ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:00 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2002 3:10 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
Kitsune, drug dealers are total, complete scumbags, and I wouldn't mind ever last one of them getting their asses kicked. There was this one kid in my school, he could have made something of himself - but then he realized he could get rich selling drugs. He had an IQ of one hundred fucking SIXTY-THREE, spoke three languages, but realized that he could make more money selling drugs and getting stoned all of the time than in actually attending class. He's become a parasite of society. He dropped out Sophomore year. 'Course, that might have been the drugs, too. Hmmm... Not sure what to make of this.

_________________
All power corrupts. Absolute power is even more fun!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2002 4:57 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
still, statistics don't push it for me one way or the other, i know how bad they are at representing any kind of reality, the only part of the last 3+ years of uni that i've failed was the class on quantative statistical analysis (in Human Sciences) because is didnt' do any of the work for it, because it's all lies.

but anyway, back on topic and aside from my view that (in a horribly classic anarchist way) all problems stem from law and power relations in society, i have to go with the freedom to chose argument, put sales laws on ages (like smokes/alcohol) then after that, if you buy and smoke so much you get lung cancer or become a sad stoner, hey, you paid your money, took your chances

really i find any law patronising (calm, calm) but ones that are there to do nothing but protect us from a clear and present (fun) danger, pah i say to them

take out the dealer element to stop (or at least lower) the availability of harder drugs (assuming they say off the legal menu) and what do you have left? The Man telling you you're not allowed to do something because it's bad for you, slapped wrists all round, go to bed without any munchies.

i don't need someone to hold my hand when i cross the road.

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2002 5:41 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
Quote:
On 2002-10-23 13:16, Pyromancer wrote:
Quote:
On 2002-10-23 12:32, tychoseven wrote:
Anybody who tells you marijuana isn't addictive either hasn't smoked it or is lying to themselves. The euphoria is a part of it, but the substance itself is still addictive.


Perhaps I should amend this to: "Anyone who tells you marijuana isn't addictive either hasn't smoked it <b>enough</b> or is lying to themselves."

Quote:
That's funny. I smoked it for eight months my freshman year of college, then stopped cold, for reasons which don't really have any bearing on this debate, with no cravings or noticable side effects. That doesn't seem to fit the definition of "addictive" to me; at the very most, the effects were mild enough that I didn't notice them, which amounts to the same thing.

Maybe I just have more willpower than everyone else, but considering my addiction to (for example) Internet message boards, I find that kind of unlikely.

P-M

-><-


Every substance affects everybody differently. It just may take longer for you to get addicted due to your individual chemical makeup. Some people are more resistant to chemical addiction than others. As far as psychological addiction, it's just that. You can let it affect you or you can move on and not let it bother you. Marijuana "withdrawal" is also ridiculously mild for the majority of people.


EDIT: It also depends on how frequently you smoked. If you were getting high twice a month for 8 months, it's not surprising that you had no problems quitting. If you were smoking twice a day, for 8 months, I would be extremely skeptical if you said you had no withdrawal.
_________________
A new reality is better than a new movie...
<img src=http://crimethinc.com/downloadsgraphics/preview/bullet.jpg>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tychoseven on 2002-10-23 17:43 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tychoseven on 2002-10-24 11:38 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 7:23 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2752
Location: South of the equator
Sorry, I keep reading this as "Should Marijuana be DECIMALISED"

And I think, yeah, after all, how are you supposed to understand all that Ounce shit when you're stoned??

_________________
UWC: Onion doesn't trust me.

Onion: That's because you're a shifty motherfucker.

UWC: <.<

>.>

<.<

Onion: Fucking precisely you dirty thieving gypsy fuck.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 8:32 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
Quote:
On 2002-10-24 07:23, Urban Wild Cat wrote:
Sorry, I keep reading this as "Should Marijuana be DECIMALISED"

And I think, yeah, after all, how are you supposed to understand all that Ounce shit when you're stoned??


Glad to see you're back, UWC.
No kidding, the metric system is way better. For everything, not just drugs. Stubborn Americans and our "inches" and "ounces." Who came up with that idea?
Go Metric!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tychoseven on 2002-10-24 08:35 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 8:35 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
I'm no anarchist, but I think that the government should just stay out of it.

I mean, to legalize pot you have to pass a law, right? And if it's a bill, there's bound to be more than just a measure to legalize the damn stuff in the bill.

So the government should stay out of it. With all the stupid buraeucratic crap going on every day, anything they have to do with it is bound to turn out horribly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 11:49 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
I agree, the gov't should mind their own business. However, it is because of the government that marijuana is illegal to begin with, so it's up to them to change it. Somebody might try to sneak something else in that we may not like, but they can do that with any bill. Does that mean we should stop passing laws because some unwanted piece of legislation <b>could</b> be included?

On a side note, I would like to thank you for being a solid debater and not using lame arguments like "It isn't moral to use drugs so we shouldn't legalize pot." I still would debate, it just wouldn't be as fun. So thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:00 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
Despite the fact that that's my opinion, it wouldn't hold up in a debate anyway, so I never would have used it anyway.

I know better than to bring opinions into a debate. Personalizing issues will never make a debate turn out well.

Back to the debate . . .

No, I don't believe we should stop laws. It's an improbable and highly risky course of action. however, it is a choice of the lesser evils vs. a bigger one. With a bill to legalize marijauna, many other legislations dealing with sale, possession, tax, etc. could be passed. Control of such level would be worse than any amount of the pork already put into bills.

I just don't think it's a very good idea to legalize pot, and I've done my best to argue that point rationally.

As far as I've seen, pot makes your attention span suffer, and your grades suffer as a result. Then your grades slip and as a result you drop out of school. Then you're a drifter on the streets. But, of course, you won't care, because you're still happy from your last euphoria. So no, I'd rather not let this happen to anybody. My worry is that this is what will happen if pot IS legalized.

Granted, that's a worst-case scenario, but when it comes to legal issues I believ it's best to prepare for the worst scenario possible so you can handle every situation that comes down the line.

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:25 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
Quote:
On 2002-10-24 12:00, Kitsune1527 wrote:
Despite the fact that that's my opinion, it wouldn't hold up in a debate anyway, so I never would have used it anyway.

I know better than to bring opinions into a debate. Personalizing issues will never make a debate turn out well.


And I commend your decision to do so. I knew you felt that way, so I was glad to see that you used other arguments instead.

Quote:
Back to the debate . . .

No, I don't believe we should stop laws. It's an improbable and highly risky course of action. however, it is a choice of the lesser evils vs. a bigger one. With a bill to legalize marijauna, many other legislations dealing with sale, possession, tax, etc. could be passed. Control of such level would be worse than any amount of the pork already put into bills.


It's like that with tobacco. I think that simply putting pot under existing laws concerning sale, posession, and taxation of tobacco would work out quite well.

Quote:
I just don't think it's a very good idea to legalize pot, and I've done my best to argue that point rationally.

As far as I've seen, pot makes your attention span suffer, and your grades suffer as a result. Then your grades slip and as a result you drop out of school. Then you're a drifter on the streets.

It <b>can</b> do all these things to people <b>if</b> they abuse it. The same thing can happen with alcohol, but it's legal. If you want to outlaw drugs based on potential for abuse, we've got alot of work to do. Almost any drug (prescription or otherwise) can mess up people's lives. As I said before, it isn't the drug that's the problem, it's the abuse.

Quote:
But, of course, you won't care, because you're still happy from your last euphoria. So no, I'd rather not let this happen to anybody. My worry is that this is what will happen if pot IS legalized.


I haven't smoked marijuana in 7 months. Any euphoria I feel now isn't going to be related.

I'd prefer that nobody waste their lives either. But ultimately that decision is up to the individual, and you or I cannot stop them if they choose to abuse marijuana. Making it legal won't turn us into a nation of stoners, because there are plenty of people (like yourself) who will chose not to smoke it. Alcohol is legal, and not everybody drinks it. Cigarettes are legal, and not everybody smokes. It's up to the individual. All legalization does is let people decide without legal penalties.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:40 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Kitsune is in the classic paradox of an ultra-conservative.

They hate giving the government more power, but they want to enforce their own morality on everyone for the 'betterment of all.'

No thank you, sir. I personally don't smoke pot and probably won't in the foreseeable future, but it is still my choice. Not yours, not my neighbors, not the government's. Maijuana possession being a crime is as stupid as making it a crime to own a gun, and just as robbing of personal liberty.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:43 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Well said, KC.

P-M

-><-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 1:21 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
I never said I wanted the government to enforce my opinions on everyone else.

Gah . . . Anyway, I'm a conservative, not a libertarian, dammit . . . the difference is I will sanction the government if it's enforcing moral conduct. (Because I believe morality exists and is based off an absolute, so to any moral relativists out there, this is not an issue I'm going to argue about. You either think there are absolutes or there aren't, and either way I don't think a relativist's opinion's worth shit. So don't even try that "whatever's best for them" shit on me.) Most government restrictions are bad, yes, but some of them are good. My beef is that the government doesn't know when to stop restricting things, not that it restricts things period.

Lesser evils versus bigger ones. Bad things can and are madfe into something good. I don't like government butting its head into my business, but if I believe it's the right thing to do, I'll let them. (There are limits I expect the government to follow, though, so don't even bother asking me "where will they stop then? all they have to do is justify their actions in some way" because that isn't possible in a democracy. And don't you dare use the war on terror for an example, we're not overstretching our boundaries--in times of war, sometimes these things happen.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 2:14 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Quote:
On 2002-10-24 13:21, conservative cabbage Kitsune1527 wrote:
I never said I wanted the government to enforce my opinions on everyone else.

Gah . . . Anyway, I'm a conservative, not a libertarian, dammit . . . the difference is I will sanction the government if it's enforcing moral conduct. (Because I believe morality exists and is based off an absolute, so to any moral relativists out there, this is not an issue I'm going to argue about. (whiny my-way-or-no-way shit snipped. --ed)) Most government restrictions are bad, yes, but some of them are good. My beef is that the government doesn't know when to stop restricting things, not that it restricts things period.


I don't get it. First you say that you don't want the government to impose your opinions on everyone else, then you turn around and say that you support moral policing by the government.

Okay. You're a moral absolutist, so you think the government should enforce those moral absolutes and leave everything else alone. I have my own idea of what those moral absolutes are (since I, too, can't stand moral relativism), but let's not get into that right now. Thing is, you haven't given us any idea of what those absolutes are, nor any defense of them; all you've given us is a statement along the lines of "I know I'm right, so stop arguing with me". That ain't no good. This is Debate Club, not Preaching Club; give me some arguments for your position, or shut the fuck up.

We're agreed on your statement about government restrictions; unfortunately, that statement is so general that it could be used to "support" almost anything.

Quote:
Lesser evils versus bigger ones. Bad things can [be] and are [made] into something good. I don't like government butting its head into my business, but if I believe it's the right thing to do, I'll let them. (There are limits I expect the government to follow, though, so don't even bother asking me "where will they stop then? all they have to do is justify their actions in some way" because that isn't possible in a democracy. And don't you dare use the war on terror for an example, we're not overstretching our boundaries--in times of war, sometimes these things happen.)


What evils? What business? What limits? All you're giving us is more hopelessly nebulous statements; trying to argue with them is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall, but they're still meaningless.

P-M

-><-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 2:37 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
Lesser evil-Government enforcing the laws in the Constitution, even if they're the ones enforcing it.

Bigger evil-Government using its power to mess around inside someone else's body, a la the Roe v. Wade decision.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 2:42 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 458
It's a fact of life that governments become corrupt and are eventually overthrown by new governments which promise to correct the problems of oppression upon the populace, or descends into anarchy. There is no way to keep the government in check, Kitsume. If we have no regulations, we have anarchy. If we have strict, forceful regulations, the people will rebel. The only way a government can survive is if it has laws that are in line with the average persons MORAL code. That's where the moral relativism comes in - if you apply YOUR moral code to everyone, it forments dissent amoung those with unlike values. The only reason our government has survived so long is that there is a heavy degree of moral relativism built into the structure of the government of the United states - The government purposely tries to keep religion seperate from the state, and allows minority groups to have a voice in government, no matter what the moral stance. However, with the recent infringments upon the press by the United States government, the country begins to obtain an absolutist moral agenda. Unless this trend is reversed I fear for the future of the United States as we know it. That is why I favor the legalization of Pot - the constant disinformation about the dangers of pot, and the constant propaganda and idiocy spewed to our high school students is symptomatic of a repressed free press. How could so many people believe that pot is as bad as the government says it is? It completely boggles the mind.

_________________
All power corrupts. Absolute power is even more fun!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 2:46 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Simple. The collective IQ of a group varies inversely with its size. Any group as large as the combined United States is going to be pretty moronic.

P-M

-><-

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pyromancer on 2002-10-24 14:46 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 4:12 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Again, Kitsune, you're being a fucking moron. You want to be able to own a gun because its 'your right' to kill someone in self defense- but I can't get high, and I can't have an abortion (heh...!) because I am too morally bankrupt to agree with you?

The presumption here is that you are moral and I, the filthy heathen, am not. Therefore, you, with your idiotic morals, must come in and impose them on me.

I am sorry, but this is just idiotic. First off, the government (all of them, including ones run 'by the people', icy)is corrupt, whatever incarnation you have of it. Power is inherintly corrupting, no matter whos hands you put it in. Therefore, I would like my government to be in the hands of a small group who has to answer to the people, and for the government itself to have as little overall enforcing power as possible.

Laws regulating what you can do with your own body are idiotic. Its like putting someone in jail for a failed suicide. If you're going to be dumb and ignorant and claim you don't like abortion because of your religion, go ahead- but don't bitch to me when I get an abortion because I ascribe to a different belief system.

Additionally, choose- more government or less. Government regulating what you can and cannot own and do to yourself or not. You cannot claim to be republican and support drug regulation, or say you're republican and then be against abortion. Morally, you can, but as a republican, you cannot claim it as a party line.

Its contradictory to the ideals of a republican anyway. I am myself, and I should be allowed to do anything that doesn't effect anything but MYSELF- republicans should be rabidly opposing the criminalization of marijuana, because god damn it, ITS YOUR OWN FUCKING BODY, NOT SOMEONE ELSE'S.

I'm irritated, I know. I hate to see biggotry in anyone, especially people who claim to adhere to my own party line.

-Kills Commies
"Still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all of the odds against you and only a precious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 4:30 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
Very well then. If that's the party line, I just made myself an independent.

So screw it. I don't care anymore. I've had my say, I've argued about it, and I'm not gonna change anyone's mind. So I'm outta here. These debates can go on indefinitely for all I care now.

See you elsewhere.

And, when it comes around . . .

Have a nice apocalypse, in both senses of the word.

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 7:11 pm 
Offline
Native

Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 535
Location: Kentucky. Yeah, keep laughing...
The only problem with the "its my own body" argument is that you could very easily cause another bodily harm whilst under the influence. One's ability to drive well under the influence of marijuana is questionable at best, though it is much less dangerous than driving drunk. Legislation prohibiting driving (and operating heavy machinery!) while stoned might be a partial solution to this problem.

I really am getting tired of the backwards goddamn laws in this country, if only there was somplace else to go...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 11:04 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Quote:
On 2002-10-24 14:37, Kitsune1527 wrote:
Bigger evil-Government using its power to mess around inside someone else's body, a la the Roe v. Wade decision.


I don't quite see the logic here.

Roe v. Wade was not about the government using its power to "mess around inside somebody's body". Quite the contrary, in fact. Do you not agree that preventing mothers from aborting their children would be active interference with the mother's body, while the absence of such a law would not be?

No, of course not. You're a Christian cabbage, and a rather vocal one to boot.

Ah, fuck it. Read the first, ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, then get back to me. Or don't, if you just want to do some more preaching.

P-M

-><-


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group