Ridiculous hyberboles only serve to muddy the waters, as well, and distract from the real issue.
Printable View
Ridiculous hyberboles only serve to muddy the waters, as well, and distract from the real issue.
It is so depressing that some people think this way. Sorry...but I think it is universally naive to believe legalizing drugs, prostitution, etc. only for the adult only effects the individual using or selling themself.
I'm watching a child at the moment however, making sure he doesn't get into my alcohol cabinet or friends cigarette carton. Availability is a b!tch.
More on this tonight :mad::mad:
Before I go...again, tell me its merely a coincidence that youth use of steriods escalating in America has nothing to do with the use of steroids in professional sports and its acceptance in the body building community. Naive.:mad::rolleyes:Quote:
It's different. Children and adults are different, and they must be subject to different rules and laws. Yes, what defines an adult is arbitrary, but that's the price we pay in order to make sure children are dealt with differently than adults.
A lot of the "effect" illegal drugs and prostitution has on others besides those participating comes directly from the fact that they are illegal.
Steroid use has been escalating IN EVERY PART OF SOCIETY.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Professional sports have seen an increase....because its increased in society.
Young people have seen an increase...because its increased in society.
Correlation does not imply causation.
The REAL ISSUE is that all these issues lie on a continuum. We all treat these issues like there is right and wrong but all of our rights and wrongs only depend on what arbitrary line we've drawn. And you can call my examples ridiculous and distracting all you want since you refuse to accept them.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
1) the harm isn't always so black and white as "Tarzan take drug. Jane get sick".Quote:
Give me one example of an adult taking a drug and harming anybody but himself.
Note, ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER THE INFLUENCE ARE ANOTHER STORY
Consuming a drug, in and of itself, has the potential to harm ONLY the person taking the drug.
2) if taking the drug leads to an increase in the probability of a harmful action perhaps that is reason enough to prevent people from taking the drug.
I do know what you mean. See above.Quote:
You know what I mean.
Yep. So what should we do devise some magical test to determine who is of "mental age" to smoke weed, drink, have sex, sign a contract, drive, etc? No. We're going to say, that for the sake of society we think it is pertinant to take away everyone's freedom's until they are 18 (or 16, or 21, depending). Following that same logic, some of us feel it is pertinant to take away personal freedoms regarding specific issues, regardless of age. And that is no more hypocritial or unpatriotic or like a police state than any of the arbitrary lines drawn by age or mental ability or other factors.Quote:
You're right. There is no real definitive age that a child is no longer a child. Really, it's different for every individual and depends on a lot of factors.
Absolutely it does. Cmon, where do you think the youth get it from?!?! Because its become more 'accepted' in the world of muscle building and has gotten safer for adult use, it is now finding its way into kids hands. There's no if, ands, or buts about it. Same with Alcohol and Cigarettes. There is a reason why it is criminal to buy booze for a minor, BECAUSE PEOPLE DO IT!! I worked at a convenient store at 17 and have access to booze. Kids today are no different. Access and acceptance equals additional usage by kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Thats elementary now....stop looking through blinders and at least admit that much.:rolleyes:
Than let's ban parents from punishing their children by taking away something they like to do, since that increases the probability of the child taking a harmful action.Quote:
2) if taking the drug leads to an increase in the probability of a harmful action perhaps that is reason enough to prevent people from taking the drug.
And let's ban drinking alcohol. And salvia. And Robotussin.
And let's ban going into mosh pits.
And while we're at it, let's ban getting angry.
That has nothing at all to do with the notion that because it's risen in professional sports, kids using it has risen as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
What you said in this post is exactly what I said. More kids are using it because it's more prevelent in society, PERIOD, not just professional sports.
That argument is equally as logical as not banning anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
We agree somethings should be banned, some should not. We just disagree about the lines.
Wow, there are tons. I'll add more to this later....but for starters, you want to open pandora's box and make all drugs legal and at the same time our Govt. wants to handle health care for all. When all the abusers health deteriorates, as is the case with booze and cigarettes....now the taxpayer agains foots the bill. Its backwards...with giving health care for all you have to practice loss prevention and PREVENT people from getting sick. You don't have them poison, and say no worries you're covered!Quote:
Give me one example of an adult taking a drug and harming anybody but himself.
Crime.....we could spend all evening going through unquestionable crime stats related to use and distribution of drugs. We can also look at many case studies where drugs have been LEGALIZED and crime rate escalated.
You can play around with those two for now....later will throw the example where the adult takes legal drugs while supervising children, and the child gets into the medicine cabinet, or plays with the gas stove, or the endless other possibilities we can come up with because the parents were smoking the crack pipe Uncle Sam sold them. :mad:
Thank you........yes, not just professional sports. At no time did I single them out. It IS part of it without question however. So by your statement above, you agree then that use by ADULTS is affecting others...ie children!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yankees!
Sorry I thought I would break up the monotony.
As you were!
And still I love the hypocrisy of believing "Taking a drug may increase the liklihood of endangering someone else, so they should be illegal" BUT NOT ONE WORD about how the millions of guns being legal also increases the liklikhood of endangering
someone else.
PURE HYPOCRISY.
Next year, thousands. That's right, thousands of people are going to die on our highways. I know this, you know this, we all know this. Should we therefore make cars illegal??
The number one cause of deaths among certain age groups are death from homicide, and mostly from guns, should we therefore make guns illegal?
What gives anyone the right, who doesn't know me, to say that I can't swallow a pill, or drink a drink, or beat myself upon the head with a baseball bat if I want to. I GUARANTEE YOU, EACH OF YOU SO ARROGANT TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T DO, WOULD GO BALLISTIC if I tried to tell you something you can't do. Mmmmm, radiation from computers is dangerous, therefore I'm all for banning you from using them. Like that? How about cell phones, no definitive studies on the safety of those yet either, how I about I gather millions and lobby against their use too. Do you know why I don't? Because I respect you and your abililty to make sound decisions yourself. And I expect if you fail to make those decisions, that THEN you should be held accountable.
Now, what have I ever done to you that you won't afford me that same respect?
Haha, i actually thought about posting on this earlier...but figured not to muddy the waters with political jarrgan. I am a bit torn on the gun issue. Although I strongly believe in the constitution....I do think there are times where are forefathers couldn't have foreseen what they had done. I see and agree with the constitutional reasons to allow Americans to carry guns....if we didn't own guns prior to the revolutionary war we may be Brits and not Americans. I do not believe it is only meant for those in a militia to carry guns. I also can't argue with the FACTS that guns increase violent crime. The states would be better off if they were banned. I could see rifles for hunting and sport...but don't see the reason for hand guns. However, this like cigarettes and alcohol has been ingrained in much of our society and is unlikely to change. I've said from the get go...we've made mistakes that are irreversible, it is time we learned from them and stop going down this dumb road.Quote:
Just curious, but if you replaced the words alcohol and drugs with the word guns and the related deaths attributed to them, would you feel the same way about legalization or making them illegal?? Or do you subscribe to the theory that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." While at the same time claiming "People don't kill people, illegal drugs kill people?" Because of course those are conflicting and hypocritical views to claim at the same time.
I strongly believe in personal freedom and responsibility. I believe we should have personal freedom, small govt. freedom over our retirement accounts, freedom over our healthcare, and so on so forth. The governments responsibility to provide us with a thriving economy and job growth, security, commerce/transportation, and then get out of our lives. A lawless society is a dead society however. Legalizing drugs increases crime and reduces that security and safety a free society deserves to expect from its government. And the worst part is, those who want drugs legalized want the Government to control sale of these legal drugs. They will then tax the heck out of them...more govt. oversight. This then creates a black market and it spirals from there.Quote:
And, its nice when I hear folks admit loud and clear that they don not believe in the idea of personal freedom and responsibility. And usually, they are the ones that are the first to point at others actions and judge their patriotism or lack thereof. If one doesn't believe in the idea of individual freedom and responsibility, at least it is refreshing when they admit it.
The problem is, legalization of drugs DOES endanger others lives and/or property. Alcohol and cigarettes/nicotine are the perfect examples. Its naive to think otherwise...what ADULT bought beer for you when you were a minor :rolleyes:Quote:
A person who does believe in freedom will say that that an adult, in the privacy of his/her own home should be able to do with/to his/her own body whatever they choose as long they don't endanger others lives or property. A person who DOESN'T believe in freedom, believes they have the superior knowledge and judgement that they should tell others how and what they can and can't do with thier own bodies. This is not only anit-freedom, but its arrogant, as it implies they know better what's better for you or I than we do.
And adult 'acceptance' of roids in muscle building and athletics have unquestionably trickled down to children use, which your studies have shown to be dangerous. Someone down the line children are getting them from adults. The more it becomes 'accepted' the more it'll happen. ie. alcohol.Quote:
And BTW, FWIW, there has never been a single CREDIBLE study, NOT ONE, that shows steroid use in adult males is dangerous. Not one. They have shown dangers to children, and to adult women, but not to adult males.
Strongly against it.....however govt. is already doing this with our children and vaccinations.Quote:
I also wonder how you would feel if suddenly drug companies were able to get the government to pass laws that said you HAD to consume such and such a drug on a daily basis. For example, if some drug company designed a drug that made every employees productivity TRIPLE while at work, I can guarantee you that within months of its inception there would be this clamor for employers to have the right to force their employees to take this drug if they wanted to keep their jobs. Guarantee it.
I guess you are right here. Although it seems we both strongly agree on personal freedom, it seems we disagree that these drugs do effect others therefore effect our safety and security and need to be controlled. I think it is naive to think otherwise.Quote:
Guess our streak of agreeing with each other came to an end.
OK, if you believe in personal freedom. Why do you want to prevent me, when I get home in the evening, from sitting down, alone, (I live alone), and turning on the TV, and swallowing a couple of pills and relax and watch tv and go to bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
What, dear God, what, in that scenario have I done that makes me a danger, or a criminal?
Answer, nothing.
But, because SOME people might do bad things, you agree to make it illegal to ALL people. To believe that THAT is personal freedom is naive, my friend.
I guess we do need some case studies for the ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
In the late 1800's opium and cocaine and other drugs were legalized. They were viewed as drugs that only effect the user and could be taken safely, same arguments here. Addiction went through the roof, to the likes America has never seen, about twice as much as there is believed to be today. Laws were passed in the early 1900's which cut the additions numbers down tenfold. Look it up.
Here's some blurbs from the USDEA (Drug Enforcement Agency);
The Alaska Experiment and Other Failed Legalization Ventures
* The consequences of legalization became evident when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that the state could not interfere with an adult’s possession of marijuana for personal consumption in the home. The court’s ruling became a green light for marijuana use. Although the ruling was limited to persons 19 and over, teens were among those increasingly using marijuana. According to a 1988 University of Alaska study, the state’s 12 to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group. Alaska’s residents voted in 1990 to recriminalize possession of marijuana, demonstrating their belief that increased use was too high a price to pay.
* European experiments with drug legalization have failedBy 1979, after 11 states decriminalized marijuana and the Carter administration had considered federal decriminalization, marijuana use shot up among teenagers. That year, almost 51 percent of 12th graders reported they used marijuana in the last 12 months. By 1992, with tougher laws and increased attention to the risks of drug abuse, that figure had been reduced to 22 percent, a 57 percent decline.
* Other countries have also had this experience. The Netherlands has had its own troubles with increased use of cannabis products. From 1984 to 1996, the Dutch liberalized the use of cannabis. Surveys reveal that lifetime prevalence of cannabis in Holland increased consistently and sharply. For the age group 18-20, the increase is from 15 percent in 1984 to 44 percent in 1996.
* The Netherlands is not alone. Switzerland, with some of the most liberal drug policies in Europe, experimented with what became known as Needle Park. Needle Park became the Mecca for drug addicts throughout Europe, an area where addicts could come to openly purchase drugs and inject heroin without police intervention or control. The rapid decline in the neighborhood surrounding Needle Park, with increased crime and violence, led authorities to finally close Needle Park in 1992.
* The British have also had their own failed experiments with liberalizing drug laws. England’s experience shows that use and addiction increase with “harm reduction” policy. Great Britain allowed doctors to prescribe heroin to addicts, resulting in an explosion of heroin use, and by the mid-1980s, known addiction rates were increasing by about 30 percent a year.
* The relationship between legalization and increased use becomes evident by considering two current “legal drugs,” tobacco and alcohol. The number of users of these “legal drugs” is far greater than the number of users of illegal drugs. The numbers were explored by the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Roughly 109 million Americans used alcohol at least once a month. About 66 million Americans used tobacco at the same rate. But less than 16 million Americans used illegal drugs at least once a month.
That's ALL you need to know, right there, about every one of those bulleted blurbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Your ability to have such easy access to these drugs increases the likelihood others, including our youth will get their hands on them. They are dangerous if not used responsibly...there is no question about it. Again I ask, who bought your booze when you were underage??? Its use increases addiction, crime, and the burden on our health care system. Its a fact that addiction decreases workplace production, ruins families, and so on so forth. They do not belong in our society...its not an issue of personal freedom. I should be able to walk down the street and feel safe in a free society. Drug use plays a large part in taking THAT PERSONAL FREEDOM away from me and you!! Therefore, it does effect us all.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Of course it is....you can verify most of them through many sources if you'd like. Its a b!tch when things like facts and precedent get in the way of flawed theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Yeah, I mean, come on, dickay...you're going to tell me you're accepting at face value items showing that drug prohibition works from the agency whose SOLE REASON FOR EXISTING is to prohibit drugs? Aren't these the idiots who released that insane study trying to claim that a joint containing nothing but pot somehow MAGICALLY contains more tar than a commercial cigarette?
Now, personally, I am all for the legalization of drugs. However, even if we don't go that way, can we at least stop the fearmongering nonsense? You know what kida think when they read ridiculous garbage like that pot study? "Wow, so, they apparently think I'm an idiot." You want kids to listen? Stop treating them like they're retarded, and be honest (frankly, this needs to change even MORE when it to the ridiculous way we demonize sex in North America, but that's a different topic).
And you still refuse to answer how my swallowing a couple of pills and watching TV and going to bed is in anyway taking away your personal freedom. Yet you are content to take mine away. I don't even know you yet I respect you enough to never want to suggest making something you do that in no endangers anyone else illegal. Again, what have I ever done to you that you feel arrogant enough and disrespectful enough to me to tell me that I can't make responsible decisions myself?Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
LMAO...I understand your point about the facts from the DEA but these are facts that can be found anywhere. There isn't a 'face value' issue here. The only thing that is being taken at face value, is you ignoring these facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
Fear mongering???? Since when is facts fear mongering. Why do facts scare you so much....because your theory is flawed. You think the DEA is lying about Alaska legalizing, and then a few years later re-criminalizing drug use??? Cmon now....fact is crime increases, additiction increases especially amongst youth, and our public safety and healthcare system is jeopardized. Those are indisputable.
I did answer it, you actually quoted my answer. Same reason why you can't possess toxic substances like anthrax, or create pipe bombs. Maybe you enjoy those things out of hobby but they are intrinsically dangerous. The fact you yourself having and smoking a joint is not the issue. The issue is the fact you had easy access, and legalization of these drugs unquestionably as a whole to society are dangerous for all the reasons mentioned multiple times. Our government has every right to enact law to provide safety, and security which provides us with our personal freedoms. You sacrifice the personal freedom of drug use for the multiple other freedoms our government must provide...why, because legal drug use has proven to take away those numerous other personal freedoms you hold so dearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
But a lot of the ridiculous information we're feeding to youth about what anyone would call soft drugs is...well, I'll stick with ridiculous. When cops are giving those stupid school presentations and saying that smoking pot is the same thing as shooting smack. Or, two of my personal favorites (both from the RCMP)...that keys of Canadian pot were being exchanged straight up for keys of Bolivian coke (WHAT? Drug dealers may be a lot of things...bad at economics is not one of them!), or that, if I buy weed grown in BC, I am somehow magically supplying funds to the Taliban (now, if they'd say opium or heroin...sure, that's fine...but this was just retarded).Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Now, I'll come clean, I do occasionally smoke up. It's not a regular thing, it's just something I enjoy from time to time. I have absolutely zero desire to 'advance' to anything heavier. Nobody in a rational frame of mind, who knows the facts, is going to wake up one morning and say "You know...it's time to give that heroin a try!" However, right now, we don't educate kids about the realities of drugs...we just throw out a bunch of 'fear' messages and insane exaggerations, and then don't seem to understand why that doesn't stick. Or, we spend billions of dollars spraying coca crops in Bolivia and imprisoning people for carrying a speedball rather than, you know, maybe TREATING these people, or looking in to some of the reasons people DO get in to hard drugs (cause, you know, that would involve difficult questions like poverty and stress. However, as I am wont to do, I am realizing I'm shunting off in to a massive tangent...I apologize for that, I tend to get rambly when I get going :D).
All I'm saying is this...as a society, EDUCATE, don't fearmonger.
This I agree with. Educate, and keep illegal for aforementioned reasons however. To say however, steroids will become legal only for adults and we will educate the youth on their dangers is naive. How much more education does our society need on alcohol use, yet how many adults continually buy booze, and even host parties for underage children to drink at?? It doesn't work.Quote:
All I'm saying is this...as a society, EDUCATE, don't fearmonger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Now I'm LMAO. :D
Oh well, like I said, you don't believe in freedom of the individual adult to make sound choices themselve, instead you believe the government should make it for them, that's fine. But it's not personal freedom, no matter how many times you include the phrase in your posts.
Nothing personal OFG, we're not singuling you out. But as a society we unfortunately have to all play by the same rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
I think it's stupid that I had to stop (i gave up driving for the most part) at a certain stop sign right outside where I used to live. It was not a high-traffic street at all. There was rarely a car or a person there. Now, I know that I-filihok, could roll up to the stop sign and ascertain that there was no danger in not coming to a complete stop unless there was another car, person, dog, whatever at the stop sign, and proceed. However, the powers that be (not that I trust 100% the powers that be) have determined that that corner warrants a stop sign for the good of the society. That there are enough bad drivers that not having a stop sign there would endanger innocent lives. So, once I got that ticket, I started stopping.
I do not believe that any person is 100% responsible for their actions. I think it's pretty naive to think that a persons action only affect them. "If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less".
Nor do I believe that any one should have 100% freedom. And I bet that you don't either.
Should I be allowed to install a nuclear missle in my back yard?
Should an eleven year old girl be allowed to decide to sell her body for sex?
Should I be allowed to walk in to the White House carrying a live hand grenade?
Should my girlfriend and I be well within the law to walk into a 2nd grade social studies class room and have sex on top of a child's desk?
I would hope you would answer no to at least one of these questions.
You'll probably want to ridicule me first, and, yes, I'm using extreme examples, but these examples are all part of a continuum. You agree that we should be able to limit personal freedoms, we only disagree on where
Well said, especially the car analogy. Problem is, one could misconstrue the personal freedom argument for anything that suits their purposes. Law is necessary to provide us with the personal freedoms we desire.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Actually, it's not. There are physiological changes that occur throughout people's teen years. Children and teens are wired, chemically, fundamentally differently than adults are.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
See:
Puberty
Adolescent psychology
(I only used the Wikipedia articles because there readily available online. Note that there are plenty of references in the articles. What's said in the articles can, for our (non-medical) purposes, easily be considered authoritative)
On average, scientifically speaking, puberty starts and takes it's course between the ages of 10-20. I don't see anything wrong with pegging the legal definition of adulthood at 18 and 21. Science backs up hundreds of years of observation very well, here.
I'm equally depressed that you're Victorian, puritanical attitudes are so prevalent these days. When I think of all that money wasted on "prevention", turning otherwise decent people into criminals for the rest of their lives, and not going to actually help those who really need it... I'm almost willing to call your ideology criminal itself. Your attitudes and the (hate) policies that the group which you represent have probably done more harm to this country and this society than any other in our history.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
:(
Just for giggles:
duh... what about education?!Quote:
Laws were passed in the early 1900's which cut the additions numbers down tenfold. Look it up.
:rolleyes:
This is just false. How about looking up the actual proposed law instead of parroting propaganda?Quote:
Alaska’s residents voted in 1990 to recriminalize possession of marijuana, demonstrating their belief that increased use was too high a price to pay.
um... duh. What does this prove? That people enjoy getting "high" in some fashion? So what?Quote:
* Other countries have also had this experience. The Netherlands has had its own troubles with increased use of cannabis products. From 1984 to 1996, the Dutch liberalized the use of cannabis. Surveys reveal that lifetime prevalence of cannabis in Holland increased consistently and sharply. For the age group 18-20, the increase is from 15 percent in 1984 to 44 percent in 1996.
So, again, one instance of failed management is grounds for criminalizing personal behavior for all? Brilliant...Quote:
* The Netherlands is not alone. Switzerland, with some of the most liberal drug policies in Europe, experimented with what became known as Needle Park. Needle Park became the Mecca for drug addicts throughout Europe, an area where addicts could come to openly purchase drugs and inject heroin without police intervention or control. The rapid decline in the neighborhood surrounding Needle Park, with increased crime and violence, led authorities to finally close Needle Park in 1992.
:rolleyes:
Oh, and guess what. Drugs use is still legal in Switzerland.
I'm not even going to bother continuing.
How about some propaganda from the other side. You do believe in "fair and balanced" coverage, right?
lol
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm
Quote:
"Department of corrections data show that about a fourth of those initially imprisoned for nonviolent crimes are sentenced for a second time for committing a violent offense. Whatever else it reflects, this pattern highlights the possibility that prison serves to transmit violent habits and values rather than to reduce them."
Source: Craig Haney, Ph.D., and Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., "The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment," American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. 7 (July 1998), p. 721.
Quote:
"The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 738 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by Russia (611), St Kitts & Nevis (547), U.S. Virgin Is. (521), Turkmenistan (c.489), Belize (487), Cuba (c.487), Palau (478), British Virgin Is. (464), Bermuda (463), Bahamas (462), Cayman Is. (453), American Samoa (446), Belarus (426) and Dominica (419).
"However, more than three fifths of countries (61%) have rates below 150 per 100,000. (The rate in England and Wales - 148 per 100,000 of the national population - is above the mid-point in the World List.)"
Source: Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (Seventh Edition)" (London, England: International Centre for Prison Studies, 2007), p. 1.
Boy, that's some good company we keep, huh? Imagine that, we're worse than the Russians, Turks, and Cubans!Quote:
"More than 9.25 million people are held in penal institutions throughout the world, mostly as pre-trial detainees (remand prisoners) or as sentenced prisoners. Almost half of these are in the United States (2.19m), China (1.55m plus pretrial detainees and prisoners in 'administrative detention') or Russia (0.87m)."
According to the US Census Bureau, the population of the US represents 4.6% of the world's total population (291,450,886 out of a total 6,303,683,217).
Source: Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (Seventh Edition)" (London, England: International Centre for Prison Studies, 2007), p. 1; US Census Bureau, Population Division, from the web at http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html accessed July 8, 2003.
:rolleyes:
Boy, this War on Drugs sure is successful!Quote:
The U.S. nonviolent prisoner population is larger than the combined populations of Wyoming and Alaska.
Source: John Irwin, Ph. D., Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg, America's One Million Nonviolent Prisoners (Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 1999), pg. 4.
No we don't. Communist.Quote:
But as a society we unfortunately have to all play by the same rules.
Anyway, I'm out of this thread. As is apparent, I'm not able to maintain a rational frame of mind in these conversations. How anyone can sit and defend the "Drug War" with a straight face is beyond me. I'm sorry, but I honestly think those that do so are idiots. That's just my opinion.
*shrug*
I'll see you guys in friendlier threads.
:)
Yankees!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Is this appropriate? I'm fairly certain it is not.
Quote:
INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR
To summarize, we care more about the attitude of a post than the content.
Example 1: Sh!t. I just lost 3 pitchers to injury.
This is OK. It would also be OK to add a comment to the boards like "Please watch the language". But you don't have to comment, and you don't need to delete the post or threaten to ban the perpetrator.
Example 2: You're an idiot. Your post is stupid and so are you.
No swears, but this is 100% inappropriate.
Example 3: Moderator is a pussy. He shouldn't have told me to shut up. I'm gonna kick his ***.
Also 100% inappropriate, and this is the type of stuff that escalates into harmful personal fights between people. For the record, I have already called the FBI about a threat I received at my home from a past Mogul player. I'll do it again if I need to.
Threats against people (inside or outside of Sports Mogul) are ALWAYS inappropriate. You should delete them, and let the user know they can be banned. If possible, get another moderator or myself involved immediately so it doesn't look like a one-on-one fight.
Can we have a ban on Bonds discussions?
So your whole argument to legalize drugs is that our jails are full????? Our jails are not full of small time users and sellers of narcotics, they are full of criminals. Criminals who often their addiction led to theft, crime, or worse behavior. Legalizing drugs will do absolutely nothing to change that, it will in fact only worsen it.
It is a fact legalizing drugs causes additiction rises...the addiction must be fed, those addicted to drugs have trouble keeping jobs, they commit crime, the 'personal freedom' of those the crime were enacted upon was jeopardized, they go to jail. Elementary actually.
Your argument bears no rationale substance...you are better to run from it. Good call.;)
Well, almighty, not all of us prescribe to your way of thinking and we do feel that 18 and 21 are fairly arbitrary end points for an "average" age of "10-20".Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
The HATE policies? Someone is a little bit too worked up methinks.Quote:
I'm equally depressed that you're Victorian, puritanical attitudes are so prevalent these days. When I think of all that money wasted on "prevention", turning otherwise decent people into criminals for the rest of their lives, and not going to actually help those who really need it... I'm almost willing to call your ideology criminal itself. Your attitudes and the (hate) policies that the group which you represent have probably done more harm to this country and this society than any other in our history.
:(
Now, THIS may be hate. What is inherently wrong with Russians, Turks, and Cubans? The U.S. has the highest rate of criminals the Russians, Turks, and Cubans should say this about U.S.Quote:
Boy, that's some good company we keep, huh? Imagine that, we're worse than the Russians, Turks, and Cubans!
:rolleyes:
More name calling. Some someone get a moderat...oh...wait...[/QUOTE]Quote:
No we don't. Communist.
I don't have a problem with him speaking his mind. I believe those who support legalization are naive. I don't use the word idiots because I think they are not dumb by any means....just ill-informed people who strongly stand by an ill-conceived notion that was wrong from the get go. If you look for any particular answer with a closed mind, you will ignore facts to the contrary and find what you are looking for in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
It's not even ill-informed. About any stat or information can be molded to fit whatever argument you want it to. It's just your belief system.
Most of what he says is dead on, and I agree with it.
The point I keep bringing up and that no one will respond to is that laws are necessary to keep an orderly society. It's just a matter of where we put the laws.
Also, I have to add....how in the world is legalizing drugs going to reduce our prison population??
As stated, most people imprisoned for drug use are not small time users, they are adicts who committed crimes to feed their hunger. There are alot of dealers behind bars, and most are not your small time dealers. To think legalization will stop that is naive. Should the govt. have control of the sale of these drugs by prescription from doctor which is often advocated, all that will happen is the dealers will undercut them and sell it anyway..illegally!! After all, they are in the business of dealing drugs....they're not going to up and find a new profession. There will always be a black market.
Look at pain killers such as vicotin and oxycodine. People are getting killed for these drugs which become highly addictive. They are legal with prescription.
We don't need to look at USDEA studies, european experiments....all that needs to be looked at is Alcohol, nicotine, and even these pain killer usage right here in our backyard. If we don't learn from our mistakes we are doomed to relive them.
All that will happen is availability will be increased, addiction will increase, crime will increase, your jail population will increase, society will pay the price.
I haven't heard any arguments to the contrary.
One last take (maybe) then I go to bed
Take OFG, I don['t know him and maybe I'm just naive, but I really think if he wants to pop a couple pills before bed that's probably fine. He's not going to kill anyone. He's not going to turn to heroin or start up a meth lab in his basement.
Way it is now...whatever pills he's talking about being illegal...who's going to know. The police aren't coming knocking on doors or peeping in windows. The only way he'd get caught is if he did something stupid, THEN, he'd deserve to get caught.
The problem is that NOBODY thinks they will be the one to take a pill or have a drink and then go off and get in a wreck. But obviously some people do.
I hear a lot of the argument about being able to do what you want with your body. And I fully agree. The point that I was actually arguing was that they couldn't see the difference between setting the point here . or setting it here .