PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Deadly Hamster on May 04, 2004, 02:58:27 AM
-
Germany had a democracy, and the Nazis were able to win 39% of the political seats. And then Hitler was made chancellor.
-
Not to mention we were a democracy during our little slavery issues. Also during the time when women couldnt vote. Funny thing about that particular issue was that there were more men than women. So what was that about majority? Seeing how we were the majority and it took us forever to vote.
Majority/Minority shouldn\'t mean anything when going towards one side or another doesn\'t affect the latter.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Germany had a democracy, and the Nazis were able to win 39% of the political seats. And then Hitler was made chancellor.
That situation was much different from ours now. As for slavery Tsina, I was speaking strictly on genocide.
Originally posted by TSina
Majority/Minority shouldn\'t mean anything when going towards one side or another doesn\'t affect the latter.
Well thats an opinion, you feel straights shouldn\'t have a say on gay marriage because the ruling doesn\'t affect them, but thats just your view. Someone else such as Giga feels it does. (No more gay marriage debate, and yes I am for same sex marriage, just was giving an example)
-
It\'s majority rule while protecting minority rights. No more no less. As long as what the majority wants doesn\'t infringe upon the minority rights, there isn\'t an arguement.
-
It\'s majority rule while protecting minority rights. No more no less. As long as what the majority wants doesn\'t infringe upon the minority rights, there isn\'t an arguement.
But it always has and always will infringe on minority rights, because even one person can be a minority.
Even limitated democracy can be changed by the majority. New laws can be passed that slowly infringe on things that are supposed to be garunteed in our democracy. i.e. the Patriot Act. Im not trying to argue for or against the Patriot Act, im just making a point that even limitations can be altered in democracy.
That situation was much different from ours now.
How so? Obviously there are Setting differences, year differences, but the way it happened is still the same.
My point is: The majority in Germany thought it was a good idea to take government sanctioned actions against German Jew\'s.
This is IMO a bad thing. The government chose to limit and slowly harm/seperate the Jewish community.
The same can be said for many cases in America. For example, Very long jail sentances are given to those who LIKE doing things that the MAJORITY considers against the law. The jews were targeted because they practiced a certain religion, People who like to do drugs are now targeted.
Also, look at the army... dont ask dont tell? I dont think youll see many straight men getting thrown out for saying they like to **** girls.
Anyways, if you have a problem with me relating this to the holocost, im sorry but there is a lot of relevance.
-
So let me get this straight, the government putting people in jail for using illegal substances is the same as a government which killed millions in a genocide.......right
Since when was doing drugs a right? I like to see you find it in the constitution. Let me save you the effort. It isn\'t. People\'s right to live a normal life is. See the difference? Don\'t be an idiot and do drugs and you\'re fine, ok?
-
In a way it is. Judiasm and Drugs can compare in every way except health risks.
Doing drugs isnt a right, but it should be. Im not ONLY supporting drugs here, it is just an example.
People who do drugs are normal, the term normal changes throughout time.
You and me have different views... why? Because you think it is your right to decide if someone else is normal or not.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Anyways, if you have a problem with me relating this to the holocost, im sorry but there is a lot of relevance.
I have no problem with you relating the two, I\'m not the one making an idiot of myself.
-
Neither is he. He is doing a good job distinguishing the difference, yet stating the relevance.
-
No, not really.
-
I have to agree - he isn\'t.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I have to agree - he isn\'t.
Bozco is one thing, but you couldn\'t see what time of day it was with a rolex, bi-focals, and someone telling you what time it was without trying to argue about it.
-
Germany = Democracy
German people = voted for nazi party
Nazi party = Anti-jewish
So therefore, Democracy itself, will always resemble the wishes of the majority in ANY country that uses it.
So, Democracy therefore does not in anyway ensure freedom, and can be very unstable when it comes to equality and freedom.
This is the last time im repeating myself, If you want to try and prove me wrong, go ahead. You can call me an idiot and do whatever you would like, but it won\'t make you look any more intelligent.
Now the differences between drug use and Judiasm? I didnt feel that this was neccecary earlier, but I guess I need to protect myself from further flames.
Similarities:
1. A person can choose to be jewish, just as a person can choose to do drugs.
2. Judiasm is seen as a way to be closer to god. Some drugs such as: Ketamine, DMT, LSD, etc are believed by some to have SPIRITUAL relevance.
3. Jews have been the target of centurys of discrimination. Drug users have been considered criminals for most of modern time.
4. Drugs can make people happy when they are depressed. Religion can make people happy when they are depressed.
Differences:
1. Judiasm does not in any case cause physical harm. Drugs can.
2. You can be jewish now and not go to jail.
There are other obvious differences, none that seemed important. If you want to mention them go ahead.
Don\'t bother replying to this with any attempts to bash me or to disregaurd this argument. If you would like to have a mature discussion, go ahead.
And thank you Tsina. :)
-
Originally posted by TSina
Bozco is one thing, but you couldn\'t see what time of day it was with a rolex, bi-focals, and someone telling you what time it was without trying to argue about it.
Is that another attempt at an insult? Keep it to the debate at hand. Him comparing Judaism to drugs is a major stretch.
-
On a most basic levle of comparrison, I used both of those because both are a CHOICE.
A choice that has been frowned upon in different societys at different times.
But whatever, I foresee someone playing the "But drugs are bad for you!!" card soon anyway, It doesn\'t really matter if you get the example or not my main message is:
Choice.
-
Being Jewish for most isn\'t a choice. Some consider them a race - however misguided that may be.
-
However obliged one might feel to continue in Judiasm, it is still a choice...
And yes I agree, I hate when people think jewish people are a race. Yes a lot of them share a common ethnic background, but if convert to judiasm, that sorta disproves that right then and there....
Hey look, we agree on something, thats good. :P
-
Anytime...I just hate the narrowed minded views some have when it comes to vehemetly trying to prove what they believe/wish to be correct.
Let\'s try it this way. He is not saying that Hitler and Drugs are exactly the same. He is not saying that being jewish and doing drugs is exactly the same. He is trying to show the similarities the two instances show....
...IE being jewish was quite unpopular/hated and it was ignorantly abolished from Germany. Drugs for the most part are unpopular to an extent and has also been ignorantly banned from the US.
Does anyone REALLY know why cocaine was banned in the US? I\'ll start you on the right path..it wasn\'t because it was bad for your health.
-
Two things:
Jews have been the target of centurys of discrimination. Drug users have been considered criminals for most of modern time.
Huh? That isn\'t a similarity and the following isn\'t a difference.
You can be jewish now and not go to jail.
What are you implying by that? There are drug users that don\'t go to jail. Actually, there are a lot of drug users who don\'t go to jail.
-
Jews have been the target of centurys of discrimination. Drug users have been considered criminals for most of modern time.
Huh? That isn\'t a similarity
Umm.. yes it is. Both are groups and both have been against the law.
You can be jewish now and not go to jail.
What are you implying by that? There are drug users that don\'t go to jail. Actually, there are a lot of drug users who don\'t go to jail.
To rephrase myself, I meant: There are laws against drugs, but no laws against judiasm. <-- and thats not too important for this topic, so dont focus yer attention there.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Two things:
Jews have been the target of centurys of discrimination. Drug users have been considered criminals for most of modern time.
Huh? That isn\'t a similarity and the following isn\'t a difference.
You can be jewish now and not go to jail.
What are you implying by that? There are drug users that don\'t go to jail. Actually, there are a lot of drug users who don\'t go to jail.
I\'m so glad you wanted to open your mouth again.
The length of time what has been what is not the point. No one is arguing what similarities the two don\'t share. Stop splitting hairs.
Just like it isn\'t "illegal" to be jewish NOW..it WASN\'T ALWAYS illegal to do drugs.
Once again I have to ask you to stop splitting hairs.
-
I still fail to see why jews are discriminated against. I\'m friends with a bunch and they are the nicest and really fun to be around.
-
The same reason anyone else is discriminated against?
Stereotypes, stagnent education, and traditional hatred.
-
Please Tsina get an education... really... you are mixing apples and oranges. I think I am waiting in vain for you to make a valid point. I wasn\'t aware it was ever "illegal" to be "jewish", rather it was bad luck if you lived in occupied Europe during WW2.
I think Hamster has been sampling too much of the product personally... ;)
-
Im pretty sure when someone gets put to death for being jewish we can consider it against the law.
Edit: let me direct this somewhere, im tired of arguing every little detail. Let\'s get to the main point.
WE agree that judiasm is a choice.
Doing drugs is also a choice.
The government says: Drugs bad, judiasm good.
A good percentage of people like drugs and use them without over-using them, so no health problems.
So, therefore, isn\'t the government discrimminating against someones choice, even if their choice is LOGICAL and well thought out?
-
Exactly, and if I am not mistaken, It was infact illegal to be Jewish or practice Judaism in Germany during those times.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
A good percentage of people like drugs and use them without over-using them, so no health problems.
It\'s less of a matter of them hurting themselves as opposed to hurting others.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Im pretty sure when someone gets put to death for being jewish we can consider it against the law.
Edit: let me direct this somewhere, im tired of arguing every little detail. Let\'s get to the main point.
WE agree that judiasm is a choice.
Doing drugs is also a choice.
The government says: Drugs bad, judiasm good.
A good percentage of people like drugs and use them without over-using them, so no health problems.
So, therefore, isn\'t the government discrimminating against someones choice, even if their choice is LOGICAL and well thought out?
No genocide goes beyond labeling something illegal. You equating "drugs with a logical choice" is the highlight of your argument. :rolleyes: You picked a bad analogy to begin with and this thread is not a drug debate thread so I suggest you move on with the topic at hand.
-
Originally posted by TSina
Exactly, and if I am not mistaken, It was infact illegal to be Jewish or practice Judaism in Germany during those times.
There is a difference. You can not make being Jewish illegal as the German\'s did as they considered being Jewish a matter of race. Practicing Judaism on the other hand can be "made illegal" if a country so decides. Like I said... make a valid point please - this is NOT a drug debate thread.
-
No genocide goes beyond labeling something illegal. You equating "drugs with a logical choice" is the highlight of your argument. You picked a bad analogy to begin with and this thread is not a drug debate thread so I suggest you move on with the topic at hand.
Genocide IS making something illegal, it may be an extreme case, but that doesn\'t change what it is doing.
There is a difference. You can not make being Jewish illegal as the German\'s did as they considered being Jewish a matter of race. Practicing Judaism on the other hand can be "made illegal" if a country so decides. Like I said... make a valid point please - this is NOT a drug debate thread.
Your right, this thread isn\'t for drug debating, or debating of how a government should be able to limit individual choice.
But it is about church/state. I can relate this back to that, dont you worry.
Government limits individual choice based on universal religious values that apply to a majority of the major religions.
Im sorry, but im not in that majority, And I think I should be allowed my freedom from the governments religiously-moral influenced laws.
-
Originally posted by Phil
It\'s less of a matter of them hurting themselves as opposed to hurting others.
In what instance. Being under the influence and getting behind the wheel of a car?
Just like perscription drugs, or possibly alcohol? Doing either, which are both legal have the same and similar effects as driving while under the influence of illegal drugs.
As a whole, doing illegal OR legal drugs have the same effects when you anti-drug people try to rationalize why they should stay illegal.
As long as anyone on any drug doesn\'t hurt anyone we are all ok, if those ppl don\'t, we already have laws in place to take care of them.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
There is a difference. You can not make being Jewish illegal as the German\'s did as they considered being Jewish a matter of race. Practicing Judaism on the other hand can be "made illegal" if a country so decides. Like I said... make a valid point please - this is NOT a drug debate thread.
That is what was done.
Again, that is what was done as I stated.
I made a valid point, Im sorry it doesnt live up to your standards.
I didn\'t make it one, only those responding correct, including yourself.
-
Obviously people would be held accountable for their actions while using drugs.
Edit: this was in response too phil.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Genocide IS making something illegal, it may be an extreme case, but that doesn\'t change what it is doing.
Your right, this thread isn\'t for drug debating, or debating of how a government should be able to limit individual choice.
But it is about church/state. I can relate this back to that, dont you worry.
Government limits individual choice based on universal religious values that apply to a majority of the major religions.
Im sorry, but im not in that majority, And I think I should be allowed my freedom from the governments religiously-moral influenced laws.
Genocide is not making something illegal - that is an oxymoron. Genocide in itself is illegal so how is it make anything illegal?
Please tell me where in the Bible it spells out that it prohibits the use of drugs and how this relates to our drug laws?
-
Genocide is not making something illegal - that is an oxymoron. Genocide in itself is illegal so how is it make anything illegal?
Please tell me where in the Bible it spells out that it prohibits the use of drugs and how this relates to our drug laws?
from Biblequestions.org
"Drugs in general produce an euphoric and pseudo accelerated state of mind (this is why they are used). A common effect is a perceived state of well being. The Bible teaches we are to maintain a truly clear state of mind and avoid anything that interferes with this mental acumen (Tit. 2: 4, 6). Man does not need chemical help in effecting the unreal (cp. Prov. 14: 12, 15, 2 Cor. 13: 5)."
And dude, when you use genocide, you dont think of it as murdering people, so they wouldnt think of it as against the law. Just like our government doesn\'t think about "choice restrictions" as being illegal.
-
Just like our government doesn\'t think about "choice restrictions" as being illegal.
IE....pro-choice.....
gigashadow-which by what you ask of me is keeping it on topic since prochoice is always the center of a .gov/religion argument.
Or seperation thereof..........
If you say this is about the pledge..ok..but we can\'t argue that without bringing up seperation of church and state.
This is also not about disrespect towards you, but to prove a point. So please on\'t get power hungry on me if that is something you do. I\'m being completely honest and real about this.
-
Correct me if I\'m wrong, but aren\'t drugs linked to many other crimes in general? Imagine if you made drugs legal... acquiring them would be more convenient... the demand for it would be higher as people grew addicted... and people would become desperate for the drug and try to obtain it by any means possible.
-
Correct me if I\'m wrong, but aren\'t drugs linked to many other crimes in general? Imagine if you made drugs legal... acquiring them would be more convenient... the demand for it would be higher as people grew addicted... and people would become desperate for the drug and try to obtain it by any means possible.
Anything can be linked to crimes. Alcohol is also involved a lot of crimes, and is adicting.
Not all people who use drugs become seriously addicted. Drugs themselves are not going to make you turn into a criminal.
-
Remember USA was founded by people who wanted to essentially separate church from state.
Many Christians (including myself) actually prefer separating church from state. You can\'t legislate Christianity. The idea is that we are supposed to have the choice whether or not to believe in God in the first place.
When the state gets involved in religious matters things can get real messy (split from Catholicism & Protestans).
Removing the 10 Commandments from court rooms: don\'t care either way. If I were in a Chinese courtroom with Bhuddist writings on the wall I wouldn\'t start protesting. But if people want it removed though then so be it.
Removing "In God We Trust" from our money, same deal. A little bit of heritage & tradition is lost that I would miss though.
Changing the pledge? No I don\'t agree with that one. Either say it how it\'s written or don\'t say it at all. If a new one was made omitting God entirely that\'s fine.
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
Correct me if I\'m wrong, but aren\'t drugs linked to many other crimes in general? Imagine if you made drugs legal... acquiring them would be more convenient... the demand for it would be higher as people grew addicted... and people would become desperate for the drug and try to obtain it by any means possible.
Just as the Hamster man said, a lot of crimes are caused by being drunk, yet that is legal. Why? You cannot just say that drugs cause crimes, therefor drugs should be illegal. It\'s a moot point , due to the fact our Goverment allows other things to be legal, yet those things are equally as "dangerous". You also can\'t say it is being done for our own good, as in our health, due to the fact people can still smoke, causing lung cancer in themselves and others. Not to mention long term drinking will kill your liver.
-
I set alcohol and drugs like heroine, cocaine, etc. on different levels. A crack addict is a bigger threat to society than an alcoholic.
-
How is a crack adict a threat to society? explain.
-
How is a crack adict a threat to society? explain.
A crack addict will do anything to satisfy their fix -- even kill you for their dealer if they wished it. An alcoholic would not be so rash.
-
So we should ban additction?
But everything is addicting...
-
You\'re oversimplifying the situation. There are different degrees of addictions and different types of addictions. There is a difference between being hooked on something like caffeine, and crack. Your body can handle withdrawal from caffeine, it can\'t handle withdrawal from crack, or any physically addicting drug for that matter.
-
Okay, but how some people use a substance isn\'t a reason to ban something.
-
It\'s not some people, it\'s every person. When the substance causes such a dependency that the user will do ANYTHING to get more, I see it as a safety risk to myself, to others, and to the user themselves. At that point, the substance should be banned.
-
Well, that is true.
Edit: Well what you said isn\'t true, but I understand your point. Not eveyone who trys crack needs it forever.
I would be okay with Crack, Cocaine, and Heroin being banned.
But most if not all drugs should be legal.
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
Correct me if I\'m wrong, but aren\'t drugs linked to many other crimes in general? Imagine if you made drugs legal... acquiring them would be more convenient... the demand for it would be higher as people grew addicted... and people would become desperate for the drug and try to obtain it by any means possible.
Drugs are in fact linked to other crimes at times as are cars, baseball bats, alcohol..the list could go on.
Being legal or not hasnt much to do with addiction rates. If people are going to be addicted to something, be legal or illegal wont change that. Here is a guess, but Im thinking the vast majority who are even remotely interested in taking a drug isnt concerned with the fact that they are illegal but more of what that drug might do to them.
As for your last sentence, that already happens often.
Actually im going to entertain you some more.
Here is a major crime that would virtually be eliminated to a degree. drug robberies and the such like the murders/ beatings associated with them. You have a bunch of low level street guys no longer shooting people over turf since they are fighting over something legal now. Kinda like when prohibition ended.
On the other end, those same people may still be there because the government would probably tax the hell out of everything and the local corner man would still be selling a dime for a dime instead of the governments 13.50.
Wouldn\'t have to worry about "bad shit" on the market as the gov. would probably regulate quality quite well. So less OD\'s or mysterious deaths. "Oh man..johnny always did that much, I wonder why he\'s bleeding from every orafice after just one line."
Everything is obviously just speculation one way or the other though.
-
Crack addicts are usually to scary to do anything but steal to get more crack.
No real drug dealer would trust them with a gun to murder someone for them.
Look at the rap sheets for most crack addicts, the most brutal charge is often a simple battery about fighting with another crack head over the last hit.
There are always the exceptions to the rules.
I find alcoholics a much more dangerous problem as they are often on the road. Look how many put a little kaluha or bourbon in their morning coffee, only to be drinking at some bar for lunch and catching after hours drinks after the job well into the night. I\'ll take my chances with a crack head before a drunk on the road.
-
Great, make it all more legal. You think crimes would go down? People are still going to rob and murder for drugs because they lack the money to purchase them, and if you what you say about taxing is right, it\'ll go up. As for government regulation, so what if they now don\'t OD, they are still addicted and rotting away in an addiction. Only thing that poor johnny is doing is supporting a government you don\'t seem to like too much. Just my hypothetical retort to your theory.
-
Drug related murders weren\'t rampant when almost everything was legal in the early 1900\'s.
Yes that was a long time ago and many things are different for the better AND worse. So like I said, it\'s all speculation no matter what side you support.
There is however only one way to find out. Oh wait, you can look at statistics from places where certain substances are already legal.
Are you going to now hit me with this one?
It\'s a different region..different things..etc..etc..
That can be said and it does hold true to an extent. The differences aren\'t that large. People are in fact people no matter where in the world they are.
It\'s just odd how everywhere that substances are legal it is "X" way.
Everywhere where substances are illegal, it is "X" way.
The consistentcies do exsist on both sides.
-
Educate me where drugs are all sold legally.
-
Originally posted by TSina
Drug related murders weren\'t rampant when almost everything was legal in the early 1900\'s.
Besides opium... what other major drugs were running around in the early 1900\'s? This is a joke right? Hell I am sure Teddy Roosevelt could buy crack on every street corner. :rolleyes:
-
Should I include opium trade in china in the 19th century?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Besides opium... what other major drugs were running around in the early 1900\'s? This is a joke right? Hell I am sure Teddy Roosevelt could buy crack on every street corner. :rolleyes:
Cocaine was legal then as well. Not sure about heroin. It was something I was watching on the discovery channel a few months ago about the history of drugs in america.
Crack didnt make an appearence untill the 70\'s I think it was.
-
Originally posted by Phil
Educate me where drugs are all sold legally.
Weed is about the only thing that is legal to sell in certain places like Holland and Germany, but it must be done by an establishment or "cannabis cafe". It can be also be possesed.
When I was in Vancouver, many people were lighting up in the streets, often only a few feet from cops. This was pretty widespread so I dont think that all of those incidents were just "ignored" by the cops.
Switzerland has a program nationwide to where it prescirbes heroin to addicts. I forgot what exactly they are trying to acheive and if it is failing or succeding. Australia and the Netherlands were looking into doing the same. Not sure if they have.
We(US) spends tens of billions of dollars in arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating, often the little men. We also have a few states that have decrimilized with more wanting to. The war on drugs is a joke. Drug use is constantly on the rise. Even on the news tonight, it was stated that at least 800,000 peopl now openly admit to smoking regularly since 92. They also said that number of actual new smokers is probably closer to 1.2 million over the same period of time.
Today\'s war on drugs is a re-run of Prohibition. Approximately 40 million Americans are occasional, peaceful users of some illegal drug who are no threat to anyone. They are not going to stop. The laws don\'t, and can\'t, stop drug use.
Today\'s illegal drugs were legal before 1914. Cocaine was even found in the original Coca-Cola recipe. Americans had few problems with cocaine, opium, heroin or marijuana. Drugs were inexpensive; crime was low. Most users handled their drug of choice and lived normal, productive lives. Addicts out of control were a tiny minority.
I don\'t think any country has made the harder stuff legal at any level. Some have decriminalized them though.
If people want to OD..let them.
-
I have to agree with Giga on that Jewish comments. And the drug comments.
Hey I know what we could do. We can make murder legal also. That way when a person who tries to OD themselves but fails, and is just curiously walking down the street with a gun and suddenly sees devils and begins to shoot at them, they won\'t be put in jail. I mean it was the drugs fault and it was their choice to take it.
-
Thats the problem and the difference. No one is saying to make drug users or anyone under the influence unaccountable for their actions at all.
Thing is with your argument right now is this. That can already happen while these drugs are still illegal. Legal or illegal, that scenario can still happen.
Or you could jus ban the gun instead since we all know banning weapons solves our murder problem, plus people dont kill people, guns do!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Germany had a democracy, and the Nazis were able to win 39% of the political seats. And then Hitler was made chancellor.
Wasn\'t it Vice Chancellor then when the Chancellor died he moved up to it?
-
No, I do not think so. But you may be right.
-
Originally posted by TSina
Thats the problem and the difference. No one is saying to make drug users or anyone under the influence unaccountable for their actions at all.
Thing is with your argument right now is this. That can already happen while these drugs are still illegal. Legal or illegal, that scenario can still happen.
Or you could jus ban the gun instead since we all know banning weapons solves our murder problem, plus people dont kill people, guns do!!!!!
Doesn\'t matter. If drugs were to be legal, the problem would only grow worse.
Gun\'s don\'t kill people, but a pot head might. There are people that commit crimes who are either angry, scared etc...crazy you know things like that. But when a pot head kills himself/somebody else it\'s alot worse. Why? B/c if the person was under the influence, chances are they wouln\'t have commited the crime in the first place.
-
According to whom? Not many people are violent while high on pot. If you have smoked it at all, you might know that. Pot doesnt make you do things like that like other drugs do. All it does is make you either sleepy, slap happy, or hungry.
Even the government doesn\'t use that weak assed angle against pot.
BTW...ever notice how it\'s usually alcohol that makes people violent more often than not?
They don\'t call it liquid courage just out of the blue.
-
It doesn\'t make anybody more violent. It impares their judgement and that is enough for somebody to commit a crime.
What\'s stupid is that people keep trying to compare alcohol with marijuana.
-
just as stupid as
Gun\'s don\'t kill people, but a pot head might. There are people that commit crimes who are either angry, scared etc...crazy you know things like that. But when a pot head kills himself/somebody else it\'s alot worse. Why? B/c if the person was under the influence, chances are they wouln\'t have commited the crime in the first place.
Your making a VERY large generalization about something I am assuming you havent even tried.
PS, if you dont think alcohol makes people violent than you must not drink either or haven\'t seen many drunk people. They anger rather quickly.
It\'s just as stupid to compare weed to the rest of the illegal drugs simply b/c they are illegal.
There is a difference between anger and impared judgement just so you know.
Kinda like when a bartender refuses to give a drunk anymore drinks b/c they are. They usually tend to get angry. Once they get kicked out of the bar, it is their impared judgement that make them think they can drive a car without incident.
When people truely know right from wrong, there isn\'t much out there that will make them think it\'s ok to commit crimes unless they are already screwed in the head to begin with.
-
You know what you win. Weed should be legal. That way more kids can drop out of high school in order to get high with their friends. And why not make every other drug legal. It\'s stupid to ban something that everybody is using, EVERYONE does weed and weed is cool. If they\'ve never smoked weed (Due to being witness of events that are associated with weed, it\'s sell and it\'s growth) shouln\'t have a say in this. So make everything legal, specially because everybody does it. If everybody does it it must be right, regardless if we need yet another judgment imparing substance, alcohol is not enough we need more.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
You know what you win. Weed should be legal. That way more kids can drop out of high school in order to get high with their friends. And why not make every other drug legal. It\'s stupid to ban something that everybody is using, EVERYONE does weed and weed is cool. If they\'ve never smoked weed (Due to being witness of events that are associated with weed, it\'s sell and it\'s growth) shouln\'t have a say in this. So make everything legal, specially because everybody does it. If everybody does it it must be right, regardless if we need yet another judgment imparing substance, alcohol is not enough we need more.
It should be.
If they were going to drop out, they would have anyway. That would be a weak will not weed.
Every other should be. If people want to do things, let them. If they want to do illegal things while under the influence, let them pay for it as well.
Not everyone, but more people than you think. Probably even your nana..lol
What events have you witnessed that were associated with weed? I have got to know this. Your right though, you really shouldn\'t be involved in the discussion if you haven\'t tried it. You still don\'t know how they felt or what was going on in their heads.
If many people do it, it must not be as bad as it\'s opposition say it is. Many prominent people in this world toke up on the weekend.
Needing more or not isn\'t the issue. If people want to do it, they should have the right to. It\'s that simple. Just like alcohol which impairs people more than anything besides huffing, pcp, and meth is a choice we have at a certain age. Certain responsibilities come with that too. It can be the same for everything. Problem is that since everything has been illegal for so long, people are just use to saying everything is so bad, and some of it really is, but most people can make a rational choice on their own.
I still want to see a violent stoner.
What about fast food? It is far more deadly. Why not tighter regulations on what is served to you????? Juvenile diabetes is higher than ever partially due to our current society and fast everything type of life.
This could go own for days about these things.
Did you also forget about how much weed actually helps people..legally that is....
-
So what you are saying is that if people want to do drugs and other illegal substances, they should be allowed?
For what purpose?
Are you saying that it\'s ok for people to get high of their minds then commit a crime...and pay for it? Wouln\'t be easier if they just didn\'t get high of their minds and didn\'t commit the crime?
If you can count hobbos, drop outs, gang members, murders, rapers and thieves "many people" then you\'re right. You might say "You stupid uncool person, you\'re making a big assumption and" Nope. That\'s what happened to every weed head I know. My friends? They all smoke weed. That\'s why they are all the last ranked in our class. That\'s why one of them get\'s high every morning b/c of his problems at home instead of doing something about it. That\'s why he steals from his mom to buy the weed. That\'s why one of their brothers is in juvi right now for stabbing somebody over a pound of cocaine and his dad is dead after overdosing on heroin. What\'s ironic is that he is too starting to snort cocain. But who cares right? That was his "right" to do what he wanted to do with his life?
You might say "Well that\'s just stupid people that..." BS If it wasn\'t for the weed, would they still have fought OVER the weed. If it wasn\'t for the heroin, would he still have OVERDOSED on the heroin. What kind of responsabilities come from getting stoned, high or snorting some coke? "Hmm, I\'m a father of 3, I have a good job and a wife, I think I earned this addicting heroin" or "Hmm my parents really think that I\'m going to school, ohh well, the weed will ease my pain, it feels so good" The truth is most people aren\'t rational enough to make a choice. If a heroin addict is going to "decide" to be a heroin addict, it\'s not that he made the decision, his addiction made him. Weed, it\'s not addictive? Maybe not. Do people try harder things b/c of it? Yep. First weed, then dro, then some stuff that tastes like "jolly ranchers" and then cocaine. Don\'t believe me? Try asking high school, middle school and even elementary school kids.
You want to see a violent stoner? Hmm a murder that occured because of a guy who wanted money to buy some drugs. Hmm a kid who shot another kid while camly sitting in his bed smoking a joint and playing with his daddy\'s gun. What are you going to say? "It never happned, those kid\'s are just stupid for..." Yeah, those kids were stupid enough to try drugs in the first place. Have cases like that happened, I\'m pretty sure, would crack heads admit it, not if they got paid(except if its weed)
What people are being helped? The ones with glaucoma(sp) and all those other illnesses. If so, you\'re right. I don\'t have a problem with them doing weed if it\'s for their own benefit. But, what do you suffer from? What about the other 16 year old weed heads? Nothing. You are just going through the "this feels so good and I\'m going to do it because I\'ve heard that it isn\'t bad and you can\'t tell me what to do because..." Sort of like sex. It feels good when you do it, that is, until you catch HIV.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
So what you are saying is that if people want to do drugs and other illegal substances, they should be allowed?
Yes, that is exactly what Im saying. We give people the right to kill themselves with drinking and smoking cigs.
For what purpose?
For whatever purpose they feel the need to do w hat ever they feel the need to do. Recreation.
Are you saying that it\'s ok for people to get high of their minds then commit a crime...and pay for it? Wouln\'t be easier if they just didn\'t get high of their minds and didn\'t commit the crime?
No Im saying that if someone is high out of their mind and they commit a crime, they must pay for it period. I see the point you are attempting to make and it just doesn\'t float with me. If someone really wants to commit a crime, it\'s going to happen anyway. Weed is not a drug that makes you want to commit a crime to get money for more weed. The minority of weed smokers that do is really against the odds. You would probably know that if you\'ve ever tried what you speak so strongly against. While certain things have CHEMICAL properties that are addicting, it has never been proven that canibus possess\' any of them unlike crack or nicotine. Addiction to weed is purely mental. Which could truely be said about anything.
If you can count hobbos, drop outs, gang members, murders, rapers and thieves "many people" then you\'re right. You might say "You stupid uncool person, you\'re making a big assumption and" Nope. That\'s what happened to every weed head I know. My friends? They all smoke weed. That\'s why they are all the last ranked in our class. That\'s why one of them get\'s high every morning b/c of his problems at home instead of doing something about it. That\'s why he steals from his mom to buy the weed. That\'s why one of their brothers is in juvi right now for stabbing somebody over a pound of cocaine and his dad is dead after overdosing on heroin. What\'s ironic is that he is too starting to snort cocain. But who cares right? That was his "right" to do what he wanted to do with his life?
Problem is bums, drop outs, gang members, murderers, *rappers*, and thieves aren\'t the only ones doing it. Our first president GREW weed. I\'m sure many others did as then too. Not to mention some of our more current ones. Lawyers, doctors, cops, thugs, ho\'s, brainiacs, talk show hosts, factory workers, firefighters, marketing reps..etc..etc..etc all smoke. This isn\'t heroin or crack we are talking about here(even though we should all have a legal choice in that too.) Studies show that in the Netherlands, despite a more liberal approach than other countries\', the proportion of youth using cannabis is not higher. In fact, it is in the middle of the pack.
I wouldn\'t say you are supid, not for not doing it, but for your perpetuation that all who smoke think we are cool because of it. Leave the anti-drug commercial rhetoric out of this. I would say that you are stupid to take such a stand about something you know nothing about first hand. If thats what happend to your "friends" then they are weak willed for falling into that type of pear pressure. No one should do anything unless they want to and this is what I\'m getting at. ALL of the info about what ever illicit drug should be available and THEN we all make a choice as to what we would and wouldn\'t do. Part of people trying things is the taboo associated with them. All of your "friends that are ranked last in their class isn\'t because of weed, it is because they are plain stupid or lack motivation. I smoked all through HS and college and STILL had the moxi to continue. It\'s called will, you should explain that to them sometime. Studies indicate that problem young pot users are also problem alcohol users, manifesting other "risk-taking" behaviour. These are therefore symptoms of other underlying problems rather than causes.
He steals from his mom because he lacks character. Im willing to bet he stole from her before when it came to something he felt he really wanted. His brother stabbing someone over a lb. of cocaine? What else was behind this. Did the other guy try to steal it from him? Did he try to steal it from the guy who got stab? Thats alot of money to play around with. If cocaine was legal, that probably would have never happend. His dad is dead after a OD on heroin b/c he was stupid and thought he could handle more than he actually could. A problem that will never go away whether it\'s legal or not. Speaking of H addicts...do you know why most dont go get the methadone treatments they need? In fear of being arrested. Not sure about treatments for other junkies, but I do know for a fact the law enforment monitors these places and selectivly arrests H addicts that go for treatment. My cousin was a target of this in the past and is currently serving time. You try to get help and get arrested, it\'s bullshit.
Now your "friend" has started to snort coke. Judging by everything else, drugs are the least of his worries. He is screwed in his head for reasons that drugs only temporarily make him feel better about. Which goes back to one of my feelings. It all starts with the parents. Dig deeper into his personal life and I bet you will find this isnt simply about doing drugs. That became a by-product of what he already turned into. But yes, it should be his right to do so legally if he so choose\'s. Look, he is doing it anyway, so being illegal has nothing to do with it.
You might say "Well that\'s just stupid people that..." BS If it wasn\'t for the weed, would they still have fought OVER the weed. If it wasn\'t for the heroin, would he still have OVERDOSED on the heroin. What kind of responsabilities come from getting stoned, high or snorting some coke? "Hmm, I\'m a father of 3, I have a good job and a wife, I think I earned this addicting heroin" or "Hmm my parents really think that I\'m going to school, ohh well, the weed will ease my pain, it feels so good" The truth is most people aren\'t rational enough to make a choice. If a heroin addict is going to "decide" to be a heroin addict, it\'s not that he made the decision, his addiction made him. Weed, it\'s not addictive? Maybe not. Do people try harder things b/c of it? Yep. First weed, then dro, then some stuff that tastes like "jolly ranchers" and then cocaine. Don\'t believe me? Try asking high school, middle school and even elementary school kids.
I did say that and would say it again. No that would mean that they are stupid enough to fight over something petty, no matter what it is. No, pops, might have OD\'d on something else or perhaps shot himself in the head if he purposely OD\'d.
The same responsibilities that come with not getting high or drunk. Everyone is responsible for themselves whether under the influence or not. Studies indicate that the vast majority of canibus smokers never progress to other drugs. While it is true that most users of hard drugs have also used canibus before these other drugs.... other factors, mainly psychosocial, would better explain progression to other drugs.
Thats where you are right and wrong. No one necessarily chooses to become an addict, but they all know full well that it COULD happen. They proceed to get high anyway.
Weed is weed..dont say weed, then dro. It\'s like cube steak and a new york strip. Its still beef, still steak. I dont believe you as I would ask a middle or elementry school kid that as they shouldnt even be thinking about it. Im not saying legal and free reign. It could be like alcohol..legal at 21..or 23..25..etc..etc..
You want to see a violent stoner? Hmm a murder that occured because of a guy who wanted money to buy some drugs. Hmm a kid who shot another kid while camly sitting in his bed smoking a joint and playing with his daddy\'s gun. What are you going to say? "It never happned, those kid\'s are just stupid for..." Yeah, those kids were stupid enough to try drugs in the first place. Have cases like that happened, I\'m pretty sure, would crack heads admit it, not if they got paid(except if its weed)
When and where was this. Certainly isolated as the media would jump on any chance to display someone killing someone else over a hit on the blunt. Some weight had to be involved, then its about a principle and money. It wasn\'t the weed that made his dumb ass play with a loaded pistol. Yes, they were stupid. Just like I would be stupid if I continued to smoke knowing that my job could be on the line.
What people are being helped? The ones with glaucoma(sp) and all those other illnesses. If so, you\'re right. I don\'t have a problem with them doing weed if it\'s for their own benefit. But, what do you suffer from? What about the other 16 year old weed heads? Nothing. You are just going through the "this feels so good and I\'m going to do it because I\'ve heard that it isn\'t bad and you can\'t tell me what to do because..." Sort of like sex. It feels good when you do it, that is, until you catch HIV.
Illicit drug use has possible reprecussions just like driving a car, drinking, smoking, having sex, playing football, boxing..etc..etc.. All damn dangerous and possibly life threatening.
-
Two wrongs don\'t make a right.
-
Care to explain that more? Your statement is rather vague.
-
Originally posted by TSina
Our first president GREW weed.
Wrong - he grew hemp along with Thomas Jefferson, not the same as "weed". Hemp has many uses, but getting high from it is not one of them.
"The hemp plant, on the other hand, is harvested solely for its seed and stalk, not its low-THC flowers. THC values in marijuana run about 15-20%, while THC values in industrial hemp are usually standardized at 0.3%.\'
http://www.abouthemp.com/bodyInfo.html
It was a viable crop back then and this completely false argument is commonly used by legalized drug advocates to make there case. Tsina please stop spouting your opinions as fact - if you are going to use examples to back up your opinion please use references, otherwise you have no credibility.
-
Mr king of splitting hairs....
To my knowledge, one would have to grow a mary jane plant to grow hemp no? Whther someone harvests the hemp or the flowered buds are two different things, but the plant is indeed the same no?
Besides, is that the only thing for you to pick out and argue about?
-
I know many kids who have dropped out of high school, not all of them do drugs.
And it is their personality that makes them want to leave school, not drugs.
-
Originally posted by TSina
Mr king of splitting hairs....
To my knowledge, one would have to grow a mary jane plant to grow hemp no? Whther someone harvests the hemp or the flowered buds are two different things, but the plant is indeed the same no?
Besides, is that the only thing for you to pick out and argue about?
I wouldn\'t know about that pothead. In any case it spells it out clearly enough - hemp is used for many other things besides smoking. Once again I take your opinions at face value since there is nothing to substantiate them. :rolleyes:
-
yeah, like clothing and medicines...etc..etc..etc..
-
So name a few important people (lawyers, doctors, presidents, leaders etc) that smoke weed. Please keep it short because I\'m sure that there are many :sarcasm:
While you speak from your opinion, I speak from my observations. I\'ve seen it and for you to put quotation marks around "friends" is a very insipid. You don\'t believe me then fine don\'t. I can\'t take the blindfold off you.
Truth is when a pot smoker tries to make a stand for their addiction it pretty much invalidates itself altogether. You said it yourself, MJ is mentally addicting. But you insist on comparing drugs, something that affects judgement, to other "addictions" I\'m pretty sure you are talking about "watching TV" or "Eating junk food" How can you compare that? You fail to recognize one thing, MJ is illegal. You try to back it up with the usual "Alcohol is worst" rhetoric but the truth is that...too bad. Get over it. It is just as bad as alcohol and it\'s just a bitch that MJ is illegal.
So now tell me, why should it be legalized? Is it going to contribute to society in any way? No. Has it contributed to the development of our society in anyway? No. Will the taboo against marijuana ever fade? No. Alcohol has already proven that humans can\'t handle "recreation" Why do we need yet another form of "recreation"?
I\'m pretty much all up for personal freedoms. But I also know that not everybody can make a wise choice. Not everybody is gifted with the power to make wise decisions on their own. A person might try heroin, they know they can become addicted, they do it, become addicted then die? And you can\'t tell me that people like that live happy fulfilling lives. Show me a case where some drug addict wished he had never tried drugs or alcohol? Decisions to ruining your life shouln\'t be available. That doesn\'t contribute to society or that persons life. You might say that it\'s their "choice" to become addicted to a certain drug but for what reason? But what about those addictions that are cured on a person, what is always the response? A happy one.
Nope. My friends are ranked low because they always skip to go smoke out. One of them even spent his SAT money in order to buy weed. Contrary to your statement, they actually are very smart when they aren\'t out getting high. And they know it, but do you know what keeps them out of school? Weed.
I know that their problems lie way deeper than just the drugs but you know what is also faulty in your logic. That drugs was the answer. You speak of "will" and "character" something that they don\'t have. And they don\'t. You know why? Because they have relied on drugs in order to evade the facts. The are ruining their lives and worst of all they know this. Drug addicts know this. Alcohol addicts know this. Alcohol is alot less addicting than any other type of drug, but I\'m sure there are "studies that indicate" the contrary.
-
We don\'t have lists, people don\'t run around screaming "i smoke marijuanna" you know why? it\'s illegal!
My friends dad smokes, he was in vietnam and now he has a wife and two kids who should both grow up fine.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
So name a few important people (lawyers, doctors, presidents, leaders etc) that smoke weed. Please keep it short because I\'m sure that there are many :sarcasm:
While you speak from your opinion, I speak from my observations. I\'ve seen it and for you to put quotation marks around "friends" is a very insipid. You don\'t believe me then fine don\'t. I can\'t take the blindfold off you.
Truth is when a pot smoker tries to make a stand for their addiction it pretty much invalidates itself altogether. You said it yourself, MJ is mentally addicting. But you insist on comparing drugs, something that affects judgement, to other "addictions" I\'m pretty sure you are talking about "watching TV" or "Eating junk food" How can you compare that? You fail to recognize one thing, MJ is illegal. You try to back it up with the usual "Alcohol is worst" rhetoric but the truth is that...too bad. Get over it. It is just as bad as alcohol and it\'s just a bitch that MJ is illegal.
Actually I said nothing about TV being addicting or that eating junk was addicting. I pointed out the far more dangerous problems with all of the junk in our lives as compared to maryjane. I know full well it is illegal. What is your point? Its true and not just rhetoric though.
So now tell me, why should it be legalized? Is it going to contribute to society in any way? No. Has it contributed to the development of our society in anyway? No. Will the taboo against marijuana ever fade? No. Alcohol has already proven that humans can\'t handle "recreation" Why do we need yet another form of "recreation"?
Simply b/c it poses little danger. Yes it has and will. here is one way.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/medical/challenges/litigators/medical/conditions/alzheimers.cfm
here are a few more
http://www.friendlystranger.com/info/med_use.htm
A long list of links which I havent read and do not know the valadity of.
http://www.ccguide.org.uk/medical.html
Some more..or more of the same.
http://www.mpp.org/medicine.html
[qoute]I\'m pretty much all up for personal freedoms. But I also know that not everybody can make a wise choice. Not everybody is gifted with the power to make wise decisions on their own. A person might try heroin, they know they can become addicted, they do it, become addicted then die? And you can\'t tell me that people like that live happy fulfilling lives. Show me a case where some drug addict wished he had never tried drugs or alcohol? Decisions to ruining your life shouln\'t be available. That doesn\'t contribute to society or that persons life. You might say that it\'s their "choice" to become addicted to a certain drug but for what reason? But what about those addictions that are cured on a person, what is always the response? A happy one.[/quote]
People like that probably wont live a long a happy life anyway and being legal or illegal wont stop them from trying it it they want to. Lots of druggies and alcoholics wished they never did it in the first place.
Not everyone turns into an addict that does drugs. You do know that right. It seems that most people cannot control it, but in no way does it mean that everyone is like that.
Nope. My friends are ranked low because they always skip to go smoke out. One of them even spent his SAT money in order to buy weed. Contrary to your statement, they actually are very smart when they aren\'t out getting high. And they know it, but do you know what keeps them out of school? Weed.
That their choice to skip. It\'s not like anyone is holding a gun to their heads. They have weak will it seems. OMG, they are either smart or not so smart, but certainly not mystically smarter when they dont smoke. No, they keep themselves out of school. Period.
I know that their problems lie way deeper than just the drugs but you know what is also faulty in your logic. That drugs was the answer. You speak of "will" and "character" something that they don\'t have. And they don\'t. You know why? Because they have relied on drugs in order to evade the facts. The are ruining their lives and worst of all they know this. Drug addicts know this. Alcohol addicts know this. Alcohol is alot less addicting than any other type of drug, but I\'m sure there are "studies that indicate" the contrary. [/B]
That wasn\'t my faulty logic, it was theirs to think drugs were the answer. Notice how being illegal didnt sway them from making that assumption. They didnt have either one BEFORE they went to the drugs, not b/c of or after.