You see Hamlet’s sole purpose here is to have a group of people he can feel superior to. Rather than actually try to create a better planet, or fix problems, he would rather perpetuate them. This way, he gets to feel smug about himself for ever.
This is why he has no interest in the actual causes of drug deaths, yet alone debating with js_africanus about the implications of synthetic v natural fertilisers. He’s not interested in making things better - he’s interested in feeling superior.
I thought I was financially supporting three kids in college, not people who do very bad things. In fact I can almost guarantee that the people I buy my evil marijuana from don’t have guns. They’re just a bunch of kids needing money for college expenses and know where to get good weed @ good prices. Where does that weed come from? My own state of course!! See here in California we have two wonderful things. Humboldt county, where the pretty green weed comes from, or we have what we call Prop 215. That is the medical marijuana one. California voted to see if we can give medical marijuana to sick people. It passed. But of course we’re still under federal jurisdiction and the feds are more than happy to bust the “pot shops”. But what they don’t know is that there are plenty more, mostly hidden now. I also have purchased weed from these places.
Now…I’m pretty sure that* my* pot chain does not contribute to terrorists. My “reefer” comes from within my own state. It does not come from Mexico. How do I know? When you smuggled weed into the US, people will compact it or try to conceal the smell from the sniffy-dogs. What you then have is people hiding it in smelly stuff …like gasoline…and other gross shit. You then have really gross smelling marijuana to smoke. Also when you compact it, you are squeezing everything together, seeds, stems and the actual bud. Now when this happens. Your weed will taste nasty. Compacted bud squeezes the seeds’ oil onto your bud resulting in nasty weed. The weed I get is fluffy ,smells minty or like weed should, and is obviously home grown.
I just wanted to put my 2 cents in saying that if you buy drugs, you are not necessarily contributing to very bad things.
At first I suspected we just disagreed, but the more this wears on the more I find that I am actually starting to hate your smugness.
I haven’t seen a lot of indication that we are missing your point, I see a lot of evidence that you simply do not have one, or if you have one that isn’t substantially the same as what you call a “rationalization” then it hasn’t come out yet.
Oh, that is real cute. I’m not asking you to actually support the US, just pay taxes, right? Where do you get this shit from, fucking “Uncle Sam” flyers or something? Did it come to you in some email? What? You have set up the dichotomy, still unsubstantiated, that one either must follow the law, and thus implicitly support it, or one must break the law, and thus have implicit guilt for any things which may be even tangentially related to it. If you think that for some reason you can refuse to support a law while following it (which I would agree with), I do not see why you are impervious to the notion that one can break a law without supporting all the associated things that may come from that.
Notice that not supporting the drug trade involves following the law. For a black market to exist, two things must be the case: one, there must be roadblocks to legal sale or manufacture of the item, and two, there must be enough demand to warrant the risk of production or distribution. Two conditions, Hamlet, two conditions. Why oh why does your pea brain insist on only holding one of those responsible? I dunno, I seriously cannot fathom it. Add to that that holding the other responsible for ostesively the same reason is suddenly a “rationalization” and you’ve got me more than scratching my head, you’ve got me seriously questioning your ability to form an argument in the first place. Of course I feel that from previous arguments with you this is the exception, not the rule, but your insistence over five pages now is starting to worry me.
Oh, I’ve got it. You just think I don’t because I am pointing out your ridiculous equivocation which you only apply to the pro-drug side, and not the follow-the-law side.
Suppose I said this to you: If breaking the drug law involves supporting murder, then following the drug law involves supporting it. Anything else is a “rationalization.” Can you see why this argument is silly? Because it is possible for one to not support a law while still following it. One can also break a law without supporting other crimes. I see nothing you have presented that would logically point to any other conclusion but that you are making an equivocation that is entirely unjustified. We are all very aware that there is crime associated with black markets (above and beyond actualy participating in the black market, itself a crime but outside the scope of your considerations; at least I hope it is, if not that is a very viscious circle). We want the black market without the crime. When it comes down to it, we will accept the black market with the crime. The black market, except as a crime in itself (which is just what is the point of contention), is not the sole factor in correlated crimes, unless we choose to apply double standards to correlation (which raises other questions), or we simply paint the opposing side as stupid from the get-go without actually substantiating why this equivocation works (which it doesn’t).
You can say that Hamlet, I won’t argue with it in the least (I’ll just say I disagree with the perspective but I understand it) if you would simply note that this sword cuts both ways. I think your view of the responsibility of the legislation is extremely limited. Just because we haven’t legalized murder doesn’t mean we haven’t created a system where it is much more likely to happen.
This is why I do not suggest that the law is to blame, nor are drug users are to blame. Because the moral decision to commit murder is a choice in itself, and the responsibility for that choice lies in the person that chooses it, full stop. Your one-sided slippery slope is not just a transparent argument (meaning it shows the bias you already have), it is a poor one, meaning it makes no sense and requires the use of a double standard for evaluating the responsibility of choices.
Thanks, Gary, glad you can hop back in. Maybe, just maybe, you could possibly respond to my earlier posts to you so we could have a fruitful discussion. Oh, wait, you’d rather sling insults, make intimations about my motives, and do exactly what you are accusing me of doing. I still haven’t given up on you yet, because you appear to have the intelligence to respond, however, if all you want to do is keep this kind of crap up, don’t expect me to play along. But in an effort to be diplomatic and hoping maybe, just maybe, hoping against all hope, dreaming against all dreams. Maybe, if I clap my hands and really believe you can process an argument, I will state it once again, and concede all you’ve argued, regardless of whether or not I believe it:
The drug laws have created the illicit drug trades - OK.
The solution to stopping “very bad things” is legalization - OK.
The drug laws are not justifiable - OK.
Legalization would solve all the problems and very bad things would no longer happen - OK
For our purposes, I concede all these things. Happy, Thespos? There’s your argument, correct? Am I missing anything?. Can we go from here now, to actually deal with what I’m saying and not what you think I’m saying.
None of those points absolves you from putting your money a system that does such very bad things. Your argument is that since it is not MY fault that drugs are illegal, I bear no responsibility for financially supporting the drug trade. That is wrong.
I’ve said it before, and I have no concept of why it is so hard for you to understand:
Until drugs are legal, your money is going to support very bad things. Saying, over and over and over and over and over and over that drugs should be legal doesn’t and won’t change a thing about this argument. UNTIL DRUGS ARE MADE LEGAL, you are financially supporting a business that is founded on violence, murder, and death. Continuing to say that it is somebody elses fault, while true, does not absolve you. You are in an unfair situation, but rather than accepting it and making responsible choices not to financially support very bad things, you are choosing to make your “need” to get high more important than the harm you are doing.
Now, if you can, tell me exactly what you don’t understand about this. I’ve already invested considerable time to this thread, so I have no problem responding. Unless all you’re going to be doing is flinging insults. Then, I’ll happily ignore you.
Good point. I agreed with you back in the OP, and, I think I’ve given a couple of passes, but I’ll throw another one your way. Thanks for caring what happens with the money you are spending.
Amen! When I was using, my pot also came from in-state or just to the north. I was supporting a family farm, not some terrorist. I really doubt that those mellow old Deadheads I bought from got all crazy on the weekends, breaking kneecaps and calling each other “el jefe.”
But let’s not destroy the evil “all drugs are bad” stereotype with actual experience!
I’m curious. Really I am. Please post the questions or points that you feel I haven’t responded to. I see nothing in your last reply to my post that was not a straight rehash of your “drug users are evil” mantra.
I get that alot. It’s a pain I have to bear for being right all the time.
**
I’m almost afraid to say it, but we agree. You do not have to break a law to be against it, and you don’t have to obey the law to support it. And I am not impervious to the notion that one can break a law without supporting all the associated things that come from that. Hence my agreement with archnidlove. It is possible to break the law and not financially support very bad things. Now if everybody did that, we’d be all set.
**
As I pointed out above, this isn’t true.
**
See now you are starting to piss me off again.
I’VE NEVER, IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD, SAID THAT!!!
I’ve said the contrary close to 20 times now. I’m hoarse from screaming it. I’m blue in the face. I don’t know how I can stop you from mistating and misunderstanding my point. As you said, 2 conditions. And I can blame both of them for the very bad things.
**
Agreed, you can be completely against the drug laws and still not break the law. And if you do break it, don’t do it such a way as to add your financial support to very bad things. I’ve never said that you were cheering for these very bad things, I’ve said that you are financially supporting them with your money.
**That’s one of my problems. You accept that other people will die so you can have your drugs.
And here, I think, is the difference. I believe people who offer financial or otherwise support those who commit bad acts are to blame also. The KKK members who never physically killed anyone bear some responsibility for the lynchings. It is a difference in opinion about the extent of one’s responsibilities for their actions. A difference I understand, and, if that were the extent of the disagreement, I could live with.
I’ll make this as easy as I can for you. I will post a serious of questions for you to answer yes or no. If you want to, feel free to explain any answer you give.
People should try to be responsible for the way they spend their money.
Yes No
With few exceptions, like archnidlove, the illicit drug trade is rife with violence and “very bad things”.
Yes No
The people who commit these very bad things are financially supported by those who buy drugs, but are not in archnidlove’s position.
Yes No
Do you “like me” like me. Can we meet at the jungle gym at lunch?
Well, I know the feeling, so perhaps we share a common interest after all
Yes, I think you can. Here I will simply disagree. I think neither of those are to blame for the collateral crime associated with it. Why not? I’ll just pretend you asked me why not. Because, should a person commit a murder, it is not an excuse to say, “I did it because of the black market for drugs.” So that’s MHO, and if we can just disagree here I think I can live with it with no hard feelings.
You honestly don’t know where my money goes when I spent it on such things. I also suspect you do not understand the motivation criminals might have for committing murder inside the context of a black market. I do not see a causal link between the money I spend and murders, I see a causal link between the money a drug dealer wants to get and the consolidation of his/their power in a specific region. This particular black market has really devolved because the societal standards for trade are not able to be applied to black markets (if they were they wouldn’t be black markets!).
As we both realize, you’ve said this several times. I am still rather uncertain about this causal chain you are trying to link up.
Is “drugs are sold on the black market” an excuse for murder? See, I don’t think it is, so I don’t assign blame for murder on the fact that “drugs are sold on the black market”.
Why isn’t one of your problems “I accept that other people die so I can have this law?” Why is that a mere rationalization?
I think we can agree to disagree, go home, and each of us can tell ourselves we were right. (Of course, one of us would be wrong, but that’s another matter.) If you don’t think putting your money into the illicit drug stream, no matter how tainted that stream is, makes you , even a little bit to blame for how your money is used, then that’s your opinion. The entire reason I gave the examples of responsible consumerism in the OP and the divestment in South Africa example, was not to, as Gary would have everybody believe, stroke my own ego, but rather to illustrate my my belief that people should be responsible for the choices they make as a consumer. And I expressed my displeasure with people who put their money into the illicit drug stream.
Awwww, fuck! There goes my convert. I thought I was dealing with somebody who had the ability to understand a coherent argument and maybe make a counterpoint that actually means something. However, you are right about one thing: This is a rant. I think your decision to outlaw the use of drugs is selfish, shortsighted, irresponsible, and ignores the great amount of harm you are doing to soceity. I think you convince yourself that you’re not, in fact, monetarily supporting very bad things by blaming the drug users rather than looking at your governments actions.
========== Hamlet ==========
That’s one of my problems. You accept that other people will die so you can have your drugs.
========== erislover==========
Why isn’t one of your problems “I accept that other people die so I can have this law?” Why is that a mere rationalization?
Hamlet, so you do in fact accept that other people will die in order to prevent the legal trade of marijuana?
Gary, why, if you understood and agreed with my position I stated IN THE OP, why did you continue to misstate my opinion, venomously insult me, and refuse to acknowledge I had a point. The entirety of my opinion I expressed in this thread was exactly what I asked you: Drug Users, with few exceptions, financially support people who do very bad things, and that is irresponsible and wrong. You continuously ignored my arguments (which, it appears from your responses that you agree with), and rather than debate my point you insulted my intelligence and insisted on turning it into an argument about legalization. Why? I am honestly befuddled by your actions in this thread.
And I got in trouble with Sr. Wilhemina and had to scrub toilets with a tootbrush over lunch.
Because Hamlet, I don’t think you have a point and I don’t agree with your positions.
You asked a set of loaded questions. I answered them as accurately as yes/no allows - which is not accurately. It certainly did not let me express my actual belief - that it’s an artificial system cynically and deliberately created for political gain.
A fairly simple analogy - am I responsible for Microsoft writing shit code? I do fund them after all. Or is it a more complicated equation then that?
You know, I just don’t get you. When I asked the questions, I specifically said that you should explain anything you wanted, then you bitch about them being loaded. Did you not read my entire post? The part where I specifically said “If you want to, feel free to explain any answer you give.” Trust me, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out you didn’t read it, because that’s the only rationale I can find for your continued denseness.
Look, for better or ill, erislover and I found a point we could agree to disagree. You, and him, seem to think that by financially supporting the illicit drug trade, you bear no responsibility for what it does. I bitched about people financially supporting very bad things and said it was bad. I gave examples of spending responsibly and the power of money in today’s society. If you disagree, OK. I think you’re wrong and shortsighted, but hey, that’s what happens.
Rather than reaching that point with you 4 fucking pages ago, you went on misstating my arguments and insulting me. That, I think, speaks volumes more about you.
Ahhhh, the I can be a complete asshole because other people agree with me when I misstate your opinion defense. Bully for you!
You know what, Gary, you win. I’m done. Declare your victory over an argument nobody made. Congratulations. Every possible argument about financial responsibility I’ve made, I’ve already made. I’ve made analogies, I’ve shown my views. I’ve reached a detente with erislover. Every point I have to make, I’ve made. Just so you can have your answer: I think somebody who financially supports Microsoft, knowing full well that they are writing crappy code, bear some responsibility when Microsoft writes crappy code. Of course, crappy code vs. 676 dead people a year may have some influence on my opinion, but why would you care.
I will now take my leave of you. Feel free to lambast me for whatever opinion you think I’m making, insult my intelligence while misstating my opinion, and whatever else gets you off. But I’m done with you. Anyone else who is still interested, I’ll be here.
