[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47877849]yeah because living in a first world country means you ALWAYS wake up in a bed, under a roof, means you ALWAYS have something to eat, means you ALWAYS have a job to go to, means you ALWAYS have the respect of your countrymen and don't have to face racism, discrimination, or the changing tide of public opinion.
Oh wait, living in a first world country [B]doesn't mean any of those things and people can still have perfectly valid problems.[/B]
But hey, any problem in your life, any problem what so ever? "First world problems" and no one should ever help you.[/QUOTE]
Lol nobody owes you shit, grow up.
[QUOTE=DestinyDstryr;47877832]BooHoo it's sooo hard living in a first world country like canada~~
First world problems.[/QUOTE]
This just in, everyone in the first world is at least middle class and has no problems in their life. Nobody's poor, homeless, victims of abuse, victims of peer pressure, no rape victims, no depressed, no trauma whatsoever, and nobody has ever been fucked up by their parents or raised in a drug ridden environment. Everything is peachy keen here.
[QUOTE=DestinyDstryr;47877865]Lol nobody owes you shit, grow up.[/QUOTE]
I don't think I personally am owed anything.
Some people certainly are.
Also, who gives a shit what you think when this is how you act
fuck it, ignoring you
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;47877866]This just in, everyone in the first world is at least middle class and has no problems in their life. Nobody's poor, homeless, victims of abuse, victims of peer pressure, no rape victims, no depressed, no trauma whatsoever, and nobody has ever been fucked up by their parents or raised in a drug ridden environment. Everything is peachy keen here.[/QUOTE]
First world problems kid.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47877875]I don't think I personally am owed anything.
Some people certainly are.
Also, who gives a shit what you think when this is how you act
fuck it, ignoring you[/QUOTE]
Gonna go smoke some drugs to chill out man? Can't take an opposing opinion? Fucking loser lol.
[QUOTE=The golden;47877621]At the very rock-bottom least these facilities save lives. You can't even handle that. You keep going on about how these people don't contribute enough to please you...[/QUOTE]
I don't care all that much about the wealth they generate, my main concern with safe injection sites is that they remove some major consequences of drug use and bring it into the public square, we do not need that kind of self destructive behaviour to be normalized and the state certainly should have very little interest in doing so.
[editline]blah[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47877849]yeah because living in a first world country means you ALWAYS wake up in a bed, under a roof, means you ALWAYS have something to eat, means you ALWAYS have a job to go to...[/QUOTE]
Actually in most cases it does mean those things, you almost have to be trying to fail in order to get to the point of starving to death / dying from the elements in North America (unless you're extremely mentally unhinged).
[QUOTE=DestinyDstryr;47877900]First world problems kid.
Gonna go smoke some drugs to chill out man? Can't take an opposing opinion? Fucking loser lol.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand what a first world problem is. A first world problem is your iphone going a bit slow. A first world problem is not "I don't have a fucking house". You're essentially shrugging off the homeless, rape victims, the mentally ill, child abuse victims, and so on, because they happen to live in a first world country. Go you.
Also, why are you calling me kid? I get the feeling I'm older than you are.
Also holy shit, stop being so smug. You're acting like you know everything and have the whole world figured out
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;47877955]I don't think you understand what a first world problem is. A first world problem is your iphone going a bit slow. A first world problem is not "I don't have a fucking house". You're essentially shrugging off the homeless, rape victims, the mentally ill, child abuse victims, and so on, because they happen to live in a first world country. Go you.
Also, why are you calling me kid? I get the feeling I'm older than you are.
Also holy shit, stop being so smug. You're acting like you know everything and have the whole world figured out[/QUOTE]
lol 420 amirite man. retard.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47877912]I don't care all that much about the wealth they generate, my main concern with safe injection sites is that they remove some major consequences of drug use and bring it into the public square, we do not need that kind of self destructive behaviour to be normalized and the state certainly should have very little interest in doing so.
[editline]blah[/editline]
Actually in most cases it does mean those things, you almost have to be trying to fail in order to get to the point of starving to death / dying from the elements in North America (unless you're extremely mentally unhinged).[/QUOTE]
It really doesn't mean those things.
You thinking that shows just how little you understand about how bad it really is for some people and how little help some people got at their start.
Do you think a child who had parents who didn't support them in school had every chance to be a successful person? REALLY?
They do no such thing. Insite does no such thing and has not seen an increased drug uptake rate ANYWHERE where these facilities have been put in place. But no, use your agenda to punish people and actually cause drug rates to go up through taboo bullshit that has NEVER helped drug rates drop.
Criminalizing and abusing drug users has never made drugs LESS popular and you thinking that is proof of how little you've looked at this issue and how little you care about actually FIXING drug use rates, rather you'd just stick to an ideological line in the sand that has time and time again, PROVEN ineffective.
God it feels to me like Harper's been running this shit for like 20 years.
I've had enough of his bullshit.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47877987]Do you think a child who had parents who didn't support them in school had every chance to be a successful person? REALLY?
They do no such thing. Insite does no such thing and has not seen an increased drug uptake rate ANYWHERE where these facilities have been put in place. But no, use your agenda to punish people and actually cause drug rates to go up through taboo bullshit that has NEVER helped drug rates drop.
Criminalizing and abusing drug users has never made drugs LESS popular and you thinking that is proof of how little you've looked at this issue and how little you care about actually FIXING drug use rates, rather you'd just stick to an ideological line in the sand that has time and time again, PROVEN ineffective.[/QUOTE]
I never said anything about equal opportunity, most people at least have some food to eat, a bed and a roof above them in North America, you have to fail consistently and badly to find yourself starving and homeless here.
We have a culture that is approving of drugs more and more, they've been shifting out of the criminal underworld for quite a while now, so to see drug use grow is to be expected. Just because there's a disingenuous effort on the part of the government to commit to a war on drugs does not mean that everyone has been totally against them in the recent past or in the present.
[editline]blah[/editline]
I'd say it's not so much a question how stigmatized drug use is that determines its prevalence, but a question of how accessible it is to the working classes. For people who don't have much to lose, addiction can be a devastating thing, not so much the case when it comes to upper class members of society.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47878022]I never said anything about equal opportunity, most people at least have some food to eat, a bed and a roof above them in North America, you have to fail consistently and badly to find yourself starving and homeless here.
We have a culture that is approving of drugs more and more, they've been shifting out of the criminal underworld for quite a while now, so to see drug use grow is to be expected. Just because there's a disingenuous effort on the part of the government to commit to a war on drugs does not mean that everyone has been totally against them in the recent past or in the present.[/QUOTE]
Really? So do you care to explain the homeless population of some several thousand, perhaps even 10,000 strong that live on the lower east side of Vancouver, a city that barely goes over a million people? Oh that's right, because we punished the drug users by sending them to jail, caused them to be unemployable, creating a circle that NEVER let them leave. And we did that, and you're saying "Well that's how it should be".
Okay, so I feel your second statement is so wrong it needs to be broken down.
[QUOTE]We have a culture that is approving of drugs more and more[/QUOTE]
We HAD a culture that supported drug use in the form of Alcohol for 50+ years.
[QUOTE]they've been shifting out of the criminal underworld for quite a while now,[/QUOTE]
No, they haven't. The only drug that is shifting out of the criminal underworld is marijuana. That's the only one. And that's a fucking horrible argument because marijuana =/= heroin or anything like it.
[QUOTE]so to see drug use grow is to be expected. [/QUOTE]
So why did a country like Portugual see DECREASED drug use rates by a process of legalization and regulation? How did they lower their hard drug rates and see soft drugs like alcohol and marijuana have a small increase? Should soft drugs like alcohol and weed be considered to be as bad as heroin?
[QUOTE]Just because there's a disingenuous effort on the part of the government to commit to a war on drugs[/QUOTE]
The effort to commit to the prohibition of drugs on our governments part and the US governments part has by and large caused drug use to soar, become more readily available, more prolific, and more promimenet in our society. Unless you think, you know, prohibition DIDN'T happen in the 80's when and where coke use was so prominent? Your ignorance is no reason to claim effects that didn't happen, happened.
[QUOTE]does not mean that everyone has been totally against them in the recent past or in the present.[/QUOTE]
And what is the point of this sentiment exactly? People in the past used to support the prohibition of alcohol, then they realized that they had only empowered criminals, and made alcohol more dangerous, and more prolific. You don't want to use history as a basis for what we should do with our actions again, you just want to repeat the same fucking mistakes over and over again.
[editline]4th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47878022]
I'd say it's not so much a question how stigmatized drug use is that determines its prevalence, but a question of how accessible it is to the working classes. For people who don't have much to lose, addiction can be a devastating thing, not so much the case when it comes to upper class members of society.[/QUOTE]
And prohibition has made drugs MORE ACCESSIBLE THAN EVER.
You act like Insite allows you to just walk in, and get a heroin addiction. No. They do not. That is a fucking fallacy. An utter, disgusting, agenda driven, ignorant fallacy.
During the reign of prohibition, cocaine use has seen a 2000% uptake rate. How you think for ONE fucking second, that this helped prevent the lower classes get their hands on it, is just insane.
Do you have ANY concept of the drug trade that is carried on by the lowest class of society in the most downtrodden parts of society? Do you?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47878085]Really? So do you care to explain the homeless population of some several thousand, perhaps even 10,000 strong that live on the lower east side of Vancouver, a city that barely goes over a million people? Oh that's right, because we punished the drug users by sending them to jail, caused them to be unemployable, creating a circle that NEVER let them leave. And we did that, and you're saying "Well that's how it should be".[/QUOTE]
They are the unfortunate product of a disgusting pro-drug use culture that normalizes addiction and makes potent drugs accessible to the lower class, they are in a situation that cannot be fixed in the long run (unless we change our views on drugs).
[QUOTE]We HAD a culture that supported drug use in the form of Alcohol for 50+ years.
No, they haven't. The only drug that is shifting out of the criminal underworld is marijuana. That's the only one. And that's a fucking horrible argument because marijuana =/= heroin or anything like it.
So why did a country like Portugual see DECREASED drug use rates by a process of legalization and regulation? How did they lower their hard drug rates and see soft drugs like alcohol and marijuana have a small increase? Should soft drugs like alcohol and weed be considered to be as bad as heroin?
The effort to commit to the prohibition of drugs on our governments part and the US governments part has by and large caused drug use to soar, become more readily available, more prolific, and more promimenet in our society. Unless you think, you know, prohibition DIDN'T happen in the 80's when and where coke use was so prominent? Your ignorance is no reason to claim effects that didn't happen, happened.
And what is the point of this sentiment exactly? People in the past used to support the prohibition of alcohol, then they realized that they had only empowered criminals, and made alcohol more dangerous, and more prolific. You don't want to use history as a basis for what we should do with our actions again, you just want to repeat the same fucking mistakes over and over again.[/QUOTE]
You know, I like to think that people aren't disingenuous enough to bring up alcohol and tobacco in these sorts of discussions, but it seems I need to view things with a bit more of a misanthropic perspective.
Alcohol use is entirely different from other drugs because its primary purpose is not the high itself, it is used in tandem with food for the culinary "arts".
Prohibition on drugs only doesn't work because of an already pro-drug culture, if people saw drug use as disgusting and unpleasant, you sure as hell wouldn't have to worry about most of them engaging in it. I'm saying that changing the public's view of drugs is paramount, not regulating them (though I will restate that keeping them out of the hands of the lower class seems to be important).
[editline]blah[/editline]
Just to clear something up for anyone reading this, When I say stigmatization does not affect prevalence all that much, I mean that reducing stigmatization does not proportionally reduce drug usage. I am claiming that encouraging a negative cultural outlook on drugs overall whilst also limiting their accessibility to the working classes is how you combat addiction.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47878146]They are the unfortunate product of a disgusting pro-drug use culture that normalizes addiction and makes potent drugs accessible to the lower class, they are in a situation that cannot be fixed in the long run (unless we change our views on drugs).[/QUOTE]
No. Those people ended up there long before the view "Drugs are okay". They ended up there, by people with your view imposing harsh penalities and punishments on them.
[QUOTE]You know, I like to think that people aren't disingenuous enough to bring up alcohol and tobacco in these sorts of discussions, but it seems I need view things with a bit more of a misanthropic perspective.
Alcohol use is entirely different from other drugs because its primary purpose is not the high itself, it is used in tandem with food for the culinary "arts".
Prohibition on drugs only doesn't work because of an already pro-drug culture, if people saw drug use as disgusting and unpleasant, you sure as hell wouldn't have to worry about most of them engaging in it. I'm saying that changing the public's view of drugs is paramount, not regulating them (though I will restate that keeping them out of the hands of the lower class seems to be important).[/QUOTE]
So wait, you think, as an argument, that saying "People don't drink to get drunk" is a valid argument?
Have you met anyone in your own age group? The primary, and by primary I mean sole, reason people in the age range of 20 drink, is to get drunk. 30? Relaxation/drunk. 40? Same.
What a horrible misunderstanding of alcohol culture you have.
[editline]4th June 2015[/editline]
You rated me funny, but you saying people don't drink to get drunk is the fucking [B]funniest thing I have read this month[/B]
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47878146]
You know, I like to think that people aren't disingenuous enough to bring up alcohol and tobacco in these sorts of discussions, but it seems I need view things with a bit more of a misanthropic perspective.
Alcohol use is entirely different from other drugs because its primary purpose is not the high itself, it is used in tandem with food for the culinary "arts".[/QUOTE]
Y'know, when my drunk parents stumble in to the house at 4 in the morning after a lovely night of drunk driving and nearly killing people, come in to the house screaming at each other, wake up the whole neighborhood, beat the shit out of each other, and I find them naked crumpled on the floor bleeding and bruised, the first thing, the FIRST thing I say, "What a culinary masterpiece".
[QUOTE]So wait, you think, as an argument, that saying "People don't drink to get drunk" is a valid argument?
Have you met anyone in your own age group? The primary, and by primary I mean sole, reason people in the age range of 20 drink, is to get drunk. 30? Relaxation/drunk. 40? Same.
What a horrible misunderstanding of alcohol culture you have.[/QUOTE]
The vast majority of people who drink alcohol on a daily basis are most likely not doing so with the intention of getting drunk, yes.
20 year olds are different because they're stupid and immature for the most part.
Most 30-40 year olds are not getting drunk on a daily basis/weekly basis and are probably doing it for relaxation/culinary enjoyment.
And part of that enjoyment is known as "inebriation"? My mother who drinks wine certainly gets drunk doing so. She's not alone in doing that.
[editline]4th June 2015[/editline]
You really don't understand the culture.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47878226]And part of that enjoyment is known as "inebriation"? My mother who drinks wine certainly gets drunk doing so. She's not alone in doing that.
[editline]4th June 2015[/editline]
You really don't understand the culture.[/QUOTE]
I think there's quite a vast difference between getting a little buzzed and being drunk, that should be obvious.
Extra points for treating drinking "culture" like some sort of esoteric lifestyle.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47878247]I think there's quite a vast difference between getting a little buzzed and being drunk, that should be obvious.
Extra points for treating drinking "culture" like some sort of esoteric lifestyle.[/QUOTE]
You don't have to be at the point of passing out to be drunk.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47878247]I think there's quite a vast difference between getting a little buzzed and being drunk, that should be obvious.
Extra points for treating drinking "culture" like some sort of esoteric lifestyle.[/QUOTE]
Extra points for not getting the point.
Even if there is a difference, the point is the intoxication, the inebriation is the same, just on a different scale. Drinking to get buzzed is the same as drinking to get drunk, just in a different scale and you're STILL using a drug that affects your perception.
Extra points for being a hypocrite WOO. Is it impossible that someone can use marijuana in the same sense as "getting buzzed" with alcohol? I mean, I know you don't actually know anything about it's use so you're not the person to ask, but in your opinion, is that even possible? Is it the amount someone uses that is your bugbear or just the fact they do at all? I mean you're okay with people using alcohol, as long as it's within your personal, subjectively defined limitations?
I used the term "drinking culture" because you don't understand that people across the states, across canada, across the world, across all ages, DO drink to get drunk.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47878325]Extra points for not getting the point.
Even if there is a difference, the point is the intoxication, the inebriation is the same, just on a different scale. Drinking to get buzzed is the same as drinking to get drunk, just in a different scale and you're STILL using a drug that affects your perception.
Extra points for being a hypocrite WOO. Is it impossible that someone can use marijuana in the same sense as "getting buzzed" with alcohol? I mean, I know you don't actually know anything about it's use so you're not the person to ask, but in your opinion, is that even possible? Is it the amount someone uses that is your bugbear or just the fact they do at all? I mean you're okay with people using alcohol, as long as it's within your personal, subjectively defined limitations?
I used the term "drinking culture" because you don't understand that people across the states, across canada, across the world, across all ages, DO drink to get drunk.[/QUOTE]
Hardly as the main and only purpose I'd say, most people do it for socialization and to go with food, slight inebriation is potentially part of the goal, but hardly at the forefront. I think you're just being contrary of petty details now.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47878392]Hardly as the main and only purpose I'd say, most people to it for socialization and to go with food, slight inebriation is potentially part of the goal, but hardly at the forefront. I think you're just being contrary of petty details now.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you get it yet.
When you drink for social reasons, it's a social lubricant, and the inebriation it causes allows for easier interaction with people. Yes, you are inebriated, and yes you are socializing, but regardless, you've imbibed alcohol and are readily affected by it's effects.
Contrary of petty details? I'm pretty sure you're the one insisting how a substance is used by almost everyone when 1) you can't speak for that many people 2) I'm personally sure you have a very limited experience with the subject matter at hand.
Your argument, at it's core is "People only drink for culinary reasons, and for social reasons" which is wrong and not the whole truth at all. People who drink for those "culinary" reasons are still enjoying, and being affected by the alcohol. That's not changing. Seeing as that's your argument, then reasonably speaking, someone who uses marijuana in the EXACT same way, as a "Culinary" enhancer, or as a social lubricant(as many people do) you surely can't have a problem with that, can you?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47878426]I don't think you get it yet.
When you drink for social reasons, it's a social lubricant, and the inebriation it causes allows for easier interaction with people. Yes, you are inebriated, and yes you are socializing, but regardless, you've imbibed alcohol and are readily affected by it's effects.
Contrary of petty details? I'm pretty sure you're the one insisting how a substance is used by almost everyone when 1) you can't speak for that many people 2) I'm personally sure you have a very limited experience with the subject matter at hand.
Your argument, at it's core is "People only drink for culinary reasons, and for social reasons" which is wrong and not the whole truth at all. People who drink for those "culinary" reasons are still enjoying, and being affected by the alcohol. That's not changing. Seeing as that's your argument, then reasonably speaking, someone who uses marijuana in the EXACT same way, as a "Culinary" enhancer, or as a social lubricant(as many people do) you surely can't have a problem with that, can you?[/QUOTE]
Frankly I don't care what you personally think of me.
I never said people only drink of culinary and social reasons, I said most people do. Most people are interested in the high when it comes to cannabis, it's not case of using it for a social lubricant primarily. Also if anyone actually uses cannabis for culinary purposes they are probably an extremely small group of washed up retired hippies.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47878480]
I never said people only drink of culinary and social reasons, I said most people do. Most people are interested in the high when it comes to cannabis, it's not case of using it for a social lubricant primarily. Also if anyone actually uses cannabis for culinary purposes they are probably an extremely small group of washed up retired hippies.[/QUOTE]
whats your point? we should ban injection sites because people enjoy drugs?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47878480]Frankly I don't care what you personally think of me.
I never said people only drink of culinary and social reasons, I said most people do. Most people are interested in the high when it comes to cannabis, it's not case of using it for a social lubricant primarily. Also if anyone actually uses cannabis for culinary purposes they are probably an extremely small group of washed up retired hippies.[/QUOTE]
So you can make an assumption about both groups, one positive, and one negative, and not see at all how you're being a giant hypocrite?
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;47877998]God it feels to me like Harper's been running this shit for like 20 years.
I've had enough of his bullshit.[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;AOEze0j1cY8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOEze0j1cY8[/video]
NDP or bust.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47878210]The vast majority of people who drink alcohol on a daily basis are most likely not doing so with the intention of getting drunk, yes.
20 year olds are different because they're stupid and immature for the most part.
Most 30-40 year olds are not getting drunk on a daily basis/weekly basis and are probably doing it for relaxation/culinary enjoyment.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but if you drink alcohol on a daily basis, regardless of why you're doing it, you have a drug problem.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47875058]My interest is in upholding a certain cultural standard of morality by discouraging destructive behaviour and dealing with human vice in the most productive way possible.[/QUOTE]
What is the point of that if it's void of any shred of compassion.
It burns me up that there're people that WANT to uphold stigma on conditions that aren't the fault of the person that has them.
jesus christ man
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47880252]I'm sorry but if you drink alcohol on a daily basis, regardless of why you're doing it, you have a drug problem.[/QUOTE]
And HumanAbyss claims I don't understand "the culture"...
[QUOTE=Levithan;47880279]What is the point of that if it's void of any shred of compassion.
It burns me up that there're people that WANT to uphold stigma on conditions that aren't the fault of the person that has them.
jesus christ man[/QUOTE]
Sometimes we must rise above impulsive emotions and appraise the larger context of a situation before taking action. Negative social stigma in tandem with the rule of law are vital if we are to minimize destructive behaviours.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47880471]And HumanAbyss claims I don't understand "the culture"...
Sometimes we must rise above impulsive emotions and appraise the larger context of a situation before taking action. Negative social stigma in tandem with the rule of law are vital if we are to minimize destructive behaviours.[/QUOTE]
Oh hey there nice slight at me but I'd like you to point out where I say that you should drink every day? It was your fucking argument.
Guess what? I never said it was at all okay to drink that much or often.
[editline]4th June 2015[/editline]
And if that were true, 50 years of prohibition has been enough to prove you wrong.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47880517]Oh hey there nice slight at me but I'd like you to point out where I say that you should drink every day? It was your fucking argument.
Guess what? I never said it was at all okay to drink that much or often.[/QUOTE]
Has nobody ever heard of having a glass of whiskey after hard day's work?
[QUOTE]And if that were true, 50 years of prohibition has been enough to prove you wrong.[/QUOTE]
Note it's social stigma in tandem with rule of law, not just rule of law. If you're populace does not feel they should submit to your laws, you might as well not have them.
In the prohibition days whatever social stigma there was, it evidently only acted as window dressing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
