Post: #201

I think capital punishment is a bit harsh, but I am not going to play arm-chair quarterback to Duterte. I love that guy and I think he is doing exactly what he has to do to bring order to chaos. Mexico needs a man like Duterte.

I just wanted to add to my earlier comment about citizenship... the essential argument of Trump's campaign is: citizenship is a privilege. It is not true that you can claim citizenship simply by walking across a border or riding a boat to the shores of the nation you like better than your own. Migration is war, and we don't grant citizenship to our enemies. So, since citizenship is a privilege, it can be lost and it should be lost when a man chooses to become a criminal. Illicit drug use is a crime. And it is primarily a crime against one's self.

Quote:1 Corinthians 6:19
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;

Quote:John 2:22
After He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this. Then they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

It is true that some rights are inalienable and they are granted by God, but nations, like churches, are constructs of man and must be managed by men. If they're not managed properly, we get the current crises of migration and criminality in our nations and the crisis of a false pope in the Catholic church.

Citizenship is a privilege. It can be earned, lost, and regained. This was the essential argument of Trump's campaign.

And we won that argument.

Post: #202

(01-04-2017 12:55 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  I just wanted to add to my earlier comment about citizenship... the essential argument of Trump's campaign is: citizenship is a privilege. It is not true that you can claim citizenship simply by walking across a border or riding a boat to the shores of the nation you like better than your own. Migration is war, and we don't grant citizenship to our enemies.

Yeah, but arguing that it should be difficult for non-citizens to gain citizenship (which I agree with) is totally different from saying that it should be easy to take citizenship away from those who are already citizens.

I don't think citizenship should be able to be taken away arbitrarily, even if the person commits a crime.

The punishments for crimes are very clear. X amount of years in jail (or probation, or community service, or whatever). Once the sentence is complete, the person should be able to resume their life as a citizen.

If you believe that loss of full citizenship should be the punishment for certain crimes, then you would first need to pass laws stating that judges can impose loss of citizenship as a punishment.

I would support permanent loss of citizenship for serious crimes against your nation, such as treason, selling state secrets, mishandling classified information, etc. I would not support loss of citizenship for ordinary crimes, though. I think jail time is punishment enough, especially for nonviolent crimes (robbery, drug use, etc.).

(01-04-2017 12:55 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  So, since citizenship is a privilege, it can be lost and it should be lost when a man chooses to become a criminal. Illicit drug use is a crime. And it is primarily a crime against one's self.

Crime against oneself? The definition of a crime is that you're harming other people. In fact, the rationale behind drug laws is that drug use harms the community as a whole.

If you accept the concept of "crime against oneself," anything that the government deems as "harmful" to yourself can be made into a crime. Maybe cutting yourself should be a crime. Maybe drinking too much should be a crime. Maybe eating too much should be a crime. Maybe being willfully unemployed should be a crime. Maybe staying married to a man who the government deems "unproductive" should be a crime, and women would be forced to divorce their "unproductive" husbands or face criminal penalties. They could make it a crime to be an RVF member, since RVF is supposedly "harmful." How far down that rabbit hole are you willing to go?

Post: #203

I don't remember who told me this, but there's a saying, "No one rides the fun train all the way to the last stop."

Meaning that drugs weaken the body to where you cannot work productively, weaken the mind and the ambition to where you cannot succeed effectively, and weaken your sociability to where you can't bond with either individuals or society.

As your end approaches, and see you how lonely and frightening that end is, you all yell HELP! Not to your friends and family (many of whom abandoned you while you were constantly getting high), but to us - the same society you not only failed to bond with, but also dismissed as unhealthy, insane, and oppressive.

You don't ride the fun train to the last stop, by graciously accepting, "I broke this, so I'm buying it" - either by dying with dignity or fighting every penalty of drug use with courage, sacrifice, and dignity.

You ask for HELP! and then shame us into accepting one of two extreme solutions. But you don't see how the "wishy-washy" aspects of our policies are sympathetic and hopeful.

Post: #204

(01-04-2017 01:12 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I don't think citizenship should be able to be taken away arbitrarily, even if the person commits a crime.

(01-04-2017 01:12 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I would support permanent loss of citizenship for serious crimes against your nation

You've contradicted yourself here. We clearly agree on the principle, and are now merely bickering over the application of it. You said earlier you support Duterte executing addicts, but now you're arguing that loss of citizenship (with the opportunity for redemption) is too harsh. I dare say that loss of life is more harsh than loss of citizenship, so you're entering into absurd territory here.

(01-04-2017 01:12 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  Crime against oneself? The definition of a crime is that you're harming other people. In fact, the rationale behind drug laws is that drug use harms the community as a whole.

The addict's crime of consumption of illicit drugs harms the community because it harms himself. You're channeling John Stuart Mill here, and Theodore Dalrymple already soundly defeated Mill's argument in this context.

Theodore Dalrymple Wrote:In practice, of course, it is exceedingly difficult to make people take all the consequences of their own actions—as they must, if Mill’s great principle is to serve as a philosophical guide to policy. Addiction to, or regular use of, most currently prohibited drugs cannot affect only the person who takes them—and not his spouse, children, neighbors, or employers. No man, except possibly a hermit, is an island; and so it is virtually impossible for Mill’s principle to apply to any human action whatever, let alone shooting up heroin or smoking crack. Such a principle is virtually useless in determining what should or should not be permitted.

(01-04-2017 01:12 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  If you accept the concept of "crime against oneself," anything that the government deems as "harmful" to yourself can be made into a crime.

But that's not how the rubber hits the road in the real world so you're just tossing a squirrel here to try to distract from your losing the argument by exaggerating my argument into a straw man. Which is fine, I get it, and I still like you and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to debate with you. But you're wrong here.

Post: #205

(01-04-2017 12:27 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I was responding to Samseau's post, in which he said the following:

(01-03-2017 12:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Users should be sent to rehab, sellers should be fined or jailed depending on the quantity and toxicity of the substance.

He seems to be implying that he thinks sending users to rehab will help them in the long run. That's why I responded that I don't think it will help drug users in the long run to be branded by the state as "drug addicts" for the rest of their lives.

No one said to brand users as anything. Health records should always remain confidential.

Post: #206

(01-04-2017 01:42 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 01:12 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I don't think citizenship should be able to be taken away arbitrarily, even if the person commits a crime.

(01-04-2017 01:12 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I would support permanent loss of citizenship for serious crimes against your nation

You've contradicted yourself here. We clearly agree on the principle, and are now merely bickering over the application of it. You said earlier you support Duterte executing addicts, but now you're arguing that loss of citizenship (with the opportunity for redemption) is too harsh. I dare say that loss of life is more harsh than loss of citizenship, so you're entering into absurd territory here.

No, there is no contradiction. Revoking somebody's citizenship because they committed treason or sold state secrets is not the same as revoking citizenship for a regular crime. The only types of crimes I would support revoking citizenship would be overt acts against the national security of one's country. I would not support revoking citizenship for regular crimes, including murder and rape.

Also, I did not say I supported Duterte killing drug addicts. I only said I appreciate that his policy is consistent. I prefer his policy to the policy advocated by US liberals, where drugs are not legalized but they claim to want to "help" and "rehabilitate" addicts, and teenagers are given mixed messages about drug use.

(01-04-2017 01:42 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 01:12 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  Crime against oneself? The definition of a crime is that you're harming other people. In fact, the rationale behind drug laws is that drug use harms the community as a whole.

The addict's crime of consumption of illicit drugs harms the community because it harms himself. You're channeling John Stuart Mill here, and Theodore Dalrymple already soundly defeated Mill's argument in this context.

Theodore Dalrymple Wrote:In practice, of course, it is exceedingly difficult to make people take all the consequences of their own actions—as they must, if Mill’s great principle is to serve as a philosophical guide to policy. Addiction to, or regular use of, most currently prohibited drugs cannot affect only the person who takes them—and not his spouse, children, neighbors, or employers. No man, except possibly a hermit, is an island; and so it is virtually impossible for Mill’s principle to apply to any human action whatever, let alone shooting up heroin or smoking crack. Such a principle is virtually useless in determining what should or should not be permitted.

(01-04-2017 01:12 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  If you accept the concept of "crime against oneself," anything that the government deems as "harmful" to yourself can be made into a crime.

But that's not how the rubber hits the road in the real world so you're just tossing a squirrel here to try to distract from your losing the argument by exaggerating my argument into a straw man. Which is fine, I get it, and I still like you and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to debate with you. But you're wrong here.

Obviously, I am exaggerating with all the examples I gave of things the government could make illegal. But it is a slippery slope. My point is simply that if the government could make something a crime because it is "harmful to yourself," then there would be lots of other things that would be crimes, such as drinking alcohol, inflicting violence upon yourself, eating too much, etc.

I am no legal scholar, but I am pretty sure that under common law (which our legal system is based on), for something to be a crime, it has to be harmful to someone other than the perpetrator (including the community as a whole).

Just like it cannot be considered "theft" or "vandalism" to take your own valuable possessions and throw them into a lake, it cannot be considered a crime to do something that is harmful only to yourself. Obviously, the definition of "crime" has changed over the years, but originally, I can almost guarantee that it did not refer to acts that only harm oneself.

If it is a crime against yourself, then why shouldn't you have a right to decline to press charges?

The very notion of a "crime against oneself" goes against the very concept of freedom and self-determination. If the government can forbid you from doing things it considers to be harmful to yourself, then you are not a free, self-determining person.

And what about the percentage (small as it may be) of people who use drugs without harming themselves? Are they also guilty of crimes against themselves?

I think the whole "crime against yourself" argument is a weak one for you. A far more convincing argument in favor of prohibition is the "crime against your community" argument.

Post: #207

(01-04-2017 11:50 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  As I mentioned earlier, it's amusing that drug users (and drug legalization supporters) frame every step of drug policy discussion around, "Is it good for drug users? Will it harm drug users? But what will the drug users think?"

I can see your side here. So let's talk about what is good for and what would harm you.

Can you think of an instance where an existing (non drug related) law wouldn't cover any harm done to you? If a drug user attacks you, that is assault. If they steal from you, that is robbery. There are already laws "protecting" you in these cases.

How it affects you (in terms of your person or property) is taken into account by this line of thinking. But it is related to how you were wronged, not by what various elements may have led the criminal into wronging you.

Sort of like "hate crimes". It seems a redundancy to me to add "hate" onto a crime. If someone commits a crime against me out of love, it's still a crime and I want redress. Likewise, I don't care if someone is high on meth or stone cold sober when they commit a crime against me (although it may be harder to fight back against the meth head with his zombie-like powers).

For anything not actually harming you (indignities, bothers, annoyances, etc) do we need proscriptive policies to deal with them? Would that not lead to unintended consequences and more harm being done in the long run?

There are plenty of things that weaken productivity and sociability (porn, alcohol, video games, social media). Do we need to outlaw them or otherwise have federal laws dictating their every use... or is that on us to figure out how they affect us and act accordingly?

By the way, I totally agree with you that no one owes any drug addict help before that last stop. And committing crimes should lead to loss of access and reputation in any given community (and any other repercussions according to the crime).

Everyone should own up to the responsibility of their actions.

Post: #208

^Yeah, I'm not fond of tracing precursors to the act of doing harm to others and then outlawing the precursors. Drug laws basically fall into that category, and it's the eternal slippery slope to totalitarianism, "it is a violation of Federal law to use the product in a manner inconsistent with its labelling" being a window into the kind of mental sickness whereby authoritarians believe they can mandate morality and common sense when in reality you can only culture it.

But facts are facts. If you're not going to lock assholes up for a long time when they rob people then your fallback ends up being to lock them up for short periods at the drop of a hat for all the other stupid shit they do.

Dumb and minimally effective solutions to simple problems, but hey, at least you don't have to confront the real issue.

Post: #209

(01-04-2017 07:02 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 11:50 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  As I mentioned earlier, it's amusing that drug users (and drug legalization supporters) frame every step of drug policy discussion around, "Is it good for drug users? Will it harm drug users? But what will the drug users think?"

I can see your side here. So let's talk about what is good for and what would harm you.

Can you think of an instance where an existing (non drug related) law wouldn't cover any harm done to you? If a drug user attacks you, that is assault. If they steal from you, that is robbery. There are already laws "protecting" you in these cases.

How it affects you (in terms of your person or property) is taken into account by this line of thinking. But it is related to how you were wronged, not by what various elements may have led the criminal into wronging you.

This is a fair point, and worth considering. But it's also worth remembering that the very harsh punishments we have for drug users didn't arise out of a vaccuum, they were in response to the huge amounts of crime that drug users and drug dealers were committing. Look at the giant spike in crime that took place in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, with things like crack cocaine. Sure, you can lock the junkie up for life after he blows a hole in some poor convenience store clerk's head, but that doesn't do the convenience store clerk any good.

Post: #210

Why doesnt America hand out death penalties to drug merchants like the Chinese?

Post: #211

(01-05-2017 12:37 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  ...
This is a fair point, and worth considering. But it's also worth remembering that the very harsh punishments we have for drug users didn't arise out of a vaccuum, they were in response to the huge amounts of crime that drug users and drug dealers were committing. Look at the giant spike in crime that took place in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, with things like crack cocaine. Sure, you can lock the junkie up for life after he blows a hole in some poor convenience store clerk's head, but that doesn't do the convenience store clerk any good.

I think you'd find that the junkie that blew the convenience store clerk's head off was probably caught and convicted of many offences prior, some quite serious, and was given light sentences and parole over and over again.

To what extent the drugs are even relevant, who's to say? They might open up a bigger hole in his pocket requiring him to steal and/or kill more frequently but in most cases you could have picked these scumbags for lifetime losers some time in the decade it took them to go from ne'er-do-wells to murderers.

The problem is that our society has become so bloated and degenerate that we are ordered to sympathise with the aggressor rather than the victim. The truth is that there will always be a certain segment of the population that need to be locked up for life. Brain chemistry being what it is, some dogs need to be muzzled or shot, and that's all there is to it.

Post: #212

(01-05-2017 12:37 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 07:02 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 11:50 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  As I mentioned earlier, it's amusing that drug users (and drug legalization supporters) frame every step of drug policy discussion around, "Is it good for drug users? Will it harm drug users? But what will the drug users think?"

I can see your side here. So let's talk about what is good for and what would harm you.

Can you think of an instance where an existing (non drug related) law wouldn't cover any harm done to you? If a drug user attacks you, that is assault. If they steal from you, that is robbery. There are already laws "protecting" you in these cases.

How it affects you (in terms of your person or property) is taken into account by this line of thinking. But it is related to how you were wronged, not by what various elements may have led the criminal into wronging you.

This is a fair point, and worth considering. But it's also worth remembering that the very harsh punishments we have for drug users didn't arise out of a vaccuum, they were in response to the huge amounts of crime that drug users and drug dealers were committing. Look at the giant spike in crime that took place in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, with things like crack cocaine. Sure, you can lock the junkie up for life after he blows a hole in some poor convenience store clerk's head, but that doesn't do the convenience store clerk any good.

Except that the reason why a junkie would have to rob a convenience store in the first place is because drug prohibition drives up prices way, way higher that what they would have otherwise been.

Have you ever heard of an alcoholic robbing a store to get money for a drink? I didn't think so.

Additionally, we don't lock people up for crimes that they might commit in the future. That is a very slippery slope. People who are "crazy" or "mentally imbalanced" commit violent crimes at a higher rate than the general population. Does that mean that if a psychiatrist declares you to be "crazy" or "mentally imbalanced," we should lock you up because you are more likely to commit a crime in the future?

I'm sure the leftists would love to be able to lock people up for crimes they might commit in the future. I'm sure it could be argued that "aggressive" and "masculine" men commit violent crimes at a higher rate than women and "non-aggressive" (i.e. beta) men. What if the leftists decided to make a law saying that if you were deemed to be too "aggressive" or "masculine," then you would be locked up out of fear you would commit violence in the future.

Post: #213

(11-04-2016 05:52 PM)realologist Wrote:  The biggest benefit of drugs being legalized is not the ability to use the actual drug itself. It's the elimination of most of the criminal activities, black market and gang banging as a result of the banning drugs.

If you take these off the black market and put the production and sales in more honest people there will be a lot less problems. "No honor amongst thieves" is a very true statement. Most people will reach out to a legitimate and more trust worthy market. This will put shady drug dealers and gangbangers out of business because there is no more money in it.

Nobody is pro-drug addiction. If someone has an addiction to any substance they should stop whether it is legal or not. That comes down to the individual.

I'm quoting myself to restate my position and add to it.

Addicts still gonna addict though and still lose jobs, miss time with family and chase the drug with reckless abandon. This will still lead to a lot of the larceny, burglary and robberies.

What needs to happen to them is charge them at the fullest extent of the law. No more diversion programs, no more treatment and probation instead of prison and treatment. If they commit a crime for a legal drug, they get hammered. They had every opportunity to get that fix the legal way but didn't.

Where this will benefit is the people that use recreationally and under control. Those that don't. Some form of the above will happen.

Post: #214

(01-04-2017 05:49 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  No, there is no contradiction.

Yeah there was. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt sweetie. I see that your style of arguing is somewhat immature and feminine, which frankly bores me. Own your shit.

(01-04-2017 05:49 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  Obviously, I am exaggerating with all the examples I gave of things the government could make illegal. But it is a slippery slope. My point is simply that if the government could make something a crime because it is "harmful to yourself," then there would be lots of other things that would be crimes, such as drinking alcohol, inflicting violence upon yourself, eating too much, etc.

The origin of the bulk of our laws is the Bible. Your fear of so many trivial things being made crimes is ridiculous, and may in fact be a result of recreational pharmaceutical use, because if such absurd amendments to our criminal law were ever to be made, they'd have been made by now. What all you pro-legalization guys keep losing track of... and that MMX2010 was the first to brilliantly point out in this thread... is it is YOU who are proposing the CHANGE. The drugs we are talking about are currently illegal and have been for a long time. Every time you guys say something to the effect of, "Well, IF you make these drugs illegal THEN the whole world will fall apart and jack-booted thugs will rape everyone in the ass with body-cavity searches and they won't even have the decency to use lube!!!"... MMX2010 and I roll our eyes at the screen and sigh the word, "Idiots".

And before you get a knot in your panties over my remark about the Bible above, you should contemplate some words from Lord Black of Crossharbour:

Conrad Black Wrote:The current militant atheists: those well-known and learned professionals who not only strongly dispute the existence of God, but are hyperactive on the international speaking and debating circuits evangelizing random audiences both to the non-existence of God — hardly a novel contention nor one any of them puts forth with much originality — but to the evil and destructiveness of religion itself. Richard Dawkins has often said that “the very idea that we get a moral compass from religion is horrible.”

Yet neither he, nor his fellow vocal atheistic militants, such as Singer, David Hawking, Jonathan Glover and Richard Rorty, all formidable academics, can dispute that without some notion of a divine intelligence and its influence on the culture of the world through the various religions (though the principal religions are not interchangeably benign or influential) there would be no serious ethical conceptions. Communities untouched by religious influences have been unalloyed barbarism, whatever the ethical shortcomings of some of those who carried the evangelizing mission among them. Without God, “good” and “evil” are just pallid formulations of like and dislike. As Professor Lennox reminded me, Dostoyevsky, scarcely a naive and superstitiously credulous adherent to ecclesiastical flimflam, said “without God, everything is permissible.”

What you adherents of libertarianism are advocating is a policy change that would lead us to unalloyed barbarism. You want proof? Ask our fellow RVF member Laner to take you for a stroll through Vancouver's DownTown East Side (DTES). Make sure you've lifted, taken your vitamins, and done some kung fu first though.

(01-04-2017 05:49 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  The very notion of a "crime against oneself" goes against the very concept of freedom and self-determination. If the government can forbid you from doing things it considers to be harmful to yourself, then you are not a free, self-determining person.

And what about the percentage (small as it may be) of people who use drugs without harming themselves? Are they also guilty of crimes against themselves?

I think the whole "crime against yourself" argument is a weak one for you. A far more convincing argument in favor of prohibition is the "crime against your community" argument.

The community is a group of individuals, i.e., the community is you. As MMX2010 eloquently put it... you won't ride the fun train to the last stop. You'll reach a point on the train that is so uncomfortable that you'll bleat and moan and demand that the state take you on as a burden on the community. All addicts end up socialists. That's why they came out in droves for Bolshevik Bernie. And then all the Godforsaken female voters will be weak for you emotionally and they'll vote for policies to "help" you. And by "help" we mean "enable". How do I know this is true? I've got a close family member who is doing this very thing as I write this. He lost a high-paying job in the petro-chemical manufacturing industry when he pissed dirty. His father (my uncle) has spent tens of thousands of dollars on professional rehab treatments, and my cousin fled every one because the rehab staff were "mean" to him. And by "mean" I mean they insisted that he follow a few very reasonable rules. Problem is, my cousin ain't done his ride on the fun train yet. I presume he is somewhere in a rundown part of town sucking dick for a hit. Suckin' cock and smokin' rock. Death would be a gift to that loser.

The crimes he is committing against himself ARE crimes against his community. He has broken both his mother's and my own mother's hearts. He has broken his father's bank account. His next move will inevitably be to attack the taxpayer. Guaranteed. Because at the end of the day, he absolves himself of responsibility. At the end of his ride on the fun train, he blames US for even ALLOWING a train to exist. He bleats and moans that "If only the police had done a better job of keeping drugs off the streets, this would have never happened to me!" And he is a good cross-section of addicts. He is the face of unalloyed barbarism.

(01-04-2017 07:02 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  There are plenty of things that weaken productivity and sociability (porn, alcohol, video games, social media). Do we need to outlaw them or otherwise have federal laws dictating their every use

No

(01-04-2017 07:02 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  ... or is that on us to figure out how they affect us and act accordingly?

Yes. They tried outlawing alcohol. See "The Untouchables". Great movie. They tried outlawing porn. See "Larry Flynt". Video games and social media are going through their evolutions as we speak. See #Gamergate, Gab.ai, and Infogalactic.com.

The argument that the prohibition on illicit drugs will lead to other ridiculous prohibitions is absurd. The drugs are currently prohibited. The ridiculous prohibitions are not forthcoming. Find another line of argument. This one has failed. Miserably.

(01-04-2017 07:02 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  By the way, I totally agree with you that no one owes any drug addict help before that last stop. And committing crimes should lead to loss of access and reputation in any given community (and any other repercussions according to the crime).

Everyone should own up to the responsibility of their actions.

But they don't. No one rides the fun train to the last stop. And we're not going to descend into unalloyed barbarism merely because some people find libertarian philosophy to be intellectually seductive. You know what else was intellectually seductive? Communism. See Holodomor.

Post: #215

I would make it so if you hit with possession of habit-forming drugs you either get a ticket (decriminalization) or some type of non-criminal probation (fail a whiz test spend time in a rehab.) That's not all drugs as things like weed and mushrooms are far less likely to lead to crime than alcohol

Dirtying up someone's record over a bag creates a career criminal, if you can't get a job there's crime or starvation.

I would harshly punish drug related crime, you get charged with the crime and tack on a hate-crime style bonus charge with years attached.

Most hard criminals can't be fixed, but if you're a danger to society every time you get high you don't get to have the opportunity to use drugs.

Post: #216

Legalization of drugs was one of the frankfurt school goals. Cause it will weaken any society which implements it. If it will lower crime? Maybe but if this is the argument why don't make all crimes legal? Than you won't have crimes anymore.
You can have a glass of wine everyday but if you smoke weed everyday you become a mental retard. A burden to society.
All drugs should continue being illegal. If not any other reason the left suport it's legalization.
This is really fucked up times were living. One day you will see a street lamp pissing on a dog. Mark my words.

Post: #217

(01-05-2017 09:33 PM)Troller Wrote:  Legalization of drugs was one of the frankfurt school goals. Cause it will weaken any society which implements it. If it will lower crime? Maybe but if this is the argument why don't make all crimes legal? Than you won't have crimes anymore.
You can have a glass of wine everyday but if you smoke weed everyday you become a mental retard. A burden to society.
All drugs should continue being illegal. If not any other reason the left suport it's legalization.
This is really fucked up times were living. One day you will see a street lamp pissing on a dog. Mark my words.

Post: #218

Wow ok. Interesting thread.

Always found it a bit retarded that most staunch anti-drug supporters are also pro-gun. Freedom, anyone?

Fuck state-employed legislation to reduce our right to make choices in my opinion

Post: #219

(01-05-2017 11:49 AM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:49 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  No, there is no contradiction.

Yeah there was. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt sweetie. I see that your style of arguing is somewhat immature and feminine, which frankly bores me. Own your shit.

Not an argument.

You said I had contradicted myself, and I explained why there was no contradiction. You failed to quote the part where I explained why there was no contradiction.

If you think my style of arguing is "immature and feminine" and it "bores you," then feel free to stop responding to me. If you think my argument is wrong, then feel free to offer a rebuttal.

(01-05-2017 11:49 AM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:49 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  Obviously, I am exaggerating with all the examples I gave of things the government could make illegal. But it is a slippery slope. My point is simply that if the government could make something a crime because it is "harmful to yourself," then there would be lots of other things that would be crimes, such as drinking alcohol, inflicting violence upon yourself, eating too much, etc.

The origin of the bulk of our laws is the Bible. Your fear of so many trivial things being made crimes is ridiculous, and may in fact be a result of recreational pharmaceutical use, because if such absurd amendments to our criminal law were ever to be made, they'd have been made by now. What all you pro-legalization guys keep losing track of... and that MMX2010 was the first to brilliantly point out in this thread... is it is YOU who are proposing the CHANGE. The drugs we are talking about are currently illegal and have been for a long time. Every time you guys say something to the effect of, "Well, IF you make these drugs illegal THEN the whole world will fall apart and jack-booted thugs will rape everyone in the ass with body-cavity searches and they won't even have the decency to use lube!!!"... MMX2010 and I roll our eyes at the screen and sigh the word, "Idiots".

And before you get a knot in your panties over my remark about the Bible above, you should contemplate some words from Lord Black of Crossharbour:

Conrad Black Wrote:The current militant atheists: those well-known and learned professionals who not only strongly dispute the existence of God, but are hyperactive on the international speaking and debating circuits evangelizing random audiences both to the non-existence of God — hardly a novel contention nor one any of them puts forth with much originality — but to the evil and destructiveness of religion itself. Richard Dawkins has often said that “the very idea that we get a moral compass from religion is horrible.”

Yet neither he, nor his fellow vocal atheistic militants, such as Singer, David Hawking, Jonathan Glover and Richard Rorty, all formidable academics, can dispute that without some notion of a divine intelligence and its influence on the culture of the world through the various religions (though the principal religions are not interchangeably benign or influential) there would be no serious ethical conceptions. Communities untouched by religious influences have been unalloyed barbarism, whatever the ethical shortcomings of some of those who carried the evangelizing mission among them. Without God, “good” and “evil” are just pallid formulations of like and dislike. As Professor Lennox reminded me, Dostoyevsky, scarcely a naive and superstitiously credulous adherent to ecclesiastical flimflam, said “without God, everything is permissible.”

not going to descend into unalloyed barbarism merely because some people find libertarian philosophy to be intellectually seductive. You know what else was intellectually seductive? Communism. See Holodomor.

I'm not one of these "militant atheists," so that argument doesn't really apply to me.

Yes, the Bible teaches morality, and yes, this is necessary for society to function properly. I agree. I also agree that Dawkins is an idiot for not understanding how religion promotes and teaches morality.

However, you claim that "the origin of the bulk of our laws is in the Bible" (by which I assume you're referring to drug laws), but you don't provide any examples of Bible passages that mention, or even imply, anything of the sort.

I'd be happy to admit I was wrong if you can show me where in the Bible it says anything that could possibly be interpreted as supportive towards modern drug prohibition.

Post: #220

(01-05-2017 11:09 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 09:33 PM)Troller Wrote:  Legalization of drugs was one of the frankfurt school goals. Cause it will weaken any society which implements it. If it will lower crime? Maybe but if this is the argument why don't make all crimes legal? Than you won't have crimes anymore.
You can have a glass of wine everyday but if you smoke weed everyday you become a mental retard. A burden to society.
All drugs should continue being illegal. If not any other reason the left suport it's legalization.
This is really fucked up times were living. One day you will see a street lamp pissing on a dog. Mark my words.

Here´s a letter from the Chinese emperor to Queen Victoria regarding the drugs smuggling to China in a first hand report of what drugs are. The english had to wage a war to sell poison.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=h...up;seq=530

"By what principle of reason then, should these foreigners send in return a poisonous drug, which involves in destruction those very natives of China? Without meaning to say that the foreigners harbor such destructive intentions in their hearts, we yet positively assert that from their inordinate thirst after gain, they are perfectly careless about the injuries they inflict upon us! And such being the case, we should like to ask what has become of that conscience which heaven has implanted in the breasts of all men?
We have heard that in your own country opium is prohibited with the utmost strictness and severity:—this is a strong proof that you know full well how hurtful it is to mankind. Since then you do not permit it to injure your own country, you ought not to have the injurious drug transferred to another country, and above all others, how much less to the Inner Land!

: how can you possibly consent to forgo it for a drug that is hurtful to men, and an unbridled craving after gain that seems to know no bounds! Let us suppose that foreigners came from another country, and brought opium into England, and seduced the people of your country to smoke it, would not you, the sovereign of the said country, look upon such a procedure with anger, and in your just indignation endeavor to get rid of it?

if you foreigners did not bring the opium hither, where should our Chinese people get it to re-sell? It is you foreigners who involve our simple natives in the pit of death, and are they alone to be permitted to escape alive? If so much as one of those deprive one of our people of his life, he must forfeit his life in requital for that which he has taken: how much more does this apply to him who by means of opium destroys his fellow-men? Does the havoc which he commits stop with a single life?

Therefore it is that those foreigners who now import opium into the Central Land are
condemned to be beheaded and strangled by the new statute, and this explains what we said at the beginning about plucking up the tree of evil, wherever it takes root, for the benefit of all nations."

Post: #221

I need reasons more than some cop catching you and locking you up in jail to talk to my child about how they relate to various temptations in life.
No effect of a drug such as marijuana is as harmful as doing jail time for it. If your aim is to really help a drug abuser, then make the necessary information available and let adults make their own choices. You don't need laws that send the person to jail for doing it - counterproductive.
There's also this false notion most people hold, that once its illegal its way more harmful. Yet the amount of deaths caused by drugs such as heroine and meth are very little compared to deaths caused by prescription drugs every year.
Still yet to see anyone make a sound argument as to why smoking pot should be illegal, but smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol shouldn't.
PS: not a pothead.

Post: #222

It is illegal to smoke pot because the state cannot tax you.

Post: #223

(01-06-2017 06:44 AM)Pride male Wrote:  It is illegal to smoke pot because the state cannot tax you.

People selling drugs will be subject to the same Federal income tax rules, regardless of whether the income was obtained legally or illegally.
Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion.

Post: #224

(01-06-2017 03:39 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I'm not one of these "militant atheists,"

Glad to hear it. I'm beginning to like you more already.

(01-06-2017 03:39 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  Yes, the Bible teaches morality, and yes, this is necessary for society to function properly. I agree. I also agree that Dawkins is an idiot for not understanding how religion promotes and teaches morality.

However, you claim that "the origin of the bulk of our laws is in the Bible" (by which I assume you're referring to drug laws), but you don't provide any examples of Bible passages that mention, or even imply, anything of the sort.

I'd be happy to admit I was wrong if you can show me where in the Bible it says anything that could possibly be interpreted as supportive towards modern drug prohibition.

I provided two already.

Post: #225

(01-06-2017 01:43 AM)Prof. Ligate Wrote:  Fuck state-employed legislation to reduce our right to make choices in my opinion

It's not state employed legislation, it's community-created legislation carried out by the state.