OK, guys...

How many 9 yr olds drink alcoholic beverages ?


Probably about the same amount as will use crack. Let them get themselves out of the genepool.

I am suprised at you Grind. getting soft in your old age ?

I guess grindpoints have devalued a lot ....
 
Watermark said:
It could be a public safety danger. It's long lasting and makes people delusional.

Drugs like PCP, however, are far worse, because they make people extremely violent.
Click to expand...

So what's the point? I mean, its considered a contradiction that we have legalized nicotine but not legalized dope?
 
uscitizen said:
Drugs do not make people violent, they just let the meaness out that is already there.
Click to expand...

Yes, because, as we all know, the layer of our mind that keeps us calm and keeps us from becoming violent or stupid isn't a "real" part of who we are. Only the violent, reptillian nature that is left whenever you're under the influence of PCP is the "real" you.
 
Watermark is trying to draw a line somewhere, but because he's never used any of these substances he's doing it pretty arbitrarily.

Psychedelics pose no addictive threat. There is absolutely no study that has ever pointed to even the slightest threat of physiological addiction.

In principle, it's hard to see where the line should be drawn (if it should be drawn at all). Pragmatically, we must target those drugs responsible for the bulk of crime. Addicts of heroin, crack, ice, and OCs are considerably more dangerous than any others. Their habits are expensive, which frequently leads them to robberies, carjacking, licking, and contract killing.

There are understandable (if not quite justifiable) reasons for banning the most dangerous drugs, but everyone's list of what constitutes "the most dangerous" is going to vary depending on actual experience with drugs and even among those who are experienced, personal preference will play a factor.

Personally, I find that heroin, crack, crystal meth, cheese, and gac have addictive qualities to the point that the government is justified in regulating or banning them. Some anarcho-capitalists would argue that this infringes people's right to use the drug habitually if they choose, but I submit that after the initial two or three highs, there is no longer a conscious choice on the part of the individual, but rather a biological need and a mental void that only their drug can fill.

Basically, it so irrevocably alters your body chemistry and your thought patterns that it cannot be said that you "choose" to continue using heroin anymore than you "choose" to continue breathing.
 
Watermark said:
Yes, because, as we all know, the layer of our mind that keeps us calm and keeps us from becoming violent or stupid isn't a "real" part of who we are. Only the violent, reptillian nature that is left whenever you're under the influence of PCP is the "real" you.
Click to expand...

People like me do not get violent on drugs or alcohol.
Some people have more anger and fear bottled up in there than others.
 
I predict that usc is about to plummet the collective IQ of this thread by 50 points.

Edit: Damn seconds too late.
 
uscitizen said:
People like me do not get violent on drugs or alcohol.
Some people have more anger and fear bottled up in there than others.
Click to expand...

Same here .I just want to joke ,laugh and get all philosophical when I drink.

I do agree that drugs should be decriminalised and some like pot should be legal and have the hell taxed out of it. It would still be cheaper than street prices.

I also agree with Di .....as usual. Yes we all know you are a smart guy Di.
 
Young Libertarian said:
Watermark is trying to draw a line somewhere, but because he's never used any of these substances he's doing it pretty arbitrarily.

Psychedelics pose no addictive threat. There is absolutely no study that has ever pointed to even the slightest threat of physiological addiction.

In principle, it's hard to see where the line should be drawn (if it should be drawn at all). Pragmatically, we must target those drugs responsible for the bulk of crime. Addicts of heroin, crack, ice, and OCs are considerably more dangerous than any others. Their habits are expensive, which frequently leads them to robberies, carjacking, licking, and contract killing.

There are understandable (if not quite justifiable) reasons for banning the most dangerous drugs, but everyone's list of what constitutes "the most dangerous" is going to vary depending on actual experience with drugs and even among those who are experienced, personal preference will play a factor.

Personally, I find that heroin, crack, crystal meth, cheese, and gac have addictive qualities to the point that the government is justified in regulating or banning them. Some anarcho-capitalists would argue that this infringes people's right to use the drug habitually if they choose, but I submit that after the initial two or three highs, there is no longer a conscious choice on the part of the individual, but rather a biological need and a mental void that only their drug can fill.

Basically, it so irrevocably alters your body chemistry and your thought patterns that it cannot be said that you "choose" to continue using heroin anymore than you "choose" to continue breathing.
Click to expand...

So, throwing addicts in jail for being addicted is going to help things out?



Hallucinogens aren't addictive. Duh. But they cause many of them cause people to go into delusional rages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top