|
On October 03 2013 08:16 beg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 07:45 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On October 03 2013 07:14 Jormundr wrote:On October 03 2013 06:59 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 06:52 Dazed_Spy wrote:Outside of the [possible] murder, this is stupid. We should be legalizing [not monopolizing or handing out liscensure] things like this. Safe, easy, cheap way to buy drugs? This is improving peoples lives and acting in concert with their desires. The Governments got no place telling people what they can or cant sell, or what they can or cant buy. On October 03 2013 06:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 06:42 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 05:03 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 04:52 rasnj wrote:On October 03 2013 04:45 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
Good thing they caught him and shut down the site, from the sounds of it the site was nothing but a cesspool of criminal activity. You need to consider the alternative though. If people can't go on SR, then they will try to find a drug dealer locally which can be quite hard. Whoever you come across is very unlikely to be trustworthy, and you have almost no idea what kind of stuff is mixed into what you are buying. If you must trade illegal drugs, then an exchange with a reliable feedback system and secure communications is by far preferable. SR was not perfect (not by a long shot), but it was by far better than driving into a "bad" part of town and looking for people on the street corners. Also while people did buy very hard drugs on SR, I don't know if people who scored the occasional ritalin or adderall for studying, or a small amount of weed for relaxing with some friends are really that despicable. I would rather they have the fear of ``going into a bad part of town`` so that they think twice before trying to buy their illegal substances and services. damn, such a statement can only come from several decades of prohibition. so close-minded. so wrong. i dont even know how to put it in words. SORRY BRO. YOU'RE WRONG. so if someone wants to smoke a joint, he should rather buy from a fucking street corner where people contaminate the cannabis with all kinds of shit? such a person should not be able to buy from a trustworthy source he can rely on? DSFJifgreugtfeugpoda ujg wrip hbmrt0 gi0´ hu´ wogrhujbü smhu9q 64hüogrt j qßó4tz8i+ hja´ 8z´ 4thjß´mhu´54z all that prohibition propaganda fucked you guys up. it's so sad to me. it hurts. i cant even express it. why do people have to be criminalized? the only way to express what i feel is smashing my keyboard like you saw. but i didnt smash it in rage, ok? i kept smashing the buttons because i feel so helpless over this propaganda bullshit. it HURTS. It may surprise you, but I support the legalization of Marijuana, I do not however support people putting money into the hands of dangerous criminals and illegal organizations, so until marijuana is legal and regulated I would like it to be made as hard as possible for people to be putting money into the hands of criminals. In other words, even though you believe its morally acceptable for people to use Pot, you want to make it impossible for them to use pot and punish them for attempting it, because they get it from the only source [literally by definition] that they possibly could get it from. Hypocritical, backasswards logic. Its not hypocritical at all, I would just ask people to wait for proper channels to be opened up for them to purchase their drugs from, regardless of what you want, it is always going to be wrong to giving money to dangerous criminal organizations. The problem comes from the substance being illegal, legalizing it would solve many problems but until then I want people to be punished for funding criminal gangs just for a cheap high. That's moronic. If the moral issue is triggered by the fact that it is illegal, then the people who bear the moral burden would be the people who make it illegal and thus immoral. That's like blaming gun manufacturers for a murder you committed. Somebody else made buying drugs a bad thing. How does that make you buying drugs any less reprehensible? America is a democracy. Every American in here has the ability to directly influence policy, both through voting and bringing your acquaintances around to your point of view. We all have the ability to legalize many drugs and make buying them harmless. It'd only take a few years. Yes, I'm aware I can't expect society at large to hold off on the joints for a few years. I expect you guys to, though. You see, if you can't stay sober for a few years to save someone else's life, you have no right to a moral high ground. You're the worst kind of scum. I don't know who here does drugs, but I know a lot do. I know that there are a few in this thread, right now. Say what you will about SR, say what you will about pot or crack or heroine or whatever the hell else is out there. You can't argue for financing cartels. No matter how hard anyone argues, they can't justify that. Not when all they have to do is wait a few years. On October 03 2013 07:40 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:32 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 07:26 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:21 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 07:17 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:13 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 07:04 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 06:59 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Its not hypocritical at all, I would just ask people to wait for proper channels to be opened up for them to purchase their drugs from, regardless of what you want, it is always going to be wrong to giving money to dangerous criminal organizations. The problem comes from the substance being illegal, legalizing it would solve many problems but until then I want people to be punished for funding criminal gangs just for a cheap high. dude, you are talking fantasy. people WILL take drugs, period. in fact, if you legalize cannabis the amount of regular smokers won't even increase. how long do you want to make people wait? decades? centuries? i'm sorry, we don't live that long as human beings. yes, everyone realizes that legalization solves problems. but in the majority of countries it's not gonna happen in our lifetimes. Yes I expect them to wait. The other option is allowing people to get their drugs from whoever, which can and very often is unsavory sources. I am not willing to accept that it is or ever will be okay for people to be giving money to criminals and as such people must be punished for funding crime. buying from whoever means that the guy with the best quality will win. i remember just 5 years ago a lot of(!) european countries would be selling cannabis contaminated with extremely fine sand/glass to make it heavier. again, you "expect them to wait". dude. no. THEY DONT WAIT. period. it's fact. it's reality. it's like the governments saying "we expect you to not use drugs". that's literally what the german government says. "oh, all your cannabis is sickly contaminted with bullshit? well, dont smoke, BITCHES" Fine then, If they don't wait then they will be charged with a crime then, that is how it works. We cannot make it allowable to fund crime regardless of how much people desire the product the criminals are providing. again, this is where you drift into fantasy. "we cannot allow". it IS happening. no matter what you want or dont want. it's happening, period. at least you agree that legalization is the best way. thank god. now assuming that it's happening no matter what, would you rather want people to buy from actual criminals who cut the substances with meth and fine sand or would you want them to be able to buy from "reasonable criminals who care about quality"? cause SR apparently was a reliable source. i never tried it though. If the cartels are losing business because other sources are beating out their quality they will likely increase their quality to compete, they already have a massive profit margin to work with due to the "illegal substance premium" on what they are selling. On the same note, just because a source sells "good weed" doesn't mean they conduct good business in the real world, someone selling good weed could still be part of a gang responsible for reprehensible crimes. As such my problem is less with the selling of the product and more with who people are giving their money to. The anonymity of Silk Road also would cause some worry to me because it is rather difficult to know whose hands your money is making its way into. in your example the overall quality of drugs increases. so far so good. does the gang bullshit also increase? really? think your own example through to the end. will the super criminal shit increase just because a quality source appeared? worst case scenario is the sources battling each other  Will it decrease? it might. i dont know. i think it's gonna remain a constant. who knows... it's hard to judge. there's no easy studies to be done. when you wanna see the development of addiction you can just ask random people on the street. it's not that easy with underground criminals. i hope you see that your argument about "expecting people to not use drugs for a few years" is just wrong. people have been waiting half a century to smoke cannabis again. you expect them to wait? hahaha oh boy <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
I'm not expecting the vast majority of people to do it. Most people don't give a shit. I'm talking to guys like you. Guys who want to believe they're doing the right thing.
The right thing is to argue your case, convince the masses certain drugs deserve to be legalized, then watch as they get legalized. The alternative is to sit on your ass smoking joints, bemoaning the state of the nation while doing nothing to actually change it. Not once have I ever seen a truly meaningful debate about drug legalization off the internet. Not once have I ever seen a protest, or an awareness march, or just some sign people out there actually give a shit.
I hear all the time about how the internet has given everybody a voice, but that couldn't be further from the truth. So many people talk so much that nothing said around here really matters anymore. The internet is where the People's voice goes to die.
So let me repeat: put the joints aside. Grab a few of your friends and tell them why some drugs should be legalized. Ask them to tell their friends. Most of us are part of an idealistic, passionate age group. Starting something is surprisingly easy, you just need to make sure there's a snowball.
The alternative is to send your money to, as I have said many times before, murderers and rapists. Making the world worse like that instead of putting in the effort to change it for the better is one of the worst forms of laziness and selfishness. Buy drugs from anyone that isn't a 100% confirmed back-yard grower, and you cannot be said to be anything less than a monster. After all, only a monster is willing to tolerate murder in exchange for a high.
I'm bowing out, by the way. This is only vaguely related to the topic at hand and I don't want to derail even more. Besides, group consensus is a hard thing to fight. If you have even one person taking your side, odds are you'll have trouble being convinced by even the most rock-solid argument. If I haven't convinced you already, you aren't going to be convinced, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
|
On October 03 2013 08:58 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 08:33 TheRealArtemis wrote:On October 03 2013 08:08 Jormundr wrote:On October 03 2013 07:45 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On October 03 2013 07:14 Jormundr wrote:On October 03 2013 06:59 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 06:52 Dazed_Spy wrote:Outside of the [possible] murder, this is stupid. We should be legalizing [not monopolizing or handing out liscensure] things like this. Safe, easy, cheap way to buy drugs? This is improving peoples lives and acting in concert with their desires. The Governments got no place telling people what they can or cant sell, or what they can or cant buy. On October 03 2013 06:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 06:42 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 05:03 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
[quote]
I would rather they have the fear of ``going into a bad part of town`` so that they think twice before trying to buy their illegal substances and services. damn, such a statement can only come from several decades of prohibition. so close-minded. so wrong. i dont even know how to put it in words. SORRY BRO. YOU'RE WRONG. so if someone wants to smoke a joint, he should rather buy from a fucking street corner where people contaminate the cannabis with all kinds of shit? such a person should not be able to buy from a trustworthy source he can rely on? DSFJifgreugtfeugpoda ujg wrip hbmrt0 gi0´ hu´ wogrhujbü smhu9q 64hüogrt j qßó4tz8i+ hja´ 8z´ 4thjß´mhu´54z all that prohibition propaganda fucked you guys up. it's so sad to me. it hurts. i cant even express it. why do people have to be criminalized? the only way to express what i feel is smashing my keyboard like you saw. but i didnt smash it in rage, ok? i kept smashing the buttons because i feel so helpless over this propaganda bullshit. it HURTS. It may surprise you, but I support the legalization of Marijuana, I do not however support people putting money into the hands of dangerous criminals and illegal organizations, so until marijuana is legal and regulated I would like it to be made as hard as possible for people to be putting money into the hands of criminals. In other words, even though you believe its morally acceptable for people to use Pot, you want to make it impossible for them to use pot and punish them for attempting it, because they get it from the only source [literally by definition] that they possibly could get it from. Hypocritical, backasswards logic. Its not hypocritical at all, I would just ask people to wait for proper channels to be opened up for them to purchase their drugs from, regardless of what you want, it is always going to be wrong to giving money to dangerous criminal organizations. The problem comes from the substance being illegal, legalizing it would solve many problems but until then I want people to be punished for funding criminal gangs just for a cheap high. That's moronic. If the moral issue is triggered by the fact that it is illegal, then the people who bear the moral burden would be the people who make it illegal and thus immoral. That's like blaming gun manufacturers for a murder you committed. Somebody else made buying drugs a bad thing. How does that make you buying drugs any less reprehensible? America is a democracy. Every American in here has the ability to directly influence policy, both through voting and bringing your acquaintances around to your point of view. We all have the ability to legalize many drugs and make buying them harmless. It'd only take a few years. Yes, I'm aware I can't expect society at large to hold off on the joints for a few years. I expect you guys to, though. You see, if you can't stay sober for a few years to save someone else's life, you have no right to a moral high ground. You're the worst kind of scum. I don't know who here does drugs, but I know a lot do. I know that there are a few in this thread, right now. Say what you will about SR, say what you will about pot or crack or heroine or whatever the hell else is out there. You can't argue for financing cartels. No matter how hard anyone argues, they can't justify that. Not when all they have to do is wait a few years. On October 03 2013 07:40 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:32 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 07:26 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:21 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 07:17 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:13 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Yes I expect them to wait. The other option is allowing people to get their drugs from whoever, which can and very often is unsavory sources. I am not willing to accept that it is or ever will be okay for people to be giving money to criminals and as such people must be punished for funding crime. buying from whoever means that the guy with the best quality will win. i remember just 5 years ago a lot of(!) european countries would be selling cannabis contaminated with extremely fine sand/glass to make it heavier. again, you "expect them to wait". dude. no. THEY DONT WAIT. period. it's fact. it's reality. it's like the governments saying "we expect you to not use drugs". that's literally what the german government says. "oh, all your cannabis is sickly contaminted with bullshit? well, dont smoke, BITCHES" Fine then, If they don't wait then they will be charged with a crime then, that is how it works. We cannot make it allowable to fund crime regardless of how much people desire the product the criminals are providing. again, this is where you drift into fantasy. "we cannot allow". it IS happening. no matter what you want or dont want. it's happening, period. at least you agree that legalization is the best way. thank god. now assuming that it's happening no matter what, would you rather want people to buy from actual criminals who cut the substances with meth and fine sand or would you want them to be able to buy from "reasonable criminals who care about quality"? cause SR apparently was a reliable source. i never tried it though. If the cartels are losing business because other sources are beating out their quality they will likely increase their quality to compete, they already have a massive profit margin to work with due to the "illegal substance premium" on what they are selling. On the same note, just because a source sells "good weed" doesn't mean they conduct good business in the real world, someone selling good weed could still be part of a gang responsible for reprehensible crimes. As such my problem is less with the selling of the product and more with who people are giving their money to. The anonymity of Silk Road also would cause some worry to me because it is rather difficult to know whose hands your money is making its way into. in your example the overall quality of drugs increases. so far so good. does the gang bullshit also increase? really? think your own example through to the end. will the super criminal shit increase just because a quality source appeared? worst case scenario is the sources battling each other Will it decrease? Are you high? Because someone buys drugs, they are morally culpable for someone further down the line in mexico killing someone. That is your point. I ask again, are you high? The reason I ask this is because your first sentence completely contradicts your position. If someone who smokes a joint is morally responsible for what the people who get the money do. By that logic, someone who makes a gun is morally responsible for what the people who get the gun do. I mean jeez dude, you're arguing for a MORAL BUTTERFLY EFFECT. I think he raises a fair point. Its like that whole deal with blood diamonds that went on several years ago. Buying a product thats build on the suffering of others. Bahaha, what a hilariously bad example that again, proves my point that the government is the one that will have to fix it. People didn't stop buying diamonds because of that. They didn't even stop buying the blood diamonds, they just started asking "Is this a blood diamond?" to which the obvious answer any salesman gives is "No, no of course not!". Want to know why you don't hear about it anymore? It's not because the consumers wised up and saved all the poor african chillerins getting their heads chopped off in the diamond mine. It's because Clinton and then Bush banned import of diamonds from Sierra Leone and Liberia respectively. It's because we introduced a U.S. law in line with the UN's KPCS. The whole thing was a media stunt on the same level as this gay marriage bullshit. Anyway, guess who wasn't guilty of anything at the end of it all: YOU GOT IT RIGHT! THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT CONFLICT DIAMONDS! Guess who didn't do anything about the conflict diamonds? THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT CONFLICT DIAMONDS! And who was responsible for fixing the problem? The United States Government. And finally, why are cartel drugs different than blood diamonds? Because the U.S. Government started the whole problem in the first place! P.S. most of the wonderfully low priced goods we enjoy in the first world are produced through the inhuman treatment of those in the third.
I'm not trying to argue how to fix the problem. I agree on pretty much everything you said. I'm merely saying that people shouldn't fool themselves that buying products made by cartels, doesn't somehow involve them.
|
man where am i supposed to buy my drugs now?
|
On October 03 2013 09:07 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 08:58 Jormundr wrote:On October 03 2013 08:33 TheRealArtemis wrote:On October 03 2013 08:08 Jormundr wrote:On October 03 2013 07:45 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On October 03 2013 07:14 Jormundr wrote:On October 03 2013 06:59 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 06:52 Dazed_Spy wrote:Outside of the [possible] murder, this is stupid. We should be legalizing [not monopolizing or handing out liscensure] things like this. Safe, easy, cheap way to buy drugs? This is improving peoples lives and acting in concert with their desires. The Governments got no place telling people what they can or cant sell, or what they can or cant buy. On October 03 2013 06:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 06:42 beg wrote:
[quote]
damn, such a statement can only come from several decades of prohibition. so close-minded. so wrong. i dont even know how to put it in words.
SORRY BRO. YOU'RE WRONG.
so if someone wants to smoke a joint, he should rather buy from a fucking street corner where people contaminate the cannabis with all kinds of shit? such a person should not be able to buy from a trustworthy source he can rely on?
DSFJifgreugtfeugpoda ujg
wrip
hbmrt0
gi0´
hu´
wogrhujbü
smhu9q
64hüogrt
j
qßó4tz8i+
hja´
8z´
4thjß´mhu´54z
all that prohibition propaganda fucked you guys up. it's so sad to me. it hurts. i cant even express it. why do people have to be criminalized? the only way to express what i feel is smashing my keyboard like you saw. but i didnt smash it in rage, ok? i kept smashing the buttons because i feel so helpless over this propaganda bullshit. it HURTS. It may surprise you, but I support the legalization of Marijuana, I do not however support people putting money into the hands of dangerous criminals and illegal organizations, so until marijuana is legal and regulated I would like it to be made as hard as possible for people to be putting money into the hands of criminals. In other words, even though you believe its morally acceptable for people to use Pot, you want to make it impossible for them to use pot and punish them for attempting it, because they get it from the only source [literally by definition] that they possibly could get it from. Hypocritical, backasswards logic. Its not hypocritical at all, I would just ask people to wait for proper channels to be opened up for them to purchase their drugs from, regardless of what you want, it is always going to be wrong to giving money to dangerous criminal organizations. The problem comes from the substance being illegal, legalizing it would solve many problems but until then I want people to be punished for funding criminal gangs just for a cheap high. That's moronic. If the moral issue is triggered by the fact that it is illegal, then the people who bear the moral burden would be the people who make it illegal and thus immoral. That's like blaming gun manufacturers for a murder you committed. Somebody else made buying drugs a bad thing. How does that make you buying drugs any less reprehensible? America is a democracy. Every American in here has the ability to directly influence policy, both through voting and bringing your acquaintances around to your point of view. We all have the ability to legalize many drugs and make buying them harmless. It'd only take a few years. Yes, I'm aware I can't expect society at large to hold off on the joints for a few years. I expect you guys to, though. You see, if you can't stay sober for a few years to save someone else's life, you have no right to a moral high ground. You're the worst kind of scum. I don't know who here does drugs, but I know a lot do. I know that there are a few in this thread, right now. Say what you will about SR, say what you will about pot or crack or heroine or whatever the hell else is out there. You can't argue for financing cartels. No matter how hard anyone argues, they can't justify that. Not when all they have to do is wait a few years. On October 03 2013 07:40 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:32 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 07:26 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:21 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 07:17 beg wrote:
[quote]
buying from whoever means that the guy with the best quality will win. i remember just 5 years ago a lot of(!) european countries would be selling cannabis contaminated with extremely fine sand/glass to make it heavier.
again, you "expect them to wait". dude. no. THEY DONT WAIT. period. it's fact. it's reality. it's like the governments saying "we expect you to not use drugs". that's literally what the german government says. "oh, all your cannabis is sickly contaminted with bullshit? well, dont smoke, BITCHES" Fine then, If they don't wait then they will be charged with a crime then, that is how it works. We cannot make it allowable to fund crime regardless of how much people desire the product the criminals are providing. again, this is where you drift into fantasy. "we cannot allow". it IS happening. no matter what you want or dont want. it's happening, period. at least you agree that legalization is the best way. thank god. now assuming that it's happening no matter what, would you rather want people to buy from actual criminals who cut the substances with meth and fine sand or would you want them to be able to buy from "reasonable criminals who care about quality"? cause SR apparently was a reliable source. i never tried it though. If the cartels are losing business because other sources are beating out their quality they will likely increase their quality to compete, they already have a massive profit margin to work with due to the "illegal substance premium" on what they are selling. On the same note, just because a source sells "good weed" doesn't mean they conduct good business in the real world, someone selling good weed could still be part of a gang responsible for reprehensible crimes. As such my problem is less with the selling of the product and more with who people are giving their money to. The anonymity of Silk Road also would cause some worry to me because it is rather difficult to know whose hands your money is making its way into. in your example the overall quality of drugs increases. so far so good. does the gang bullshit also increase? really? think your own example through to the end. will the super criminal shit increase just because a quality source appeared? worst case scenario is the sources battling each other Will it decrease? Are you high? Because someone buys drugs, they are morally culpable for someone further down the line in mexico killing someone. That is your point. I ask again, are you high? The reason I ask this is because your first sentence completely contradicts your position. If someone who smokes a joint is morally responsible for what the people who get the money do. By that logic, someone who makes a gun is morally responsible for what the people who get the gun do. I mean jeez dude, you're arguing for a MORAL BUTTERFLY EFFECT. I think he raises a fair point. Its like that whole deal with blood diamonds that went on several years ago. Buying a product thats build on the suffering of others. Bahaha, what a hilariously bad example that again, proves my point that the government is the one that will have to fix it. People didn't stop buying diamonds because of that. They didn't even stop buying the blood diamonds, they just started asking "Is this a blood diamond?" to which the obvious answer any salesman gives is "No, no of course not!". Want to know why you don't hear about it anymore? It's not because the consumers wised up and saved all the poor african chillerins getting their heads chopped off in the diamond mine. It's because Clinton and then Bush banned import of diamonds from Sierra Leone and Liberia respectively. It's because we introduced a U.S. law in line with the UN's KPCS. The whole thing was a media stunt on the same level as this gay marriage bullshit. Anyway, guess who wasn't guilty of anything at the end of it all: YOU GOT IT RIGHT! THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT CONFLICT DIAMONDS! Guess who didn't do anything about the conflict diamonds? THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT CONFLICT DIAMONDS! And who was responsible for fixing the problem? The United States Government. And finally, why are cartel drugs different than blood diamonds? Because the U.S. Government started the whole problem in the first place! P.S. most of the wonderfully low priced goods we enjoy in the first world are produced through the inhuman treatment of those in the third. I'm not trying to argue how to fix the problem. I agree on pretty much everything you said. I'm merely saying that people shouldn't fool themselves that buying products made by cartels, doesn't somehow involve them.
And the people who grow corn are responsible for feeding these evil evil people. It doesn't mean we should give a shit. And realistically, nobody will give a shit, because none of us ever have or ever will know that we are receiving blood diamonds, cartel drugs, or work camp iPhones. The only thing that we can realistically do is wait for enough of the old people raised during the propaganda phase of drug prohibition to die off so that the actual problem to be addressed.
|
It's been blow after blow to the deep web lately, sad times
|
On October 03 2013 09:05 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 08:16 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:45 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On October 03 2013 07:14 Jormundr wrote:On October 03 2013 06:59 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 06:52 Dazed_Spy wrote:Outside of the [possible] murder, this is stupid. We should be legalizing [not monopolizing or handing out liscensure] things like this. Safe, easy, cheap way to buy drugs? This is improving peoples lives and acting in concert with their desires. The Governments got no place telling people what they can or cant sell, or what they can or cant buy. On October 03 2013 06:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 06:42 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 05:03 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 04:52 rasnj wrote:
[quote]
You need to consider the alternative though. If people can't go on SR, then they will try to find a drug dealer locally which can be quite hard. Whoever you come across is very unlikely to be trustworthy, and you have almost no idea what kind of stuff is mixed into what you are buying.
If you must trade illegal drugs, then an exchange with a reliable feedback system and secure communications is by far preferable.
SR was not perfect (not by a long shot), but it was by far better than driving into a "bad" part of town and looking for people on the street corners.
Also while people did buy very hard drugs on SR, I don't know if people who scored the occasional ritalin or adderall for studying, or a small amount of weed for relaxing with some friends are really that despicable. I would rather they have the fear of ``going into a bad part of town`` so that they think twice before trying to buy their illegal substances and services. damn, such a statement can only come from several decades of prohibition. so close-minded. so wrong. i dont even know how to put it in words. SORRY BRO. YOU'RE WRONG. so if someone wants to smoke a joint, he should rather buy from a fucking street corner where people contaminate the cannabis with all kinds of shit? such a person should not be able to buy from a trustworthy source he can rely on? DSFJifgreugtfeugpoda ujg wrip hbmrt0 gi0´ hu´ wogrhujbü smhu9q 64hüogrt j qßó4tz8i+ hja´ 8z´ 4thjß´mhu´54z all that prohibition propaganda fucked you guys up. it's so sad to me. it hurts. i cant even express it. why do people have to be criminalized? the only way to express what i feel is smashing my keyboard like you saw. but i didnt smash it in rage, ok? i kept smashing the buttons because i feel so helpless over this propaganda bullshit. it HURTS. It may surprise you, but I support the legalization of Marijuana, I do not however support people putting money into the hands of dangerous criminals and illegal organizations, so until marijuana is legal and regulated I would like it to be made as hard as possible for people to be putting money into the hands of criminals. In other words, even though you believe its morally acceptable for people to use Pot, you want to make it impossible for them to use pot and punish them for attempting it, because they get it from the only source [literally by definition] that they possibly could get it from. Hypocritical, backasswards logic. Its not hypocritical at all, I would just ask people to wait for proper channels to be opened up for them to purchase their drugs from, regardless of what you want, it is always going to be wrong to giving money to dangerous criminal organizations. The problem comes from the substance being illegal, legalizing it would solve many problems but until then I want people to be punished for funding criminal gangs just for a cheap high. That's moronic. If the moral issue is triggered by the fact that it is illegal, then the people who bear the moral burden would be the people who make it illegal and thus immoral. That's like blaming gun manufacturers for a murder you committed. Somebody else made buying drugs a bad thing. How does that make you buying drugs any less reprehensible? America is a democracy. Every American in here has the ability to directly influence policy, both through voting and bringing your acquaintances around to your point of view. We all have the ability to legalize many drugs and make buying them harmless. It'd only take a few years. Yes, I'm aware I can't expect society at large to hold off on the joints for a few years. I expect you guys to, though. You see, if you can't stay sober for a few years to save someone else's life, you have no right to a moral high ground. You're the worst kind of scum. I don't know who here does drugs, but I know a lot do. I know that there are a few in this thread, right now. Say what you will about SR, say what you will about pot or crack or heroine or whatever the hell else is out there. You can't argue for financing cartels. No matter how hard anyone argues, they can't justify that. Not when all they have to do is wait a few years. On October 03 2013 07:40 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:32 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 07:26 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:21 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 07:17 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:13 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 07:04 beg wrote:
[quote]
dude, you are talking fantasy. people WILL take drugs, period. in fact, if you legalize cannabis the amount of regular smokers won't even increase.
how long do you want to make people wait? decades? centuries? i'm sorry, we don't live that long as human beings.
yes, everyone realizes that legalization solves problems. but in the majority of countries it's not gonna happen in our lifetimes. Yes I expect them to wait. The other option is allowing people to get their drugs from whoever, which can and very often is unsavory sources. I am not willing to accept that it is or ever will be okay for people to be giving money to criminals and as such people must be punished for funding crime. buying from whoever means that the guy with the best quality will win. i remember just 5 years ago a lot of(!) european countries would be selling cannabis contaminated with extremely fine sand/glass to make it heavier. again, you "expect them to wait". dude. no. THEY DONT WAIT. period. it's fact. it's reality. it's like the governments saying "we expect you to not use drugs". that's literally what the german government says. "oh, all your cannabis is sickly contaminted with bullshit? well, dont smoke, BITCHES" Fine then, If they don't wait then they will be charged with a crime then, that is how it works. We cannot make it allowable to fund crime regardless of how much people desire the product the criminals are providing. again, this is where you drift into fantasy. "we cannot allow". it IS happening. no matter what you want or dont want. it's happening, period. at least you agree that legalization is the best way. thank god. now assuming that it's happening no matter what, would you rather want people to buy from actual criminals who cut the substances with meth and fine sand or would you want them to be able to buy from "reasonable criminals who care about quality"? cause SR apparently was a reliable source. i never tried it though. If the cartels are losing business because other sources are beating out their quality they will likely increase their quality to compete, they already have a massive profit margin to work with due to the "illegal substance premium" on what they are selling. On the same note, just because a source sells "good weed" doesn't mean they conduct good business in the real world, someone selling good weed could still be part of a gang responsible for reprehensible crimes. As such my problem is less with the selling of the product and more with who people are giving their money to. The anonymity of Silk Road also would cause some worry to me because it is rather difficult to know whose hands your money is making its way into. in your example the overall quality of drugs increases. so far so good. does the gang bullshit also increase? really? think your own example through to the end. will the super criminal shit increase just because a quality source appeared? worst case scenario is the sources battling each other Will it decrease? it might. i dont know. i think it's gonna remain a constant. who knows... it's hard to judge. there's no easy studies to be done. when you wanna see the development of addiction you can just ask random people on the street. it's not that easy with underground criminals. i hope you see that your argument about "expecting people to not use drugs for a few years" is just wrong. people have been waiting half a century to smoke cannabis again. you expect them to wait? hahaha oh boy <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 I'm not expecting the vast majority of people to do it. Most people don't give a shit. I'm talking to guys like you. Guys who want to believe they're doing the right thing. The right thing is to argue your case, convince the masses certain drugs deserve to be legalized, then watch as they get legalized. The alternative is to sit on your ass smoking joints, bemoaning the state of the nation while doing nothing to actually change it. Not once have I ever seen a truly meaningful debate about drug legalization off the internet. Not once have I ever seen a protest, or an awareness march, or just some sign people out there actually give a shit. I hear all the time about how the internet has given everybody a voice, but that couldn't be further from the truth. So many people talk so much that nothing said around here really matters anymore. The internet is where the People's voice goes to die. So let me repeat: put the joints aside. Grab a few of your friends and tell them why some drugs should be legalized. Ask them to tell their friends. Most of us are part of an idealistic, passionate age group. Starting something is surprisingly easy, you just need to make sure there's a snowball. The alternative is to send your money to, as I have said many times before, murderers and rapists. Making the world worse like that instead of putting in the effort to change it for the better is one of the worst forms of laziness and selfishness. Buy drugs from anyone that isn't a 100% confirmed back-yard grower, and you cannot be said to be anything less than a monster. After all, only a monster is willing to tolerate murder in exchange for a high. I'm bowing out, by the way. This is only vaguely related to the topic at hand and I don't want to derail even more. Besides, group consensus is a hard thing to fight. If you have even one person taking your side, odds are you'll have trouble being convinced by even the most rock-solid argument. If I haven't convinced you already, you aren't going to be convinced, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
you want me to put my joint aside and fight a giant group consensus? chances are cannabis won't be legalized in the next few decades in germany. and actually i think a joint would help me in that fight.
there's a lot of protests and awareness marchs btw. and i surely explained matters to a lot of my friends. actually it seems that most people of our generation agree anyways. it's the older generations that are stuck in their thinking patterns forged by prohibition.
(you never hear about the protests cause they're not on TV, duuuuuh)
edit: please give me a hint how to convince politicians. their lies are as bold as they could get. angela merkel said that smoking cigarettes or drinking is ok every now and then, but smoking cannabis can make you addicted immediately. HOW THE FUCK AM I GONNA DO SOMETHING AGAINST THAT, LOL
|
Hope he gets locked away for a long time. In the case of hard drugs, people need to be protected from themselves, for the greater benefit of society. I'll bet this scumbag Ross has come up with some moral justification for what he has done lol. "It's a safe way to get hard drugs otherwise these people would be going to dangerous sources herp derp". Better for those few druggies to be harmed by dangerous sources than for a greater amount of druggies to have easy access to the drug.
|
On October 03 2013 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:
Hope he gets locked away for a long time. In the case of hard drugs, people need to be protected from themselves, for the greater benefit of society. I'll bet this scumbag Ross has come up with some moral justification for what he has done lol. "It's a safe way to get hard drugs otherwise these people would be going to dangerous sources herp derp". Better for those few druggies to be harmed by dangerous sources than for a greater amount of druggies to have easy access to the drug.
Ah yes, the old "If it's easier to get, everyone is going to go out and do meth!" argument.
|
Ah yes, the old "If it's easier to get, everyone is going to go out and do meth!" argument.
It's gonna blow everybody's mind when they find out that meth is actually a perfectly legitimate psychoactive substance, that basically all of the stimulants that we use (dexedrine, adderall, etc.) are related compounds, and that the reason it fucks people up is because they take way too much of it way too often. But what ends up happening? Stupid shit like adderall becoming Schedule I controlled in some countries because it's related to meth. It's absurd.
Hard drugs are nearly always less harmful than they're made out to be. The bad effects come from wanton misuse or chronic abuse, with a couple of exceptions. Psychedelics are half-harmless, as a group, stimulants are fine unless you OD/it's cocaine and you OD/you have an underlying medical condition, depressants are pretty dangerous (still can't really understand why anyone would ever take an overdose of a depressant; their normal doses are more than sufficient for anxiolytic effects, and if someone wants to feel good, there are better options) and the rest are sorta a mixed bag. You hear all these horrible stories about how this addiction had these withdrawal effects, or how X caused Y to die at 25, or whatever, but the truth is that prescribed drugs (or even some OTC) drugs have similar horror stories if you care to look for them. First-line anti-depressants, for example, have fucking atrocious withdrawal phases. Not as bad as benzos (which aren't as bad as barbiturates) but still. Similar idea.
|
On October 03 2013 09:38 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +Ah yes, the old "If it's easier to get, everyone is going to go out and do meth!" argument. It's gonna blow everybody's mind when they find out that meth is actually a perfectly legitimate psychoactive substance, that basically all of the stimulants that we use (dexedrine, adderall, etc.) are related compounds, and that the reason it fucks people up is because they take way too much of it way too often. But what ends up happening? Stupid shit like adderall becoming Schedule I controlled in some countries because it's related to meth. It's absurd. Hard drugs are nearly always less harmful than they're made out to be. The bad effects come from wanton misuse or chronic abuse, with a couple of exceptions. Psychedelics are half-harmless, as a group, stimulants are fine unless you OD/it's cocaine and you OD/you have an underlying medical condition, depressants are pretty dangerous (still can't really understand why anyone would ever take an overdose of a depressant; their normal doses are more than sufficient for anxiolytic effects, and if someone wants to feel good, there are better options) and the rest are sorta a mixed bag. You hear all these horrible stories about how this addiction had these withdrawal effects, or how X caused Y to die at 25, or whatever, but the truth is that prescribed drugs (or even some OTC) drugs have similar horror stories if you care to look for them. First-line anti-depressants, for example, have fucking atrocious withdrawal phases. Not as bad as benzos (which aren't as bad as barbiturates) but still. Similar idea.
i dont have any good information about meth, but just because two substances are similar in structure it doesnt mean that they're similar in addictiveness etc.
from what i've heard there's a huge difference between methamphetamines and regular amphetamines (adderall etc)
|
i dont have any good information about meth, but just because two substances are similar in structure it doesnt mean that they're similar in addictiveness etc.
from what i've heard there's a huge difference between methamphetamines and regular amphetamines (adderall etc)
Yes, there is a (pretty large) difference. But that doesn't stop adderall from being illegal (and, in some cases, as illegal as meth).
|
We already have pretty strong evidence of how drug use may be effect/uneffected by virtual legalization; portugal. And as far as I know rates remained basically even since they changed their drug laws. The case for prohibition just becomes vindictiveness if it doesnt meaningfully effect the drug abuse rate.
|
On October 03 2013 09:45 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +i dont have any good information about meth, but just because two substances are similar in structure it doesnt mean that they're similar in addictiveness etc.
from what i've heard there's a huge difference between methamphetamines and regular amphetamines (adderall etc) Yes, there is a (pretty large) difference. But that doesn't stop adderall from being illegal (and, in some cases, as illegal as meth).
Only on paper though. Your kids can snort as much adderall as they want in college and they'll only get a few days probation at worst if they're ever caught.
|
On October 03 2013 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:
Hope he burns in hell for a long time. In the case of heresy, people need to be protected from themselves, for the greater benefit of christendom. I'll bet this scumbag Luther has come up with some moral justification for what he has done lol. "It's a safe way to get into heaven otherwise these people would be going to dangerous sources herp derp". Better for those few heretics to be harmed by dangerous sources than for a greater amount of heretics to have easy access to the bible.
See how similar that sounds? Nothing gives you or the state any legitimate authority to interfere in the affairs of an individual that harms no one else. It is an outrage that an organization that is supposed to protect us from each other, ends up regulating our lives down to the smallest detail of which substances we decide to consume.
|
On October 03 2013 09:46 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 09:45 Shiori wrote:i dont have any good information about meth, but just because two substances are similar in structure it doesnt mean that they're similar in addictiveness etc.
from what i've heard there's a huge difference between methamphetamines and regular amphetamines (adderall etc) Yes, there is a (pretty large) difference. But that doesn't stop adderall from being illegal (and, in some cases, as illegal as meth). Only on paper though. Your kids can snort as much adderall as they want in college and they'll only get a few days probation at worst if they're ever caught.
The problem isn't with the users; it's with the economy of the drug. Yes, your kids can take as much adderall as they want and face no consequences if they're caught, but getting adderall requires one of the following:
1) you have a prescription for it
2) you have someone who has a prescription for it who will sell it to you
3) you steal it
4) you make it
1 and 2 are obviously the most common, but both of them are complete fucking wastes of medical resources (faking conditions to get scripts, etc.) as well as possibly being insurance fraud, on some level. The point is that when I want to get tylenol, I walk to the nearest grocery store and buy some tylenol. If I want to get adderall I have to lie to a psychiatrist/doctor and/or buy it from someone who does that legwork for me. It's pointless and idiotic, and people who get caught dealing said substances could very well face more than a probation.
|
On October 03 2013 09:18 beg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 09:05 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On October 03 2013 08:16 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:45 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On October 03 2013 07:14 Jormundr wrote:On October 03 2013 06:59 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 06:52 Dazed_Spy wrote:Outside of the [possible] murder, this is stupid. We should be legalizing [not monopolizing or handing out liscensure] things like this. Safe, easy, cheap way to buy drugs? This is improving peoples lives and acting in concert with their desires. The Governments got no place telling people what they can or cant sell, or what they can or cant buy. On October 03 2013 06:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 06:42 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 05:03 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
[quote]
I would rather they have the fear of ``going into a bad part of town`` so that they think twice before trying to buy their illegal substances and services. damn, such a statement can only come from several decades of prohibition. so close-minded. so wrong. i dont even know how to put it in words. SORRY BRO. YOU'RE WRONG. so if someone wants to smoke a joint, he should rather buy from a fucking street corner where people contaminate the cannabis with all kinds of shit? such a person should not be able to buy from a trustworthy source he can rely on? DSFJifgreugtfeugpoda ujg wrip hbmrt0 gi0´ hu´ wogrhujbü smhu9q 64hüogrt j qßó4tz8i+ hja´ 8z´ 4thjß´mhu´54z all that prohibition propaganda fucked you guys up. it's so sad to me. it hurts. i cant even express it. why do people have to be criminalized? the only way to express what i feel is smashing my keyboard like you saw. but i didnt smash it in rage, ok? i kept smashing the buttons because i feel so helpless over this propaganda bullshit. it HURTS. It may surprise you, but I support the legalization of Marijuana, I do not however support people putting money into the hands of dangerous criminals and illegal organizations, so until marijuana is legal and regulated I would like it to be made as hard as possible for people to be putting money into the hands of criminals. In other words, even though you believe its morally acceptable for people to use Pot, you want to make it impossible for them to use pot and punish them for attempting it, because they get it from the only source [literally by definition] that they possibly could get it from. Hypocritical, backasswards logic. Its not hypocritical at all, I would just ask people to wait for proper channels to be opened up for them to purchase their drugs from, regardless of what you want, it is always going to be wrong to giving money to dangerous criminal organizations. The problem comes from the substance being illegal, legalizing it would solve many problems but until then I want people to be punished for funding criminal gangs just for a cheap high. That's moronic. If the moral issue is triggered by the fact that it is illegal, then the people who bear the moral burden would be the people who make it illegal and thus immoral. That's like blaming gun manufacturers for a murder you committed. Somebody else made buying drugs a bad thing. How does that make you buying drugs any less reprehensible? America is a democracy. Every American in here has the ability to directly influence policy, both through voting and bringing your acquaintances around to your point of view. We all have the ability to legalize many drugs and make buying them harmless. It'd only take a few years. Yes, I'm aware I can't expect society at large to hold off on the joints for a few years. I expect you guys to, though. You see, if you can't stay sober for a few years to save someone else's life, you have no right to a moral high ground. You're the worst kind of scum. I don't know who here does drugs, but I know a lot do. I know that there are a few in this thread, right now. Say what you will about SR, say what you will about pot or crack or heroine or whatever the hell else is out there. You can't argue for financing cartels. No matter how hard anyone argues, they can't justify that. Not when all they have to do is wait a few years. On October 03 2013 07:40 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:32 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 07:26 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:21 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 07:17 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:13 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Yes I expect them to wait. The other option is allowing people to get their drugs from whoever, which can and very often is unsavory sources. I am not willing to accept that it is or ever will be okay for people to be giving money to criminals and as such people must be punished for funding crime. buying from whoever means that the guy with the best quality will win. i remember just 5 years ago a lot of(!) european countries would be selling cannabis contaminated with extremely fine sand/glass to make it heavier. again, you "expect them to wait". dude. no. THEY DONT WAIT. period. it's fact. it's reality. it's like the governments saying "we expect you to not use drugs". that's literally what the german government says. "oh, all your cannabis is sickly contaminted with bullshit? well, dont smoke, BITCHES" Fine then, If they don't wait then they will be charged with a crime then, that is how it works. We cannot make it allowable to fund crime regardless of how much people desire the product the criminals are providing. again, this is where you drift into fantasy. "we cannot allow". it IS happening. no matter what you want or dont want. it's happening, period. at least you agree that legalization is the best way. thank god. now assuming that it's happening no matter what, would you rather want people to buy from actual criminals who cut the substances with meth and fine sand or would you want them to be able to buy from "reasonable criminals who care about quality"? cause SR apparently was a reliable source. i never tried it though. If the cartels are losing business because other sources are beating out their quality they will likely increase their quality to compete, they already have a massive profit margin to work with due to the "illegal substance premium" on what they are selling. On the same note, just because a source sells "good weed" doesn't mean they conduct good business in the real world, someone selling good weed could still be part of a gang responsible for reprehensible crimes. As such my problem is less with the selling of the product and more with who people are giving their money to. The anonymity of Silk Road also would cause some worry to me because it is rather difficult to know whose hands your money is making its way into. in your example the overall quality of drugs increases. so far so good. does the gang bullshit also increase? really? think your own example through to the end. will the super criminal shit increase just because a quality source appeared? worst case scenario is the sources battling each other Will it decrease? it might. i dont know. i think it's gonna remain a constant. who knows... it's hard to judge. there's no easy studies to be done. when you wanna see the development of addiction you can just ask random people on the street. it's not that easy with underground criminals. i hope you see that your argument about "expecting people to not use drugs for a few years" is just wrong. people have been waiting half a century to smoke cannabis again. you expect them to wait? hahaha oh boy <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 I'm not expecting the vast majority of people to do it. Most people don't give a shit. I'm talking to guys like you. Guys who want to believe they're doing the right thing. The right thing is to argue your case, convince the masses certain drugs deserve to be legalized, then watch as they get legalized. The alternative is to sit on your ass smoking joints, bemoaning the state of the nation while doing nothing to actually change it. Not once have I ever seen a truly meaningful debate about drug legalization off the internet. Not once have I ever seen a protest, or an awareness march, or just some sign people out there actually give a shit. I hear all the time about how the internet has given everybody a voice, but that couldn't be further from the truth. So many people talk so much that nothing said around here really matters anymore. The internet is where the People's voice goes to die. So let me repeat: put the joints aside. Grab a few of your friends and tell them why some drugs should be legalized. Ask them to tell their friends. Most of us are part of an idealistic, passionate age group. Starting something is surprisingly easy, you just need to make sure there's a snowball. The alternative is to send your money to, as I have said many times before, murderers and rapists. Making the world worse like that instead of putting in the effort to change it for the better is one of the worst forms of laziness and selfishness. Buy drugs from anyone that isn't a 100% confirmed back-yard grower, and you cannot be said to be anything less than a monster. After all, only a monster is willing to tolerate murder in exchange for a high. I'm bowing out, by the way. This is only vaguely related to the topic at hand and I don't want to derail even more. Besides, group consensus is a hard thing to fight. If you have even one person taking your side, odds are you'll have trouble being convinced by even the most rock-solid argument. If I haven't convinced you already, you aren't going to be convinced, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. you want me to put my joint aside and fight a giant group consensus? chances are cannabis won't be legalized in the next few decades in germany. and actually i think a joint would help me in that fight. there's a lot of protests and awareness marchs btw. and i surely explained matters to a lot of my friends. actually it seems that most people of our generation agree anyways. it's the older generations that are stuck in their thinking patterns forged by prohibition. (you never hear about the protests cause they're not on TV, duuuuuh) edit: please give me a hint how to convince politicians. their lies are as bold as they could get. angela merkel said that smoking cigarettes or drinking is ok every now and then, but smoking cannabis can make you addicted immediately. HOW THE FUCK AM I GONNA DO SOMETHING AGAINST THAT, LOL
I never said go through the politicians. They're lying, corrupt bastards. I said go through the constituents or deal with the fact that you're a terrible person.
|
On October 03 2013 09:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 09:18 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 09:05 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On October 03 2013 08:16 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:45 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On October 03 2013 07:14 Jormundr wrote:On October 03 2013 06:59 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 06:52 Dazed_Spy wrote:Outside of the [possible] murder, this is stupid. We should be legalizing [not monopolizing or handing out liscensure] things like this. Safe, easy, cheap way to buy drugs? This is improving peoples lives and acting in concert with their desires. The Governments got no place telling people what they can or cant sell, or what they can or cant buy. On October 03 2013 06:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 06:42 beg wrote:
[quote]
damn, such a statement can only come from several decades of prohibition. so close-minded. so wrong. i dont even know how to put it in words.
SORRY BRO. YOU'RE WRONG.
so if someone wants to smoke a joint, he should rather buy from a fucking street corner where people contaminate the cannabis with all kinds of shit? such a person should not be able to buy from a trustworthy source he can rely on?
DSFJifgreugtfeugpoda ujg
wrip
hbmrt0
gi0´
hu´
wogrhujbü
smhu9q
64hüogrt
j
qßó4tz8i+
hja´
8z´
4thjß´mhu´54z
all that prohibition propaganda fucked you guys up. it's so sad to me. it hurts. i cant even express it. why do people have to be criminalized? the only way to express what i feel is smashing my keyboard like you saw. but i didnt smash it in rage, ok? i kept smashing the buttons because i feel so helpless over this propaganda bullshit. it HURTS. It may surprise you, but I support the legalization of Marijuana, I do not however support people putting money into the hands of dangerous criminals and illegal organizations, so until marijuana is legal and regulated I would like it to be made as hard as possible for people to be putting money into the hands of criminals. In other words, even though you believe its morally acceptable for people to use Pot, you want to make it impossible for them to use pot and punish them for attempting it, because they get it from the only source [literally by definition] that they possibly could get it from. Hypocritical, backasswards logic. Its not hypocritical at all, I would just ask people to wait for proper channels to be opened up for them to purchase their drugs from, regardless of what you want, it is always going to be wrong to giving money to dangerous criminal organizations. The problem comes from the substance being illegal, legalizing it would solve many problems but until then I want people to be punished for funding criminal gangs just for a cheap high. That's moronic. If the moral issue is triggered by the fact that it is illegal, then the people who bear the moral burden would be the people who make it illegal and thus immoral. That's like blaming gun manufacturers for a murder you committed. Somebody else made buying drugs a bad thing. How does that make you buying drugs any less reprehensible? America is a democracy. Every American in here has the ability to directly influence policy, both through voting and bringing your acquaintances around to your point of view. We all have the ability to legalize many drugs and make buying them harmless. It'd only take a few years. Yes, I'm aware I can't expect society at large to hold off on the joints for a few years. I expect you guys to, though. You see, if you can't stay sober for a few years to save someone else's life, you have no right to a moral high ground. You're the worst kind of scum. I don't know who here does drugs, but I know a lot do. I know that there are a few in this thread, right now. Say what you will about SR, say what you will about pot or crack or heroine or whatever the hell else is out there. You can't argue for financing cartels. No matter how hard anyone argues, they can't justify that. Not when all they have to do is wait a few years. On October 03 2013 07:40 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:32 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 07:26 beg wrote:On October 03 2013 07:21 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 03 2013 07:17 beg wrote:
[quote]
buying from whoever means that the guy with the best quality will win. i remember just 5 years ago a lot of(!) european countries would be selling cannabis contaminated with extremely fine sand/glass to make it heavier.
again, you "expect them to wait". dude. no. THEY DONT WAIT. period. it's fact. it's reality. it's like the governments saying "we expect you to not use drugs". that's literally what the german government says. "oh, all your cannabis is sickly contaminted with bullshit? well, dont smoke, BITCHES" Fine then, If they don't wait then they will be charged with a crime then, that is how it works. We cannot make it allowable to fund crime regardless of how much people desire the product the criminals are providing. again, this is where you drift into fantasy. "we cannot allow". it IS happening. no matter what you want or dont want. it's happening, period. at least you agree that legalization is the best way. thank god. now assuming that it's happening no matter what, would you rather want people to buy from actual criminals who cut the substances with meth and fine sand or would you want them to be able to buy from "reasonable criminals who care about quality"? cause SR apparently was a reliable source. i never tried it though. If the cartels are losing business because other sources are beating out their quality they will likely increase their quality to compete, they already have a massive profit margin to work with due to the "illegal substance premium" on what they are selling. On the same note, just because a source sells "good weed" doesn't mean they conduct good business in the real world, someone selling good weed could still be part of a gang responsible for reprehensible crimes. As such my problem is less with the selling of the product and more with who people are giving their money to. The anonymity of Silk Road also would cause some worry to me because it is rather difficult to know whose hands your money is making its way into. in your example the overall quality of drugs increases. so far so good. does the gang bullshit also increase? really? think your own example through to the end. will the super criminal shit increase just because a quality source appeared? worst case scenario is the sources battling each other Will it decrease? it might. i dont know. i think it's gonna remain a constant. who knows... it's hard to judge. there's no easy studies to be done. when you wanna see the development of addiction you can just ask random people on the street. it's not that easy with underground criminals. i hope you see that your argument about "expecting people to not use drugs for a few years" is just wrong. people have been waiting half a century to smoke cannabis again. you expect them to wait? hahaha oh boy <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 I'm not expecting the vast majority of people to do it. Most people don't give a shit. I'm talking to guys like you. Guys who want to believe they're doing the right thing. The right thing is to argue your case, convince the masses certain drugs deserve to be legalized, then watch as they get legalized. The alternative is to sit on your ass smoking joints, bemoaning the state of the nation while doing nothing to actually change it. Not once have I ever seen a truly meaningful debate about drug legalization off the internet. Not once have I ever seen a protest, or an awareness march, or just some sign people out there actually give a shit. I hear all the time about how the internet has given everybody a voice, but that couldn't be further from the truth. So many people talk so much that nothing said around here really matters anymore. The internet is where the People's voice goes to die. So let me repeat: put the joints aside. Grab a few of your friends and tell them why some drugs should be legalized. Ask them to tell their friends. Most of us are part of an idealistic, passionate age group. Starting something is surprisingly easy, you just need to make sure there's a snowball. The alternative is to send your money to, as I have said many times before, murderers and rapists. Making the world worse like that instead of putting in the effort to change it for the better is one of the worst forms of laziness and selfishness. Buy drugs from anyone that isn't a 100% confirmed back-yard grower, and you cannot be said to be anything less than a monster. After all, only a monster is willing to tolerate murder in exchange for a high. I'm bowing out, by the way. This is only vaguely related to the topic at hand and I don't want to derail even more. Besides, group consensus is a hard thing to fight. If you have even one person taking your side, odds are you'll have trouble being convinced by even the most rock-solid argument. If I haven't convinced you already, you aren't going to be convinced, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. you want me to put my joint aside and fight a giant group consensus? chances are cannabis won't be legalized in the next few decades in germany. and actually i think a joint would help me in that fight. there's a lot of protests and awareness marchs btw. and i surely explained matters to a lot of my friends. actually it seems that most people of our generation agree anyways. it's the older generations that are stuck in their thinking patterns forged by prohibition. (you never hear about the protests cause they're not on TV, duuuuuh) edit: please give me a hint how to convince politicians. their lies are as bold as they could get. angela merkel said that smoking cigarettes or drinking is ok every now and then, but smoking cannabis can make you addicted immediately. HOW THE FUCK AM I GONNA DO SOMETHING AGAINST THAT, LOL I never said go through the politicians. They're lying, corrupt bastards. I said go through the constituents or deal with the fact that you're a terrible person.
the constituents? you mean the voters? how am i gonna do that? seriously, throw me some ideas  . how to make something snowball when you fight a big group consensus?
|
On October 03 2013 09:38 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +Ah yes, the old "If it's easier to get, everyone is going to go out and do meth!" argument. It's gonna blow everybody's mind when they find out that meth is actually a perfectly legitimate psychoactive substance, that basically all of the stimulants that we use (dexedrine, adderall, etc.) are related compounds, and that the reason it fucks people up is because they take way too much of it way too often. But what ends up happening? Stupid shit like adderall becoming Schedule I controlled in some countries because it's related to meth. It's absurd. Hard drugs are nearly always less harmful than they're made out to be. The bad effects come from wanton misuse or chronic abuse, with a couple of exceptions. Psychedelics are half-harmless, as a group, stimulants are fine unless you OD/it's cocaine and you OD/you have an underlying medical condition, depressants are pretty dangerous (still can't really understand why anyone would ever take an overdose of a depressant; their normal doses are more than sufficient for anxiolytic effects, and if someone wants to feel good, there are better options) and the rest are sorta a mixed bag. You hear all these horrible stories about how this addiction had these withdrawal effects, or how X caused Y to die at 25, or whatever, but the truth is that prescribed drugs (or even some OTC) drugs have similar horror stories if you care to look for them. First-line anti-depressants, for example, have fucking atrocious withdrawal phases. Not as bad as benzos (which aren't as bad as barbiturates) but still. Similar idea.
I do not even have to look them up, I've lost too many friends and family from oxy OD's.
Back on topic, he covered himself fairly well for quite a long time, but one little slip-up, GG.
And I see this getting closed if it's all about drugs legal/illegal/cannibas legal arguments and flaming, which would suck. 
|
On October 03 2013 09:46 Pelopidas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:
Hope he burns in hell for a long time. In the case of heresy, people need to be protected from themselves, for the greater benefit of christendom. I'll bet this scumbag Luther has come up with some moral justification for what he has done lol. "It's a safe way to get into heaven otherwise these people would be going to dangerous sources herp derp". Better for those few heretics to be harmed by dangerous sources than for a greater amount of heretics to have easy access to the bible. See how similar that sounds? Nothing gives you or the state any legitimate authority to interfere in the affairs of an individual that harms no one else. It is an outrage that an organization that is supposed to protect us from each other, ends up regulating our lives down to the smallest detail of which substances we decide to consume.
No actually that doesn't sound similar at all. You know you guys are supposed to be using these arguments for marijuana, not hard drugs. You think all the idiots in this country can responsibly experiment with and take hard drugs in moderation? Unfortunately idiots need to be protected from themselves, lest they put a financial burden on society or harm others. And there are a lot of idiots. Lol you know how common hard drugs would become in college if people could shop online for it. All of those ADHD addictive personality kids can't control themselves with hard drugs.
|
On October 03 2013 09:59 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 09:46 Pelopidas wrote:On October 03 2013 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:
Hope he burns in hell for a long time. In the case of heresy, people need to be protected from themselves, for the greater benefit of christendom. I'll bet this scumbag Luther has come up with some moral justification for what he has done lol. "It's a safe way to get into heaven otherwise these people would be going to dangerous sources herp derp". Better for those few heretics to be harmed by dangerous sources than for a greater amount of heretics to have easy access to the bible. See how similar that sounds? Nothing gives you or the state any legitimate authority to interfere in the affairs of an individual that harms no one else. It is an outrage that an organization that is supposed to protect us from each other, ends up regulating our lives down to the smallest detail of which substances we decide to consume. No actually that doesn't sound similar at all. You know you guys are supposed to be using these arguments for marijuana, not hard drugs. You think all the idiots in this country can responsibly experiment with and take hard drugs in moderation? Unfortunately idiots need to be protected from themselves, lest they put a financial burden on society or harm others. And there are a lot of idiots. Lol you know how common hard drugs would become in college if people could shop online for it. All of those ADHD addictive personality kids can't control themselves with hard drugs.
I bet you can't, seeing as how you can't stay away from the koolaid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
