or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › The Official (Not Official At All) Drugs & Alcohol Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Official (Not Official At All) Drugs & Alcohol Thread - Page 17

post #289 of 386

The DEA disagrees.  What a shock.

post #290 of 386
@Mr. Desmond I didn't want to quote all that, but thanks for looking and sharing! I want to be clear that in my opinion decriminalization and legalization are two different things! One of them says we won't arrest or prosecute people who have a certain quantity of crack, while the other says not only will we not prosecute it, we will also allow dispensaries to operate freely selling it

Two different things, and I wonder if many of the people who are pro drug use are confusing the two?

!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguirre View Post

Prohibitionism is illogical on many levels.  Why not outlaw red meat?  Force a mandatory diet?  After all, unhealthy lifestyles lead to increased medical costs, thus affecting everybody's insurance premiums and total costs of medicare, medicaid, and CHIP programs.

Paternalism, perhaps the most annoying trait of finger waving adults.

Very strange argument? Unless you really believe that red meat is unhealthy and in that case I suggest you start a thread about the healthiness of eating or not eating red meat!

Then you call people who don't want Heroine to be legal illogical? This is a new front to the argument I have to give you that... I just hope not many others follow along it that's all!

Question for you.. Maybe what you want is for decriminalizing the drugs an not legalizing them?
post #291 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguirre View Post

If you want to disagree, what you should do is take a consequential position on the direct effects of the various substances being described.  However, that isn't a counter to my argument, which is saying such a discussion should not even exist with regards to the law.

Your mistake is assuming I have a position in this. I'm just pointing out the silliness of comparing red meat to currently illegal drugs.
post #292 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguirre View Post
 

Prohibitionism is illogical on many levels.  Why not outlaw red meat?  Force a mandatory diet?  After all, unhealthy lifestyles lead to increased medical costs, thus affecting everybody's insurance premiums and total costs of medicare, medicaid, and CHIP programs.

 

Paternalism, perhaps the most annoying trait of finger waving adults.

Glad to see the stoners finally woke up and joined the conversation

post #293 of 386

Would really like to know how many on here that are for legalization don't partake in drugs ?

Can we see a show of hands ? Because I think most for legalization want it for their own selfish reasons. 

post #294 of 386
c3_clap.gif
post #295 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post


Your mistake is assuming I have a position in this. I'm just pointing out the silliness of comparing red meat to currently illegal drugs.

 

Well, you can rest easy, because as I already explained, I'm not doing that.

post #296 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by jusanothajoe View Post
 

Would really like to know how many on here that are for legalization don't partake in drugs ?

Can we see a show of hands ? Because I think most for legalization want it for their own selfish reasons. 

 

I drink alcohol.

 

But, there are selfish reasons for my position.  Namely, I don't like that my country imprisons millions for victimless crimes, and damages our economy through hopeless wars on nouns.   

post #297 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguirre View Post
 

 

I drink alcohol.

 

But, there are selfish reasons for my position.  Namely, I don't like that my country imprisons millions for victimless crimes, and damages our economy through hopeless wars on nouns.   

I have already addressed the victimless part, please go back and read. Then comment.

post #298 of 386

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jusanothajoe View Post
 

I have already addressed the victimless part, please go back and read. Then comment.

 

I've addressed the victimless part as well. 

post #299 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by jusanothajoe View Post
 

Are the babies born addicted to drugs not victims ? Are the people that are robbed of their property not victims ? Are the parents of teens that die from drug overdose not victims ? (this has happened three times in 6 months in the VERY small town I live in) Sort of like you think the only people in jail are there for trying to score a dime bag of pot. Ever seen what Meth does to a person ? The fact is drugs destroy lives. 

@Aguirre, You haven't addressed this. You have only used big words and senseless banter.

post #300 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by jusanothajoe View Post
 

@Aguirre, You haven't addressed this. You have only used big words and senseless banter.

 

There's nothing "senseless" about anything I've written.  If you're unfamiliar with the "big words" I'm using, look them up or something.  What am I, your philosophy professor?

 

Babies born to addicted to drugs could or could not be victims of crime.  I could understand ethical arguments either way.  But please, let's pass on that discussion because, christ, I don't want to get into a whole right's of fetuses thing.  The parents who's child died of an overdose most certainly are not victims of a crime.  They are victims in the sense that they lost a child to addiction/accidental overdose.  Which is terrible.  If you think it's a crime, I suppose you support prosecuting the dead child for victimizing the parents?

 

With regard to your theft example, those people are most certainly victims of a crime.  But that doesn't offer any support that drug use is not a victimless crime.  The crime isn't that they got high.  The crime is that they robbed somebody.  Consider two scenarios:

 

a) Subject A gets high, stays at home, eats Cheetos, reads TheSandTrap, goes to bed.

 

b) Subject B wants to get high, has no money, borrows it from a friend to buy dope or just gets through the night

 

c) Subject C wants to get high, robs your neighbor to get enough property to purchase drugs

 

The act of getting high or the need to get high do not automatically lead to the property crime.  They are separate actions.  A correlation cannot be enough to force a legal sanction.  Hence my black teenager example earlier.  Or this:

 

a) Subject A drives to a bar, gets drunk, gets a ride home from a friend, cab, walks, etc.

 

b) Subject B drives to a bar, realizes that he's getting drunk, stops drinking, hangs out and drinks water for a bit, drives home legally sober

 

c) Subject C drives to a bar, gets drunk, drives home, putting other drivers and pedestrians at risk due to his impairment

 

By the prohibitionist rationale you're suggesting, Subject C in both examples must be stopped at all costs to liberty, and therefore the substance itself must be outlawed.  Unless you can definitively say that that the user in the first set of examples will inevitably be subject C.  Which would be a ridiculous argument to make.

 

This is why I'm discussing the ethical defenses of prohibitionists like yourself, while you keep splitting hairs by trying to parse the difference between different mind altering substances.  Meanwhile, as we speak, some drunk is getting into his car.

 

EDIT--BTW, I most certainly did address it earlier, as I did again, which frankly was nice of me, I think.  I simply didn't respond to your direct examples, because that wasn't needed to make my point earlier, or now.  I've engaged in plenty of debate on internet forums, in real life, and in my younger days, in actual competition, and I frankly hate repeating myself.  So I'm often going to ignore you if you keep asking me to defend something I've already addressed.  I'm weary of this type of debate.  I don't know why I even got involved in this discussion on a golf forum.  But, sometimes I get roped in, and I'm sure it will happen again.

post #301 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguirre View Post
 

 

There's nothing "senseless" about anything I've written.  If you're unfamiliar with the "big words" I'm using, look them up or something.  What am I, your philosophy professor?

 

Babies born to addicted to drugs could or could not be victims of crime.  I could understand ethical arguments either way.  But please, let's pass on that discussion because, christ, I don't want to get into a whole right's of fetuses thing.  The parents who's child died of an overdose most certainly are not victims of a crime.  They are victims in the sense that they lost a child to addiction/accidental overdose.  Which is terrible.  If you think it's a crime, I suppose you support prosecuting the dead child for victimizing the parents?

 

With regard to your theft example, those people are most certainly victims of a crime.  But that doesn't offer any support that drug use is not a victimless crime.  The crime isn't that they got high.  The crime is that they robbed somebody.  Consider two scenarios:

 

a) Subject A gets high, stays at home, eats Cheetos, reads TheSandTrap, goes to bed.

 

b) Subject B wants to get high, has no money, borrows it from a friend to buy dope or just gets through the night

 

c) Subject C wants to get high, robs your neighbor to get enough property to purchase drugs

 

The act of getting high or the need to get high do not automatically lead to the property crime.  They are separate actions.  A correlation cannot be enough to force a legal sanction.  Hence my black teenager example earlier.  Or this:

 

a) Subject A drives to a bar, gets drunk, gets a ride home from a friend, cab, walks, etc.

 

b) Subject B drives to a bar, realizes that he's getting drunk, stops drinking, hangs out and drinks water for a bit, drives home legally sober

 

c) Subject C drives to a bar, gets drunk, drives home, putting other drivers and pedestrians at risk due to his impairment

 

By the prohibitionist rationale you're suggesting, Subject C in both examples must be stopped at all costs to liberty, and therefore the substance itself must be outlawed.  Unless you can definitively say that that the user in the first set of examples will inevitably be subject C.  Which would be a ridiculous argument to make.

 

This is why I'm discussing the ethical defenses of prohibitionists like yourself, while you keep splitting hairs by trying to parse the difference between different mind altering substances.  Meanwhile, as we speak, some drunk is getting into his car.

 

EDIT--BTW, I most certainly did address it earlier, as I did again, which frankly was nice of me, I think.  I simply didn't respond to your direct examples, because that wasn't needed to make my point earlier, or now.  I've engaged in plenty of debate on internet forums, in real life, and in my younger days, in actual competition, and I frankly hate repeating myself.  So I'm often going to ignore you if you keep asking me to defend something I've already addressed.  I'm weary of this type of debate.  I don't know why I even got involved in this discussion on a golf forum.  But, sometimes I get roped in, and I'm sure it will happen again.

Well, I surrender now. Didn't know you were on the debate team. Alot of last place finishes I bet. Like I said........ senseless liberal banter

post #302 of 386
I don't think you've made a single well-informed post in this thread. Keep up with the insults though, I'm sure it's a lot easier than actually using your head.
post #303 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grndslmhttr3 View Post

I don't think you've made a single well-informed post in this thread. Keep up with the insults though, I'm sure it's a lot easier than actually using your head.

Grndslmhttr3 said as he insulted me.

Just because you don't agree with what I said doesn't mean it was not well informed.

wasn't your contribution "since when did getting high become a bad thing" ?

post #304 of 386
Ladies and Gentleman enough with the insults and nonsense. Continue the discussion. b2_tongue.gif
post #305 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by jusanothajoe View Post
 

Would really like to know how many on here that are for legalization don't partake in drugs ?

Can we see a show of hands ? Because I think most for legalization want it for their own selfish reasons. 

I don't use drugs, and I really don't even drink much.  But even though I've argued against your position, I'm not really for legalizing all drugs.  In fact, I don't know what I'm for ... all I know is that I'm against the status quo.  What we have been doing hasn't worked, so why not at least consider other options?  One of those options happens to be legalization.

 

I am DEFINITELY for the legalization of marijuana though.  Weed being illegal is pretty darn silly.

post #306 of 386

I guess what I don't understand is why some people want their kids and grandkids growing up in a country where they can buy mind altering, highly addictive drugs. You want them to be able to readily attain DRUGS !!

Sorry but nothing any of you can say will make me understand this. If this makes me a bad person then I'm as bad as they come.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › The Official (Not Official At All) Drugs & Alcohol Thread