substances were the same.
They aren't.

On August 07 2009 00:35 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
sell it for more ketamine duh

On August 09 2009 04:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think we have a moral obligation to deliberately break laws that are harmful to society as they will not be changed if people keep obeying them

I also think drug laws are to a large degree downright retarded in most of the western world

On August 09 2009 05:17 duckett wrote:


I don't get this philosophy. Doesnt it require you to assume that your perspective is somehow superior to that of those who made the law? What do you know about society? Isnt your exposure to the pros and cons of the issue somewhat biased and certainly not a scholarly, academic pursuit?

I know someone who smokes pot because she thinks it should not be illegal, steals because she does not believe people should have to pay for food, etc. Where do you draw the line that separates you from the people who lynch people because they think that the laws protecting those people are harmful to society?

On August 09 2009 04:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think we have a moral obligation to deliberately break laws that are harmful to society as they will not be changed if people keep obeying them

I also think drug laws are to a large degree downright retarded in most of the western world

However I also think that dealing hard drugs cannot be morally defended through the claim that it is a victimless crime, because it is anything but this, so whatever, some sort of punishment sounds reasonable for that

another however however, the american legal system is so fucked up anyone not deliberately attempting to hurt others prolly deserves to escape it.

On August 09 2009 06:47 duckett wrote:
Just to expand on your last point, do you know the statistics for marginal change in weed usage due to illegalization? Do you know the marginal contribution to academic decay this change would cause and what marginal costs to human standard of living due to wasted potential that this decay would result in? Do you know that most of the drugs that may "expand mental horizons" also encourage the development of existing mental diseases and what cost to society that that causes? Do you understand what the neuro-physiological effects of weed are, or did you just hear that smoking it is not that big a deal? Finally, define "monsterously wrong."

If I was going to make decisions that affect others and society, I would not refer to what the product of my outdated evolutionary genetic coding and my limited personal experience find to be "monstrous" as the only things I don't allow. What remains, then, is that we don't rock the boat unless we know there aren't sharks in the water. American socialization often runs counter to this, and I find that rather disturbing.

The underlying problem with your philosophy (to me) remains that you assume that your judgment of "what happens if everyone did it?" is accurate, a view which is flawed as in the example I mentioned above.

On August 09 2009 08:00 Liquid`Drone wrote:
less people smoke in holland than in usa and since legalization the average heroin addict has become like 15 years older (indicating that creating a clear separation between hard and soft drugs seriously hampers recruitment into hard-drug environments)

either way though like I said, my previous post was a (gross) simplification, obviously if you want to go on accord with the law (which in western countries will always have some form of justification, even if I disagree with it) you need to do some serious contemplation before doing so and whatever arguement you form needs a lot more thought put into it than what I can write in two paragraphs. smoking hash / weed is actually the only area where I have 0 qualms about breaking the law as a general rule (or to be more precise, while I don't use any other drugs the legal status of them has 0 impact on this decision) - and it's also a subject I have literally spent hundreds of hours contemplating. I think western law is generally sound - but I think always blindly following the law (which is the alternative to being willing to disregard it based on personal contemplation) is also equal to for example, admitting that you would accept what happened in germany prior to and during WW2..

On August 09 2009 09:05 duckett wrote:
I never said drugs should be avoided in those words, and I don't know where you got my concern for the "broken people."

My argument against Liquid Drone was based on the concept of deliberately breaking laws because you feel they are unjust.ieTo go into Nazi territory (it is a relevant historical example, after all, of social policy going wrong on a large scale because of effective but almost universally reprehensible leadership)...You want to be in a place right now where your philosophy/decision making strategy ("personal contemplation") would lead you to not kill Jews. However, you fail to make the transformations of character necessary to put yourself in the context of the example: to ask yourself "would I kill a Jew in 1940s Germany" you have to assume that you are first in 1940s Germany. If you were, your process of "personal contemplation" (the combination of, as I stated, outdated evolutionary goals genetically encoded into your character, and the limited personal experience you possess (which may or may not include inspiring experiences with those same figures who polarized millions of other German citizens)) might be less morally palatable.