This is pathetic

[Klash]

Re: This is pathetic

its really simple its a case of victimless or victim crime...I don't know about you but I've never broke into someones house to make a buck so I could buy some AAS. The drive just isn't that bad with AAS users as opposed to those who get hooked into chemically dependant drugs like coke, meth, heroin...those drugs have victims because they HAVE to have the drug no matter what it takes.

Your stating a motivating force should be illegal; along with the act. That leads the way for a whole slew of rights being taken away. Theft is taking someone's property (a portion of someone life). The motivation behind theft is irrelevant. There is always a motivation for crime. Should we make being poor a crime also? It comes down to individual responsibility for your own life.

i agree that the government coddles these addict's waaay too much. i'm not arguing that at all!! and your right, TECHNICALLY it IS illeagal, so that was a bad choise of words. (my baggie say's schering, anyways!!). i get your point now, but to ever believe crack will be legal, just to make a point to crackheads that it's bad, by not having any aid programs for them, is very niave...it'll never work that way. your arguments on these subject are very well thaught out. very well delivered and most of the time, make ALOT of sence (your dog theroy is still fuked up, but what can i do?), but...very, very unrealistic. as thaught provoking as they are, i dont believe that, taken off paper, and applied to society, they'd ever really work.

Why don't you believe it would work?

In today's society, none of us know any better. Go back and research when opium was banned and why. Marijuana. Beer; government couldn't maintain that one. Correlate homicides with the alcohol prohibition. None of it makes any rational sense. We're just a bunch of frogs sitting in water that is heating up. A hundred years from now many citizens could say the same thing about the patriot act or some other b.s. legislation.

[daved150]

Re: This is pathetic

not that it all wouldnt work...i agree with some. alot of med. data says that pot aint as bad as once thaught. it should be legal. crack, smack and meth, should stay illeagal. dude, these are VERY harsh drugs that not only hust the user, but many documented cases of user's hurting others to feed their adiction!! not the same category as pot bro

[Klash]

Re: This is pathetic

not that it all wouldnt work...i agree with some. alot of med. data says that pot aint as bad as once thaught. it should be legal. crack, smack and meth, should stay illeagal. dude, these are VERY harsh drugs that not only hust the user, but many documented cases of user's hurting others to feed their adiction!! not the same category as pot bro

Just like alcoholics can behave in criminal behavior. Do you support banning alcohol (infringing more individual freedom) again for the small percentage of addicts that would justify their criminal activity with what they would imply is their victimization of the addiction. So because addicts can act criminal, we should reinforce prohibition, which does increase crime, accidental overdose and murder. Does that make sense? I do not think the results of the alcohol prohibition are limited to just the substance alcohol.
Drug addicts, just like alcoholics, make up a small percentage of users and should not be used for justification to undermine individual freedom. AAS and growth hormone would probably not be illegal today if society would not have fell victim to enforcing morality decades ago.

[daved150]

Re: This is pathetic

dude...you cant compair an alcholic to a crack head!!!!!!! i wont allow that! i'm an alcholic! my whole family is...fuk, half the people i know is!! not one of them ever commited any crime to support their addiction. on the flip side i have 3 cousins that served/ are serving time (1 for assult with deadly weapon, 1 for armed robbery (actually hilarious story i'll tell ya sometime) and 1 for shooting a man he was robbing....that died!) becouse of their addiction to crack...so please, dont even try to compair the 2 to me....i've seen the diff. for the small percentage of people addicted to crack or meth, as compaired to the many, many times that, that are alcholics, the violent crimes commited by the crackheads and meth addict's, by percentage of uses bases, surely out way those of an alcholic!!! (hope you can understand that)

[Klash]

Re: This is pathetic

dude...you cant compair an alcholic to a crack head!!!!!!! i wont allow that! i'm an alcholic! my whole family is...fuk, half the people i know is!! not one of them ever commited any crime to support their addiction. on the flip side i have 3 cousins that served/ are serving time (1 for assult with deadly weapon, 1 for armed robbery (actually hilarious story i'll tell ya sometime) and 1 for shooting a man he was robbing....that died!) becouse of their addiction to crack...so please, dont even try to compair the 2 to me....i've seen the diff. for the small percentage of people addicted to crack or meth, as compaired to the many, many times that, that are alcholics, the violent crimes commited by the crackheads and meth addict's, by percentage of uses bases, surely out way those of an alcholic!!! (hope you can understand that)

Your resorting to anecdotal accounts. I have only been exposed to an alcoholic that let his addiction drive him to crime; that doesn't mean only alcoholics let this happen. I believe addiction is addiction. Alcohol is just more readily available and cheaper. So, alcoholics do not have to resort to obtaining their vice from "criminals" for a product thats price has been artificially inflated because of the governments ban on it.

[daved150]

Re: This is pathetic

i dont know the price of crack in your hood, but it's pretty damn cheap here bro...i dont do the shyt, but i can point you in the right direction!! i agree that alc. is more avail. but it's not very hard to find a rock in any major metro area!! not hard at all!!! and it dosnt cost as much as you apearently believe it does!
also, i'm thinking you've been exposed to many, MANY more alcholics than you realize...if your over the age of say....18, i garauntee you've been exposed to HUNDREDS of alcoholics!!! you obviously dont even realize how many people are alcoholics!!!...quite possibly becouse of the fact that it is legal. that being said, i still dont want it banned, but to compair that to crack is kinda silly!

[Klash]

Re: This is pathetic

i dont know the price of crack in your hood, but it's pretty damn cheap here bro...i dont do the shyt, but i can point you in the right direction!! i agree that alc. is more avail. but it's not very hard to find a rock in any major metro area!! not hard at all!!! and it dosnt cost as much as you apearently believe it does!

If it was legal; you could get much better quality and more quantity for the same price. Less overdose because people would know the strength of the product, less poisoning because the manufacturer would be accountable. Less crime simply because users and manufacturers would have legal recourse and pharmacists wouldn't resort to crime to keep clientèle. And more than likely less users, simply because pharmacists won't be pushing their product on the playgrounds and giving kids money to push their product.

also, i'm thinking you've been exposed to many, MANY more alcholics than you realize...if your over the age of say....18, i garauntee you've been exposed to HUNDREDS of alcoholics!!! you obviously dont even realize how many people are alcoholics!!!...quite possibly becouse of the fact that it is legal. that being said, i still dont want it banned, but to compair that to crack is kinda silly!

I've been exposed to several alcoholics. I only know of one that resorted to armed robbery for a fix.

I'm not comparing alcohol to crack. Technically, I'm not even comparing the addictions; I'm simply applying your pragmatic justification for your support of banning narcotics to another substance. Another substance that people get physically addicted to and will perform self-defeating behavior along with criminal acts to get a fix. Yet, you do not support the ban on this substance. Why? If there was as much propaganda against alcohol instead of for it, would you support a ban? I think your letting our culture define what drugs are acceptable and which are not.

Our society is exposed to a great deal of media propaganda about the evils of drugs. Not every meth user has one tooth and weighs 100 pounds, while impulsively looking out their blinds for the black helicopters. Don't get me wrong, I think the use of rec. drugs is not in anyone's best interest - my position is a philosophical one. I believe every person owns their life and for the government (a monopoly on force) to dictate what substances a person can and cannot ingest denies that ownership. For our government to deny that ownership to its citizens, suggests someone else has the ownership to our lives.

[daved150]

Re: This is pathetic

If it was legal; you could get much better quality and more quantity for the same price. Less overdose because people would know the strength of the product, less poisoning because the manufacturer would be accountable. Less crime simply because users and manufacturers would have legal recourse and pharmacists wouldn't resort to crime to keep clientèle. And more than likely less users, simply because pharmacists won't be pushing their product on the playgrounds and giving kids money to push their product.





I've been exposed to several alcoholics. I only know of one that resorted to armed robbery for a fix.

I'm not comparing alcohol to crack. Technically, I'm not even comparing the addictions; I'm simply applying your pragmatic justification for your support of banning narcotics to another substance. Another substance that people get physically addicted to and will perform self-defeating behavior along with criminal acts to get a fix. Yet, you do not support the ban on this substance. Why? If there was as much propaganda against alcohol instead of for it, would you support a ban? I think your letting our culture define what drugs are acceptable and which are not.

Our society is exposed to a great deal of media propaganda about the evils of drugs. Not every meth user has one tooth and weighs 100 pounds, while impulsively looking out their blinds for the black helicopters. Don't get me wrong, I think the use of rec. drugs is not in anyone's best interest - my position is a philosophical one. I believe every person owns their life and for the government (a monopoly on force) to dictate what substances a person can and cannot ingest denies that ownership. For our government to deny that ownership to its citizens, suggests someone else has the ownership to our lives.

is oxycotin not legal? the customers know the strength, they know the addictive properties, but for some reason you believe that, if legal, the crackhead would be smarter than the guy hooked on oxy? no-one has od'ed on oxy? the pharmasist's arent slinging it at schools, but, are you saying kids arent doing it?...another legal substance...tabacco...not available to school kids?...now YOU wanna resort to "the children" arguement?...lmao, you shilly sit!

bro, you certainly WAS compairing alcohol to crack!! 2 substances not even remotely related with user's that, imo, are not one in the same.
and, for the record, i did think you were saying you only knew 1 alcoholic. my mistake.

sorry bro, but if your ownership, of your life, means the your careless decissions to use a substance with the destructable nature that crack has, may have, in any way, shape, or form, even a smidgion of a chance to lure my kid to use such a substance, i want it so taboo, so illegal...i want it SO FUKING EVIL AND PUNISHABLE THAT YOU WOULDNT DARE PULL IT OUT AND LIGHT IT UP OR EVEN SPEAK OF DOING IT AROUND MY KIDS!! (you started the kid thing bro...not me)

my sons 8...pretty impessionable, and as you pointed out, not all crack user's look like trash. your probobly a fit guy, athletic. you seem likable, friendly and i even detect some comedy in you that you have yet to release (). so when your puffin on the ol' pipe, i could see my son thinking...huh, it's alright for him!! must be good!
PASS.

you want personal freedom...i know your feeling's on these issue's. you just take it to the point of ridiculas! when you have to divide 1$ between 3 friends, do you actually try to figure out how to do the .333333333333333333333333333 thing? lol...i think you doooo! tell ya what...you take the .34 and just give the other 2 guy's .33...it'll be cool and way less brain damage!
again. it's not that i dont see your point. it's just that you dont have "that line"! there is a line to personal freedom. your personal freedom should not have a high degree of chance to hurt me or mine!
i'm telling ya....the perfect balance is davism...better jump on board!

[Klash]

Re: This is pathetic

is oxycotin not legal? the customers know the strength, they know the addictive properties, but for some reason you believe that, if legal, the crackhead would be smarter than the guy hooked on oxy? no-one has od'ed on oxy? the pharmasist's arent slinging it at schools, but, are you saying kids arent doing it?...another legal substance...tabacco...not available to school kids?...now YOU wanna resort to "the children" arguement?...lmao, you shilly sit!

I'm not saying kids aren't doing it. I'm not saying there is a perfect society in where idiots can't phuck up innocent lives. What I am saying is if someone wants to look at the purely practical implications of illegal vs. legal. There are many that the holier-than-thou crowd over look. Of course that probably has to do with the insane amount of propaganda against drugs.

And f.y.i. my "children argument" was not set up as a ploy to make you compassionate to my position, just for the sake of the innocent little children. It was used because most drug users start using when they are young, curious and impressionable. You don't see many 50 year olds thinking - I'm gonna try crack today.

bro, you certainly WAS compairing alcohol to crack!! 2 substances not even remotely related with user's that, imo, are not one in the same.

Look at you trying to set up the straw man for your weak little argument. <sarcasm>Oh yeah, your completely right, I was trying to state how alcohol and crack are virtually the same.</sarcasm> No I was comparing your practical approach of addiction leading to crime to another addictive substance; that you do not support a ban on. Just ointing out inconsistencies.

and, for the record, i did think you were saying you only knew 1 alcoholic. my mistake.

sorry bro, but if your ownership, of your life, means the your careless decissions to use a substance with the destructable nature that crack has, may have, in any way, shape, or form, even a smidgion of a chance to lure my kid to use such a substance, i want it so taboo, so illegal...i want it SO FUKING EVIL AND PUNISHABLE THAT YOU WOULDNT DARE PULL IT OUT AND LIGHT IT UP OR EVEN SPEAK OF DOING IT AROUND MY KIDS!! (you started the kid thing bro...not me)

And if someone had the same feelings about AS; you would support that too?
You see, you think my philosophical positions on this and dog fighting are ridiculous. Yet, it is the inconsistent positions like yours that dominate society today. You will tell me that crack must be illegal along with etc. Others will tell you AS and GH should be illegal along with etc. Still others will tell you that ephedra and other supplements should be illegal. And still even others will tell you Vitamin C and other vitamins should require a script. Then you will say those people are idiots, who would support such a thing; and the answer is your philosophy. The philosophy you hold is responsible for putting us in a society that adopts not the most logical position but the one with the most money behind it. And you will turn and get angry because money has the power to infringe your rights or suppress ideas you like but at the root, you support the very philosophy that is giving us these results.

Philosophical positions are not ridiculous. Having and justifying contradicting positions is.

[daved150]

Re: This is pathetic

your funny

[supernova1021]

Re: This is pathetic

Oh my God..... I have a headache..

[horsepwr]

Re: This is pathetic

Officer Valentine couldn't have been the sharpest tool.

If it was legal; you could get much better quality and more quantity for the same price. Less overdose because people would know the strength of the product, less poisoning because the manufacturer would be accountable. Less crime simply because users and manufacturers would have legal recourse and pharmacists wouldn't resort to crime to keep clientèle. And more than likely less users, simply because pharmacists won't be pushing their product on the playgrounds and giving kids money to push their product.

Your hypothesis has been put to the test in one southern town that I know well. Not a metro city by any means. Population of around 50,000. There was a doctor that was prescribing oxycontin to just about anyone that walked in his office and asked for them. Now if you think about it, that's pretty much like legalized heroin. OCs are one molecule from heroin...some addicts claim oxycontin better than heroin.
By 2003, you could drive by this doctor's office and there would be people out in the parking lot puffin on their cigs, pail faced, and itchin...waiting on the script. The doctor got busted and sentenced to life in prison in 2004. 2 of his patients overdosed and died on oxycontin. There were several other deaths from oxy od, but they couldn't directly put them on the doc.
This doctor, making the pharmaceutical labeled strength oxycontins basically legal in society, caused death and is responsible for opiate dependancy skyrocketing in this small town in a few short years.
You can say what you want about personal choices and people being responsible for their own actions, and I understand all that, but this is why you can't trust people to make the right choice and choose the more responsible path when it comes down to it. This town got to see what a little personal freedom with this drug in particular will get ya in just a few short years. A massive spike in drug abuse, addiction, jobless, sickness, death, etc, etc... A close friend of mine lost everything from addiction. His job, his health, possessions and ultimately his freedom. Thankfully, he has been clean for several years now and living a healthy life...at least healthy in my opinion

I knew some former "patients" of this doctor's personally, other than the friend that got locked up. I had a couple working for me in 2004 when the doctor got busted and they were pissed. Both of them were in their early 20s, young impressionable guys, and their first oxycontin experience was tabs from a prescription written by that wreckless doctor.
Now that's just from 1 doctor. Imagine some drug being flat out legal; over-the-counter. Imagine crystal meth being legal. A 2 year old was hospitalized a few years ago from injesting meth and getting it on her skin because the parents left some on the kitchen table. Her skin broke out in rashes amongst other side effects. I don't want to even think about the idiots that would set up labs in the same house with children. You have to keep in mind that it's not the responsible people that use these drugs. It's not people that make the most rational choices.
Now AS users on the other hand are proven to be a totally different breed of human being than your average meth/crack addict.

Legalize rec drugs such as meth, crack, heroin and have a better society? "Naive" is an understatement.

[TheChosen1]

Re: This is pathetic

Personally, I'm really not surprised. Sometime in 1994 when I was LE at the time, there was a cop in our PD who was under investigation by the FBI. He was hired by an undercover agent to provide security to a drug warehouse and he hired another dozen of fellow cops to help him. One of whom was in the academy with me, in fact, and another with whom I worked. So now, those dozens of used to be cops are in the slammer and the hired jackass is on death row. It seems that while under investigation, the dumb phuck hired a drug hitman to kill a 23 year old woman who had filed a police brutality complaint against him.

[Klash]

Re: This is pathetic

Your hypothesis has been put to the test in one southern town that I know well. Not a metro city by any means. Population of around 50,000. There was a doctor that was prescribing oxycontin to just about anyone that walked in his office and asked for them. Now if you think about it, that's pretty much like legalized heroin. OCs are one molecule from heroin...some addicts claim oxycontin better than heroin.
By 2003, you could drive by this doctor's office and there would be people out in the parking lot puffin on their cigs, pail faced, and itchin...waiting on the script. The doctor got busted and sentenced to life in prison in 2004. 2 of his patients overdosed and died on oxycontin. There were several other deaths from oxy od, but they couldn't directly put them on the doc.
This doctor, making the pharmaceutical labeled strength oxycontins basically legal in society, caused death and is responsible for opiate dependancy skyrocketing in this small town in a few short years.
You can say what you want about personal choices and people being responsible for their own actions, and I understand all that, but this is why you can't trust people to make the right choice and choose the more responsible path when it comes down to it. This town got to see what a little personal freedom with this drug in particular will get ya in just a few short years. A massive spike in drug abuse, addiction, jobless, sickness, death, etc, etc... A close friend of mine lost everything from addiction. His job, his health, possessions and ultimately his freedom. Thankfully, he has been clean for several years now and living a healthy life...at least healthy in my opinion

I knew some former "patients" of this doctor's personally, other than the friend that got locked up. I had a couple working for me in 2004 when the doctor got busted and they were pissed. Both of them were in their early 20s, young impressionable guys, and their first oxycontin experience was tabs from a prescription written by that wreckless doctor.
Now that's just from 1 doctor. Imagine some drug being flat out legal; over-the-counter. Imagine crystal meth being legal. A 2 year old was hospitalized a few years ago from injesting meth and getting it on her skin because the parents left some on the kitchen table. Her skin broke out in rashes amongst other side effects. I don't want to even think about the idiots that would set up labs in the same house with children. You have to keep in mind that it's not the responsible people that use these drugs. It's not people that make the most rational choices.
Now AS users on the other hand are proven to be a totally different breed of human being than your average meth/crack addict.

Legalize rec drugs such as meth, crack, heroin and have a better society? "Naive" is an understatement.

It's not a hypothesis. It comes down to whether you believe the government (other people with a monopoly on force) have the right to enforce their code of morality on others. In current day America it is the morality of the majority imposed on the minority. It is hypocritical, irrational and inconsistent to support a government that infringes individual rights because you agree with the infringement and can justify it as the "common good" but then oppose it when that same force is applied against you.

I am vehemently opposed to another person coercing another persons behavior through force or threat of force - even when the other person has the title of government. I do not believe an act that is prohibited by an individual; should be permitted by a mob and/or most definitely the government.

The pragmatic argument is secondary. I oppose the drug prohibition because it is immoral. But we live in a pragmatic society, where we take a piece of a puzzle and ignore the effects it has on the whole. Like I was attempting to articulate to dave. Those who support drug prohibition are indirectly undermining their own freedom. They have contradicted, on a fundamental level, their own rights and are influencing our country down a path where individual rights become less and less. Rights are always justified away because of fear. The drug prohibition is no different. Out of fear many citizens support a drug prohibition to "feel" secure.

What is the drug prohibition getting them? An ever increasing prison population of non-violent criminals; which increases taxes. Do non-violent criminals remain non-violent when they go to prison and are brutally raped; increasing the potential for violent offenders. Collateral damages of citizens dying, - in the name of the drug war. An infant was killed when a S.W.A.T team charged a house and it was stepped on - in the name of the drug war. A grandma was shot 15 times, when corrupted cops charged her house - in the name of the drug war. Remember, the drug war is infringing our rights but for our own safety; not grandma's, not the infants, not the non-violent "criminal" that is Buba's *****. Let's widen the scope. Terrorists in the middle east and South America profit from our drug prohibition and use the profit to arm themselves. So even though I do not oppose drug prohibition because of the pragmatic implications; there are enough arguments there for reconsideration. Throw the philosophical implications in and there is no justification for it. It is only naive to those who keep their eyes closed.

[horsepwr]

Re: This is pathetic

I don't agree with the War on Drugs. I don't agree that drugs should be scheduled as they are. I see your point about drug prohibition and realize the costs. I don't believe that people are responsible enough to benefit from an absolute free society though. I get the big picture on how criminals would be redefined and how the system could benefit greatly. I get that we would only have violent criminals to pay for. I also get that we would have a massive spike in drug abuse that would probably cost just as much, if not more, as the system does now. But the government should just let them go. Let the addicts fend for themselves right? Survival of the fittest?..They would figure it out when they hit rock bottom right? Maybe if they don't get it, the next generation will learn from them? Hell, make the drugs readily available and cheap enough and we could kill 2 birds with one stone. Get rid of the addicts and population control...Clean the streets up. There's no such thing as a cheap drug.
I just believe in helping people out. I couldn't watch someone self destruct. Especially a loved one.