|
On August 06 2009 14:36 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 13:54 ghermination wrote: So i just tried some of that ketamine. I'm pleasantly dissociated but i'm not looking to k-hole this time, and i just want to admit something: I hate people who think that "drugs r bad". I hate people who judge anything without experience in it. No, I just guess all those documentaries with drug addicts who have such a shitty semblence of life and contribute absolutely nothing to society is made up. I'm just wondering. Do you enjoy life when you are not doped up on narcotics? There is so much more to this world than pursuing the path you have chosen. In the end, its your decision, but don't play it off as if drugs are some introspective substance that cause no harm. Oh yeah, since the drugs are so harmless, how come its so easy to OD with drugs like Crack, PCP, Meph, Cocaine, etc. To deny drugs are harmful is quite frankly to be a completely misinformed ignorant. I shoot straight from the hip and tell it like it is, don't shoot the messenger for the message.
LOL you just give me the idea that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Of all the drugs you listed, the only one that anyone but an idiot would be able to OD on would be Meth. With crack you would have to smoke a LOT, and i mean probably more than anyone into crack can afford at one time. With cocaine you would have to either be snorting pure or just have a death wish, as you can clearly see just with common sense how much is too much. Anyone serious enough to get into PCP has a pretty good idea of how much they should take. Also i like my life, i'm working my way through college, have grown closer with my family lately, and may be getting engaged soon. Obviously you don't understand that just like most other things in life, drugs are fine in moderation.
|
I know long time drug users who say "fuck no" to things like cocaine and heroin...
so maybe they aren't too safe.....i'm probably wrong though...
|
Hey I just thought of something. Are those in the US who looked at this thread now accessories to the crime by not telling the police? Obstruction of justice or something, withholding of knowledge or a crime?
|
On August 06 2009 15:59 sArite_nite wrote: Hey I just thought of something. Are those in the US who looked at this thread now accessories to the crime by not telling the police? Obstruction of justice or something, withholding of knowledge or a crime?
Considering i don't live in the U.S. and i think there are four or five other Croatians who post regularly on this site, no i don't think they are. Although i've never given incredibly clear details on where i live, basically i lived here till i was 7 -> moved to the US, moved back when i was 18, became a dealer in that time, and now i'm nearly* 22.
On August 06 2009 15:29 eMbrace wrote: I know long time drug users who say "fuck no" to things like cocaine and heroin...
so maybe they aren't too safe.....i'm probably wrong though...
It seems that there are a lot of misunderstandings about the actual "strength" (in terms of what will fuck you up the most) of a lot of drugs. For example, cocaine is a stimulant but it really isn't that powerful as far as stimulants go, whereas heroin is a pretty damned strong opiate, eclipsed really only by fentanyl in what is available to the public.
|
On August 06 2009 06:27 Frits wrote:who the hell cares about drug dealers Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 03:59 Boblion wrote:On August 06 2009 03:48 ghermination wrote:On August 06 2009 01:55 Boblion wrote:On August 05 2009 15:49 stroggos wrote: In my eyes, drug dealing is more harmful than child rape and murder when its on a big scale.
and btw i think ALL drugs should be legalised. Logic ! Actually i agree with him, for example look at factory farming. I hate the way they torture thsoe animals every step of their lives but that doesn't make me hate beef or pork. And how people addicted to coke / hero etc ... will pay for their legalized shit ? They will still steal. If you legalize drugs it wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is illegally, the profit drug dealers make on it is very very large. Drug dealers exploit addicts and ruin their lives, and then act like they're actually helping them.
On August 06 2009 12:13 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 03:40 Boblion wrote:On August 06 2009 03:04 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 06 2009 01:55 Boblion wrote:On August 05 2009 15:49 stroggos wrote: In my eyes, drug dealing is more harmful than child rape and murder when its on a big scale.
and btw i think ALL drugs should be legalised. Logic ! there's nothing illogical about what he said to be sickened by the acts that take place in the trafficking of a substance and to be ambivolent about the substance itself are two entirely seperate things that can certainly exist in one person simultaneously But why he is saying that "it is harmful when its on big scale "? It will disappear if it is legalized ? why would anyone do a bunch of illegal dangerous shit to move a legal product? do you see gangs of bandits with guns a-blazing robbing liquor stores to sell liquor to people? no, because people can go to the liquor store themselves, they don't need someone to steal it or grow it or force slave labor to refine it before they get theirs. like, gangsters making and selling and fighting over liquor supplies ended immediately when prohibition ended in the US. i doubt that's an accurate analogy these days, but it's better than hypothetical situations I understand your point and i somewhat agree with you but mostly for marijuana because this can't really destroy your health and make you as dangerous than drugs like hero or coke. The only problem would be driving under influence ( but we can always test people like for alcohol ).
If you legalize this shit it also gets more accessible and instead of smoking joints the kids will try hero to be cool.
You are talking like if alcohol = marijuana = hero = coke = ... like if all those substances were the same. They aren't.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On August 07 2009 00:09 Boblion wrote: You are talking like if alcohol = marijuana = hero = coke = ... like if all those substances were the same. They aren't.
actually i said absolutely nothing that suggested this. i just stated that legalizing an illegal substance does in fact collapse illegal activity centered around the manufacturing & trafficking of that substance
|
thedeadhaji
39473 Posts
dude you need to get rid of your computer somehow
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
sell it for more ketamine duh
|
On August 07 2009 00:35 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: sell it for more ketamine duh
FakeSteve is growing on me
|
|
Norway28278 Posts
I think we have a moral obligation to deliberately break laws that are harmful to society as they will not be changed if people keep obeying them
I also think drug laws are to a large degree downright retarded in most of the western world
However I also think that dealing hard drugs cannot be morally defended through the claim that it is a victimless crime, because it is anything but this, so whatever, some sort of punishment sounds reasonable for that
another however however, the american legal system is so fucked up anyone not deliberately attempting to hurt others prolly deserves to escape it.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
eri, you and i could have some great times together
|
On August 09 2009 04:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think we have a moral obligation to deliberately break laws that are harmful to society as they will not be changed if people keep obeying them
I also think drug laws are to a large degree downright retarded in most of the western world
I don't get this philosophy. Doesnt it require you to assume that your perspective is somehow superior to that of those who made the law? What do you know about society? Isnt your exposure to the pros and cons of the issue somewhat biased and certainly not a scholarly, academic pursuit?
I know someone who smokes pot because she thinks it should not be illegal, steals because she does not believe people should have to pay for food, etc. Where do you draw the line that separates you from the people who lynch people because they think that the laws protecting those people are harmful to society?
|
Norway28278 Posts
On August 09 2009 05:17 duckett wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2009 04:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think we have a moral obligation to deliberately break laws that are harmful to society as they will not be changed if people keep obeying them
I also think drug laws are to a large degree downright retarded in most of the western world I don't get this philosophy. Doesnt it require you to assume that your perspective is somehow superior to that of those who made the law? What do you know about society? Isnt your exposure to the pros and cons of the issue somewhat biased and certainly not a scholarly, academic pursuit? I know someone who smokes pot because she thinks it should not be illegal, steals because she does not believe people should have to pay for food, etc. Where do you draw the line that separates you from the people who lynch people because they think that the laws protecting those people are harmful to society?
you make an effort to think about stuff yourself.. to simplify (I don't really have time to fully indulge in this right now), the moral quality of an action can be judged based on this :
what happens if everyone did it?
if you contemplate different actions with that as your point of departure, then it becomes quite easy to create a well functioning moral compass of your own.. I mean life is very complex and you will always face situations that can't be answered easily and sometimes you might have to do something wrong to do something right or something wrong might be the consequence of doing something you perceive as right but for general questions of law : what happens if everyone steals? nobody gets to feel that their shit is safe, chaos emerges, society is worse off. thus, don't steal. what happens if everyone who is so poor that they can't afford food steals food? ideally few people will be in such a situation and if truly many are, then society might be pretty fucked in the first place, but in a situation where few people are, then this leads to their survival at a relatively low price for someone else. thus stealing food when you will otherwise starve to death is okay, at least unless someone else starves to death as a consequence what happens if everyone kills people at a whim? people start dying, society is harmed, you are harmed. thus killing people is wrong. what happens if everyone who wants to smoke weed smokes weed? same thing that happens in most western countries as the law here is not a deterrent. basically nothing monstrously wrong. you might expand your mental horizon in a beneficial way or maybe in a bad way, but there's nothing obviously immoral about it..
|
On August 09 2009 04:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think we have a moral obligation to deliberately break laws that are harmful to society as they will not be changed if people keep obeying them
I also think drug laws are to a large degree downright retarded in most of the western world
However I also think that dealing hard drugs cannot be morally defended through the claim that it is a victimless crime, because it is anything but this, so whatever, some sort of punishment sounds reasonable for that
another however however, the american legal system is so fucked up anyone not deliberately attempting to hurt others prolly deserves to escape it.
I was reading through this 7 page long thread and getting ready to make my reply only to see that I was a bit too late, this is verbatim exactly my thoughts
|
Just to expand on your last point, do you know the statistics for marginal change in weed usage due to illegalization? Do you know the marginal contribution to academic decay this change would cause and what marginal costs to human standard of living due to wasted potential that this decay would result in? Do you know that most of the drugs that may "expand mental horizons" also encourage the development of existing mental diseases and what cost to society that that causes? Do you understand what the neuro-physiological effects of weed are, or did you just hear that smoking it is not that big a deal? Finally, define "monsterously wrong."
If I was going to make decisions that affect others and society, I would not refer to what the product of my outdated evolutionary genetic coding and my limited personal experience find to be "monstrous" as the only things I don't allow. What remains, then, is that we don't rock the boat unless we know there aren't sharks in the water. American socialization often runs counter to this, and I find that rather disturbing.
The underlying problem with your philosophy (to me) remains that you assume that your judgment of "what happens if everyone did it?" is accurate, a view which is flawed as in the example I mentioned above.
|
Norway28278 Posts
less people smoke in holland than in usa and since legalization the average heroin addict has become like 15 years older (indicating that creating a clear separation between hard and soft drugs seriously hampers recruitment into hard-drug environments)
either way though like I said, my previous post was a (gross) simplification, obviously if you want to go on accord with the law (which in western countries will always have some form of justification, even if I disagree with it) you need to do some serious contemplation before doing so and whatever arguement you form needs a lot more thought put into it than what I can write in two paragraphs. smoking hash / weed is actually the only area where I have 0 qualms about breaking the law as a general rule (or to be more precise, while I don't use any other drugs the legal status of them has 0 impact on this decision) - and it's also a subject I have literally spent hundreds of hours contemplating. I think western law is generally sound - but I think always blindly following the law (which is the alternative to being willing to disregard it based on personal contemplation) is also equal to for example, admitting that you would accept what happened in germany prior to and during WW2..
|
On August 09 2009 06:47 duckett wrote: Just to expand on your last point, do you know the statistics for marginal change in weed usage due to illegalization? Do you know the marginal contribution to academic decay this change would cause and what marginal costs to human standard of living due to wasted potential that this decay would result in? Do you know that most of the drugs that may "expand mental horizons" also encourage the development of existing mental diseases and what cost to society that that causes? Do you understand what the neuro-physiological effects of weed are, or did you just hear that smoking it is not that big a deal? Finally, define "monsterously wrong."
If I was going to make decisions that affect others and society, I would not refer to what the product of my outdated evolutionary genetic coding and my limited personal experience find to be "monstrous" as the only things I don't allow. What remains, then, is that we don't rock the boat unless we know there aren't sharks in the water. American socialization often runs counter to this, and I find that rather disturbing.
The underlying problem with your philosophy (to me) remains that you assume that your judgment of "what happens if everyone did it?" is accurate, a view which is flawed as in the example I mentioned above.
I think while focusing why drugs should be avoided you missed something. Drugs are the last thing to blame when someone dies or gets his life broken.
Why there drugs available to people after decades of fighting against them, teaching kids why they are so life-breaking using interviews with people who actually had their lifes broken?
Because there is need to use something to get over things and there are causes that make people interested in drugs... I mean it's question of teaching people at appropriately young age of other ways to fight stress, boredom, appeasing curiosity OR at least what things should be avoided at all costs while trying (like not using 1needle with other people, but that's hardcore drugs anyways)
No one with common sense wants get killed. If someone doesn't care that means there are causes that society should fight against.
I think I read about 1 governor of New York who literally took young people of the streets (he was making clubs and something) and drastically limited number of crimes done by those people in following years. There should be more focus on things like that, not fighting mainly with consequences... they will pretty much die themselves if causes are taken care of.
I smoked weed today for the 1st time in much more than 2 years only because someone actually gave it to me as reward for taking care of their house, it was maybe 5th time. I don't even plan on getting more of it, I don't think it's cost-effective for me, alcohol and cigarettes are enough for me not to even try anything else.
On August 09 2009 08:00 Liquid`Drone wrote: less people smoke in holland than in usa and since legalization the average heroin addict has become like 15 years older (indicating that creating a clear separation between hard and soft drugs seriously hampers recruitment into hard-drug environments)
either way though like I said, my previous post was a (gross) simplification, obviously if you want to go on accord with the law (which in western countries will always have some form of justification, even if I disagree with it) you need to do some serious contemplation before doing so and whatever arguement you form needs a lot more thought put into it than what I can write in two paragraphs. smoking hash / weed is actually the only area where I have 0 qualms about breaking the law as a general rule (or to be more precise, while I don't use any other drugs the legal status of them has 0 impact on this decision) - and it's also a subject I have literally spent hundreds of hours contemplating. I think western law is generally sound - but I think always blindly following the law (which is the alternative to being willing to disregard it based on personal contemplation) is also equal to for example, admitting that you would accept what happened in germany prior to and during WW2..
Liquid`Drone after reading your posts I have a feeling getting "forbidden fruit" is what drugs are really about for you...? I wouldn't compare killing Jews and other nations with selling drugs
|
I never said drugs should be avoided in those words, and I don't know where you got my concern for the "broken people."
My argument against Liquid Drone was based on the concept of deliberately breaking laws because you feel they are unjust.ieTo go into Nazi territory (it is a relevant historical example, after all, of social policy going wrong on a large scale because of effective but almost universally reprehensible leadership)...You want to be in a place right now where your philosophy/decision making strategy ("personal contemplation") would lead you to not kill Jews. However, you fail to make the transformations of character necessary to put yourself in the context of the example: to ask yourself "would I kill a Jew in 1940s Germany" you have to assume that you are first in 1940s Germany. If you were, your process of "personal contemplation" (the combination of, as I stated, outdated evolutionary goals genetically encoded into your character, and the limited personal experience you possess (which may or may not include inspiring experiences with those same figures who polarized millions of other German citizens)) might be less morally palatable.
|
On August 09 2009 09:05 duckett wrote: I never said drugs should be avoided in those words, and I don't know where you got my concern for the "broken people."
My argument against Liquid Drone was based on the concept of deliberately breaking laws because you feel they are unjust.ieTo go into Nazi territory (it is a relevant historical example, after all, of social policy going wrong on a large scale because of effective but almost universally reprehensible leadership)...You want to be in a place right now where your philosophy/decision making strategy ("personal contemplation") would lead you to not kill Jews. However, you fail to make the transformations of character necessary to put yourself in the context of the example: to ask yourself "would I kill a Jew in 1940s Germany" you have to assume that you are first in 1940s Germany. If you were, your process of "personal contemplation" (the combination of, as I stated, outdated evolutionary goals genetically encoded into your character, and the limited personal experience you possess (which may or may not include inspiring experiences with those same figures who polarized millions of other German citizens)) might be less morally palatable.
That's a very extreme analogy and I don't think it should be used for the current argument.
The argument was that certain laws regarding certain drugs are unjust.
For example, serving years in prison for being caught with marijuana and/or ecstasy pills (two drugs that are about as harmful as alcohol).
The law doesn't always make sense.
Wish I could find this article about a young woman caught with some pot and ecstasy (for personal use, as the amount was not enough to label her a dealer) who was told she could either go to jail or wear a wire to catch some drug dealer.
She chose to do the undercover assignment -- and was shot and killed doing it.
|
|
|
|