I'm scared to death and....
- Thread starter Grady
- Start date
pharaoh68
Banned
DelaWho??? said:The fact that farmers aren't killing each other makes my point......In other "less Civilized" societies people are routinely oppressed....
Are you worried about the slave laborer in china or the kid in the sweat shop making the shoes you wear or the mp3 player you're listening to? How about the diamond on your fiance's hand funding genocide in africa....You dictate working conditions around the world by purchasing.......just the same way as the american consumer and other consumers to a greater or lesser extent fuel the drug trade......just like the need for cheap labor drives the snake head to traffic in human life....
You're going to have to explain how making something a crime hasn't stopped demand nor consumption...Hasn't Prohibition of the 30's taught us that?
The only way to stop the drug trade is to curb demand and in my opinion if the gov't took all the funds spent on the drug war and diverted it to treatment and education we'd be a whole lot better off as a society. Isn't better to teach someone why something is bad rather than trying to prohibit it? Tell me why I should or shouldn't do something and then let me make my own decision and fact my own consequences.
In my opinion there isn't any difference between caffiene or cocaine HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) and alcohol they all alter our perception to one degree or another. It is in the nature of life to alter ones perception. Wildlife of all sorts do it, whether its birds eating fermented berries, cats and catnip, Elephants and monkeys eating fermented fruit and competing for it......I bet when you were little you spun around in circles to get dizzy.
Current drug laws were all put in place to control a segment of the population that society through prejudice deems some sort of a threat.....Opium first made illegal out in California to oppress the Chinese Minority....Marijuana to oppress the Latino subculture.....Cocaine first made illegal in Georgia because it was alleged that it caused Black men to rape white women.....
I don't think these are principles that formed this country. George Washington Produced 80,000 gallons of rye whiskey a year at Mount Vernon....
Thomas Jefferson Advocated the growing of hemp by all colonists including the India variety (as it was known then) for it's medicinal properties.
The Declaration of Independence is written on Hemp paper...although we don't know whether it was a byproduct of the drug or industrial (as it's now known)variety.
Many of the Patent Medicines of the 1800's were cannabis based......and most did what they were advertized to do...
If we don't know our history we are doomed to repeat it....After all the War on Poverty was a resounding success.....
McCue Banger McCue
And despite the fact that marijuana kills rapidly kills brain cells, deteriorates motor function over extended periods of time, and can lead to sterility is ok with you?
But I have to admit, I'm confused. At first, I thought you were for the legalization of drugs. Now it appears, you're against it. You want education not legal reform. But yet, you want weed to be legalized?
And finally, isn't this a discussion for the NPR forum?
pharaoh68 said:
Find a single credible scientific study that clearly demonstrates that cannabis does any of those things. Every one of them are false bits of political propaganda.
Cannabis does not kill brain cells. Nor does it slow down brain activity. (The Partnership For a Drug Free America was forced to pull a popular ad for making this false claim.)
It does not not cause motor function deterioration.
It does not lead to sterility.
Sundance Kid
Registered
There has been a lot of talk about the government, both past and present, this link below brings up a lot of very important points related to September 11. I urge all Americans to watch it, you owe it to those who pershired that sad day, and those who continue to pershire under that pretense of terror. Make your own opinions on it, but some of the scientific data cannot be ignored, please download it fully, I assure you all that it will leave you with more questions, and even answer some related to the Bush administration's foreign policy
http://www.loosechange911.com/
http://www.loosechange911.com/
ShootingArts said:
I have a problem with the "3 strikes" law or whatever it is called because I consider it Double Jeopardy. A clear violation of the 4th ammendment in the Bill of Rights. You do time for the crime. Not time for the crime then more time for the same crime.
As for harsher penalties. We have to be careful. In the 8th ammendment we can't impose excessive bail, fines, or cruel and unusual punishment.
I do feel that we need to be harsher on criminals. No tv at all. No room mate. You have just enough Food and Water to sustain your life. Nothing to make it taste better than a cardboard box.
When you do your time I also feel that you can get your gun back. And you can vote.
But for illegal immigrants and terrorists at our military prisons. I don't believe they should be granted due process. Nor the protections granted to us by our constitution.
I'm going to say this one last time
Drugs are Drugs they are all mood altering to one degree or another and please don't start again about some oppressed peasant somewhere I think that has been adequately addressed.
I think it's wrong that an 18 yr old can join the military, fight and maybe die for his/her country but they can't buy a beer......If they are adult enough to come to this decision of service then they are responsible to make a decision about a beer....
I think that ALL drugs should be legal and regulated......that's achievable because the gov't gets a piece of the pie in taxes.....Just like tobacco and alcohol or gasoline for that matter upon which the gov't makes more in tax revenue than the company producing the product....
So if it's all legal are you going to run out and shoot up tomorrow? Neither will I. The point I was making is that prohibition doesn't work so why not divert the money spent on the drug war to treatment and education which has been shown to work.....Ever Heard of Nancy Reagan and "Just Say No"? This program actually worked and drug use by teens dropped significantly during the program....
As to the "dangers" of Marijuana......well studies show that inhaling any burning plant matter isn't the healthiest thing to do. Recent studies however have shown marijuana has cancer fighting properties and that smoked cannabis may not have the cancer causing properties of tobacco. GW Pharmacuticals has 2 cannabis based products available in the EU and Canada that are inhalable vapor THC/CBN the 2 most prevailant compounds in marijuana for the treatment of MS
Marijuana may also hold the keys to weight loss, altzheimers and a variety of other illnesses....Unfortunately most of this research is happening overseas because the US gov't has decided that Marijuana has no medical value....Seems scientists should make this call not politicians....
This debate has run it's course and obviously there are those who want to control the behavior of others and those who want to be free to make their own decisions....
McCue Banger McCue
Drugs are Drugs they are all mood altering to one degree or another and please don't start again about some oppressed peasant somewhere I think that has been adequately addressed.
I think it's wrong that an 18 yr old can join the military, fight and maybe die for his/her country but they can't buy a beer......If they are adult enough to come to this decision of service then they are responsible to make a decision about a beer....
I think that ALL drugs should be legal and regulated......that's achievable because the gov't gets a piece of the pie in taxes.....Just like tobacco and alcohol or gasoline for that matter upon which the gov't makes more in tax revenue than the company producing the product....
So if it's all legal are you going to run out and shoot up tomorrow? Neither will I. The point I was making is that prohibition doesn't work so why not divert the money spent on the drug war to treatment and education which has been shown to work.....Ever Heard of Nancy Reagan and "Just Say No"? This program actually worked and drug use by teens dropped significantly during the program....
As to the "dangers" of Marijuana......well studies show that inhaling any burning plant matter isn't the healthiest thing to do. Recent studies however have shown marijuana has cancer fighting properties and that smoked cannabis may not have the cancer causing properties of tobacco. GW Pharmacuticals has 2 cannabis based products available in the EU and Canada that are inhalable vapor THC/CBN the 2 most prevailant compounds in marijuana for the treatment of MS
Marijuana may also hold the keys to weight loss, altzheimers and a variety of other illnesses....Unfortunately most of this research is happening overseas because the US gov't has decided that Marijuana has no medical value....Seems scientists should make this call not politicians....
This debate has run it's course and obviously there are those who want to control the behavior of others and those who want to be free to make their own decisions....
McCue Banger McCue
I don't know that it's *tobacco* itself that is the cause of smoking-related cancers - it may well be it's the *additives* that tobacco companies put into their cigarettes that are the cause (or primary cause).
And with marijuana, generally there are no additives - unless you count the additives in the snack foods consumed shortly after smoking it.
I can't say one way or the other - I'm just laying possibilities out there.
And with marijuana, generally there are no additives - unless you count the additives in the snack foods consumed shortly after smoking it.
I can't say one way or the other - I'm just laying possibilities out there.
third felony?
Chris,
What part of third felony did you miss? Most "victimless" crimes are anything but that anyway. When the prostitute gets aids she doesn't have major medical to cover it, our tax dollars do. When the dope user doesn't take care of his family or her family, once again society does. Your so called victimless crimes cost billions a year and that comes straight out of our pockets.
If you prefer smaller governmental agencies or individuals administering justice to a central power I have absolutely no problem with that either. I am a fan of individual and state's rights. However when you think that only the lawless should have rights then I have a problem. One person's rights end right where another person's begins. If you want to legalize all of your so called "victimless" crimes the first step is to outlaw all of our socialist programs and let victims of these "victimless" crimes survive or die without intervention from our government funded by the productive members of society. As long as we have to be the victims that are footing the bill for these "victimless" crimes then we should have every right to try to curb them.
I truly don't care if a person chooses to get ran over or kill themselves with speed or other drugs as long as they don't leave dependents behind for us to support. However that is rarely the case. I am looking at third and fourth generation problems all related to the original irresponsible ancestor. That is what happens in the real world.
Hu
PS That was a twisted old lecher that you chose to quote.
Chris,
What part of third felony did you miss? Most "victimless" crimes are anything but that anyway. When the prostitute gets aids she doesn't have major medical to cover it, our tax dollars do. When the dope user doesn't take care of his family or her family, once again society does. Your so called victimless crimes cost billions a year and that comes straight out of our pockets.
If you prefer smaller governmental agencies or individuals administering justice to a central power I have absolutely no problem with that either. I am a fan of individual and state's rights. However when you think that only the lawless should have rights then I have a problem. One person's rights end right where another person's begins. If you want to legalize all of your so called "victimless" crimes the first step is to outlaw all of our socialist programs and let victims of these "victimless" crimes survive or die without intervention from our government funded by the productive members of society. As long as we have to be the victims that are footing the bill for these "victimless" crimes then we should have every right to try to curb them.
I truly don't care if a person chooses to get ran over or kill themselves with speed or other drugs as long as they don't leave dependents behind for us to support. However that is rarely the case. I am looking at third and fourth generation problems all related to the original irresponsible ancestor. That is what happens in the real world.
Hu
PS That was a twisted old lecher that you chose to quote.
Chris said:
First off. Benjamin Franklin is one of the few reasons we have the ability to talk like this.
Drug users and prostitutes do cost taxpayers money. But because of our socialist programs they cost us money anyways. If we legalized prostitution and drug use we would gain tax revenue to help pay for it.
I want to get rid of social programs and if the prostitute gets a STD and dies then so be it. It was her decision. Evolution all the way, Rock On!!! And it would finally trully be a "Victimless" crime. The actions of drug users may not be victimless but an armed citizen can fix that easy.
Let the stupid die. Because you can't fix stupid.
Drug users and prostitutes do cost taxpayers money. But because of our socialist programs they cost us money anyways. If we legalized prostitution and drug use we would gain tax revenue to help pay for it.
I want to get rid of social programs and if the prostitute gets a STD and dies then so be it. It was her decision. Evolution all the way, Rock On!!! And it would finally trully be a "Victimless" crime. The actions of drug users may not be victimless but an armed citizen can fix that easy.
Let the stupid die. Because you can't fix stupid.
we agree on pretty much everything, however . . .
Smittie,
We agree on pretty much everything and I suspect that what little we seem at odds on politically would be ironed out in five minutes of talk face to face.
However I will probably hurt your feelings a bit about ol' Ben and our founding fathers. Most had huge feet of clay: Ben Franklin, an old lecher who wasn't picky who or what he went to bed with as long as they were young. John Paul Jones, another man of low morals. Paul Revere, all he had was good PR. He only rode a couple miles while another man barely remembered rode over twenty to actually spread the warning that night. Paul stole designs and was involved in many shady business practices. Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death!": Great words but he was only parroting what at least two others had said before him, the earliest quote on record had absolutely nothing to do with America. Jefferson? Another who slept with other men's wives, slaves, anything he could top. George W? Fairs better than most of the bunch however he chose a rich widow to marry for her money and he came close to bankrupting the united states once he was president through his extravagant lifestyle that same as always, other people were paying for even then.
Few of our founding fathers escape a closer scrutiny unblemished. They were bold and daring men that truly put their lives, their fortunes if they had one, and their honor, sacred or otherwise, on the line. However as might be expected of revolutionaries and people that would be given a harsher name today, many were rascals or far worse. I actually think the real picture of our fondling fathers, eerr, founding fathers makes what they accomplished even more amazing. Most of them behaved heroically at one time or another but could hardly be considered heroes that you would want your children to emulate.
Hu
smittie1984 said:
Smittie,
We agree on pretty much everything and I suspect that what little we seem at odds on politically would be ironed out in five minutes of talk face to face.
However I will probably hurt your feelings a bit about ol' Ben and our founding fathers. Most had huge feet of clay: Ben Franklin, an old lecher who wasn't picky who or what he went to bed with as long as they were young. John Paul Jones, another man of low morals. Paul Revere, all he had was good PR. He only rode a couple miles while another man barely remembered rode over twenty to actually spread the warning that night. Paul stole designs and was involved in many shady business practices. Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death!": Great words but he was only parroting what at least two others had said before him, the earliest quote on record had absolutely nothing to do with America. Jefferson? Another who slept with other men's wives, slaves, anything he could top. George W? Fairs better than most of the bunch however he chose a rich widow to marry for her money and he came close to bankrupting the united states once he was president through his extravagant lifestyle that same as always, other people were paying for even then.
Few of our founding fathers escape a closer scrutiny unblemished. They were bold and daring men that truly put their lives, their fortunes if they had one, and their honor, sacred or otherwise, on the line. However as might be expected of revolutionaries and people that would be given a harsher name today, many were rascals or far worse. I actually think the real picture of our fondling fathers, eerr, founding fathers makes what they accomplished even more amazing. Most of them behaved heroically at one time or another but could hardly be considered heroes that you would want your children to emulate.
Hu
Considering most of them where between the ages of 18-20 I would be delighted if my kids accomplished that much by that age. Most kids that age now adays can't decide wether to buy Natural Light or Keystone light.
I don't care that they had mistress'. That has nothing to do with the threadwork of our country.
Benjamin Franklin also helped us win the Revolutionary War by using his charm and social skills to persuade France to help fund and fight our war. Considering many of France's decisions of the day (If not today) where often decided over socials. Sleeping with beautiful young women came with the territory. Something I'm sure many of you older men would never do if given the chance and brad pitt like status.
Founding fathers have faults and skeletons in the closet. But find me someone living today who doesn't I'll kiss their bare butt in the county square and give them an hour to draw a crowd.
I don't care that they had mistress'. That has nothing to do with the threadwork of our country.
Benjamin Franklin also helped us win the Revolutionary War by using his charm and social skills to persuade France to help fund and fight our war. Considering many of France's decisions of the day (If not today) where often decided over socials. Sleeping with beautiful young women came with the territory. Something I'm sure many of you older men would never do if given the chance and brad pitt like status.
Founding fathers have faults and skeletons in the closet. But find me someone living today who doesn't I'll kiss their bare butt in the county square and give them an hour to draw a crowd.
I'll call you on that one
How many of the people mentioned were between eighteen and twenty? How many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were between the ages of eighteen and twenty? How old was Ben when he went to France? While asking questions about Ben, how many of us that are male would sleep with young men regardless of our Brad Pitt like status?
The men we respect as our founding fathers were men who had already established themselves in life, not the eighteen to twenty year olds you imagine them to have been.
There are plenty of biographies and autobiographies about the the founders of our country and many books about the time period. They make interesting reading but if you delve into the facts you will be forced to take the rose colored glasses off. Another bit of trivia: Are you aware that George Washington was a tory who didn't want to break with england up until fighting actually broke out and he had to make a choice? He led the revolutionary army because he had been the hero of several campaigns and engagements, while in the english army of course.
Our allies the french had been our bitter enemies before siding with us to weaken england's power and of course we stabbed them in the back by making a separate peace with england. Without this bit of duplicity it is very doubtful that the US would exist today. Until that point the colonies were seen as pawns in the struggle between superpowers england, france, and spain. We still were for many years but without that beginning and a claim we made then to much land that no europeans occupied it is doubtful that the colonies would have survived and formed an independent nation.
Hu
smittie1984 said:
How many of the people mentioned were between eighteen and twenty? How many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were between the ages of eighteen and twenty? How old was Ben when he went to France? While asking questions about Ben, how many of us that are male would sleep with young men regardless of our Brad Pitt like status?
The men we respect as our founding fathers were men who had already established themselves in life, not the eighteen to twenty year olds you imagine them to have been.
There are plenty of biographies and autobiographies about the the founders of our country and many books about the time period. They make interesting reading but if you delve into the facts you will be forced to take the rose colored glasses off. Another bit of trivia: Are you aware that George Washington was a tory who didn't want to break with england up until fighting actually broke out and he had to make a choice? He led the revolutionary army because he had been the hero of several campaigns and engagements, while in the english army of course.
Our allies the french had been our bitter enemies before siding with us to weaken england's power and of course we stabbed them in the back by making a separate peace with england. Without this bit of duplicity it is very doubtful that the US would exist today. Until that point the colonies were seen as pawns in the struggle between superpowers england, france, and spain. We still were for many years but without that beginning and a claim we made then to much land that no europeans occupied it is doubtful that the colonies would have survived and formed an independent nation.
Hu
O
onepocketchump
Guest
Colin Colenso said:You'd win your bet Jeff
There are bad laws regarding the licenses / regulations of business that interfere with their proper role as competitive and responsible providers of goods and services, and large corporations are well known for lobbying congress toward regulations and state actions that would benefit them at the expense of competitors via the use of the states force.
No one can rule anyone else if they simply offer voluntary transactions. Corporate rule is an old and vaccuous socialist catchcry. There is vast confusion about the differences between the almost imaginary pro-corporate capitalist materialist and the true defenders of free markets and liberty.
It reminds me of the analogy of one who gives to the beggar out of compassion, mistaking all those that do not as doing so out of greed and lack of compassion, not recognizing that some of those who do not give to the beggar, do so with the knowledge that it actually enslaves the beggar further, by giving him further incentive to rely on his begging ways.
Hey, I give to begars to feed my ego.
Actually, it is not my repsonsibility to determine for the beggar what course his life should take. No one is "enslaved" by things they can change. Slavery is a very strong term which means the forced servitude of one human being to another. I cannot enlsave myself.
If I am asked for something then it is my choice to grant it or refuse it. I do this for my own personal reasons, which may be greed, compassion, trust/mistrust etc...
If we are going to have this type of discourse then let's be careful how and why we use the terms we do.
John
Only scanned this thread but it did start off so well!
Luckily for this debate (but not for the poor residents!) we do actually have a country without a goverment to compare what it would be like. Somalia is the only country in the world without a government and it has been like this since 1991: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1072592.stm
Not a very pretty picture.
However having said that I am very much against prohibition, even though I have never been a drug user myself (Not counting beer of course! ). Any adult should be allowed to do to themselves as they see fit as long as it doesn't harm or affect anybody else.
I first came across Cocaine use when I visited NYC for the first time in 1994, 10 years later it has penatrated small town England and much of the western world. It is destroying lives as is heroin and other class A drugs so obviously the fact that it has been illegal for all this time has been a spectacular failure.
The pub opening hours in the UK until recently where quite draconian, with most bars only opening between 11am-11pm. When the laws where changed allowing pubs to open until as late as 4 with some having 24 hour licenses people where fearing the worst. People wouldn't be able to control themselves, they would be fighting in the streets, drink driving, running around naked, generally the end of the world was nigh.
Of course it never happened, the first night of extended hours was just like any other according to many of the police forces and A&E facilities around the country. Just like the "government" predicted people no longer had to binge drink and (shock horror) adults where actually able to control themselves!
Just some food for thought...
PS
Colin did you know that approx 40-50% of ALL significant inventions and innovations have come out of the UK!
Luckily for this debate (but not for the poor residents!) we do actually have a country without a goverment to compare what it would be like. Somalia is the only country in the world without a government and it has been like this since 1991: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1072592.stm
Not a very pretty picture.
However having said that I am very much against prohibition, even though I have never been a drug user myself (Not counting beer of course!
). Any adult should be allowed to do to themselves as they see fit as long as it doesn't harm or affect anybody else. I first came across Cocaine use when I visited NYC for the first time in 1994, 10 years later it has penatrated small town England and much of the western world. It is destroying lives as is heroin and other class A drugs so obviously the fact that it has been illegal for all this time has been a spectacular failure.
The pub opening hours in the UK until recently where quite draconian, with most bars only opening between 11am-11pm. When the laws where changed allowing pubs to open until as late as 4 with some having 24 hour licenses people where fearing the worst. People wouldn't be able to control themselves, they would be fighting in the streets, drink driving, running around naked, generally the end of the world was nigh.
Of course it never happened, the first night of extended hours was just like any other according to many of the police forces and A&E facilities around the country. Just like the "government" predicted people no longer had to binge drink and (shock horror) adults where actually able to control themselves!
Just some food for thought...
PS
Colin did you know that approx 40-50% of ALL significant inventions and innovations have come out of the UK!
Of course we also have the Netherlands to compare with when considering a state that doesn't have quite so much prohibition of say the US or UK (although I think Plutonium bombs are still illegal in Holland!
))
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm
))http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm