Originally posted by HK47
Observation: Drugs do ruin lives. They become dependant on the consumption of these toxins that they neither need nor really get actual "pleasure" from them. Rather they become a crutch.Reaction: We should decriminalize drugs and allow people to sell them just like alchahol, gambeling, or anything else people can become addicted to.
Statement: Human-beings are weak, pathetic creatures. And we would do good to segregate between the weakest of them by permitting them to intake drugs legitamately. That way, while they work 16 hours a day so they can snort cocaine the rest of the eight, we get more employees for less money, more jobs for those who are not complete idiots, and the warm fuzzy feeling that social darwinism brings.
The shit thing is, you went to see Terminator and thought "I will act like I'm a robot.". I can't think of anything more idiotic.
Although quite honestly, VVD had the idea before you.
No, really, he did.
-AC
Originally posted by HK47Oh my bad, I was unaware cocaine is the only drug in the world. You are the only idiot I see in this thread, guess you don't need drugs to be an idiot. Your an ignorant **** with zero knowledge on the subject of "drugs" which as said range from weed to paracetemol to anti depresants to heroin to coke to LEGAL!! YES THATS RIGHT LEGAL HIGHS!!!
Reaction:Name me ten people who were saved by cocaine.
Statement:
I'm not saying drugs should be illegal. I'm all for darwinsm.
I'm saying drugs are for idiots. And people who try to argue otherwise, are also idiots.
Originally posted by Magee
Oh my bad, I was unaware cocaine is the only drug in the world. You are the only idiot I see in this thread, guess you don't need drugs to be an idiot. Your an ignorant **** with zero knowledge on the subject of "drugs" which as said range from weed to paracetemol to anti depresants to heroin to coke to LEGAL!! YES THATS RIGHT LEGAL HIGHS!!!
Observation: You never answerd my demand, name me 10 people who have been saved from addictive drugs such as cocaine. Cocaine was an example. It can be any "hard-drug", I don't care.
Originally posted by HK47
Query: Are you done ranting?Observation: You never answerd my demand, name me 10 people who have been saved from addictive drugs such as cocaine. Cocaine was an example. It can be any "hard-drug", I don't care.
Are you in school? Have you taken how to present a persuasive piece of writing, far too far?
You're a knob, that's for sure.
Originally posted by HK47
Query: Are you done ranting?Observation: You never answerd my demand, name me 10 people who have been saved from addictive drugs such as cocaine. Cocaine was an example. It can be any "hard-drug", I don't care.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Does alcohol, tobacco or coffee save lives everyday? The issue of drugs not being some miraculous medicine means shit.
You were the one that pointed out that drugs saved lives. So now that I've called you on that assetment you runback to civil rights. Which i'm not arguing about.
Conclusion:
There is no point in debating with you. You're nothing but an ape who likes to hear himself talk.
Statement:
I stand by my conviction. Drugs should not be illegal, but they are useless and anybody who does them is a moron.
Originally posted by HK47
Statement:I stand by my conviction. Drugs should not be illegal, but they are useless and anybody who does them is a moron.
Query: what do you define as a drug?
Clarification: I don't mean which substances, I mean more generally, what are the properties of something that is a drug which you are referring to here?
Statement:
Something that is terribly addictive.
Something that serves as a very strong narcotic.
Something that when spoken of makes mothers, preists, and the government alike grow uncomfertable.
Something that will ultimately leading you to sucking cock to get more of.
Conclusion:
There, are couldn't make it much more defined then that. Are you done trying to be a subjectivist troll?
Originally posted by HK47
Statement:Something that is terribly addictive.
Something that serves as a very strong narcotic.
Something that when spoken of makes mothers, preists, and the government alike grow uncomfertable.
Something that will ultimately leading you to sucking cock to get more of.Conclusion:
There, are couldn't make it much more defined then that. Are you done trying to be a subjectivist troll?
nope, just a scientist
so, define addiction, define narcotic, explain why the subjective uncomfortability of anyone is relevent and why sucking cock is a bad thing?
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Shouldn't it be up to them, whether they want to take something that's addictive though? It's their body and their life, who are you to stick your nose in? EDIT: in response to HK47
there are scientific criteria for addiction, which imho are fairly accurate. Your argument is still very valid in many cases I am sure, however, one of the criteria is that one must continue to use a substance even after they report a desire to not use it.
I think I'm just messing with mr. 47. he is pretty far off the mark
Originally posted by inimalist
there are scientific criteria for addiction, which imho are fairly accurate. Your argument is still very valid in many cases I am sure, however, one of the criteria is that one must continue to use a substance even after they report a desire to not use it.I think I'm just messing with mr. 47. he is pretty far off the mark
Of course, yes the nature of addiction is very unpleasant. Though, should it not be like other phenomena in which if you choose to use drugs the consequences should be your responsibility, not the responsibility of the law to stop people doing them?
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Of course, yes the nature of addiction is very unpleasant. Though, should it not be like other phenomena in which if you choose to use drugs the consequences should be your responsibility, not the responsibility of the law to stop people doing them?
totally, I'd personally say it's unethical to treat anyone for anything against their will, addiction would be the same.
There are fairly well understood neurological properties of addiction, and all people will react differently to it. Best I can tell you is that in all cases of "mental problems", there cannot be a diognosis without there being severe imparement of social functioning in the individual. Basically, the only time that someone would even be diognosed (not treated) as addicted to something is when it came to the point where it was causing noticably negative impacts on their life.
The reprocussions of the actions are still on the individual, and yes, I personally believe for many reasons that those actions should be legal. My arguments would come, strangely enough, from economical and pragmatic reasons, rather than treatment or legal rights issues.
Originally posted by inimalist
nope, just a scientistso, define addiction, define narcotic, explain why the subjective uncomfortability of anyone is relevent and why sucking cock is a bad thing?
I predicted you would demand more definitions and ultimately ask me what was so bad about sucking cock for smack. Subjectivists are more predictable then a five year old.
Conclusion:
I don't have to answer the likes of anyone. Especialy not a troll who's just going to keep going around in circles. You show me you have something to say that's better then "define this, explain that" and I will treat you like an equal. Untill then you're just another stupid troll trying to act smart. And I have better people I could be talking too.