Sorry but gotta love it ... "a business plan" to make these drugs profitable :fp: ...
yeah, thats just what we need, another parasite corporation who cares nothing for
the health and safety of people :twisted:
As opposed to parasite dealers and organized crime - the people you think deserve a shotgun to the chest?
Or were you just planning to wave your magic wand and make drugs go away?
There is ZERO concern for health and safety in the war on drugs. Zero. Its detrimental to those goals.
btw - I think it's unethical for any drug to be a profitable industry to begin with. The whole industry is unethical, period. But whadoIknow? I'm just a commy hippy.
Of course not, but it is almost impossible to die of alcohol poisoning after a couple of drinks which is what most people would call reasonable use (although people have sued bars for serving intoxicated people who end up dying from drinking too much). I don't think it is unheard of to die after using heroin a couple of times. Especially since it is easy to slap a label on a bottle of rum that says please use in moderation, but what exactly is moderation for heroin use (would they have dosage recommendations on the package)? And even if the lawsuits wouldn't be successful, how many companies would want to gamble to find out since getting sued still costs money even if you don't lose?
You can overdose on just about any drug the first time if you don't know what you're consuming. Heroin, coke, meth, are no different. That's kinda the whole point of legalizing hard drugs - harm reduction. Making sure people know what they're getting is a huge step in this. Heroin deaths spike when really GOOD heroin makes it to the street - people assume they can use the same amount they always use, but it turns out to be less cut than their usual supply, and the purity catches them by surprise.
I'm not a doctor, but I don't think I'm going out on a ledge to say that drug deaths are almost always due to overdose, or heart problems. If production is regulated and quality controlled, you can easily give a 'recommended dosage', with the usual disclaimers about side effects (ie: not recommended for people with heart conditions etc). No different than any other pharmaceutical.
Except most other drugs that are that deadly are given with a prescription. Unless a government agency is giving people free exams and then giving prescriptions for free heroin, how is a junkie with no fixed address and no income going to get it together enough to go to a doctor, get checked out then get a prescription for a dose of heroin, then go to the pharmacy and purchase it? Plus how many pharmacys are going to stock heroin? I mean oxycontin is perfectly legal yet a lot of pharmacys at least where I live have big signs saying that it is not kept in the store and only available by special order. Hell even cold meds like sudafed are usually under lock and key.
Except most other drugs that are that deadly are given with a prescription. Unless a government agency is giving people free exams and then giving prescriptions for free heroin, how is a junkie with no fixed address and no income going to get it together enough to go to a doctor, get checked out then get a prescription for a dose of heroin, then go to the pharmacy and purchase it? Plus how many pharmacys are going to stock heroin? I mean oxycontin is perfectly legal yet a lot of pharmacys at least where I live have big signs saying that it is not kept in the store and only available by special order. Hell even cold meds like sudafed are usually under lock and key.
I have no problem with prescriptions being given for it. As for being 'checked out'....I don't think that's necessary. We don't give physicals before prescribing other dangerous drugs. And I'm guessing 99% of these people are going to use regardless of the result of the physical.
As for getting it together enough to get a prescription, then go get it....you want to see a motivated junky? Catch him when he's trying to score. I don't think they'd have a problem with that aspect.
As for stocking it - do the same as oxy's - special order. Or have special clinics set up with armed guards or whatever. I don't think it would be that difficult to administer. Also, keeping records of who is using would allow targeted, user-specific education campaigns, interventions, treatment incentives, whatever.....yes, it would cost a lot of money to help these addicts.....but so does fighting the war, and incarcerating people.
I dunno....I'm just some guy with an interest in the topic. I'm sure there are healthcare professionals who would have an opinion of the best way to reduce the harm caused by these drugs. I think it's important to look into them, begin a dialogue, put a plan in motion, instead of just saying 'it can't be done'.
btw - I think it's unethical for any drug to be a profitable industry to begin with. The whole industry is unethical, period. But whadoIknow? I'm just a commy hippy.
Without profit as motivation, most drugs would not exist today.
I was on a construction project building a $1.6B pharmaceutical manufacturing plant for a drug that was going to help fight non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Over ten years of research and money had been put into creating this drug. A few months before the plant was completed, they had several patients die in stage 3 testing prior to approval. Just like that, a few billion dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours researching and building ... gone ... like Keyser Soze.
The company had to merge with another biotech company to have any chance of survival. The plant was sold at discount. Had the drug been successful and approved, they would be rich and saving lives. Instead, a lot of good people lost their jobs and dreams.
No one is going to take a risk like that without having a reward possible. And without that, the medical research field would stall.
The only way legalizing everything is if crack and heroin are given away to addicts for free by government agencies. Because for one thing, no way does any legitimate company start selling a product that if used correctly can result in instant death. If they did the first time a junkie OD's his family sues the company and they go broke. So with that taken into consideration if people wanted to buy crack or heroin they would still need to buy it from some shady guy on the corner, who could charge whatever he wanted for it and the addicts would still be stealing shit to get the money to pay for it. I would be ok with giving shit away for free but I think a lot of people would have problems (especially sick people) with the fact that they have to pay for their medication to stay alive, while some guy who wants to get high can get government funded crack.
that is a strange leap you make. I don't take your supposition as a necessary fact. All industry comes with the possibility of litigation. It is the cost of doing business unfortunately. Litigation sure hasn't made the cigarette companies stop selling smokes.
So no, legalizing heroin, crack, whatever else you may have would not make it so drugs would be bought on street corners. In fact, the exact opposite would happen. It would stop that from happening. Where there is money to be made, a company will attempt to make it.
Sorry but gotta love it ... "a business plan" to make these drugs profitable :fp: ...
yeah, thats just what we need, another parasite corporation who cares nothing for
the health and safety of people :twisted:
uh, I don't need a corporation, greedy or not, looking after my health and safety. that is my job. If I am not willing to do it, that isn't someone else's fault, it is my own.
I know it won't change your mind, but what DO was talking about couldn't be more true. The cartels don't give a shit about anyone as long as their drugs are being purchased. Why give them the power? why not take taxes from a legitimate business and fund drug awareness programs that are real and not propaganda (D.A.R.E)?
There are so many reasons for me to believe that legalizing drugs would do more good than harm around the world, if you don't that is ok, but I would implore you to look at the current situation and ask what the benefits truly are and if they outweigh the negatives.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'll continue to go with fighting crime, all crime, then ever saying ok to it.
I still have high moral expectations for society and people individually, silly me.
This is the society I want for the children, right from wrong, not do what you want
to your own body, foolishly some think that hurts no one, when indeed it hurts everyone.
I happen to think big pharmie and insurance are organized crime
we certainly don't need another legalized corporation to feed on society
just so they can get more rich and powerful and buy the lawmakers.
Just say no to drugs... including the stuff the doc pushes.
Going back to legalizing pot...
this far left "lets legalize all drugs" is hindering getting pot legal now
because it is exactly what law makers are afraid of, give an inch take a mile.
My opinion remains the same as does the other side, we agree to disagree,
but I wish they would give the 'all drugs' a rest at least until we get pot legalized. :fp:
I'll continue to go with fighting crime, all crime, then ever saying ok to it.
I still have high moral expectations for society and people individually, silly me.
This is the society I want for the children, right from wrong, not do what you want
to your own body, foolishly some think that hurts no one, when indeed it hurts everyone.
I happen to think big pharmie and insurance are organized crime
we certainly don't need another legalized corporation to feed on society
just so they can get more rich and powerful and buy the lawmakers.
Just say no to drugs... including the stuff the doc pushes.
Going back to legalizing pot...
this far left "lets legalize all drugs" is hindering getting pot legal now
because it is exactly what law makers are afraid of, give an inch take a mile.
My opinion remains the same as does the other side, we agree to disagree,
but I wish they would give the 'all drugs' a rest at least until we get pot legalized. :fp:
And that is really the thing. Corporations will continue to have this power as long as they are allowed to promote their special interests in the government. Until then, we will be looking at more of the same, a two party system upholding the interests of the corporations. Not the constitution, not the people that voted them into power, not who they are supposed to be listening to... us.
It is preaching to give an opposite opinion :? your use of the word here makes your tone sound
arrogant and dismissive to the other poster.
Sorry but gotta love it ... "a business plan" to make these drugs profitable :fp: ...
yeah, thats just what we need, another parasite corporation who cares nothing for
the health and safety of people :twisted:
An opposite opinion is fine, but when one is spouting their opinion to be construed as "fact" than it becomes more than just an "opposite opinion".
Glad to see that even though your lies were countered in the meth thread, that you haven't given up your moral propagandist crusade on how everyone should subscribe to your beliefs
Sorry but gotta love it ... "a business plan" to make these drugs profitable :fp: ...
yeah, thats just what we need, another parasite corporation who cares nothing for
the health and safety of people :twisted:
As opposed to parasite dealers and organized crime - the people you think deserve a shotgun to the chest?
Or were you just planning to wave your magic wand and make drugs go away?
There is ZERO concern for health and safety in the war on drugs. Zero. Its detrimental to those goals.
btw - I think it's unethical for any drug to be a profitable industry to begin with. The whole industry is unethical, period. But whadoIknow? I'm just a commy hippy.
Not to mention that it is a poor business plan to kill off your customers. It would be in a business' best interest to help educate their consumers on a product so as not to kill themselves and their potential future business. It is understandable that not all businesses may subscribe to that mentality, but that is what competition is for. It weeds out the poor business from the good ones.
It is preaching to give an opposite opinion :? your use of the word here makes your tone sound
arrogant and dismissive to the other poster.
Sorry but gotta love it ... "a business plan" to make these drugs profitable :fp: ...
yeah, thats just what we need, another parasite corporation who cares nothing for
the health and safety of people :twisted:
An opposite opinion is fine, but when one is spouting their opinion to be construed as "fact" than it becomes more than just an "opposite opinion".
Glad to see that even though your lies were countered in the meth thread, that you haven't given up your moral propagandist crusade on how everyone should subscribe to your beliefs
What lies? or do you call an opposite opinion now lies too?
And "spouting" another derogatory comment...
your tone disrespectful to those who do not agree with you
that is against posting guidelines.
And no I will not give up my morals sorry
as I said we agree to disagree on legalizing all drugs but hopefully we can get pot legalized,
well, unless the lawmakers make an about face...
I'll continue to go with fighting crime, all crime, then ever saying ok to it. I still have high moral expectations for society and people individually, silly me.
This is the society I want for the children, right from wrong, not do what you want
to your own body, foolishly some think that hurts no one, when indeed it hurts everyone.
I happen to think big pharmie and insurance are organized crime
we certainly don't need another legalized corporation to feed on society
just so they can get more rich and powerful and buy the lawmakers.
Just say no to drugs... including the stuff the doc pushes.
Going back to legalizing pot...
this far left "lets legalize all drugs" is hindering getting pot legal now
because it is exactly what law makers are afraid of, give an inch take a mile.
My opinion remains the same as does the other side, we agree to disagree,
but I wish they would give the 'all drugs' a rest at least until we get pot legalized. :fp:
it is actually far right
and your tone in this response is just as condescending as any others I have read. Implying immorality, criminality, and foolishness on the part of those that disagree. So there is no need to be offended, I am not, but I see in a lot of your posts the talk about importance of tone. Just a friendly reminder that what we type and what someone takes it as can be two different things.
You want that world for your children that is fine, teach them what you believe right from wrong is, that is how it should be I applaud you, teach anyone who will listen, but your right from wrong isn't the one I am going to be teaching my kids. It will be my version of morality as they all are different, and I will also encourage them to come up with their own standards they choose to live by...
Drugs are not immoral, or moral, they are amoral, it is what humans do that attaches morality...Your crime rationale is strange to me. your theory on fighting crime is exactly what Shirley Jackson wrote about...to believe that all things law should always stay that way without review of the actual results is why things are very slow to change.
but to each their own, I wish that was how I was left to live
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It is preaching to give an opposite opinion :? your use of the word here makes your tone sound
arrogant and dismissive to the other poster.
Sorry but gotta love it ... "a business plan" to make these drugs profitable :fp: ...
yeah, thats just what we need, another parasite corporation who cares nothing for
the health and safety of people :twisted:
An opposite opinion is fine, but when one is spouting their opinion to be construed as "fact" than it becomes more than just an "opposite opinion".
Glad to see that even though your lies were countered in the meth thread, that you haven't given up your moral propagandist crusade on how everyone should subscribe to your beliefs
What lies? or do you call an opposite opinion now lies too?
And "spouting" another derogatory comment...
your tone disrespectful to those who do not agree with you
that is against posting guidelines.
And no I will not give up my morals sorry
as I said we agree to disagree on legalizing all drugs but hopefully we can get pot legalized,
well, unless the lawmakers make an about face...
thanks uber liberals.
Pointing out someones lies is not against posting guidelines, especially when true.
I'll continue to go with fighting crime, all crime, then ever saying ok to it. I still have high moral expectations for society and people individually, silly me.
This is the society I want for the children, right from wrong, not do what you want
to your own body, foolishly some think that hurts no one, when indeed it hurts everyone.
I happen to think big pharmie and insurance are organized crime
we certainly don't need another legalized corporation to feed on society
just so they can get more rich and powerful and buy the lawmakers.
Just say no to drugs... including the stuff the doc pushes.
Going back to legalizing pot...
this far left "lets legalize all drugs" is hindering getting pot legal now
because it is exactly what law makers are afraid of, give an inch take a mile.
My opinion remains the same as does the other side, we agree to disagree,
but I wish they would give the 'all drugs' a rest at least until we get pot legalized. :fp:
it is actually far right
and your tone in this response is just as condescending as any others I have read. Implying immorality, criminality, and foolishness on the part of those that disagree. So there is no need to be offended, I am not, but I see in a lot of your posts the talk about importance of tone. Just a friendly reminder that what we type and what someone takes it as can be two different things. You want that world for your children that is fine, teach them what you believe right from wrong is, that is how it should be I applaud you, teach anyone who will listen, but your right from wrong isn't the one I am going to be teaching my kids. It will be my version of morality as they all are different, and I will also encourage them to come up with their own standards they choose to live by...
Drugs are not immoral, or moral, they are amoral, it is what humans do that attaches morality...Your crime rationale is strange to me. your theory on fighting crime is exactly what Shirley Jackson wrote about...to believe that all things law should always stay that way without review of the actual results is why things are very slow to change.
but to each their own, I wish that was how I was left to live
Perhaps you misunderstand...
The value system that says all drugs are ok is immoral to me,
I do not want a society based on that. I do not think that is in the best interests of
everyone, as many do not....
why all drugs aren't legal :?
The contradiction is foolish to me, yes. Not alone there either.
And the parents who do not teach? This why we have laws in place in society to protect.
And you assume I want no laws to change because I don't want all drugs legalized
that is condescending and excuse me but kind of a ridiculous comparison.
Big leap there :nono:
We will agree to disagree we know it will be no time soon for all drugs to be legalized
but hopefully that is not the case for marijuana.
Did you even click on the link? It leads directly to it.
can you not quote the lie for all to see or is it an opinion that you do not agree with?
I can quote the lie, I'm just baffled by your inability to follow a link that leads directly to it and your inability to realise that the link is available for all to see:
CRYSTAL METH has no health benefit ...
it was created for the sole purpose to cause addiction and profit from it.... illegally.
You really should do your research before you continue to spout off even more false information. Crystal Meth dates back to WWII. It was used by both the axis and the allies forces. It was extensively used to reduce fatigue and suppress appetite. Following the war era, Meth tablets were referred to as "work pills" and used widely in Japan. Not only that, it was legally used in the U.S. as well.
Did you even click on the link? It leads directly to it.
can you not quote the lie for all to see or is it an opinion that you do not agree with?
I can quote the lie, I'm just baffled by your inability to follow a link that leads directly to it and your inability to realise that the link is available for all to see:
CRYSTAL METH has no health benefit ...
it was created for the sole purpose to cause addiction and profit from it.... illegally.
You really should do your research before you continue to spout off even more false information. Crystal Meth dates back to WWII. It was used by both the axis and the allies forces. It was extensively used to reduce fatigue and suppress appetite. Following the war era, Meth tablets were referred to as "work pills" and used widely in Japan. Not only that, it was legally used in the U.S. as well.
I was happy to learn that fact but changes nothing for what it does to those who use it
TODAY recreationally to the point of sure addiction and eventual death
all often within months.
So if this is the big bad lie and all you got I don't think I'll be burning in hell for that one
no inability just thought if you were to call it a lie you should have the guts to post it is all.
Again weak argument indeed.
You and I will never agree on this one and have discussed at length so it is pointless
and you have a tendency towards rudeness, one can see even in that post.
I guess people spout who don't agree with you... nice.
In this thread yours was the first disrespectful post towards another
claiming the opposite opinion was preaching ...
I was happy to learn that fact but changes nothing for what it does to those who use it
TODAY recreationally to the point of sure addition and eventual death
all often within months.
So if this is the big bad lie and all you got I don't think I'll be burning in hell for that one
no inability just thought if you were to call it a lie you should have the guts to post it is all.
Again weak argument indeed.
You and I will never agree on this one and have discussed at length so it is pointless
and you have a tendency towards rudeness, one can see even in that post.
I guess people spout who don't agree with you... nice.
In this thread yours was the first disrespectful post towards another
claiming the opposite opinion was preaching ...
I don't think you understand things completely here. My use of "spout" that you are apparently so hung up on, is only when I find people actually spouting lies. You lied straight up and now that it has been pointed out to you, you simply engage in misdirection by not only slandering me and my intentions but also brushing it off as not being a big deal. For someone who claims a moral superiority above others, I'm a bit surprised that you find it okay to make bold-faced lies.
I am okay with you and others disagreeing with me. What I take offense to is when you propagandize your arguments with half-truths and outright lies. If you stuck to just disagreeing with people who share my position I think they would be able to engage you in a more civil fashion, but you don't. Since you sensationalize everything and misrepresent the other side I'm not going to just sit idly by and play make-believe nice with you; I'm going to call you on your bullshit. Calling somone out for their lies is not rude; when you spout lies, you spout lies. There's no way around that. No, what is rude is how you would rather misdirect and attempt to draw attention to a person not wording things to your approval than actually debate the viewpoint in an honest fashion. All that does is make it seem like you don't really have any good arguments other than how you feel everyone should submit to your moral authority.
When someone does not know a fact that does not make it a lie.
Your use of "spouting" seems to be often and nothing to do with lies....
we can take notice in the future though
I don't find people here lying a whole lot in their opinions
and definitely not preaching in the last case, that was unnecssary in my opinion.
It was belittling.
But enough about us right ....
we no longer need to debate legalize all drugs that's for sure
because we will never agree.
When someone does not know a fact that does not make it a lie.
Your use of "spouting" seems to be often and nothing to do with lies....
we can take notice in the future though
I don't find people here lying a whole lot in their opinions
and definitely not preaching in the last case, that was unnecssary in my opinion.
It was belittling.
But enough about us right ....
we no longer need to debate legalize all drugs that's for sure
because we will never agree.
Telling someone they are lying when they are actually lying is not rude, it is being honest. If you aren't sure of what you are saying, it would behoove you to look into it before you act so confident and treat it as fact.
Likewise with telling someone they are preaching their opinion as fact is not rude or belittling, when that is essentially what they are doing. I would suggest rereading Kel's initial post that I responded to. In it, the impression is given that his belief is the only possibility and to think otherwise would just be asinine. You worry about tone, but apparently it is only the tone of those that dissent with your beliefs that you worry about because the tone of Kel's post was one of being preached to about how foolish it would be to consider otherwise.
I hope you take note that I didn't make a big deal out of his "tone" until now to explain these things to you, but actually debated the specific issue he was discussing along with attempting to point out that his opinion was not fact.
If you want to get into the nuts n bolts economics of it, legalization is a left policy, decriminalization is a right policy.
From a law enforcement/health care point of view - it's common sense policy.
I find it incredibly condescending to be blaming 'uber liberals' for pot remaining illegal. Please. Like the slippery slope argument is the only roadblock. And what happened to 'oh, we need to be purple. not red or blue, but purple'.........?? If we want to get partisan, who do you think was responsible for voting down prop 19 in California a couple of years ago? Uber liberals? Nope http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2010/ ... t-prop-19/
According to the poll, Republicans were a main cause of Prop 19 failure. Only 27% of the Republicans who voted this year cast their ballot for Prop 19, while 73% voted against the measure. Democrats and independents supported the measure at near identical rates, 56% of Democrats and 55% of independents voted yes. This shows that at least some of Prop 19′s problems came down to bad timing. This 2010 midterm election had unusually high turnout among Republicans.
The article continues by explaining the reasons for the 'no' votes....and the slippery slope argument is not one of them.
Speakin of belittling, arrogance, being condescending etc; that stupid fucking finger shaking smiley, which seems to have been made specifically for our resident wannabe mod, is pure condescension.
But I guess we can all agree to disagree.....as long as someone gets the last word....right? :roll:
I was happy to learn that fact but changes nothing for what it does to those who use it
TODAY recreationally to the point of sure addiction and eventual death
all often within months
Ya, no lies there....no sensationalism at all.
Well...I guess we all die eventually....but I know MANY people who have tried meth without becoming addicted. Not a smart choice, no....but not an instant death sentence, or ticket to meth-mouth-ville either.
Discuss the topic, not the people discussing the topic. No personal comments. Look your comments over before hitting Submit and be sure you're debating THE TOPIC.
If you see a problem post report and ignore. Do not derail topic integrity.
Comments
Or were you just planning to wave your magic wand and make drugs go away?
There is ZERO concern for health and safety in the war on drugs. Zero. Its detrimental to those goals.
btw - I think it's unethical for any drug to be a profitable industry to begin with. The whole industry is unethical, period. But whadoIknow? I'm just a commy hippy.
Except most other drugs that are that deadly are given with a prescription. Unless a government agency is giving people free exams and then giving prescriptions for free heroin, how is a junkie with no fixed address and no income going to get it together enough to go to a doctor, get checked out then get a prescription for a dose of heroin, then go to the pharmacy and purchase it? Plus how many pharmacys are going to stock heroin? I mean oxycontin is perfectly legal yet a lot of pharmacys at least where I live have big signs saying that it is not kept in the store and only available by special order. Hell even cold meds like sudafed are usually under lock and key.
As for getting it together enough to get a prescription, then go get it....you want to see a motivated junky? Catch him when he's trying to score. I don't think they'd have a problem with that aspect.
As for stocking it - do the same as oxy's - special order. Or have special clinics set up with armed guards or whatever. I don't think it would be that difficult to administer. Also, keeping records of who is using would allow targeted, user-specific education campaigns, interventions, treatment incentives, whatever.....yes, it would cost a lot of money to help these addicts.....but so does fighting the war, and incarcerating people.
I dunno....I'm just some guy with an interest in the topic. I'm sure there are healthcare professionals who would have an opinion of the best way to reduce the harm caused by these drugs. I think it's important to look into them, begin a dialogue, put a plan in motion, instead of just saying 'it can't be done'.
I was on a construction project building a $1.6B pharmaceutical manufacturing plant for a drug that was going to help fight non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Over ten years of research and money had been put into creating this drug. A few months before the plant was completed, they had several patients die in stage 3 testing prior to approval. Just like that, a few billion dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours researching and building ... gone ... like Keyser Soze.
The company had to merge with another biotech company to have any chance of survival. The plant was sold at discount. Had the drug been successful and approved, they would be rich and saving lives. Instead, a lot of good people lost their jobs and dreams.
No one is going to take a risk like that without having a reward possible. And without that, the medical research field would stall.
that is a strange leap you make. I don't take your supposition as a necessary fact. All industry comes with the possibility of litigation. It is the cost of doing business unfortunately. Litigation sure hasn't made the cigarette companies stop selling smokes.
So no, legalizing heroin, crack, whatever else you may have would not make it so drugs would be bought on street corners. In fact, the exact opposite would happen. It would stop that from happening. Where there is money to be made, a company will attempt to make it.
uh, I don't need a corporation, greedy or not, looking after my health and safety. that is my job. If I am not willing to do it, that isn't someone else's fault, it is my own.
I know it won't change your mind, but what DO was talking about couldn't be more true. The cartels don't give a shit about anyone as long as their drugs are being purchased. Why give them the power? why not take taxes from a legitimate business and fund drug awareness programs that are real and not propaganda (D.A.R.E)?
There are so many reasons for me to believe that legalizing drugs would do more good than harm around the world, if you don't that is ok, but I would implore you to look at the current situation and ask what the benefits truly are and if they outweigh the negatives.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I still have high moral expectations for society and people individually, silly me.
This is the society I want for the children, right from wrong, not do what you want
to your own body, foolishly some think that hurts no one, when indeed it hurts everyone.
I happen to think big pharmie and insurance are organized crime
we certainly don't need another legalized corporation to feed on society
just so they can get more rich and powerful and buy the lawmakers.
Just say no to drugs... including the stuff the doc pushes.
Going back to legalizing pot...
this far left "lets legalize all drugs" is hindering getting pot legal now
because it is exactly what law makers are afraid of, give an inch take a mile.
My opinion remains the same as does the other side, we agree to disagree,
but I wish they would give the 'all drugs' a rest at least until we get pot legalized. :fp:
And that is really the thing. Corporations will continue to have this power as long as they are allowed to promote their special interests in the government. Until then, we will be looking at more of the same, a two party system upholding the interests of the corporations. Not the constitution, not the people that voted them into power, not who they are supposed to be listening to... us.
An opposite opinion is fine, but when one is spouting their opinion to be construed as "fact" than it becomes more than just an "opposite opinion".
Glad to see that even though your lies were countered in the meth thread, that you haven't given up your moral propagandist crusade on how everyone should subscribe to your beliefs
Not to mention that it is a poor business plan to kill off your customers. It would be in a business' best interest to help educate their consumers on a product so as not to kill themselves and their potential future business. It is understandable that not all businesses may subscribe to that mentality, but that is what competition is for. It weeds out the poor business from the good ones.
And "spouting" another derogatory comment...
your tone disrespectful to those who do not agree with you
that is against posting guidelines.
And no I will not give up my morals sorry
as I said we agree to disagree on legalizing all drugs but hopefully we can get pot legalized,
well, unless the lawmakers make an about face...
thanks uber liberals.
it is actually far right
and your tone in this response is just as condescending as any others I have read. Implying immorality, criminality, and foolishness on the part of those that disagree. So there is no need to be offended, I am not, but I see in a lot of your posts the talk about importance of tone. Just a friendly reminder that what we type and what someone takes it as can be two different things.
You want that world for your children that is fine, teach them what you believe right from wrong is, that is how it should be I applaud you, teach anyone who will listen, but your right from wrong isn't the one I am going to be teaching my kids. It will be my version of morality as they all are different, and I will also encourage them to come up with their own standards they choose to live by...
Drugs are not immoral, or moral, they are amoral, it is what humans do that attaches morality...Your crime rationale is strange to me. your theory on fighting crime is exactly what Shirley Jackson wrote about...to believe that all things law should always stay that way without review of the actual results is why things are very slow to change.
but to each their own, I wish that was how I was left to live
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Pointing out someones lies is not against posting guidelines, especially when true.
To refresh your memory:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=183596&start=210#p4264002
Did you even click on the link? It leads directly to it.
The value system that says all drugs are ok is immoral to me,
I do not want a society based on that. I do not think that is in the best interests of
everyone, as many do not....
why all drugs aren't legal :?
The contradiction is foolish to me, yes. Not alone there either.
And the parents who do not teach? This why we have laws in place in society to protect.
And you assume I want no laws to change because I don't want all drugs legalized
that is condescending and excuse me but kind of a ridiculous comparison.
Big leap there :nono:
We will agree to disagree we know it will be no time soon for all drugs to be legalized
but hopefully that is not the case for marijuana.
I can quote the lie, I'm just baffled by your inability to follow a link that leads directly to it and your inability to realise that the link is available for all to see:
TODAY recreationally to the point of sure addiction and eventual death
all often within months.
So if this is the big bad lie and all you got I don't think I'll be burning in hell for that one
no inability just thought if you were to call it a lie you should have the guts to post it is all.
Again weak argument indeed.
You and I will never agree on this one and have discussed at length so it is pointless
and you have a tendency towards rudeness, one can see even in that post.
I guess people spout who don't agree with you... nice.
In this thread yours was the first disrespectful post towards another
claiming the opposite opinion was preaching ...
I don't think you understand things completely here. My use of "spout" that you are apparently so hung up on, is only when I find people actually spouting lies. You lied straight up and now that it has been pointed out to you, you simply engage in misdirection by not only slandering me and my intentions but also brushing it off as not being a big deal. For someone who claims a moral superiority above others, I'm a bit surprised that you find it okay to make bold-faced lies.
I am okay with you and others disagreeing with me. What I take offense to is when you propagandize your arguments with half-truths and outright lies. If you stuck to just disagreeing with people who share my position I think they would be able to engage you in a more civil fashion, but you don't. Since you sensationalize everything and misrepresent the other side I'm not going to just sit idly by and play make-believe nice with you; I'm going to call you on your bullshit. Calling somone out for their lies is not rude; when you spout lies, you spout lies. There's no way around that. No, what is rude is how you would rather misdirect and attempt to draw attention to a person not wording things to your approval than actually debate the viewpoint in an honest fashion. All that does is make it seem like you don't really have any good arguments other than how you feel everyone should submit to your moral authority.
Your use of "spouting" seems to be often and nothing to do with lies....
we can take notice in the future though
I don't find people here lying a whole lot in their opinions
and definitely not preaching in the last case, that was unnecssary in my opinion.
It was belittling.
But enough about us right ....
we no longer need to debate legalize all drugs that's for sure
because we will never agree.
Telling someone they are lying when they are actually lying is not rude, it is being honest. If you aren't sure of what you are saying, it would behoove you to look into it before you act so confident and treat it as fact.
Likewise with telling someone they are preaching their opinion as fact is not rude or belittling, when that is essentially what they are doing. I would suggest rereading Kel's initial post that I responded to. In it, the impression is given that his belief is the only possibility and to think otherwise would just be asinine. You worry about tone, but apparently it is only the tone of those that dissent with your beliefs that you worry about because the tone of Kel's post was one of being preached to about how foolish it would be to consider otherwise.
I hope you take note that I didn't make a big deal out of his "tone" until now to explain these things to you, but actually debated the specific issue he was discussing along with attempting to point out that his opinion was not fact.
From a law enforcement/health care point of view - it's common sense policy.
I find it incredibly condescending to be blaming 'uber liberals' for pot remaining illegal. Please. Like the slippery slope argument is the only roadblock. And what happened to 'oh, we need to be purple. not red or blue, but purple'.........?? If we want to get partisan, who do you think was responsible for voting down prop 19 in California a couple of years ago? Uber liberals? Nope
http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2010/ ... t-prop-19/
The article continues by explaining the reasons for the 'no' votes....and the slippery slope argument is not one of them.
Speakin of belittling, arrogance, being condescending etc; that stupid fucking finger shaking smiley, which seems to have been made specifically for our resident wannabe mod, is pure condescension.
But I guess we can all agree to disagree.....as long as someone gets the last word....right? :roll:
Ya, no lies there....no sensationalism at all.
Well...I guess we all die eventually....but I know MANY people who have tried meth without becoming addicted. Not a smart choice, no....but not an instant death sentence, or ticket to meth-mouth-ville either.
If you see a problem post report and ignore. Do not derail topic integrity.