Random Jibber Jabber Thread

[minnesmoker]

I am not arguing that drugs are safe. They obviously are not. However, nobody has ever shown that the cost of using drugs exceeds the cost of arbitrary legislation criminalizing their possession and use.

We have a philosophical difference. I think the legislation works against the "people with lower social consciousness". I don't want a totalitarian nanny state as the consequence of protecting people from bad choices and their consequences. You may think me cruel for this, but hard experience is a much better and more instructive teacher than a protective policy. Jmo.

It's cheaper to fine a murderer or rapist than it is to incarcerate.

Have you seen what some people will do for LEGAL prescription amphetamines, stimulants, and opiates?

And, I'd argue, in your supposition that impulse crimes and drug abuse are different, that they are both overwhelming forces that create such a need in the brain that it's physically distressing for the person not to act on impulse. Psychotic impulses aren't something that can "be ignored." They overwhelm the sufferer every bit as much as withdrawal overwhelms the user.

Unless you can come up with a TRUE self-defense law, that allows for lethal force at any time when one's confronted by a person on drugs, the societal ramifications outweigh any claims to freedom.

 

[joe macclennan]

If we make the hard drugs cheap, available and of known dosage and purity, what serious indirect harm is there? My body, my choice, my problem and nobody else's. I'm open to being shown wrong.

pehaps none to you. Or many others. But many cannot control their cravings (myself included @ times) and if substances like which we are speaking were available @ the drug store there would undoubtedly be higher mortality rates associated with the ease of purchase.
it's a moral conundrum really. Is allowing people to make life decisions like this so easily a good thing? Thereby possibly increasing the rate of natural selection. Which would undoubtedly have an end result of a stronger species. A species more apt to make situation appropriate decisions on dosage or under which circumstances to ingest such a product?....sounds plausible anyway.

the more immediate hurdle is that no one wants to see a loved one crash and burn due to overuse/abuse of such things. Most anymore have witnessed or experienced personally the effects of these things. Therefore in my opinion the laws regarding harder drugs anyway will never be changed.

but lets get off the specific topic of some of the mainstream drugs ie. heroin/cocaine/amphetamines. All of which have byproducts that are legitimate uses in the medical field. What about the new designer drugs like bath salts or that spice shit or whatever. Things that are chemical concotions which have no use whatsoever. Other than to get you fucked up. Shouldn't society be protected somewhat from some money hungry capitalist whose only goal is to make as much money as quickly as possible? Regardless of the impact his product has? Especially on young impressionable teens?

I don't see any benefit in this.

Bear, tell me what choice a crack baby has or an infant born into opiate withdraw? Tell me again how a mother with a crack addiction is great for society and should be condoned. Tell me how Markel was so addicted to cocaine in the late 1800s that he could no longer operate and that was a good thing. You think because it's legal that people still wont' spend their whole S.S. check on it and go rob someone for more? Whats the vetting process for the mentally ill? Or you just think pcp and bath salts should be available to schizophrenics and bi polar disorder affected people readily? Legislation isn't for the high minded, legislation is for the masses that operate on a lower social consciousness.

Also, your choice affects those around you..

Heroin is pretty damn cheap already btw, the problem is the addiction doesn't stop when your pay runs out.

I don't see all addicts as worthless at all. I do believe people deserve to be treated. I just don't think that putting up Crack-Mart is the best idea.

all very good points. As far as the addicted mothers who give birth to addicted children. They should be punished severely. To me doing that to an unborn child is tantamount to attempt murder. I do feel for the mothers though. I'm sure most if actually given a choice would never do such a thing their children. That is the thing with those drugs. After a point the user loses all ability to choose.....been there.

another unpopular opinion: any mother giving birth to a drug addicted baby should be subject to forced sterilization. Harsh? Absolutely. Too fucking bad. They made their choice. They should be forced to live with the consequences of their actions for the rest of their lives. Just as their poor child has too. By doing so would also prevent this atrocity from being committed again.

you make good points sir

• You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kinetic again.
  
  
  
  

I am not arguing that drugs are safe. They obviously are not. However, nobody has ever shown that the cost of using drugs exceeds the cost of arbitrary legislation criminalizing their possession and use.

We have a philosophical difference. I think the legislation works against the "people with lower social consciousness". I don't want a totalitarian nanny state as the consequence of protecting people from bad choices and their consequences. You may think me cruel for this, but hard experience is a much better and more instructive teacher than a protective policy. Jmo.

we are in agreement here....mostly.

 

[Sunbiz1]

Like..............

 

[joe macclennan]

I see what you are doing there...and I like it I don't think you'll stop this train quite yet though.

It's cheaper to fine a murderer or rapist than it is to incarcerate.

Have you seen what some people will do for LEGAL prescription amphetamines, stimulants, and opiates?

And, I'd argue, in your supposition that impulse crimes and drug abuse are different, that they are both overwhelming forces that create such a need in the brain that it's physically distressing for the person not to act on impulse. Psychotic impulses aren't something that can "be ignored." They overwhelm the sufferer every bit as much as withdrawal overwhelms the user.

Unless you can come up with a TRUE self-defense law, that allows for lethal force at any time when one's confronted by a person on drugs, the societal ramifications outweigh any claims to freedom.

very good points by you as well

• You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to minnesmoker again.
  
  
  
  

but wouldn't allowing people to make these choices end up breeding a stronger species as I theorized?

I mean sure you will have those that make the bad choices too, and go down the wrong path. But those who do not would most likely procreate with like minded individuals thereby creating more of a social gap but so be it.

the world needs ditch diggers too.

Not everyone needs to go to college. Not everyone wants to be a scientist. It truly does take all types to make society work efficiently.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Am I threadjacking Random Jibber?

I was just thinking about posterity

 

[420God]

I don't think you'll stop this train quite yet though.

I give up.

 

[joe macclennan]

I dunno, chatting about this subject with intelligent people like minnes,annie, bear or kinetic sounds profusely more interesting than shoveling snow @ this point

edit: ok, guess i'll go shovel snow lol

 

[minnesmoker]

I see what you are doing there...and I like it I don't think you'll stop this train quite yet though.


very good points by you as well

If that's 420 doing the jiggling, I'm impressed.

• You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to minnesmoker again.
  
  
  
  

but wouldn't allowing people to make these choices end up breeding a stronger species as I theorized?

I mean sure you will have those that make the bad choices too, and go down the wrong path. But those who do not would most likely procreate with like minded individuals thereby creating more of a social gap but so be it.

the world needs ditch diggers too.

Not everyone needs to go to college. Not everyone wants to be a scientist. It truly does take all types to make society work efficiently.

The problem is the interim. When all of those junkies and tweakers are running rampant. Will there be an "equalizing" law, so that the problem with a spike in violent crime (no matter how tempered and short lasting) can be countered -- with NO repercussions?

 

[UncleBuck]

I dunno, chatting about this subject with intelligent people like minnes,annie, bear or kinetic sounds profusely more interesting than shoveling snow @ this point

edit: ok, guess i'll go shovel snow lol

i promise you guys that "shoveling snow" is just euphemism for doing cocaine.

 

[cannabineer]

It's cheaper to fine a murderer or rapist than it is to incarcerate.

Have you seen what some people will do for LEGAL prescription amphetamines, stimulants, and opiates?

No. I don't know of anywhere whee the drugs are not tightly regulated by a prescription system. This is run in a way to make it hard for an addict to get enough drug to maintain an addiction, unless one finds a doctor who is working outside the stated ethics of his profession. Legal and available aren't the same here.

And, I'd argue, in your supposition that impulse crimes and drug abuse are different, that they are both overwhelming forces that create such a need in the brain that it's physically distressing for the person not to act on impulse. Psychotic impulses aren't something that can "be ignored." They overwhelm the sufferer every bit as much as withdrawal overwhelms the user.

Unless you can come up with a TRUE self-defense law, that allows for lethal force at any time when one's confronted by a person on drugs, the societal ramifications outweigh any claims to freedom.

"The person was on drugs. So I shot her." I don't think that should be permissible. How is that self-defense? Do we currently allow "The person was in the grips of psychotic delusion, so i shot him." to be valid reasoning?

If that's 420 doing the jiggling, I'm impressed.





The problem is the interim. When all of those junkies and tweakers are running rampant. Will there be an "equalizing" law, so that the problem with a spike in violent crime (no matter how tempered and short lasting) can be countered -- with NO repercussions?

Can you show me any good reason to think that deregulating hard drugs ... to the point where they are available at some realistic price and not taxed or otherwise gatekept ... would lead to a spike in violent crime? I think this is a straw man.

I also don't think meeting violence with violence is something we can strip of repercussions. Look at alcohol law as a model. Drink yourself stupid? OK. Drive with alcohol on board? Big fines and loss of privilege. I suggest structuring the law to put consequence on "doing something stupid while loaded", not "being loaded". In the eyes of the law, a drunk is still an adult citizen, assuming she is so while sober.

 

[gioua]

Zimmerman VS DMX

http://www.eonline.com/news/507716/...y-boxing-match-floyd-mayweather-sr-to-referee

There's about to be a brawl...up in here, up in here.
E! News confirmed George Zimmerman will face off against rapper DMX in the ring for a Celebrity Boxing Match next month as Floyd Mayweather Sr. referees. The thought of going head-to-head in the ring was actually Zimmerman's idea, telling Radar Online last month that boxing is his hobby.
Once celebs caught wind of the event, a number of them volunteered to go against Zimmerman, who stood trial for second-degree murder and manslaughter for shooting Trayvon Martin but was acquitted.
Rapper The Game made it known he was more than willing to box Zimmerman. When a fan asked the celeb on Twitter today whether he was picked to fight, Game tweeted back, "nah he scared !!! Said DMX more his size lol."

 

[420God]

The hemp thing written into the farm bill is pretty cool. Small change at the federal level.

 

[kinetic]

The hemp thing written into the farm bill is pretty cool. Small change at the federal level.

I saw that too! Pretty cool. Maybe the next farm bill will include Ganja Subsidies Lol! I did see they stopped direct to farmer subsidies.

 

[shrxhky420]

No. I don't know of anywhere whee the drugs are not tightly regulated by a prescription system. This is run in a way to make it hard for an addict to get enough drug to maintain an addiction, unless one finds a doctor who is working outside the stated ethics of his profession. Legal and available aren't the same here.

"The person was on drugs. So I shot her." I don't think that should be permissible. How is that self-defense? Do we currently allow "The person was in the grips of psychotic delusion, so i shot him." to be valid reasoning?



Can you show me any good reason to think that deregulating hard drugs ... to the point where they are available at some realistic price and not taxed or otherwise gatekept ... would lead to a spike in violent crime? I think this is a straw man.

I also don't think meeting violence with violence is something we can strip of repercussions. Look at alcohol law as a model. Drink yourself stupid? OK. Drive with alcohol on board? Big fines and loss of privilege. I suggest structuring the law to put consequence on "doing something stupid while loaded", not "being loaded". In the eyes of the law, a drunk is still an adult citizen, assuming she is so while sober.

http://m.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-891060.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=

SH420

 

[SirGreenThumb]

Managed to get my dvd player put in today, while it was snowing and not being able to turn on my truck while I worked for fear of shorting something out. Now I'm trying to warm up my hands and toes. I didn't even set the stations, put it on the closest one to see if everything was working..
It is.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

I saw that too! Pretty cool. Maybe the next farm bill will include Ganja Subsidies Lol! I did see they stopped direct to farmer subsidies.

Pay me before I grow again.

 

[joe macclennan]

i promise you guys that "shoveling snow" is just euphemism for doing cocaine.

lmfao damn, i'm not that hardcore.

• You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to UncleBuck again.
  
  
  
  

Can you show me any good reason to think that deregulating hard drugs ... to the point where they are available at some realistic price and not taxed or otherwise gatekept ... would lead to a spike in violent crime? I think this is a straw man.

I also don't think meeting violence with violence is something we can strip of repercussions. Look at alcohol law as a model. Drink yourself stupid? OK. Drive with alcohol on board? Big fines and loss of privilege. I suggest structuring the law to put consequence on "doing something stupid while loaded", not "being loaded". In the eyes of the law, a drunk is still an adult citizen, assuming she is so while sober.

completely agree with all of this. Would you include the new synthetic drugs such as bath salts and such in this category?

I just cannot agree with someone combining a bunch of poisons and profiting from it. Only difference being you don't hear about the cocaine cannibal, or people doing such outlandish things on even meth especially not H. Pcp maybe, i have witnessed pcp induced rages. I don't see much use in that substance either honestly.

 

[gR33nDav3l0l]

Before legalization, the states needs a deep socio-cultural overhauling.

 

[cannabineer]

lmfao damn, i'm not that hardcore.

• You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to UncleBuck again.
  
  
  
  

completely agree with all of this. Would you include the new synthetic drugs such as bath salts and such in this category?

I just cannot agree with someone combining a bunch of poisons and profiting from it. Only difference being you don't hear about the cocaine cannibal, or people doing such outlandish things on even meth especially not H. Pcp maybe, i have witnessed pcp induced rages. I don't see much use in that substance either honestly.

Bath salts are a response to prohibition. They're generally a loophole analog of a better and more efficacious substance, such as MDMA or weed. I don't have any issue with having them legal. Gasoline is quite the intoxicant, but you don't see many people choosing (inhaling) it over malt liquor!

 

[joe macclennan]

I thought about the gasoline thing too. Pretty good analogy really.

so basically you propose to make it all legal and let nature sort it out. I'm not totally opposed to this.

It'll never happen though...ever imo.