It seems to me that the people who ought to be most against legalizing drugs is organized crime.
The biggest drug problems are alcohol and prescription drugs. Weed is an annoyance.
Cite or retract, bitch.
Unless I miss my guess, that was in the thread where it was again pointed out that you’d lied, for instance about a phony rise in teen pregnancies.
IIRC, your dodge then too was that you couldn’t engage with factual refutations because it was too much text, and *reading is just too hard * when someone is as stupid and dishonest as you are. It’s just like your customary level of truly braindead partisan dishonesty that in a thread where numerous posters repeatedly called you on the carpet for one of your lies and you steadfastly refused to answer (citing how TLDR reading is for someone of your intellect, natch), that weeks later you claim it’s others who didn’t behave honestly or point out your lie.
In fact, asshole, IIRC my post in the thread where I pointed out that you are a liar contained the facts of your lying about teen pregnancy. And you were still dishonest enough to ask for an example that I clearly gave, and linked to unless I miss my guess.
So, cite or retract, liar.
Oh, and while I’m at it, you’re now several hours (and responses) in to being too busy to respond to Red’s factual refutation of some of your idiocy. Nobody could have predicted that. Nopers.
Talk about harshing a buzz! You guys could bring down a dump truck. A nice cup chamomile tea, a few pages of P.G. Wodehouse. Do you good.
Hmm…I seem to have overlooked this little bit of nonsense.
I not only challenge you to show where I said any of this, I utterly defy you to show it.
P.S. - I do not think “fungible” means what you think that it means. 
I imagine they are against it. After all, illegal trafficking has netted them ridiculous, stupid, hufrigginmongous amounts of money.
I wonder if they have a lobby.
Yeah, they do, and let me tell you, you get mighty jonesy waiting in it!
“He’s never early, he’s always late. First thing you learn is, you always gotta wait.” -Lou Reed
Still no retraction of your prime mistake in this thread, and you’re still too busy to respond to Red… but you keep responding to me. Totally unexpected.
Also no cite as to your claim that I never provided proof of your lies th last time you challenged me. Of course, as you were lying about that too, I never could’ve predicted that you wouldn’t cite that either. I had no idea that it’s hard to cite things you’re making up.
Yes, that’s because you’re very stupid and you’ve brought a banana to a gun fight.
I’m not sure if you’re lying about your claims that liberals are fungible, or if you really don’t understand what the word means. Knowing you, I’m not sure which to pick. I’ll assume it’s a lie then.
Anyways, I guess that I will point out three of your lies then as you’re stupid enough to challenge me when all I have to do is cite clear posts.
After I get done citing your lies I don’t expect you to retract your lies, let alone thank me. But don’t say I aint never done nuthing for ya, ya partisan whore.
First lie: contrary to your lie, in the thread where you called me out for ‘not giving any examples’ of your lies, I did so in my very first post. I went on to provide the direct cite, too. Which brings me to your…
Second lie: as opposed to your stupid denial here, you did in fact claim that before the nasty hippies ruined your utopia (natch) teenagers got pregnant much less frequently than today. Except,I tried to educate you(before I realized you are a committed partisan liar). I showed you that the facts were that teen pregnancies peaked in the 1950’s and were actually at the lowest point ever recorded in 2000. Rather than retracting your lie, let alone thanking me for clearing up your ignorance, you went on to repeat your lie in the thread linked in the discussion of your first lie.
Third lie: Dopers can read this thread were you made such hilarious claims that you simply could not comprehend “why the board’s liberal membership wasn’t up in arms over the OP’s use of a word the liberals have been telling us (via politically correct speech) that demeans and dehumanizes women” because, of course, you are a bigot and you treat liberals as fungible and you actually accused the board’s liberals of being hypocrites because some-but-not-all liberals (or in your formulation, simply “the liberals”) said something, that the board’s members had to cleave to what “the liberals” , in their fungible glory, always do. In fact, at the time (again, before I realized that you an habitual liar)I went out of my way to point out why your argument was one of fallacious fungibility all through the thread, like claiming that any individual liberal would have to internalize and evince your strawman of liberalism, to your confusion that since you are a brainstem level partisan whore, you could not understand why individual Dopers on the left didn’t do and say everything that “the left” said they should. Indeed for a moment it seemed like the motor of your brain was trying to turn over, but evidently lacked the voltage. You kept vacillating between ‘Yeah… so all liberals aren’t exactly the same and ruled by whatever the talking heads say on TV.’ to ‘but I’m going to make those generalizations anyways.’
Of course, even back then you were being a whiny cowardly bitch and alleging that your broad brushing of liberals as a fungible whole was only due to the fact that the nasty liberals had made you.
Chamomile tea? That’s for pussies!
(Put that cup back down, FinnAgain, it’s elucidator’s…besides, you’ve had enough already!)
So, now we are about four and a half hours into you ‘not having time’ to address Red’s factual refutation of your claim here (let alone retract your clam), but you have plenty of time for your customary bullshit. Yet again, when someone catches you being full of shit it’s just “TLDR” (what a wonderful acronym for the intellectually lazy and dishonest) and more bullshit, and once again a thread where you announce you don’t have time to respond to someone showing you are wrong goes on for hours of you responding, just not to that.
Who’d a thunk it?
This from M-W Online:
Main Entry: 1fun·gi·ble
Pronunciation: \ˈfən-jə-bəl
Function: noun
Date: circa 1765
: something that is fungible —usually used in plural
Main Entry: 2fungible
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin fungibilis, from Latin fungi to perform — more at function
Date: 1818
1 : being of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in the satisfaction of an obligation <oil, wheat, and lumber are fungible commodities>
2 : interchangeable
3 : flexible 3
So what is it your contention that I’m claiming about hippies? That they’re commodities? Interchangeable? Flexible? I suppose, depending on the circumstances, they could be any of the three…but I don’t recall ever having said so.
Plus I never say “anyways.”
Red never refuted a thing. He countered a comment I made regarding cocaine, heroin and meth with a study apparently (I was leaving so admittedly didn’t read) about the minimal effects of legalizing marijuana. Apples and oranges, as they say.
Then I left to do some work. I came back. I posted. I’m leaving again soon, but will be back soon. I will probably post some more.
When I do, depending on my mood and time-allocation considerations, I may or may not decide to take the time to demonstrate the many errors in your quasi-TLDR multi-link further above.
Can you guys get a fucking room, or something?
Anyways, I’m totally supporting terrorism right now. I feel so hip and rebellious.
There are plenty of substances that might be be defined by some this way, which are actually pretty benign, by-and-large.
It’s difficult to point to significantly tangible harm to society caused by the use of LSD. Certainly, this is less of a negative than the harm caused by problem drinking.
Heck, I took LSD hundreds of times during the nineties. Most of the time, this meant spending a quiet evening at home. Sometimes, out to see a movie, and then a quick cab ride home, for a quiet night. No mischief, no problems. No deleterious effects on health, mental or physical. I have no regrets about that, at all.
I don’t doubt or deny that it’s possible that someone may become disoriented and have some sort of a freak-out, but I don’t think that this presents any more risk than allowing the consumption of alcohol does, or that this risk demands anything more than the encouragement of responsible, cautious use for mitigation.
I generally feel a lot more secure at the close of an event where you can bet your ass that virtually every attendee has a head full of some sort of phenethylamine than I do if I am unfortunate enough to find myself downtown when the bars are closing.
Most people would agree that it makes sense to allow people to use alcohol to enhance their enjoyment of their leisure time, and deal with the associated problems on a case-by-case basis, rather than to take a zero-tolerance approach.
I think that there is a perception that use of these substances is (in and of itself) a serious problem, and that as long as someone has access to drugs and the inclination to use them, the inevitable path is a downward spiral of abuse. This perception is no doubt helped along by the underground nature of the use of illegal substances, because it’s only the wrecks that you actually see.
Yeah, well, stay away from the brown phenethylamine. Bummer, man.
I don’t think an ignorant drug user would bear any responsibility for what goes on in the world in order to provide him or her with their next fix. But once you do know, it becomes your responsibility, not in whole, but in part.
Once you discover what goes on in an industry, and drugs are an industry, you can either support that industry or stop supporting it. It isn’t any user’s fault that the industry is so horribly screwed up, but once you know that it is, it’s your responsibility to stop. Lobby for law changes and in the mean time stop supporting the monsters.
This presents something of a false dichotomy.
For a fairly long time (a statute of limitations ago,) I was one of these “monsters.” Like many of my friends, I ran a grow-op. I did this while working a full-time straight job. Unlike most of my friends, I also did a fair bit of kitchen chemistry, albeit on a relatively modest scale. (I produced DMT and psilocybin/psilocin, and also cannabis oil.)
This was all done safely and responsibly, and no harm came to anyone from my actions (unless you are philosophically inclined to consider that the availability of these substances is innately harmful.)
The only negatives I can recall about the whole experience (and that of my friends) were all resulting from prohibitionary laws. What mostly encouraged me to stop was a sharp increase in reports of home invasions by armed gangs. (It is all but impossible to have a basement full of flowering weed without it being apparant to anyone who happens to be wandering by - this can lead to some very vulnerable feelings.)
Also, my friends and I experienced some legal problems which underscored just how inconvenient the consequences of continuing could conceivably be.
Most regrettably, one of my friends (being short of capital) agreed to a partnership with some affiliates of a notorious group of “motorcycle enthusiasts,” amidst a chorus of “Dude, what the fuck are you thinking!?” Spider mites ensued, the “partners” declined to advance any financial aid to protect their investment, and when the harvest was disappointing, they beat the poor sucker and made it clear that they expected cash in place of the “shortfall.” Lie down with dogs, etc.
There is no earthly reason that the production and distribution of recreational drugs has to be monopolized by violent thugs, and you might be surprised to learn how many drug users actually care enough to try to ensure that their supply doesn’t come from a tainted source, and make the same sort of consumer choices that people might make about the ethics of purchasing coffee or sneakers.
My drug use has declined dramatically as I have gotten older, such that it is down to a (very) little weed and (very occasionally) some MDMA. Still, as ever, I obey the maxim: Don’t Eat Stuff Off The Sidewalk. I know where my stuff comes from, and it’s from people just like me. Yes, Michael Bay is going to have more fun with Ecstasy being shipped from the Netherlands in containers guarded by dozens of cold blooded killers with fully automatic assault rifles who’ll kill anyone that gets in their way, and as many more as they think that it’ll take to get the job done. In my experience, however, MDMA is mostly produced by docile nerds and distributed by vaguely annoying hipsters.
I know that if I smoke a little bit of weed beforehand, I’m going to enjoy that movie a lot more - my mind won’t keep wandering back to work stuff, I’m going to sit there and really let myself get into it.
Likewise, I know that if I have a little bit of MDMA on hand, I’m going to have a good time. Everything will be a little brighter and more exciting for a while, and then I’m going to sit down and have a fecking great bonding experience that’s comparable to the one you might have if you sat down and shared a bottle of Merlot - except about a thousand times more so without so much sloppy and stupid.
These are real benefits, and I think it’s a bit ridiculous to expect people to forego them to obey an insensible law, hoping that within their lifetime there might be change. I don’t think that Americans would ever have seen the 18th Amendment repealed if the majority of people gormlessly went along with it, being merely content with opining that it might be a bad idea. If the courts weren’t impossibly clogged with alcohol-related prosecutions, the repeal would have been a solution without a problem, and the U.S. would still be nominally dry.
If you are concerned about the actions of some people who profit from coffee, bananas, diamonds, or clothing – do you go entirely without these things? Or do you content yourself with doing the best that you can to make sure that you’re making an ethical purchase and not supporting monsters?
(Thank you, by the way, US pot-heads, for supporting me to the extent that I was able to obtain some nice video gear and computer hardware, and also to afford to rent a house instead of a crappy apartment. Roar! Snarl! Grrrr! exeunt, stomping on buildings and throwing light rail cars around)
No, it really doesn’t. You described ways in which you try not to deal with the monsters.
I know that Dopers are people who are desperate to find exceptions and, yeah, fine, there are exceptions. But if there were enough exceptions there wouldn’t be the drug industry problems that exist.
So don’t base arguments on the exceptions.
This argument does not address the difficulty in finding an industry that does not, in some way, shape, or form, have “blood on its hands”. Though if you’re proposing a boycott of the textile industry, I’m down to see the results of that. 
Or fruit… Dole has a lot to answer for, as an example. Or … well, pick one.
It also does not address the home grower/synthesizer, with absolutely no connection to the murderous cartels in Mexico or Afghanistan or elsewhere. Your last sentence is revealing… lobby for law changes… does this mean that your objections would be removed with a change in the law even if the desired effects on the wealth of the narcotraffickers was not as severely impacted as we all imagine and hope?
Your argument is that, by buying drugs, you are supporting vicious gangbanging murderers.
Mudd told you that he ran an operation where you could buy drugs without dealing with any such.
The fact is, the only reason you have to deal with criminals to buy drugs is because selling drugs is criminal. Your primary argument in favor of something being illegal is that it’s illegal.
That’s not how America is supposed to work. We shouldn’t have to give a good reason for something to be legal, they should give a good reason for it to be illegal. If the only reason something should be illegal is because it’s illegal, you have a bit of a problem there.
If you could buy marijuana at 7-11s, where’s the problem there? You’re not dealing with gangsters or financing terrorism (which is actually completely made up). You’re buying something that you like, without hurting anybody else, and (in the case of marijuana) not hurting yourself.