|
On November 19 2013 08:18 Vasoline73 wrote:
Making a real drug policy would be very complex or at least be the cause of much debate and discussion.
Personally I think it would be cool if we did... cigs at 18, alcohol at 21 (stupid USA), weed 21, LSD/shrooms/mescaline at 30, opiates at 60, meth at 100, etc ^^. By the time you get to 60 you should hopefully have enough life experience to handle opiates responsibly ^^. And likely need the pain relief medically anyways. Meth at 100 will be looked at as a beautiful ceremony for those lucky enough to live up to it. This will keep hard drugs away from our youth better than the current system.
Lol. Mostly joking... although I think an age limit for approved psychedelics would be a reasonable way to handle that class of drug. Opiates and stims obviously are much more difficult from a public health standpoint. Maybe opiate vacation spa's or something. Check in for a week, put your name on a list, enjoy your opiates under care and supervision of trained medical staff who inform you of the danger of long term opiate addiction, last 2/3 days of the week they taper you off, and then you can't go to another opiate club for 3 months or something. Obviously that could create problems as well though if people sneak out opiate supplies or steal them etc.
Just throwing out various brainstorm ideas. Nothing too serious.
Psychs at 30? :<
|
On November 19 2013 09:37 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2013 07:03 Reason wrote:On November 07 2013 07:00 Saryph wrote:On November 07 2013 06:57 Reason wrote:On November 07 2013 06:54 Saryph wrote:
It should be obvious to murder people who report crimes to the police, because you don't agree with the laws? And you say I'm the one with the problem? Sensationalism. Try harder or don't bother at all please. How is it sensationalism? Did you even read what you typed? You suggested MURDERING someone for exactly that. You're so caught up in defending drug use and fighting the government that you don't realize exactly how horrible of a thing you're suggesting. To clarify for you, my position on this is not clear however I think that the position most people are taking, yourself included, is a little close-minded...[took out some stuff]... The crime is eating a chocolate bar. The punishment is death. You are a chocolate bar dealer. Someone has a list of 100 people that bought chocolate bars from you and is threatening to expose them to the police. I'd say there's good argument for killing this person before they manage to successfully report these heinous crimes... Mhm, interesting, I enjoy discussing analogies. But I think the answer to the chocolate analogy (and the real case) is dependent on a bunch of other issues that people probably disagree about. 1) What is the punishment for eating the chocolate? If it's death, I think (and I would imagine others would agree) you have a very strong case for killing the guy. If it's a small fine, significantly less so. Drug dealing, of course, falls somewhere in the middle. 2) How many people are being affected? Is there some point where you say "I'm willing to let X people get some punishment, but Y people is simply too many"? Were there enough innocents caught up in this relative to the guilty? Were any guilty by any objective standard? 3) What is your obligation to follow laws that don't coincide with your personal moral system? Is there any? If so, to what extent? I personally believe killing is always (basically, lol...) wrong, except for self-defense, so I would naturally say what he did was wrong. And I think abetting addictions is wrong, so I don't have much sympathy for the dealers of the harder drugs. But it's kind've hard to prove morals and ethics right and wrong, so I doubt I'll be convincing you any time soon (or you me, but feel free to try). Also, I assume the attacks on you are a function of what seems to be your cavalier attitude towards murder, whether that's true or not.
I don't attribute the disproportionate value on human life that most of us do, that's all, though as far as crimes go murder is pretty damn severe. Don't be surprised if you try to blatantly exploit other people for your own gain they might ... want to kill you?
You are right, it's dependent upon other factors. Things usually are so I often go for some kind of simplification to communicate the specific factors I feel override the others rather than indulge in a 300 page essay in every topic.
I don't think drugs should be illegal but they are. I trust my own judgement in all matters. afaik making drugs legal has succeeded anywhere it has been done. I feel comfortable ignoring this law without feeling like a criminal, though my drug use has dwindled to virtually nonexistent over the last half decade or so it's still something I feel strongly about.
I can't grow a plant in my house and smoke the leaves? Ridiculous.
|
On November 19 2013 09:57 Reason wrote:
I don't attribute the disproportionate value on human life that most of us do, that's all, though as far as crimes go murder is pretty damn severe. Don't be surprised if you try to blatantly exploit other people for your own gain they might ... want to kill you?
But of course there's a difference between wanting to kill someone, and being justified in doing so. I am sympathetic to the idea that if enough of your fundamental rights are taken away, you have a right to kill in response, but I simply disagree with it. I have a higher standard for justifying murder.
Clarify: Yes, if one person was going to enslave the world, I would feel justified in killing them. And yes, my threshold is arbitrary in its precision (I won't do it for X people, but I'll do it for Y people). This case, however, does not meet my threshold, for various reasons.
I don't think drugs should be illegal but they are. I trust my own judgement in all matters. afaik making drugs legal has succeeded anywhere it has been done. I feel comfortable ignoring this law without feeling like a criminal, though my drug use has dwindled to virtually nonexistent over the last half decade or so it's still something I feel strongly about.
But on the other side, you have people that think the law is (mostly) logical, that it makes sense to ban some or all drugs, and that people that are involved in drugs are criminals. So they'd say that these criminals deserve jail time, and of course it's improper to kill to stop that. Can you prove them wrong? I'm very much uneducated on the issue, but a quick google scholar search for legalizing drugs seems to show a controversy.
I can't grow a plant in my house and smoke the leaves? Ridiculous.
Wasn't insulted with the original, lol :D.
|
On November 19 2013 10:19 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 09:57 Reason wrote:
I don't attribute the disproportionate value on human life that most of us do, that's all, though as far as crimes go murder is pretty damn severe. Don't be surprised if you try to blatantly exploit other people for your own gain they might ... want to kill you?
But of course there's a difference between wanting to kill someone, and being justified in doing so. I am sympathetic to the idea that if enough of your fundamental rights are taken away, you have a right to kill in response, but I simply disagree with it. I have a higher standard for justifying murder. Clarify: Yes, if one person was going to enslave the world, I would feel justified in killing them. And yes, my threshold is arbitrary in its precision (I won't do it for X people, but I'll do it for Y people). This case, however, does not meet my threshold, for various reasons. Show nested quote +
I don't think drugs should be illegal but they are. I trust my own judgement in all matters. afaik making drugs legal has succeeded anywhere it has been done. I feel comfortable ignoring this law without feeling like a criminal, though my drug use has dwindled to virtually nonexistent over the last half decade or so it's still something I feel strongly about.
But on the other side, you have people that think the law is (mostly) logical, that it makes sense to ban some or all drugs, and that people that are involved in drugs are criminals. So they'd say that these criminals deserve jail time, and of course it's improper to kill to stop that. Can you prove them wrong? I'm very much uneducated on the issue, but a quick google scholar search for legalizing drugs seems to show a controversy. Wasn't insulted with the original, lol :D.
Lol you may not have been insulted but I thought best to err on the side of caution.
All evidence I have seen or heard of supports legalisation of drugs.
It is indeed improper to kill misguided people simply for being wrong, however this guy was trying to blackmail the site owner which is different, he wasn't simply being a good citizen and I'm not suggesting good citizens deserve to die just because I disagree with them.
|
Will read more when I have time, just wanted to add something, not sure if anyone else has:
People talking about him being sort of a dumb criminal, making it easy to be caught have to understand that he wasn't really in it for criminal activity (at least the impression I got). He had a masters in economics, and strongly believed that what prevented the free market from properly functioning was the governments interference. So he set out to make a place where the government would not be able to interfere or tax transactions. Thus the creation of the silk road.
Also despite it being used for drug trade, hitmen ect. , it was specifically outlined in the terms of use that some criminal activities that could benefit from the sight were strictly prohibited (such as child pornography sharing). Basically it was craigslist/kjiiji for drugs.
I find the concept very interesting (free market from an "overlord's " influence). Most of my info came from a time magazine article on it, so could be baised. But theres a bit more info (hopefully)
|
On November 19 2013 10:27 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 10:19 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 19 2013 09:57 Reason wrote:
I don't attribute the disproportionate value on human life that most of us do, that's all, though as far as crimes go murder is pretty damn severe. Don't be surprised if you try to blatantly exploit other people for your own gain they might ... want to kill you?
But of course there's a difference between wanting to kill someone, and being justified in doing so. I am sympathetic to the idea that if enough of your fundamental rights are taken away, you have a right to kill in response, but I simply disagree with it. I have a higher standard for justifying murder. Clarify: Yes, if one person was going to enslave the world, I would feel justified in killing them. And yes, my threshold is arbitrary in its precision (I won't do it for X people, but I'll do it for Y people). This case, however, does not meet my threshold, for various reasons.
I don't think drugs should be illegal but they are. I trust my own judgement in all matters. afaik making drugs legal has succeeded anywhere it has been done. I feel comfortable ignoring this law without feeling like a criminal, though my drug use has dwindled to virtually nonexistent over the last half decade or so it's still something I feel strongly about.
But on the other side, you have people that think the law is (mostly) logical, that it makes sense to ban some or all drugs, and that people that are involved in drugs are criminals. So they'd say that these criminals deserve jail time, and of course it's improper to kill to stop that. Can you prove them wrong? I'm very much uneducated on the issue, but a quick google scholar search for legalizing drugs seems to show a controversy.
I can't grow a plant in my house and smoke the leaves? Ridiculous.
Wasn't insulted with the original, lol :D. Lol you may not have been insulted but I thought best to err on the side of caution. All evidence I have seen or heard of supports legalisation of drugs. It is indeed improper to kill misguided people simply for being wrong, however this guy was trying to blackmail the site owner which is different, he wasn't simply being a good citizen and I'm not suggesting good citizens deserve to die just because I disagree with them.
Nothing wrong with caution  .
In terms of legalization (note I have read exactly none of these, just going based off the abstract. Also note that there are plenty on the legalize side):
1) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J023v03n03_10?journalCode=wzds20#.UorNZMTUAmY
2) https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=125139
3) http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/17/opinion/legalize-drugs-not-on-your-life.html
4) https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=145852 (Presents both sides)
Basically my point is this: There are some arguments where I feel the other side is completely groundless, and some where I see both sides, but I have my own views, so I hold one. Which one is this to you?
As for the second thing- some people don't view it as blackmail. They view it as crime reporting. To them, it's parallel (though not on the same level as) reporting all users of a credit card fraud website. It's simply based off of whether or not you view the activity of the people being blackmailed as illegal (or morally unjustifiable, or both).
|
afaik it was established he attempted to blackmail the site owner for his own financial gain.... crime reporting is reporting a crime end of story. Approaching someone and saying "I'm gonna do some crime reporting unless x" is blackmail end of story.
I don't see any drawbacks to legalisation. I see numerous benefits.
|
On November 19 2013 11:39 Reason wrote:
afaik it was established he attempted to blackmail the site owner for his own financial gain.... crime reporting is reporting a crime end of story. Approaching someone and saying "I'm gonna do some crime reporting unless x" is blackmail end of story.
I don't see any drawbacks to legalisation. I see numerous benefits.
Though it may technically be blackmail, the question is "Is it wrong?" Not all forms of blackmail are wrong, according to the strict definition. For example, going to the credit card fraud example, is it wrong to threaten to report users, unless your paid? Now, you may argue that you should report it whether or not you get paid, but the actual act of reporting wouldn't be considered wrong. So too here, though it may technically be blackmail, many will see the reporting of the crime as a positive action.
And it's fine that you don't see any drawbacks, but there are people that do. That's why, like I said before, I see this as an argument with two legitimate sides, of which I took the one I feel is correct, but still can see the logic of the other side,
|
On November 19 2013 09:48 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 08:18 Vasoline73 wrote:
Making a real drug policy would be very complex or at least be the cause of much debate and discussion.
Personally I think it would be cool if we did... cigs at 18, alcohol at 21 (stupid USA), weed 21, LSD/shrooms/mescaline at 30, opiates at 60, meth at 100, etc ^^. By the time you get to 60 you should hopefully have enough life experience to handle opiates responsibly ^^. And likely need the pain relief medically anyways. Meth at 100 will be looked at as a beautiful ceremony for those lucky enough to live up to it. This will keep hard drugs away from our youth better than the current system.
Lol. Mostly joking... although I think an age limit for approved psychedelics would be a reasonable way to handle that class of drug. Opiates and stims obviously are much more difficult from a public health standpoint. Maybe opiate vacation spa's or something. Check in for a week, put your name on a list, enjoy your opiates under care and supervision of trained medical staff who inform you of the danger of long term opiate addiction, last 2/3 days of the week they taper you off, and then you can't go to another opiate club for 3 months or something. Obviously that could create problems as well though if people sneak out opiate supplies or steal them etc.
Just throwing out various brainstorm ideas. Nothing too serious.
Psychs at 30? :<
I agree 30 is pretty late, but at the same time, I think the biggest public health issue with the more common psychedelics is their potential risk of aggravating schizophrenia/psychotic breaks. I think by 30 our mindset is pretty solid and it's past the age most people develop mental disabilities that psychedelics can *potentially* trigger in certain people. So yeah 30 is late, but it's probably the safest age range for allowing legal use.
I am not 30 and have used psychs, but if it was legal and product quality was ensured, etc. I would gladly have waited until 30. Better than being psychs totally prohibited imo and decently "responsible."
Of course, that's just imo.
|
I think people should be allowed to do stupid things. But just because I think a law is bad doesn't mean that I think it is ok to break it. If you don't like a rule, by all means, go ahead and try to change it, but in the mean time you need to have a little faith that it is possible that some of those other people out there know more than you, and that there is a reason for these laws that you don't understand/put enough weight in. Sometime being part of a community means conforming to things that you don't like. And if you can't get on board with that, then you are better off living in the woods. There are some extreme examples where defiance is necessary, but the ability to get stoned/make money off of getting stoned is not one of them.
|
On November 19 2013 13:04 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 11:39 Reason wrote:
afaik it was established he attempted to blackmail the site owner for his own financial gain.... crime reporting is reporting a crime end of story. Approaching someone and saying "I'm gonna do some crime reporting unless x" is blackmail end of story.
I don't see any drawbacks to legalisation. I see numerous benefits. Though it may technically be blackmail, the question is "Is it wrong?" Not all forms of blackmail are wrong, according to the strict definition. For example, going to the credit card fraud example, is it wrong to threaten to report users, unless your paid? Now, you may argue that you should report it whether or not you get paid, but the actual act of reporting wouldn't be considered wrong. So too here, though it may technically be blackmail, many will see the reporting of the crime as a positive action. And it's fine that you don't see any drawbacks, but there are people that do. That's why, like I said before, I see this as an argument with two legitimate sides, of which I took the one I feel is correct, but still can see the logic of the other side,
please, present the other side as best you can for the sake of discussion because nobody is really posting in this thread and my contribution of "yeah man legalise!" isn't worth much without someone saying "no way man!"
also, please explain your blackmail example because i don't understand what you're trying to say at all... blackmail is blackmail my friend if you try to blackmail somebody you should expect to get burnt if it goes wrong...
On November 19 2013 15:44 hacklebeast wrote:
I think people should be allowed to do stupid things. But just because I think a law is bad doesn't mean that I think it is ok to break it. If you don't like a rule, by all means, go ahead and try to change it, but in the mean time you need to have a little faith that it is possible that some of those other people out there know more than you, and that there is a reason for these laws that you don't understand/put enough weight in. Sometime being part of a community means conforming to things that you don't like. And if you can't get on board with that, then you are better off living in the woods. There are some extreme examples where defiance is necessary, but the ability to get stoned/make money off of getting stoned is not one of them.
So what you think is that the millions of people who enjoy smoking cannabis should suddenly stop because their government said so? Hey guys, lets all just wait until they change their minds... which is probably never going to happen now that we've all given up... I don't think that's very practical. Think of something you really enjoy. Is it coca-cola? Is it swimming? It doesn't matter. Imagine if your government for their own corrupt interests or simply out of ignorance makes this illegal, you're telling me that you'd happily just give up your passion (starcraft, sex-not-to-make-a-baby, steak pies, whatever!) because the government said so?
You don't see... any problems with this?
|
On November 19 2013 14:51 Vasoline73 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 09:48 sluggaslamoo wrote:On November 19 2013 08:18 Vasoline73 wrote:
Making a real drug policy would be very complex or at least be the cause of much debate and discussion.
Personally I think it would be cool if we did... cigs at 18, alcohol at 21 (stupid USA), weed 21, LSD/shrooms/mescaline at 30, opiates at 60, meth at 100, etc ^^. By the time you get to 60 you should hopefully have enough life experience to handle opiates responsibly ^^. And likely need the pain relief medically anyways. Meth at 100 will be looked at as a beautiful ceremony for those lucky enough to live up to it. This will keep hard drugs away from our youth better than the current system.
Lol. Mostly joking... although I think an age limit for approved psychedelics would be a reasonable way to handle that class of drug. Opiates and stims obviously are much more difficult from a public health standpoint. Maybe opiate vacation spa's or something. Check in for a week, put your name on a list, enjoy your opiates under care and supervision of trained medical staff who inform you of the danger of long term opiate addiction, last 2/3 days of the week they taper you off, and then you can't go to another opiate club for 3 months or something. Obviously that could create problems as well though if people sneak out opiate supplies or steal them etc.
Just throwing out various brainstorm ideas. Nothing too serious.
Psychs at 30? :< I agree 30 is pretty late, but at the same time, I think the biggest public health issue with the more common psychedelics is their potential risk of aggravating schizophrenia/psychotic breaks. I think by 30 our mindset is pretty solid and it's past the age most people develop mental disabilities that psychedelics can *potentially* trigger in certain people. So yeah 30 is late, but it's probably the safest age range for allowing legal use. I am not 30 and have used psychs, but if it was legal and product quality was ensured, etc. I would gladly have waited until 30. Better than being psychs totally prohibited imo and decently "responsible." Of course, that's just imo.
The funny thing in this thread that keeps reoccuring is that people read different things into the word drugs according to their own biases. The people who like drugs seem to have a strong bias towards weed (I cant even grow a plant and smoke the leaves) and the people who dislike drugs think about heroin.
Weed is a pretty harmless drug and thus people that associate drugs with weed think that heavier drugs are less harmfull.
The intresting thing is that in popular media lsd and pshych drugs are "horror drugs". In reality they are one of the least harmfull class of drugs. Hell LSD and psy is much safer than anything else.
If we went by damage done and how addictive a drug is we would have class 1 drugs including Lsd, psylocibin, weed, mdma, caffine and steroids.
Class 2 (which I think should be banned others may disagree) would be alchohol, benzo, amphetamine, ketamine and maybe, maybe nicotine.
Class 3 which should definently be illegal is again maybe nicotine (its addictive as fuck and smooking is really bad for you but this is most likely because its legal to smoke all the time), meth, cocaine and heroin.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
It just strikes me as strange that US drug policy is as it is given the rampant problems associated with the prescription drug culture over there. While in our country it's not unheard of, it does seem to me a hell of a lot more ingrained in American culture.
|
On November 20 2013 10:34 Wombat_NI wrote:
It just strikes me as strange that US drug policy is as it is given the rampant problems associated with the prescription drug culture over there. While in our country it's not unheard of, it does seem to me a hell of a lot more ingrained in American culture.
I'm not sure one can say such things. According to this wiki, Ireland and the US are tied in opiate use prevalence with the UK actually coming in higher than both :D Now that doesn't account for all prescription drugs (mostly Benzos would be the excluded factor), but I think it better to say that problematic drug cultures amongst first world anglophone countries are oftentimes different looking but similar in some ways.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
Interesting, I wonder how other things like behaviour-altering drugs like Ritalin, things for ADHD, anti-depressants and all that would stack up.
Should be data, given they're legal substances and require oversight from medical practitioners. Hopefully can find some numbers on it.
|
On November 20 2013 03:15 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 13:04 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 19 2013 11:39 Reason wrote:
afaik it was established he attempted to blackmail the site owner for his own financial gain.... crime reporting is reporting a crime end of story. Approaching someone and saying "I'm gonna do some crime reporting unless x" is blackmail end of story.
I don't see any drawbacks to legalisation. I see numerous benefits. Though it may technically be blackmail, the question is "Is it wrong?" Not all forms of blackmail are wrong, according to the strict definition. For example, going to the credit card fraud example, is it wrong to threaten to report users, unless your paid? Now, you may argue that you should report it whether or not you get paid, but the actual act of reporting wouldn't be considered wrong. So too here, though it may technically be blackmail, many will see the reporting of the crime as a positive action. And it's fine that you don't see any drawbacks, but there are people that do. That's why, like I said before, I see this as an argument with two legitimate sides, of which I took the one I feel is correct, but still can see the logic of the other side, please, present the other side as best you can for the sake of discussion because nobody is really posting in this thread and my contribution of "yeah man legalise!" isn't worth much without someone saying "no way man!" also, please explain your blackmail example because i don't understand what you're trying to say at all... blackmail is blackmail my friend if you try to blackmail somebody you should expect to get burnt if it goes wrong... You don't see... any problems with this?
As much as I love debating, I'm completely uninformed on the issue, so the best I can do is appeal to authority. I don't think that'll make for a very fun argument...
As for the blackmail example, let me clarify. There are two things that are wrong with blackmail, in a general sense:
1) It is wrong to force someone to give you money
2) It is wrong tell someone something that will harm somebody, if that somebody is going to not pay up.
So, for example, let's say your employer hates Christians, and you're secretly Christian. It would be wrong for me to threaten to tell him that you're Christian, unless you give me money, because it is wrong for me to force you to give me money, and it is wrong for me to tell your boss that you're Christian.
Is the second one always wrong? No. Let's say you're a child molester, and you're working in a kindergarten. There, the wrong would be for me to take money instead of reporting you. That would be the issue with blackmail. It would not, however, be wrong to report you, even though its in a context of blackmail. The second wrong is not a wrong when it is correct to tell somebody about you.
So in the case of drugs- you see the act of selling drugs, and using them, as acceptable. Thus, someone threatening to expose those people, to you, is doing something wrong, and should be stopped. Others, on the other, see those actions as wrong. Thus, they see a threat to expose those people as appropriate, and threats against their exposure as wrong. Hope that helped.
|
On November 20 2013 13:11 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2013 03:15 Reason wrote:On November 19 2013 13:04 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 19 2013 11:39 Reason wrote:
afaik it was established he attempted to blackmail the site owner for his own financial gain.... crime reporting is reporting a crime end of story. Approaching someone and saying "I'm gonna do some crime reporting unless x" is blackmail end of story.
I don't see any drawbacks to legalisation. I see numerous benefits. Though it may technically be blackmail, the question is "Is it wrong?" Not all forms of blackmail are wrong, according to the strict definition. For example, going to the credit card fraud example, is it wrong to threaten to report users, unless your paid? Now, you may argue that you should report it whether or not you get paid, but the actual act of reporting wouldn't be considered wrong. So too here, though it may technically be blackmail, many will see the reporting of the crime as a positive action. And it's fine that you don't see any drawbacks, but there are people that do. That's why, like I said before, I see this as an argument with two legitimate sides, of which I took the one I feel is correct, but still can see the logic of the other side, please, present the other side as best you can for the sake of discussion because nobody is really posting in this thread and my contribution of "yeah man legalise!" isn't worth much without someone saying "no way man!" also, please explain your blackmail example because i don't understand what you're trying to say at all... blackmail is blackmail my friend if you try to blackmail somebody you should expect to get burnt if it goes wrong... You don't see... any problems with this? As much as I love debating, I'm completely uninformed on the issue, so the best I can do is appeal to authority. I don't think that'll make for a very fun argument... As for the blackmail example, let me clarify. There are two things that are wrong with blackmail, in a general sense: 1) It is wrong to force someone to give you money 2) It is wrong tell someone something that will harm somebody, if that somebody is going to not pay up. So, for example, let's say your employer hates Christians, and you're secretly Christian. It would be wrong for me to threaten to tell him that you're Christian, unless you give me money, because it is wrong for me to force you to give me money, and it is wrong for me to tell your boss that you're Christian. Is the second one always wrong? No. Let's say you're a child molester, and you're working in a kindergarten. There, the wrong would be for me to take money instead of reporting you. That would be the issue with blackmail. It would not, however, be wrong to report you, even though its in a context of blackmail. The second wrong is not a wrong when it is correct to tell somebody about you. So in the case of drugs- you see the act of selling drugs, and using them, as acceptable. Thus, someone threatening to expose those people, to you, is doing something wrong, and should be stopped. Others, on the other, see those actions as wrong. Thus, they see a threat to expose those people as appropriate, and threats against their exposure as wrong. Hope that helped.
It's even more disgusting to blackmail a child molester because that implies you might not actually report them. You blackmail a married person for sleeping with their secretary etc, you don't blackmail a child molester lol.... either way it's totally scummy. So, the funny thing is that the worse Silk Road truly was, the worse this person was for attempting to blackmail them instead of just reporting them. If Silk Road wasn't bad then the guy is just a straight up dick for trying to blackmail them.
|
On November 19 2013 14:51 Vasoline73 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 09:48 sluggaslamoo wrote:On November 19 2013 08:18 Vasoline73 wrote:
Making a real drug policy would be very complex or at least be the cause of much debate and discussion.
Personally I think it would be cool if we did... cigs at 18, alcohol at 21 (stupid USA), weed 21, LSD/shrooms/mescaline at 30, opiates at 60, meth at 100, etc ^^. By the time you get to 60 you should hopefully have enough life experience to handle opiates responsibly ^^. And likely need the pain relief medically anyways. Meth at 100 will be looked at as a beautiful ceremony for those lucky enough to live up to it. This will keep hard drugs away from our youth better than the current system.
Lol. Mostly joking... although I think an age limit for approved psychedelics would be a reasonable way to handle that class of drug. Opiates and stims obviously are much more difficult from a public health standpoint. Maybe opiate vacation spa's or something. Check in for a week, put your name on a list, enjoy your opiates under care and supervision of trained medical staff who inform you of the danger of long term opiate addiction, last 2/3 days of the week they taper you off, and then you can't go to another opiate club for 3 months or something. Obviously that could create problems as well though if people sneak out opiate supplies or steal them etc.
Just throwing out various brainstorm ideas. Nothing too serious.
Psychs at 30? :< I agree 30 is pretty late, but at the same time, I think the biggest public health issue with the more common psychedelics is their potential risk of aggravating schizophrenia/psychotic breaks. I think by 30 our mindset is pretty solid and it's past the age most people develop mental disabilities that psychedelics can *potentially* trigger in certain people. So yeah 30 is late, but it's probably the safest age range for allowing legal use. I am not 30 and have used psychs, but if it was legal and product quality was ensured, etc. I would gladly have waited until 30. Better than being psychs totally prohibited imo and decently "responsible." Of course, that's just imo.
by thirty it's too late
what's important is to approach it seriously and be aware of yourself. fuck laws
if you need a law to tell you to wait until you're thirty to trip, you shouldn't be tripping
|
On November 20 2013 10:54 Wombat_NI wrote:
Interesting, I wonder how other things like behaviour-altering drugs like Ritalin, things for ADHD, anti-depressants and all that would stack up.
Should be data, given they're legal substances and require oversight from medical practitioners. Hopefully can find some numbers on it.
Actually there are a lot of banned substances in those drugs, especially ADHD drugs. Its a double standard really.
|
On November 22 2013 17:16 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2013 14:51 Vasoline73 wrote:On November 19 2013 09:48 sluggaslamoo wrote:On November 19 2013 08:18 Vasoline73 wrote:
Making a real drug policy would be very complex or at least be the cause of much debate and discussion.
Personally I think it would be cool if we did... cigs at 18, alcohol at 21 (stupid USA), weed 21, LSD/shrooms/mescaline at 30, opiates at 60, meth at 100, etc ^^. By the time you get to 60 you should hopefully have enough life experience to handle opiates responsibly ^^. And likely need the pain relief medically anyways. Meth at 100 will be looked at as a beautiful ceremony for those lucky enough to live up to it. This will keep hard drugs away from our youth better than the current system.
Lol. Mostly joking... although I think an age limit for approved psychedelics would be a reasonable way to handle that class of drug. Opiates and stims obviously are much more difficult from a public health standpoint. Maybe opiate vacation spa's or something. Check in for a week, put your name on a list, enjoy your opiates under care and supervision of trained medical staff who inform you of the danger of long term opiate addiction, last 2/3 days of the week they taper you off, and then you can't go to another opiate club for 3 months or something. Obviously that could create problems as well though if people sneak out opiate supplies or steal them etc.
Just throwing out various brainstorm ideas. Nothing too serious.
Psychs at 30? :< I agree 30 is pretty late, but at the same time, I think the biggest public health issue with the more common psychedelics is their potential risk of aggravating schizophrenia/psychotic breaks. I think by 30 our mindset is pretty solid and it's past the age most people develop mental disabilities that psychedelics can *potentially* trigger in certain people. So yeah 30 is late, but it's probably the safest age range for allowing legal use. I am not 30 and have used psychs, but if it was legal and product quality was ensured, etc. I would gladly have waited until 30. Better than being psychs totally prohibited imo and decently "responsible." Of course, that's just imo. by thirty it's too late what's important is to approach it seriously and be aware of yourself. fuck laws if you need a law to tell you to wait until you're thirty to trip, you shouldn't be tripping
Doesn't the brain keep developing into the early twenties? I think ideally you should start tripping the nanosecond your brain is fully developed. Hindsight is a bitch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
