🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <uhHb2.1898$961....@server1.news.adelphia.net>,
  tabmok99....@damnspaz.com (]{0MBAT) wrote:

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

Gotta hate it when that happens.

> > 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.

That's not the point though.  It's not about how many people die, it's the
fact that people die, period.  Can you tell me what an acceptable amount of
deaths is?  1%?  5%?  10%?  From what you've said in the past you seem to
value even one life - if that is so then how can you say drugs are any
different from kitchen knives?	Both have caused at least one death,
therefore both are dangerous and should not be allowed.  You do want to
minimize death, right?

> > 1) Brain damage doesn't "hurt" you
> I beg to differ.

Bilogically speaking, yes it hurts you.  Do you as a person notice it?  Not
unless you've had a ridiculous amount which is fair more easily attainable by
becoming a boxer than a drug taker.

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

Financial "hurt" doesn't exist.  If someone has no money, they have no money.
 I have no money.  It sucks.  Does it hurt?  No.  I deal with it.

> as well as stretching the negative effects of drugs
> and making them worse.
>

Yes it does, but does it *hurt*?  It doesn't really hurt the user, they're
usually quite happy to be addicted.  And if they're not happy, than they can
quit.  If they're in too deep to quit then they can get support from an
AA-type place, or they die.  Either way they knew what they were getting
themselves into, and if you choose to do something yourself it can never
really hurt in the same way as if it was inflicted upon you unwillingly.

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

Oh goody, that means we can diss everyone on the newsgroup and they won't ever
know.

JENN DOLARI, YOU SUCK!
GUMBO YOU PISSHEAD, YOU SUCK!
FUCK YOU TRASH, YOU SUCK!
GODDAMN ALL YOU AGMK GEEKS, YOU ALL SUCK!

;-)

> > > > > 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.
>
Theoretically the kid could take the parents to court for that, couldn't they?
I don't know, i've had a pretty liberal upbringing, so...

> > What abortion issue?
> The pro-life/pro-choice issue.

I was being silly.

> > 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.

Ah okay.  There's a difference between conservative vs liberal and
conservative vs extravagant.  The word can mean two different things, it
probably wasn't a particularly good choice, but there you go.

> 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.

I don't think so.  Conservatism is necessary because humans need time to
adjust to the current level before continuing, but i don't think an
indefinite conservatism is a Good Thing for us at all.

> It does matter.  Their families and friends shouldn't have to suffer
> unnecessarily (sp?) because of drugs.

No they shouldn't, so the families and friends should quit suffering
unnecessarily.

> Plus, I'm Christian, and it's not right to let them spend an
> eternity in Hell either.

I thought if someone sinned to a certain point they deserved to spend an
eternity in Hell?  If someone commits suicide they deserve what they're
getting, so it's not really an argument.

> > > 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.

Let's see.  Having to choose between all my CDs which is my favorite - that's
a choice which shouldn't be made ;)  But seriously - i think if someone makes
a choice to do something which is only going to affect their own wellbeing,
they should be allowed to do so.

> > 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.
>
I don't think it would, but even if it was i don't think that would be a
particualrly Bad Thing.  In the Western world we are really a bit too
desensitized to grief and death, maybe some reality would wake people up.

> > 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.
>
Ever heard these ones?  "The best way to learn is by experience" and "survival
of the fittest".

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

Now that was a line worthy of Jerry Springer ;)  Still, who says you're
"supposed" to not eat meat?  Who says you're "supposed" to not drive your car
above 50mph?  Who says you're NOT "supposed" to take drugs?  You do realize
some drugs just grow in the ground and it's just a case of picking them and
eating them, same as any fruit or vegetable?

> 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.
>

But along the same lines taking LSD *will not* affect your body in any way
after a few days, whereas eating peanuts *will* start a cadmium buildup in
your body which can never be broken down.  Where can you draw the line?

> > > 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.
>
Life in and of itself certainly is.  300,100 lives versus 300,000 lives isn't.

> > anyone to take the garbage out".  But they choose to be sad.
>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is the dumbest thing you've ever said.

I knew you'd say that.	Because someone else said it to me too when i
mentioned virtually the same thing.  Somewhere inside, something chooses to
be sad.  It isn't just a chemical reaction - not like someone dies and
suddenly we're sad. For example, imagine that a good friend of yours died but
you didn't know.  An exact replica of him was put in his place and you lived
the rest of your life not knowing any better.  You wouldn't be sad because
you wouldn't have lost anything.

A person does not become sad because a friend dies, a person becomes sad
because they feel they've lost something now that their friend is gone. 
There is a difference.	If you've lost something it's your choice what to do
about it - accept it, find something else to replace it, get pissed off about
losing it, or just get sad, whatever.  The person who grieves does so because
THEY are missing something, not because something is missing.  Subtle
difference, but it means they're being just as egotistical as the suicide
committer.  This is not a Bad Thing, but people do have to understand that
their sadness is not a reaction to death per se.

> 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.

"Drowned [my] troubles in drugs"!?  You've got to be joking.  If there's one
thing i'd never do, it's get high to make me feel better, because it's only
liable to make me feel worse.  If you feel like shit and take drugs, you're
just going to feel even more like shit.  Ask Gumbo ;)

> > 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.
>
It could happen.  Don't you think it's worth working towards?

> > 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.
>
The thing is, you're looking at this from a physical point of view, but i
believe it's a far more deep-seated psychological and cultural thing.  People
can and do change, but they need to make alot of effort.  Taking away some
physical things is only going to halt the tide - something else will arrive in
the future which will have just the same effect because people still haven't
changed.  If we work toward changing the people, we can be prepared for any
contingency.  It's not easy, but surely it's worth a try?

This is similar to the quote "give man a fish and he will feed his family for
a day, give him a line and he will feed them for life" or whatever it is.  We
can keep on giving the fish (taking away physical problems) but the root of
the problem is still there.  Start working on the root and the physical
problems will no longer be problems.

> Everyone tries to justify their crime.  The rapists are saying "If rape was
> legal, they could spend time worrying about murderers and drug users,"

Actually most rapists are saying "if women don't want to be raped they
shouldn't wear sexy clothes".  This is a fundamental problem in our society -
we (men) are aroused by tight clothes or short skirts or whatever.  If, for
example, nakedness and free sex were the norm, a whole lot of rapists would
never commit the crime they do.  Yes there would still be the odd few, but it
would be greatly reduced.

> the
> thiefs are saying "If stealing was legal, blah blah".

Most thieves say "i wouldn't steal if i could afford to feed my family". 
Again, a fundamental problem in society.  We don't take enough care of the
poor and the hungry.  If everyone had a nice house and enough food for their
whole family 24/7, a whole lot of thieves would never commit the crime they
do.  Once again, there would certainly be a few who still did, but it would
be greatly reduced.

> I think you get the
> point.

But do you get my point?

> Drugs are just another crime.

Yes drugs are a crime.  The question is, should they be a crime?


By the way, did you know MDMA (Ecstasy) was used as a form of prozac when it
was discovered?  That LSD was used in small quantities to help people with
mental disorders?  That morphine which is often used as an anaesthetic is
virtually the same as heroin and opium?  That marijuana used by people who
are HIV positive can alleviate their suffering?  Marijuana eases many other
chronic illnesses too - rheumatism, Parkinson's and more.  These are medical
facts, they're not just things pulled out of the air.  It's interesting that
the drugs everyone wants to get rid of can actually be used to improve the
human mental and physical condition.

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