Post: #326

Since you are once again failing to comprehend the plain words I am using I'm obviously going to have to simplify it even further.

Drug users are anti-society.
For this reason I don't want them in my society.
Put them in jail.
If you run out of jails build more.
Nobody forced them to break the law.
Nobody forced them to smoke pot.
They choose to thumb their nose at the rest of us.
Not just in that regard but typically in others too.
I don't care if the law does or doesn't convince them to stop.
I just want them gone.

Honestly, at this point it's becoming clear that this is a personal issue for you in the way you seem to surface scan whole paragraphs and go on rants that completely miss the content they're supposed to be addressing.

Maybe you're hitting some of the shit before you fire up your computer.

In any case I think this is more a matter of your lifestyle and less a matter of what's good for society.

Say it aint so.

Post: #327

What kills more people tobacco or marijuana?

Post: #328

(01-13-2017 11:25 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Since you are once again failing to comprehend the plain words I am using I'm obviously going to have to simplify it even further.

Drug users are anti-society.
For this reason I don't want them in my society.
Put them in jail.
If you run out of jails build more.
Nobody forced them to break the law.
Nobody forced them to smoke pot.
They choose to thumb their nose at the rest of us.
Not just in that regard but typically in others too.
I don't care if the law does or doesn't convince them to stop.
I just want them gone.

Honestly, at this point it's becoming clear that this is a personal issue for you in the way you seem to surface scan whole paragraphs and go on rants that completely miss the content they're supposed to be addressing.

Maybe you're hitting some of the shit before you fire up your computer.

In any case I think this is more a matter of your lifestyle and less a matter of what's good for society.

Say it aint so.

I have said time and time again that I sympathize with people who say "fuck drug users, let them rot in jail." I don't agree with that point of view, but I sympathize with it, and I acknowledge that you're being consistent in your arguments (i.e. you're not claiming to want to "help" drug users).

I will even go as far as to defend the actions of someone like Duterte when he is criticized by liberals.

My argument is that drug prohibition is bad for society as a whole, not just drug users and addicts, and I gave you my reasons why I believe that.

The reason I keep contradicting you and going on "rants" is because this is a debate about drug policy. To be honest, I believe there are issues far more important than drug prohibition. I disagree with whoever it was (earlier in the thread) who said something to the effect of "drug prohibition is more harmful to society than feminism." That's obviously ridiculous. I voted for Trump despite his rhetoric in favor of drug prohibition.

I understand your point. You don't like drug users, you see them as a cancer on society and a burden on productive taxpayers, and you want them gone. In my opinion, even if your end goal is a drug-free society, I don't think the current "war on drugs" model is the wisest approach. You obviously disagree, and that's fine. We can continue to debate the issue if you'd like, or we can just agree to disagree (in which case I'll continue to debate with the other people posting on this thread).

In any case, I don't think it does anyone any good to throw around personal accusations (i.e. accusing me of being high on drugs). First of all, I'm not high on any drugs. Second of all, even if I was high, it wouldn't invalidate any of my arguments.

PS: If you think I'm misrepresenting your arguments, or missing the point of your posts, please point it out. I'll happily apologize and correct myself if I misinterpreted anything you said.

Post: #329

I just want you to read what I wrote and not step outside of that box when you paraphrase me because it shouldn't fall to me to consistently correct you.

And if we stick to your idea that disregarding the outcomes for addicts that society would still be better off under decriminalisation, you've yet to put forward a plausible answer as to why that's the case.

My stance is that prohibition allows the government to lock up many anti-social types and that it frankly only fails in that it doesn't throw away the key or opt for exile instead. It could even be arguable that the current regime of harsher penalties existing for dealers than users is misguided because the dealers are not going to mug you in the street for the ten bucks in your wallet (whether that's for drugs or bus fare).

You say it's not working so we need to stop trying.

I say it's not working to full effect and so we need to double down.

The fact of the matter is when it comes down to it, we get to choose an r select nation or a k select nation, and vigorously marginalising drug users is in essence affirming commitment to a k select nation.

Post: #330

What would a Muslim do?

Post: #331

(01-14-2017 03:32 AM)Meat Head Wrote:  What would a Muslim do?

Care to briefly turn that question toward women's liberation theory?

Post: #332

You should make research about CCA (Corrections Corporation of America). Let me summarize the situation in the way I understand it.

We all know that weed is a very versatile plant, that can be used to make clothes, bottles, plastic, and so many derived products. It is precisely for those reasons that petrol companies conspire to push the media to tell people that "weed breaks families" and that it is a harmful drug - while, in fact, it isn't more harmful than smoking tobacco.

Now, back to CCA. They're the company that owns most private prisons in the US. When they build a new prison, they are guaranteed occupation quotas - usually around 80% for state prisons. If they invest $150M to build a new jail, they sure as hell don't want to waste that money - they need prisoners, because it's where they make their money. So they will pay millions and millions to politicians and media to impose harsher sentences for drug posession, catch weed smokers, and put them in jail. Because it's money.

This is why slightly over 1% of Americans live in prison. Because something that can be a very minor offence elsewhere is a felony in the US, straight to the cell in the privately-owned prison that's hungry for money.

Weed breaks families. (inject millions to media channel). Weed is a dangerous drug. (give $10M to a lawmaker). Arrest the weed smoker. Money. $$$

I don't use drugs, but I think that "light" drugs such as weed, hash, etc. shouldn't be punishable. Now, when it comes to cocaine and heroin, that's some real shit and I think that we should put more effort in stopping its distribution.

Let's say you catch your son doing drugs. Where do you think he belongs? To a doctor / therapy center, or to the jail where he'll be spending time with criminals? If you catch someone giving drugs to children, even weed, then they should be put in jail. But the drug user himself should be treated like a patient that needs help, not like a criminal.

Post: #333

(01-14-2017 02:47 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I just want you to read what I wrote and not step outside of that box when you paraphrase me because it shouldn't fall to me to consistently correct you.

And if we stick to your idea that disregarding the outcomes for addicts that society would still be better off under decriminalisation, you've yet to put forward a plausible answer as to why that's the case.

My stance is that prohibition allows the government to lock up many anti-social types and that it frankly only fails in that it doesn't throw away the key or opt for exile instead. It could even be arguable that the current regime of harsher penalties existing for dealers than users is misguided because the dealers are not going to mug you in the street for the ten bucks in your wallet (whether that's for drugs or bus fare).

You say it's not working so we need to stop trying.

I say it's not working to full effect and so we need to double down.

The fact of the matter is when it comes down to it, we get to choose an r select nation or a k select nation, and vigorously marginalising drug users is in essence affirming commitment to a k select nation.

How old are you?

Post: #334

(01-13-2017 11:25 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Since you are once again failing to comprehend the plain words I am using I'm obviously going to have to simplify it even further.

Drug users are anti-society.
For this reason I don't want them in my society.
Put them in jail.
If you run out of jails build more.
Nobody forced them to break the law.
Nobody forced them to smoke pot.
They choose to thumb their nose at the rest of us.
Not just in that regard but typically in others too.
I don't care if the law does or doesn't convince them to stop.
I just want them gone.

Honestly, at this point it's becoming clear that this is a personal issue for you in the way you seem to surface scan whole paragraphs and go on rants that completely miss the content they're supposed to be addressing.

Maybe you're hitting some of the shit before you fire up your computer.

In any case I think this is more a matter of your lifestyle and less a matter of what's good for society.

Say it aint so.

Drug users are anti-society. Can you clarify? Even prescription drug users? Coffee drinkers? Cigarette smokers?

The people who would violate the most fundamental, Biblically-sanctioned rights, and lock people up indefinitely or murder them en masse for ingesting an herb used for thousands of years (including some of America's founding fathers) are anti-humanity. Put them in jail. I want them gone. This is the only group I can think of on this planet, except also maybe terrorist organizations, that I would condemn to state-enforced wholesale slaughter.

When someone says they want half of my home-state "gone" it doesn't do much to persuade me, it is a declaration of war. You have in your mind all the real patriarchal men on your side, then I have most of the pro UFC fighters on my side. How about we have a rumble?

Post: #335

(01-14-2017 10:06 AM)Rawmeo Wrote:  You should make research about CCA (Corrections Corporation of America). Let me summarize the situation in the way I understand it.

We all know that weed is a very versatile plant, that can be used to make clothes, bottles, plastic, and so many derived products. It is precisely for those reasons that petrol companies conspire to push the media to tell people that "weed breaks families" and that it is a harmful drug - while, in fact, it isn't more harmful than smoking tobacco.

Now, back to CCA. They're the company that owns most private prisons in the US. When they build a new prison, they are guaranteed occupation quotas - usually around 80% for state prisons. If they invest $150M to build a new jail, they sure as hell don't want to waste that money - they need prisoners, because it's where they make their money. So they will pay millions and millions to politicians and media to impose harsher sentences for drug posession, catch weed smokers, and put them in jail. Because it's money.

This is why slightly over 1% of Americans live in prison. Because something that can be a very minor offence elsewhere is a felony in the US, straight to the cell in the privately-owned prison that's hungry for money.

Weed breaks families. (inject millions to media channel). Weed is a dangerous drug. (give $10M to a lawmaker). Arrest the weed smoker. Money. $$$

When you get to the top of both towers, you will realize the interests are the same - the major drug dealer wants to continue selling drugs, law enforcement wants to continue prosecuting people using the drug - and there is some harmony there.

If you've ever seen the film of where the head of the DEA is asked a very simple question, "is crack worse for a person than marijuana?", you'll see she's unable to directly answer the question and mostly stuttered around. Why? Because she either simply does not know, or doesn't to want make a statement does requires her to present evidence. She's just a dyed-in-the-wool prohibitionist whose industry thrives off continuing to put 43 million people in jail.

With hundreds and thousands of marijuana arrest annually, once you start gathering a large group of prisoners, where do you put them all?


Well private prisons are scary as hell for a very simple reason: they make it highly profitable to incarcerate people. Corrections Corporation of America is the Hilton of the private prison industry, a multi-billion business that gets rich off punishment. The more people locked up behind bars, the more money CCA makes, and the longer they stay there, the more money CCA makes. In 2013 the company banked over a reported 1.7 billion dollars.

We've lost track of how ridiculous some of the things we do are. So we're gonna give people a profit motive in putting more people in jail? Gee, I wonder what's going to happen...

When you have a privatized prison, there's a contract between the state and the prison, that the states has to maintain a certain occupancy rate in the prison. Meaning the state guarantees that the prison will stay anywhere from 80 to 100 percent full. Crime rates could fall, it doesn't matter. The taxpayers are still on the hook, the government is still on the hook for filling up these prisons. Well, where do you get these numbers from?

The easiest way to ensure that the quota is full in these private prisons is to get the low hanging fruit which is just the drug user as a criminal rather than somebody who might need a bit of medical help.

(01-10-2017 07:27 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  And now what you have is every fourth person in the world in jail, being a citizen of the land of the free.

You just become a commodity, rather than a human being, churned through the system to make money for these big corporations. Public money is ironically plunged into persuading us that it is right.

Each state is constantly arguing about the fact that they don't have enough money for their public education, but at the same time they'll take state funds, or in a lot of cases, federal money and put it in the prison system. The Carl Holton school was closed down indefinitely and in its place rose a hospital prison (Theodore Dalrymple-type playground) with over 1700 beds. Carlifornia, since the 1980s, has built 23 prisons, hired 14,000 prison guards, and fired 5,000 teachers. West Virginia was strapped for money but they were building another prison there. Got to, right? Lots and lots of people getting arrested there.

It makes sense then that the largest, strongest, political lobby group in most states will be the Prison Guards union, who will continue lobbying to make sure that prisons are filled. Why? Because prisons extract money from the system. Its insanity. No, more like financial. Its not rational, nor logical.

Another deeper problem is that it selects people that it puts in jail. So we see widely disparate penalties among socio-economic groups, and among racial groups. White and black people in the US do drugs at the same rate, so they should be arrested at the same rate. But the reality is, of course, that's not remotely true. Across the nation, blacks are arrested at four times the rate of whites. Now in some places like Minneapolis, Washington DC, Iowa, its eight times the rate. So why in the world would you be arresting black Americans at eight times the rate, or even nation-wide at four times the rate of whites? They are using it at the same rate, you have no excuse! If you are a young black man walking around the streets of London today, you are nine times more likely to be searched on suspicion of carrying drugs.

As I stated earlier, HSBC is a giant bank that laundered money to Mexican drug cartels. Naturally, if there is a big bank that is laundering money for drug cartels, they should face a federal prosecution and criminal charges but that's not what happened. They got a fine for 1.9 billion dollars. Well, what's 1.9 billion dollars to HSBC? its pocket change. Its one of the costs of doing business. Nobody goes to jail, and a mother of four is arrested for 30 dollars worth of pot and she's put in jail for ten years. The people are the HSBC are the elite, the woman with the 30 dollars worth of pot is not.

The War on Drugs is one of those issues that highlight very clearly that there is one law for the rich and powerful and one law for the rest of us.

Every animal that's ever had a hierarchical social structure going all the way to lizards, lobsters, and puppy dogs, has always had a chicken at the bottom of the pecking order which ends up in a miserable, god-awful, picked-on, pecked-on state. And that isn't mankind's social invention, that is mother nature's social invention. We've built that same structure around drug prohibition. Does that mean its good? Hell no, in my opinion, and it is our job to reverse it.

Empathy is all it really takes to open up the avenues of outrage and realize how appalling this is.

Post: #336

(01-13-2017 12:26 PM)Pride male Wrote:  What kills more people tobacco or marijuana?

The only way marijuana can kill you is if 25 pounds of it is thrown out of a CIA drug plane and hits you on the head. That's how you die from marijuana.

The number of deaths around the world for cigarette consumption is five and a half million, according to latest estimates. Annually, cigarettes kill as many people as were killed in the Germans' anti-Jewish genocidal campaign. So we have a holocaust, annually, owing to cigarettes.

Post: #337

(01-13-2017 11:25 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Drug users are anti-society.
For this reason I don't want them in my society.
Put them in jail.
If you run out of jails build more.
Nobody forced them to break the law.
Nobody forced them to smoke pot.
They choose to thumb their nose at the rest of us.
Not just in that regard but typically in others too.
I don't care if the law does or doesn't convince them to stop.
I just want them gone.

I'm pretty sure that you would love it if your son who is studying at university would lose his chances of being successful and thrown in jail with criminals for years because he posessed a plant that is so versatile that corporations decided to make it illegal.

See the good point: Even if your son lost his chances of having success and is now locked up, CCA will make a record profit because he'll be a source of income for them. And he'll acquire plenty of skills, such as how to rob, how to beat people up, so he'll be all equipped for his criminal life once he gets out.

But at least, we did what the mainstream media told us to do. Please make your research on that.

Post: #338

(01-14-2017 10:06 AM)Rawmeo Wrote:  You should make research about CCA (Corrections Corporation of America). Let me summarize the situation in the way I understand it.

We all know that weed is a very versatile plant, that can be used to make clothes, bottles, plastic, and so many derived products. It is precisely for those reasons that petrol companies conspire to push the media to tell people that "weed breaks families" and that it is a harmful drug - while, in fact, it isn't more harmful than smoking tobacco.

Now, back to CCA. They're the company that owns most private prisons in the US. When they build a new prison, they are guaranteed occupation quotas - usually around 80% for state prisons. If they invest $150M to build a new jail, they sure as hell don't want to waste that money - they need prisoners, because it's where they make their money. So they will pay millions and millions to politicians and media to impose harsher sentences for drug posession, catch weed smokers, and put them in jail. Because it's money.

This is why slightly over 1% of Americans live in prison. Because something that can be a very minor offence elsewhere is a felony in the US, straight to the cell in the privately-owned prison that's hungry for money.

Weed breaks families. (inject millions to media channel). Weed is a dangerous drug. (give $10M to a lawmaker). Arrest the weed smoker. Money. $$$

I don't use drugs, but I think that "light" drugs such as weed, hash, etc. shouldn't be punishable. Now, when it comes to cocaine and heroin, that's some real shit and I think that we should put more effort in stopping its distribution.

Let's say you catch your son doing drugs. Where do you think he belongs? To a doctor / therapy center, or to the jail where he'll be spending time with criminals? If you catch someone giving drugs to children, even weed, then they should be put in jail. But the drug user himself should be treated like a patient that needs help, not like a criminal.

Corporations game laws. Nothing new. If I caught my son doing drugs I'd beat his ass into the ground and make it known in no uncertain terms that I didn't invest nearly two decades and tens of thousands of dollars for him to start down a path of being a deadbeat fuckwit. That he has responsibilities to his family, his community and to his future children.

So answer me this. How many young upstanding men on the up and up have gotten three strikes for weed and had their gleaming futures ruined by this terrible law? Anyone?

Nope. All those guys locked up are career deadbeats and scumbags who just happened to be in for pot instead of any of the other crimes they routinely commit.

Or to put it another way, pot laws are simply the equivalent of a IQ test to see whether you're fit to participate in society. Either you're smart enough not to touch the stuff or you're smart enough not to get caught.

It's that simple.

Post: #339

(01-14-2017 09:08 PM)Rawmeo Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 11:25 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Drug users are anti-society.
For this reason I don't want them in my society.
Put them in jail.
If you run out of jails build more.
Nobody forced them to break the law.
Nobody forced them to smoke pot.
They choose to thumb their nose at the rest of us.
Not just in that regard but typically in others too.
I don't care if the law does or doesn't convince them to stop.
I just want them gone.

I'm pretty sure that you would love it if your son who is studying at university would lose his chances of being successful and thrown in jail with criminals for years because he posessed a plant that is so versatile that corporations decided to make it illegal.

See the good point: Even if your son lost his chances of having success and is now locked up, CCA will make a record profit because he'll be a source of income for them. And he'll acquire plenty of skills, such as how to rob, how to beat people up, so he'll be all equipped for his criminal life once he gets out.

But at least, we did what the mainstream media told us to do. Please make your research on that.

In what western nation do you get tossed in jail for being caught with user quantities ONCE? I don't know of ANYONE who has gone to jail without being caught at least 3 times, and in most nations you will NEVER see jail for having user quantities.

Seriously, this is getting weak. Drug decriminalisation advocates, how about instead of making vague and long winded appeals to this or that where you spend as much time convincing yourself as anyone else, INSTEAD make your points in dot form. I'll start you off.

*2017 Jan1: All marijuana use is decriminalised. (we'll ignore the harder drugs for argument's sake)
*2017 Jan2: (go nuts)

Absent the padding of reels and reels of text let's see how your predictions look.

Post: #340

(01-14-2017 02:47 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I just want you to read what I wrote and not step outside of that box when you paraphrase me because it shouldn't fall to me to consistently correct you.

And if we stick to your idea that disregarding the outcomes for addicts that society would still be better off under decriminalisation, you've yet to put forward a plausible answer as to why that's the case.

I believe I did a plausible answer to why that's the case (in my previous posts), but I'll explain it again:

Drug prohibition does not eliminate drugs from society. Instead, it pushes the drug trade underground and drives drug prices way up, which motivates violent criminals to get involved in the drug business. During alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and '30s, there was a major spike in organized crime (Al Capone being the most notorious bootleggers). It is no different with drug prohibition. The vast profits to be made from drug dealing motivates criminal behavior.

That is just one of the many ways in which drug prohibition is harmful to the community at large.

Milton Friedman does a good job of summing up why drug prohibition is harmful to society:

(01-14-2017 02:47 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  My stance is that prohibition allows the government to lock up many anti-social types and that it frankly only fails in that it doesn't throw away the key or opt for exile instead. It could even be arguable that the current regime of harsher penalties existing for dealers than users is misguided because the dealers are not going to mug you in the street for the ten bucks in your wallet (whether that's for drugs or bus fare).

You say it's not working so we need to stop trying.

I say it's not working to full effect and so we need to double down.

I agree that we could greatly reduce (although not eliminate) drug use by adopting draconian policies like they have in countries like Indonesia (i.e. you get executed if you're caught dealing hard drugs, even as a first offense). I suppose you could also greatly reduce other types of harmful behavior, such as overeating and sexual promiscuity, by enacting draconian laws against these behaviors, punishable by long prison sentences and even execution. If you passed a law which mandated 20-year prison sentences for anyone weighing over a certain amount (relative to their height), you would greatly reduce obesity. If you passed a law mandating execution for any woman who engages in premarital sex (which is far more destructive to society than drug use), you would greatly increase the percentage of young women who would make suitable wives.

The question is, do we really want to go that far? Are drugs really that big of a problem in society that we need government to execute its own citizens (or hand out draconian sentences) for possessing a substance? The drug sentencing laws in the U.S. are already quite draconian, so how far are you willing to go? If there were a law mandating immediate execution for anyone caught with even a tiny amount of marijuana, that would probably end almost all drug use. But would it be worth it?

Like I said earlier, premarital sex (and the lack of suitable wives) is far more destructive to society than drug use. Does that mean we should send young women to prison for engaging in premarital sex and "ruining" themselves? I don't think so.

I support the right of someone like Duterte to execute drug dealers in his country if he feels it is necessary. I also support the right of Muslims to perform "honor killings" if a woman engages in premarital sex, if they feel it is necessary to discourage their women from becoming sluts. But I sure as hell don't want any of these things being done in the U.S.

(01-14-2017 02:47 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The fact of the matter is when it comes down to it, we get to choose an r select nation or a k select nation, and vigorously marginalising drug users is in essence affirming commitment to a k select nation.

The U.S. Founding Fathers are among the most K-selected men in history, and they were pretty libertarian in their approach to domestic policy. Modern street drugs were not around during their lifetime, but I'm quite certain they would not have been in favor of the government intrusion into the private lives of citizens that is necessary to enforce drug laws.

"Vigorously marginalizing drug users," as you put it, is not the same thing as punishing them legally.

I believe single mothers should be "vigorously marginalized" and ostracized, but I don't think they should be locked up and given criminal records.

I understand what you're saying, and if your only goal is to eliminate drug use in society, then your best bet is probably to enact draconian laws and policies like they have in the Philippines (under Duterte) and Indonesia. I'm just not OK with government essentially waging war against non-violent citizens in order to save people from their own bad decisions.

You mention that drug users often commit other crimes (such as petty theft) and are a burden on taxpayers when they get sick. If they commit petty crimes, then there are already laws in place for that, and obviously nobody should be eligible for welfare or public health insurance if they are using drugs.

I agree that drug use needs to be discouraged, but I just don't think that using the criminal justice system is the right way to go about it.

Post: #341

(01-14-2017 06:54 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:26 PM)Pride male Wrote:  What kills more people tobacco or marijuana?

The only way marijuana can kill you is if 25 pounds of it is thrown out of a CIA drug plane and hits you on the head. That's how you die from marijuana.
...

I'm glad you mentioned the CIA.

So ask any black community activist what the number one reason is that the CIA floods the ghettos with cheap drugs.

What will their answer be?

Post: #342

(01-14-2017 10:01 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  I believe I did a plausible answer to why that's the case (in my previous posts), but I'll explain it again:

Drug prohibition does not eliminate drugs from society. Instead, it pushes the drug trade underground and drives drug prices way up, which motivates violent criminals to get involved in the drug business. During alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and '30s, there was a major spike in organized crime (Al Capone being the most notorious bootleggers). It is no different with drug prohibition. The vast profits to be made from drug dealing motivates criminal behavior.

That is just one of the many ways in which drug prohibition is harmful to the community at large.

The price of marijuana is laughably low and always has been. Anyone can afford it, even on welfare. Despite this, weed users are widely recognised to commit crime well above a per-capita rate. Your prediction is thusly flawed.

Quote:I agree that we could greatly reduce (although not eliminate) drug use by adopting draconian policies like they have in countries like Indonesia (i.e. you get executed if you're caught dealing hard drugs, even as a first offense). I suppose you could also greatly reduce other types of harmful behavior, such as overeating and sexual promiscuity, by enacting draconian laws against these behaviors, punishable by long prison sentences and even execution. If you passed a law which mandated 20-year prison sentences for anyone weighing over a certain amount (relative to their height), you would greatly reduce obesity. If you passed a law mandating execution for any woman who engages in premarital sex (which is far more destructive to society than drug use), you would greatly increase the percentage of young women who would make suitable wives.

The question is, do we really want to go that far? Are drugs really that big of a problem in society that we need government to execute its own citizens (or hand out draconian sentences) for possessing a substance? The drug sentencing laws in the U.S. are already quite draconian, so how far are you willing to go? If there were a law mandating immediate execution for anyone caught with even a tiny amount of marijuana, that would probably end almost all drug use. But would it be worth it? Like I said earlier, premarital sex (and the lack of suitable wives) is far more destructive to society than drug use. Does that mean we should send young women to prison for engaging in premarital sex and "ruining" themselves? I don't think so.

Nonsensical arguments appealing to silly libertarian principles. No fat person ever robbed me to buy more McDonalds. No slut ever assaulted me in a fit of pre-marital sex induced psychosis. It is my personal belief that in nations with socialist health systems that fat people should indeed be forced to pay more taxes or a fat-fine to fund their inevitable health issues. Single mother welfare should be abolished except for widows and other rare "no fault" examples. Your stance is that we need to be more liberal when it's quite clear where creeping liberalism has taken us these last 50 years.

Quote:I support the right of someone like Duterte to execute drug dealers in his country if he feels it is necessary. I also support the right of Muslims to perform "honor killings" if a woman engages in premarital sex, if they feel it is necessary to discourage their women from becoming sluts. But I sure as hell don't want any of these things being done in the U.S.

There are muslims in the US. Your stances on these issues and how they can be reconciled as a whole is completely beyond me.

Quote:The U.S. Founding Fathers are among the most K-selected men in history, and they were pretty libertarian in their approach to domestic policy. Modern street drugs were not around during their lifetime, but I'm quite certain they would not have been in favor of the government intrusion into the private lives of citizens that is necessary to enforce drug laws.

Appeals to what the founding fathers would do is simply God worship. You think the founding fathers would support the right of dealers to provide meth to school children? Let me tell you what the founding fathers would have said if they could see us all now.
"Pick up a gun and shoot government officials until you have your liberty back". They would then ask why the nation is full of blacks, mexicans and muslims, and what the rest of us planned to do about it. Don't bother appealing to their ideals unless you have a plan you'd like to share with the rest of us as to how to implement ALL of those ideals AT ONCE rather than in some sort of pointless piecemeal basis that is about as effective as trying to put the roof on a house before you build at least two walls.

Quote:"Vigorously marginalizing drug users," as you put it, is not the same thing as punishing them legally.

I believe single mothers should be "vigorously marginalized" and ostracized, but I don't think they should be locked up and given criminal records.

Here's where you and nearly everyone on your side of the fence differs on this. They have spent the last 50 years vigorously de-marginalising drug users and now claim that they're just misunderstood people pushed to crime by a repressive system.

How do you think you would fare is you went to a de-criminalisation rally and said "drugs should be legal but we should definitely treat the users like shit".

Do you ever look at the company you're keeping on this issue and stop to think that maybe you're on the wrong side of the fence?

Quote:I understand what you're saying, and if your only goal is to eliminate drug use in society, then your best bet is probably to enact draconian laws and policies like they have in the Philippines (under Duterte) and Indonesia. I'm just not OK with government essentially waging war against non-violent citizens in order to save people from their own bad decisions.

For the millionth, billionth time, it's not to save them from their own bad decisions, it's to save the rest of us from their own bad decisions.

Quote:You mention that drug users often commit other crimes (such as petty theft) and are a burden on taxpayers when they get sick. If they commit petty crimes, then there are already laws in place for that, and obviously nobody should be eligible for welfare or public health insurance if they are using drugs.

I agree that drug use needs to be discouraged, but I just don't think that using the criminal justice system is the right way to go about it.

Well once you get everything in place that prevents drug users from negatively affecting my life THEN we can talk about it being a good idea. Until then, see the one walled house metaphor above.

Post: #343

(01-14-2017 11:52 AM)Moto Wrote:  ...
Drug users are anti-society. Can you clarify? Even prescription drug users? Coffee drinkers? Cigarette smokers?

Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't know we were doing pedantics. "Drug users who put their addictions above the law for no reason other than self indulgence".
Is that ok?

Quote:The people who would violate the most fundamental, Biblically-sanctioned rights, and lock people up indefinitely or murder them en masse for ingesting an herb used for thousands of years (including some of America's founding fathers) are anti-humanity. Put them in jail. I want them gone. This is the only group I can think of on this planet, except also maybe terrorist organizations, that I would condemn to state-enforced wholesale slaughter.

When someone says they want half of my home-state "gone" it doesn't do much to persuade me, it is a declaration of war. You have in your mind all the real patriarchal men on your side, then I have most of the pro UFC fighters on my side. How about we have a rumble?

Wow. That's really terrifyingly impressive. I want to thank you for being honest enough to let us know that "your side" is basically the entire left wing of American politics. And on that basis I hope that your UFC fighters fare well against the vast majority of the US military and the tens of millions of gun owners on the right.

In your words, how about we have a rumble?

Post: #344

So here's a hypothetical for all you guys that seem to enjoy living in "what if" land espousing your "victimless crime" mantras and "stop policing pre-crime" ideals.

You go to the change rooms at the public pool. There are a few young boys showering there. In a changing stall nearby some guy is peeking over the top of the barrier, watching the boys, and you can't be certain but you're relatively sure by the sounds of things that he's masturbating furiously.

The boys are oblivious. They are not "victims".
The man is harming nobody.
You cannot assume he will go on to molest anyone at a later date.
It would be arguable that by quenching his lusts thus that he is avoiding having to commit a more heinous crime later.

Would you allow this man to shower in the same changing rooms as your children? Would you allow him to live next door to you? Would you allow him to be the caretaker at your kid's school?

Based on your arguments so far it would be impossible for you to mount an argument against the paedophile.

As such I will brace for a barrage of "I literally can't even".

Post: #345

(01-13-2017 04:11 AM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 07:26 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 05:30 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  His qualifications somehow makes him infallible?

No, they don't.

Which means he could be wrong. If only his name and qualifications weren't pushing you onto your blindside...

Fuck me, stoner logic just boggles the mind sometimes. It's like watching someone trying to ice-skate uphill.

Saying someone could be wrong is no more persuasive or probative than saying the planet could explode tomorrow morning.

That aside, I'll restate since you chose to edit out part of my response: straw man. I didn't say Dalrymple was infallible. I do point out his qualifications in response to your attack on his name being attached to the argument.

Quote:

(01-12-2017 07:26 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 05:30 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  And I'm the one resorting to authority?

Yes, you are. As evidenced by the fact you still won't answer why you brought Kofi Annan ™'s name into it.

Like I said earlier, Kofi Annan's name had no bearing on how I viewed his essay.

Then let me ask you yet again: why did you mention his name? My guess would be: because you thought it added a patina of respectability to his argument. If that was the case, you were being intellectually dishonest.

Quote:I don't have to like or dislike him to be able to objectively analyze his argument.

I couldn't care less whether you like him, dislike him, or want to have his children. The real question is: why did you put his name forward in support of his (not his, really) argument?

Quote:He may not have the same qualifications as Theodore Dalrymple, or even the experience, but does that mean that makes his views on the subject matter wrong, and Theodore right, by default?

In brief, yes. And please don't edit out this part of the response as you did previously, because it's kinda important: when left with sourceless, unverified statements from two parties to consider, a factor in deciding between them is the personal experience and qualifications of the two speakers. In Kofi Annan's case, it's zero. In Theodore Dalrymple's case, it's two: medical and experiential.

Quote:

(01-12-2017 07:26 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 05:30 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  It is essential to make decisions in public policy wherever possible based on the actual evidence that there is for something.

Pity you haven't provided anything verifiable by reference to actual papers, meetings, transcripts, etc, at this point.

Theodore Dalrymple states all the evidence I've come up with so far in my posts in his argument, and they are all verifiable. Since you want suck on his qualification teat so bad, I suggest you read his writings with a bit more scrutiny.

No, dear, that's not how this works. You hold the burden of proof. Put up your specific statements and links to evidence verifying or setting out the "evidence" you put in favour of your argument, or this simple aphorism can be applied: what is argued without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #346

(01-14-2017 10:01 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  ...
Like I said earlier, premarital sex (and the lack of suitable wives) is far more destructive to society than drug use. Does that mean we should send young women to prison for engaging in premarital sex and "ruining" themselves? I don't think so.

I support the right of someone like Duterte to execute drug dealers in his country if he feels it is necessary. I also support the right of Muslims to perform "honor killings" if a woman engages in premarital sex, if they feel it is necessary to discourage their women from becoming sluts. But I sure as hell don't want any of these things being done in the U.S.
...

I want you to know that after I read this part of your post, Banks, I convinced myself to sleep on it rather than go off half cocked having somehow misinterpreted it.

Well the sun rises and I'm forced to ask, what the ever living fuck?

Some bitch must have lifted you up pretty high and dropped you pretty hard if you think that there's anything even remotely acceptable about murdering a woman in some grotesque manner oft-times for the crime of being raped. That shit is not acceptable here and it's not acceptable anywhere.

I don't know what fucked up fringe world manosphere poison you've been drinking but you need to find Jesus really fucking quickly. Your moral compass took a serious hit somewhere along the line and you are on track to some nasty kind of personal hell.

Second, where you have the gall to turn up to a PUA forum and spit this stuff is beyond me. No premarital sex? Honestly, where do you think you are? You're like a guy that turns up to a track day at the local athletics club and decides to run laps in the opposite direction to everyone else, then wonders why he gets dirty looks.

On top of that, this out-of-the-blue insanity basically marks you as a total wingnut and discredits everything you have to say about anything else. From now on it's , "so he says, but are you going to listen to a guy that's ok with honour killings?" You even discredit the people making the same arguments in this thread with you because suddenly they look like fruitcakes by association.

That stuff you typed in the box above? That was barely relevant to the subject but it lunged out onto the screen, didn't it? Like it was desperate to escape your lips despite having no place in this particular discussion.

You need to quiet the hate in your heart or at least direct it more appropriately, and in any case that kind of shit has no business tarnishing the pages of this forum.

And that's as nicely as I can put it.

Post: #347

(01-15-2017 01:20 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  So here's a hypothetical for all you guys that seem to enjoy living in "what if" land espousing your "victimless crime" mantras and "stop policing pre-crime" ideals.

You go to the change rooms at the public pool. There are a few young boys showering there. In a changing stall nearby some guy is peeking over the top of the barrier, watching the boys, and you can't be certain but you're relatively sure by the sounds of things that he's masturbating furiously.

The boys are oblivious. They are not "victims".
The man is harming nobody.
You cannot assume he will go on to molest anyone at a later date.
It would be arguable that by quenching his lusts thus that he is avoiding having to commit a more heinous crime later.

Would you allow this man to shower in the same changing rooms as your children? Would you allow him to live next door to you? Would you allow him to be the caretaker at your kid's school?

Based on your arguments so far it would be impossible for you to mount an argument against the paedophile.

As such I will brace for a barrage of "I literally can't even".

Actually, they are victims.

If a woman is raped while unconscious and isn't aware she was raped, she is still a victim. If someone is secretly filmed while naked and the footage posted online, they are still a victim, even if they are never aware of it.

If someone were to take naked pictures of little kids (without the kids' knowledge) and sell the pictures, they would be arrested for child pornography. The kids are victims even if they are not aware of the fact. That invalidates your whole analogy.

I can't believe you're still trying to compare pot smokers to pedophiles. It's really not a winning argument for your side.

Post: #348

(01-16-2017 07:00 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 10:01 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  ...
Like I said earlier, premarital sex (and the lack of suitable wives) is far more destructive to society than drug use. Does that mean we should send young women to prison for engaging in premarital sex and "ruining" themselves? I don't think so.

I support the right of someone like Duterte to execute drug dealers in his country if he feels it is necessary. I also support the right of Muslims to perform "honor killings" if a woman engages in premarital sex, if they feel it is necessary to discourage their women from becoming sluts. But I sure as hell don't want any of these things being done in the U.S.
...

I want you to know that after I read this part of your post, Banks, I convinced myself to sleep on it rather than go off half cocked having somehow misinterpreted it.

And yet you still massively misinterpreted it.

(01-16-2017 07:00 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Well the sun rises and I'm forced to ask, what the ever living fuck?

Some bitch must have lifted you up pretty high and dropped you pretty hard if you think that there's anything even remotely acceptable about murdering a woman in some grotesque manner oft-times for the crime of being raped.

Last time I expressed an opinion you didn't like, it was "you must be high on drugs." This time, it's "some bitch must have lifted you up pretty high and dropped you pretty hard."

(01-16-2017 07:00 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  That shit is not acceptable here and it's not acceptable anywhere.

Actually, it is acceptable in certain parts of the Middle East, so you're wrong.

I'm not even remotely saying it is morally right, but to say "it's not acceptable anywhere" is simply incorrect.

(01-16-2017 07:00 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I don't know what fucked up fringe world manosphere poison you've been drinking but you need to find Jesus really fucking quickly. Your moral compass took a serious hit somewhere along the line and you are on track to some nasty kind of personal hell.

You took my comments completely out of context. When I mentioned honor killings in the Middle East, I was specifically saying that despite the fact that the practice deters women from becoming sluts, and despite the fact that the lack of suitable wives is a major problem for men in the West, I would not support honor killings (or any laws criminalizing premarital sex) being done in the U.S. or any Western country.

When I said that I support the "right" of Duterte to kill drug users and the "right" of Middle-Easterners to perform honor killings, all I was saying was that I support the right of people in foreign, sovereign countries to do things I don't necessarily agree with. I stated multiple times that I support Duterte's right to do whatever the fuck he wants in his own country. That doesn't mean I agree with what he is doing, it just means I don't want the U.S. (or Western countries in general) to send troops into the Philippines to prevent Duterte from killing drug users. I also respect the fact that the Philippines is a non-Western culture that is very different from ours, and that maybe they have their reasons for doing things the way they do.

The same goes for the honor killings in the Middle East. Do I, as a Westerner, want to see honor killings performed in the U.S. (or any other Western country)? Hell no. Do I, as a Westerner, think it is morally right to kill women for the "crime" of having premarital sex (consensual or otherwise)? Hell no. I just don't think the West should send in troops to prevent them from doing it. I respect their right to run their countries as they see fit. That's all.

(01-16-2017 07:00 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Second, where you have the gall to turn up to a PUA forum and spit this stuff is beyond me. No premarital sex? Honestly, where do you think you are? You're like a guy that turns up to a track day at the local athletics club and decides to run laps in the opposite direction to everyone else, then wonders why he gets dirty looks.

I specifically said that women engaging in premarital sex is bad for society. There are many people on this forum who believe in traditional marriage, the woman saving her virginity for her husband, etc. I never said anything bad about PUA's or men who have sex with sluts. My views on this matter are pretty much in line with Roosh's.

When I talked about punishing women for engaging in premarital sex, I was saying that it would be ridiculous to actually punish women for something that only harms themselves, just like it is ridiculous to punish drug users for something that only harms themselves. Even if it can be shown that the actions of these people (sluts and drug users) harm society at large, it is still not wise to criminalize these actions and send people to jail for engaging in them.

(01-16-2017 07:00 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  On top of that, this out-of-the-blue insanity basically marks you as a total wingnut and discredits everything you have to say about anything else.

So I'm a "literally Hitler right-wing Nazi hate-monger" because I expressed an opinion you disagree and/or consider to be too "extreme?" (Not to mention you took what I said out of context. I don't actually support honor killings. I don't support Duterte killing drug users in the Philippines either).

(01-16-2017 07:00 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  From now on it's , "so he says, but are you going to listen to a guy that's ok with honour killings?" You even discredit the people making the same arguments in this thread with you because suddenly they look like fruitcakes by association.

That stuff you typed in the box above? That was barely relevant to the subject but it lunged out onto the screen, didn't it? Like it was desperate to escape your lips despite having no place in this particular discussion.

No, actually it was relevant. I was using honor killings as an analogy. Honor killings may be effective in discouraging women from premarital sex, but I don't support them. Draconian drug laws may be effective in reducing the number of people using drugs, but I don't support them, either.

You clearly missed the entire point I was trying to make.

(01-16-2017 07:00 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  You need to quiet the hate in your heart or at least direct it more appropriately, and in any case that kind of shit has no business tarnishing the pages of this forum.

And that's as nicely as I can put it.

So now I have "hate in my heart" because I expressed a opinion you disagree with.

Sound familiar?

I guess I'm just a right-wing hate-monger who wants women in the Middle East to get stoned to death by their evil patriarchal oppressors.

Post: #349

(01-15-2017 09:43 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:11 AM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 07:26 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 05:30 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  His qualifications somehow makes him infallible?

No, they don't.

Which means he could be wrong. If only his name and qualifications weren't pushing you onto your blindside...

Fuck me, stoner logic just boggles the mind sometimes. It's like watching someone trying to ice-skate uphill.

Saying someone could be wrong is no more persuasive or probative than saying the planet could explode tomorrow morning.

That aside, I'll restate since you chose to edit out part of my response: straw man. I didn't say Dalrymple was infallible. I do point out his qualifications in response to your attack on his name being attached to the argument.

Quote:

(01-12-2017 07:26 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 05:30 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  And I'm the one resorting to authority?

Yes, you are. As evidenced by the fact you still won't answer why you brought Kofi Annan ™'s name into it.

Like I said earlier, Kofi Annan's name had no bearing on how I viewed his essay.

Then let me ask you yet again: why did you mention his name? My guess would be: because you thought it added a patina of respectability to his argument. If that was the case, you were being intellectually dishonest.

Quote:I don't have to like or dislike him to be able to objectively analyze his argument.

I couldn't care less whether you like him, dislike him, or want to have his children. The real question is: why did you put his name forward in support of his (not his, really) argument?

Quote:He may not have the same qualifications as Theodore Dalrymple, or even the experience, but does that mean that makes his views on the subject matter wrong, and Theodore right, by default?

In brief, yes. And please don't edit out this part of the response as you did previously, because it's kinda important: when left with sourceless, unverified statements from two parties to consider, a factor in deciding between them is the personal experience and qualifications of the two speakers. In Kofi Annan's case, it's zero. In Theodore Dalrymple's case, it's two: medical and experiential.

Quote:

(01-12-2017 07:26 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 05:30 PM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  It is essential to make decisions in public policy wherever possible based on the actual evidence that there is for something.

Pity you haven't provided anything verifiable by reference to actual papers, meetings, transcripts, etc, at this point.

Theodore Dalrymple states all the evidence I've come up with so far in my posts in his argument, and they are all verifiable. Since you want suck on his qualification teat so bad, I suggest you read his writings with a bit more scrutiny.

No, dear, that's not how this works. You hold the burden of proof. Put up your specific statements and links to evidence verifying or setting out the "evidence" you put in favour of your argument, or this simple aphorism can be applied: what is argued without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Okay.

Post: #350

Stoner logic suffers from serious lack of nuance regarding punishment.

Rob Banks mentions "jailing women who have premarital sex" (and he defends Muslims who perform "honor killings" of women who were raped, but he doesn't consider things like mild mockery and refusal to associate (which are the primary punishments for drug users).

Leonard started a thread asking whether libertarianism stems from a severe lack of masculinity, and Rob Banks' argumentation style supports that generalization.