Drugs: The greatest hypocrisy

[zero-gravity]

Gentlemen, you can look back in American history and point any number of occasions and point out how this government has been a total hypocrite to its founding principles. Many would argue that our "alphabet agency" control of our economy has been the biggest hypocrisy, but an even more apparent hypocrisy to me has been the government's policy on drugs. Why?

It completely violates the idea of personal sovereignty

While many point out various arguments for the criminalization of drugs as "your behavior affects other people" or "you can do violent things on drugs", the underlying argument has always been "we're making a decision for you because we know how to protect your safety and well being better than you." and I just have to point out that is an argument that has been made by every dictatorship and autocracy ever made. Its the argument that the communists, absolutists, fascists, etc all used for their abuse of power.

What if somebody does coke in their basement and doesn't interact with anyone else during the time they're high? Well then its not a problem, except for the individual. Under rights theory, you are endowed any right as long as it does not compromise the rights of others, so considering nobody's rights are bing compromised when you make the personal decision to do drugs, it should be a right.

But why does nobody care? Social stigmas, tyranny of the majority, etc etc

I understand many of you feel that there are more pressing issues at hand like the economy and what not, but to me the government's policy on drugs is a giant black spot on what our founding fathers had in mind. Imagine, what if the government took the same stance on food as they did with drugs? Would there be an uproar then? Of course there would and all of you would be making the same arguments I am right now.

Freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom itself. Legalize

peace

[RubberTrucky]

At 4/22/11 01:01 AM, zero-gravity wrote:
What if somebody does coke in their basement and doesn't interact with anyone else during the time they're high?

Given as you mentioned you ignore the fact that the junkie is down and out and probably won't contribute to society at all. It would be plainly logical to cut all sorts of welfare for people who refuse to go into rehab if drugs were allowed.

You also got that thing that people can behave dangerously like assholes when they've pumped themselves up on drugs. There should be a way to prevent this from happening. At that it's quite similar to fight for abolishing traffic laws like speeding limitations and so on. Believe me, quite a few voices I've heard really want to fight for ending any kinds of traffic laws because it restricts freedom of drivers and in the confusion they're supposedly more dangerous than total freedom. This is also a case where only the stupid irresponsible people cause the greatest mayhem.

But as far as drugs are concerned, what I have to admit is that I have no unbiased perspective on how drugs really affect the human body. The media shows images of addicts whose personality is fucked up after use of drugs. But does this actually happen, or is in 99% of the cases the person before and after drugs the same? In other words: is taking a shot of heroin the same as drinking a glass of beer?

[Earfetish]

There are counless medical professionals addicted to medical grade heroin. The only difference is, it's not been cut with make-up and it doesn't rot them from the inside.

You may have had morphine or codeine or oxycodene or something like that. Same difference.

The war on drugs is the worst part of the drugs trade. I was thinking recently, the amount of tax drugs could bring in would easily fund a voluntary database of everyone who wants to buy drugs and their drug purchases. Could even have fingerprint verification. Every drug user, allegedly really likely to rob you, would have all their details surrendered to The Man. And I bet they'd be willing to, for legal uncut drugs.

It's only like crack and heroin and meth (and alcohol) that seem to have that terrible debilitating addictive potential anyway, so maybe the database could only focus on those users, or even only those heavy users.

Legalise all of them. I reckon weed is coming soon.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 4/22/11 07:49 AM, Earfetish wrote: The war on drugs is the worst part of the drugs trade. I was thinking recently, the amount of tax drugs could bring in would easily fund a voluntary database of everyone who wants to buy drugs and their drug purchases. Could even have fingerprint verification.

Or we could leave everyone the fuck alone and mind our own business.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 4/22/11 04:15 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: You also got that thing that people can behave dangerously like assholes when they've pumped themselves up on drugs. There should be a way to prevent this from happening. At that it's quite similar to fight for abolishing traffic laws like speeding limitations and so on.

Well they're stupid. The raods should be privatised, and a private raod owners would sure as shit not want people making their business unsafe for their customers, or for themselves if it were a local, community owned street.

Anyway, drunk people are far more of a problem than people on drugs. Yet no one apprently considers it sane to advocate that people in possesion of alcohol should be kidnapped and thrown in a cage for a decade.

[Earfetish]

At 4/22/11 08:11 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 4/22/11 07:49 AM, Earfetish wrote: The war on drugs is the worst part of the drugs trade. I was thinking recently, the amount of tax drugs could bring in would easily fund a voluntary database of everyone who wants to buy drugs and their drug purchases. Could even have fingerprint verification.

Or we could leave everyone the fuck alone and mind our own business.

I would agree with that, but in reality it's such a divisive issue we'd need a diplomatic solution. Until The Man figured out they were wasting money with this database. You couldn't just make crack and heroin and meth legal without an immediate safety net, not enough people would support that policy nowadays.

It just seems more likely that it'll pan out that way. Governments wont want to sacrifice such a chunk of power by conceding the War on Drugs. I would rather they did, but they wont.

I still agree completely with reducing government control of citizens, and giving people more individual freedom and responsibility, but fucking loads of people don't and they need to be appeased too.

[Camarohusky]

I have heard a ton of lip flapping on this subject. Yet I have heard very little to make me care.

Bitch all you want about it, but until you give people like me a reason to want to actively change the laws, we won't.

[SmilezRoyale]

Presently we have a huge State bureaucracy that's sole existence is dependent upon the maintenance of the drug war. This is the the primary reason for the war's continuance, as opposed to [and i acknowledge the arrogance of this statement] the notion that defenders of the status quo have made valid arguments that pro-legalization supporters haven't addressed.

It seems to me that the argument for legalization with taxation is that, as it exists with tobacco and alcohol, imposing taxes on certain 'illicit drugs' [or whatever you wish to call them, ] would create a kind of bureaucracy that would fight to maintain the existence of a legal drug trade, if for nothing else but to collect additional revenue.

The problem with Marijuana is that the demand for it is more elastic than the prior mentioned drugs. Marijuana is less addictive and so people will not be as willing to pay insane prices for it. And even if they were, there are very few natural barriers to entry with respect to Marijuana production; since it can grow nearly anywhere. The government could not easily collect taxes on something which a person could produce in their own home or get from a neighbor, paid for in cash.

Legalization if it ever occured, would not come in the preferred libertarian fashion in which individuals are not persecuted for owning plants in their house. If it were ever legalized, it would probably take the form of a certain few agencies being granted priviledged legal status to produce marijuana without legal persecution, these agencies would in total have a monopoly and so taxes could be levied on the drug production that would fall predominantly on the producers rather than the consumers. This scheme would likely be sold as a measure to ensure that the drugs are of safe quality.

Individuals who grew marijuana in their own home, even for personal use and possibly even for medical use would still be arrested by Government officials. [This situation might be favorable to the Government also because it wouldn't lead to the wholesale liquidation of the drug-warrior-class]

It would be a very bittersweet form of legalization.

That said, in the context of state ownership of roads, I support laws which revoke the driving licences of individuals who drive while intoxicated, if we start with the [admittedly false] assumption that the State must own the roads, it would naturally be within it's power to impose restrictive covenants with respect to behaviors it feels would threaten the smooth going of traffic. Unfortunately we can never know precisely which methods of regulating driving behavior are superior because there exists no private ownership of roads, and thus no incentive to produce effective driving regulations nor ability on the part of road owners to both harmonize as well as experiment with road laws.

[Magic-Mushroom]

Irony of it all is that our own constitution was written on hemp paper.

[Elfer]

At 4/22/11 12:27 PM, Magic-Mushroom wrote: Irony of it all is that our own constitution was written on hemp paper.

Yeah, then they made a photocopy so they could roll that shit up and smoke it.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/22/11 12:27 PM, Magic-Mushroom wrote: Irony of it all is that our own constitution was written on hemp paper.

And most of them owned slaves... So what?

[Iron-Hampster]

Suicide is illegal too, although it does seem pretty illogical to enforce such a law when you think about it. These kinds of problems are better treated with prevention than punishment. Educate people and leave the choice to them and then alone. You can't say you are a victim when you know all the dangers of your action before you chose to go through with it anyways.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 4/22/11 11:11 AM, Camarohusky wrote: until you give people like me a reason to want to actively change the laws, we won't.

-because kidnapping people and throwing them in a cage for a decade where they'll probably be raped, just for carrrying the "wrong" type of vegetation is, well, wrong
-Artificially reducing the supply of drugs, with the considerably inelastic demand from addicts, means drugs are very expensive and so said addicts often resort to crime to pay for these artificially expensive drugs
-making it illegal means that only illegitimate businesses can operate, which essentially means these laws are funneling millions of dollars to gangs
-enforcing drug laws, or at least trying to, costs billions of dollars nation-wide
-Disadvantaged teenagers, especially blacks, are more likely to drop out of school and become drug dealers

[Camarohusky]

At 4/22/11 05:43 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: -because kidnapping people and throwing them in a cage for a decade where they'll probably be raped, just for carrrying the "wrong" type of vegetation is, well, wrong

Crime is crime. It'll happen regardless.

-Artificially reducing the supply of drugs, with the considerably inelastic demand from addicts, means drugs are very expensive and so said addicts often resort to crime to pay for these artificially expensive drugs

Crime is crime. It'll happen regardless.

-making it illegal means that only illegitimate businesses can operate, which essentially means these laws are funneling millions of dollars to gangs

Crime is Crime. It'll happen regardless.

-enforcing drug laws, or at least trying to, costs billions of dollars nation-wide

This is the only good argument I have heard.

-Disadvantaged teenagers, especially blacks, are more likely to drop out of school and become drug dealers

Again, drugs aren't cauing this. Drugs are just one avenue. Remove drugs from this and who knows what other crimes people will flock to to make easy money from a world they believe (and in many cases, rightfully so) has abandoned them. These people flock to crime because it's crime. Drugs are only just a method of it. Hell, when alcohol became legal, the smugglers and runners didn't automatically become legal, they jumped to other things that were illegal.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 4/22/11 07:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Again, drugs aren't cauing this. Drugs are just one avenue. Remove drugs from this and who knows what other crimes people will flock to to make easy money from a world they believe (and in many cases, rightfully so) has abandoned them. These people flock to crime because it's crime. Drugs are only just a method of it. Hell, when alcohol became legal, the smugglers and runners didn't automatically become legal, they jumped to other things that were illegal.

I'm pretty sure that every underhanded thing that can be profited off of has been profited off of. They won't move on to anything, they wont have to move at all, and if anything new arises, it would probably have been done before. And people never flock to crime for the sake of crime "I'm a sneaky crook I'm gonna do sneaky cartoonie crook things", they do so because its more profitable than living a legit life as well as less work.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 4/22/11 07:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Crime is crime. It'll happen regardless.

How is this relevant to what I said?

Ifsome iniates aggression against someone else, then I'm all for police hauling their asses away. But to suggest that I should be locked away for smoking a joint in the privacy of my own home is fucking barbaric.
If you think having MILLIONS of people in jail isn't wrong other than for economic reasons, you're a pretty shit human being.

-Artificially reducing the supply of drugs, with the considerably inelastic demand from addicts, means drugs are very expensive and so said addicts often resort to crime to pay for these artificially expensive drugs

Crime is crime. It'll happen regardless.

Yeah, except there will be a fuckload less of it. These addicts don't want money, they want drugs.
Money isa means to this end, and with prohibition they need a lot more of it, so they steal. If drugs were cheaper, they wouldn't steal as much, because they could afford the drugs easier. They're not regular criminals.

-making it illegal means that only illegitimate businesses can operate, which essentially means these laws are funneling millions of dollars to gangs

Crime is Crime. It'll happen regardless.

Wow, you're pretty thick hey.

Crime will happen regardless, but without as much money, gangs will be a fuckload weaker.

What is with your retraded logic? A plan is only a good plan if it compeltely solves a problem 100%?

By this logic, prohibition is an abject failure. Drugs are drugs and people will do them anyway, oh and there are a fuckload of negative consequences that outweigh even the theoretical (ie nonexistent) advantaes of prohibition.

These people flock to crime because it's crime. Drugs are only just a method of it. Hell, when alcohol became legal, the smugglers and runners didn't automatically become legal, they jumped to other things that were illegal.

yeah, mainly other drugs. Drugs aren't like everything else. They're far easier to profit from than say, breaking into people's houses.

Further, without the billions of dollars and thousands of hours spent enforcing drug laws, it will be far easier to prevent other forms of crime.

[Elfer]

At 4/22/11 11:11 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Bitch all you want about it, but until you give people like me a reason to want to actively change the laws, we won't.

Prohibition is super expensive, and over the many decades that it's been enforced, it's completely failed to meet its objective.

With regards to the gang money issue: Organized crime is a business that operates in illegal goods and services. Drug money is a big source of income to them, and as such gives them much more motivation to commit associated violent crimes.

You can say that gang-related crime will happen regardless, but there's not enough racketeering in the world to make up for the loss of drug income to legitimate operations.

[JudgeDredd]

At 4/22/11 11:11 AM, Camarohusky wrote: until you give people like me a reason to want to actively change the laws, we won't.

It's a losing battle. Someone somewhere in the world is right this very minute is busy working on splicing the genetics of whatever produces thc into other plant varieties, the likes of which can't so easily be eradicated. A common food variety like corn or wheat should do the job i think.

But hey, why go that far when synthetic drugs are much easier to make? The end goal is just to bankrupt the state which continues to perpetrate morally corrupt laws.

[SolInvictus]

At 4/22/11 05:43 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: -Artificially reducing the supply of drugs, with the considerably inelastic demand from addicts, means drugs are very expensive and so said addicts often resort to crime to pay for these artificially expensive drugs

this is one of the issues i can't see us working out well anytime in the near future. while i agree the price should be within the reach of the individuals using it without having to resort to crime, i can't help but think most people will still be way too stupid to realise that a substantial drop in price doesn't make it a good idea to try heroine. but i've got no alternative so i'll just cringe at the thought of our severely stunted ability to make rational decisions as consumers.

[HeavenDuff]

At 4/22/11 01:01 AM, zero-gravity wrote: It completely violates the idea of personal sovereignty

The abuse of drugs, can be seen like self-mutilation.

While you should have the right to do whatever you want, if you start to do stuff that will obviously harm you, can we still consider you to be responsible enough to take care of yourself?

While many point out various arguments for the criminalization of drugs as "your behavior affects other people" or "you can do violent things on drugs", the underlying argument has always been "we're making a decision for you because we know how to protect your safety and well being better than you." and I just have to point out that is an argument that has been made by every dictatorship and autocracy ever made. Its the argument that the communists, absolutists, fascists, etc all used for their abuse of power.

There might actually be specific situations in which "others" not only including the governement, but the society itself, may know better than you.

Freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom itself. Legalize

I know not all drugs will heavily harm you, and if you use them on rare occasions, it's ok. But what if an individual cannot make the right decision? Why is it that you insist on personnal sovereignity when someone is obviously destroying it's own health?

I know this can be somewhat of a stretch... but if someone was trying to kill himself or cutting himself on purpose... or whatever... Even if he isn't hurting anyone else, he's jurting himself badly. You may argue that one should be allowed to do whatever he wants to himself, but some people are not in full control over their own body and mind. And what about addiction? If someone uses drugs, it may not be because he chooses to, but because he has an addiction. Knowing this, I can't imagine letting someone use drugs, if he doesn't even have control over himself.

[Warforger]

At 4/23/11 08:20 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:

At 4/22/11 01:01 AM, zero-gravity wrote: It completely violates the idea of personal sovereignty

The abuse of drugs, can be seen like self-mutilation.

While you should have the right to do whatever you want, if you start to do stuff that will obviously harm you, can we still consider you to be responsible enough to take care of yourself?

Like I said in some 4/20 thread, does this mean we should have a fat police where we closely monitor people's daily activity to make sure they've clocked in an appropiate amount of exercise? Or maybe limit how much fast food they can eat? Or how about we limit texting so that people don't hurt their hands as much? Or we go house to house and make sure there is a good distance between TV's and the viewer?

That logic goes nowhere fast. A GOOD argument would be if you overdose, go crazy and kill someone, that would make more sense.

There might actually be specific situations in which "others" not only including the governement, but the society itself, may know better than you.

In their own view. If you think you're doing fine then according to you, you are, and your opinion is the only one that matters when you're making decisions that effect only yourself.

Freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom itself. Legalize

I know not all drugs will heavily harm you, and if you use them on rare occasions, it's ok. But what if an individual cannot make the right decision? Why is it that you insist on personnal sovereignity when someone is obviously destroying it's own health?

You mean like fat people?

I know this can be somewhat of a stretch... but if someone was trying to kill himself or cutting himself on purpose... or whatever... Even if he isn't hurting anyone else, he's jurting himself badly. You may argue that one should be allowed to do whatever he wants to himself, but some people are not in full control over their own body and mind. And what about addiction? If someone uses drugs, it may not be because he chooses to, but because he has an addiction. Knowing this, I can't imagine letting someone use drugs, if he doesn't even have control over himself.

Like fat people too right?

[HeavenDuff]

At 4/23/11 08:30 PM, Warforger wrote: Like I said in some 4/20 thread, does this mean we should have a fat police where we closely monitor people's daily activity to make sure they've clocked in an appropiate amount of exercise? Or maybe limit how much fast food they can eat? Or how about we limit texting so that people don't hurt their hands as much? Or we go house to house and make sure there is a good distance between TV's and the viewer?

Why not? Well, forget the texting and that TV thing. It's far worst to take an ecstacy pill than to watch TV from too close. So let's stick to your first example. Fat people... I don't see why we should not stop people from doing stuff that will obviously harm them? I'm not talking about drinking a few beers, eating a Big Mac or smoking pot every once in a while. But what if you really hurt yourself?

Some countries have laws to restrict fast food restaurants from settling near elementary schools and high schools. And it would really crack me up, if there ever was some laws to prevent fat people from eating fast food. I can imagine it... anyone who weights over 300lbs wouldn't be allowed to buy a Big Mac...

Seriously... why not? The only reason you could be against this, is freedom of choice... But what if your choices are just bad?

In their own view. If you think you're doing fine then according to you, you are, and your opinion is the only one that matters when you're making decisions that effect only yourself.

You can't just say everything is relative. With that kind of logic, we won't go anywhere. It's like saying someone who wants to commit suicide, should be allowed to do so, cause only his own opinion matters... right?

Like fat people too right?

Yes.

[EdMK]

The only way I can really express my feelings towards drugs in general is to point to the users and abusers. Sure, weed could be argued as "like alcohol, but better" and yet we only see teens smoking it to try and create some "cool" image of themselves? I'm a teenager myself, and no, not one of those basement-dwellers who only bitches because he knows he can never get laid, and I'm finding more and more peers and local teens who use all substances. It literally makes me feel ill. I'm one of those who believes life is sweet enough, I mean, we have alcohol already? Towards just marijuana though, legalising would generate more positive than negative, but drugs in general? Just gonna fuck people up, in my opinion.

[Warforger]

At 4/23/11 08:39 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:

At 4/23/11 08:30 PM, Warforger wrote: Like I said in some 4/20 thread, does this mean we should have a fat police where we closely monitor people's daily activity to make sure they've clocked in an appropiate amount of exercise? Or maybe limit how much fast food they can eat? Or how about we limit texting so that people don't hurt their hands as much? Or we go house to house and make sure there is a good distance between TV's and the viewer?

Why not? Well, forget the texting and that TV thing. It's far worst to take an ecstacy pill than to watch TV from too close. So let's stick to your first example. Fat people... I don't see why we should not stop people from doing stuff that will obviously harm them? I'm not talking about drinking a few beers, eating a Big Mac or smoking pot every once in a while. But what if you really hurt yourself?

Hurting yourself isn't the idea, hurting other people is.

Some countries have laws to restrict fast food restaurants from settling near elementary schools and high schools. And it would really crack me up, if there ever was some laws to prevent fat people from eating fast food. I can imagine it... anyone who weights over 300lbs wouldn't be allowed to buy a Big Mac...

Well that wouldn't cause it to stop them from getting fat, that would just mean that they'll have to eat alot more expensive food, because some fat people actually have a disease that causes addiction to food, it's genetic so it's not a lifestyle choice, it's theorized to be a leftover gene from the time where famines were rampant, if he had to eat more then he would survive longer.

Seriously... why not? The only reason you could be against this, is freedom of choice... But what if your choices are just bad?

Because it's relative, you could do something you think is right and someone else wrong.

In their own view. If you think you're doing fine then according to you, you are, and your opinion is the only one that matters when you're making decisions that effect only yourself.

You can't just say everything is relative. With that kind of logic, we won't go anywhere. It's like saying someone who wants to commit suicide, should be allowed to do so, cause only his own opinion matters... right?

Read: Decisions that effect only yourself. Suicide effects everyone around you so it doesn't really apply.

[HeavenDuff]

At 4/23/11 09:03 PM, Warforger wrote: Well that wouldn't cause it to stop them from getting fat, that would just mean that they'll have to eat alot more expensive food, because some fat people actually have a disease that causes addiction to food, it's genetic so it's not a lifestyle choice, it's theorized to be a leftover gene from the time where famines were rampant, if he had to eat more then he would survive longer.

I know, I was just making a comparison. I was in no way trying to say it's exactly the same. Still, it's the same with drugs. Some have addictions, and letting them fall into drugs, is not something we can call respecting "freedom of choice". Especially when you know that it's not a rationnal choice.

Because it's relative, you could do something you think is right and someone else wrong.

If it's relative, then why do we care about the respect for the safety of others? Your own preference for freedom for individuals is also relative.

As far as I'm concerned, we still have to live together and find proper ways to do so. That's why we have things like Geneva Convention... (or any other convetion for Human Rights... really). I know you can argue that it's not the same, cause Geneva Convention is to prevent one from harming another. But just try to understand my point of view. It's an ideology you are following, it's not all that relative. The fact that you believe the freedom of choice is more important than the health of individuals, just shows that you give more weight to someone's individual choice over rationnal behavior.

Everything is not "ok". If someone harms himself, I think that it's not only a right, but a duty to do so. Because it is irrationnal to harm yourself. Then again, I will just use the suicide argument... Is it okay to let someone who really just isn't in control over himself, kill himself?

Read: Decisions that effect only yourself. Suicide effects everyone around you so it doesn't really apply.

If someone dies from an heart-attack because he his too fat, it will affect others also.

[LazyDrunk]

At 4/23/11 09:14 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: As far as I'm concerned, we still have to live together and find proper ways to do so.

Fuck you I'd kill you if laws didn't protect your ass. Finding the proper way to live only means something when there's enough resources for everyone to get by without resorting to violence.

The government owns the drug trade. Google Minneapolis gang task force and the inability to convict any of those former law enforcement officers for downright fucking CORRUPTION.

Everything is not "ok". If someone harms himself, I think that it's not only a right, but a duty to do so. Because it is irrationnal to harm yourself. Then again, I will just use the suicide argument... Is it okay to let someone who really just isn't in control over himself, kill himself?

More so than locking them in a padded cell for the rest of their natural life.

If someone dies from an heart-attack because he his too fat, it will affect others also.

Having someone tell you what to eat affects the only person that really matters to anybody: yourself.

[HeavenDuff]

Shut the fuck up LazyDrunk

[LazyDrunk]

At 4/23/11 08:39 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Fat people... I don't see why we should not stop people from doing stuff that will obviously harm them?

Is that a question?

You are going to help pay somebody to moniter the eating habits of everyone? Your mother raised a fool.

I'm not talking about drinking a few beers, eating a Big Mac or smoking pot every once in a while. But what if you really hurt yourself?

Tough shit. Put on your big girl panties, soak up your tears and move on. People hurt themselves everyday, some more than others, and some for nobler causes. You're hurting yourself by posting on an internet forum that means shit-all to anybody who's somebody. If I hurt your feelings, do you know much it'll truly affect the world? If you died, for whatever reason, how much would it truly affect the world?

Enough to institute an Orwellian wetdream fantasy utopian cockfest? I think not.

Seriously... why not? The only reason you could be against this, is freedom of choice... But what if your choices are just bad?

Like religious affiliations or sexual preference. Bigot.

You can't just say everything is relative. With that kind of logic, we won't go anywhere.

Speak for yourself when you talk derisively.

It's like saying someone who wants to commit suicide, should be allowed to do so, cause only his own opinion matters... right?

His judgement, his opinion, his choice. Abortion is only one very, very small step away from suicide.

You didn't ask to be born. Neither did the guy who committed suicide.

Like fat people too right?

Yes.

Dumb ass.

[HeavenDuff]

As long as I see as SINGLE INSULT in your post, I'm not reading it. I'm not forcing shit over myself, have a good evening.

[LazyDrunk]

At 4/23/11 09:34 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: As long as I see as SINGLE INSULT in your post, I'm not reading it. I'm not forcing shit over myself, have a good evening.

Duly noted.

do what you must