Do please expand on this.
If you had just said you’re a moron right out of the gate it would have saved us a lot of trouble here.
She’s right. Look how great it worked for him/her.
So you think it is right to out a casual acquaintance for getting high?
You go stand in the corner with control-z. You two school marm cunt rags deserve each other.
I don’t know how much clearer I can be. RTA posted 2 extremes; a “nation chock full of dope smokers and coke snorters” or a “nation of people spying on each other.” Obviously the OP was not “spying” on her friends so I don’t really know why he/she phrased it that way.
But if we’re going for the extremes here I’d say the US is closer to the “nation of people spying on each other.” Due to the (admittedly over-draconian drug laws), the USA is not drug-friendly. So I once again say if anybody should “please leave the USA at once”, it should be the druggies.
Is anyone going to defend the idea that a society of legalized coke-heads, heroin addicts, and meth addicts would be a better and more productive society than a society without illegal drugs?
Do we have a society without drugs now? And does anyone really believe that if you made it legal, and kept the same level of education, we’d have a society of junkies? We don’t have a society of alcoholics, right? Plenty of people are more than capable of using mind-altering substances of all kinds recreationally without becoming brain-addled burdens on society.
Actually, the USA is a very drug-friendly nation. That’s part of the problem. However, it is a victimless crime. In a society where we value the right to live our lives as we see fit, the idea of a bunch of mini-Elliott Ness types out there turning each other in is a bit contrary to our basic philosophy.
The country has had a large population of drug users for some time now. We don’t need to say “the sky is falling” as if their drug use is stopping the wheels of progress. The country will continue to function even though lots of people get high. There are very few “problem” users in comparison to those who use recreationally, responsibly, and without negative impact on their lives or The American Way (put sarcastic flag-waving smiley here).
We had one for a very long time. Drug laws weren’t enacted until the 20th century.
Yeah, plenty of people are capable. Plenty are not. Why do you think rehab is so big?
Look kids, this ain’t DARE class here. Keep taking your drugs and hope you don’t get busted, broke, or dead. Drugs are a big waste of money, bodies, minds, makes criminals lots of money, and are much more of detriment to society than an asset.
Greathouse, let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that because monica is not directly harmed by the actions of these people (i.e. the persistent drug consumption), then she had better shut up and mind her own business?
The government/law enforcement of the USA is not at all drug friendly. An officer may just give a warning about a small quantity of pot, but everything from pot on up is most certainly illegal and will get you jail time. I don’t call that drug friendly.
In fact, I think our anti-drug laws go TOO far in the siezing of assets of anyone associated in any way with a drug dealer. That goes into the realm of unconstitutional.
My goodness you’re tiresome. Criminals make money selling drugs **because ** drugs are illegal. Kind of like how criminals made money selling alcohol during Prohibition. This is not a difficult concept.
You’ve already mentioned that you drink alcohol. Plenty of alcoholics are in rehab. Should it be illegal? And if not, why not?
To quote another doper in a separete thread:
Assertions aren’t facts.
Not everything is about “society”, is it? Don’t individual rights and liberties mean anything anymore?
Let us just say it is ‘victimless’ in the same way that alcohol use is victimless. No one is hurt if I have a glass of wine or two a night. But if I have a bottle or two a night, it becomes a problem and my drinking would affect more people than just me. To think otherwise is supremely selfish. Dealing with substances far more addictive than alcohol just increases the chances of a bad outcome.
Look around. Most people who live in the US are not DEA agents. If there was no demand for dugs, we’d hardly need the DEA.
You know, the US is not illegal immigrant friendly either. Seems large parts of the US economy are pretty illegal alien friendly though.
Get it?
Wow. You make it sound like a threat or something.
I do think that because monica is not directly harmed by the actions of these people it serves no purpose and has no benifit to her to NOT mind her own business.
What does she gain by outting these people?
So you are suggesting that because you are incapable of limiting your alcohol intake to just a glass of wine or two, we should prohibit the sale of alcohol?
Everything is not black and white. Alcohol is indeed like a drug, and addictive to some people. It’s not exactly good for you, but mild enough to be legal. Something like crack cocaine or crystal meth is not legal, and for very good reasons. They are highly addictive and destructive.
When it comes right down to it, most things can harm you in sufficient quantities. Even water. But drugs do it much more quickly, and are addictive to boot. Yes, they’re illegal. If you don’t agree with them being illegal, then work to get the laws changed. Good luck though, because the majority of Americans won’t agree with you.
Our entire way of functioning in this country revolves around pills. Over-the-counter, prescription, recreational, fun, dangerous, coping…you name it. We LIKE pills. We teach ourselves that drugs can fix whatever ails ya. Presidential elections can be won or lost based on how a candidate wants to dole out the pills. In fact, we have one president who openly admitted toying with drugs, and another who is widely believed to have used cocaine recreationally. We’ve had addicted First Ladies, senators, cops and soldiers. Dressing it up in congressional clothing or a Coco Chanel suit doesn’t change the fact that drugs are used by the very people who tell the commoners they can’t.
A glass or two might be the limit for you. Others function quite well after 4 or 5. Whose to draw the line? You certainly don’t believe that the government could put a sweeping use limit on substances, do you? Would the limit be the same for all of us or would they base it on body weight?