Post: #126

(09-09-2016 11:23 AM)Laner Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 08:04 AM)scotian Wrote:  I agree that the safe injection sites, needles exchanges and the DTES of Vancouver are a huge eye sore and it appalling that the public, especially children, have to watch out for used needles in the streets and parking in one of the best cities in the world to live. However, I've only been to the DTES since Insite has existed so I don't know if there were that many junkies there throwing their rigs all over the places 10+ years ago. I don't know why Vancouver has so many addicts but if I had to guess it would be due to the fact that its the only big city in Canada where a drug addict or drunk can pass out in January and not wake up dead so degenerates from all over Canada flock there en masse.

Anyway, one thing I do know is that on the east coast of Canada we had an explosion of opiate addiction in the past ten years due to doctors over prescribing them and in some cases, prescribing them when they shouldn't have. Basically these docs were handing out Oxys and dilaudids like Pez candies to everyone with an ache or pain. It got so bad that some doctors were sent to jail (some for fucking female patients for pills) and the pharmaceutical companies developed coated pills which can't be broken down to snort or put in a rig. So due to the law of unintended consequences, we now have heroin on the east coast because the junkies can't get their pills so organized crime filled the void with street dope, much of which is actually fenatyl and we've seen a major spike in overdoses and deaths across Canada because of it.

Also, I'm not a drug promoter or a huge proponent of the upcoming legalization of marijuana in Canada (I didn't vote Trudeau) but if its going to happen, then I"m okay with it since I am a recreational user myself and think that the examples set by Colorado and other US states show that it can work. I"m not trying to convince anyone, if anything, I am open to being convinced that the legalization of marijuana in Canada is a bad thing but based on the arguments I see here, I"m still ok with it.

A larger part of it is that Vancouver has, at least since I moved here 15 years ago, been pushing for more social housing. It is something that is on the news everyday, 365 days a year. Its like tourette syndrome here with social housing, and believe it or not it makes or breaks civic parties. But its one thing that we will never be able to build our selves out of. Every junkie we buy an apartment for, 3 more come into town looking for their central location, free flat too.

If you build it they will come, if I was a heroin addict or a crack head I'd probably be in Vancouver too!

My main concern in the entire legalization debate and this thread is what's going to happen in Canada when marijuana is finally legalized? I agree that the government will probably fuck it up somehow by over regulating it and the black market product will still be around until they get it figured out. I could see there even being a short term spike in its usage but also an eventual drop off in consumption levels, as Ghost Tiger mentioned, you can't saturate something even more than it already is if its fully saturated and the marijuana consumption among Canadians is already at some of the highest levels in the world. When I first got my card in BC and went to a dispensary, I was like a kid in a candy store and smoked my brains out (edibles too) but cut way down after a week or two because I know that consuming too much makes me lethargic and stupid.

I look forward to being able to go into a licensed coffee shop and ordering a drink, chilling, blazing a big reefer and hanging out with friends. I've already done this in Vancouver at the Amsterdam Cafe and its really no big deal, way more chill than going to a bar in say Fort McMurray on a Friday night. Also, I'm hoping to see changes in the drug testing of people in the oil industry but am not holding my breathe on that one.

I'm aware of the concerns that the public have with marijuana consumption, I even started a thread three years ago about a CBC documentary called The Down Side of High which highlights the potential for young users (especially men) to experience marijuana induced psychosis. However, I believe that the risks of marijuana legalization can be reduced and limited through public education and rehabilitation along with a well run government program to provide quality ganja to consumers.

Post: #127

I'm for legalization of some drugs like Marijuana, you could probably convince me cocaine would be fine to legalize. But Heroin, PCP, I cant wrap my head around that.

For those who are arguing for full blown legalization, I would challenge you to live near a drug market where its being sold. It isn't just the dealers who are committing crimes. The addicts are even a bigger nuisance on a day to day basis. These people aren't "consenting adults who aren't harming anyone". They can be a danger to others. Some drive after doing Heroin for example and eventually they will run out of money to feed their addiction.

They start off begging on the street, but after a while, they will start breaking car windows, robbing children and trying to break in houses. I saw some junkie once jump on top of a 12 year old girl w/crutches just to take her purse. One of the most popular crimes (as seen on the wire) is stealing copper wiring from new construction homes.

I agree that drug rehab is better then locking them up, but at some point, if they continue to break the law, they should go to jail.

Post: #128

^I'm pretty sure that Vancouver has, or at one point had, the highest rate of property crime per capita in all of north America and I'm pretty sure the highest HIV/AIDS rate too.

Post: #129

Crime committed by addicts is a direct result of drugs being illegal and therefore prohibitively expensive. Legalize it and drug related crime will drop to the point of almost disappearing. Simple Economics 101. Scarcity creates value, and illegality invites enterprising criminals, the more ruthless and murderous the more successful. When is the last time you heard of someone robbing or murdering for a cup of coffee or a cigarette or a beer. Never because legalization makes those drugs attainable by nearly anyone.
Drugs aren't the problem. Prohibition has been and will continue to be the problem.
Organized crime didn't exist in the US until prohibition. The Mexican Cartels which have more power than the Mexican government didn't exist until the creation of the Controlled Substances act and the DEA in 1973. It is widely accepted that President Nixon created these laws to counter the Vietnam anti-war movement.

Post: #130

(09-09-2016 11:56 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:No true Libertarian can agree with legislation that prohibits me from putting whatever I feel like inside my body.

It takes me very little effort to portray all libertarians as either selfish, parasitical, broken-brained, or all three simultaneously. So if "true libertarianism" is your strongest argument, you'd better get a stronger one.

So please use you very little effort to debase my argument.

Post: #131

(09-09-2016 12:00 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 11:56 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:No true Libertarian can agree with legislation that prohibits me from putting whatever I feel like inside my body.

It takes me very little effort to portray all libertarians as either selfish, parasitical, broken-brained, or all three simultaneously. So if "true libertarianism" is your strongest argument, you'd better get a stronger one.

Or you could read my entire post.

Or you could read the earlier posts in this thread.

Post: #132

Quote: Crime committed by addicts is a direct result of drugs being illegal and therefore prohibitively expensive.

Equally plausible explanation, "Crime committed by addicts is a direct result of the cognitive impairment produced by long term drug use, especially regarding both destruction of the impulse control portions of the brain AND the inability of drug addicts to hold down even short term jobs."

Post: #133

(09-09-2016 12:42 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote: Crime committed by addicts is a direct result of drugs being illegal and therefore prohibitively expensive.

Equally plausible explanation, "Crime committed by addicts is a direct result of the cognitive impairment produced by long term drug use, especially regarding both destruction of the impulse control portions of the brain AND the inability of drug addicts to hold down even short term jobs."

So why aren't addicts of cheap, legal drugs not constantly committing crimes?

Post: #134

(09-09-2016 12:41 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 12:00 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 11:56 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:No true Libertarian can agree with legislation that prohibits me from putting whatever I feel like inside my body.

It takes me very little effort to portray all libertarians as either selfish, parasitical, broken-brained, or all three simultaneously. So if "true libertarianism" is your strongest argument, you'd better get a stronger one.

Or you could read my entire post.

Or you could read the earlier posts in this thread.

Please feel free to use the quote feature, so conveniently displayed.

Post: #135

Quote feature doesn't work in mobile devices, so I manually create quote tags.

Quote:So why aren't addicts of cheap, legal drugs not constantly committing crimes?

Because different drugs appeal to different characters of people. Tobacco and alcohol are long-accepted aspects of the community, and alcohol is used as a social lubricant / social bonding device.

Meanwhile, the illegal drugs are long-rejected parts of the community, so anyone who takes them is, at minimum, socially impaired (a sort of aspie who doesn't intuitively understand basic (and advanced) social bonding rules, and is therefore anti-government, anti-religion, and anti-schools). Or is, at maximum, a socially impaired destructive individual, (a similar sort of aspie who not only doesn't get it, but hates everyone who does).

Given those descriptions, it's easy to predict who will commit the most petty crime.

Post: #136

(09-09-2016 01:07 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Because different drugs appeal to different characters of people. Tobacco and alcohol are long-accepted aspects of the community, and alcohol is used as a social lubricant / social bonding device.

Meanwhile, the illegal drugs are long-rejected parts of the community, so anyone who takes them is, at minimum, socially impaired

No, you're just repeatedly ignoring the evidence that we've already presented to the contrary. Stop just repeating what you've decided to believe, and submit to the facts.

/thread-58051...pid1387973

This deference to the present government & law as to what makes someone "socially impaired" is farcical. Alcohol creates far great anti-social effects (sluts and violence) than marijuana, LSD, or perhaps even cocaine does.

You don't get to just declare alcohol a part of socially-bonding, ignoring all its anti-social and deleterious effects; and then ignore everyone else who socially bonds with other drugs.

I've never seen such disregard and stonewalling of the truth from anyone else here. Ghost Tiger is at least responding to arguments, not just parotting the same false ones over and over like a broken record. You should be stronger than that, if your arguments are rebutted and clearly wrong, at least stop responding. Don't just say them again.

Post: #137

Phoenix,

I read over your link, but didn't find anything which indicated that users of illegal drugs are either: (1) just as socially intelligent or (2) more socially intelligent than non-users of illegal drugs.

Post: #138

^ You've got nothing man, just let it drop.

Post: #139

(09-09-2016 12:36 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  Crime committed by addicts is a direct result of drugs being illegal and therefore prohibitively expensive. Legalize it and drug related crime will drop to the point of almost disappearing. Simple Economics 101. Scarcity creates value, and illegality invites enterprising criminals, the more ruthless and murderous the more successful. When is the last time you heard of someone robbing or murdering for a cup of coffee or a cigarette or a beer. Never because legalization makes those drugs attainable by nearly anyone.
Drugs aren't the problem. Prohibition has been and will continue to be the problem.
Organized crime didn't exist in the US until prohibition. The Mexican Cartels which have more power than the Mexican government didn't exist until the creation of the Controlled Substances act and the DEA in 1973. It is widely accepted that President Nixon created these laws to counter the Vietnam anti-war movement.

I agree with you that a legalized drug market would lower crime across the board. No doubt there..

I don't understand how you fix the social problem by legalizing it. Especially, in a market with socialized medicine...youre basically making something legal that is not just harmful to themselves but others as well. The crimes that I listed are just the everyday crimes. Pcp addicts do a lot of crazy shit, even kill people without realizing it. I think it was in Camden where a mother killed her 2 year old daughter. You can't use pcp in moderation like alcohol.

Marijuana , cigs and beer don't have the same addictive qualities of heroin. Plenty of people quit those cold turkey without help.

Ever see a heroin addict quit cold turkey? They basically have to lock themselves in a room for a week and even then, it's likely they'll go back to using. Many short term rehab programs aren't even successful.

In terms of prices haven't dropped that much in legalized drug markets. It still costs 10 bucks for 2 pre rolled weed joints in Washington.(I just bought some and it was shwag)

Post: #140

Phoenix,

Telling me "I've got nothing" after I asked you to clarify what your link meant isn't very convincing. It makes it appear that you're the one with nothing.

Quote:You don't get to just declare alcohol a part of socially-bonding, ignoring all its anti-social and deleterious effects; and then ignore everyone else who socially bonds with other drugs.

As I stated before, there's a small but vocal collection of socially-impaired individuals who don't understand some basic and advanced rules of social bonding.

One of these rules is that alcohol creates social bonding. A simple Google search of "alcohol social lubricant" produces dozens of page hits. And attending just one party will introduce you to some of the approximately 20% of people who cannot soberly talk to strangers at a party.

You're also committing the logical error of telling people who simultaneously drink alcohol and ALREADY live in a community that "Alcohol destroys communities."

Post: #141

I think the two biggest reasons people commit crime are lack of money, and lack of access to drugs. Legalizing drugs doesn’t omit the fact that the drug user is unemployable, and therefore has no money.

You can make drugs free, but if a drug user can't buy food, he's going to commit a crime. So now we have to pay for a drug user's drugs AND food AND shelter AND job training AND addiction-destroying services. All because he voluntarily took a substance that the entire community knows renders people impulsive Ave in employable?

No thanks.

Post: #142

^If you want to do legalized "drugs". I got something for ya.

Post: #143

Actually, you know what MMX? I'll play devils advocate, just to show you how it's done.

Possible arguments:
1) Constantly killing hedonism and its suppliers is necessary to maintain a productive society. Illegalisation entices out those who will not defer to the government's authority, with the nectar of illicit profits, where they can then be killed or thrown in dungeons. Without this constant social/genetic-cleaning effect, society will decay into hedonism and anti-social behaviour. This is why Genghis Khan was so powerful, as under his laws any weak behaviour caused summary death, thus creating a strong and cohesive society.
[For this reason though, any product would achieve the same effect -- e.g. illegalizing soda, but you could argue its easier to avoid rebellion with other substances].

2) Families are not as capable as governments at regulating social behaviour. For this reason, we cannot rely on families and communities to police excessive hedonism, the government must be used, and since the government is relatively small it must use as much force as possible to amplify its effect.
[This is actually a strong argument, usually from the left, since it's true that most parents do defer to the government & public schools etc out of their own laziness and vice. The other side then has to explain how it would rearm parents with good morals and self-reliance].

3) Alcohol and Tobacco is a biological necessity. [Tobacco won't work because it clearly kills & maims with very little social benefit]. Without Alcohol, we would not be able to develop the friendships and business productivity we currently enjoy, as it has been "genetically imprinted" into us, due to use over the centuries. Observe the Muslims as an example of what happens when you try to avoid drinking alcohol.
[Again, strong argument, but you'll need scientific evidence, and you'll be going up against the fact that Muslims clearly have a stronger community, with higher birth rates etc, albeit much more violent].

4) If we legalize drugs, we will become an international pariah due to becoming a major supplier to other countries, all who still make drugs illegal. This will damage trade relations, the economy, and may even lead to war. The cost is not worth the benefit.
[Essentially the appeaser's argument].

Consider this an example of honest debating, which you might want to ponder, instead of the previous unyielding getting what you want.

Post: #144

Cuckservatives are well known for advocating "honest debating", but they're more well-known for losing everything they claim to fight for. As such, no one respects Cuckservatives, and some are losing their respect for debating.

I also warned you earlier that I'm on the winning side, so I don't have to make arguments, don't have to convince anyone, and don't even have to be polite. The only thing I can't do is lie..

So, let's just call your post Exhibit Two in the "Phoenix is socially-impaired" argument, that you call on me to "debate honestly", a mere day or two after I told everyone that I didn't have to do so.

Post: #145

Also, being consistent with the premises of my own arguments, I'll concede that drugs like PCP should be kept illegal, as it makes people violent towards others. Putting people at risk of death is still a tort (assault), even if it doesn't actually cause death; e.g. firing a machine gun at someones house is still a crime even if you hit no one or damage nothing.

Post: #146

(09-09-2016 03:15 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Cuckservatives are well known for advocating "honest debating", but they're more well-known for losing everything they claim to fight for. As such, no one respects Cuckservatives, and some are losing their respect for debating.

I also warned you earlier that I'm on the winning side, so I don't have to make arguments, don't have to convince anyone, and don't even have to be polite. The only thing I can't do is lie..

So, let's just call your post Exhibit Two in the "Phoenix is socially-impaired" argument, that you call on me to "debate honestly", a mere day or two after I told everyone that I didn't have to do so.

Then I think you've made it abundantly clear to the forum what you are. You were already on my blocked list because you've behaved like this before. So nothing valuable comes out of your mouth, and you don't even deny or apologize for that, back you shall go.

Post: #147

Yes, I made it perfectly clear what I am. It's your shortcoming that you don't notice that most of the drug-promoters have no problem with me.

Quote: So nothing valuable comes out of your mouth, and you don't even deny or apologize for that, back you shall go.

Few things are more valuable than exposing false strength. Your false strength is the assumption that this issue will be discussed using "let's debate" rules. Meanwhile, because drugs destroy families and communities, drugs are almost NEVER calmly debated. Instead, discussions get personal, with the anti-drug side possessing huge tactical and experiential advantages over the drug-promoters.

In my opinion, I very kindly warned you what was going to happen. And I even more kindly gave you resources to prevent yourself from getting demolished later on. But you blocked me in frustration, so you can no longer see those resources.

Post: #148

Does anyone think it would be worth posting a thread on ways to actively cleanse a community of scum, either legally or quietly? While this thread has raised some interesting points it's unlikely to ever make an impact on your lives. Meanwhile, community building is a new RVF frontier and while junkies exist and likely always will, there has to be ways to oust them from your community.

Post: #149

Leonard,

There are a lot of hypotheses as to why certain individuals get addicted to drugs. Gabor Mate on Stefan Molyneux's YouTube channel presents extensive evidence that childhood trauma and social isolation makes people prone to drug addiction. (Which explains why many of you know someone who can take hard drugs as much as he wants, without being addicted.)

But I prefer The Last Psychiatrist's thesis that drugs are a substitute for human connection. They are most likely to be addictive to someone who has trouble making friends, and the high mimics the joy of energetic social companionship.

So the first thing I would do is ensure that all children feel welcome, feel validated, feel protected, and have something about themselves to be proud of.

As for actual drug addicts who aren't my children, all of my ideas are dark. From constantly pelting them with rotten eggs to acussing them if robbery, I approve of those methods because I don't trust an addict's probability of getting better - and I don't want to pay big money to help someone who voluntarily took a substance he knew was harmful.

Post: #150

The thing about the drug debate is it's mostly argued in terms of black and white. Either drugs are "legal" or they're "illegal". Either you can get heroine out of a vending machine or you can't even smoke a joint without a fine or jail time.

I think the better, more realistic system lies in the middle.

People always talk about the criminality and degeneracy caused by rampant drug use, but who says those people HAVE to be included in drug legislation reform?

If you're a decent, law abiding citizen who wants to smoke a little weed in the evenings or do a few bumps of coke on New Year's Eve, have at it.

If you're on welfare, no drugs. If you're a convicted felon, no drugs. Introduce suspensions, bans, limitations, etc. based on undesirable or criminal behavior.

I could even see an argument based on banning drug use for college students. Or maybe set the age limit at 21, like with alcohol.

Make people get a license to be able to legally purchase, which they must show anytime they buy, and suspend or revoke it based on certain infractions, just like you would a driver's license.

Not only would this stop drug use from getting out of control, it could actually serve as a decent motivator to people who would otherwise stay on welfare or committing petty crimes.

Obviously it's not going to influence the hard cases, but I could definitely see a decent amount of people opting to hold down a job and forgo government benefits to get their license back. People may also think twice about committing crimes. Not a majority, but it would have an impact.

It'd also serve to separate the decent citizens from the ne'er do wells both legally and socially. You could go after the abusers and leeches and stragglers of society harder once you know who is who.

Meanwhile the contributors wouldn't have to lurk in the shadows just to hit a bong every now and then.