[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47884239]What about Singapore? It employs something like what I'm proposing and it has one of the lowest drug abuse rates worldwide, which has been dropping significantly over the past couple of decades too.
Care to explain what magic is doing that if it's not the heavy handed laws and extremely negative social stigma?[/QUOTE]
Which is interesting considering that drug use has been on the rise there over the past decade (the drug abuse numbers in Singapore are based off of arrests solely).
What about Portugual Bigfatworm? Aren't they a godforsaken country with their legalized drugs and highly regulated systems?
How is it they've made drug use rates go down without the stigma you claim is needed to crush these people and their habbits?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;47882607]I don't know where you grew up or what rock you've been living under but 'society' and 'the government' have been preaching the negative effects of drug use for a long time now. Also, there's hardly any responsible use of some illicit drugs (anything besides marijuana or alcohol tbh) because using them in themselves is a completely irresponsible act with disregard to personal health and safety.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever heard for psychedelic therapies? Have you ever tried something like magic mushrooms?
Are you one of those idiots that throw all drugs into same bin?
[QUOTE=Fourier;47892234]Have you ever heard for psychedelic therapies? Have you ever tried something like magic mushrooms?
Are you one of those idiots that throw all drugs into same bin?[/QUOTE]
No maybe the fact that I work at a Substance Abuse clinic has something to do with my dislike of illicit drugs.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47883950]Who says a negative stigma is misinformation? A lot of these drugs serve to feed hedonistic lifestyles and can potentially lead to even more destructive behaviour. The least that can be asked for is to keep the negative stigma and make sure that these drugs are kept out of the lower class's hands as much as possible ([B]since they've proven time and time again that they simply can't handle these sorts of things constructively like the bourgeois of society[/B]).[/QUOTE]
Holy shit, are you for real? Are you going to claim 'the bourgeois of society' is any better than the 'lower classes', specially when it comes to vices?
You're fucking delusional, just go to a night club and start counting the number of wealthy, supposedly 'informed' young people getting out of the night fucking wasted and then jumping straight behind the wheel.
Also drugs are even worse for the poor, since they can't afford the means to get out of their mess, or don't have family/friend supporting them, and that's why they should be protected.
[quote]Stigmas and laws don't have as much of an effect in poor areas because the poor naturally engage in more crimes, which would require people to break the laws and stigmas of society.[/quote]
Poor people are more likely to get caught or be unable to protect themselves, that doesn't mean that rich people don't commit crimes. If you're going to uphold that black and white bullshit view of the world, then everyone that consumes nowadays is a fucking criminal for economically supporting slavery (or something pretty close to that) in China.
And I'm not even talking about dirty politics and other general assorted bullshit.
Remember kids, the rich are more likely to go to heaven based on being born into circumstances they couldn't control.
[QUOTE=The golden;47877621]You have a disturbing lack of basic human compassion and I strongly suggest you take a good look at yourself or get some help.
[/QUOTE]
Even if you look at this in the coldest and most pragmatic way, then just having drug clinics would be the best idea
With free healthcare and emergency clinics having people coming in with the medical complications of diseases would be way more expensive to fund with taxes, than just making sure addicts don't get aids in the first place by having some skilled intern give them a clean injection.
[QUOTE=Levithan;47892668]Remember kids, the rich are more likely to go to heaven based on being born into circumstances they couldn't control.[/QUOTE]
well now you're just being a stereotypical liberal and he can discount whatever you say without using logic
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;47892213]Which is interesting considering that drug use has been on the rise there over the past decade (the drug abuse numbers in Singapore are based off of arrests solely).[/QUOTE]
Where are you getting that information? Are you sure it isn't an [url=http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/WDR2012/WDR_2012_web_small.pdf]increase in proportion[/url] of certain drugs amongst the overall amount seized? [url=http://www.cnb.gov.sg/drugsituationreport/drugsituationreport1H2014.aspx]Singapore's Central Narcotics Bureau[/url] reports a near 50% decrease in street value of drugs seized in 2014 over just one year. [url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay]The Guardian[/url] has also reported that the amount of drug abusers arrested in the 1990's decreased by about a third since the 1990's, so I'd like so see where you got this conflicting information.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47892220]What about Portugual Bigfatworm? Aren't they a godforsaken country with their legalized drugs and highly regulated systems?
How is it they've made drug use rates go down without the stigma you claim is needed to crush these people and their habbits?[/QUOTE]
Portugal does seem to contradict some of the things I've been saying, it has a higher poverty rate than Nordic countries, but simultaneously a very low drug abuse rate with very lenient laws. I'm not absoultey what is at the bottom of this issue, but it is likely not the drug policy as the Czech Republic [url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/368489/DrugsInternationalComparators.pdf]employs a very similar system[/url] and yet has one of the highest cannabis seizure rates in Europe.
I'd like to note that Portugal did see a significant rise in drug use rates after implementing their new drug policy in 2001, only to see them fall in 2012.
So, considering that their same policy is employed ineffectively in other regions and that it actually worsened the problem initially, I think it's fair to say the policy and changed perspective on drugs are not what's doing this (at least not alone).
[editline]blah[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnnyOnFlame;47892426]Holy shit, are you for real? Are you going to claim 'the bourgeois of society' is any better than the 'lower classes', specially when it comes to vices?
You're fucking delusional, just go to a night club and start counting the number of wealthy, supposedly 'informed' young people getting out of the night fucking wasted and then jumping straight behind the wheel.
Also drugs are even worse for the poor, since they can't afford the means to get out of their mess, or don't have family/friend supporting them, and that's why they should be protected.[/QUOTE]
Wealthy informed young people are still young people, who will largely test borders and act impulsively no matter what (especially in our hedonistic culture). What I'm saying is that the middle-upper classes can handle drug addiction better in that they largely don't let it absolutely destroy their lives, as I said, perhaps they have more to lose than people of the lower classes and thus are less likely to totally surrender themselves to these pleasures (ability to afford the addiction is most certainly a factor as well).
This is why it's paramount to keep drugs out of the hands of the lower classes, historically they just don't seem capable of picking themselves back up out of addiction (such as in the Victorian opium dens).
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47894942]Where are you getting that information? Are you sure it isn't an [url=http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/WDR2012/WDR_2012_web_small.pdf]increase in proportion[/url] of certain drugs amongst the overall amount seized? [url=http://www.cnb.gov.sg/drugsituationreport/drugsituationreport1H2014.aspx]Singapore's Central Narcotics Bureau[/url] reports a near 50% decrease in street value of drugs seized in 2014 over just one year. [url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay]The Guardian[/url] has also reported that the amount of drug abusers arrested in the 1990's decreased by about a third since the 1990's, so I'd like so see where you got this conflicting information.
Portugal does seem to contradict some of the things I've been saying, it has a higher poverty rate than Nordic countries, but simultaneously a very low drug abuse rate with very lenient laws. I'm not absoultey what is at the bottom of this issue, but it is likely not the drug policy as the Czech Republic [url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/368489/DrugsInternationalComparators.pdf]employs a very similar system[/url] and yet has one of the highest cannabis seizure rates in Europe.
I'd like to note that Portugal did see a significant rise in drug use rates after implementing their new drug policy in 2001, only to see them fall in 2007.
So, considering that their same policy is employed ineffectively in other regions and that it actually worsened the problem initially, I think it's fair to say the policy and changed perspective on drugs are not what's doing this (at least not alone).
[editline]blah[/editline]
Wealthy informed young people are still young people, who will largely test borders and act impulsively no matter what (especially in our hedonistic culture). What I'm saying is that the middle-upper classes can handle drug addiction better in that they largely don't let it absolutely destroy their lives, as I said, perhaps they have more to lose than people of the lower classes and thus are less likely to totally surrender themselves to these pleasures (ability to afford the addiction is most certainly a factor as well).
This is why it's paramount to keep drugs out of the hands of the lower classes, historically they just don't seem capable of picking themselves back up out of addiction (such as in the Victorian opium dens).[/QUOTE]
Portugal's drug rates went down as a direct result of lifting prohibition.
I remember when they first did it too, the difference happened almost overnight.
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;47894977]Portugal's drug rates went down as a direct result of lifting prohibition.
I remember when they first did it too, the difference happened almost overnight.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by prohibition? When did that happen?
Damn I just read your other posts, I'm not gunna argue with a cold, emotionless AI
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;47894987]Damn I just read your other posts, I'm not gunna argue with a cold, emotionless AI[/QUOTE]
Thanks.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47894985]What do you mean by prohibition? When did that happen?[/QUOTE]
Prohibition is prohibition? Drugs were illegal and then they were not.
If you keep up with current events you'd know that Portugal did this a little over ten years back
[editline]6th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47895001]Thanks.[/QUOTE]
Except you lack the "calculating and factually correct" component that an AI would have
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;47895004]Prohibition is prohibition? Drugs were illegal and then they were not.
If you keep up with current events you'd know that Portugal did this a little over ten years back
[editline]6th June 2015[/editline]
Except you lack the "calculating and factually correct" component that an AI would have[/QUOTE]
I did literally just post about that, so yeah.
My point was that it lead to an initial rise that was quite significant and captured in 2007, then as you said it dropped in 2012. However, similar policies were implemented in the Czech Republic with opposite effects in relation to Cannabis seizure, it wasn't just the decriminalization of drugs that did this.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47895035]I did literally just post about that, so yeah.
My point was that it lead to an initial rise that was quite significant and captured in 2007, then as you said it dropped in 2012. However, similar policies were implemented in the Czech Republic with opposite effects in relation to Cannabis seizure, it wasn't just the decriminalization of drugs that did this.[/QUOTE]
Czech republic and Portugal's laws are very different from what I've found so far, I'm familiar with Portugal but not the Czech Republic
Portugal invests a lot in their rehab centers and does not impose criminal sanctions whatsoever.
[editline]6th June 2015[/editline]
I don't know anything about the Czech republic to really comment further on it... just Portugal
[editline]6th June 2015[/editline]
But yeah, being all about logic and forgoing emotions is not the way to be.
People are emotional, emotions will always factor into everything, you have to use some emotion to deal with emotion.
Science and reasoning is important sure, but so is humanity and I don't mean in the literal sense. I mean humanistic emotion and shit dude.
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;47895061]Czech republic and Portugal's laws are very different from what I've found so far, I'm familiar with Portugal but not the Czech Republic
Portugal invests a lot in their rehab centers and does not impose criminal sanctions whatsoever.
[editline]6th June 2015[/editline]
I don't know anything about the Czech republic to really comment further on it... just Portugal
[editline]6th June 2015[/editline]
But yeah, being all about logic and forgoing emotions is not the way to be.
People are emotional, emotions will always factor into everything, you have to use some emotion to deal with emotion.
Science and reasoning is important sure, but so is humanity and I don't mean in the literal sense. I mean humanistic emotion and shit dude.[/QUOTE]
I'm basing the comparison off of what the Home Office in the UK says in its 2014 [url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/368489/DrugsInternationalComparators.pdf]Drugs: International Comparators[/url] report.
I was being sarcastic in my response to your AI remark, just returning humor with humor (though I understand it's hard to pick that sort of thing up through text).
While I don't consider myself a humanist I likewise value humanity, though in different ways and for different reasons most likely.
I have to ask, what makes marijuana the devil and alcohol acceptable?
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;47894987]Damn I just read your other posts, I'm not gunna argue with a cold, emotionless AI[/QUOTE]
As a Computer Scientist, I request not to insult the concept of AI by this association.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47895484]I have to ask, what makes marijuana the devil and alcohol acceptable?[/QUOTE]
Before that, I'd like to know your response to what I've said.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47894942]
Portugal does seem to contradict some of the things I've been saying, it has a higher poverty rate than Nordic countries, but simultaneously a very low drug abuse rate with very lenient laws. I'm not absoultey what is at the bottom of this issue, but it is likely not the drug policy as the Czech Republic [url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/368489/DrugsInternationalComparators.pdf]employs a very similar system[/url] and yet has one of the highest cannabis seizure rates in Europe.
I'd like to note that Portugal did see a significant rise in drug use rates after implementing their new drug policy in 2001, only to see them fall in 2012.
So, considering that their same policy is employed ineffectively in other regions and that it actually worsened the problem initially, I think it's fair to say the policy and changed perspective on drugs are not what's doing this (at least not alone).
[/QUOTE]
So you'll take this and say "Well it doesn't really work but I guess kinda, but still not really" in response to Portugual, but when we point out the utterly, entirely, horribly ineffectual nature of prohibition(The prohibition of drugs is still a prohibition.) that has occurred in Canada and the United States you say "well that's just a problem of them not being stigmatized enough".
What do you want me to respond to exactly? There's so many issues I have with your argument that you have already glossed over, and have already avoided dealing with that I don't know what you think is a valid reply, and what will get me called a stereotypical liberal.
As far as I can tell, drugs are still stigmatized harshly. I know several kids who've been kicked out of their families entirely for just smoking weed. Those kids are now homeless living on East Hastings because they had no support and no ability to make ends meet at 19. And I know hard drugs are bad. I know that from personal experience and I think any opiate or meth derivative shouldn't be available to people because, yes, that would be bad. But I see the entirely ineffectual history of stigmatization. I see that prisons now are more full of non violent drug offenders than ever. They're bursting at the seams with non violent offenders and you stay there's no stigma? REALLY? I mean I want to respond to that, but you'll literally just call me a liberal hippy or some shit so what CAN I say that you'll consider valid?
I think whether you look at Prohibition of Alcohol in the 20's, or you look at the longer, more extended "War On Drugs" that's lasted since the 1970's which actually started from an extreme stigmatization of drugs(Or do you not recall the yellow journalism of the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's all pinning marijauna as the devils drug making black people rape white women? Yes, this actually happened), I think regardless of which one you look at, you'll see a huge population of people condemning the substance as evil, and an ill of mankind, the stigma you keep bringing up, you'll see that everywhere. Even now. It's still pretty common to see people facing serious issues over simply marijuana. Regardless of which one, that stigma is there, and it's not doing what you claim it needs/would be doing. Why? Because when you stigmatize something that isn't really that bad for you(Like we see/saw with alcohol in the 20's) people KNOW you're full of shit.
So for the last fucking time I'm going to ask you out right(and if you avoid this you're merely trolling in my opinion) why is marijauna a horrible, horrible drug that NO one uses to relax in the same manner you advocate alcohol is useful in? Why is it going to cause a downfall of society?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47896285]What do you want me to respond to exactly? There's so many issues I have with your argument that you have already glossed over, and have already avoided dealing with that I don't know what you think is a valid reply, and what will get me called a stereotypical liberal.
I think whether you look at Prohibition of Alcohol in the 20's, or you look at the longer, more extended "War On Drugs" that's lasted since the 1970's which actually started from an extreme stigmatization of drugs(Or do you not recall the yellow journalism of the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's all pinning marijauna as the devils drug making black people rape white women? Yes, this actually happened), I think regardless of which one you look at, you'll see a huge population of people condemning the substance as evil, and an ill of mankind, the stigma you keep bringing up, you'll see that everywhere. Even now. It's still pretty common to see people facing serious issues over simply marijuana. Regardless of which one, that stigma is there, and it's not doing what you claim it needs/would be doing. Why? Because when you stigmatize something that isn't really that bad for you(Like we see/saw with alcohol in the 20's) people KNOW you're full of shit.[/QUOTE]
I addressed your Portugal question directly, so I won't take any shit about that, the only questions I avoided were your red herrings when I realized they weren't leading anywhere constructive.
The prohibition era had one vital difference with modern Singapore that allowed rampant drug use and trading, that difference was corruption. It's not like prohibition was suddenly enforced on an ornery populace that stuck it to the man, many politicians, judges and policemen where in on the whole affair, which of course led to a lot of corruption. This corruption made it incredibly difficult to enforce prohibition because so many of the enforcers were turncoats, without them, alcohol smuggling would not have been nearly as rampant.
In contrast, Singapore scores as one of the [url=http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/]least corrupt[/url] countries in the world. So as long as you are actually enforcing the stigma and the laws, of course they will work.
As for what you've said about the social stigma being negative enough, it evidently isn't if young people are fully willing to engage in the use of such substances in such large numbers.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47896479]
As for what you've said about the social stigma being negative enough, it evidently isn't if young people are fully willing to engage in the use of such substances in such large numbers.[/QUOTE]
I cut this down to the only important thing you've said.
Now, what if, just maybe, what if, they knew that was bullshit? Just as the people involved in prohibition of alcohol, knew that was bullshit?
And once again, you've directly avoided my question.
[QUOTE]So for the last fucking time I'm going to ask you out right(and if you avoid this you're merely trolling in my opinion) why is marijauna a horrible, horrible drug that NO one uses to relax in the same manner you advocate alcohol is useful in? Why is it going to cause a downfall of society?[/QUOTE]
[editline]6th June 2015[/editline]
You give me shit for "red herrings" but you don't even respond to a direct fucking question.
Give me a fucking break.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47896494]I cut this down to the only important thing you've said.
Now, what if, just maybe, what if, they knew that was bullshit? Just as the people involved in prohibition of alcohol, knew that was bullshit?
And once again, you've directly avoided my question.
[editline]6th June 2015[/editline]
You give me shit for "red herrings" but you don't even respond to a direct fucking question.
Give me a fucking break.[/QUOTE]
Make your response to what I said in reference to your bold claims about the prohibition era (that is the main subject of our discussion afterall), here, I'll repost it.
[QUOTE]The prohibition era had one vital difference with modern Singapore that allowed rampant drug use and trading, that difference was corruption. It's not like prohibition was suddenly enforced on an ornery populace that stuck it to the man, many politicians, judges and policemen where in on the whole affair, which of course led to a lot of corruption. This corruption made it incredibly difficult to enforce prohibition because so many of the enforcers were turncoats, without them, alcohol smuggling would not have been nearly as rampant.
In contrast, Singapore scores as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. So as long as you are actually enforcing the stigma and the laws, of course they will work.[/QUOTE]
Can you stop being pedantic and holding an answer to my question as ransom whilst being a hypocrite and demanding I continously answer your questions?
I'm not even honestly sure what about your statement you want me to argue with.
Singapore gives you the death penalty for 500 grams of marijuana, of course they have lower drug use rates, you fucking die for minor crimes.
Prohibition, as I already pointed out, was being forced on people who had been drinking their whole lives and knew for a fact that alcohol wasn't the demon prohibition made it out to be, and they also saw a business opportunity in the wake of it during one of the roughest times in american history EVER.
I mean seriously, you want to draw parallels between the two but you want to bleach them out of context that doesn't suit your point.
Now answer my question or you're just formally trolling.
What makes marijuana specifically so bad that it needs to be illegal? What makes it so bad that there should be a death penalty level of stigma over it?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47896527]I'm not even honestly sure what about your statement you want me to argue with.
Singapore gives you the death penalty for 500 grams of marijuana, of course they have lower drug use rates, you fucking die for minor crimes.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't expecting you to argue with it as there's nothing to argue about. A negative social stigma in tandem with heavy handed laws is effective in minimizing drug abuse, I'm sure that is quite clear now.
If we've settled this point, then I'll move on to your next question.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47896545]I wasn't expecting you to argue with it as there's nothing to argue about. A negative social stigma in tandem with heavy handed laws is effective in minimizing drug abuse, I'm sure that is quite clear now.
If we've settled this point, then I'll move on to your next question.[/QUOTE]
Social Stigma is not an effective action, as it causes the people in need of help, to get away from society, since stigma puts them in negative social connotations. Equally, those laws have failed to minimize drug abuse, as seen in example, with US, whose moral failures you oh-so-love to point out in trying to alternate point from your alcoholism.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47896545]I wasn't expecting you to argue with it as there's nothing to argue about. A negative social stigma in tandem with heavy handed laws is effective in minimizing drug abuse, I'm sure that is quite clear now.
If we've settled this point, then I'll move on to your next question.[/QUOTE]
It's effective but also in humane and wrong.
Now answer it
[editline]6th June 2015[/editline]
I mean is it hard to fucking answer "Why do you think people who smoke weed should be murdered by the government as a method of stopping everyone from smoking it, and why do you think it's such a big deal that you want people murdered over it if that's what it takes to get no one to ever use it again"
And why do you go on a tirade about how I'm a stereotypical liberal when I question your alcohol use on the very, VERY, VERY same grounds you question the use of marijuana by anyone.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47896568]It's effective but also in humane and wrong.[/QUOTE]
Well, I guess that's the best I'll get out of this thread.
[QUOTE]I mean is it hard to fucking answer "Why do you think people who smoke weed should be murdered by the government as a method of stopping everyone from smoking it, and why do you think it's such a big deal that you want people murdered over it if that's what it takes to get no one to ever use it again"[/QUOTE]
It's not hard to answer, it's just a red herring. Directly asking me the question doesn't make it any less of a red herring, but now that we're done with the previous conversation I'll humour you.
Firstly execution is different from murder as it is state-sanctioned killing and ideally not borne out of hatred.
Secondly you have an exaggerated image of what Singapore does to drug users who are largely treated with care, it's only drug traffickers that can be executed.
This is a big deal to me because drugs should not be used expressly for their physiological effects unless those uses are for job performance (truckers popping caffeine)/medical purposes (Grandma puffing the green for her glaucoma). Drug use for the high alone has no cultural appreciation, it's like stuffing your face full of food without caring where it came from or what it tastes like, it's an obscene display of hedonism that can only be a cultural malaise.
Not to mention the rising levels of THC in cannabis leads to more risks in long term use, likewise with the various high THC extracts. I'd like to keep the population largely mentally stable, however this is a side point.
[QUOTE]And why do you go on a tirade about how I'm a stereotypical liberal when I question your alcohol use on the very, VERY, VERY same grounds you question the use of marijuana by anyone.[/QUOTE]
You're a stereotypical liberal because you bring up a red herring when the going gets tough, that's why I had to make an express effort to force a response out of you about the previous topic.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47914093]Well, I guess that's the best I'll get out of this thread.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, most likely as I won't agree that people should be locked up for marijuana, unless you agree alcohol be treated the same way. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.
[QUOTE]It's not hard to answer, it's just a red herring. Directly asking me the question doesn't make it any less of a red herring, but now that we're done with the previous conversation I'll humour you.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so let me start with something.
First off, it's not a red herring just because you say it is. It's an important question you want to minimize, I can see why immediatley, but calling it a red herring doesn't help you here.
[QUOTE]Firstly execution is different from murder as it is state-sanctioned killing and ideally not borne out of hatred.[/QUOTE]
Ideally, but if you're sending people to death over marijuana, there's ignorance and malice at work.
[QUOTE]Secondly you have an exaggerated image of what Singapore does to drug users who are largely treated with care, it's only drug traffickers that can be executed.[/QUOTE]
Yes, which is somehow acceptable to you? I know that's the case, but if you were to be found with 500 grams of marijuana on you, they would execute you for trafficking, regardless.
[QUOTE]This is a big deal to me because drugs should not be used expressly for their physiological effects unless those uses are for job performance (truckers popping caffeine)/medical purposes (Grandma puffing the green for her glaucoma). Drug use for the high alone has no cultural appreciation, it's like stuffing your face full of food without caring where it came from or what it tastes like, it's an obscene display of hedonism that can only be a cultural malaise.[/QUOTE]
But you can use your alcohol to get tipsy or buzzed to relax? See, this is a clear and blatant hypocrisy that is very frustrating to deal with. We should really be banning alcohol. Every word out of your mouth in this argument is just an advertisement for prohibition of alcohol.
"Alcohol for the high alone has no cultural appreciation". That's the same sentence, but yet, where are you when I ask you if alcohol should be illegal? Nowhere, because you enjoy your alcohol, and you don't get "Drunk" so it's "Culturally acceptable" except when I smoke weed, I don't get "High", I get "buzzed" the same way you claim to from alcohol, yet you think you're a good enough judge of reality to be making those choices for me?
I wonder why the supreme court had a unanimous decision that cannaboid derivatives are good for us and can't be prevented from being sold to us.
[QUOTE]Not to mention the rising levels of THC in cannabis leads to more risks in long term use, likewise with the various high THC extracts. I'd like to keep the population largely mentally stable, however this is a side point.
[/QUOTE]
Citation needed. Marijuana is not proven to cause any form of mental illness unless it's already latent within you. Marijuana is not a boogey man that will make a population lose it's fucking mind. Alcohol has been that bogey man for centuries.
[QUOTE]You're a stereotypical liberal because you bring up a red herring when the going gets tough, that's why I had to make an express effort to force a response out of you about the previous topic.[/QUOTE]
You're a stereotypical conservative relying on stereotypes, misinformation, arbitrary and hypocritical judgement calls, and you're infringing upon things that people enjoy in the real world because you think you know best enough so to morally grandstand and tell us all how to live our lives without a hint of irony while you sip on your 3-5 ounces of whiskey, pictured here for scale is 8 oz.
[t]http://www.kingarthurflour.com/blog/files/2012/03/IMG_3726.jpg[/t]
You call something a red herring because you don't like it, not because it's actaully a red herring. Nothing about marijauna will tear down civilization.
We've survived alcohol for thousands of years. We've had marijauna longer. Regardless though, a simple statistical study shows you marijuana doens't kill. Alcohol kills. And you'll defend your habbit to the death while trying to strip me of mine. You're a hypocrite, and unreasonable.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
