🚀 go-pugleaf

Damn News XPress...  I had a really good response the first time, I don't
know if this will match it.

This is in reference to <74n35r$2i7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, in which a one
st...@dds.nl wrote:
> In article <Fqxb2.1732$961....@server1.news.adelphia.net>,
>   tabmok99....@damnspaz.com (]{0MBAT) wrote:
> 
> > But it's still there.  It's not being made up, there are bad things going
>  on.
> 
> Yes there are.  There are also bad things going on everywhere.  Cars crash.
> Women chop off their husband's penisses.  Breast implants pop and severely
> injure the person involved.  People have sex without condoms and get AIDS.
> Israelis and Palestinians are dying because each of them want the same bit of
> land.
>
> Why should you make such a big deal about drugs? 

I wish these statistics were taken.  Look at the percentage of married couples 
that had an incident with a kitchen knife and look at the percentage of drug 
users that had an incident with death. That's why.

> > > > 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.
> 
> 1) Brain damage doesn't "hurt" you

I beg to differ.

> 2) Becoming addicted doesn't "hurt" you (assuming it even happens in the first
> place)

It does hurt financially, as well as stretching the negative effects of drugs 
and making them worse.

> > > 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
> 
> Yeah well, blah :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.
> 
> I can't because i don't have the figures.  Do you?  If you do i'd be
> interested to see them.  

I'm sure someone here does, but most people probably killfiled our thread :P

> But i don't think there would be alot of difference.
>  IF drug users had a higher percentage, i'd think that that would drop off
> alot with legalization due to better education and care.

Really?  I think it would increase.

> > > > > 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.
> 
> Why should there be a house or family rule which overrides a national law?

Because, "You live in my house, you live by my rules."  If the parent and/or 
guardian says "Even though you *could* get your license now, I'm gonna make 
you wait until you're 18 for safety reasons," then that's that.  The 
house/family rule overrides the national or state law.

> > > > > > 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.
> 
> What abortion issue?  

The pro-life/pro-choice issue.

> All issues can be resolved in one of two ways - conservative or liberal. 
> And humankind did not advance to the point it has through conservatism.

Odd, for someone who considered themselves conservative last time they posted.
Anywho, everything in moderation.  I'll take your word for it that we 
'advanced' to this point through liberalism, going any further would really be 
a step backwards.  

> > 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.
> 
> Well good for them.  The people who do succeed don't have a chance to look
> back, so it doesn't matter anyway.

It does matter.  Their families and friends shouldn't have to suffer 
unnecessarily (sp?) because of drugs.  And even if they had netiher families 
nor friends, they're still selling themselves short and its not right to let 
them do that.  Plus, I'm Christian, and it's not right to let them spend an 
eternity in Hell either.

> > > 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.
> 
> That's dangerously close to a fascist comment.

No, it's true.  Even you must admit that some choices just shouldn't be made.

> > 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.
> 
> Yes.  It would.  It would also be more responsible, more commonplace, more of
> a social thing than a full-on binge.

And this is a Bad Thing.  Grief and death would also be more commonplace.

> > Of course
> > Americans, being as simple minded as they are, wouldn't do so well as they
>  do
> > in Holland.
> 
> Maybe Americans being "as simple minded as they are" is a RESULT of all the
> cultural taboos drilled into them?

No.  Some people just want to learn for themselves that they're doing a dumb 
thing, when it's better to just prevent the mistake from being made in the 
first place.

> > Yeah, but it's better for them not to take drugs at all.
> 
> Yes indeed.  It's also better for us to 

*snip*

> Do we do all of this?

There's a difference between not doing something you supposed to, and doing 
something you're not supposed to.

> Some of us do.  They're called "paranoid".  Normal people are taking risks
> every day and know they are, but they do it because it's easier, more fun,
> and because they accept the chance that they could hurt or kill themselves
> when doing so.

There's also a difference between a risk of something bad happening and 
something bad actually happening.  Smoking one cigarette *will* dirty your 
lungs, going 5 or 10 mph past the speed limit is barely a risk.
 
> > > > 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.
> 
> Hundreds of thousands plus hundreds is still "hundreds of thousands".  It's
> not significant.

But life *is* significant.

> > > 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.
> 
> Yes, and that's their choice.  They don't need to feel sad.  They could say
> "well good fucking riddance".  Or they could say "damnit now i don't have
> anyone to take the garbage out".  But they choose to be sad.
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the dumbest thing you've ever said.  And that's saying a lot, because 
you've shown that you mostly have a good head on your shoulders.  

People *don't* choose to have a hole inside them that can't be filled.  
They can only choose how they respond to their sadness.

> That is a perfectly valid choice, and i'm sure i would be (for some time at
> least) if someone i knew died, but that's not the fault of the die-ee.  They
> made their choice now you make yours.

Yes it is, it's obvious that the suicide committer only cared about himself, 
with a total selfish disregard for everyone around him.

> (And yes i have had people die who were fairly close to me in the past...  My
> grandmother, and a person who i emailed regularly drowned.  I was sad for a
> few days, that was it.  There's no need to go overboard.  No pun intended.)

I don't think you chose not to feel sad, I think you just ignored your true 
feelings and put them aside and drowned your troubles in drugs.  Just my two 
cents.

> > 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.
> >
> 
> We don't *need* it.  We need it at the moment because there are killers and
> the like.  When there aren't any, we won't need it. 

This is never going to happen.  Not unless we give everyone a lobotomy or do 
some other commie shit.

> We need to build toward that. 

People aren't going to change.  If we instead built towards removing drugs and 
alcohol and cigarettes we would have a much better place.

> I'm sure there will always be some criminals, and hence we will always
> need some kind of police force, but at the moment it's just ridiculous.

Wake up and smell the coffee.  It's always been like this since the days of 
cavemen, it still is now, and it's always going to be like this until the 
human race withers and dies.  Or until the Earth explodes or can no longer 
support any life at all, whatever.

> And that's another thing.  Legalize drugs, and you free up SOOOOOO much
> police time which they can now spend catching REAL criminals like murderers
> and rapists and so on.

Everyone tries to justify their crime.  The rapists are saying "If rape was 
legal, they could spend time worrying about murderers and drug users," the 
thiefs are saying "If stealing was legal, blah blah".  I think you get the 
point.  Everyone thinks that the crime they're commiting should be legal 
because of one reason or another.  Drugs are just another crime.

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