Aenea- Here ya go, ok? It is a violation of Federal Law to speak about harming the President of the United States. It is a violation of Federal Law to speak about carrying on board an aircraft firearms, bombs, or similar devices.
I know, I'm stating fact with no links to back me up. <sigh> I HAVE to learn how to do this right. Okay, flame away at me for this, but- anyone willing to teach a frequent poster how to properly link in to a post? If I knew, I'd actually take the time to find the damned Statutes, and post links to them here, to support my words.
Cartooniverse
If you want to kiss the sky, you’d better learn how to kneel.
Uuuuugggghhhhh (covering eyes in a mix of boredom and horror)
I tell you, it beats the hell out of me why you people would continue to beat your heads against the nattering, inexperienced ignorance that this selection of straight-laced post-teens insists on excreting.
It’s not worth it. Please believe me, it just ain’t.
(BTW, for a survey of our goverment’s daily diet of genuine propaganda, I recommend a trip to FAIR … Look it up and no, kid, FAIR isn’t a bunch of dirty dirty law-breaking potheads.)
Because you are so convinced that pot of your own beliefs that no matter what I say will show you how stupid you sound when you say shit like this:
“But the way I look at it is that the laws have to be made with respect to the irresponsible ones, instead of to the responsible ones. For instance, if everybody in the nation was as good and responsible a driver as I am, we wouldn’t need speed limits…”
Strange that you have never been called a fucked in the head psycho before. It’s apparent to me that you live in some fairy-tale world where the air doesn’t move.
The things you say demonstrate a tenuous grip on reality, at best.
Uh, no, it’s trying to tell people what they should or should not do. It is impossible to do so, like prohibition exhibited. People are gonna get high, no matter what laws we pass. YOU seem to think that it is all up to you. Who do you think you are? Holier than thou asshole…
I suggest you lay down the big ass cross you seem to be carrying, hack it up, build a bridge and get the fuck over it.
Have you actually seen/experienced any of this shit? Or do you watch it on TV and think “Oh, it’s on TV, it must be true.”? You seem to have no problem sitting around pontificating about how this country is going to hell because of drugs, but there are other issues that could use the resources consumed by the anti-drug effort.
My massive ego? What the hell are you talking about? The fact that I can see the world as it is and not as I think it should be? The fact that I don’t think that I am a model citizen everyone should emulate? (see above “But the way I look at it…” quote)
Are you really this much of a mouthbreathing stupid fuck, or are you just pretending to be in order to amuse the board?
The only reason I am so pissed is because when you’re not spouting unfounded dreck you actually sound kinda cool. You sound smart and rational… Then you go and contradict yourself and stumble on your own tongue and turn into a walking talking calamity.
Damn!
“Winners never quit and quitters never win, but those who never win and never quit are idiots.”
Here’s an interesting way to think about the subject. 4,500 people die from illegal drugs each year in the U.S. (as a comparison, 2,000 die from aspirin) If you add up all the federal, state, and local money used to fight the WoD, you end up with something like $120 billion. That’s $26.6 million dollars for each dead drug user! And these policies don’t even help the people who are dying! Makes a TON of sense, doesn’t it?
referring to"Yeah, I actually don’t give a rat’s ass about crack babies and strung-out teenagers barely clinging to life because all they’ve known is drug addiction," Lexicon says:
Without taking any position on the legalization of drugs…
I have personally seen such things. I have seen babies that were born addicted, babies that were born with no concern for prenatal care because their mothers were using every cent for illegal drugs, five-month pregnant teenagers arrested for prostitution and for possession of crack cocaine.
That’s by no means hyperbole. It happens with depressing frequency. And while people may argue that the right to poison one’s own body should be unfettered, I’d be curious to hear how you feel about the right to poison the child growing within that body.
Lex, you’re starting to walk the line between arguing and trolling. Your assertions about my psychological condition aren’t based on any kind of fact, they’re just there to piss me off, and you know it.
For calling me “bigoted,” you’re going to have to do better than providing a link to a dictionary (I have a dictionary right here, not that I’ve ever needed it while dealing with you).
Yes, and you are the avatar of open-mindedness here. I should be more like you.
Hmmmm…a law that tries to tell people what the should or shouldn’t do…yeah, that’s absurd. We should eliminate all the laws that try to tell people what they should or should not do. We’ll start with that silly murder thing. And paying taxes? Sheesh!
You’re right. We ought to just give up trying to fight drugs in the nation. I give up. Forget the crack babies, I don’t want to appear “holier than thou” in front of Lex. Once again, for the record, I’m not happy with the current manifestation of the “War on Drugs,” but I don’t think we should just give up.
I disagree. I think you close your eyes to the pain that drugs cause others, so you won’t be bothered while getting high. You may think that you’re seeing the world as it actually is, and that those who oppose your actions are “blind,” or “confused,” but just remember, we’re not the ones fucking with our nervous systems.
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
You didn’t ask me, Rick, but I’ll answer anyway. I have also seen some of the nastier results of illegal drug use. Not first-hand, but as an auditor for the State Dept of Child & Family Svcs.
I have never seen or heard of a “pot baby,” and all the people I’ve seen who let their kids drink Dran-O while they’re strung out on the bedroom floor are NOT using marijuana but a “hard” drug. But that’s neither herenor there.
Drugs are just fine as long as they only harm the user. Period. If a pregnant woman uses drugs, she should face criminal charges (and having seen the effects of FAS, I include alcohol among drugs for criminal purposes).
I concur. I’ve seen plenty of familes get in trouble over pot use – but it was always legal trouble, or financial trouble caused by legal trouble (breadwinner beng locked up). You’re quite right that pot does not cause the hideous destruction that harder drugs do.
No fan I of the weed. But it’s a minor player in the drugs=human misery equation.
Cartooniverse, I may be wrong about this, but it is my understanding that I can talk about anything I damn well please.
Now, if the subject was the president getting injured somehow, I should be just
speaking in general about it. If I was to discuss how it could be done or specific details like that - well then it would be conspiracy of some kind, and I surely could get in trouble about that.
Roussea, I think the greatest misconception regarding the legalize/End the Drug War movement is that we aren’t concerned about human tragedies like crack babies. I don’t believe that’s true. Oh, sure, there’s the occasional asshole who couldn’t give a damn, but for the most part, advocates of legalization believe that:
a) the War on Drugs is not fixing the problems that lead to such human tragedies
b) the War on Drugs is actually making those tragedies worse
c) we’re better off trying a new solution than continuing to bang our heads against a brick wall
d) as horrible as such tragedies are, they are inescapable no matter what the status of legalization is AND aren’t worth sacrificing civil liberties towards.
e) the tragedy of crack babies and other associated heartbreaks, while valid, don’t compare with the current tragedies inflicted by the Drug War.
Addiction - of every stripe - is a terrible scourge and the basis of every kind of misery. However, the only understanding we have of addiction is that it is a disease, a medical condition - not a moral value. Yes, people use drugs. However, not all drug users become addicted. Whatever the mechanism of addiction is, it’s not limited or defined by actually taking drugs.
Many advocates of legalization (like myself) don’t use drugs regularly. I’ve smoked pot all of maybe seven or eight times. I could easily do without it. However, I look at the costs of the Drug War - financially, legally, societally, Constitutionally - and I think to myself, “there has got to be a better way”.
Addiction - to drugs or anything else - should be treated as a medical condition. Drugs should be regulated, not outlawed, and should also be heavily taxed to pay for those crack babies and other tragedies. People who take drugs and then harm another person or property should be prosecuted for the harm that they did. And the government should leave me the hell alone if I decide that I’d rather smoke a joint than drink a cocktail.
Go ahead, find your link and just post the URL. I will look it up. But I think your wrong, that would be against freedom of speech. It is against the alw to threaten someone though, but not just to talk about it.
And why is this an invalid comparison? Yes, the Netherlands is across the ocean and their government isn’t quite the same, but you know what? It’s filled with people! That’s right! Human beings, just like the U.S. We’re talking about the harmful effects of drugs here and those effects DO NOT vary when you cross an international border.
Maybe it’s time you get off your high horse, Rousseau, and realize that just because someone is a proponent of drug law reform, that does NOT mean he’s in favor of crack babies!
In various threads on this subject, you have been pointed to online resources where you can read up on this subject in order to attempt an intelligent debate. But you never read anything. Why? I don’t know. Perhaps you were afraid your mind might be changed. Well, no, that would never happen, no matter how much evidence was laid down before you. It’s all so black and fucking white in your head : drugs are bad, therefore they should be banned. It’s really pretty sad.
You know, you really crack me up the way you keep insisting that my mind is closed because I don’t think like you. Get over yourself, really.
You want to know about cheeseburgers and gambling? Fine. It’s the same answer I give about nicotine cigarettes and booze: they are way too ingrained in our culture to be made illegal. I’ve said this many times, and I thought that you had the mental facilities to draw this conclusion on your own. Silly me.
OK, I’ll deal with you like a grade schooler. You obviously can’t be trusted to draw even the most obvious of conclusions on your own, so I’ll spell everything out for you. This is why the Netherlands is not like the United States:
Population:
United States of America: 272,639,608 (July 1999 est.)
Netherlands: 15,807,641 (July 1999 est.)
Per capita GDP:
US: $31,500 (1998 est.)
Netherlands: $22,200 (1998 est.)
Percentage of population below poverty line:
US: 13% (1997 est.)
Netherlands: They don’t even have a poverty line
Largest urban center (this is probably the most relevant):
US (New York City): 8,643,437 (1998)
Netherlands (Amsterdam): 724,096 (1994)
Comparing policy in two nations that are so different is futile and misleading. And, for our specific discussion, one must also consider the relative proximity to South and Central America.
I’m also insulted that you assume that I haven’t read any of the links that have been posted. I don’t know why you automatically think that they would change my mind…the ones that I’ve read were for the most part either strongly, strongly biased or relatively inane.
phouka:
I agree.
Hmmm…I think I’d say that it’s creating whole new tragedies, actually, instead of simply exacerbating the existing ones. But this is a relatively minor point for our purposes…the point is that it’s generally making things worse.
Agreed. But after this statment we start to diverge. I think that the proper solution is to fix the way we enforce certain laws to make them more fair, get people the help they really need, and cost everyone less money. You would just rather say:
So “fuck it,” right? The thing is, I have a serious problem with making legal things that we know are harmful, and that serve no real purpose other than an artificial “high” caused by the literal poisoning of one’s nervous system. There’s a part of me (a very large part) that can’t morally reconcile making these things acceptable when I know that they’re not.
I don’t know about that, but let’s say for our purposes here that you’re right. Once again, I think that legalization isn’t the best way to fix this.
Yes, but wouldn’t you agree that by doing our best to limit (and ultimately eliminate) peoples’ access to drugs, we can do our part to help these people avoid addiction?
andros & Bricker:
Would you agree that many teenagers are attracted to pot because it is such a social and legal taboo, even more so than cigarettes or alcohol?
Would you then agree that if pot were made legal (and theoretically elevated to the social status of alcohol), those people would still seek to defy social and legal norms?
I predict (and perhaps you may disagree with me), that if pot were made legal it would precipitate an increase in the use of “harder” drugs, especially by teenagers. That’s just my opinion.
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
I’m just curious how you feel about slavery and laws preventing women from voting. Both were a very real part of our culture for a long, long time. In fact, you could say that they were “too ingrained in our culture to be made illegal.” Yet slavery is no more and women can vote like everybody else. What’s the difference? Like I said, I’m just curious about how you rationalize this.
Rousseau:
That’s a meaningless argument. People have been smoking dope in this country for decades. Since the 1960’s, it has been virtually a rite of passage for teens to experiment with marijuana.
Reefer IS ingrained in this culture, now; get a clue, boy.
why do we allow this ridiculous conversation to continue. No ones chaning anyones mind. Although I’ve known a few people, people who could be compared to avenue b and rousseau, who woke up, saw the light, and became real people who enjoy toking. It is possible, folks, for these nutsos to convert. Did avenue b say he was 20? Plenty of time, plenty of time. Ive known a few late bloomers as well.
The thing is, you can’t have a real conversation with the anti drug posters b/c ( i think this idea has been covered, but i really have to say it again)they have no idea about anything concerning drugs. Theyve even admitted it, and its so painfully obvious from their posts (rousseau saying you shouldnt mess up your neurotransmitters with artificial chemicals). Complete crap: the THC in pot is NOT artificial by any means. The opiate agent in heroin is NOT artificial. Shrooms are not artificial, nor is the psylocibin (sp?) in them. Coke is not artificial.
Now dont start thinking that b/c i say the drugs arent artificial, they arent bad for you. im just pointing out a simple case of ignorance, which proves the point of not KNOWING WHAT THE HELL YOURE TALKING ABOUT. Avenue B Dude, you need to grow the hell up and open up your eyes and brain for just 5 minutes. Or else get a job as the local asshole cop. That seems to be the only logical occupation for you. you dont happen to be a criminal justice major, do you?
“I am so smart, I am so smart, s-m-r-t, i mean s-m-a-r-t”
Actually, you’re right. My last post was so much gibberish and I don’t know why I posted in such a manner.
Contrary to what you may think, I don’t smoke pot, so I wasn’t high. I don’t know what my problem was.
If I could retract it, I would, but I can’t so what I’ll do is admit that it was a retard-o-post. I guess it happens to the best of us.
Anyway, I can see what you’re saying. All I’m trying to get at (and maybe I’d do a better job if I could focus on the real issue) is that we as citizens should not blindly accept the laws set forth to govern us by the officials we have “elected.”
I know the “Why bother to vote thread” has been done, so I won’t get into that, but the more that government is taken out of the hands of the people, the greater the people’s responsibility to examine the laws that are made and determine if they need to be changed or done away with.
Drug laws where marijuana are concerned are such laws worthy of such scrutiny.
I am sorry I posted in such a head-in-ass manner, I hope to avoid it in the future.
I don’t know what I was thinking, please accept my apologies, I was wrong.
And no, I didn’t get a warning or anything, I am accepting responsibility for putting my foot in my mouth.
Mea Culpa.
“Winners never quit and quitters never win, but those who never win and never quit are idiots.”
Back to the OP, what could I get away with? Could I post instructions on how to make LSD at home? Info on how to use a bong without choking? A list of the best places in Louisville to solicit prostitutes?
Just curious. . . The last thing I want is to get the SDMB hassled by the guv.
So if Amersterdam is ten times smaller than NYC, what the hell does that have to do with the effects of drugs? Drugs create the same problems worldwide. The only difference is the scale of the problems.
Research shows that over 50% of people try marijuana before they graduate high school. Ingrained enough for you?
That’s not what happened in Holland. And that’s not what happened when marijuana was decriminalized in 16 U.S. states during the 1970’s. Hard drug use went down, actually.
Yeah, but they’d be pretty much useless unless your home contains about $5,000 worth of lab equipment, several tightly controlled precursors, and you have a couple years of organic chemistry under your belt. It is estimated that there are as few as a dozen clandestine LSD labs operating in the U.S. at any given time.
I would think the government has better things to do.
`They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety’