🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <74kmnk$o9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, in which a
one st...@dds.nl wrote:
> In article <rgdb2.1405$961....@server1.news.adelphia.net>,
>   tabmok99....@damnspaz.com (]{0MBAT) wrote:
> 
> > What you're trying to do is shift attention away from pot to something
> > else.  Regardless of the fact that there would still br brain damage,
> > legalizing drugs would just cause more of it.
> 
> My point is that virtually everything you do/consume causes some brain damage,
> and there's no reason to single out drugs as opposed to something else.
> 
> > You can prevent deaths by just keeping drugs illegal.  No matter whose fault
> > the death is, at least a life isn't lost.
> 
> Aha!  Philosophy!  So why should a life be sacred?  What makes life so
> special?  I'm sure you step on ants every day without realizing it.  I don't
> think you're vegetarian, so animals are dying every day for your food.  What
> makes it so important that humans are kept alive?

Again, we're getting off the drugs thing.  Each species wants to ensure their 
own survival, therefore a I (being a human) would like to keep the human race 
from dying and/or becoming no better than the beasts of the jungle.

> > > Everyone knows the dangers.  When you step into a car you're taking
> > > the risk that you'll crash and burn.  But you do it anyway because you
> > > want to get from A to B.  You take a risk.  If you die it's your fault.
> > Yeah, but you don't take drugs to get from point A to point B.  People
> > only take drugs for negative reasons.  It's a risk that just isn't worth
> > it.
> 
> Someone could say you only drive for negative reasons too.  "Back in the good
> old days, people lived with their family in one village their whole life." 
> And you can see how that viewpoint could be taken.  "People leaving town are
> betraying their family and friends."  "They think they're so 'above' everyone
> else."  This is was general opinion in the days of small towns and no real
> transport away.  But now we drive around the country, fly around the world,
> and why?  So we can contact people who don't live with us, so we can see
> beautiful sights on vacation, so we can explore new cultures....

That doesn't sound like a negative reason to me.

> What makes drugs so different?  Alot of people take drugs as a "vacation". 
> Alot of people take drugs so they can contact people who they normally never
> would - it's a little deeper than just going to see someone - i mean people
> who find they need to have a few beers before they can truly let go and
> socialize.  Can we explore new cultures on drugs?  That depends on how much
> you believe of what Terrence McKenna writes.  Either way everyone has a
> reason to drugs, and not many of them are negative.  

But there are still negative effects.  Someone using drugs to 'get away from 
it all' *hurts* themselves; Someone visiting Amish Country takes a *risK* of 
hurting themselves, a very small one at that.

> Why would someone do something for a negative reason anyway?  "I want to
> do drugs because i want to feel really shit on the comedown"!?

How about "I wanna do drugs cuz I'm not sposed to"?

> > And is it really worth their life?
> 
> They obviously think so.

Do you really apprve of suicide?

> > It doesn't matter if its their
> > fault or the drugs fault or the government's fault for making drugs legal,
>  if
> > you can save them from ruining their life by keeping things pretty much like
> > they are, you might as well do it.
> 
> So you'd prefer a fascist state where everyone was forced not to enjoy
> themselves just in case they hurt themselves to a liberal state where people
> could enjoy themselves if they wished and get help from the state on the
> offchance that they did hurt themselves?

I think the law is pretty much just fine the way they are right now, but if 
anything it's not being enforced enough.

> > And you can't get rid of the people, and you even said yourself there's no
>  way
> > to teach them, so why make it easy for them to kill themselves and ruin
>  their
> > lives?
> 
> Because if these people don't want to be in out society we shouldn't force
> them to do so.

That's right, let them move wherever they want.
 
> > > > And making it easy for them to act violent should be legal???
> > > Ever hear of something called "freedom"???
> > People shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want.  Should killing people
> > be OK so as to give everyone freedom?
> 
> No.  Remember the victim has no freedom in that case.  With drugs the victim
> and the murderer are the same person, and then the freedom is valid.
> 
> > So should people be allowed to take rat poison also?
> 
> If they want.  But they have to know what it is they're taking beforehand.

People who take these things are often in a temporary state of depression, 
it's just not right to let them end their life esp. when they have so much 
ahead of them.
 
> > Sounds like you're the brainwashed one.  Brainwashed by drugs.
> 
> Surprising, since compared to alot of people i'm very conservative with my
> intake.  I wouldn't use any more or less drugs if they became legal.  I don't
> think anyone else would either.  

You don't think one person would decide to try drugs now that they're legal?  
Think about what society would be like right now if drugs were accepted as 
much as cigarettes and alcohol.  You'd see a lot more of it in advertising, 
parents would come home after work and get high in front of their kids.  Even 
if you were right, and not one person's decision to use drugs was changed 
(which is impossible, but just for sake of arguement) you must admit the 
future would have more users than if the legalization hadn't happened.

> I don't see how that's brainwashing.  It's taking a sample and projecting
> what could happen to the population from that. Basic scientific research
> method.  I don't see you doing that.  You're saying "oh even though i'd
> never use drugs when they were legal, i'm sure everyone else would".

I didn't say "Everyone".  You're putting words in my ass again.  You however,
did say you didn't think anyone would be affected.

> > > Would you?  You ignored the question before, but i know you wouldn't.  And
> > > don't think you're the only one in the world with that attitude - there
>  are
> > > an awful lot.
> > I have before, a couple times when I was with friends.  I didn't want to say
> > anything about it, but I've said it now.
> 
> Then it was peer pressure which caused you to take the drugs, not their legal
> status.  You've just reinforced my point.

But if they were legal, it's logical to say that I would have done them 
earlier, or more often, or maybe become an addict.

> > I didn't say billions or millions.  Now you're putting words into my ass.
> > When I say flocks, I'm thinking hundreds.  I'm including lesbian marriage,
> > too.
> 
> Hundreds in a country with a population of a quarter billion isn't much at
> all.

When we're talking about life, it's a lot.

> > And it would encourage drug use in the future, when we're all
> > dead and forgotten (except by Dejanews).
> 
> Yes it probably would, i admit that.  But what's the problem with that?

Yeah you're right, what's the problem with thousands dying and ruining their 
lives, and the lives of their friends and families?  Nothing wrong with that, 
right?

> > > Drugs won't make you kill yourself either.  Only people who are already
> > > predisposed toward doing that will do it.
> > Right, so drugs shouldn't be made legal because those people would be pushed
> > over the edge by drugs.
> 
> Unstable people are pushed over the edge by watching violent movies too.  Or
> by aggressive music.  Should we ban that too?  

No, that's freedom of speech.  Drugs push people more than movies and music, 
anyway.

> People with mental problems are not a majority of the population.  Should
> the rest of us sacrifice things we enjoy just for the benefit of people who
> are ill?

I don't have any statistics to look at, but I'm willing to wager that most 
suicides have something to do with drugs.

> > Finally, I'm seeing some real reasons why drugs should be legal...  the
>  South
> > America/Drug Wars part.
> 
> That's such an elementary reason i never thought to even name it at first.
> That's always been the public reason behind the anti-drug war movement.
> 
> > But legalizing drugs would help kill more people than
> > they would help save.
> >
> 
> It might kill more *Americans* but Brazilians, Columbans, Mexicans...  They'd
> be overjoyed that the USA and other Western countries would finally be taking
> full responsibility for the whims of their own citizens.
> 
> I still maintain however that it wouldn't kill more people.  There is
> billions of dollars thrown away in the drug war every year.  Even if only a
> fraction of that was transferred to public clinics for drug users it would
> provide a basic safety net for any people who might go overboard with this
> newfound freedom (and i still think many would not do that)

You don't care about life anyway, you're only taking this position because you 
like drugs and it would be so much more convenient to you if you could do it 
more publicly.  At the expense of hundreds or thousands or maybe even 
trillions in the years to come.

_|    _|  _|_|_|  Visit the Kombat Pavilion today.
_|  _|    _|  _|  http://come.to/the.kombat.pavilion
_|_|      _|_|_|
_|  _|    _|
_|    _|  _|