🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <pNmb2.1572$961....@server1.news.adelphia.net>,
  tabmok99....@damnspaz.com (]{0MBAT) wrote:

> > 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.

I would like to keep the human race from dying too.  But there are MUCH
bigger things to worry about than drugs.  Not only would i like to keep the
human race from dying, but i would also like to let the human race have as
positive a future as possible, and legalizing drugs is a big step toward that
future.

> > 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.

It isn't, that's my point.  Negative reasons have become replaced by positive
reasons which have only reached the public's eye now that it has become
commonplace.  Of course you only hear about the "bad" about the "scandal"
from a third person's point of view because that's what sells, and that's
what is always memorable.

> But there are still negative effects.  Someone using drugs to 'get away from
> it all' *hurts* themselves;

It does?  How?

> Someone visiting Amish Country takes a *risK* of
> hurting themselves, a very small one at that.
>
Not if they're driving at 200mph in their car.  You don't seem to understand
that people CAN BE CONSERVATIVE with drugs.  And many are.

> > 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"?

But wouldn't legalization defeat that reason altogether?

> > > And is it really worth their life?
> > They obviously think so.
> Do you really apprve of suicide?

Yes.

> > 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.

Including into their own minds.

> > > 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,

They are?

> it's just not right to let them end their life esp. when they have so much
> ahead of them.
>
What if they don't give a shit?  "Hmm should i run for president or should i
have another line?  Think i'll have that line."  It's a choice they made.

> > 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?

No, i think quite a few people would.  But not a significant amount.  And by
a significant amount i mean seeing *at least* 5% of the non drug-taking
population going out and deciding to get high all of a sudden.

> 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.

As i said earlier, it's possible to take drugs conservatively.	When someone
has beer after work they aren't stumbling around drunk off their face - it
might happen to you or me or someone who doesn't drink alcohol normally, but
to someone who has a beer after work every day it's just a drink like your
morning coffee.  I have seen many people do this with other drugs.  I can't
count the number of people i know who get home and have a bong.  It's just a
habit, it's not like they're binging, it's just a little relaxation thing.

Now maybe you think "oh they're addicts - just because they aren't getting
totally high they're still addicted".  But even if they are, does it matter?
Are you addicted to have cornflakes and milk for breakfast?  To soaping your
left arm before your right arm in the shower?  To combing your hair a certain
way?  It's just a part of life.

You may or may not know this, but it is legal to grow and smoke marijuana in
Holland.  Holland has THE lowest suicide rate in Europe.  It has THE lowest
hard drug usage in Europe.  Marijuana is seen as just a phase kids go
through. You're 16, you smoke alot, once you hit 20 you've grown out of it
and that's it.	I believe the same thing would happen with hard drugs were
they legalized. They'd be something kids would have their little binge phase
of, and then grow out of and become regular, sensible citizens.

Why does that happen?  I think it's because kids aren't dissed if they smoke.
At school they say "look it's okay that you do it, just try not to do it
during school time".  At home the parents say "it's okay, i did it at your
age too, just don't do anything silly like smoking up before an exam".	When
kids are treated with respect they are far more likely to treat themselves
with respect too - and that's not just drug related; it's been proven (as
best it can) in psychological studies across the board.

> 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.

Yes there would be more users.	But i think there would be many less
casualties (relatively).  With proper education schemes and proper medical
support there would be many less problems with drugs.

> I didn't say "Everyone".

You did actually.  I can't remember where, but you did.

> > 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.

What, hundreds of people dying?  Hundreds of people die every day.  Hundreds
of thousands in fact.  So?

> > > 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?

Whoever said anything about ruining lives of family and friends?  If you die
that's your business, not the people around you's.  Unless you owe them money
or something.

> > 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.

That's debateable.

> 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.

I care about life in general.  I don't care about individual lives.  Why
should i?  If i did i'd be in tears every day for the rest of my life because
so many people were dropping off.  And that's just in my city - just think of
how many people are dying every day in the rest of the world!  Worrying about
the death of individuals is a waste of time and effort.  We should be
worrying about where humankind is going, and if we keep it as controlled and
policed as we are, it's going to fuck itself in the ass within a few
generations.

Alex
--
   -= electronic love =-         -- kombat --
http://sturm.huizen.dds.nl/   http://surf.to/kkc

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own