🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MLTa2.1192$961....@server1.news.adelphia.net>,
  tabmok99....@damnspaz.com (]{0MBAT) wrote:
> This is in reference to <74gld2$fcj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, in which a
> one st...@dds.nl wrote:
> > With marijuana, the user is far too lazy to do anything violent - and
> > certainly too slow to do anything else illegal.
> Marijuana, besides inducing paranoia, causes brain damage.

So does football.  Marijuana does not cause any significant amount of brain
damage compared with other everyday activities people engage in.

> If there was
> some medicine that caused brain damage as a side effect, would you take
> it?  Would you let other people buy or sell it, and let them get brain
> damage?

Of course i would.  There should be *NOTHING* which is illegal to put inside
your body.  If someone wants to eat cyanide, let them do it.  If someone wants
to eat LSD, let them do it.  If someone wants to eat brussel sprouts, let them
do it.

[LSD, hallucinogens]
> Yes, but people sometimes kill themselves while hallucinating because of
> the drugs.

No.  People kill themselves because they're stupid.  When you hallucinate you
know that you're halluncinating.  If the user gets to a stage where they don't
know any more, then it's their fault for going that far and if they die that's
too bad.  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.

[heroin, opiates]
> These drugs all have harmful long-term effects, which are too dangerous to let
> everyone fall victim too.

No they don't.	They have harmful long-term effects *if* you use them
irresponsibly.	Driving a car has harmful long-term effects too if you insist
on driving at 200 miles an hour round every corner.  Heroin is in fact one of
the LEAST physically harmful drugs around.  The reason some addicts die is
because they get bad stuff or because they don't have the money to feed
themselves.

[speed, coke]
> These would fuck too many people up also, as well as pregnant women's unborn
> children.
>

If you're pregnant and you take drugs and harm your child that's YOUR
CONSCIOUS CHOICE.  Really and truly Justin - do you really think all drug
users are mindly zombies who are high 24/7?  Of course they're not!  That's a
very, very small minority which is glorified by the DEA so people like you
will back their cause 100%.

> > The real problem is people, not drugs.
>
> And "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Exactly.

> There are too many
> people who can't be trusted to use them right to make them legal to
> everyone.

If people can't be trusted there's only one way to teach them.	I mean, what
the hell are you going to do?  Ban cars?  Ban all motored transport?  Hell,
better ban horses too - they've trampled people before.  Gee let's ban
kitchen knives in case another Ms Bobbit appears.  Don't be silly.  It's the
people who are stupid, and they'll be stupid with or without accessories. 
Don't be so naive as to think that getting rid of drugs will get rid of the
problem, because drugs aren't the problem - people are.

> And making it easy for them to act violent should be legal???

Ever hear of something called "freedom"???

> That would be great.  If we got rid of their anger, we wouldn't even need
> drugs or guns.

Says who?  Perfectly happy people like to go hunting or to take drugs.  It's
called "recreation".

> > There is a difference between weak drugs, and drugs which aren't at all what
> > you're expecting and instead *kill* you.  You buy a bottle of beer and it's
> > laced with cyanide.  That's not just "tampering" with it.
> Beer will kill all your brain cells anyway, if you drink it enough.

Hello.	I'm not talking about drinking enough.	I'm talking about drinking
one glass.  One line of coke which is rat poison and that's it.  It's not the
same.

> It would provide a wider problem because tehre are people who would use them
> and then do crazy things.

Typical of those who are anti-legalization you completely miss the point even
though it's been stated twice in two posts.  And you'll probably miss it again
and again and again - i've spent months playing ping pong with people who
swallow the DEA propaganda like you do.  You don't realize how brainwashed you
really are.  But i'll give it another try.

THERE WOULD BE NO SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN USERS IF DRUGS WERE LEGALIZED
BECAUSE EVERYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IS USING THEM ANYWAY.

> Because they figure, "Well I'm not breaking the law, I'm not doing a thing
> wrong, I'll try it."

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.

> > If gay marriage becomes legal does every man in the country get married to
> > another man?  Of course not - because they're not interested.  Even many gay
> > men aren't interested.
>
> Look at all the flocks of people flying down to Hawaii for that reason alone.

Flocks.  Millions.  Billions.  You're being brainwashed by the media again.

> Then obviously you'll use drugs anyway.  Drugs being illegal isn't enough to
> stop you, but that doesn't mean that it won't stop other people.

Believe me, a shitload more people use drugs than will ever admit it.

> Why would they be any different than cigarette and alcohol ads?  Look at all
> the cigarette ads in magazines and buses (sp?) where people are eating pizza
> and smiling with their clean white teeth and no tar stains at all holding a
> box of cigarettes.  It would be the same thing with drug ads.

Not if drug advertizing was banned.  Not if drugs were sold by the government
as a public service instead of a company trying to make money.	But even if
those ads did come into use.  How many people pick up a cigarette for the
first time due to seeing the Marlboro man?  People are savvy to it now.  The
cigarette companies themselves admit that their advertizing is designed to
pull users from brand X to their brand - nothing more.	They don't expect to
get new users, because new users aren't swayed by advertizing.

> Brain damage, and suicide.  Command & Conquer won't make you kill yourself if
> you lose.

Drugs won't make you kill yourself either.  Only people who are already
predisposed toward doing that will do it.  As for harmful side-effects of
computer games - sleep deprivation, RSI, damaged eyesight...

> Yes, but drugs being legal would bring out the worst in everyone, regardless
> of whose fault it is.

Oh this is such drivel, really.  I expected more of you from other posts in
the past - this is just silly.

> > I don't think use of these drugs would increase dramatically with
> > legalization.  It might seem that way because alot of people would come out
> > of the closet, but i do believe most of the people who want to do it already
> > are.
> If that were true, then you shouldn't care whether they're legal or not.
>

I care, because i want to be able to go out to a club with a tab in my pocket
and decide on the night whether or not i want to do it rather than being
forced to take it beforehand just in case the cops decide to search me.  I
care, because i want people who go on bad trips or have a really bad comedown
to have the support of the hospitals.  I care, because i don't want hundreds
of innocent people being killed in South America in the middle of the Drug
Wars.  I care, because i don't want the government throwing away billions of
dollars every year which could be put to much better use elsewhere.  I care
about humankind as a whole.  This is one of the best policy changes which
could be introduced to any country - there is no other area in which so many
people are being outlawed and discriminated against.

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