| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Jombozeus
China1014 Posts
On June 01 2011 03:52 Parnage wrote: You also can't say cocaine,meth,Heroine, and every other "hard" drug is bad but Weed is fine. Please explain why I cannot do that before you make a conclusion based on that assumption. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Of course that'd require efforts that's about as likey as an internet campaign ending the War on Drugs in the first place. Yeah because what you're talking about is so very familiar, to the point where I think you're trolling. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On June 01 2011 03:51 DeepElemBlues wrote: what is this i dont even foods? also real lsd fucks you up way more than salvia, back in the day owsley stuff legalize weed legalize lsd legalize ecstasy hell legalize mescaline why not keep most of the rest illegal sorry cocaine and opium products are very powerful there are things that more powerful than your body and they are among those things. you dont think you can handle a thousand pound rock being dropped on your head just because you want it to be that way it's the same way with drugs that have a really powerful and deleterious effect on your body. I haven't actually done acid. But from what I hear Salvia and acid are both powerful, just different effects. Maybe LSD is more intense in huge doses. But then again huge doses of salvia are probably nuts too. The main difference is how short salvia is. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Coraz
United States252 Posts
quit using our tax money on pointless police state operations, and quit gunning us down in our own homes, federal government | ||
|
Albrithe
Canada187 Posts
On June 01 2011 03:52 Parnage wrote: Ugh, how can any sane person support this? You can't legalize something and make it go away and everything will be better. You can't say Meth is fine now and suddenly you'll stop seeing Meth lab explosion stories in the newspaper or the story of the guy full of PCP who tries to go on a rampage in public. You also can't say cocaine,meth,Heroine, and every other "hard" drug is bad but Weed is fine. The stoner imagery so popularized in film exists for a reason I've seen it, you've seen it and it's really kinda sad when you think about it. Instead of ending a War of Drugs, why not actually have a real drug enforcement policy. Users need to be treated, sellers need to be jailed, and producers need to realize it's not profitable for them. You do that by removing the userbase and making it too expensive to produce due to the risks involved. Of course that'd require efforts that's about as likey as an internet campaign ending the War on Drugs in the first place. The problem is, despite everything we have been doing, it IS profitable. It's been shown over the past 50 years that spending all this money on policing isn't working. To remove the crimes lords you have to take what they sell, educate people on the risks, and sell purer products at a cheaper price. Through legalization, professionals can refine manufacturing processes to remove costs, to lower prices below crime-lords'. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
I haven't actually done acid. But from what I hear Salvia and acid are both powerful, just different effects. Maybe LSD is more intense in huge doses. But then again huge doses of salvia are probably nuts too. The main difference is how short salvia is. well its really hard to find real, strong LSD unless you *know people* or whatever, i guess. but i've spoken with people who were doing it back in the 50s and early 60s when it was legal and then in the late 60s and later following the grateful dead tours when and where illicit production was still going strong, and they all say that when you ate a hit back then, you were out of it, hard, maybe not exactly the same way people are with salvia today but definitely with the intensity. As for parnage to "remove the user base" would require detaining in some fashion 4-6 million people just for frequently or habitually using drugs, which would be grossly unacceptable to the American people, when their sons and daughters and uncles and cousins and neighbors get dragged away to "remove the user base" and get "treatment" until drug-selling is no longer "profitable." And that's not even thinking about alcohol use because you can't separate the two when it comes to the treatment problem. It's crazy. | ||
|
laste
Bulgaria242 Posts
On June 01 2011 03:51 DeepElemBlues wrote: what is this i dont even foods? also real lsd fucks you up way more than salvia, back in the day owsley stuff legalize weed legalize lsd legalize ecstasy hell legalize mescaline why not keep most of the rest illegal sorry cocaine and opium products are very powerful there are things that more powerful than your body and they are among those things. you dont think you can handle a thousand pound rock being dropped on your head just because you want it to be that way it's the same way with drugs that have a really powerful and deleterious effect on your body. Yes foods, preservatives, artificial colourants or sweeteners like aspartame that have been banned in some countries but are still used it quite a few places. The hard stuff should not be legal and sold freely, I'm trying to say that its better to educate people rather than scare them with jail or whatever. You can probably get fucked with the right combo of dish-wash liquid, but you don't see people abusing that, because they know its stupid. Also I believe the 200x salvia extract is more potent than acid, but I'm not expert nor have I tried LSD. | ||
|
Zinnwaldite
Norway1567 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Yes foods, preservatives, artificial colourants or sweeteners like aspartame that have been banned in some countries but are still used it quite a few places. im just saying the analogy is really really weak, that's a matter of possible biological predisposition towards bad reactions to those artificial substances and a dose of nanny-statism thrown in. Also I believe the 200x salvia extract is more potent than acid, but I'm not expert nor have I tried LSD. well shit man i'm sure 200 hits of acid are more powerful than 1 hit you know what i mean | ||
|
tdynasty
Canada220 Posts
You would think society would have learned from the prohibition with the mass influx of criminal control over the "Booze" Market... Why not just make Drug purchasing/consumption require a License like a Permit. You wanna do Smoke weed, get a Permit. You want to Quit? Revoke your permit. All I know is, making something illegal is not an effective way of dealing with something you don't want in your publics hands.... All I know, is I am ALL for public control over anything. The way I see it, monopoly over consumer products, comes in many forms. If you parallel, corporations, the drug trade, empires. All of these bodies serve only to generate money on the back of its subjects, simply just creating rules and forcing their will. In my mind, this is another small step towards a better human society. Al though, I really hope most common illegal drugs don't become like tabacco and exploited and manipulated for profit.... | ||
|
Cragus
Canada144 Posts
On June 01 2011 03:34 RoosterSamurai wrote: How would legal drugs such as meth, heroin, cocaine, etc go along with universal healthcare? I'm just curious. A lot of dangers associated with illegal drug use are associated with the uncertain quality of street drugs (cocaine cut with other substances, heroin much purer than one is used to causing overdoses, etc.) or unsafe usage procedures (dirty needles is the classic example). That is not to say that hard drug abuse (particularly chronic hard drug abuse) isn't dangerous, but acute side effects are a lot less likely with safer supplies and usage methods. By legalizing and regulating hard drugs, some of those dangers can be marginalized. Insite (safe injection site in Vancouver) has actually been found to have saved more money than it has cost to operate for instance (I would be remiss if i didn't mention that there is some debate over this, but a majority of reputable sources do seem to support Insite's efficacy). On a semi-related note, I would really like to see anti-drug programs move from a fire-and-brimstone approach to a more educational style. A lot of people seem to completely disregard the message of DARE et al as soon as they run across drug abusers and notice that most of them are not as low-functioning and hopeless as DARE suggests. I would much rather see a lot more education on the specific dangers of drug abuse. I cannot believe how many people I have met that think they can drive on drugs, even people that would never dream of driving after drinking. Or similarly, the people that combine drugs without realizing that they could be greatly increasing their personal risk. For instance, a friend of one of my friends' sisters' died after drinking alcohol while on DXM. If he had been taught that taking two CNS depressants is absurdly dangerous, perhaps he would be still alive (at least he would have had the knowledge even if he chose to ignore it, which i think is a lot more valuable than only knowing that the instructor said drugs will ruin your life). | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On June 01 2011 04:20 Cragus wrote: A lot of dangers associated with illegal drug use are associated with the uncertain quality of street drugs (cocaine cut with other substances, heroin much purer than one is used to causing overdoses, etc.) or unsafe usage procedures (dirty needles is the classic example). That is not to say that hard drug abuse (particularly chronic hard drug abuse) isn't dangerous, but acute side effects are a lot less likely with safer supplies and usage methods. By legalizing and regulating hard drugs, some of those dangers can be marginalized. Insite (safe injection site in Vancouver) has actually been found to have saved more money than it has cost to operate for instance (I would be remiss if i didn't mention that there is some debate over this, but a majority of reputable sources do seem to support Insite's efficacy). On a semi-related note, I would really like to see anti-drug programs move from a fire-and-brimstone approach to a more educational style. A lot of people seem to completely disregard the message of DARE et al as soon as they run across drug abusers and notice that most of them are not as low-functioning and hopeless as DARE suggests. I would much rather see a lot more education on the specific dangers of drug abuse. I cannot believe how many people I have met that think they can drive on drugs, even people that would never dream of driving after drinking. Or similarly, the people that combine drugs without realizing that they could be greatly increasing their personal risk. For instance, a friend of one of my friends' sisters' died after drinking alcohol while on DXM. If he had been taught that taking two CNS depressants is absurdly dangerous, perhaps he would be still alive (at least he would have had the knowledge even if he chose to ignore it, which i think is a lot more valuable than only knowing that the instructor said drugs will ruin your life). But do you think universal healthcare would be fair if taxpayers were also bearing the burden of an unavoidable increase in hospitalizations due to drug-related sickness? I'm not arguing whether or not regulated drugs are safer, or more dangerous or anything. I just want to know what effect it will take on universal healthcare. And whether or not it is fair for taxpayers to support yet another dangerous vice (first smoking, then alcohol, then hard drugs). | ||
|
HansK
249 Posts
| ||
|
Gardel
Mexico220 Posts
 tyyyyyyy | ||
|
Irrelevant
United States2364 Posts
| ||
|
Zeburial
Sweden1126 Posts
On June 01 2011 04:30 HansK wrote: The consequences for drugs is far too light in order to make our current policy's work. In places such as Singapore the penalty for having [a certain amount] of drugs is death and it's a fairly low amount. I can assure you the drug rate there is next to none and a large portion of that is just because of the penalty alone. and do you think that's a fair penalty for someone who just smoked some weed? You really think thats a good penalty? "Do as we want, else we will kill you!", kinda sounds like north korea | ||
|
Irrelevant
United States2364 Posts
On June 01 2011 03:34 RoosterSamurai wrote: How would legal drugs such as meth, heroin, cocaine, etc go along with universal healthcare? I'm just curious. You do realize there is 12times more ER visits on average per year from legal painkiller OD's than any other drug in the world? | ||
|
Spidinko
Slovakia1174 Posts
On June 01 2011 04:42 Irrelevant wrote: You do realize there is 12times more ER visits on average per year from legal painkiller OD's than any other drug in the world? Great point. Obviously I'm being facetious. If you could develop a drug akin to cocaine, would you? Since there are other drugs more harmful anyway... Getting rid of cocaine would help. So why not? | ||
|
Irrelevant
United States2364 Posts
On June 01 2011 04:47 Spidinko wrote: Great point. Obviously I'm being facetious. If you could develop a drug akin to cocaine, would you? Since there are other drugs more harmful anyway... Getting rid of cocaine would help. So why not? We already have and many of them are legal with nothing more than a doctor visit. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
|
|
|
EPT
