I always blow up the "non-violent drug offenders" rhetoric by asking whether you would marry a non-violent woman who smells bad, doesn't cook, spends too much of your money, and refuses to get a job.

"Non-violent drug offenders" is rhetoric in service of a lie, that "non-violence" ought to be the only (or primary) axis by which we evaluate the drug issue.

I agree that Mr. Trump shouldn't touch this issue now unless he's ultra prepared. Just bringing it up will distract from the Sick / Tired Hillary meme that should win the election.

(09-04-2016 01:25 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Fisto,

Fat shaming plays upon the universally held (by reasonable people) desire to have a long, healthy life.

Both fat shaming and slut shaming play upon the universally held (by reasonable people) desire to have healthy, happy children.

Drug shaming plays upon neither of those, except maybe the first. Except that many more drug users insist that they're reasonably healthy enough. So social shaming won't work against drug users.

I'm glad you agree with me

(09-04-2016 02:53 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  I always blow up the "non-violent drug offenders" rhetoric by asking whether you would marry a non-violent woman who smells bad, doesn't cook, spends too much of your money, and refuses to get a job.

"Non-violent drug offenders" is rhetoric in service of a lie, that "non-violence" ought to be the only (or primary) axis by which we evaluate the drug issue.

I agree that Mr. Trump shouldn't touch this issue now unless he's ultra prepared. Just bringing it up will distract from the Sick / Tired Hillary meme that should win the election.

Yes, if only we ignore the notoriously widespread drug use within fashion, Hollywood, and universities, we can conclude that all drug users are hideous women who "smell bad".

And if we just exclude all of the preeminent inventors, scientists, philosophers, entrepreneurs, and politicians throughout human history who used or experimented with drugs, we'll also realize that drugs users always "refuse to get jobs".

Finally, let's just forget the part of Pumping Iron where Arnold Schwarzenegger smokes weed openly, or the many times he talks about it in his memoir.

Amazing how easy it is to argue your point when you simply refuse to acknowledge thousands of years of evidence to the contrary, and boil it all down to "drug users smell bad and don't have jobs, mmkay". Well done, sir.

Phoenix,

It's disingenuous to say that a practice should be permitted to the masses, specifically because a few famous people (constituting less than 1% of the population) were able to do so while being famous.

I'm long over the fact that this culture maligns excellence in order to make mediocre and marginal people feel better. But legalizing drugs sends the message that not even normal functioning is worth defending.

(09-04-2016 02:53 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  I always blow up the "non-violent drug offenders" rhetoric by asking whether you would marry a non-violent woman who smells bad, doesn't cook, spends too much of your money, and refuses to get a job.

"Non-violent drug offenders" is rhetoric in service of a lie, that "non-violence" ought to be the only (or primary) axis by which we evaluate the drug issue.

I agree that Mr. Trump shouldn't touch this issue now unless he's ultra prepared. Just bringing it up will distract from the Sick / Tired Hillary meme that should win the election.

What do drug users and smelly lazy women have in common?
I know a lot of high function marijuana users who make far more money than yourself and me combined. I know another that's a talented musician too. Not the best analogy.

(09-04-2016 03:46 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  [img]m.quickmeme.com/img/a6/a63aa4e31a02ee74e4e4962ae5b9618ec66b1703d6a8fde864fdff11cf3e6e8c.jpg[/img]

(09-04-2016 02:53 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  I always blow up the "non-violent drug offenders" rhetoric by asking whether you would marry a non-violent woman who smells bad, doesn't cook, spends too much of your money, and refuses to get a job.

"Non-violent drug offenders" is rhetoric in service of a lie, that "non-violence" ought to be the only (or primary) axis by which we evaluate the drug issue.

I agree that Mr. Trump shouldn't touch this issue now unless he's ultra prepared. Just bringing it up will distract from the Sick / Tired Hillary meme that should win the election.

What do drug users and smelly lazy women have in common?
I happen to know a lot of high function marijuana users who make far more money than yourself and me combined.

I second this.

Take a step into the banking world, where marijuana (which I'm fine with) and cocaine (not fine with) run rampant. Daily marijuana usage is synonymous with banking, and most high level execs...even the lower level grunts use it to deal with their anxiety, stress/pressure etc...

If you smoke marijuana too much, obviously you're start to see some negative effects, but a joint here and there doesn't hurt.

I think we can all agree that drugs are bad. The question is whether the government should punish citizens for activities which are harmful to the user, when used in a way which does not have causative negative externalities. If so, women should be punished for having sex with more than one man, men for masturbating, etc.

I'm glad none of you are sociologists, because you can't refrain from focusing on small, self-selected groups of people to make an incorrect point about the larger society.

Focusing on successful bankers to argue about society as a whole is erroneous. (Hell, I could easily agree with you and say, "Let me guess. Those bankers are all White or Asian." - and then argue that Whites and Asians can handle drugs much better than Hispanics and Blacks can.)

(09-04-2016 03:44 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Phoenix,

It's disingenuous to say that a practice should be permitted to the masses, specifically because a few famous people (constituting less than 1% of the population) were able to do so while being famous.

I'm long over the fact that his culture maligns excellence in order to make mediocre and marginal people feel better. But legalizing drugs sends the message that not even normal functioning is worth defending.

Most people are not highly successful, it doesn't matter what the legality of drugs in their country is.

But within the richest, most famous, most creative circles, drug use is rampant -- whether it's weed, cocaine, or amphetamines. It's common, not rare.

Anyone who takes prescription drugs like Adderall and Modafanil for something other than what they're prescribed for (which includes a huge segment of the manosphere) is technically engaging in illegal drug use and "abuse".

Maybe if you stopped trying to "blow up" people's arguments, you'd realize that. Way more people do drugs than you clearly realize.

Meanwhile 13% of Americans take antidepressants and 70% take some kind of medication -- so much for "normal functioning".

Phoenix,

I'll repeat myself.

It is both disingenuous and anti-scientific to argue that any practice should be permitted to the masses, simply because a small, self-selected population of successful people engage in it.

Your reasoning allows unproven small scale social trends to be amplified into large scale social experiments, most of which will cause immense harm.

(09-04-2016 03:44 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Phoenix,

It's disingenuous to say that a practice should be permitted to the masses, specifically because a few famous people (constituting less than 1% of the population) were able to do so while being famous.

I'm long over the fact that his culture maligns excellence in order to make mediocre and marginal people feel better. But legalizing drugs sends the message that not even normal functioning is worth defending.

This. For every 1 Arnold Schwarzenegger style drug user there's more than a hundred addicts getting processed in prison by psychiatrists like Theodore Dalrymple.

Sure the prohibition of alcohol was a bad idea. But one should note that it was a bad idea implemented after second wave feminism broke loose and men made the horrible historical mistake of sending women to the voting booths. Prohibition was a bad idea because we had accepted alcohol as a part of our culture, and letting some snotty puritanical broads tell us whether or not we could have a drink was not something our grandfathers were willing to do (I know mine wasn't). Same with cigarettes and other tobacco products, which were and still are virtually promoted by the military to soldiers in the field (my grandfather learned to smoke a pipe in the Royal Canadian Air Force during WWII hunting submarines).

Cocaine and heroin and meth and all the rest have NOT been accepted as a part of our culture, so let's not accept them by legalizing them. I can cede ground under protest over weed. I'm a wretched Canadian after all and if you thought that was a maple leaf on our flag, you are sorely mistaken. More money comes into the Canadian economy via the exporting of "B.C. Bud" marijuana than any other product, including Alberta oil. So I'm not exactly standing on moral high ground so to speak. But recent studies have indicated that the THC levels in indoor-grown weed are vastly higher than the outdoor-grown variety, and that this higher-level-THC stuff is actually more dangerous because of it. We are seeing weed overdose victims in emergency rooms now because of this change. But weed, like alcohol and nicotine is a genie that's already out of the bottle culturally, particularly here in the great white north. It's actually pretty shitty that Troolander has dragged his ass on legalization here, and it is upsetting a lot of cops. The cops don't know what to with the people they catch with weed nowadays because they just defiantly declare that Troolander is just going to legalize it soon anyway, so why you trippin' pig? Weed is virtually legal here now, so there's no use fighting over it.

But the real killer is heroin, and for very sinister reasons that Dalrymple makes clear in his great book, "Romancing Opiates: Pharmacological Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy".

https://www.amazon.ca/Romancing-Opiates-...1594032254

As a prison psychiatrist, Dalrymple always refused to prescribe methadone to his prison patients, regardless of how much of a fuss they made. As Dalrymple explains, there actually are no severe withdrawal symptoms when addicts withdraw from heroin. They just get really grumpy for a few days and then move on with their lives. The withdrawal symptoms you see in Hollywood movies are actually modeled after the delirium tremens, or "DT's" that alcoholics suffer when withdrawing. It is a myth that heroin addicts suffer such symptoms, and therefore it's true that nobody needs methadone. But that is a dangerous truth to tell, which is one reason why Dalrymple wrote under a pseudonym. Because if the addicts don't need methadone, what in the hell is going on with all these doctors prescribing it? It couldn't be a profit motive, could it? It couldn't be that Soros has money invested in pharmaceuticals now, could it?

Phoenix,

It is also highly disingenuous to equate anti-depressants with illegal drugs. A very large collection of people with more intelligence and experience than you have studied the chemical effects of both classes of drugs, and have recommended that the illegal ones stay illegal, while the legal ones stay legal.

If you're not a fan of that scientific process, please show us either: (1) the Nobel Prizes in Science and/or medicine that you've won for your research promoting illegal drugs, or (2) your entire medical history, which includes the many times you dismissed FDA approved drugs, in order to take FDA non-approved ones.

Without either of these, you're just an unqualified Guy With An Opinion who thinks he's smarter, better informed, and better experienced than a large collection of the smartest and most relevant experienced people in the world.

(09-04-2016 02:49 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 02:23 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 01:48 PM)realologist Wrote:  Trump shouldn't even touch something as complex as drug reform while running for president. Only should with a carefully thought out plan that would be effective once in office.

There is a lot of misinformation out there about "non-violent" drug offenders. A pistol, sack and burner phone isn't called the drug dealer starter kit for no reason. The crack cocaine law changed recently as well. People ended up released early from prison due to the unfair length of sentence between crack and powder.

What would work is eliminating the ability to make a huge profit from selling drugs. Once that's gone the allure is gone.

What exactly do you think would happen then?

Gangbangers turning in their weapons, going in for a college education?

What would happen is kidnappings, robberies, petty theft, burglaries, prostitution. Look at South America where drugs are plenty, that's the kind of crime they do.

Crime also continued in Chicago after prohibition ended, yet I doubt anyone on this forum think it's a good idea to ban alcohol again.

No one is arguing that all crime and violence will be eliminated with the legalization of drugs, as world peace is ushered in and we all live in harmony on a never-ending heroin high.

What people are referring to when they talk about a reduction in crime are drug mules, college students who sell a little weed to make some extra spending money, the black kid who gets caught with an ounce of marijuana for personal use and ends up with a felony conviction that will prevent him from finding gainful employment for the rest of his life, etc.

Most drug users and dealers aren't violent MS-13 gang members who are going to start kidnapping or robbing people because they lost the $100 to $500 a week they were making selling coke on the side.

If that were the case, countries like Portugal, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, etc. would be having extreme problems with crime -- but they aren't.

In fact, growing up, I knew a lot of people who sold things like weed simply so that they didn't have to spend so much time or money buying it in small quantities for personal use.

Most of those people you describe never end up in prison which is damn near everybodies argument. Half of all people in prison are "non-violent" drug users. It's a bull shit stat. Most federal cases are drugs and a weapon. Sounds very "non-violent". Usually it takes 3 seperate incidents of felonies to get there. Many times the first one is pled to a misdemeanor or wiped pending completion of probation.

And how many drug dealers have you met?

Ive met thousands. I can tell most of then are not innocent people just dealing drugs because whatever bull shit excuse. I'll agree with many users being that but not dealers. 9/10 are at the very least breaking in places stealing. It comes with the lifestyle.

Obviously crime won't be eliminated but the main reason people get into drug dealing is for easy money. Once that's gone so are a lot of dealers. The extremely violent and criminal ones will just go on to something else.

Now back to the topic at hand. Trump should only touch with a lot of preparation and some results. Try it in a drug infested community first. Then state, region and finally country to see the results.

MMX2010, you're a true scrapper for taking on this fight. Trust me, I've fought it many times and it is a time-consuming job with little reward. Let's let the thread get back to Trump my man.



https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/77...3475250177

I'm not Phoenix. Phoenix hasn't even posted on this page.

The majority of Americans have used or experimented with drugs in the past. There is nothing small or self-selected about the argument that I am making.

It's you who are insisting that every person who does a bump of cocaine at a party or takes molly on a Saturday night is some jobless degenerate who doesn't bathe, or that if you totally removed drugs the entire population would suddenly become geniuses overnight.

Most people are not going to be successful, regardless of what drugs they do or do not take. To imply that it's drugs that holding these people back and not a lack of intelligence, self-discipline, or outright psychological problems is what's really disingenuous.

Personally, I don't think ALL drugs should be TOTALLY legal and cheap, but if people can abuse alcohol or prescribed antidepressants or amphetamines, they should be able to smoke a joint.

(09-04-2016 04:16 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Phoenix,

It is also highly disingenuous to equate anti-depressants with illegal drugs. A very large collection of people with more intelligence and experience than you have studied the chemical effects of both classes of drugs, and have recommended that the illegal ones stay illegal, while the legal ones stay legal.

If you're not a fan of that scientific process, please show us either: (1) the Nobel Prizes in Science and/or medicine that you've won for your research promoting illegal drugs, or (2) your entire medical history, which includes the many times you dismissed FDA approved drugs, in order to take FDA non-approved ones.

Without either of these, you're just an unqualified Guy With An Opinion who thinks he's smarter, better informed, and better experienced than a large collection of the smartest and most relevant experienced people in the world.

Are you kidding? Countless psychologists have argued against the usefulness of antidepressants. Other than cases of extreme depression, there are usually much safer and more effective means of dealing with slight or mild depression.

It's part of the basis of cognitive behavioral therapy, which is highly respected both in the psychiatric community and on this forum.

The FDA is total bullshit, which I think is safe to assume is the consensus on this forum, considering the heavy use of baking soda, apple cider vinegar, kratom, and supplements.

That makes your attempt to shut down my opinion because I'm not "FDA approved" or have a Nobel Prize seem a little out of place. By your logic, we should look to Barack Obama and his Nobel Peace Prize for authority on all subjects regarding war, peace, and geopolitics.

If you must know, I haven't visited the doctor... well, since I broke my arm in high school? The only time I've taken prescription meds in years would be small scripts of antibiotics and painkillers from my dentist.

Not sure how that's relevant though, since I never claimed that there is absolutely no value in any prescription drugs or that people should swear healthcare off completely.

This thread right now.

(09-04-2016 04:28 PM)realologist Wrote:  Most of those people you describe never end up in prison which is damn near everybodies argument. Half of all people in prison are "non-violent" drug users. It's a bull shit stat. Most federal cases are drugs and a weapon. Sounds very "non-violent". Usually it takes 3 seperate incidents of felonies to get there. Many times the first one is pled to a misdemeanor or wiped pending completion of probation.

Possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is a felony in many states, regardless of intention. A felony conviction will make it incredibly difficult to find gainful employment in the future.

Never did I say all of the people I described were doing hard time.

Quote:And how many drug dealers have you met?

Ive met thousands. I can tell most of then are not innocent people just dealing drugs because whatever bull shit excuse. I'll agree with many users being that but not dealers. 9/10 are at the very least breaking in places stealing. It comes with the lifestyle.

Which country is this in?

The argument that the majority of drug dealers in America commit burglary is not even statistically possible.

There are way more people selling small quantities of drugs than there are burglaries committed.

Never did I say anyone was totally "innocent". Almost everyone commits some kind of crime in their life, whether it's shoplifting or pirating music or drunk driving.

The point is that just because Joe blow, who sells an ounce of weed a week, isn't able to make that extra $100 dollars, they're not going to start kidnapping people or robbing them at gunpoint.

Who the hell cares if he steals a CD from Walmart. He was going to do that regardless, it has nothing to do with drugs, and it's not particularly threatening to the rest of the population.

That's why you want to avoid things like kidnapping, armed robbery, or burglary (which easily turns into home invasion in the wrong circumstances). Petty theft is always going to happen and doesn't really "hurt" anybody.

The vast majority of drug dealers are moving extremely small quantities and make small amounts of money. They may buy an ounce to quarter pound of weed at a time. These aren't the type of people who are prone to committing more serious, harmful crimes.

But surely you'd know that, given the thousands of drug dealers you've met.

Quote:Obviously crime won't be eliminated but the main reason people get into drug dealing is for easy money. Once that's gone so are a lot of dealers. The extremely violent and criminal ones will just go on to something else.

Okay, we're basically arguing the same thing. I'm not sure where our disagreement is here, other than the fact that you thought I was claiming small time drug dealers never commit any other petty crimes.

I went to a wedding in Colorado recently. Lots of 20-30 somethings in various jobs ranging from middle of the road blue collar workers and office drones.

There was only one reason why this wedding was done there and it certainly wasn't for nature or crisp mountain air.

Lot more cross eyed folks than sloppy drunks if you catch my drift.

(09-04-2016 03:56 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  I'm glad none of you are sociologists, because you can't refrain from focusing on small, self-selected groups of people to make an incorrect point about the larger society.

Focusing on successful bankers to argue about society as a whole is erroneous. (Hell, I could easily agree with you and say, "Let me guess. Those bankers are all White or Asian." - and then argue that Whites and Asians can handle drugs much better than Hispanics and Blacks can.)

You seriously think drugs are the reason that hispanics and blacks can't improve their own life experiences?

The point: there are people out there who are successful in spite of their drug use.

What does that tell us about drugs? That adults should be able to make informed decisions about what substances they choose to put in their body.

Drugs are a symptom of the systemic issues of those racial communities and harping on drug enforcement as a means to "protect" poor little Keshawn and Jose continues enabling the same forces that keep them down.

You want to help these down trodden groups? Here's how you do it:
1. Remove welfare
2. Fix trade deals, encourage domestic manufacturing
3. Lock down the borders
4. End the cultural misandry affecting men in these groups

Go out and smoke a joint MMX and get back to us. You've clearly never tried it.

Alcohol is a far scarier drug. From the DEA themselves:

Quote:“At present it is estimated that marijuana’s LD-50 is
around1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

For comparison, a fun chart of other common substances LD50s:
http://www.compoundchem.com/wp-content/u...micals.png

(09-04-2016 04:42 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  This thread right now.

I don't want to derail the thread any further, and honestly I think I've already said what I wanted to say.

If someone wants to start/bump a thread specifically for this conversation, it's probably a better idea than taking this debate another three pages.

Re-posting that picture of Trump and carson visiting carson's old neighborhood...resized so it doesn't blow the fuck out of your screens.

A cropped version of this photo is meme worthy, with the caption "Literally Hitler"

(09-04-2016 04:53 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 04:28 PM)realologist Wrote:  Most of those people you describe never end up in prison which is damn near everybodies argument. Half of all people in prison are "non-violent" drug users. It's a bull shit stat. Most federal cases are drugs and a weapon. Sounds very "non-violent". Usually it takes 3 seperate incidents of felonies to get there. Many times the first one is pled to a misdemeanor or wiped pending completion of probation.

Possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is a felony in many states, regardless of intention.

I think you mean more than an ounce? I'm not sure less than an ounce of pot = a felony.

The Beast,

I have tried it. But my medical and scientific training has removed the narcissm required to say, "Since it's good for me, it must be good for everyone."

And my depth of thinking makes me immune to arguments that ask, "Why should we prohibit people from taking substances that don't cause obvious harm to themselves, or others?"

-----

" What does that tell us about drugs? That adults should be able to make informed decisions about what substances they choose to put in their body."

True, provided they pay for any negative effects that their drug use causes. But the majority of drug users are not socially responsible enough to do such a thing, and many of them aren't wealthy enough to do so.

The best line in the article that Ghost Tiger posted asserted that drug users are self-absorbed. Your reasoning is definitely self-absorbed (since no one's needs but the drug user's is considered). And so is the collective anti-scientific viewpoint that pro drug people take.

(09-04-2016 05:11 PM)eradicator Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 04:53 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 04:28 PM)realologist Wrote:  Most of those people you describe never end up in prison which is damn near everybodies argument. Half of all people in prison are "non-violent" drug users. It's a bull shit stat. Most federal cases are drugs and a weapon. Sounds very "non-violent". Usually it takes 3 seperate incidents of felonies to get there. Many times the first one is pled to a misdemeanor or wiped pending completion of probation.

Possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is a felony in many states, regardless of intention.

I think you mean more than an ounce? I'm not sure less than an ounce of pot = a felony.

Nope, there are more than a dozen states where possession of an ounce or less constitutes a felony. In many of these places, it becomes an automatic "possession with intent to distribute" charge, including my home state of South Carolina.

Enigma,

If I wanted to say that everyone who takes cocaine or molly is a degenerate, I'll say it directly. So don't tell me that I've said something, when I clearly haven't.

My argument is: (1) It is uniformly agreed upon by scientists that certain drugs impair cognitive function and weaken the physical body. (2) People who want to legalize those drugs have to convince me that it's in both MINE and SOCIETY'S best interest to do so. (3) Non-scientific or anti-scientific inferences are not convincing. Shaming language and lying about what I've said is even less so. (4) As we worry more and more about ISIS, globalism, and a weak economy, the burden of proof on the legalizing side increases.

I'm going over to the Hillary thread so I can get news about Trump and the election.