OK, guys...

[Battleborne]

Why.............

Troll beerr gut guy ?

It is a very valid question and once answered fully will change understanding for some.
Never for you though.

Because I get high on life...don't need a false personality to rule my thoughts?
and by the way no beer gut here Ms..sex change dudette!

 

[uscitizen]

No beer here. A beer gut would make me look horrible in a Bikini !

 

[gonzojournals]

How did we exist for over 100 years with no drug regulations ?
And why can't we exist without them now ?

Because the crazies and the Prohibitionists found out about them and turned it into a big deal...blame puritanical America.

 

[uscitizen]

It has become lots more than that Gonzo.

 

[gonzojournals]

It has become lots more than that Gonzo.

My point is that the way things are today started because of that....now it has become so political that everyone is afraid to change anything.

 

[uscitizen]

not just political, the war on drugs aka the war on the american people is a huge business.

 

[theMAJORITY]

We are actually pretty light on drugs compared to other countries--- which in a way is good for the user, but also ensures that the "war on drugs" can never be won.

Japan, for instance, is super harsh on drug use.

This was part of Watermarks post just above yours. I believe Watermarks career put him closer to the front lines of the war on drugs than we have been.

"I mean, Singapore goes as far as to require the death penalty for all people caught with drugs - no exceptions. They still have drugs in their society. It isn't a problem you can solve by getting "tough"."


I know there are other countries that impose a death penatily (I think Irac is one also)--yet they still have drug use.

What evidence do you have to support your claim of being more harsh will win the drug war? Be carefull---because the world has real life facts showing that the idealism is not realistic.

Should we as a people take into consideration that harsh penatilites can ruin a persons life more effectively (acutally---almost absolutly today) than some drug use? Personally, with a huministic perspective, and not a controlling perspective, I have a problem with the punishment being more of a problem of damaging people of our society than many of the drugs people use.

 

[theMAJORITY]

Well, I'm like, why should the responsible members of society pay billions upon billions a year in order to try to eradicate drugs whenever idiots will just do it anyway? Just make it safe, legal, and controlled. Whenever people make the decision to go to rehab, it should be just a step away. But you can't REQUIRE rehab - such programs are doomed to failure.

I mean, Singapore goes as far as to require the death penalty for all people caught with drugs - no exceptions. They still have drugs in their society. It isn't a problem you can solve by getting "tough".

I think those valid points have been made for a long time. I wonder if our elected officials give the public too much credit for being stupid, thinking we have no control over our lives. I know crime (espically voilent crime) would go down if your points were implimented. A war on drugs does effectively put a industry in criminals hands---something you don't see with beer. I can't remember the last time anybody was kiled for a bottle of wine and a pack of cigeretts in a gang fight--but it happened during prohabition. The mafia got quite a bit bigger during prohabition--and so do these drug lords and middle men distributers.

I still have reservations about hard drugs, that are highly addictive---but taking a 6 year old to a rehab clinic, and watching a heroin addict on the floor having withdraw convulsions (actually kicking the habit---which is where the term came from) would defunatly help me make up my mind at a yong age.

I think I know what your saying. A loser is a loser (spawned by liberial welfare policies by the millions--welfare creates losers that are expenssive to take care of). And a loser will be a looser with or without addictive drugs (like alcohol also). Many drug users, like alcohol, will not be losers--like today. May be doing addictive drugs just eases their pain about being a looser. I don't really think any child says 'I want to be a loser when I grow up", so may be they really do have a mind of their own---even as a influenced child.

I remember my older brother going to Sweeden. I don't know about now, but then, Sweeden did not have a drinking age. My brother said it did not seem like a big deal there, and did not see everybody as a slobbering drunk. May be, it is not a big deal to the people, because of a rebelous nature of humans wanting what they are not suppose to have.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Foreigners are often amused by our high drinking age which sticks out like a sore thumb in the politics of the world. We're like "ZOMG you guys get to drink whenever you're 18 ZOMG?"

And they respond with "What? You guys can't? That's insane."