Who consumes pure alcohol?
People do drugs for the effects, you don't always drink beer to get shitfaced.
People do drugs for the effects, you don't always drink beer to get shitfaced.
inane little opines
I have, son.Shocking wrote:
Who consumes pure alcohol?
People do drugs for the effects, you don't always drink beer to get shitfaced.
190 proof!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Who knows what someone on LSD will do? They can either stare at the ceiling for 5 hours or start running around in circlesUzique wrote:
the thing is people on LSD don't want to drive; people drunk are stupid enough to. you're assuming the effects make people want to behave as drunk people do, only with additional impairments (i.e. like a moron). you don't want to and it's pretty silly to imply or suggest any link.
inane little opines
i know because i've taken it several times and have babysat people that have been on it multiple times. have you? people on LSD want to go for walks in a park; they want to sit by a lake; they want to stare at the pattern on a carpet or at some wallpaper for three hours. they don't think "hey lets drive downtown at rush hour to get a macdonalds". who knows what a drunk person will do? i put that to you. far more volatile, far more prone to aggressive and intimidating behaviour... and, to top it all off, far more toxicologically poisonous and lethal. looks like hard drugs win.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
This is obviously based on your vast personal experience with the drug, eh? You know what I did when I tried acid? I stood on the front lawn counting the veins in the leaves on a tree. Scary. I was a danger to society.Shocking wrote:
Who knows what someone on LSD will do? They can either stare at the ceiling for 5 hours or start running around in circlesUzique wrote:
the thing is people on LSD don't want to drive; people drunk are stupid enough to. you're assuming the effects make people want to behave as drunk people do, only with additional impairments (i.e. like a moron). you don't want to and it's pretty silly to imply or suggest any link.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I've only babysat two of my mates once (with a group of 10 people). I had to laugh -a lot- but they didn't seem that much different from drunk people to me.
inane little opines
Shocking weren't you saying how you went apeshit on a couple that was dancing in a bar one time cos you were really drunk?
yeah but galt you could have imagined you were a GI Joe and could have gone to a shopping mall with an AR-15, thinking that you had a rifle of love and were shooting rays of peace and hope unto all the oppressed shoppers. i mean this could have happened. because they're psychedelics. they're totally crazy.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Yes, I did, point being?
inane little opines
hard drugs are bad and legalized drugs are harmonious and in keeping with a good, just and peaceful utopia.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Shocking weren't you saying how you went apeshit on a couple that was dancing in a bar one time cos you were really drunk?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
One was trying to fit himself in the mini fridge and was completely unresponsive. Wasn't in control of his actions at all.
I'm 100% certain that if we let him outside he would have caused a traffic accident
I'm 100% certain that if we let him outside he would have caused a traffic accident
inane little opines
lol. and how many times have you had to protect your drunken friends on a night out from swaying into the road or getting into an altercation or confrontation? i can guarantee many more times and much more likely than those 'unsafe' psychedelics you talk about oh so much. you yourself are an hypocrit example of the damage done to society by alcohol: violence and aggression. how many people are violent on LSD? i bet it begins with 'z' and ends with 'ero'.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Yeah I am a case that can be violent with alcohol. Hence I make sure not to get drunk when I'm in a crowded public place.
I just don't understand that if we got one drug that's already causing this much damage why on earth would you want to legalize the other 100+ because theyre "less bad"?
Isn't all the accidents caused by drunk idiots more than enough?
I just don't understand that if we got one drug that's already causing this much damage why on earth would you want to legalize the other 100+ because theyre "less bad"?
Isn't all the accidents caused by drunk idiots more than enough?
inane little opines
well, now your argument has entirely changed and you've capitulated. that's nice to see.
the fact is a guy has been shot dead because he's a drug dealer. that's a little heavy handed considering, as you've just admitted, perfectly legal drugs and people on them pose more of a threat and are already enough of a menace. is it right to assume, therefore, by that logic that it is acceptable to shoot dead a violent drunk on the street with a SWAT team? or are you now moving somewhere towards admitting the police's fault here? and actually seeing through your personal prejudice and bias against "hard drugs"?
the fact is a guy has been shot dead because he's a drug dealer. that's a little heavy handed considering, as you've just admitted, perfectly legal drugs and people on them pose more of a threat and are already enough of a menace. is it right to assume, therefore, by that logic that it is acceptable to shoot dead a violent drunk on the street with a SWAT team? or are you now moving somewhere towards admitting the police's fault here? and actually seeing through your personal prejudice and bias against "hard drugs"?
Last edited by Uzique (2011-05-18 06:46:45)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
And don't tell me that legalizingall sorts of drugs won't lead to more addicts or more accidents caused because of its use, that I feel is complete bullshit. Pressure by society to not do certain things goes a long way, if you remove the pressure many more will try and or do drugs.
inane little opines
there's a perfectly valid psychological argument that prohibiting something and making it taboo encourages a certain sort of person to do it. so don't try and definitively tell us anything, either. because you don't know.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-05-18 06:47:45)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
No, I don't think so. People around here rarely get shot.Uzique wrote:
well, now your argument has entirely changed and you've capitulated. that's nice to see.
the fact is a guy has been shot dead because he's a drug dealer. that's a little heavy handed considering, as you've just admitted, perfectly legal drugs and people on them pose more of a threat and are already enough of a menace. is it right to assume, therefore, by that logic that it is acceptable to shoot dead a violent drug on the street with a SWAT team?
I haven't capitulated on the effects of drugs though, I do think they have the potential to be dangerous, some much more than others.
inane little opines
i'll tell you what... here's a chance to justify your argument on the 'dangerous effects' of hard drugs. i've already proven to you that their 'harm' to the user is, toxicologically (excepting heroin) far less severe than even alcohol. now go through and show me examples of how each hard-drug makes a person dangerous. i want to see a convincing argument that mushrooms, LSD, MDMA, cocaine, speed or any other chemical makes a person 'more dangerous' than a drunk. because i've been around a hell of a lot of 'dangerous' people, in your estimation, over these last 2 years and i've not seen a single fight or incident. even in the case of heroin the junkie slumped over in a dilipidated flat in the slums is hardly a menace to anyone other than himself.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-05-18 06:50:57)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Why to a drunk?
You know as well as I do that people don't always drink to get drunk. Is the case the same for all the other drugs on the market? No.
You know as well as I do that people don't always drink to get drunk. Is the case the same for all the other drugs on the market? No.
inane little opines
how would you know? why do you think people take cocaine or speed or mdma? to solely feel their effects? no. you take cocaine at a party for the same social lift and buzz as a few beers-- only you're more social and more confident. you take mdma at a dance for the sake elation and partial euphoria you feel when dancing drunk-- except it's purer and more positive. people don't just take these drugs to get shitfaced (though they often do... just as people binge-drink). you're all prejudice and no fact.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I think the problem lies with what a person is willing to do to get another bite from the apple.Uzique wrote:
i'll tell you what... here's a chance to justify your argument on the 'dangerous effects' of hard drugs. i've already proven to you that their 'harm' to the user is, toxicologically (excepting heroin) far less severe than even alcohol. now go through and show me examples of how each hard-drug makes a person dangerous. i want to see a convincing argument that mushrooms, LSD, MDMA, cocaine, speed or any other chemical makes a person 'more dangerous' than a drunk. because i've been around a hell of a lot of 'dangerous' people, in your estimation, over these last 2 years and i've not seen a single fight or incident. even in the case of heroin the junkie slumped over in a dilipidated flat in the slums is hardly a menace to anyone other than himself.
That guy slumped over on heroine eventually comes back down and needs to get high again, but is broke. So he/she opts to (insert crime here) so he/she can support the habit -but the same could be said for the drunk.
Personally I think that the drug war was was lost, and its continuance is pointless. Most of the drugs that have been outlawed shouldn't be. The US hasn't learned from its past -prohibition doesn't work.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
I cant see that there would be a huge difference in the ratio of recreational : serious drug takers vs recreational : serious drinkers.Shocking wrote:
Why to a drunk?
You know as well as I do that people don't always drink to get drunk. Is the case the same for all the other drugs on the market? No.
Its essentially the same mind set.
Yeah, maybe. I can't imagine how I could've gotten to the mall though. At the pace I was moving the acid would've worn off by the time I got to the end of the block.Uzique wrote:
yeah but galt you could have imagined you were a GI Joe and could have gone to a shopping mall with an AR-15, thinking that you had a rifle of love and were shooting rays of peace and hope unto all the oppressed shoppers. i mean this could have happened. because they're psychedelics. they're totally crazy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I don't disagree with Uzique, Hurri, or Jay's points WRT the "war on drugs." The point I was making was the same: it was a failed strategy from the start. We just named the various reasons why. My point was that if you're going to wage a "war," then wage one. Don't say you're waging a war, then not even fight a battle. I'm not advocating for that strategy, merely pointing out the flaw in the one that was executed.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
So people don't take psychedelic or highly addictive drugs purely for the effect?Uzique wrote:
how would you know? why do you think people take cocaine or speed or mdma? to solely feel their effects? no. you take cocaine at a party for the same social lift and buzz as a few beers-- only you're more social and more confident. you take mdma at a dance for the sake elation and partial euphoria you feel when dancing drunk-- except it's purer and more positive. people don't just take these drugs to get shitfaced (though they often do... just as people binge-drink). you're all prejudice and no fact.
Everything I've seen in relation to drugs other than alcohol is so that people can attain this 'different mindset' of yours, to the extreme. I don't see that happening with alcohol. And it's not as if I've been 'sheltered' or am solely prejudice, I know more than enough people who do all sorts of different drugs, usually in addition to consuming alcohol.
Yes, if you compare a drunk to someone who's under the effects of another drug then most likely yeah, the other drugs seem safe. I however don't see how this in any way is an argument for legalizing any of them. "it's not as bad as compared to someone who's completely drunk, so it must be ok to legalize".
inane little opines