[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47894942]Singapore's Central Narcotics Bureau reports a near 50% decrease in street value of drugs seized in 2014 over just one year[/QUOTE]
And take a glance back through the previous years. Even with the 2014 year the trend is still increasing. Besides which the drugs seized are often not intended specifically for the local areas. Furthermore, weight is much better than street value. The street price drugs have been falling in Singapore for some time.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47894942]The Guardian 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]
Same place where they got it. Drug abusers arrested has tripled since the mid-2000's. Furthermore, while in the 1990's new drug abusers constituted less than a sixth of those arrested. Nowadays they tend to constitute a third or more.
Singapore's solution may be a solution to the visible problem, but it is a long way off from actually solving it.
[editline]12th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47896527]Singapore gives you the death penalty for 500 grams of marijuana[/QUOTE]
It can be much much less than that, potentially. That's just the mandatory death penalty amount.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47940030]You're a hypocrite, and unreasonable.[/QUOTE]
2 cents say he's gonna go back at you and make himself look stupid, watch
[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]
Considering your stated views on the subject of homosexuality and transgender people your views of "human vice" are less in line with the immoral and more in line with people who show any modicum of difference from your perceived cultural norm.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;47943962]Considering your stated views on the subject of homosexuality and transgender people your views of "human vice" are less in line with the immoral and more in line with people who show any modicum of difference from your perceived cultural norm.[/QUOTE]
Be prepared, you've just given him a reason to ignore my post and go after yours. He'll go down some merry path of how you're the immoral one behaving immorally and out of cultural norms, and that cultural norms are a natural thing and a way of the world telling us we're doing the right thing, otherwise the cultural norms never would have formed.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47944618]Be prepared, you've just given him a reason to ignore my post and go after yours. He'll go down some merry path of how you're the immoral one behaving immorally and out of cultural norms, and that cultural norms are a natural thing and a way of the world telling us we're doing the right thing, otherwise the cultural norms never would have formed.[/QUOTE]
Then I'll call him out on being a horrible Christian.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47940030]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]
Alcohol is hardly treated the same way as marijuana, we've already established that its mainly used for purposes other than pure intoxication(when we consider all age groups combined).
[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]
An important question that's completely unrelated to the subject at hand. I could bring up the even more important question of penal substitution vs. Christus victor, but since we are not talking about atonement theology it is a red herring.
I don't call you out on red herrings because I think it somehow helps, I call you out on them because you use them to divert the conversation from questions that you find difficult to answer.
[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]
I fail to see the issue with this.
[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?[/QUOTE]
Alcohol should not be illegal because it's mainly used for reasons other than the high, so it does not encourage destructive behaviour and does not need to be criminalized. Also I never said I expressly drink alcohol to get buzzed.
The point is, even if I do get buzzed from drinking alcohol, I'm not doing it expressly for that purpose, you are when you smoke cannabis.
[QUOTE]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]
Probably because we've done little to nothing to control the culture around drugs beyond say "don't do drugs, but we won't get angry if you do."
[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]
Marijuana? No. THC? Yes.
[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. [/QUOTE]
I like how you keep on upping the amount of whiskey I mentioned is common to be drunk after work (I'd like to note I don't do this, though many of you have just assumed I do). 3-5 ounces is not enough to get you drunk, so the high cannot be the main purpose of drinking it.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
I call something a red herring because it is and you have a tendency to use them to avoid questions that are hard to answer.
Also no, the behaviours encouraged by accepting cannabis use and other drugs will/are tear down civilization.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
The survival of the human race is one of my most basic goals, it's almost guaranteed and thus isn't a factor. My concerns are with our particular civilization, it's heritage and it's current state.
Also still assuming I have a habit (which I don't, but what do you care).
[editline]blah[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;47941059]And take a glance back through the previous years. Even with the 2014 year the trend is still increasing. Besides which the drugs seized are often not intended specifically for the local areas. Furthermore, weight is much better than street value. The street price drugs have been falling in Singapore for some time.
Same place where they got it. Drug abusers arrested has tripled since the mid-2000's. Furthermore, while in the 1990's new drug abusers constituted less than a sixth of those arrested. Nowadays they tend to constitute a third or more.
Singapore's solution may be a solution to the visible problem, but it is a long way off from actually solving it.[/QUOTE]
Care to post a document or two?
[quote]Also no, the behaviours encouraged by accepting cannabis use and other drugs will/are tear down civilization.[/quote]
That's why Amsterdam and the US states where it's legalized are burning craters now, right?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47952176]Alcohol is hardly treated the same way as marijuana, we've already established that its mainly used for purposes other than pure intoxication(when we consider all age groups combined).
An important question that's completely unrelated to the subject at hand. I could bring up the even more important question of penal substitution vs. Christus victor, but since we are not talking about atonement theology it is a red herring.
I don't call you out on red herrings because I think it somehow helps, I call you out on them because you use them to divert the conversation from questions that you find difficult to answer.
I fail to see the issue with this.
Alcohol should not be illegal because it's mainly used for reasons other than the high, so it does not encourage destructive behaviour and does not need to be criminalized. Also I never said I expressly drink alcohol to get buzzed.
The point is, even if I do get buzzed from drinking alcohol, I'm not doing it expressly for that purpose, you are when you smoke cannabis.
Probably because we've done little to nothing to control the culture around drugs beyond say "don't do drugs, but we won't get angry if you do."
Marijuana? No. THC? Yes.
I like how you keep on upping the amount of whiskey I mentioned is common to be drunk after work (I'd like to note I don't do this, though many of you have just assumed I do). 3-5 ounces is not enough to get you drunk, so the high cannot be the main purpose of drinking it.
I call something a red herring because it is and you have a tendency to use them to avoid questions that are hard to answer.
Also no, the behaviours encouraged by accepting cannabis use and other drugs will/are tear down civilization.
The survival of the human race is one of my most basic goals, it's almost guaranteed and thus isn't a factor. My concerns are with our particular civilization, it's heritage and it's current state.
Also still assuming I have a habit (which I don't, but what do you care).
[editline]blah[/editline]
Care to post a document or two?[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but you absolutely are abusing alcohol if you consume it almost every afternoon. Especially the quantity of 3-5 ounces.
[URL]http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/#LinkURL[/URL]
Here's a nifty calculator, using 4 shots as a baseline with a bodymass of 175 pounds puts you at 0.059 BAC. You're impaired, you can argue with math all you want but that's a fact. What are you doing every evening that involves alcohol if it's not for the buzz? (Also, you don't have to get drunk from alcohol to receive it's intoxicating effects.) I don't understand why in your mind that the vice you partake in is completely morally just when other vices that don't cause harm to anyone aren't. Complete and utter hypocrite, you don't even have a point to argue for anymore.
[quote=http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics]Nearly 88,0009 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women10) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making it the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States. In 2013, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 10,076 deaths (30.8 percent of overall driving fatalities).[/quote]
You should really visit that source and do some reading, please consider how much harm your causing to your body and others around you when you drink.
I don't even want to respond to that wall of bullshit.
Thousands die yearly from alcohol abuse or from alcohol users and you REFUSE to see that as the fact that it is.
Alcohol is the most widely used and abused drug on earth. Your thoughts that it's not primarily an intoxicant are just that. Your thoughts.
You throw out more red herrings about me using "red herrings" then there are in this whole conversation.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;47872636]Addictions are medical problems that are genetic and physically effecting on the user. The fact they are going to close stuff like this down is fucking disgusting. It lacks common-sense regarding drug problems, and lacks any willingness to find alternatives for problems that come from drug addiction.[/QUOTE]
Canadians shouldn't have to pay for these facilities as they are funded by tax dollars. If it was created by a charity fund or private organization I'd have no problem with it. We shouldn't have to be paying for facilities for drug addicts to go to and safely feed their own addiction. We have several different programs in this country to help rehabilitate citizens from drug addiction. And if they become a potentially dangerous person when under the influence of narcotics, then that's their fault. Canada's already suffering too much, and I do perfectly see that this is not a place to start on cut backs to pay off things like Ontario's debt, but the looking in the Conservative's perspective they're definitely trying their best to repair the country.
even so I'm starting to sound a little evil here though, but if someone is addicted to narcotics with strong withdrawl symptoms, then I don't think it should be the rest of Canada that should be paying for their affairs, either it should be their family or theirselves. It's none of our business to slap bandaids on someone's mistakes instead of sourcing the problems to the catalyst and stopping them there. The facilities were a step in the right direction but were the complete wrong solution in my opinion.
[QUOTE=doombman;47952864]Canadians shouldn't have to pay for these facilities as they are funded by tax dollars. If it was created by a charity fund or private organization I'd have no problem with it. We shouldn't have to be paying for facilities for drug addicts to go to and safely feed their own addiction. We have several different programs in this country to help rehabilitate citizens from drug addiction. And if they become a potentially dangerous person when under the influence of narcotics, then that's their fault. Canada's already suffering too much, and I do perfectly see that this is not a place to start on cut backs to pay off things like Ontario's debt, but the looking in the Conservative's perspective they're definitely trying their best to repair the country.
even so I'm starting to sound a little evil here though, but if someone is addicted to narcotics with strong withdrawl symptoms, then I don't think it should be the rest of Canada that should be paying for their affairs, either it should be their family or theirselves. It's none of our business to slap bandaids on someone's mistakes instead of sourcing the problems to the catalyst and stopping them there. The facilities were a step in the right direction but were the complete wrong solution in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
So when they inevitably end up in the hospital, our tax dollars can just meet them there and fight an uphill battle when it's too fucking late?
Do you even know what Insite does? No, you don't.
Insite provides a place for these people to do the deed in a safe, clean environment where the whole staff are constantly trying to get you to quit through your own decisions, rather than being forced to, because being forced to doesn't work at all.
[editline]13th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47952176]Alcohol is hardly treated the same way as marijuana, we've already established that its mainly used for purposes other than pure intoxication(when we consider all age groups combined).[/QUOTE]
No you haven't established that. You've established that's what YOU think it is. I know a lot of people who use marijuana for reasons other than "pure intoxication" as you say. Then, I also have this family of drunks who drink on the regular and drink too excess regularly and do so as a form of relaxation. Yet, alcohol? Used to get drunk? NO! You say it's not true, so you believe it's not true, but do you really have the werewithal to make claims like that?
[QUOTE]An important question that's completely unrelated to the subject at hand. I could bring up the even more important question of penal substitution vs. Christus victor, but since we are not talking about atonement theology it is a red herring.
[/QUOTE]
Unrelated because you say so, but in reality, it isn't unrelated at all.
Why is it unrelated? Anyone else can see it's not.
[QUOTE]I don't call you out on red herrings because I think it somehow helps, I call you out on them because you use them to divert the conversation from questions that you find difficult to answer.
[/QUOTE]
I answer your questions flat out and I answer them quickly. You however, you hold answers for ransom, you make arbitrary decisions about what is, and isn't related, what is, and isn't true, based on your anecdotal experiences.
You are the master of twisting the conversation and moving goal posts and denying the other party a voice.
[QUOTE]
I fail to see the issue with this.
[/QUOTE]
So you fail to see the issue people dying over one drugs sale and trafficking, but you'll happily live in a world with alcohol where the yearly death rate PURELY from alcohol abuse is in the thousands, and the death rate from drunk driving is in the tens of thousands.
Yeah, I'm sure you fail to see the issue because you're so unbiased about this.
Alcohol should not be illegal because it's mainly used for reasons other than the high, so it does not encourage destructive behaviour and does not need to be criminalized. Also I never said I expressly drink alcohol to get buzzed.
[QUOTE]The point is, even if I do get buzzed from drinking alcohol, I'm not doing it expressly for that purpose, you are when you smoke cannabis.[/QUOTE]
How are you allowed to determine my intents when I state them clearly that I do not use "cannabis" to get "High".
You use alcohol to relax. I use marijuana to relax. You make a HUGE, and HYPOCRITICAL, ARBITRARY decision, line in the sand, whatever you want to fucking call it, separating the two pretty much identical activities of "Relaxation".
[QUOTE]Probably because we've done little to nothing to control the culture around drugs beyond say "don't do drugs, but we won't get angry if you do."[/QUOTE]
Hahahahahaha.
Are you FUCKING kidding me?
I know 6 kids who are homeless for smoking weed. I myself would be if I didn't have my own place. But no, you're totally right, no one cares and all people across all of the culture are so incredibly lax about it.
Well, there are sure plenty of people that are relaxed about it, and those places seem to be doing fine even with embracing marijauna culture as you call it. They aren't gone, they're not failing, fading, or worsening in any way that you can relate to "marijuana" or "THC"(as you so specify) alone. And that's the claim YOU need to back up if you want to have actually argued anything here.
[QUOTE]Marijuana? No. THC? Yes.
[/QUOTE]
And more scientific studies than I can count show this to not be the case.
Alcohol is much worse. Tobacco is much worse.
[QUOTE]I like how you keep on upping the amount of whiskey I mentioned is common to be drunk after work (I'd like to note I don't do this, though many of you have just assumed I do). 3-5 ounces is not enough to get you drunk, so the high cannot be the main purpose of drinking it.
[/QUOTE]
You said this;
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47880528]Has nobody ever heard of having a glass of whiskey after hard day's work?
[/QUOTE]
heavily giving anyone the impression that you think a hard days work entitles you to alcohol, you claim it's simply relaxing you, but I mean, you keep getting to assume EVERYONE who uses another drug(Yes, alcohol is a drug, you use drugs) intentions with that, so I'll do the same, and assume that you're just saying it relaxes you. You keep over ruling me, so why don't I do the same to you here and then you can shout red herring red herring until you're blue in the face to avoid dealing with the hypocrisy that is so latent in your arguments here.
[QUOTE]I call something a red herring because it is and you have a tendency to use them to avoid questions that are hard to answer.[/QUOTE]
You call them red herrings so you don't have to deal with them, so you have an excuse to avoid a question YOU find difficult to answer.
[QUOTE]Also no, the behaviours encouraged by accepting cannabis use and other drugs will/are tear down civilization.
[/QUOTE]
Are they now? Can you show me evidence of this? I can personally say, my city, the city of Vancouver, where you can freely(illegally) smoke a joint in your own home is doing quite well. And you know, this nature I'm speaking of, has been here for over 30 years. Yet this city grows, and grows, and becomes more attractive to more of the world. And here you are, saying this city, and any other city in the world that has instead of cracking down on the skulls of the people who enjoy a drug you hate embraced them and made them pay taxes, and obey the laws and be regulated and be controlled. No, you're right, we should just do "The war on drugs" harder, and harder. Because that's NOT what's happened from all the anti drug groups of the last 20 years right? No, wait. They're all pushing the argument that even one toke of marijuana makes you a garbled idiot.
Anyone who's ever smoked marijuana knows that's bullshit. That's why so many people ignore it.
[QUOTE]The survival of the human race is one of my most basic goals, it's almost guaranteed and thus isn't a factor. My concerns are with our particular civilization, it's heritage and it's current state.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so you know best do you? I feel the same way about the survival of our race, but I won't be taking away your alcohol. Even though, statistically speaking, alcohol has killed more people, damaged more lives, caused more violence, hatred, and impulsive actions than marijuana EVER has. That statistical line is something you literally can't ignore, but I know you will.
[QUOTE]Also still assuming I have a habit (which I don't, but what do you care).[/QUOTE]
You have NO problem assuming all sorts of things about me and anyone else.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47952869]So when they inevitably end up in the hospital, our tax dollars can just meet them there and fight an uphill battle when it's too fucking late?
Do you even know what Insite does? No, you don't.
Insite provides a place for these people to do the deed in a safe, clean environment where the whole staff are constantly trying to get you to quit through your own decisions, rather than being forced to, because being forced to doesn't work at all.[/QUOTE]
Still costs money to create the facilities, and to independently run the facilities. No matter how you put it, money is going to be spent. I also see that you missed my key argument here.
This is not a solution. It's slapping a bandaid on things. This is not stopping the problem that caused a person to touch narcotics in the first place, but that's a much broader, more harder situation to tackle. You also ignored more key parts of me stating that I believe things like this should be funded by charity organizations or private organizations, just to be approved by the government. You also ignored other things I stated, such as family involvement or themselves paying for services like this. But you merely gave me a very blurred strawman answer with some profanity on top.
**edit
Nor did you state anything beneficial or anything that has any part in a solution to someone who is addicted to drugs. (referencing to what you stated about Insite, and yes, I do know what Insite is, and I do know what Insite has done.) Frankly it solved nothing and puts more leeway on people who use hard drugs and become addicted to it, because most of them know they'll atleast get some special treatment if they become medically addicted to it. This also puts more 'acceptance?' less care? I don't know how to word it, on the drug consuming culture we have today, which is something we absolutely do not need right now. I'm almost out of highschool, and all I have to say, is that I know about fifteen to twenty seniors off of the top of my head that consume stuff daily that'll eventually kill them before they're atleast 40. Most of them are my friends, and you can probably see why I absolutely hate anything that ties into this.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47875028]Are you implying that most drug addicts lead perfectly normal productive lives?[/QUOTE]
This alone implies that you believe the value of human life is based on the productivity of that life.
You're essentially saying that if someone is unproductive or poses a "net loss" to society, we shouldn't try to help them - we should just let them die.
Do you happen to be a caveman? In case you didn't get the memo, we now live in a society where we mitigate the effects of natural selection in the name of ethics.
Basically, your opinions just don't matter in today's world, bud. Throw a tantrum about it if you like, but you lost, pal. Nobody cares.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47953294]This alone implies that you believe the value of human life is based on the productivity of that life.
You're essentially saying that if someone is unproductive or poses a "net loss" to society, we shouldn't try to help them - we should just let them die.
Do you happen to be a caveman? In case you didn't get the memo, we now live in a society where we mitigate the effects of natural selection in the name of ethics.
Basically, your opinions just don't matter in today's world, bud. Throw a tantrum about it if you like, but you lost, pal. Nobody cares.[/QUOTE]
Not saying I agree with him, but he does have a point. Some people believe it isn't their problem to deal with others who don't contribute as much as the regular person, and honestly, he's right. But you're also correct too, society is much different today and everyone's life is valued equally, and that's how it should be. Everyone deserves a shot at anything.
[QUOTE=doombman;47953311]Not saying I agree with him, but he does have a point. Some people believe it isn't their problem to deal with others who don't contribute as much as the regular person, and honestly, he's right. But you're also correct too, society is much different today and everyone's life is valued equally, and that's how it should be. Everyone deserves a shot at anything.[/QUOTE]
Non-contributing members of society should be ignored, then?
Lube up that slope, it's about to get slippery...
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47953384]Non-contributing members of society should be ignored, then?
Lube up that slope, it's about to get slippery...[/QUOTE]
It's not a slippery slope at all. You're dealing with other people's ways of thinking. In his own sense, yes, he's right. Looking at things in his perspective, why exactly should he have to care about non-contributing citizens if he contributes himself?
...And that's a good argument. But that's not my opinion, that's his. I'm just stating this. The #1 reason why I barely want to debate with anyone here, is because everyone is blindedly biased to their own beliefs and whoever digs the other person's grave the fastest normally shuts the other person up.\
**edit
and meanwhile many people claim the 'new age way' of thinking is about open mindedness, it's really about 'shutting anyone down who isn't classified as open minded' or claim anyone who thinks differently from their views isn't open minded. It's quite hypocritical and is also why I have the tendency to avoid political debates with anyone these days.
I'm just against someone saying they can have their drug(alcohol) a proven problem in our society, and then do an about face and say I can't have a similar and proven to be less harmful drug(marijauna). THAT is hypocrisy.
As for hard drugs, I don't think they should be legalized, but the world can see for itself how heavily criminalizing them in a first world nation works out. It fucking doesn't. Look at a flooded. US penal system, just bursting with non violent drug offenders, the cost of that is magnitudes larger than any cost of any system like Insite.
[url]https://ncadd.org/in-the-news/155-25-million-alcohol-related-deaths-worldwide-annually[/url]
Yeah, 2.5 million yearly related alcohol deaths, and pot is the downfall of society.
I don't think there's even an argument to be had here because of how little reality is reflected in your arguments. They really just make me think you've never seen anyone die of alcohol poisoning, die of drunk driving, or whatever else drunk people do. It's just so implausably strange to me that you refuse to see alcohol killing millions yearly but you'd happily insist all of society is crumbling because some people smoke weed.
I just can't argue that because it's so fucking unfounded.
[QUOTE=doombman;47953418]It's not a slippery slope at all. You're dealing with other people's ways of thinking. In his own sense, yes, he's right. Looking at things in his perspective, why exactly should he have to care about non-contributing citizens if he contributes himself?
...And that's a good argument. But that's not my opinion, that's his. I'm just stating this. The #1 reason why I barely want to debate with anyone here, is because everyone is blindedly biased to their own beliefs and whoever digs the other person's grave the fastest normally shuts the other person up.\
**edit
and meanwhile many people claim the 'new age way' of thinking is about open mindedness, it's really about 'shutting anyone down who isn't classified as open minded' or claim anyone who thinks differently from their views isn't open minded. It's quite hypocritical and is also why I have the tendency to avoid political debates with anyone these days.[/QUOTE]
Because it's very easy to redefine what it means to be a contributing member of society to suit your own needs, and that power is very easily abusable and should not be granted to anyone at all.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;47953294]This alone implies that you believe the value of human life is based on the productivity of that life.
You're essentially saying that if someone is unproductive or poses a "net loss" to society, we shouldn't try to help them - we should just let them die.
Do you happen to be a caveman? In case you didn't get the memo, we now live in a society where we mitigate the effects of natural selection in the name of ethics.
Basically, your opinions just don't matter in today's world, bud. Throw a tantrum about it if you like, but you lost, pal. Nobody cares.[/QUOTE]
i wonder if that guy has friends. That isn't an insult, im just wondering, is there actually anyone else in the same country as him let alone planet that would have the same beliefs and ideals as him? Right now as i just completed reading almost all of his posts in this thread, he comes off as pretty antisocial
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;47892268]No maybe the fact that I work at a Substance Abuse clinic has something to do with my dislike of illicit drugs.[/QUOTE]
If you really do work at a substance abuse clinic you should be applauding rational evidence-based approaches to minimizing the harm associated with drug abuse instead of supporting an archaic dogmatic approach that hasn't been successful in addressing these issues, wastes millions of dollars, and kills people.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47952869]No you haven't established that. You've established that's what YOU think it is. I know a lot of people who use marijuana for reasons other than "pure intoxication" as you say. Then, I also have this family of drunks who drink on the regular and drink too excess regularly and do so as a form of relaxation. Yet, alcohol? Used to get drunk? NO! You say it's not true, so you believe it's not true, but do you really have the werewithal to make claims like that?
I know 6 kids who are homeless for smoking weed. I myself would be if I didn't have my own place. But no, you're totally right, no one cares and all people across all of the culture are so incredibly lax about it.
Are they now? Can you show me evidence of this? I can personally say, my city, the city of Vancouver, where you can freely(illegally) smoke a joint in your own home is doing quite well. And you know, this nature I'm speaking of, has been here for over 30 years. Yet this city grows, and grows, and becomes more attractive to more of the world. And here you are, saying this city, and any other city in the world that has instead of cracking down on the skulls of the people who enjoy a drug you hate embraced them and made them pay taxes, and obey the laws and be regulated and be controlled. No, you're right, we should just do "The war on drugs" harder, and harder. Because that's NOT what's happened from all the anti drug groups of the last 20 years right? No, wait. They're all pushing the argument that even one toke of marijuana makes you a garbled idiot. [/QUOTE]
I don't care what your personal experiences on this matter are and you should know better than to pelt me with your little anecdotes as if they give your position any weight.
[QUOTE]Unrelated because you say so, but in reality, it isn't unrelated at all.
Why is it unrelated? Anyone else can see it's not.[/QUOTE]
It was unrelated to the question of whether a strong social stigma and heavy handed laws keep drug abuse rates down, an issue you refused to respond to until I started "holding my answers for ransom," as you amusingly put it.
[QUOTE] answer your questions flat out and I answer them quickly. You however, you hold answers for ransom, you make arbitrary decisions about what is, and isn't related, what is, and isn't true, based on your anecdotal experiences.
You are the master of twisting the conversation and moving goal posts and denying the other party a voice.[/QUOTE]
All this coming from the guy who claims he's right because his family gets drunk and his friends smoke pot.
[QUOTE]So you fail to see the issue people dying over one drugs sale and trafficking, but you'll happily live in a world with alcohol where the yearly death rate PURELY from alcohol abuse is in the thousands, and the death rate from drunk driving is in the tens of thousands.
Yeah, I'm sure you fail to see the issue because you're so unbiased about this.[/QUOTE]
Thousands of deaths per year is nothing on the national scale and in Canada drunk driving deaths don't even get close to 10'000 annually, stop making up numbers.
Also don't even bring up the bias card, you're so biased it's ridiculous, your very manner of speech betrays an incredibly emotional and opinionated position.
[QUOTE]You use alcohol to relax. I use marijuana to relax. You make a HUGE, and HYPOCRITICAL, ARBITRARY decision, line in the sand, whatever you want to fucking call it, separating the two pretty much identical activities of "Relaxation".[/QUOTE]
It's not arbitrary as I'm not seeking out intoxication in order to relax, I'm seeking out a particular taste and familiar activity of beverage drinking. Alcohol is deeply engrained in the experience of Western meals, people who appreciate Western culture will obviously feel at ease when they engage in its age old traditions.
[QUOTE]Well, there are sure plenty of people that are relaxed about it, and those places seem to be doing fine even with embracing marijauna culture as you call it. They aren't gone, they're not failing, fading, or worsening in any way that you can relate to "marijuana" or "THC"(as you so specify) alone. And that's the claim YOU need to back up if you want to have actually argued anything here.[/QUOTE]
I've already dealt with this issue, populations that have very small proportions of lower classes do well with drug abuse because middle to upper class members of society are always more functional with their drug habits.
[QUOTE]And more scientific studies than I can count show this to not be the case.
Alcohol is much worse. Tobacco is much worse.[/QUOTE]
Studies are a dime a dozen, show some specific ones that have reliable methods and then we'll talk about "studies".
Also I do have an issue with smoking, but only in regards to cigarettes as cigars are used for very different purposes in our culture.
[QUOTE]heavily giving anyone the impression that you think a hard days work entitles you to alcohol, you claim it's simply relaxing you, but I mean, you keep getting to assume EVERYONE who uses another drug(Yes, alcohol is a drug, you use drugs) intentions with that, so I'll do the same, and assume that you're just saying it relaxes you.[/QUOTE]
Is it so odd that someone can find it relaxing to drink a beverage that tastes good to them? I find it telling that you assume someone must be looking to get intoxicated if they are seeking relaxation, it speaks volumes.
[QUOTE]You call them red herrings so you don't have to deal with them, so you have an excuse to avoid a question YOU find difficult to answer.[/QUOTE]
No I don't.
[QUOTE]Anyone who's ever smoked marijuana knows that's bullshit. That's why so many people ignore it.[/QUOTE]
Or they simply lack a fully informed view of what's best for society.
[QUOTE]I feel the same way about the survival of our race, but I won't be taking away your alcohol. Even though, statistically speaking, alcohol has killed more people, damaged more lives, caused more violence, hatred, and impulsive actions than marijuana EVER has. That statistical line is something you literally can't ignore, but I know you will.[/QUOTE]
88'000 people die annually in the US from alcohol related incidents. That's 0.03% of the population, I think you're exaggerating the problem just a little bit.
[QUOTE]You have NO problem assuming all sorts of things about me and anyone else.[/QUOTE]
Even if I was, you just assume it must be ok for you to do the same then? Don't chastise someone for something and then do the exact same thing in return.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47874829]If people do not have to fear the immediate effects of drug use or a negative social stigma attached to it, what reason is there to not use drugs (from a personal perspective)?[/QUOTE]
I know that this post is a week old but this tidbit really illustrated how you have the brain of a 70 year old backwards conservative politician.
I've done every drug under the sun at least once. I don't fear the immediate effects of drug use, or negative social stigma attached to it. The reason I don't regularly use drugs (all I've used in the last year straight has been light social drinking and occasional weed smoking [which is legal where I live]) is because I know the REAL effects of longterm drug use and the REAL dangers of addiction and I value my health. Education is the key, not fear mongering and punishment.
As someone who has a family history of addiction, but luckily did not fall into that trap, I can tell you that addiction needs to be treated as both a mental and physical illness.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47957333]I don't care what your personal experiences on this matter are and you should know better than to pelt me with your little anecdotes as if they give your position any weight.[/QUOTE]
Then why have you made your own in relation to drinking so important here?
[QUOTE]It was unrelated to the question of whether a strong social stigma and heavy handed laws keep drug abuse rates down, an issue you refused to respond to until I started "holding my answers for ransom," as you amusingly put it.[/QUOTE]
A strong social stigma enforced with death penalties will be effective. But I thought "effectiveness" wasn't a measure you wanted to use to make a good society because it's a utilitarian and immoral way of doing things that atheists would propose?
[QUOTE]All this coming from the guy who claims he's right because his family gets drunk and his friends smoke pot.
[/QUOTE]
As anecdotes go, mine are fairly typical experiences for the vast majority of the western world.
Having experience with these things gives one perspective. Something you desperately need.
[QUOTE]Thousands of deaths per year is nothing on the national scale and in Canada drunk driving deaths don't even get close to 10'000 annually, stop making up numbers.[/QUOTE]
So can you point to me the obviously huge number of marijauana related deaths if 10,000 lives annually is a drop in the bucket and not harming society in anyway at all?
[QUOTE]Also don't even bring up the bias card, you're so biased it's ridiculous, your very manner of speech betrays an incredibly emotional and opinionated position.[/QUOTE]
I will bring it up. I am biased. But I do my best to distance myself from that in my arguments. You use your bias to enforce your mentality and you don't seek to distance yourself from your bias which is full of hypocrisies.
But there we go again, talking about me, and not the arguments. I think you called that a "red herring".
[QUOTE]It's not arbitrary as I'm not seeking out intoxication in order to relax, I'm seeking out a particular taste and familiar activity of beverage drinking. Alcohol is deeply engrained in the experience of Western meals, people who appreciate Western culture will obviously feel at ease when they engage in its age old traditions.[/QUOTE]
So, again, you're saying that you get yours, fuck everyone else?
Alcohol being deeply ingrained makes it okay and acceptable? It removes it's traumas and the ills it leaves in society? So you ARE arguing from tradition?
[QUOTE]I've already dealt with this issue, populations that have very small proportions of lower classes do well with drug abuse because middle to upper class members of society are always more functional with their drug habits.
[/QUOTE]
You are laughable. The lower class deals with addictions less well due to having less to start with and less mobility in general. To pin their issues on drug use is wrong.
Also, [QUOTE]middle to upper class members of society are always more functional with their drug habits.[/QUOTE] Is one of the most factually incorrect statements in this entire thread informed by nothing formed entirely on an arbitrary opinion made out of a black and white ultimatum. It points to the fact of the matter. You will make ANY and all attempts to reinforce your own biases over, and over again.
[QUOTE]Studies are a dime a dozen, show some specific ones that have reliable methods and then we'll talk about "studies".[/QUOTE]
When the AMA wants to change the description of marijauana from your description to something more in line with my description that should say something. When judges, and medical professionals disagree with YOU, you should start asking some fucking questions to yourself.
[QUOTE]Also I do have an issue with smoking, but only in regards to cigarettes as cigars are used for very different purposes in our culture.[/QUOTE]
Cigars still cause cancer. I guess that's okay though, because "Western Culture".
[QUOTE]Is it so odd that someone can find it relaxing to drink a beverage that tastes good to them? I find it telling that you assume someone must be looking to get intoxicated if they are seeking relaxation, it speaks volumes.[/QUOTE]
No. I drink whiskey pretty much exclusively, neat or with 3 ice cubes. I don't drink it to get drunk, but 2 glasses will give me a buzz and I enjoy that. Now, once again, you're insisting anyone who smokes weed is not doing it for that enjoyment, and that small buzz, they're doing it for explicit intoxication.
Bullshit.
[QUOTE]No I don't.[/QUOTE]
Well refuted. It's not like you keep making an issue out of nonissues in order to not answer my questions.
[QUOTE]Or they simply lack a fully informed view of what's best for society.[/QUOTE]
So you truly believe that you have all the answers to these problems?
[QUOTE]88'000 people die annually in the US from alcohol related incidents. That's 0.03% of the population, I think you're exaggerating the problem just a little bit.
[/QUOTE]
And I think, when you dismiss 88,000 deaths a year and insist that marijuana is causing a huge, and much larger problem then that, you're going to need citations.
[QUOTE]Even if I was, you just assume it must be ok for you to do the same then? Don't chastise someone for something and then do the exact same thing in return.[/QUOTE]
You have been, and you haven't relented even in this post so what exactly can anyone do to satisfy you besides just bend over and agree you know best about everything? You have already said you know what's best for society.
I find when people truly believe they know best and have no capacity for self doubt, that's a good time to walk away from the argument. You truly have no capacity for even the slightest sliver of self doubt.
I often question myself during these arguments. But then I look at the research and listen to varied points of view and then I realize, well, you're pretty much just an intelligent sounding intellectual bully.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47957557]Then why have you made your own in relation to drinking so important here?[/QUOTE]
I haven't.
[QUOTE]A strong social stigma enforced with death penalties will be effective. But I thought "effectiveness" wasn't a measure you wanted to use to make a good society because it's a utilitarian and immoral way of doing things that atheists would propose?[/QUOTE]
My perspective is hardly utilitarian as I put very little value on human happiness.
[QUOTE]As anecdotes go, mine are fairly typical experiences for the vast majority of the western world.[/QUOTE]
[i]citation needed[/i]
[QUOTE]So can you point to me the obviously huge number of marijauana related deaths if 10,000 lives annually is a drop in the bucket and not harming society in anyway at all?[/QUOTE]
The current death rate has no significance to my argument. My issues with drug abuse are purely cultural and not born out of some concern with helping more drug addicts live.
[QUOTE]I will bring it up. I am biased. But I do my best to distance myself from that in my arguments. You use your bias to enforce your mentality and you don't seek to distance yourself from your bias which is full of hypocrisies.
But there we go again, talking about me, and not the arguments. I think you called that a "red herring".[/QUOTE]
You bring yourself up in every discussion we have, it's unavoidable. I suppose I should try harder to avoid responding to your red herrings however.
[QUOTE]So, again, you're saying that you get yours, fuck everyone else?
Alcohol being deeply ingrained makes it okay and acceptable? It removes it's traumas and the ills it leaves in society? So you ARE arguing from tradition?[/QUOTE]
Sure, if that's how you want to view it. Fuck everyone else who breaks from cultural norm to a lifestyle of intoxication and hedonism, they should pay for their foolishness, not society.
By the way, a traditional activity in a society will naturally be found calming by members of it simply in virtue of being a tradition. So with alcohol's place in our culture, many people simply find the familiarity of its taste in tandem with other Western traditions calming.
[QUOTE]You are laughable. The lower class deals with addictions less well due to having less to start with and less mobility in general. To pin their issues on drug use is wrong.
Also, Is one of the most factually incorrect statements in this entire thread informed by nothing formed entirely on an arbitrary opinion made out of a black and white ultimatum. It points to the fact of the matter.
You will make ANY and all attempts to reinforce your own biases over, and over again.[/QUOTE]
I don't care what you think about me and never will, so let's stop talking about me and continue with the subject at hand hm?
[QUOTE]When the AMA wants to change the description of marijauana from your description to something more in line with my description that should say something. When judges, and medical professionals disagree with YOU, you should start asking some fucking questions to yourself.[/QUOTE]
Blatant argument from authority. Give me the reasoning for why they've made those statements, not the mere fact that they've made them.
[QUOTE]Cigars still cause cancer. I guess that's okay though, because "Western Culture".[/QUOTE]
When was cancer ever a factor in my argument? I don't care about the cancer risk, if you care though, you have some explaining to do in relation to smoking pot.
[QUOTE]No. I drink whiskey pretty much exclusively, neat or with 3 ice cubes. I don't drink it to get drunk, but 2 glasses will give me a buzz and I enjoy that. Now, once again, you're insisting anyone who smokes weed is not doing it for that enjoyment, and that small buzz, they're doing it for explicit intoxication.
Bullshit.[/QUOTE]
By seeking out the buzz you are seeking out intoxication.
[QUOTE]Well refuted. It's not like you keep making an issue out of nonissues in order to not answer my questions.[/QUOTE]
You've already made up your mind on this matter, what can I say?
[QUOTE]So you truly believe that you have all the answers to these problems?[/QUOTE]
No.
[QUOTE]And I think, when you dismiss 88,000 deaths a year and insist that marijuana is causing a huge, and much larger problem then that, you're going to need citations.[/QUOTE]
Cultural shifts are hard to quantify, especially right when they're happening.
[QUOTE]You have been, and you haven't relented even in this post so what exactly can anyone do to satisfy you besides just bend over and agree you know best about everything? You have already said you know what's best for society.
I find when people truly believe they know best and have no capacity for self doubt, that's a good time to walk away from the argument. You truly have no capacity for even the slightest sliver of self doubt.
I often question myself during these arguments. But then I look at the research and listen to varied points of view and then I realize, well, you're pretty much just an intelligent sounding intellectual bully.[/QUOTE]
And you say I'm the one making this conversation personal...
whole lot of fedora edgelording going on in here.
do you even know what the word utilitarian means? note: it has nothing to do with placing value on human happiness.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;47958246]whole lot of fedora edgelording going on in here.
do you even know what the word utilitarian means? note: it has nothing to do with placing value on human happiness.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/okuICGc.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47957081]If you really do work at a substance abuse clinic you should be applauding rational evidence-based approaches to minimizing the harm associated with drug abuse instead of supporting an archaic dogmatic approach that hasn't been successful in addressing these issues, wastes millions of dollars, and kills people.[/QUOTE]
You sound really smart inside your head don't you? Anyways, you might have missed the last part when I said I don't agree with this bill.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47958372][img]http://i.imgur.com/okuICGc.png[/img][/QUOTE]
practical benefits != happiness. I see that you can read and post definitions, but not see how they do not help your argument or what the words you read actually mean.
I'll explain the word to you. The word utilitarian comes from the word utility (which means the state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial.) It has nothing to do at all with an abstract concept like human happiness.
Synonyms to utilitarian include practical, useful, functional, sensible.
Thusly if you claim you are "hardly" utilitarian [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47957713]My perspective is hardly utilitarian as I put very little value on human happiness.
[/QUOTE]
, it means you hardly value things that are useful, not that you don't place a high priority upon human happiness.
[sp]idiot[/sp]
[QUOTE=Perfumly;47958690]I'll explain the word to you. The word utilitarian comes from the word utility (which means the state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial.) It has nothing to do at all with an abstract concept like human happiness.
Synonyms to utilitarian include practical, useful, functional, sensible.
Thusly if you claim you are "hardly" utilitarian
, it means you hardly value things that are useful, not that you don't place a high priority upon human happiness.
[/QUOTE]
You have just proven that yet another English word has two meanings, congratulations.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
