This is what the war on drugs looks like

pandora wrote:

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

pandora wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

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:

Sludge Factory wrote:

pandora wrote:

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.

http://www.crystalmethaddiction.org/His ... l_Meth.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#History

pandora wrote:

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.

pandora wrote:

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.

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.