[ohio]

You really want to keep kids off drugs, stop teaching them from history books that teach more then 50% of the population to hate themselves. Then give the other 50% (who are relatively privileged and wealthy) something to actually care about. Kids start using drugs abusively in middle and high-school either because they think they've got nothing better to do (the latter 50%), or they've been taught for their whole lives that they come from nothing and are worth nothing (the former 50%).

We've got to stop trying to cure symptoms with tyranical laws, and start curing the cause.

Do you really think busting a kid at school and suspending or expelling him/her is going solve his/her problem? "Okay, Billy has a problem, so let's stop educating him."

 

[indieboy]

Originally posted by ohio
You really want to keep kids off drugs, stop teaching them from history books that teach more then 50% of the population to hate themselves. Then give the other 50% (who are relatively privileged and wealthy) something to actually care about. Kids start using drugs abusively in middle and high-school either because they think they've got nothing better to do (the latter 50%), or they've been taught for their whole lives that they come from nothing and are worth nothing (the former 50%).

We've got to stop trying to cure symptoms with tyranical laws, and start curing the cause.

Do you really think busting a kid at school and suspending or expelling him/her is going solve his/her problem? "Okay, Billy has a problem, so let's stop educating him."

thank you........

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
You really want to keep kids off drugs, stop teaching them from history books that teach more then 50% of the population to hate themselves. Then give the other 50% (who are relatively privileged and wealthy) something to actually care about. Kids start using drugs abusively in middle and high-school either because they think they've got nothing better to do (the latter 50%), or they've been taught for their whole lives that they come from nothing and are worth nothing (the former 50%).

We've got to stop trying to cure symptoms with tyranical laws, and start curing the cause.

Do you really think busting a kid at school and suspending or expelling him/her is going solve his/her problem? "Okay, Billy has a problem, so let's stop educating him."

Man, you come up with some really neat figures sometimes.

I totally agree that we need to start curing the cause. That would simplify everything, but i think that the fact of the matter is, we have been trying with programs like DARE and others, we only seem to be losing ground.

I like that you adress drug use as a problem, because no one else here seems to recognize that. I just think that if fear of getting busted in one kid, causes him to not use drugs and fu$# up his life, then a silly law that wont affect most of us is totally worth it.

I dont know exactly what you mean when you say 50% of kids are taught that they are worth nothing. I dont know where you went to school, but all i remember hearing is "you can do anything if you apply yourself"

I think some people are worthless though. Like junkies and loafing hippies. And people i work with sometimes.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I dont know exactly what you mean when you say 50% of kids are taught that they are worth nothing. I dont know where you went to school, but all i remember hearing is "you can do anything if you apply yourself"

If you get a chance, pick up the book "Lies Your Teacher Told You."

The history we teach our children, along with the textbooks we use to enforce our "facts," are pretty much a load of nationalistic crap that paints a false history of perfect white men bringing superior European/British technology, culture and religion to savages. I'm not a PC freak, but we're teaching blatant lies in an attempt to prop up our self-worth, at the expense of any color, religion,and culture that is not white christian and western European. Since folks from that background now only constitute roughly half the nation, we end up teaching the other half that they came from nothing, and would be nothing, if they hadn't been saved by the white man. What a great way to teach our children that they can "do anything if they apply themselves [and are saved/helped by the almighty hand of white folk]." A real self-esteem builder.

 

[johnny33fb]

Yeah, i agree programs like DARE don't work, because telling a child or young adult that "drugs are bad" and just simply listing things that could happen to your body (cancer) don't work. I think showing what actually happens to people that abuse drugs and how hard it can be to quit/stay off a drug habit would work much better. They could also show how being involved in drugs can turn a persons life upside down and that these are reasons why you dont want/need drugs in your life. Telling someone just says no will not help them if they don't understand what could happen to them if they get seriously involved in drugs. I also don't think suspension from school is right if a student was to get busted for using drugs, because for many of theses students school is a much better environment then their homes, due to parents drug uses, just bad parentings, or whatever. Getting these kids more involved in the school and community will lead to less kids on drugs but there will always be people doing drugs recreationally just for kicks i dont think that will ever change.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Man, you come up with some really neat figures sometimes.

he he. I retain numbers like women I date retain water...


anyways, I just reminded myself to ask you as a follow-up to my last post, what sort of state history is taught in Hawaii, considering the multicultural population. I read Mitchner's "Hawaii" (historical account of the entire history of Hawaii, with fictional characters) a couple of months ago, and it totally blew my mind since I knew nothing of Hawaiian history.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
he he. I retain numbers like women I date retain water...


anyways, I just reminded myself to ask you as a follow-up to my last post, what sort of state history is taught in Hawaii, considering the multicultural population. I read Mitchner's "Hawaii" (historical account of the entire history of Hawaii, with fictional characters) a couple of months ago, and it totally blew my mind since I knew nothing of Hawaiian history.

As Im sure you can imagine, its very America friendly, but they still get a good grasp of their history. There really is alot of animosity that ive seen from locals here toward white people in general who live or visit here. And rightfully so, we did just come and take over, but it was either us or Japan, and it probably saved San Diego from what had eventually happened to Pearl Harbor.

Anyway, I think schools across the country are becoming alot more liberal in their teaching of other cultures and whatnot. I think there was quite a bit of it back just a couple years ago when i was still in school. Anyone who progresses to college will eventually know "the lies their teachers told them" or they should anyway.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Anyone who progresses to college will eventually know "the lies their teachers told them" or they should anyway.

That's the problem. The kids that progress to college are usually the ones that don't NEED to know the truth. If they made it that far they have their heads on relatively straight. Think of all the kids that DON'T continue with school because it only teaches them to hate themselves.

And think of all the kids with little or no interest in History because it was taught to them as something completely static, just memorization of facts, rather than an exciting dynamic evolving argument...

I for one was never interested in History, and never had to take a History course in college. I would never know any of this if I hadn't picked up "Lies My Teacher Told Me" or Zinn's "People's History..."

 

[indieboy]

Originally posted by ohio
That's the problem. The kids that progress to college are usually the ones that don't NEED to know the truth. If they made it that far they have their heads on relatively straight. Think of all the kids that DON'T continue with school because it only teaches them to hate themselves.

And think of all the kids with little or no interest in History because it was taught to them as something completely static, just memorization of facts, rather than an exciting dynamic evolving argument...

I for one was never interested in History, and never had to take a History course in college. I would never know any of this if I hadn't picked up "Lies My Teacher Told Me" or Zinn's "People's History..."

our AP US history teacher last year was telling us about that book. i've been meaning pick it up and read it. yes the elementary-high school text books that they make us use are a total waste. they hide and beat around the truth. the college text book that we used for that class wasn't to bad but still didn't entirely tell everything. our teacher used to tell us all sorts of wacked out shiet about many of the U.S. presidents. some of it was quite entertaining. she was the conspericy (sp?) theory type lady, and if the school knew what she was telling us and teaching us i don't htink that she would have been there to much longer lol.

 

[patconnole]

Here are some cool quotes from the first chapter of "A people's history of the United States 1492-present".


Relating to 9/11 and a pre-emptive strike on Iraq (page 16). "The English found their exuse, a murder which they attributed to Metacom, and they began a war of conquest against the Wampanoags, a war to take their land. They were clearly the aggressors, but claimed they attacked for preventive purposes. As Roger Williams, more friendly to the Indians than most, put it: "All men of conscience or prudence ply to windward, to maintain their wars to be defensive.""


One of the main conclusions of chapter one: "Was all this bloodshed and deceit--from Columbus to Cortes, Pizarro, the Puritans--a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization? Was Morison [a historian] right in burying the story of genocide inside a more important story of human progress? Perhaps a persuasivie argument can be made--as it was made by Stalin when he killed peasants for industrial progress in the Soviet Union, as it was made by Churchill explaining the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, and Truman explaining Hiroshima. But how can the judgment be made if the benefits and losses cannot be balanced because the losses are either unmentioned or mentioned quickly?

 

[Skookum]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
we have been trying with programs like DARE and others, we only seem to be losing ground.

I like that you adress drug use as a problem, because no one else here seems to recognize that.

Drug use by anybody is a problem, especially kids. But regardless of laws there are going to be people that use and there are going to be people that abuse drugs. If you accept the notion that some people are genetically predisposed to have addictive personalities, maybe you'd less apt to focus your attention on the drug and more on the persons.
We've got a broad sweeping solution like DARE run by police as a tool to educate but also with the alterior motive to prosecute people and run them through the system.
I would say send that federal money to social worker's, drug counselers, family counseler's. People that could work with parents and schools for problem kids on a one on one basis. Create more funding for schools that cater to "problem kids" with realistic avenues for success, along with implications that if they don't take education seriously they choose serious repurcussions. Allow and encourage schools to have freedom to run programs or policies that focus on their own special needs(local,cultural).
I dont agree with the current system of attacking drug abuse. It groups casual user's with addicts. It has created a machine that perpetuates itself on the creation of criminals through addiction. A system that is now dependant upon chemical dependency if you will. I don't agree drugs are good for anybody, they limit the potential of people on a physical, emotional, spiritual level, and not to mention your eating holes in your brain. Your correct BurlySurly in stating that nothing good can come from it. I just disagree with your tactics on how to fight it.

 

[Silver]

Why oh why do people care what I put INTO MY OWN ****ING BODY?

It's not your business. I don't care what goes into your body either. If you want to walk around stoned or drunk all day, no worries. Why should I care if getting high is what you do for fun?

Amazing that a kid in high school can smoke a joint and get hit with a criminal record, while his mother can run around with anti-depressants and tranquilizers in her system all day and society doesn't care about that, but insteads advertises and endorses it.

Don't even get me started on DARE. If anything, DARE leads kids onto harder stuff. Kids try pot and realize that they aren't dying, and they wonder what else DARE lies about.

And well we are at it, lets drop the strawman about pot causing cancer. If you can bring up one documented case, I'd love to see it. I've never heard of one. Plus, you don't need to smoke pot, so unless eating pot gives you cancer too, this is really a moot point.

This really isn't a drug issue. It's an issue of personal freedom.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by Silver
Why oh why do people care what I put INTO MY OWN ****ING BODY?

This really isn't a drug issue. It's an issue of personal freedom.

Why do we care? Lots of reasons:

If you are Driving while intoxicated (with anything) or performing any other activity for that matter, you put other people in potential danger because of you own stupidity.

If you hurt yourself, you waste valuable resources in a hospital or other scenario that could be better used for people who really need it and don't harm their bodies.

Your rights are not absolute. Here's an example we use in debate: you are only free to swing your fist as long as it does not hit someone in the face. You can;t scream "fire" in a crowded theater, even though you have freedom of speech. Your individual rights do not extend to the point where they are infringing up the rights of another.

Moral codes and the hippocratic oath force us to care for everyone. But why should we be helping @$$holes who don't take care of themselves?

Inhaling any sort of smoke is bad for you. Inhaling smoke from smoldering plants such as cannabis and tobacco is a proven carcinogen. Most people smoke pot, supposedly you get much less effect if it is eaten and you wouldn't want to waste your illicit supply, would you?

Why don't you just shut about you individual rights if you don't understand them.

 

[Silver]

Where to start....

Moral codes and the hippocratic oath force us to care for everyone. But why should we be helping @$$holes who don't take care of themselves?

I never took the hippocratic oath, but's that's an aside. And I don't think that people should be absolved for thier actions while intoxicated. And hey, if you want to bitch about people taking care of themselves, stake out a MacDonalds sometime. Cardiac disease kills a LOT more people than illicit drugs do.

If you are Driving while intoxicated (with anything) or performing any other activity for that matter, you put other people in potential danger because of you own stupidity.

Agreed. I don't believe that people should drive drunk or high or sleep deprived. I'd agree with you there. However, if someone wants to smoke a joint before they turn in for the night, I don't think it's your business.

Inhaling any sort of smoke is bad for you. Inhaling smoke from smoldering plants such as cannabis and tobacco is a proven carcinogen. Most people smoke pot, supposedly you get much less effect if it is eaten and you wouldn't want to waste your illicit supply, would you?

Well, you could always vaporize it. You're not really after the smoke, it's the THC you want. By the way, have a reliable study handy that shows that marijuana smoke causes cancer?

Your rights are not absolute. Here's an example we use in debate: you are only free to swing your fist as long as it does not hit someone in the face. You can;t scream "fire" in a crowded theater, even though you have freedom of speech. Your individual rights do not extend to the point where they are infringing up the rights of another.

Exactly. Someone smoking a joint or drinking a beer or taking ecstacy is not hitting you in the face. If they begin to do that, call the police. That's why we have laws against assault. How am I infringing on your rights by smoking a joint in the privacy of my own home? You don't have a right to not be offended, you know.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

You're still missing one of my points:

We still have to care for your sorry ass if you overdose on something.

And the reason I care if you smoke "in the privacy of your own home" is because I have no guarantee that it will stay there. You may assure me that it will, but when you're taking drugs you're not apt to make very intelligent decisions.

I also don't want your smoking habit to be passed on to my future children and I don't appreciate the crime that it brings into my neighborhood.

 

[indieboy]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
You're still missing one of my points:

We still have to care for your sorry ass if you overdose on something.

And the reason I care if you smoke "in the privacy of your own home" is because I have no guarantee that it will stay there. You may assure me that it will, but when you're taking drugs you're not apt to make very intelligent decisions.

I also don't want your smoking habit to be passed on to my future children and I don't appreciate the crime that it brings into my neighborhood.

um you are on a debate team right? well then the first thing you'd know about a debate is takign this personally and calling someone names like that is not cool at all......so think twice before you attack someone personally please...

 

[Silver]

Well, I guess this is my answer to that:

We still have to care for your sorry ass if you overdose on something.

Really, I wasn't aware that your were coming over to my place to nurse me back to health. I have health insurance that I pay a pretty penny for. If I OD, you won't be picking up the tab. Now, I know you're going to say that it wastes valuable hospital resources, but hey, so does cardiac care for a 55 year old man who is overweight and never got any exercise. We don't outlaw cheeseburgers and make exercise mandatory, do we?

In fact, riding a bicycle down a very steep rocky hill and crashing is a waste of medical resources as well. After all, you can get the exercise on a stationary bike just as well, and the you don't have the chance of hitting a hiker on the way down. (See the 'maybe' here?) Should we ban mountain bikes too?

And the reason I care if you smoke "in the privacy of your own home" is because I have no guarantee that it will stay there. You may assure me that it will, but when you're taking drugs you're not apt to make very intelligent decisions.

This is why I don't invite people over to my house very often. Let's repeat again...It's none of your business! Maybe I like to stick my privates into a running kitchen mixer...once again, my decision, not yours to make for me.

I also don't want your smoking habit to be passed on to my future children and I don't appreciate the crime that it brings into my neighborhood.

Well, the crime can be solved quite easily. Legalize it. Everything. You would have thought that Prohibition in the 1930's would have taught us something, but I guess not.

As far as your future children go, raise them yourself. It's not my job. If you can't instill in them that it's not a good idea to smoke, you can hardly blame that on other people beside yourself. Any of your friends ever drink a beer in front of a child?

And for the record, you can stop with the ad hominem attacks. I don't smoke marijuana. But I also don't believe that I have the right to tell others what they can and cannot do with thier bodies or lives.

Your position is based on ifs and maybes. There is a chance I'm going to get drunk tonight and steal a school bus too, you know. Because you never know what someone on DRUGS might do....

 

[Eddie420]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
You're still missing one of my points:

We still have to care for your sorry ass if you overdose on something.

And the reason I care if you smoke "in the privacy of your own home" is because I have no guarantee that it will stay there. You may assure me that it will, but when you're taking drugs you're not apt to make very intelligent decisions.

I also don't want your smoking habit to be passed on to my future children and I don't appreciate the crime that it brings into my neighborhood.

You say "we" still have to care for your sorry ass who is "we". I looked at your profile dude, your 15. A high school kid just the same as me....(I've only got 8months left,yay) you're not going to be caring for any sorry ass except your own maybe..

I think you're missing the point, you can't overdose on weed OK.
When most people are stoned they're not going to go do crazy **** they would rather just sit down and chill out.
How would people's smoking habit be passed to your "future children" it's all about choice, if they want to they will and if they don't want to smoke they won't.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Hey Silver...great idea.

We should legalize murder and rape too. That would really cut down on crime.

How come i didnt think of this sooner????

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Eddie420
You say "we" still have to care for your sorry ass who is "we". I looked at your profile dude, your 15. A high school kid just the same as me....(I've only got 8months left,yay) you're not going to be caring for any sorry ass except your own maybe..

I think you're missing the point, you can't overdose on weed OK.
When most people are stoned they're not going to go do crazy **** they would rather just sit down and chill out.
How would people's smoking habit be passed to your "future children" it's all about choice, if they want to they will and if they don't want to smoke they won't.

I believe when he says "WE" he means American taxpayers. Now, sure, he may not pay federal taxes yet, but his parents surely do, and that takes money from his pocket as well. He'll be paying his own soon enough.

Now i know what you're thinking. "Well if he's got insurance, where's the problem?"

Its like this, many drug users and adicts dont have insurance. And niether would most of them be able to keep it after being fire from their job after having a drug=related incident.

The cost then falls on the taxpayers....get it?

 

[Silver]

C'mon BurlySurly, I know you're smarter than that. Murder and rape are hardly analagous to taking drugs or drinking a beer.

You really think that the crime involved with the illicit drug trade has something to do with the drugs? Once again, remind me how well Prohibition worked. We've tried prohibition with some drugs for a number of years now, and in my opinion, it's not working. Why not try something else?

 

[Silver]

Its like this, many drug users and adicts dont have insurance. And niether would most of them be able to keep it after being fire from their job after having a drug=related incident. The cost then falls on the taxpayers....get it?

Yes, I understand that part. Answer this then: Should we withhold medical care from a overweight middle aged heart attack patient who never exercises and doesn't have insurance to save tax money?

Or a elderly smoker? Or someone who falls off a bike? Or someone who gets into a car accident?

The difference is, of course, that some drugs are illegal. That doesn't make the life of someone who has taken them worth any less in my eyes. Withholding medical care because you want to save tax money is pretty cold though, in my opinion.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver


You really think that the crime involved with the illicit drug trade has something to do with the drugs? Once again, remind me how well Prohibition worked.

So, you think we should make all drugs legal then, because there will be less crime if there are no dealers? I disagree, completely.

First off, when something is legalized, like alcohol, it becomes a socially acceptable standard. I for one, do not want my children thinking its ok to shoot up with heroin. It isnt. Not at all. The average joe would pay again, for the sheer numbers of OD's and other such instances. Not to mention other crimes that would still spring up. Ie...more theft for drug money and whatnot.

Its just a bad idea.

And you cant say......just legalize pot...because it opens the door to more legalizations that would lead to the afore mentioned problems. The system we have may not be perfect, but its sure better than having doctors and school teachers who smoke crack every night. Legally.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
Yes, I understand that part. Answer this then: Should we withhold medical care from a overweight middle aged heart attack patient who never exercises and doesn't have insurance to save tax money?

I never said we would or should withhold medical care from anyone. I said we would pay more for their problems that would only increase if they were legally allowed to participate.

Fast food may be bad for you, but i dont see BigMac dealers on the corner bustin caps because they got skimped on the special sauce.........G!

 

[Silver]

I'm not saying legalize everything overnight. That would lead to huge problems. But having a much less draconian policy with regards to some drugs would have huge social benefits.

Look at the Netherlands. Marijuana smoking is tolerated there, and guess what...not everyone walks around high 100% of the time. You mentioned alcohol, is it socially acceptable to walk around drunk all the time? To be drunk at work?

As far as there not being firefights over BigMacs...make them illegal and then we have a valid comparison.

Plus you could always tax the sales of drugs, that might help to make up for the upswing in OD care that you seem to think will happen (it might, I'm not sure. If it does, I wouldn't be thrilled about it, but once again, not my place to tell someone else what to do with their body.)

And maybe if addicts weren't worried about getting tossed into prison they would be more receptive to seeking out treatment programs.

I'm not saying I have all the answers. I am saying that the current system does not work.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
I'm not saying legalize everything overnight. That would lead to huge problems. But having a much less draconian policy with regards to some drugs would have huge social benefits.

Look at the Netherlands. Marijuana smoking is tolerated there, and guess what...not everyone walks around high 100% of the time. You mentioned alcohol, is it socially acceptable to walk around drunk all the time? To be drunk at work?

As far as there not being firefights over BigMacs...make them illegal and then we have a valid comparison.

Plus you could always tax the sales of drugs, that might help to make up for the upswing in OD care that you seem to think will happen (it might, I'm not sure. If it does, I wouldn't be thrilled about it, but once again, not my place to tell someone else what to do with their body.)

And maybe if addicts weren't worried about getting tossed into prison they would be more receptive to seeking out treatment programs.

I'm not saying I have all the answers. I am saying that the current system does not work.

No. It certainly isnt, however alcoholics often do cause problems in the workplace, be it from showing up late with a hangover, or drinking on the job. There are still drunk drivers on the road. Should we magnify this problem exponentially by having heroine addicts on the roadways and in the workplace where they're free to drive fork lifts and airplanes? To influence the minds of our youth?

No....period.

Yes, there is money to be made from taxes. However, there are many other areas that we could tax harder if we needed alot of extra money. Which we dont. We could just double the tax on alchohol and people would still buy it, so there really is no clear benefit. Only detriment.

If addicts want help, it is available to them. I feel no need to justify what they;ve done to themselves by making their problem legal and supporting their uselesness. Legalizing would only create more users, and more addicts that would clearly negate any tax benefit you might have hoped for.

 

[Silver]

I'm not motivated by the tax benefits, BurlySurly. Like I've said before, I don't believe that I have the right to tell someone else what they can or can't do with their own body. Prohibiting some drugs, while promoting the use of others is not something that a "free" society does.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
I'm not motivated by the tax benefits, BurlySurly. Like I've said before, I don't believe that I have the right to tell someone else what they can or can't do with their own body. Prohibiting some drugs, while promoting the use of others is not something that a "free" society does.

You're free to do whatever you want, so long as it does not affect the basic freedoms of others. Drug use does not meet that criteria.

Sure, the system's not perfect, but its not that bad either. Alchohol can cause similar problems i know, but we're dealing with what we have. We dont need new problems.

 

[Silver]

How does my smoking a joint impede your life, liberty, or pusuit of happiness? You point out a host of societal problems (which we are already dealing with, because lots of people use lots of different drugs, and since they are allready breaking the law and the price is artificially high, it's much easier to rationalize stealing or dealing to get to it), but forget to take into consideration that enforcing the ban on these substances causes a tremendous amount of pain for everyone involved.

I just don't get it. The prohibition of a substance should not be more harmful than the substance itself.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
How does my smoking a joint impede your life, liberty, or pusuit of happiness?

I know we already went over this a couple times, but lastly, as Lobo Del Fuego pointed out, intoxicated drivers and money hungry drug dealers can quickly impede all of those things.

 

[johnny33fb]

BurlySurly:

"So, you think we should make all drugs legal then, because there will be less crime if there are no dealers? I disagree, completely.

Fast food may be bad for you, but i dont see BigMac dealers on the corner bustin caps because they got skimped on the special sauce.........G!"

Okay, you completely went against what you were just saying. By legallizing pot (just pot were not talking about other drugs so stop bring it up by trying to make more points by talking about a different drug b/c they are different believe it or not) you would take those drug dealers off the corners right? So then there wouldn't be shootings on the corner right?


"No. It certainly isnt, however alcoholics often do cause problems in the workplace, be it from showing up late with a hangover, or drinking on the job. There are still drunk drivers on the road. Should we magnify this problem exponentially by having heroine addicts on the roadways and in the workplace where they're free to drive fork lifts and airplanes? To influence the minds of our youth?......

If addicts want help, it is available to them. I feel no need to justify what they;ve done to themselves by making their problem legal and supporting their uselesness. Legalizing would only create more users, and more addicts that would clearly negate any tax benefit you might have hoped for."

Alright we have made beer legal which causes problems and there is AA and other programs to help with that. Now who if they both do harm to your body why can one be legal and the other not (don't give me oh were gonna add more problems, we may and probably would) but if they both do the samething and around around the same level of bad why can one be legal and not the other? How can that one be "bad" and the other be acceptable. It not anyone persons right to say if something like pot is acceptable it would have to be done by vote, whats one more gonna do to society that already filled with "bad" things if it is legalized and limited to small amounts no biggy. And legalizing one thing wouldn't lead to others because coke and harder drugs are much more powerful.

 

[Silver]

Another if. People can grow their own plants, and choose to not drive. Legislation based on what someone might do is faulty. By that logic, we should ban all guns, because someone may shoot another person with one.

If you believe that some drugs should be illegal you have to be very hypocritical to ever drink a beer. All I'm asking for is a little consistency.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
Another if. People can grow their own plants, and choose to not drive. Legislation based on what someone might do is faulty. By that logic, we should ban all guns, because someone may shoot another person with one.

If you believe that some drugs should be illegal you have to be very hypocritical to ever drink a beer. All I'm asking for is a little consistency.

I dont drink beer or any other alchohol for that matter. I also do not use drugs (spare me the caffiene argument please).

Thats not to say that i never have.

Its just saddening to see people so adament about doing drugs like its the savior of man or something. I mean christ, they're no good for you, society or the human race, so whats the point of it all?
Cause people want to get high. Thats all.

Does getting high mean that much to you? It seems like it (based soley on your stance in this conversation)

How sad a life is that?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by johnny33fb
BurlySurly:
And legalizing one thing wouldn't lead to others because coke and harder drugs are much more powerful.

What the hell does that mean?

1st off about the McD's thing, cheeseburgers dont cause traffic accidents and destroy futures, so really, its not an accurate comparison I admit.
But since when did this argument become solely about Pot?
I think its about all drugs, but even if it werent. Pot still leads people on to other drugs. You've probably seen it as many times as i have. How can you argue that?
Anyway...legalizing pot would just set the stage for legalizing coke, the crack, then heroine and yada yada yada. Why one and not the other right? According to your little Beer logic.

 

[Silver]

Its just saddening to see people so adament about doing drugs like its the savior of man or something. I mean christ, they're no good for you, society or the human race, so whats the point of it all?
Cause people want to get high. Thats all.

It's not about getting high for myself at all. I can't remember the last time I've been high. I don't smoke marijuana, and I've never done hard drugs.

Like I've said, it's a issue of freedom to me. It's got nothing to do with drugs in particular, although drugs do make for a good talking point, I guess.

So let me repeat, for the last time: If someone wants to get high, and does it responsibly, why should you care? It's none of your business.

 

[johnny33fb]

BurlySurly:
"I dont drink beer or any other alchohol for that matter. I also do not use drugs (spare me the caffiene argument please).

Thats not to say that i never have.

Its just saddening to see people so adament about doing drugs like its the savior of man or something. I mean christ, they're no good for you, society or the human race, so whats the point of it all?
Cause people want to get high. Thats all.

Does getting high mean that much to you? It seems like it (based soley on your stance in this conversation)

How sad a life is that?"


I think silver said he didn't even use drugs (could be wrong on that) but i know i don't, the argument im making is that people like you are so damn adament about being hippocritical i mean how can you say oh yeah beer is fine but pot is not?? People in my mind want to fight because they believe that people not just them have that right and when you say no you can't then how the hell can you allow beer? I mean its contradicts so much. And getting high means so damn much because why shouldnt people have the same rights to use pot as beer if they can cause the same bodily affects? You try taking peoples rights away that they have been granted and yes they will put up an arguement thats why this country is so great.

 

[johnny33fb]

Originally posted by johnny33fb
BurlySurly:
And legalizing one thing wouldn't lead to others because coke and harder drugs are much more powerful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah sorry about that i didnt bother going back and proofreading.

Sure, it may lead to people doing harder drugs but it may not. I know way many more people that have not been led to harder drugs (at least not yet and maybe things are the other way around where you live i dunno) but doesn't beer lead to people doing pot? I know way more people that have started with beer and then gone to pot but they stop when they get to pot. No i dont think it will because the generally public doesn't want those harder drugs to be legal. And i dont see you saying beer should be illegal because its bringing talk of making pot legal.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by johnny33fb
BurlySurly:



I think silver said he didn't even use drugs (could be wrong on that) but i know i don't, the argument im making is that people like you are so damn adament about being hippocritical i mean how can you say oh yeah beer is fine but pot is not??

Exactly at what point did i say Beer was fine?

And exactly who are "people like me?"

Since Im so adament about being hipocritical and all, probably nothing i try to say will sink through your thick skull, but if you listen to any part of what I've been arguing about, try to remember that drugs are inherently bad. They're no good for anyone. So whats the point?
The laws now the make drugs illegal are a better option than actually making drugs legal. The problems Ive already listed should speak for themselves.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver


So let me repeat, for the last time: If someone wants to get high, and does it responsibly, why should you care? It's none of your business.

And i shall reiterate as well.

Because many people are not responsible enough and at that point it does become my business.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by johnny33fb


No i dont think it will because the generally public doesn't want those harder drugs to be legal. And i dont see you saying beer should be illegal because its bringing talk of making pot legal.

Check your figures...the general public doesnt want pot legalized either.

And....beer is legal right? What are we talking about now?