| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
On June 01 2011 23:45 Albrithe wrote: I agree that some drugs shouldn't be just 'made legal' (coke, meth, heroin, you get the idea), but I can't take you seriously when you say tobacco isn't dangerous... Ok, let me rephrase. Ecstasy is TOO dangerous. Obviously both are dangerous. | ||
|
Hekisui
195 Posts
| ||
|
Morteth
United States59 Posts
| ||
|
thoradycus
Malaysia3262 Posts
 | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
I just wish people would be smart enough to not poison themselves with all variants of crap so we wouldn't need to waste time and resources trying to figure which drugs should be legal and which drugs shouldn't. Just stop being stupid and don't harm yourself, problem solved. | ||
|
Morteth
United States59 Posts
i think that would actually be a great educating tool, we're seeing things far more violent on tv and grotesque in video games, and we actually encourage our kids to see these movies every friday when a new movie pops up. seeing a junkie in his frail helpless condition would empower them, rather than instill some sick curiosity "dont do drugs, they're bad mmkay?" | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On June 01 2011 23:12 maartendq wrote: Gonna play the devil's advocate here: why should we fight addiction? Why should the tax payer spend money on people that became addicted to drugs? It's their own fault they got addicted, they knew it was bad for them yet they took drugs anywa. Why not just let those people rot away, they clearly showed no respect for life. This is NOT my opinion but I can imagine a lot of people thinking this way. The problem with legalizing drugs is exactly the same as with declaring war on it; they're essentially two opposites that have got one thing in common: they treat the symptom rather than the cause. The only reason to stop drug crime is to stop people from wanting to take them. Most people take drugs because they're miserable. Those who do it for fun are plain decadent (yes, that includes you, pot smokers and people who get drunk on a frequent basis) and should not even be cared about. If we were to find a way to get rid of the enormous poverty a huge part of the world's population is living in, ie. get them a decent job, drug use would plummit. If people are happy, they don't need pychedelics to make them feel better. We should fight addiction for the same reason we fight any socials ills: it costs us money not to fight it, and it makes life better for everyone. If we don't fight addiction, we will pay the cost of a weakened work force, crimes committed by people who messed up their lives, and all the other related problems. Also, it's like asking why we should fight poverty when it's clear that nobody who has poor has made the best possible decisions in their life, or why we should provide health care to people who don't make perfect diet decisions. People aren't born into equal situations with respect to education, being raised well, having money, etc., and people poor decisions/get fucked over despite making good decisions. It takes a lot of arrogance to be so certain that you'd come out any better if you were in their position, and it's just basic decency to not say "well fuck them, they're screwed." | ||
|
absalom86
Iceland1770 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On June 02 2011 02:06 Morteth wrote: I do agree that well thought out education could help the problem. But do you think quality education would be significant? Would enough people learn with it?i think they should bring crack heads into classes and junkies into middle school classes. and pretty much all ppl who are failures who are on a certain substance, they should also educate them that not necessarily the drug is responsible for them being failures (like in marijuana's example, many successful ppl do it). i think that would actually be a great educating tool, we're seeing things far more violent on tv and grotesque in video games, and we actually encourage our kids to see these movies every friday when a new movie pops up. seeing a junkie in his frail helpless condition would empower them, rather than instill some sick curiosity "dont do drugs, they're bad mmkay?" People have to be really in some monkey level intelligence to inject poison in their vein to feel cool for a few seconds. It's not like you can teach dumb people to be smarter "what you're doing is dumb, stop being dumb! Now! Be smarter! I'm telling you!". I'm a bit skeptic of how efficient that would be. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On June 02 2011 02:19 VIB wrote: I do agree that well thought out education could help the problem. But do you think quality education would be significant? Would enough people learn with it? People have to be really in some monkey level intelligence to inject poison in their vein to feel cool for a few seconds. It's not like you can teach dumb people to be smarter "what you're doing is dumb, stop being dumb! Now! Be smarter! I'm telling you!". I'm a bit skeptic of how efficient that would be. I guess it's nice to be so ignorant that you assume all your good qualities are a result of your own efforts, while the faults of others are because they're worthless and stupid. People don't just wake up and go "hey I want to trade 15 minutes of bliss twice a week for a lifetime of misery." It's a lot more complicated than that. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On June 02 2011 02:22 PJA wrote: That's the whole point, it's more complicated than that. Being dumb is just one of the many problems that make people use drugs. You cannot fix a person's economic, social and genetic problems with education. You cannot just tell someone "Be smarter, don't be born poor, stop having an unfortunate life". We can just close our eyes and hope education will magically solve the problem. Junkies won't just disappear if we teach them it's bad.I guess it's nice to be so ignorant that you assume all your good qualities are a result of your own efforts, while the faults of others are because they're worthless and stupid. People don't just wake up and go "hey I want to trade 15 minutes of bliss twice a week for a lifetime of misery." It's a lot more complicated than that. Some people are immune to education. | ||
|
Ziktomini
United Kingdom377 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On June 02 2011 02:22 PJA wrote: I guess it's nice to be so ignorant that you assume all your good qualities are a result of your own efforts, while the faults of others are because they're worthless and stupid. People don't just wake up and go "hey I want to trade 15 minutes of bliss twice a week for a lifetime of misery." It's a lot more complicated than that. ah, a refreshing message that people need to remind their selves of | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On June 01 2011 23:52 Deadlyfish wrote: Ok, let me rephrase. Ecstasy is TOO dangerous. Obviously both are dangerous. im sorry but, have you ever actually consumed ecstasy? do you even smoke? some of your posts are quite confusing. | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On June 01 2011 23:52 Deadlyfish wrote: Ok, let me rephrase. Ecstasy is TOO dangerous. Obviously both are dangerous. Stop lying please, that would be really respected. I have stated earlier, and I'm sure others have as well, tobacco is MORE harmful than ecstasy. Pure MDMA is pretty harmless, as long as you're not doing it all the time (if you do you're stupid). | ||
|
Eufouria
United Kingdom4425 Posts
On June 01 2011 21:21 Deadlyfish wrote: Hmm, you got a source of that graph? I'd like to know what the numbers are based on. Saying that tobacco is more dangerous than ecstasy is just... I dont know, plain wrong? Actually even though i'm not a doctor or anything, i KNOW that isnt true. Would you be more willing to use ecstasy than to smoke? Do you think it would be better for your health? http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/theglobe/globe201003/gl201003_p5.html This man was the chief adviser on drugs policy to the British government until he was sacked for making the same claims. Alcohol can be a pretty terrible drug and comparing the regulated alcohol that is sold and random street Ecstasy that is cut with an assortment of other drugs isn't a fair comparison. The number of people who have died due to Ecstasy is much lower than deaths from alcohol and tobacco and these deaths are, as far as I know, all caused from drugs cocktails, which would be far lass common if you could buy it pure, or from misuse, which would also be decreased if the war was shifted more to educating people. Nobody has ever died from just using cannabis, although there will have been deaths from intoxication in the same way there is with alcohol. I don't smoke, and I occasionally use MDMA (ecstasy), so I guess I would prefer using ecstasy over smoking even though you can't really compare them because even the most hardcore ecstasy user probably won't be taking it more than once or twice a week. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On June 02 2011 03:07 PanN wrote: Wrong + Wrong = RightStop lying please, that would be really respected. I have stated earlier, and I'm sure others have as well, tobacco is MORE harmful than ecstasy. Pure MDMA is pretty harmless, as long as you're not doing it all the time (if you do you're stupid). It's a branch from Classic Logic called Junkie Logic. Very popular in pro drugs debates  | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
On June 02 2011 03:07 PanN wrote: Stop lying please, that would be really respected. I have stated earlier, and I'm sure others have as well, tobacco is MORE harmful than ecstasy. Pure MDMA is pretty harmless, as long as you're not doing it all the time (if you do you're stupid). Oh ok, so my opinion = lying? What. I think ecstasy is too dangerous. How is that lying? Or is it lying saying that both ecstasy and tobacco are dangerous? And no. I've never done any drug and never drank any alcohol. But that is irrelevant anyways. Unless you wanna go ask a junkie about medical science? :D Edit: And thanks to the guy who linked the source Hmm. According to him (professor Nutt, lol), alchohol is more dangerous than heroin. And cannabis is more dangerous than meth? I'm sorry, that makes zero sense to me : / | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On June 02 2011 03:15 VIB wrote: Wrong + Wrong = Right It's a branch from Classic Logic called Junkie Logic. Very popular in pro drugs debates I didn't present that argument, but thanks for assuming so, makes you look really nice and cute. My point is, he said ecstasy is TOO dangerous, implying it's more dangerous than tobacco, which is a lie. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On June 02 2011 03:25 PanN wrote: I didn't say you did I didn't present that argument, but thanks for assuming so, makes you look really nice and cute. My point is, he said ecstasy is TOO dangerous, implying it's more dangerous than tobacco, which is a lie. Just took the opportunity to quote you because I <3 you ^^ | ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Other Games gofns16901 summit1g10624 Liquid`RaSZi1819 singsing1705 XaKoH  396C9.Mang0233 Maynarde132 NeuroSwarm66 ViBE26 |
|
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
YoungYakov vs Lambo
SHIN vs TBD
Percival vs Shameless
Solar vs TBD
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Invitational
CranKy Ducklings
IPSL
TerrOr vs IJ_Terran
rasowy vs Hazorath
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
