**** you, war on drugs
Posted by Lord of Spamhttp://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp
Thanks to the idiotic and increasingly unamerican war on drugs, it is now illegal to carry large sums of money while driving.
Posted by ArcadiosAmerica just got gayer. :(
When will it stop?
Posted by Roger SmithSince debit cards don't count, I'm good. The most cash I've ever had on me was like $230.
Posted by Aioros
Quoting : It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity
[COLOR="Yellow"]F[COLOR="Yellow"]U[/COLOR]CK!
No evidence of drugs, no history of drug possesion, fu[COLOR="Yellow"]c[/COLOR]king nothing! Did it ever occur to anybody that maybe the smell of rental car could have been what activaded the dog's sense? So many people rent cars every day, one of which could have been a simple giggling teenage pothead, who left a smell in the car. I'm not saying i know for sure that the man is innocent since i don't know all the details about the story. But just the fact that evidence was overthrown because they didn't agree with it gets me upset and just so. . . ugh.[/COLOR]
Posted by PhilsdadI love the fact that this law sets no standard for what would be considered a large sum of money, leaving it solely to some cop's discretion (or do I?)
This will lead to all kinds of abuse and corruption. I can picture some teenager getting pulled over and a cop finding 3 or 4 hundred bucks on him. Rather than assume this kid might have a job, he says "no teenager should need to carry around that kind of money, this is suspicious!" and off we go. This law is just going to waste more time in the already useless drug war.
Posted by ArwonI can't help but notice that his name was Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez. I don't wanna jump on the "Nebraska is full of backwards retards" bandwagon but somehow I doubt this'd be an issue if it was Steven Smith or Tim Elliot who was pulled over.
Posted by PocoWar on drugs more like Bu$h'$ War
Posted by SladeOh go watch the news.
Philsdad brings up a good point, though. "Large sum" needs to be defined to the penny to attempt to avoid more problems.
The whole idea is retarded.
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireI only carry cash on me. Which is usually upwards of 200 bux if I got it. Good thing I live in Canada! Either way, this is incredibly retarded. How does having a lot of money prove any sort of intent? What kind of biases will arise of this? Hell, will it even be enforced? Doubt it.
Posted by IrisThe guy had 125k on him. I'd say it's pretty suspicous to be carrying that much money on you. If he's got a legitimate reason as to why, then there shouldn't be a fuss. Still, I think having about 20k or more with you is means for questioning, since most people would write a check if they're spending such a large about of money legally.
Posted by ArwonHe had a legitimate reason and no reason or evidence for his story not checking out.
Posted by SpeedfreakJesus, I thought the UKs lack of freedom was bad. At least ours only affects geniune criminals :-/
Posted by Sapphire RoseWell now, this is just about the most retarded thing I've ever seen.
I for one, like to carry around cash. And if they tell me I'm doing something because I just cashed my check.....
Well, I'd like to say that I'd give them a reason to send me to jail, but I'd just ***** and moan about it for a while.
Posted by Stalolin[quote=Vampiro]I only carry cash on me. Which is usually upwards of 200 bux if I got it. Good thing I live in Canada! Either way, this is incredibly retarded. How does having a lot of money prove any sort of intent? What kind of biases will arise of this? Hell, will it even be enforced? Doubt it.
If a cop knows about it and sees an oppurtunity then it's got potential to be enforced.
Of course the cop wouldn't turn the money over to the custody of the police station like he should. :(
Posted by TendoAddictI hate to admit it but $124,700 is odd. Given that its NEVER enough to bust a free man, but still odd. If I were a cop I would be suspicious. But drug charges? Because a dog barks at a car doent mean its his fault.
Posted by SladeI know a lot of people(usually older) who carry nothing but huge stacks of cash with them when they intend on buying something like a new car.
Posted by Lord of Spam
Quoting Iris: The guy had 125k on him. I'd say it's pretty suspicous to be carrying that much money on you. If he's got a legitimate reason as to why, then there shouldn't be a fuss. Still, I think having about 20k or more with you is means for questioning, since most people would write a check if they're spending such a large about of money legally.
There is nothing illegal (or, rather, there shouldnt be) about carrying a large amount of cash. Thats like saying that since drug runners into miami use fast speed boats, ANYONE in a fast speed boat in miai can be arrested and have their speedboat taken away. Its a terrible violation of civil rights, and has absolutely no logical basis. If he was visually coked out or high or something, or if he had pot on him that they recovered, then yeah, fine, take the cash as evidence. But just because a dog barks is no reason to take the life savings of an entire family, especially when it is later on proved that he had no crimes or even a criminal history to speak of.
You shouldnt have to worry about what cops are going to think of you for carrying around money. Maybe you want to have the fun of walking into a car dealership and saying "I'll take that one", then when the dealer talks abotu financing just dumping a bag of money on the table and saying "Nah I'll jut take it now." Having money on you carries no implication of illegal activities in most situations, but since a few people sometimes have large amounts of money in connection with somethign that this guy had nothign to do with, he lost everything he and his family had worked their entire life for. That is entirely unamerican, and flies in the face of everything american was founded on.
The modern trend of trading pounds of freedom for ounces of safety sickens me. Get out of my america, you ****ing traitor.
Posted by IrisI'm not saying there's anything illegal about it, and I don't think carrying a large amount of money has much relevance to drugs. However, if you're pulled over for suspicious behavior and you have an assload of cash on you, it's very reasonable for the police to thoroughly question why you have it and what it'll be used for.
Still, I agree, if there's a legitimate reason as to why you're carrying the money then there's absolutely no reason for you to lose it. In this man's case, it was completely unlawful for the police to keep the money.
Posted by Lord of SpamQuestioning why someone has money is one thing. Taking it and NEVER GIVING IT BACK EVEN AFTER ITS PROVED THAT HE WAS DOING NOTHING WRONG is entirely different, and THAT is what happened. It seemed like you were supporting that, and I tend to get ****ed off at stuff like that, so sorry if I kinda ranted for no reason there. Its just that stuff like this REALLY gets to me.
Posted by Kodachi
Quoting Lord of Spam: There is nothing illegal (or, rather, there shouldnt be) about carrying a large amount of cash. Thats like saying that since drug runners into miami use fast speed boats, ANYONE in a fast speed boat in miai can be arrested and have their speedboat taken away. Its a terrible violation of civil rights, and has absolutely no logical basis. If he was visually coked out or high or something, or if he had pot on him that they recovered, then yeah, fine, take the cash as evidence. But just because a dog barks is no reason to take the life savings of an entire family, especially when it is later on proved that he had no crimes or even a criminal history to speak of.
And that analogy is as bad as the "PEOPLE WHO USE DRUGS ONLY SOMETIMES IS LIKE KILLING PEOPLE SOMETIMES" analogy.
There's a huge difference in suspiscion between someone carrying around 124k and someone with a speed boat.
I'm not supporting the decision, I'm just saying that was just a really bad analogy.
Posted by Lord of SpamUh, no, it wasnt. Both are legal activities that carry no suspicion in normal contexts but which are seen as evidence of illegal activity thanks to their association with various levels of drug trade.
Posted by KodachiCarrying around that much money seems suspiscious. It doesn't have to be related to drugs, but something seems odd there.
Posted by ArwonSo? The point is he had a plausible explaination that was corroborated and no evidence that it was false was found.
[quote]Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.
Or as the dissenting judge in his minority opinion smackdown said:
[quote]"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of drug use or distribution."
"Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Judge Lay Concluded.
To even begin to venture that "maybe the authorities were a little justified here" is boggling. Outrage is the only correct response, especially when you consider they get to keep the money now.
BJ, this is what I mean by the drug war's erosion of the judicial system.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: Carrying around that much money seems suspiscious. It doesn't have to be related to drugs, but something seems odd there.
Sit on a street corner sometime and watch people go by. You'll notice tons of people do some odd ****, sometimes even very suspicious activities. It usually turns out to be absolutely nothing. So the excuse of "well it seems odd" is incredibly faulty and absolutely no reason to convict anyone of anything.
Posted by BebopWho carries $124,700 around with them anyway? Pfft all you would have to do is carry $124,699.99 and your fine.
Posted by Lord of Spam
Quoting Kodachi: Owning a speedboat that could carry drugs from cuba to miami and evade the coast guard seems suspiscious. It doesn't have to be related to drugs, but something seems odd there.
See how that works there? just because you CAN carry drugs into the US doesnt mean you will, just as having a boatload of cash doesnt mean that you're a drugdealer.
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireOh shi- i have a body. I can carry drugs on my body. SUSPICIOUS!
Posted by BebopRight. Just because you look suspicious doesnt mean your going to do a crime. But I'm still going to cross the road when a group of 8 black teens with hoods come my way.
Posted by Vampiro V. EmpireHey me too, lol
Then again, I'm not going to arrest them. Just avoid them.
Posted by Lord of SpamWow, you're both pussies. I'd keep walking. In fact, I have done this. Many a time. So far I am unshanked and unrobbed. In fact, if anything, crossing the street is just letting them know that you're afriad, which would only embolden them if anything.
Posted by BebopHave you ever walked through a council estate late at night while a group of pre teens chavs drinking cider walk towards you? Didn think so. In my entire life time of making contact with the scum of the earth they have never done anything violent to me. It's just a case of avoiding the effoert to out wit or over power them.
Posted by Kodachi
Quoting Lord of Spam: See how that works there? just because you CAN carry drugs into the US doesnt mean you will, just as having a boatload of cash doesnt mean that you're a drugdealer.
Can you...NOT edit my posts?
And owning a speedboat doesn't seem suspicious. There are plenty of obvious reasons to have a speedboat that don't involve drugs.
If you see someone walking down the street with that much cash, though, it just doesn't seem right. Can you see yourself ever carrying around that much cash? There's debit. There's credit. There are checks. What could you be doing that would require you putting yourself at that much of a risk? I don't think it's enough to make an arrest, and it's certainly not enough to take the cash from him. I would ask him his reasons, and check a few bills with those counterfeit pens. If they both check out, he can be on his way.
There are levels of suspicion. Seriously, "just because you can commit a crime, doesn't mean you will" is fine, but then maybe we should let people on planes with weapons! Just because they have them doesn't mean they will commit a crime on the plane!
Posted by Lord of Spam
Quoting Kodachi: Can you...NOT edit my posts?
no. Continue to make stupid points and I'll continue to show why your logic is flawed at best.
Quoting Kodachi: If you see someone driving a speed boat in miami, though, it just doesn't seem right. Can you see yourself ever needing a boat that fast? There's airplanes. There's sailboats. There are jetskis. What could you be doing that would require you putting yourself at that much of a risk?
YOU LOGIC FAILS AGAIN.
[quote=Kodachi]There are levels of suspicion. Seriously, "just because you can commit a crime, doesn't mean you will" is fine, but then maybe we should let people on planes with weapons! Just because they have them doesn't mean they will commit a crime on the plane!
Someone walking around with boatloads of cash has no possible negative forseeable impact on public safety, whereas persons with weapons on planes pose an obvious risk.
And for your whole OMG USE CREDIT ACRDS OR CHECKS thing, thats bs. In that case, if anyone ever carries any type of money ever it was obviously to buy drugs. Guess what. I can call someone up, and within 20 minutes I could hand them $300 and get an ounce of pot (thats a lot, for those not in the know). So does that mean that if you have $300 on you were were intending to buy an ounce? Does it mean that if you had $20 on you your intent was to buy a quartersack? And thanks to the modern marvel of technology, there are now credut card readers that attach to cell phones, allowing anyone with a cellphone to take credit card payments for anything, so leave that plstic at home too or you were intending to buy drugs.
Your argument is hollow and meaningless. Face it.
Posted by BebopI dont see what the big deal is. The chance of someone carrying this much is small eneough, and even smaller I'd say if they are going to be a serious criminal offender. The chance of someone being randomly searched and then found with this much is even smaller. Then the chance that someone will be permentaly deprived of said money with a legitmate reason is even smaller. Its nothing more than an addition to evidence against drug abusers in a court of law. In reality it doesnt affect anyone and never will out on the streets. Get over it. Its really not a big deal. It's just so in court it can become valid enough for a prosecutor to say "Mr Smith was a suspected drug traffiker on the FBI most wanted list for 5 years. He is then found carrying 100lbs of heroin as well as $124,700 of cash on him. This proved he was to seel illegal substances, buy more, and repeat."
At the end of the dya it doesnt affect me. Of anyone else here. All it does is damage suspected drug dealers more.
Posted by Lord of Spam"In reality it doesnt affect anyone and never will out on the streets"
Except that it already affected an entire family who lost their life savings and sets dangerous legal precedents that allow further trampling of civil rights.
"All it does is damage suspected drug dealers more."
See, thats the problem. It does affect suspected drug dealers. Funny thing is that in america, suspicion=/= guilt. You dont get your stuff taken away unless you are PROVEN guilty. Its in the constitution and is one of the main themes that our country was founded on. Yet, get arrested for ANYTHING drug related and your rights go out the window. ITs unamerican, and you can suck my balls if you think I'm going to sit here and be lectured by a ****ing brit about what i shouldnt and shouldnt get upset about in the american legal system.
Posted by GameMiestroIt's kinda like speed limits, you know? If everyone followed the limit, theoretically it would be impossible to two SUV's to collide at 150 MPH, ripping up the pavement and killing any bystanders. Same thing with money limits. It's the poor-man's police system- if you're carrying less money, when you're robbed, you'll lose less money.
Posted by Aioros[COLOR="Yellow"]What it comes down to in the end is this shouldn't have been a big deal. . . better yet, this wouldn't have been a big deal if the government wasn't puttting so much effort into this unnecessary waste of tax-payer's money and waste of the police force's time little civil war we call the "War on Drugs".
It has nothing going for it other than a cool macho/f[COLOR="Yellow"]u[/COLOR]ck you sounding name to it. The fact that it was crazy-cheeks (you are so a crook) Nixon who started this mess lets you know this "war" s-u-c-k-s.[/COLOR]
Posted by Lord of Spam
Quoting GameMiestro: It's kinda like speed limits, you know? If everyone followed the limit, theoretically it would be impossible to two SUV's to collide at 150 MPH, ripping up the pavement and killing any bystanders. Same thing with money limits. It's the poor-man's police system- if you're carrying less money, when you're robbed, you'll lose less money.
That was the most incoherent pile of gibberish I've seen on VGC yet. What the hell are you trying to say?
Oh, and since there are roads with 75mph limits, if one crosses a center line while both are going opposite directions, it would be the same as a 150 crash. So rethink your analogy.
Posted by Bebop
Quoting Lord of Spam:
Except that it already affected an entire family who lost their life savings and sets dangerous legal precedents that allow further trampling of civil rights.
Gutted. I think it's clear the man from the article was innocent and should have his money given back. Then again that was also an extreme example used. So it does appear biased. Any other 'innocent' people crying about having their drug money stolen? I guess not. I don't see why one error should stop this. Not every law enforcer can be reliable. Ever hear of the 7/7 bombings and an innocent man mistaken for a terrisots, resulting in his death?
[quote]See, thats the problem. It does affect suspected drug dealers.
How is this a problem then?
[quote] Funny thing is that in america, suspicion=/= guilt. You dont get your stuff taken away unless you are PROVEN guilty. Its in the constitution and is one of the main themes that our country was founded on. Yet, get arrested for ANYTHING drug related and your rights go out the window.
Source plz. Or is this one of those ignorent comments like "George Bush doesnt care about black people"?
[quote]ITs unamerican, and you can suck my balls if you think I'm going to sit here and be lectured by a ****ing brit about what i shouldnt and shouldnt get upset about in the american legal system.
I wouldnt say its a lecure. I would say its more of a passing opinion on a subject that really isnt that big a deal. But if you want I'll stop caring about your country. Just promise me you'll do the same and not make any comments about my country and the way it works. Can your ego handle that?
Posted by Lord of Spam
Quoting Bebop]Gutted. I think it's clear the man from the article was innocent and should have his money given back. Then again that was also an extreme example used. So it does appear biased. Any other 'innocent' people crying about having their drug money stolen? I guess not. I don't see why one error should stop this. Not every law enforcer can be reliable. Ever hear of the 7/7 bombings and an innocent man mistaken for a terrisots, resulting in his death?
I dont know how it works in England, but in America when a judge makes a ruling, it sets precedents. This is commonly reffered to as "bench law" and is useable in court. In other words, because some court decided that a poor man and his family LOOKED like drug dealers cops can now seize posessions if they think you might be possibly related to drug trafficing, regardless of whether or not you are.
Quoting Bebop: How is this a problem then?
I really hope you're kidding. Its a problem because in america, as I said, suspicion!=guilt. You dont get punished until you are proven guilty, and if you're found innocent, you are let go and (if any property was seized) have it returned. In this case, however, a man was arrested and had property seized, but was found innocent. Then, a higher court said, essentially, "Yeah, he's innocent, but he isnt getting his money back anyway lol". In other words, it is entirely and completely against what the american legal system is supposed to be about.
Quoting Bebop: Source plz. Or is this one of those ignorent comments like "George Bush doesnt care about black people"?
[quote=The fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America]No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger:
Lets take a look at that again, specifically:
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
In other words, it is against the constitution for any government agency to seize property without a proven reason, or to keep said property after a person is found not guilty. And, once again, this is the exact opposite of what this precedent with the drug seizure has set. Now cops can take anything they want as long as its "drug related" and you wont get it back no matter what. Are you seeing where I'm going with this yet?
[QUOTE=Bebop]I wouldnt say its a lecure. I would say its more of a passing opinion on a subject that really isnt that big a deal. But if you want I'll stop caring about your country. Just promise me you'll do the same and not make any comments about my country and the way it works. Can your ego handle that?
Fair enough, it isnt a lecture. That being said, dont ever even imply that the complete erosion and loss of the basic human rights that an entire nation was founded on "isnt that big a deal".
And as far as I've seen, the extent of your care for america is "lol amerikkkans are dum". So **** off, wanker.
Posted by GameMiestro[quote=Lord of Spam]That was the most incoherent pile of gibberish I've seen on VGC yet. What the hell are you trying to say?
One man has $30, another has $60. Both are robbed of all of their money. Who loses more?
So, I think the government's logic is that if we all carry less money, we will also lose less money, too.
Posted by Lord of Spam...That has nothing to do with anything. You are a total moron, and your "contributions" to this thread are no longer needed or wanted. The issue is tha now even appearing to have something in common with someone who might be a drug dealer is reason enough for you to lose your property. It has **** all to do with the government wanting to have its citizens carry less money and everything to do with the irational "war on drugs" policy that has been raping our country for years.
Posted by Bebop
Quoting Lord of Spam]I dont know how it works in England, but in America when a judge makes a ruling, it sets precedents. This is commonly reffered to as "bench law" and is useable in court. In other words, because some court decided that a poor man and his family LOOKED like drug dealers cops can now seize posessions if they think you might be possibly related to drug trafficing, regardless of whether or not you are.
Police take items they beleive to be linked to a crime as evidence correct? Correct. It's just money in this case. If someone is innocent they get it back, (and before you start going "BUT GASHK HE WAS INNOCENT AND NEVER GOT IT BACK ITS FLAWED" consider that it is still just one upest and shouldnt prevent it.) just like they would in a completely different suspected crime. I still dont see why your freaking out at the idea that money, if beleived to be suspected for a crime, cannot be held as evidence like other items.To be honest I thought it was something they allready did and suprised it didnt happen before.
[quote]I really hope you're kidding. Its a problem because in america, as I said, suspicion!=guilt. You dont get punished until you are proven guilty, and if you're found innocent, you are let go and (if any property was seized) have it returned. In this case, however, a man was arrested and had property seized, but was found innocent. Then, a higher court said, essentially, "Yeah, he's innocent, but he isnt getting his money back anyway lol". In other words, it is entirely and completely against what the american legal system is supposed to be about.
Not every court decision is fair in people eyes. Should this man get his money back? I think so. So do you. I think it's an example of a flawed court case. Then again the judge has more information than we do. All we have is a biased article. Nonetheless one upset shouldnt prevent this. Did this man have a crimanal record before hand? Apparantly not. Did Ted Bundy have a criminal record before his little adventure? I doubt it. Should one innocent person's lost life in police cross fire put a stop to the entire police force? Of course not.
[quote]Lets take a look at that again, specifically:
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law:
I dont think you understand by what I meant as "source plz". I meant provide a source proving to me that your rights are "thrown out of the window" as soon as you are accused of a drug related crime. To me it just sounds like one of those comments rappers make about getting arrested, and blame their jail time on the "entire racist corrupt police force of america", rather than the fact they publically speak about their crimes. You also seem to be forgetting that I am agreeing with you when innocent people should get this stuff back. As said before it makes sense and as I beleive in this case it should.
[quote]Fair enough, it isnt a lecture. That being said, dont ever even imply that the complete erosion and loss of the basic human rights that an entire nation was founded on "isnt that big a deal".
I wasnt implying it. I wasnt even considering it. I wasnt even caring about it.
[quote]So **** off, wanker.
laugh out loud
I really dont see why making it illegal or whatever to carry this much around is a bad thing. In the rare chance an innocent person gets screwed over I'm willing to bet more drug dealers will be put behind bars. As far as we know this guy in the rental car could have been a drug dealer. The only evidence we have to prove he isnt is....wait there isnt OH SHI-
Posted by Lord of Spam
Quoting Bebop: Police take items they beleive to be linked to a crime as evidence correct? Correct. It's just money in this case. If someone is innocent they get it back, (and before you start going "BUT GASHK HE WAS INNOCENT AND NEVER GOT IT BACK ITS FLAWED" consider that it is still just one upest and shouldnt prevent it.) just like they would in a completely different suspected crime. I still dont see why your freaking out at the idea that money, if beleived to be suspected for a crime, cannot be held as evidence like other items.To be honest I thought it was something they allready did and suprised it didnt happen before.
You clearly have no grasp of what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about taking things as evidence. What I'm talking about is that if you get arrested in a drug charge, you lose everything that you had on you. The laws in america allow police to sell off anything taken as part of a drug seizure and sell it off without even a trial. Get busted for pot, and your car is impounded and sold to help pay for the war on drugs.
And you still dont seem to grasp bench law. The judge saying this is legal isnt just an isolated case. It allows judges all over the country to do the same thing and get away with it (until it goes up through appeals etc). So it isnt just one case. Its one case that opens the door for a tidal wave of rights abuses. It would be like me telling medieval england that its just one little rat, so dont get all upset about it. Ooops, plague, lol.
Quoting Bebop: Not every court decision is fair in people eyes. Should this man get his money back? I think so. So do you. I think it's an example of a flawed court case. Then again the judge has more information than we do. All we have is a biased article. Nonetheless one upset shouldnt prevent this. Did this man have a crimanal record before hand? Apparantly not. Did Ted Bundy have a criminal record before his little adventure? I doubt it. Should one innocent person's lost life in police cross fire put a stop to the entire police force? Of course not.
The difference being that there was actual evidence of Bundy's crime, whereas there was none in this case, and there was actually evidence to the contrary. And as for your "Should one innocent person's lost life in police cross fire put a stop to the entire police force" comment, Thomas Jefferson (one of those wacky founding fathers that told your government to **** off) is quoted as saying that "I would rather a thousand guilty men go free than punish a single innocent one." Making sure that innocent people are not punished is one of the ideals that our nation was founded on, and this flies in the face of that.
Quoting Bebop: I dont think you understand by what I meant as "source plz". I meant provide a source proving to me that your rights are "thrown out of the window" as soon as you are accused of a drug related crime. To me it just sounds like one of those comments rappers make about getting arrested, and blame their jail time on the "entire racist corrupt police force of america", rather than the fact they publically speak about their crimes. You also seem to be forgetting that I am agreeing with you when innocent people should get this stuff back. As said before it makes sense and as I beleive in this case it should.
You want a source where it shows that rights are being thrown out the window? Are you serious? The discussion was about just such an example. If there hadnt been a source, this conversation wouldnt be taking place.
Quoting Bebop: I wasnt implying it. I wasnt even considering it. I wasnt even caring about it.
o rly?
[quote=bebop]I would say its more of a passing opinion on a subject that really isnt that big a deal
Gee, how could I have EVER thought that you were saying it wasnt a big deal? I WONDER.
Quoting Bebop: laugh out loud
I really dont see why making it illegal or whatever to carry this much around is a bad thing. In the rare chance an innocent person gets screwed over I'm willing to bet more drug dealers will be put behind bars. As far as we know this guy in the rental car could have been a drug dealer. The only evidence we have to prove he isnt is....wait there isnt OH SHI-
1)Its bad because there is no reason for it to be illegal. See examples of LOL SPEEDBOATS4DRUGZ to see why making something illegal for no reason is stupid.
2)Most drug dealers dont drive around in rental cars with coolers of money. They keep their **** low key and covert, which is why they dont get caught very often. All this does is creat situations where innocent people can get ****ed.
3)Once again, you fail at understanding america. You dont have to be proven innocent. You are ASSUMED to be innocent until proven otherwise. Thats actually one of the reasons we gave you the boot over 200 years ago:cookie:
Posted by Kodachi
Quoting Lord of Spam:
If you see someone driving a speed boat in miami, though, it just doesn't seem right. Can you see yourself ever needing a boat that fast? There's airplanes. There's sailboats. There are jetskis. What could you be doing that would require you putting yourself at that much of a risk?
[quote]
Yeah, it does.
Nobody NEEDS those boats, but they are still rather common. It's a matter of preference. I honestly don't see how you're comparing carrying around your life savings to owning a speedboat.
[quote]Someone walking around with boatloads of cash has no possible negative forseeable impact on public safety, whereas persons with weapons on planes pose an obvious risk.
BUT THEY DIDNT COMMIT A CRIME YET OMG IT'S LIKE A BOAT AND MIAMI
[quote]And for your whole OMG USE CREDIT ACRDS OR CHECKS thing, thats bs. In that case, if anyone ever carries any type of money ever it was obviously to buy drugs. Guess what. I can call someone up, and within 20 minutes I could hand them $300 and get an ounce of pot (thats a lot, for those not in the know). So does that mean that if you have $300 on you were were intending to buy an ounce? Does it mean that if you had $20 on you your intent was to buy a quartersack? And thanks to the modern marvel of technology, there are now credut card readers that attach to cell phones, allowing anyone with a cellphone to take credit card payments for anything, so leave that plstic at home too or you were intending to buy drugs.
Your argument is hollow and meaningless. Face it.
Yeah, because that's what I said, right? Once again, I'm mentioning why someone would put themself at that much of a risk, carring around so much money? It really outweighs the convenience of cash when you carry around that much, and there really aren't any reasons why someone would carry around that much that would balance it out. That risk and unbalance do not exist with smaller amounts of cash.
Who hands a credit card to a drug dealer?
Posted by Bebop
Quoting Lord of Spam: You clearly have no grasp of what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about taking things as evidence. What I'm talking about is that if you get arrested in a drug charge, you lose everything that you had on you. The laws in america allow police to sell off anything taken as part of a drug seizure and sell it off without even a trial. Get busted for pot, and your car is impounded and sold to help pay for the war on drugs.
O RLY. O I C. Thats poop. Why didnt you say that earlier? Theres a way to overcome that problem. Move somewhere better. Like England. :)
[quote]And you still dont seem to grasp bench law. The judge saying this is legal isnt just an isolated case. It allows judges all over the country to do the same thing and get away with it (until it goes up through appeals etc). So it isnt just one case. Its one case that opens the door for a tidal wave of rights abuses. It would be like me telling medieval england that its just one little rat, so dont get all upset about it. Ooops, plague, lol.
Surely not all over the country seeing as states have different laws and such. And what do you mean get away with it? Get away with finding innocent people and stelaing their money or getting away with screwing over drug dealers?
[quote]The difference being that there was actual evidence of Bundy's crime, whereas there was none in this case,
Source plz. I would prefer one that isnt a bias article.
[quote]and there was actually evidence to the contrary.
It's a biased piece.
[quote]And as for your "Should one innocent person's lost life in police cross fire put a stop to the entire police force" comment, Thomas Jefferson (one of those wacky founding fathers that told your government to **** off) is quoted as saying that "I would rather a thousand guilty men go free than punish a single innocent one." Making sure that innocent people are not punished is one of the ideals that our nation was founded on, and this flies in the face of that.
Thomas Jefferson sodmized his only son in a blood orgy. More to the point, since he told my government to **** off many years ago, which obviously affects me personally because those were troublesome times and it was hard growing up in the reign of George Washington for me, I would rather carry on down the path than chicken out like a pussy and cry just because I fell over at one point.
[quote]You want a source where it shows that rights are being thrown out the window? Are you serious? The discussion was about just such an example. If there hadnt been a source, this conversation wouldnt be taking place.
So let me get this straight, one example of a bias article is solid prove of this Spike Lee like accustation? **** off and get me some real evidence.
[quote]o rly?
Ya rly
[quote]Gee, how could I have EVER thought that you were saying it wasnt a big deal? I WONDER.
It's because you're too sarcastic and fail at wit.
[quote]1)Its bad because there is no reason for it to be illegal. See examples of LOL SPEEDBOATS4DRUGZ to see why making something illegal for no reason is stupid.
It shouldnt be illegal. I'm just saying if it is and enforced its really not going to be a big deal. Except for those who carry that much money around with them without a lawful reason.That speed boat theory you got going is dumb. Having that much money is more suspicious than a boat.
[quote]2)Most drug dealers dont drive around in rental cars with coolers of money. They keep their **** low key and covert, which is why they dont get caught very often. All this does is creat situations where innocent people can get ****ed.
The rental car and cooler has nothing to do with your point. So stop trying to use it in an attempt to reinofrce your point. And don't be so generalising of the drug dealing communty. Next you'll be telling me that all child rapists and white middle aged bald guys with pcs. Oh wait.... in any case do you think a person carrying this amount of money is suspicious in the first place, and possilbe they are related to drug trafficking in some way?
[quote]3)Once again, you fail at understanding america. You dont have to be proven innocent. You are ASSUMED to be innocent until proven otherwise. Thats actually one of the reasons we gave you the boot over 200 years ago:cookie:
Well seeing as my only understanding of America mainly comes from fictional TV Shows and loud sarcastic mentalits on the internets with big egos I'd say it's a pretty justified reason.:cookie:
Posted by Speedfreak[quote=Lord of Spam]Thomas Jefferson (one of those wacky founding fathers that told your government to **** off) is quoted as saying that "I would rather a thousand guilty men go free than punish a single innocent one."
I'm just gonna jump in with this. That's the most absolutely f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking insane thing I've ever heard. Releasing 1000 guilty men would lead to the indirect punishment of thousands of innocent people, several orders of magnitude worse than one innocent person getting punished. I'd rather one innocent person got jailed for life for a murder he didn't commit than 1000 murderers be set free and go on to kill 5000 people collectively.
And everything you've picked up about England seems to come from Mel Gibson films. You'll find our law system's changed a bit in several hundred years. Funnily enough we aren't the big bad meanie country that treated America just as a mere colony (because it fucking was) that I'm sure your history teachers love to drone on about before telling you you saved the world in both world wars single-handedly.
Posted by BebopThomas Jefferson invented the lightbulb to fullfil his quest for the perfect anal toy. It's true. It's a fact. Look it up. Look it up on google.
Posted by Pithow would you know someone is carrying a lot of money?
this is pretty stupid
Posted by GameMiestro[quote=Lord of Spam]...That has nothing to do with anything. You are a total moron, and your "contributions" to this thread are no longer needed or wanted. The issue is tha now even appearing to have something in common with someone who might be a drug dealer is reason enough for you to lose your property. It has **** all to do with the government wanting to have its citizens carry less money and everything to do with the irational "war on drugs" policy that has been raping our country for years.
You compared the war on drugs to the government trying to make people carry less drugs. You said both were "irational", which if I'm hearing you correctly, means you think niether have any rationale for beinng put in place. I gave you a rationale for the money issue. The extent of your defense was "you are a moron", which in this scenario, has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.
The government is trying to protect it's citizens. If someone is going to be stupid enough to try to carry hundreds of thousands of dollars in their back pocket, they are going to lose a LOT of money if they are robbed. There is no logical reason to carry that much money! What are you going to do, casually buy a house on you way to work? It's insanity like this that the government is trying to fight against.
Don't even try to convince me that consuming large quantities of drugs is any better. There is NO evidence showing that doing so is beneficial in any way, and there is thousands of documented experiments to the contrary. If people aren't going to stop using vast quantaties of drugs on their own accord, who is going to stop them? Will you? Of course not. The government has a responsibility to protect it's citizens, even if it means protecting them from themselves.
NOW THEN. Back to the original story. So this guy just happened to have $140,000 that just happened to be hidden in a cooler in the back of his car, and he just happened to have lied about the fact that he had it, who drove the car before him, and if he was ever arrested? And the money just happened have tested positive for narcotics? Yeah, right. In fact, lets just assume all of his was perfectly true. "Gonzolez's lawyer, Donald Yates of San Diego, said they would appeal the ruling. He said the government is treating unfairly people who don't have credit or bank accounts and are forced to do business in cash." Nowhere in this quote did his lawyer say anything about the "unamerican war on drugs". So then, who connected these completely unrelated events to try to justify some sad attempt at legalizing drug use? You did! What's next, are you going to want to get rid of charities because the Red Cross chairman gets more than his fair share? Oh wait, we already went through that discussion, didn't we?
What can we learn from this? 1. There is NOTHING unamerican about the war on drugs. It has worked, it is working, and all evidence points to that it will work. 2. The story you brought up has NOTHING to do with the war on drugs, it has to do with the government's injustices to immigrants and lower class members of society. 3. There is NOTHING wrong with limiting the amount of money citizens can carry, as we have magical little tools called banks and credit cards, and anyone speeding with that much cash most likely is trafficking something, anyways.
Add this all up, and what to we get? What your arguement amounts to- absolutely nothing.
Posted by BebopI see this whole thing like this: Lets say it was made illegal to wear purple top hats while walking on your hands and singing the Italien National anthem on a Tuesday afternoon. It would certianly be dumb to make it illegal but at the end of the day it's not going to affect me, my friends or anyone else I know. It's only going to affect those who wear purple top hats while walking on your hands and singing the Italien National anthem on a Tuesday afternoon. Thats a rare enough thing as it is but point is if its made illegal it really wont be a big a deal since its such an unlikely thing to happen anyway, and probably even less so if it were lawfully enforced. However if it targets criminals than it can be seen as a postive thing, and on the whole these compley unlikely thing will most likely affect criminals more than an innocent person but a significent rate.
Posted by Philsdad
Quoting GameMiestro: What can we learn from this? 1. There is NOTHING unamerican about the war on drugs. It has worked, it is working, and all evidence points to that it will work. 2. The story you brought up has NOTHING to do with the war on drugs, it has to do with the government's injustices to immigrants and lower class members of society. 3. There is NOTHING wrong with limiting the amount of money citizens can carry, as we have magical little tools called banks and credit cards, and anyone speeding with that much cash most likely is trafficking something, anyways.
Wow, this is just special. There's nothing wrong with limiting the amount of money people can carry huh? I'm sorry, I thought this was a free country, not a police state. A lot of people don't like credit cards, and for good reason. If it's THEIR money that THEY earned, then I think they **** well should be able to carry it in whatever format they want.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not about the drug war working. The fact that DRUGS ARE STILL EVERYWHERE pretty much proves that it's NOT. When our streets and schools are drug free, and drug associated crime and violence go way down, then you can say that it's working.
Posted by Lord of SpamActually, Adam, I think the americans back in the colonial days were acting like a lot of spoiled little ****s in a lot of ways. Most of the things they were "rebelling" against were overblown by people who wanted to get their way. That being said, I agree with most of what they tried to accomplish.
Quoting Bebop: I see this whole thing like this: Lets say it was made illegal to wear purple top hats while walking on your hands and singing the Italien National anthem on a Tuesday afternoon. It would certianly be dumb to make it illegal but at the end of the day it's not going to affect me, my friends or anyone else I know. It's only going to affect those who wear purple top hats while walking on your hands and singing the Italien National anthem on a Tuesday afternoon. Thats a rare enough thing as it is but point is if its made illegal it really wont be a big a deal since its such an unlikely thing to happen anyway, and probably even less so if it were lawfully enforced. However if it targets criminals than it can be seen as a postive thing, and on the whole these compley unlikely thing will most likely affect criminals more than an innocent person but a significent rate.
I'm going to skip the whole quote war thing and just adress this, as I think this is the underlying issue. The ideal of america is that you can do what you want, when you want, how you want, as long as it doesnt really affect anyone else. for instance, you are allowed to own guns, because ownership of said guns doesnt directly affect anyone (its the misuse that affects people, not legal ownership, before anyone wants to go ZOMG GUN DETHS). To follow the example above, there may not be anyone that WANTS to walk on their heads etc, but that doesnt make okay for them to outlaw it. In fact, if there WAS a law passed like that, I would do exactly what you mentioned, just to protest it. It would be an unamerican law that should be repealed. And while I understand that you picked that as an example of something that would never be done or outlawed, the principle remains. If the government were to outlaw something for no real reason, I'd do it anyway.
Furthermore, you seem to have a complete lack of empathy. Your attitude seems to be "This doesnt affect me, so I dont care. Its not something I do, so I dont mind if they outlaw it." If thats the case, then you're total lack of regard for your fellow man scares me, and I leave you with this quote:
"Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte."
It's a quote by Martin Niemoeller. for those of us who arent fluent in German, it reads thus:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...]When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out[/url]
Oh, and for meistro: You are a dolt. for the reasons Philsdad already provided, you are wrong. If you'd like proof, give me a day or two and a few hundred dollars and I can have an ounce of proof for you. Furthermore, I was only mentioning the "war" on drugs in this article because it was an arrest made as part of said war, and the abuse of freedom was made in the name of the "war" as well. Also, I never made any claim about the government trying to make people carry less drugs, to the best of my recollection.
And Iris, I dont see how you can not see the analogy. Both are activities that you dont need to do. both can be drug related yet neither imply connection with the drug industry.
Posted by BebopRight, so for I'm not allowed to be not bothered about something so small and rare, especially if it doesnt affect me and the ones I love WHEN IT'S HAPPENING IN ANOTHER ****ING COUNTRY? That makes sense. Go back to loving mother earth you hippy. This is completely different from protecting people from nazis. Would you protest if my local junior sschool stopped serving wheat free pasta? Come all the way to England, put your money where your mouth is and speak up for these 2 kids who cant eat wheat. Dick head.
Posted by Lord of SpamI cant believe you can completely miss the point of something so entirely. It doesnt matter if its a small thing at this very second. The national socialist movement, if I may continue the analogy and risk invoking ***win, started if ****ing beer halls for ***'s sake, with one frustrated German officer yelling to other drunks. It ended with a nulear blast and the deaths of millions of people. You have to consider the overall possible ramifications for things, not just what they happen to be at a particular moment. This carries the very real possibility of adding another tool for american law enforcement to trample on the rights of americans. As such, it is a threat to civil liberty. When your local school stoppping the serving of wheat free pasta can somehow affect the lives of millions, I'd like to know about it.
edit: i've been going to [url]www.nuklearpower.com[/url] too much. Curse you, brian clevinger.
Posted by ArwonBebop, given your past obsessions with making adultery illegal and so forth, it's a bit weird for you use the "why should I care?" argument here...
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Bebop: I really dont see why making it illegal or whatever to carry this much around is a bad thing. In the rare chance an innocent person gets screwed over I'm willing to bet more drug dealers will be put behind bars. As far as we know this guy in the rental car could have been a drug dealer. The only evidence we have to prove he isnt is....wait there isnt OH SHI-
[COLOR="Yellow"]I think you're missing the point that if it becomes completely illegal to carry large sums of cash because of possible drug dealings, innocent people getting screwed won't happen rarely anymore. Innocent people will have their money taken away more and more often, and then in the future when the law gets even harsher it might even become common for the non-guilty to get screwed over just in case, lol. That's why the Constitution was established and rules were set, but with issues like drug use the Government gets away with ignoring the rules set by our fore-fathers to protect the people.
You could say that this law could help catch drug dealers or the bad guys but they and the black market only exist because the Government insists on continuing this "War on Drugs" which i've already said is completely unnecessary. Hell, thousands of innocent people are already getting screwed because of the drug laws which have become more and more strict over the decades. See, a major population of drug users in the states aren't dealers or bad guys, they're good people who are sent to jail just for using drugs, and those who are addicted to drugs and may need help are also sent to prison just for making bad decisions. When you take something that isn't really a crime and make it illegal, you create real criminals. I know this is kinda off-topic, but you can see why some of us make a big deal out of unnecessary laws which are just unfair for a lot of people and in turn, make the problem even bigger.
I'll give you one last example of issues like this happening around the country. In the U.S.A the FCC is in charge of censoring sex, violence, adult language and any other content in T.V and radio not suitable for all audiences. But they can only regulate basic channels and basic radio, you know, stuff picked up by antennaes. At least that's how it is for now. In a recent interview, the FCC said that one day, in the near future when they get the OK from Congress, they'll go after cable. When they were contacted and asked if they would give an answer as to why they want to go that far, they said no. It's not just unconstitutional, it's just wrong. Whether it's censoring violence or illegalizing anything drug related, the Government is taking away our freedom little by little and it affects all of us. And then years from now, before you know it, the Constitution our fore-fathers foresaw won't mean a thing.[/COLOR]
Posted by BebopSpam, fair point.
Arwon how am I obsessed with adultery? Is it because I made a thread about it? Hard to take a guy seriously when he cant stop thinking of hookers.
Airos: I don't any mention of innocent peple going to jail. all your saying is "the good folk who use drugs" but an illegal arms smuggler good be a decent enouh guy. Personality shouldnt make someone innocent, it's the actions they do. If something like drugs has been outlawed and they do it they are a criminal. Gun laws in England are very different to those in America. One country's criminal is another's citizen.
Fcc. What's the problem with censoring. Do you mean they are censoring things before or after a watershed or they just want to do it all the time? If it's all the time that's crazy. If it concerns a water shed get your head out your hippy ***.
Posted by GameMiestro[quote]Wow, this is just special. There's nothing wrong with limiting the amount of money people can carry huh? I'm sorry, I thought this was a free country, not a police state. A lot of people don't like credit cards, and for good reason. If it's THEIR money that THEY earned, then I think they **** well should be able to carry it in whatever format they want.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not about the drug war working. The fact that DRUGS ARE STILL EVERYWHERE pretty much proves that it's NOT. When our streets and schools are drug free, and drug associated crime and violence go way down, then you can say that it's working.
And you know what? It's THEIR guns that THEY bought, so they should be allowed to carry around handguns whenever they want, especially on airports. In fact, let's just get rid of laws altogether- it's a free country, you know.
The above was an example of sarcasm. Why would anyone carry around hundreds of thousands of dollars in their back pocket? Sure, you have cases like the story LoS brought up, but the majority of the time, it either has to do with stupidity or crime. It's America's job to stop both, whether you like it or not. Freedom is a privlage, and when these people carry that much money, they are certainly abusing it.
Finally, [url=http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/HSYouthtrends.html]these[/url] [url=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm]sites[/url] show that while the war on drugs is has not fully eliminated drugs, it has certainly decreased drug use in many areas. If you wan't to talk about the war on drugs not being effective enough, then we can talk. If you want to talk about it being wrong to try to stop people from using drugs... well, there's no point in even trying to argue with you.
[quote=Lord of Spam][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came..."][/URL]Oh, and for meistro: You are a dolt. for the reasons Philsdad already provided, you are wrong. If you'd like proof, give me a day or two and a few hundred dollars and I can have an ounce of proof for you. Furthermore, I was only mentioning the "war" on drugs in this article because it was an arrest made as part of said war, and the abuse of freedom was made in the name of the "war" as well. Also, I never made any claim about the government trying to make people carry less drugs, to the best of my recollection.
Oh, and for Los: I've heard better comebacks from a turkey sandwich. For the reasons I already provided, you are wrong. If you'd like proof, visit Ocean City, MD for an afternoon and then tell me there's nothing wrong with smoking. Furthermore, I was only mentioning the "war" on drugs because you clearly don't approve with anything having to do with it, and believe that one, relatively minor example from the middle of Nebraska is somehow representative of the whole. Also, eliminating drug use is exactly what the war on drugs is, and you mentioned it a heck of a lot, to the best of my recollection.
More sarcasm.
Posted by Lord of Spam
Quoting GameMiestro: And you know what? It's THEIR guns that THEY bought, so they should be allowed to carry around handguns whenever they want, especially on airports. In fact, let's just get rid of laws altogether- it's a free country, you know.
You do realize that you are allowed to carry a gun pretty much anywhere you want, right? THe only examples I can think of off the top of my head are schools and airports. Granted, walk around waving a gun and thats another story, but the point remains the same. You are allowed to do what you want as long as it hurts nobody. Carrying a gun/large amount of cash does neither.
[quote=GayMeistro oll]The above was an example of sarcasm. Why would anyone carry around hundreds of thousands of dollars in their back pocket? Sure, you have cases like the story LoS brought up, but the majority of the time, it either has to do with stupidity or crime. It's America's job to stop both, whether you like it or not. Freedom is a privlage, and when these people carry that much money, they are certainly abusing it.
America's job is not to stop idiocy. I dont know where the hell you get that from, but its just flat out wrong. Theres really nothing else I can say, you have given no argument for it, you just whipped it out of your ***, and its wrong.
[quote=GameMeistro]Finally, [url=http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/HSYouthtrends.html]these[/url] [url=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm]sites[/url] show that while the war on drugs is has not fully eliminated drugs, it has certainly decreased drug use in many areas. If you wan't to talk about the war on drugs not being effective enough, then we can talk. If you want to talk about it being wrong to try to stop people from using drugs... well, there's no point in even trying to argue with you.
yeah, theres obviously no reason to talk to me since I want the unreasonable prosecuition of something that could be used to benefit society to end. I mean, what the hell was I thinking saying that drugs, which are comparable in many cases to already legalized and taxed items, should be made legal? I mean, who cares if it ends the trampling of civil rights, slashes a huge portion of our nations expenditures, and brings in millions in revenue at the same time? I mean, obviously I'm wrong. No other nations have tried it with any degree of success. Clearly they are all post-apocalyptic hell holes filled with sin and death.
Oh... wait...
[quote=YOU KNOW WHO]Oh, and for Los: I've heard better comebacks from a turkey sandwich. For the reasons I already provided, you are wrong. If you'd like proof, visit Ocean City, MD for an afternoon and then tell me there's nothing wrong with smoking. Furthermore, I was only mentioning the "war" on drugs because you clearly don't approve with anything having to do with it, and believe that one, relatively minor example from the middle of Nebraska is somehow representative of the whole. Also, eliminating drug use is exactly what the war on drugs is, and you mentioned it a heck of a lot, to the best of my recollection.
More sarcasm.
There is nothing wrong with smoking in a reasonable and responsible manner. Same with drinking, eating, and masturbating. Do a little and its fun, do a lot and you're screwed... except wioth masturbating, in which case you're not screwed, but you get what I mean.
And if you'd care to explain why a peson having their rights trampled in teh name of the "war" on drugs, much like other previous violations in teh same "war" ISNT characteristic of the whole, I'd like to know.
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Bebop: Airos: I don't any mention of innocent peple going to jail. all your saying is "the good folk who use drugs" but an illegal arms smuggler good be a decent enouh guy.
[COLOR="Yellow"][COLOR="Yellow"]I'm not trying to sound like a dick or anything, but you could you rephrase that in English?
[/COLOR][/COLOR]
Quoting Bebop: If something like drugs has been outlawed and they do it they are a criminal.
[COLOR="Yellow"]Yes, when you outlaw something that makes sense like murder or rape. But we're talking about a mind altering drug that isn't even that dangerous when compared to other things that are completely legal (like tobacco or alcohol). Smoking a joint can get you arrested while getting s[COLOR="Yellow"]h[/COLOR]it-faced with alcohol is totally legal, does that seem fair to you?[/COLOR]
Quoting Bebop: Fcc. What's the problem with censoring. Do you mean they are censoring things before or after a watershed or they just want to do it all the time? If it's all the time that's crazy. If it concerns a water shed get your head out your hippy ***.
[COLOR="Yellow"][COLOR="Yellow"]If they want to go after cable television (that means channels that i fuc[COLOR="Yellow"]k[/COLOR]ing pay for) that means they want all TV to be censored. So yeah, if they had it their way, violence, sex or cuss words wouldn't exist anywhere, except the real world.[/COLOR][/COLOR]
Posted by Bebop
Quoting Aioros: [COLOR="Yellow"][COLOR="Yellow"]I'm not trying to sound like a dick or anything, but you could you rephrase that in English?
[/COLOR][/COLOR]
I don't know what happened with that typing. Anyway I mean what do you mean by innocent people? It seemed your determinatio of innocent is based on a personality rather than actions, because you see the idea of the "good folk who use drugs" being punished for their crimes as wrong. Thats what I mean
[quote][COLOR="Yellow"]Yes, when you outlaw something that makes sense like murder or rape. But we're talking about a mind altering drug that isn't even that dangerous when compared to other things that are completely legal (like tobacco or alcohol). Smoking a joint can get you arrested while getting s[COLOR="Yellow"]h[/COLOR]it-faced with alcohol is totally legal, does that seem fair to you?[/COLOR]
Does it seem fair to me? Yes. How can it not seem fair? Do something illegal and get punished or do something legal and not get punished. Thats fair. Its the law. Unless of course you mean my personal view on drugs. I don't care about drugs. I don't use them. There are some drugs I think definelty should be outlawed (like heroin for isntance). I don't know enough about "weed" because, as it doesnt interest me, I don't reserach it. In England though it's been lowered to a class C drug. That, from my understanding, means if you have a joint on you it gets taken off. I think if you have a larger amount it's suspicion of dealing and you can be arrested. Not sure. So for me legalizing a pint is much fairer than legalizing heroin injections.
[quote][COLOR="Yellow"][COLOR="Yellow"]If they want to go after cable television (that means channels that i fuc[COLOR="Yellow"]k[/COLOR]ing pay for) that means they want all TV to be censored. So yeah, if they had it their way, violence, sex or cuss words wouldn't exist anywhere, except the real world.[/COLOR][/COLOR]
Do you mean censored all the time or enforce a watershed? You didnt make that clear about their 'attack' on cable. If you have a problem with a watershed being enforced on some cable channels you should think a little harder on that.
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Bebop: I don't know what happened with that typing. Anyway I mean what do you mean by innocent people? It seemed your determinatio of innocent is based on a personality rather than actions, because you see the idea of the "good folk who use drugs" being punished for their crimes as wrong. Thats what I mean
[COLOR="Yellow"]I wasn't talking about personality at all. Arresting somebody for just drug possesion, if that person wasn't distributing it or endangering others is illogical and they're in the sense of the word innocent because they haven't done anything morally wrong. I don't care if you're a junkie or if you're ruining your life with drugs, it's your life and nobody has the right to tell you what you can or can't do to your own body.[/COLOR]
Quoting Bebop: Does it seem fair to me? Yes. How can it not seem fair? Do something illegal and get punished or do something legal and not get punished. Thats fair. Its the law. Unless of course you mean my personal view on drugs. I don't care about drugs. I don't use them. There are some drugs I think definelty should be outlawed (like heroin for isntance). I don't know enough about "weed" because, as it doesnt interest me, I don't reserach it. In England though it's been lowered to a class C drug. That, from my understanding, means if you have a joint on you it gets taken off. I think if you have a larger amount it's suspicion of dealing and you can be arrested. Not sure. So for me legalizing a pint is much fairer than legalizing heroin injections.
[COLOR="Yellow"][COLOR="Yellow"]I wasn't asking wether you thought it was fair to get arrested for breaking the law. I was asking if you thought it was fair to criminalize drugs and arrest people who use it without hurting others while other equal or more potent things (like alcohol) are completely legal. And i'm mainly talking about those who get arrested for smoking marijuana, which isn't even powerful enough to kill. You simply cannot die by using cannibus, it's just not toxic enough. If we were to legalize drugs we would stop clogging our prisons with non-criminals, the police force would spend it's time arresting actual criminals, the illegal black market would diminish, we would take away the money and profit away from the bad guys who depend on drugs being illegal and we could use medical marijuana to help ease the suffering of thousands of people. Remember who's telling you this, i've never, ever done drugs. I've never even taken a single puff off a joint. I'm a stone sober-libertarian-atheist because i want my life to be as clear and as real as it can possibly be. If you want to do drugs, you should be allowed to as long as you don't put others in danger, just stay the f[COLOR="Yellow"]u[/COLOR]ck out of my house. All of you, the potheads and the government.
[/COLOR][/COLOR]
Quoting Bebop: Do you mean censored all the time or enforce a watershed? You didnt make that clear about their 'attack' on cable. If you have a problem with a watershed being enforced on some cable channels you should think a little harder on that.
[COLOR="Yellow"]They shouldn't allowed to go after things like cable because it's unconstitutional and censorship of freedom of speech. But that's a whole different argument, i was just using it as an example.[/COLOR]
Posted by Lord of SpamIt feels good to NOT be part of a quote fest for once.
Posted by Killer JordoThat is the dumbest thing the US has ever done. And that's quite a statement.
Posted by PitI for one will be doing drugs tonight, in public. FAREWELL ALL!
Posted by Bebop
Quoting Aioros][COLOR="Yellow"]I wasn't talking about personality at all. Arresting somebody for just drug possesion, if that person wasn't distributing it or endangering others is illogical and they're in the sense of the word innocent because they haven't done anything morally wrong. I don't care if you're a junkie or if you're ruining your life with drugs, it's your life and nobody has the right to tell you what you can or can't do to your own body.[/COLOR]
First up, morals has nothing to do with laws. If it did abortion and adultery would be illegal. Amirite?
Second, arresting someone for drug possesion isn't as illogical as you think it is. Consider this:
It is illegal in England to download child pornography. I'm sure not every person who downloads and views this content is a child molester themselves or directly produces it. Possibly some of these people may never have made an advancement on a child with cruel intentions in the least or even considered it.Then again the fact they purchase these things helps to fund the illegal process that creates it. So they are in a way directly endangering people: those in the product making chain i.e. the children.
It is illegal in England to carry drugs. I'm sure not every person who carries and uses drugs is a drug dealer themselves or directly produces it. Possibly some of these people may never have pruchased drugs before and possibly never did it with intentions to profit of it through selling. Then again the fact they purchase these things helps to fund the illegal process in creating it. So they are in a way directly fuelling an illegal process and the people involed.
If a governement wants to outlaw something, like drugs, they need to prosecute against everyone illegally involved to help stamp it out whilst hopefully detering others away, so in this case the people who produce it, distribute it, sell it and use it. It would be illogical to be selective.
[quote][COLOR="Yellow"]I wasn't asking wether you thought it was fair to get arrested for breaking the law. I was asking if you thought it was fair to criminalize drugs and arrest people who use it without hurting others while other equal or more potent things (like alcohol) are completely legal. [/color]
I can see youre trying to make this biased by impling everyone arrested for drug possesion was not hurting people. It's true to an extent. Not every 13 year old having a joint is going to throw himself out a window like some guy on mushrooms, or attack people in a paranoid state like perhaps a differnt cannabis user, or collapse and die like a heroin abuser. Then again not everyone tanked up is going to go on a rampage through town with a broken bottle.
As far as alchomohol being as equal or more potent, I don't entierely agree with that. One pint of lager does not have the equal or more potent effects as chomping down on mushrooms does. Realistically 1 pint has little effect s and no way near the halleancentic (sp lol) powers of some freaky shrooms. The only alchohol I can think of which is made illegal is absynith (sp). That has simialr effects to mushrooms and heroin.
I'd like you to provide real evidence showing alchohol can be as equal and/or potent as drugs. That means dont show me some graph saying 4 bottles of whiskey will have a more negative effect on a person than one toke of a joint.
Back to your question, I do think its fair. Because one is illegal and one isnt. Do I think someone who steals cars should get arrested. Yes, because it is fair. Do I think someone feeding ducks should get arrested? No, because that is unfair (unless they were feeding the ducks drugs ¬: You simply cannot die by using cannibus, it's just not toxic enough.
Like I said before I'm no drug user or police expert but surely snorting so much coke (which is a product of cannabis right?) can kill you?
[quote]If we were to legalize drugs we would stop clogging our prisons with non-criminals,
Do not refer to these people as non-criminals. They have done something illegal and have been punished. They are criminals so dont try to mix your point of view on their chrages with logic. Do a crime=criminal. That simple.
A non criminal is someone who has NOT committed a crime. Someone who is innocent.
[quote]the police force would spend it's time arresting actual criminals, the illegal black market would diminish, we would take away the money and profit away from the bad guys who depend on drugs being illegal and we could use medical marijuana to help ease the suffering of thousands of people. Remember who's telling you this, i've never, ever done drugs. I've never even taken a single puff off a joint. I'm a stone sober-libertarian-atheist because i want my life to be as clear and as real as it can possibly be. If you want to do drugs, you should be allowed to as long as you don't put others in danger, just stay the f[COLOR="Yellow"]u[/COLOR]ck out of my house. All of you, the potheads and the government.
[/COLOR]
Police do spend their time arresting 'actual criminals'.
The black market would dimminish. But the black market is more heavily funded by other things isn't it? Human traffiking and illegal arms (which in this day and age is making lots of mola) make up for most of the black market I think. Removing drugs from their possesion would surely onlyt dent the market.
I thought medical marijuana was already legal?
[quote][COLOR="Yellow"]They shouldn't allowed to go after things like cable because it's unconstitutional and censorship of freedom of speech. But that's a whole different argument, i was just using it as an example.[/COLOR]
Why arent you answering the question? it's very simple. I'll try to re-phrase it again.
Do you mean they want to censor ALL STATIONS ALL THE TIME or just enforce a WATERSHED?
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Bebop]It is illegal in England to download child pornography. I'm sure not every person who downloads and views this content is a child molester themselves or directly produces it. Possibly some of these people may never have made an advancement on a child with cruel intentions in the least or even considered it.Then again the fact they purchase these things helps to fund the illegal process that creates it. So they are in a way directly endangering people: those in the product making chain i.e. the children.
It is illegal in England to carry drugs. I'm sure not every person who carries and uses drugs is a drug dealer themselves or directly produces it. Possibly some of these people may never have pruchased drugs before and possibly never did it with intentions to profit of it through selling. Then again the fact they purchase these things helps to fund the illegal process in creating it. So they are in a way directly fuelling an illegal process and the people involed.
If a governement wants to outlaw something, like drugs, they need to prosecute against everyone illegally involved to help stamp it out whilst hopefully detering others away, so in this case the people who produce it, distribute it, sell it and use it. It would be illogical to be selective.
[COLOR="Yellow"]If drugs were legalized they wouldn't be selective as to who they should arrest because "drug dealers" would pretty much dissapear. And production of drugs would be handled in a safe way much like alcohol. Proper laws would be set as with alcohol and you'd only get arrested if you drive high, or sell drugs to minors, stuff like that. The difference between this and child pornography is that for that kind or porn to exist on the net someone out there actually did have sex with a minor and put the video online. And a minor exposed to sexual activity (forced or willing) normally does end up with mental or psychological problems according to studies, therefore it makes sense to make it illegal, so it's a weak comparisson. But that's a whole different subject.[/COLOR]
Quoting Bebop: As far as alchomohol being as equal or more potent, I don't entierely agree with that. One pint of lager does not have the equal or more potent effects as chomping down on mushrooms does. Realistically 1 pint has little effect s and no way near the halleancentic (sp lol) powers of some freaky shrooms. The only alchohol I can think of which is made illegal is absynith (sp). That has simialr effects to mushrooms and heroin.
I'd like you to provide real evidence showing alchohol can be as equal and/or potent as drugs. That means dont show me some graph saying 4 bottles of whiskey will have a more negative effect on a person than one toke of a joint.
[COLOR="Yellow"][URL="http://www.stopaddiction.com/narconon_alcohol_deaths.html#"]No problem.[/URL] In 200 tobacco accounted for 435,000 deaths (18.1% of total US deaths) and alcohol consumption accounted for 85,000 deaths (3.5% of all Us deaths). Illicit use of drugs accounted for only 17,000 deaths, and that doesn't even include cannabis. These are your dangerous stuff like cocaine, heroine and all the rest of the pointless drugs combined. Cannabis since you don't know is basically marijuana once it's dried up. How many cannabis related deaths? You may ask:[URL="http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/01pot-related.htm"] Only 3 deaths in 2001 directly caused by marijuana[/URL]. 3 deaths directly caused by marijuana and 138 by anything related to cannabis, did that register? For the facts and myths of marijuana, read [URL="http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/"]this.[/URL] But f[COLOR="Yellow"]u[/COLOR]ck the numbers even if they're on my side, this is a bigger issue than numbers. Innocent people are getting screwed over.[/COLOR]
Quoting Bebop: Back to your question, I do think its fair. Because one is illegal and one isnt. Do I think someone who steals cars should get arrested. Yes, because it is fair. Do I think someone feeding ducks should get arrested? No, because that is unfair (unless they were feeding the ducks drugs ¬:
[COLOR="Yellow"]So now you're saying getting arrested for something should depend on wether it's fair or not. If so, i totally agree with you, being fair refers to human ethics, aloong with human morality. But you also said that morals should have nothing to do with laws, so you're kinda contradicting yourself.[/COLOR]
[QUOTE=Bebop]Like I said before I'm no drug user or police expert but surely snorting so much coke (which is a product of cannabis right?) can kill you?
[COLOR="Yellow"]You don't have to be a drug user or "police expert" to be educated on the subject, but no, coke isn't a product of cannabis.[/COLOR]
[QUOTE=Bebop]Do not refer to these people as non-criminals. They have done something illegal and have been punished. They are criminals so dont try to mix your point of view on their chrages with logic. Do a crime=criminal. That simple.
[COLOR="Yellow"]So if the government made it illegal to take a shower, you wouldn't do it? You're saying that even if everyone in your country started smelling like **** you still wouldn't do it because it's the law and the government said so even though it's a ridiculous law that makes no sense? You're also telling me you would be ok if your uncle gets arrested because he took a shower since he couldn't take it anymore, but hey, he committed a crime so now he has to pay the prize. Is that what you're telling me?[/COLOR]
Quoting Bebop: Why arent you answering the question? it's very simple. I'll try to re-phrase it againe.
[b]Do you mean they want to censore ALL STATIONS ALL THE TIME or just enforce a WATERSHED?
[COLOR="Yellow"]They're trying to so yeah, they want to censore all the stations, all the time. No watershed if they had it their way.[/COLOR]
Posted by Bebop
Quoting Aioros: [COLOR="Yellow"]If drugs were legalized they wouldn't be selective as to who they should arrest because "drug dealers" would pretty much dissapear. And production of drugs would be handled in a safe way much like alcohol. Proper laws would be set as with alcohol and you'd only get arrested if you drive high, or sell drugs to minors, stuff like that. The difference between this and child pornography is that for that kind or porn to exist on the net someone out there actually did have sex with a minor and put the video online. And a minor exposed to sexual activity (forced or willing) normally does end up with mental or psychological problems according to studies, therefore it makes sense to make it illegal, so it's a weak comparisson. But that's a whole different subject.[/COLOR]
The first part of this is irrelevant. The 2nd part you missed the point. Nice one. I was illustrating how even being indirectly involved with an illegal market and its profit making process is still damaging.
If Al Quiada had a bake sale and you bought one of the cookies you are not a terrosist/peadohpile/Spanish druge dealer are you? No. But you are still funding terrosit acts through this and these acts damage people yes? I figure if you dont get one analgy youd prefer a simpler one with cakes.
I'll read those links when I'm not about to take a dump.
[quote][COLOR="Yellow"]So now you're saying getting arrested for something should depend on wether it's fair or not.[/color]
Jesus I see your continuing your trait of "If I make up quotes they must be true". Re-read post plz. You asked me a question, I answered it. Simple.
[quote][COLOR="Yellow"]But you also said that morals should have nothing to do with laws, so you're kinda contradicting yourself.[/COLOR]
No I said morals have nothing to do with laws, not that they SHOULDNT. Nice job on not reading my post/not understanding something so clear/making up crap again.
[quote][COLOR="Yellow"]You don't have to be a drug user or "police expert" to be educated on the subject, but no, coke isn't a product of cannabis.[/COLOR]
I didnt say you have to but it helps. Like I said before, I'm not interested in drugs so i don't reserach them.
[quote][COLOR="Yellow"]So if the government made it illegal to take a shower, you wouldn't do it? You're saying that even if everyone in your country started smelling like **** you still wouldn't do it because it's the law and the government said so even though it's a ridiculous law that makes no sense? You're also telling me you would be ok if your uncle gets arrested because he took a shower since he couldn't take it anymore, but hey, he committed a crime so now he has to pay the prize. Is that what you're telling me?[/COLOR]
I 'd take a bath. If I did take a shower and it was against the law I would be a criminal. Although if theres a prize involved I'd be more interested lolol
Back to reality and also the topic at hand, you cant get round the ****ing clear logic that [b]if you commit a crime you are a criminal, and if you do NOT commit a crime you are NOT a criminal[/B]. The reason you referred to drug uses as non-criminals is because your think drugs should not be illegal, and you were trying to squeeze in your point of view at the same time. I wasn't making a deep remark or anyhting. I was stating the obvious.
[quote][COLOR="Yellow"]They're trying to so yeah, they want to censore all the stations, all the time. No watershed if they had it their way.[/COLOR]
They smell. Are they funded by Christians?
Posted by BebopI took a look through that Marijuana Myths thing. I got to say, what a load of crap. I never even knew there where so many of these obviously bogus myths, let alone someone had to go prove that the statements"Marijuana is a main cause of highway accidents" and "increases crime" are about the dumbest accusations ever.
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Bebop: If Al Quiada had a bake sale and you bought one of the cookies you are not a terrosist/peadohpile/Spanish druge dealer are you? No. But you are still funding terrosit acts through this and these acts damage people yes? I figure if you dont get one analgy youd prefer a simpler one with cakes.
[COLOR="Yellow"]I got the first analogy, it just wasn't comparable to the subject. This one is even worse, since now you're comparing the drug market to Al Quaida. Analogies don't seem to be working for you son just say what you mean, k?[/COLOR]
Quoting Bebop: I'll read those links when I'm not about to take a dump.
[COLOR="Yellow"]Please do. Take your time taking them into consideraton, i mean, they're only the FACTS.[/COLOR]
Quoting Bebop: No I said morals have nothing to do with laws, not that they SHOULDNT. Nice job on not reading my post/not understanding something so clear/making up crap again.
[COLOR="Yellow"]Point still stands though. You said someone should get arrested because it's fair and because it's the law. Not just because it's the law. I agree with that.[/COLOR]
Quoting Bebop: I'd take a bath. If i take a shower i would be a criminal. Although if theres a prize involved I'd be more interested lolol
[COLOR="Yellow"]So you would be ok with it, even if it's a retarded law. Nice to see where you stand on anything law-related.
[/COLOR]
Quoting Bebop: Back to reality and also the topic at hand, you cant get round the ****ing clear logic that [b]if you commit a crime you are a criminal, and if you do NOT commit a crime you are NOT a criminal[/B].
[COLOR="Yellow"]That's not logic, that's a fact, an obvious fact like you said. Were not discussing that. Were discussing why drugs are such a crime and all those who use it are considered criminals. Do you have any other valid reasons as to why all drugs should be illegal and punish those who use it other than, it's the law lol.[/COLOR]
Quoting Bebop: I took a look through that Marijuana Myths thing. I got to say, what a load of crap. I never even knew there where so many of these obviously bogus myths, let alone someone had to go prove that the statements"Marijuana is a main cause of highway accidents" and "increases crime" are about the dumbest accusations ever.
[COLOR="Yellow"]So, are you agreeing with me that it should be legal? And did you read the other links?[/COLOR]
Posted by BebopObviously analagies arent working for me. I dont undersatnd why something so simple and comparable could be misunderstood.
[quote][COLOR="Yellow"]So you would be ok with it, even if it's a retarded law. Nice to see where you stand on anything law-related.
[/COLOR]
Nice to see where you stand on obvious saracsm. I was orignally going to respond to that orignal statment with something along the lines of "I'd join the rebels" but I chose the comedy route. I thought "a silly answer for a silly question". Unfortunatly it didnt work. Way to ruin my comedy career you jerk :(
[quote][COLOR="Yellow"]That's not logic, that's a fact, an obvious fact like you said. Were not discussing that.[/colour][quote][COLOR="Yellow"]Were discussing why drugs are such a crime and all those who use it are considered criminals. Do you have any other valid reasons as to why all drugs should be illegal and punish those who use it other than, it's the law lol.[/COLOR]
I thought we were discussing you calling people who break the law 'non-criminals'? I guess we better abandon that issue, right after it was solved the second I said otherwise...
FFS this isnt me trying to present an argumnet that all drugs should be iillegal.
Its been me saying if you commit a crime you are a criminak->you disagreeing
Its been me saying if drugs are illegal, carrying them should be too->you disagreeing
You making up crap and missing the point
etc and some random crap
As far as I know I havent given my view on the legaliziation on drugs from my personal point of view, just from a lawful point of view.
Do you think all drugs should be legal? Do I think they should? I don't care. I dont use them. I think some should, without question, remain off limits though. Heroin is easily the most destructive drug around. I dont know why weed is illegal, and personally I was somewhat releived to hear the class of weed lowered in ol Blighty. Ive never really seen a problem with it. If it were a substance I used often then maybe I'd care. Right now its like some Harry Potter fans are trying to get me to queue with them. I dont like the books, your the guy dressed as wizards. Dont touch me.
The only problem I have with weed is that, in my experince, the people who use them are boring.as.hell. Being in the company of 10 silly drunks is, hands down, more entertaining than doped up kids staring at a Led Zepplin poster.
Right now all I know that is IS illegal and that must be because the government wants it out, which is why Ive been seeing the how law vs drugs thing from their point of view.
Naturally introducing them to the public in a legal fashion WILL make it better, safer and more monitored. Right now, even before you submitted the links, alchohol does more damage a year than drugs. But that makes it sound as if its because of the substance, rather than the accessabiliy. Most probably but it depends on what drug and drink you are comparing. It's possible that if weed were legal and more people used it, perhaps on the same scale as drinks, the crime/death rate related to that could increase. Surely you agree with that? Introduction and safety monitoring of alchohol worked wonders with alchohol didnt it. I mean its not like alchohol is one of the main contributions to death per year is it?
Posted by Lord of SpamI'm not going to bother reading any of this, but I'm betting its all just arios saying that you shouldnt be a criminal, and there being a misunderstanding about that.
If you smoke pot, you are a criminal, but you shouldnt be is his argument (i think).
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Bebop: Right now its like some Harry Potter fans are trying to get me to queue with them. I dont like the books, your the guy dressed as wizards. Dont touch me.
[COLOR="Yellow"]What the fu[COLOR="Yellow"]c[/COLOR]k does that mean?[/COLOR]
Quoting Bebop: Right now, even before you submitted the links, alchohol does more damage a year than drugs. But that makes it sound as if its because of the substance, rather than the accessabiliy.
[COLOR="Yellow"]That's because it is the substance that causes so many deaths a year, not the availibility, i don't know how you came up with that one. Besides, a bag of heroine is easier to obtain (see, drug dealers aren't checking ID) and it costs less than a 12-pack, so that theory is totally bunk.
Let me put it another way. Do you think it's right for the government to impose a law that doesn't allow people to freely use a recreational drug in the privacy of their homes or in certain public places? Especially a recreational drug that isn't as dangerous as others that are legal?
[/COLOR]
Posted by higbvuybThough drugs may not cause many deaths directly, taking drugs has a small risk of causing mental illness, such as schizophrenia. A very smnall proportion of them may then have delusions that lead them to murder people.
Which is a danger to the public.
Though it's stupid to go after drug users who have done nothing wrong, rather than the dealers.
Posted by Bebop
Quoting Lord of Spam: If you smoke pot, you are a criminal, but you shouldnt be is his argument (i think).
Oh we know. I was just saying he shouldnt include his personal view because it dostorts the defintion of 'criminal'. It took him a while to get that.
Aioros, concerning the links you provided all I have to say is: "Way to fail".
Upon your first statement I requested this(and read this closely) :I'd like you to provide real evidence showing alchohol can be as equal and/or potent as drugs. That means dont show me some graph saying 4 bottles of whiskey will have a more negative effect on a person than one toke of a joint.
You gave me an article about the supposad 'myths' on marijuana. How does this prove that 1 pint of alchohol has equal or more potent effects than 1 dosage of heroin? It doesnt. Which is what I requested.
You gave me an article showing alcohol to be one of the main causes of death a year. Genius. Who would have thought. Still in that article it didnt say anywhere that a shot of vodka has the same effect as a mushroom lunch.
You gave me results on cannabis related deaths. Which would be great if I asked "Show me stuff about how crap weed is". But I didnt ask that. I asked for evidence on drugs not just marijuna. There was no discussion of alchohol being as or more potent than all drugs, which is what I asked. All it did was remind us of what we already know: weed is crap and alchohol kills people. You lied to me sir. You lied to me.
[quote]What the **** does that mean?
It means that it feels like your trying to get me to support the legalization of marijuana even though it wasnt reall the point of our posting, and its not something that interested me or concerned me in the first place.
[quote]That's because it is the substance that causes so many deaths a year, not the availibility, i don't know how you came up with that one. Besides, a bag of heroine is easier to obtain (see, drug dealers aren't checking ID) and it costs less than a 12-pack, so that theory is totally bunk.
Since you have not provided evidence to support your original statement that alchohol is more or equally as potent as , say, heroin I'm going to consider that the accesibilty is heavily linked with the deaths. Its quite simple. More of a deadly substance=more people to use it. Alchohol is, no matter what you think, far easier to get hold of than heroin. So straght away there are less people using heroin then there are alchohol so the chance of the latter causing death is higher. Gettit? [b]ore of something means there is more chance of it being misused[/B]. I don't understand why you didnt get it the first time. Also the social acceptance and legal issues behind drugs such as heroin also add to this. This means there is more chance of someone choosing alchohol over heroin because it is easier to get, virtual no legal issues and more social accepted. If the tables were turned do you think heroin would contribute to more deaths a year than alchohol? The only place I can think of where heroin is more accessable than alchohol is a Mexican slum. Then again Mexican ghettos are the sin of the world so what goes on there isnt relevant to anywhere else.
[quote]Let me put it another way. Do you think it's right for the government to impose a law that doesn't allow people to freely use a recreational drug in the privacy of their homes or in certain public places? Especially a recreational drug that isn't as dangerous as others that are legal?
Since when has out posting been about me being against drugs? I have never said in this thread that all drugs should be illegal. Just they are and if you do it you are thus a criminal.I refuse to answer that because it will only cause you to take us further off topic. :chainsaw:
Posted by Lord of Spam
Quoting higbvuyb: Though drugs may not cause many deaths directly, taking drugs has a small risk of causing mental illness, such as schizophrenia.
I'd REALLY like to see the link between pot and mental disorders.
Posted by BebopThis is kind of realted but I just remember reading about some guy on a bad mushroom trip. he thought the FBI was after him (he was in ol Blighty the poor lad) and jumped out a 4th story window. lol.
Posted by Lord of SpamYeah, you have to make sure you're in a really good, positive envirnment when you do shrooms if you want to avoid a bad trip.
Posted by BebopIt didnt help he was just doing it with his girlfirend who was also having a bad trip. I think they were walking around London in a compeltely paranoid state. He was worse off than she was so when they got back to their flat she went to ring and ambulance then heard a bit scream and a tumping noise. I bet it took a while to realize she wasnt seeing **** and her BF really had 'escaped' the cops.
Also reminds me of something else. I know a school with an awful reputation (its situated in council areas so what do you expect) and some ****ed chave thought it would be smart to get home by walking on train tracks.
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Bebop: Since you have not provided evidence to support your original statement that alchohol is more or equally as potent as , say, heroin I'm going to consider that the accesibilty is heavily linked with the deaths.
[COLOR="Yellow"]I didn't say alcohol was equally or more potent than heroin, i can't say that because it's not. Heroin beats alcohol's a[COLOR="Yellow"]s[/COLOR]s in toxicity and maybe even in addictivity. I was referring to marijuana basically. But even heroin, cocaine and ecstasy combined don't result in as many deaths as alcohol or tobacco, which should be taken into consideration because it shows that the more lethal drugs don't kill as many people as the less lethal ones.[/COLOR]
Quoting Bebop: Its quite simple. More of a deadly substance=more people to use it. Alchohol is, no matter what you think, far easier to get hold of than heroin. So straght away there are less people using heroin then there are alchohol so the chance of the latter causing death is higher. Gettit? [b]ore of something means there is more chance of it being misused[/B].
[COLOR="Yellow"]I tried to check those statistics, but i couldn't since you pulled them directly out of your a[COLOR="Yellow"]s[/COLOR]s. You think heroin is hard to get a hold of because they're illegal? Don't be so naive, a silly law isn't enough to stop addicts from getting their stuff. It is so unbelievably easy to get since it's so affordable, compact and easily concealed. I can walk out of my house and within literally half and hour get a bag for much cheaper than a 12-pack, but i won't because drugs are useless and i'm not getting arrested trying to prove a point to Bebop. Addiction is a powerful thing, and addicts are always going after the drug they like, not the drugs that are legal.[/COLOR]
Quoting Bebop: If the tables were turned do you think heroin would contribute to more deaths a year than alchohol?
[COLOR="Yellow"]No.[/COLOR]
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: I can walk out of my house and within literally half and hour get a bag for much cheaper than a 12-pack,
Hey, me too. There's about one place to get alcohol within five minutes from my house, but there's at least three spots to get heroin. Teens from my old highschool can also get it far easier and cheaper than they could beer.
Posted by Bebop
Quoting Aioros: [COLOR="Yellow"]I didn't say alcohol was equally or more potent than heroin, i can't say that because it's not. Heroin beats alcohol's a[COLOR="Yellow"]s[/COLOR]s in toxicity and maybe even in addictivity. I was referring to marijuana basically. But even heroin, cocaine and ecstasy combined don't result in as many deaths as alcohol or tobacco, which should be taken into consideration because it shows that the more lethal drugs don't kill as many people as the less lethal ones.[/COLOR]
You said alchohol was equal or more potent than drugs. You didnt specify which until now. Even after I requested information on it. I have yet to see eveidnce to back up your original statement, which now you clearly retract.
[quote][COLOR="Yellow"]I tried to check those statistics, but i couldn't since you pulled them directly out of your a[COLOR="Yellow"]s[/COLOR]s. You think heroin is hard to get a hold of because they're illegal? Don't be so naive, a silly law isn't enough to stop addicts from getting their stuff. It is so unbelievably easy to get since it's so affordable, compact and easily concealed. I can walk out of my house and within literally half and hour get a bag for much cheaper than a 12-pack, but i won't because drugs are useless and i'm not getting arrested trying to prove a point to Bebop. Addiction is a powerful thing, and addicts are always going after the drug they like, not the drugs that are legal.[/COLOR]
No, heroin is harder to get hold of because they are less accessible. See how that works? If theres less of something it is harder to find (think pokemon) I was saying I can walk out of my house and get to 4 shops within a decent radias that I know sell alchohol. I cant walk out of my house and get 4 people I know sell horoin.
If I put alot of effort into it and made some contacts I'm sure I could be rolling around in the golden brown before I even touched a drop of beer. Surely even you admit that right off the bat getting a crate of beer is easier to learn of and acquire than heroin?
In any case I'm willing to bet there are more major outlets for alchohol then there are for heroin in my area. Perhaps if I lived in London the numbers would get slimer, but until then I can safely say you are wrong. From my area anyway.
[quote][COLOR="Yellow"]No.[/COLOR]
Right, so you say heroin is more destructive and more addicitve than alchohol yet you think if the user base for each substance was switched alchohol would still stay the same. I find that hard to beleive. I find it harder to beleive you still think that. If people are dumb enough to abuse a legal substance to the state they die, how you can honeslty beleive the same people wont be dumb enough to abuse a much harder, deadlier substance if it were legal?
Posted by Aioros[COLOR="Yellow"]Did you not read what me and Vampiro said? Heroin isn't hard to find and it is very accesible. You don't do drugs and you already said you don't know much about the subject, so you obviously aren't aware of the "world wide" statistics. If you still think you are right, do some research. Maybe it is hard to find in "your area" (or maybe it's easy to find where you live, you just don't know), but that's not a representative of the rest of the world is it?
[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Yellow"]I can understand why you'd find that hard to believe but all you have to do is study up on recreational drugs and addictiveness to understand it. Not everyone who smokes/drinks any type of recreational drug becomes depended on it, so even if heroin were to be legalized and someone who didn't use it before tried it for the heck of it, doesn't mean he/she is going to keep using it and making it's userbase bigger. People are not stupid, most are aware of the dangers of heroin and they don't need a law to change their opinion on whether they shouldn't use it. The people who like to use heroin already do it, and those who don't like it already don't.[/COLOR]
Posted by Bebop
Quoting Aioros: [COLOR="Yellow"]Did you not read what me and Vampiro said? Heroin isn't hard to find and it is very accesible. You don't do drugs and you already said you don't know much about the subject, so you obviously aren't aware of the "world wide" statistics. If you still think you are right, do some research. Maybe it is hard to find in "your area" (or maybe it's easy to find where you live, you just don't know), but that's not a representative of the rest of the world is it?
[/COLOR]
Maybe you didnt understand where I said alchohol is more accesible than heroin. You cant, for some reason, understand this. This doesnt mean heroin is not possible to get hold of it. It means it is easier to get hold of than heroin. And for a guy who doesnt have anything to do with drugs I find it hard to beleive he knows how to get some so easily. I always have to repeat the same sentence before you finally get it. In the interest of not brekaing our tradition I shall do the same: Alcohol is much more accesible than heroin, and is easier to get hold of becuase of that
[quote][COLOR="Yellow"]I can understand why you'd find that hard to believe but all you have to do is study up on recreational drugs and addictiveness to understand it. Not everyone who smokes/drinks any type of recreational drug becomes depended on it, so even if heroin were to be legalized and someone who didn't use it before tried it for the heck of it, doesn't mean he/she is going to keep using it and making it's userbase bigger. People are not stupid, most are aware of the dangers of heroin and they don't need a law to change their opinion on whether they shouldn't use it. The people who like to use heroin already do it, and those who don't like it already don't.[/COLOR]
Not everyone who drinks alchohol becomes dependant on it.
People misuse alcohol, yet being aware of the dangers and consiquences.
You're saying people won't misuse heroin, if it were switched around, because they would know of the consiqeunces and dangers.
People are informed of the dangers of alcohol yet still abuse it.
People are aware of the dangers of smoking yet still do it. It's on the packet.
It seems you have to much faith in the modern man.
Law has nothing to do with my point (again you misunderstand somehting so clearly put out). You said it yourself that heroin is more addicitve and dangerous than alchohol. If it were switched around, this includes the user base and the social acceptance of it, people would STILL misuse heroin despite all the dangers. It's just common sense.
Posted by Aioros[COLOR="Yellow"]Are you completely ignoring the fact that i already mentioned how heroin is just as easy to get than alcohol if not easier (not to mention cheaper)?
I put it as clearly as possible and you still don't get it. Heroin is already being misused by people who are addicted to it, it's userbase is already set and legalizing isn't going to make it's userbase that much bigger. I also said that just because it becomes legal, the people who don't use it are still most likely not going to use it (so userbase pretty much stays the same). And it's already socially acceptable by the people who use it so i don't know what you're talking about.
What don't you understand about that.[/COLOR]
Posted by Fei-on Castor
Quoting Aioros: [COLOR="Yellow"]Are you completely ignoring the fact that i already mentioned how heroin is just as easy to get than alcohol if not easier (not to mention cheaper)?[/COLOR]
Actually, heroin is quite pricy. For average stuff, at least in my town, you're looking at about $300/gram. The high qual stuff can get as high as $800/gram. Quite a contrast from meth which runs about $40-60/gram for good stuff. Unless you're doing tar, you can expect to drop about $1000 on a single heroin binge.
I do agree with the basics of what you're saying, Aioros, but I don't think I'd be convinced that heroin, on a broad spectrum, is just as easy to get as alcohol. Maybe in certain areas of certain cities, but on a national/international spectrum, heroin is much harder to come by. First of all, anyone over the age of 21 can buy alcohol legally. All you need is a couple bucks, and a valid ID, and that's it. You can get drunk.
With heroin, you need to know who to ask. It's risky because asking someone you don't know can get you in serious trouble if the person is a narc or maybe the son of a cop or something. You just never know. Even if you don't get busted for asking, you put yourself at risk because now you be watched like a hawk after asking the wrong person. So then, let's say you do know the right person. Then you have to get the stuff from the person. And chances are, the guy you know is not the actual heroin dealer. He's the guy who knows the heroin dealer. But you're not allowed to go to the dealers house because the dealer doesn't like to have people over that he doesn't know and trust. So you give your guy the $300 bucks, and he says he's gonna run across town and pick it up. So your guy leaves, and doesn't come back for about 3 hours, and when he gets back, there's only about a half gram in your bag, and you paid for a full, but you can't exactly sue the guy or call the cops, so you just do what you have, and then waste more money later when the fiending kicks in.
So, no, heroin, cocaine, meth etc are not easy to come by until you've been in the game for a while. Newbies to the situation get ripped off constantly. Especially teenagers. Drug dealers love to rip off teen agers because most of them are too scared to do anything about it. And for people who live in small towns, you don't have many options. There's only one or two guys in my town that I would buy drugs from. And if I don't like the deal they offer me, then I just don't buy any because there's no one to buy from.
Please don't come in here and tell me that I'm wrong in this. I know for sure. I've been there, more times than most VGCers.
You don't go to high school parties and see everyone blasting horse. They usually have a few 30 packs of Natty Ice or something. Maybe weed, and even less common, snow. But they almost never do horse. The ones that do are usually secluded types, and probably get it from their parents or parent's friends. So in their case, it's easy to come by. But for Mr. Average Joe Teenager, it's a lot harder to get horse than it is to get alcohol.
Furthermore, the consequences are wildly different. If a cop catches a 17 year old with a beer, the kid may not even get arrested. I've been in many situations when I was under 21 and had alcohol, the cop took my alcohol, poured it out into the dirt, made me take a breathalyzer (which I always pass because I dont' drink and drive), and then sent me home and told me if he or any other cop caught me, I'd be getting arrested. Do you think that if that same cop found a bag of horse on me that he would just take it from me and let me go? Of course not! If you have a useable amount, it's a guaranteed arrest and likely jailtime, and if not jailtime, definitely probation with weekly drug screenings. Especially after your first offense.
However, I feel that even if heroin was legal, it wouldn't suddenly become the next big thing. There might be a few people more likely to experiment with it, but if you consider, alcohol is legal and I know countless people who don't drink, even when they're over 21. I know even more people who don't smoke cigarettes. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that everyone is gonna go do it. I know that if heroin was legal I wouldn't do it. The legality of a drug has never stopped me from trying it. I've never tried heroin because it just plain does not interest me. I've researched it extensively (like I do with any drug) and after learning what it does to you, the high just doesn't seem fun or enjoyable. I guess if it was legal, I might try it, but probably not.
The way I look at it is like this: There are two kinds of people. There are people who are going to f*ck up their lives, and there are people who aren't. Those who are going to f*ck up their lives will do so, whether it be with heroin, alcohol, meth, gambling, bad relationships, whatever. If you take away all the bad things that people use to f*ck up their lives, then those people will find something else to f*ck up their lives. People f*cked up their lives long before meth was synthesized, and heroin or coke were extracted. If you are the kind of person who will f*ck up, you will find something.
My mom's life was completely wrecked for a while, and I used to say that drugs, specifically meth, ruined her life. But that makes no sense at all to say that. Meth can't "do" anything. It's not alive or capable of doing things. It can only be manipulated and abused by concious people. My mom f*cked up her own life, she just needed something to do that with, and meth was an easy road to it, when used recklessly.
Posted by Bebop
Quoting Aioros: [COLOR="Yellow"]Are you completely ignoring the fact that i already mentioned how heroin is just as easy to get than alcohol if not easier (not to mention cheaper)?
I put it as clearly as possible and you still don't get it. Heroin is already being misused by people who are addicted to it, it's userbase is already set and legalizing isn't going to make it's userbase that much bigger. I also said that just because it becomes legal, the people who don't use it are still most likely not going to use it (so userbase pretty much stays the same). And it's already socially acceptable by the people who use it so i don't know what you're talking about.
What don't you understand about that.[/COLOR]
Because heroin isnt as easy to get hold than alchohol.
The only way it is easier is if you know who can supply you the drug. But that takes alot more effort than being aware of the many places that sell alchohol. Then again if you know anybody well enough theres no challenge in anything. Buying a gun, getting into the film industry, getting into a club underage, or getting across a border illegal is easy if you know the right people. Thats the basis of your argument which is true to an extent. But like I said, right off the bat alchohol is easier to get hold of. If I walked up to 100 people in London and asked them specifically where I could get drugs and alchohol from I'm sure there will be more people who can tell me the latter. (And by specifically I mean an actual dealer, so not something vague like "err a pub" or "Camdem")
Where I live there are are about 50 places which sell alcohol. Some are restaurents, theres some supermarkets, gentlemens clubs, sports clubs and dedicated stored.
I can think of 5 guys I know who do marijuana regulary, 2 of those occasionally doing hard drugs (as far as I know)
For me alchohol is easier to get hold of than heroin is, especially if its coming from people who might not have it.
How can you be sure if heroin being legalised wouldnt increase its userbase? (Notice the word here is icnrease, not beat alchohol) If it became legal it would be more socially acceptable yes? You made the point it is already socially accpetable for the people who do it. it is. Just like raping a kid is already socially acceptable for the people who do it. I'm reffering to an entire country where a War on Drugs is supported, not the people who do.
Take alchohol. England is a country with a lower drinking age than America and is more part of its culture. Pubs are seen as more of a social gathering than a drinking area, like bars are in America. Alot of people drink in Britain. Do you think it is because it is legal? Because its fun? Or because its a very socially accepted thing and even encouraged in some families?
Its all 3 really. (Mostly 2 :-p). If heroin was like this its user base would increase, perhaps not by a landslide but it would. I dont understand how you can think otherwise. If a subtance becomes legal it can attract law abidding citizens without fear and the process of getting it becomes easier and fairer also safer. If it becomes seen ok by society more people need not fear critism from people around them.
As far as being cheaper, I find that hard to beleive on a global scale (like I said before, Mexican slums dont count). I'd make sure the guy selling you your drugs isnt grinding up brick with it. I would say 1 pint of lagar is alot cheaper than 1 pint of heroin. Of course I'm speaking about where I come from which is a lovely quaint part os England a tad off London and sitting rather near the country.
Posted by Aioros
Quoting Fei-on Castor: Actually, heroin is quite pricy. For average stuff, at least in my town, you're looking at about $300/gram. The high qual stuff can get as high as $800/gram. Quite a contrast from meth which runs about $40-60/gram for good stuff. Unless you're doing tar, you can expect to drop about $1000 on a single heroin binge.
[COLOR="Yellow"]That's true, it's expensive when you buy per gram or more. But the people who are satisfied with a quick fix only have to pay [URL="http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/997/heroin.htm"]10-15 dollars[/URL] for little glassine bags which are 60-90% pure which is a pretty da[COLOR="Yellow"]m[/COLOR]n good percentage and enough to get a user high for an entire day. And that's a lot more than cases i've read about where dealers charge as little as $4.
That leaves accessibility. There's no question it can also be difficult and tricky to obtain heroin when dealing with high quantities, but when you're dealing with $10 bags that dealers often have ready with them for a quick sell it's guaranteed you're gonna get what you want quickly and without much hassle. Serious heroin abusers and addicts who buy the bigger quantities are obviously buying that much for a reason, they're addicted. So it's safe to say they've been doing it for a while which means they should have reliable contacts by now. And the kids who just wanna get high for the night don't pay that much and get their stuff without much problem.
EDIT
Bebop, i said in the post before this one that if heroin becomes legal its userbase won't get that much bigger, which means it would increase but not by much, certainly not enough to beat alcohol. So you actually agree with me.
And people use recreational drugs because they control your mind in a way that feels good. That's why people use drugs, because they actually do what you want them to do. If you drink because it's acceptable or because it's encouraged in some families, you're not really contributing to its userbase. Because if you're not doing it because you like it there's no telling if you'll keep doing it in the future.[/COLOR]
Posted by BebopI didnt mean some families will force their children to drink beer all the time or that the vast majority of drinkers do in England because they want to be sociable. I was saying it is something that can be socially accpeted when introduced. That is to say a dad buying his son his "first pint" isnt something frowned upon.
In any case I'm sure if you drank because it's accepted or because its encouaraged you will no doubt feel the effects of it and more than likely enjoy it. Like forcing someone to get hooked on heroin. it may be peer pressure but they'll thank you for it ;)
Posted by Fei-on Castor
Quoting Bebop: In any case I'm sure if you drank because it's accepted or because its encouaraged you will no doubt feel the effects of it and more than likely enjoy it. Like forcing someone to get hooked on heroin. it may be peer pressure but they'll thank you for it ;)
I've met people curious about methamphetamine and they aksed me if I would do it with them because they were wondering what all the hype is about. So I took a few minutes explaining the risks, such as potential for addiction, and the terrible feeling you'll have the following day. If they still wanted to try it, then we would get some and do it. More than 75% of the time, they would decide that it was not for them. Sure, they felt great and had a good time, but the crash wasn't worth it. And I understand that. Some crash harder than others. Mine aren't usually too bad, so I dont' mind.
However, I can see how peer pressure could cause someone to hooked on something. Take cigarettes for example. Almost everyone who starts smoking cigarettes does it because their friends do it. And most of them are still smoking 30 years later, despite the fact that they only started because of peer pressure.
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting Aioros: But even heroin, cocaine and ecstasy combined don't result in as many deaths as alcohol or tobacco, which should be taken into consideration because it shows that the more lethal drugs don't kill as many people as the less lethal ones.
So? That's only because far more people smoke or drink alcohol than take other drugs.
Quoted post: Bebop, i said in the post before this one that if heroin becomes legal its userbase won't get that much bigger, which means it would increase but not by much, certainly not enough to beat alcohol.
Prove this, or you're pulling facts out of your own ***. Otherwise, it's only your opinion, which has no brearing on real life.
And accessibility depends on where you live, your social class, and your country.
Posted by ArwonProportionate to users, the numbers would be much lower for ecstasy at least. Possibly cocaine too though I'm not sure.
Posted by Aioros
Quoting higbvuyb: Prove this, or you're pulling facts out of your own ***. Otherwise, it's only your opinion, which has no brearing on real life.
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/goode/bpr8.htm
[COLOR="Yellow"]That's a da[COLOR="Yellow"]m[/COLOR]n good article to read because it contains past studies and numerous years of research on the subject, most of which coincide with my points. It was written by university professor/sex addict/snappy dresser [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Goode"]Erich Goode[/URL]. He's been researching first hand the effects of drugs on people and societies as well as drugs issues in general for a huge portion of his life. If there's anyone who knows what the f[COLOR="Yellow"]u[/COLOR]ck he's talking about when it comes to drug issues, it's this man.[/COLOR]
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting Aioros: http://www.druglibrary.org/special/goode/bpr8.htm
[COLOR="Yellow"]That's a da[COLOR="Yellow"]m[/COLOR]n good article to read because it contains past studies and numerous years of research on the subject, most of which coincide with my points. It was written by university professor/sex addict/snappy dresser [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Goode"]Erich Goode[/URL]. He's been researching first hand the effects of drugs on people and societies as well as drugs issues in general for a huge portion of his life. If there's anyone who knows what the f[COLOR="Yellow"]u[/COLOR]ck he's talking about when it comes to drug issues, it's this man.[/COLOR]
Unfortunately, that does not constitute a proof. That constitutes an opinion. It may be correct, but it's not proven. So, that means you're still pulling **** out of your *** unless you can actually prove it.
Anyway, if currently illegal drugs became legal and socially accepted and freely available, it's likely that use would go up (When smoking was socially accepted, it was very popular, and alcohol is also very popular). But that's only if all of those criteria are fulfilled, which may or may not happen.
And Alcohol and cigarettes are far less dangerous than many illegal drugs. Alcohol and cigarettes affect the brain to a limited extent, and that is all. Many illegal drugs affect the brain far more, creating hallucinations, etc in some cases. Obviously, the brain is a finely tunes and balanced organ, and messing around with chemical balances will cause damage to the delicate reactions occuring inside. These drugs actually work by inhibiting and affecting normal function. Almost every single part of the body can only function within strict limits, and will fail outside of these. Take the blood, for example. You will die if its pH levels change very little.
Posted by Aioros[COLOR="Yellow"]*sigh*
Ignore the studies why don't you.[/COLOR]
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting Aioros: [COLOR="Yellow"]*sigh*
Ignore the studies why don't you.[/COLOR]
That's a study. It's not proof. The only way to prove it is either from a series of logical conclusions which follow directly from true statements, or by actually doing it. Neither has happened.
Posted by Bj Blaskowitzmy ***, the things I've seen tonight. . . I will elaborate tomorrow, but I now support the war on drugs in its entirety, in any form, whatever it takes.
Posted by Fei-on Castor
Quoting Bj Blaskowitz: my ***, the things I've seen tonight. . . I will elaborate tomorrow, but I now support the war on drugs in its entirety, in any form, whatever it takes.
I think it should be called the "War against drugs" because to be on drugs usually implies being unde the influence of them. To me, the "War on Drugs" sounds like "The War fought while on drugs".
Please elaborate ASAP so I can break down your post, bit by bit. (LOLage)
Posted by Lord of SpamLong story short, beej has been exposed to people using crack, and is understandibly disturbed by it.
Posted by BebopI was exposed to a guy up to his tits on crack. After a night out a pub we were getting burgers and kebabs. Then some teeth chattering paranoid guy comes up. And without any influence from us whatsoever stops the conversation I'm having with my my friend and says hes going to stab all of us. Then he attacked my friend. Then he came back (this time without a shirt) and attacked him further.
Worst part is he knocked my phucking burger out my hand.
Posted by ArwonThat fiend!
I want a burger now.
Posted by BebopThats how I fet after he sent my burger into orbit.
Posted by DesperadoJust like "War on Terrorism", the War on Drugs is the war on you and me.