🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <74m26l$48c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, in which a
one st...@dds.nl wrote:
> 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.

Wrong, it's a giant step away.

> > > 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 it's still there.  It's not being made up, there are bad things going on.
 
> > But there are still negative effects.  Someone using drugs to 'get away from
> > it all' *hurts* themselves;
> 
> It does?  How?

By getting brain damaged or becoming addicted.

> > 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.

Most cars can't even go that fast :P  Look at the percentage of drivers 
that get killed because of cars, and now look at the percentage of drug users 
killed because of drugs.  

> > > 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?

Not if there was a house or family rule against it.  It would just make 
breaking the rules easier.

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

Well then this discussion is just going to never be resolved.  It's like the 
abortion issue.

> > > > 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?

Yeah, lots of people have actually thought of killing themselves.  Some have 
attempted it, but now they're glad they weren't able to do it.

> > 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.

It's a choice they shouldn't be allowed to make.

> > > 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.

You make it sound so silly.  Maybe not "all of a sudden" but after 10 years 
or so the number of people who use drugs would shoot way up.  Then in the 
future, when people are orn into a society where drugs are fine, it would be 
higher than it would have been otherwise.

> > 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.

But you said yourself how most people in America are stupid.  Of course 
Americans, being as simple minded as they are, wouldn't do so well as they do 
in Holland.

> 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.

Yeah, but it's better for them not to take drugs at all.

> > 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.

There'd be less problems with drugs if they were abolished, too.

> > I didn't say "Everyone".
> 
> You did actually.  I can't remember where, but you did.

Hmm...  I'll look for it, but I don't think I 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?

So we don't need any more because of drugs.
 
> > > > 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.

Maybe you didn't know this, but when someone dies their family and friends are 
very sad.  They even have funerals to honour their life, and show their 
sadness.  

> > 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.

You *need* control and police.  If there were no government, there would be a 
constant state of anarchy.  No laws, no fun, no computers, nothing.  Everyone 
is better off with the police and government, except for killers and the like.

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