Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

oops; "...or is it another..."
is is important.

At 10/7/11 12:09 PM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Gentleman, dodging the arugments and saying you're a troll doesn't work. What is your position on drugs now user? Is it a stark contrast from your 'druggie' insults from a year ago?

Here's your chance to prove you're not a troll.

When you want to post, step back and ask yourself a simple question. "Am I posting a coherent argument with both a set up and proof?" In other words "Would a random joe, just reading my specific post have any idea what I am talking about?"

You have two options. Either take your time and post coherently, or prove yourself to be the troll others have accused you of being.

From someone who rarely posts links to his cliche laden nonsense. I'm sorry but I don't there's "Average Joe" here. Like in that bullying thread, probably just a bunch of angst ridden users who are too fearful to express their politics anywhere but on a Flash forum.

At 10/7/11 12:19 PM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Better living through chemistry eh

damn straight; gotta make sure my glucose, thyroxine, antitrypsin and hydroxycholecalciferol doses are correct.

At 10/7/11 12:16 PM, SolInvictus wrote: speaking of which; has coca eradication been fair to those who use coca leaves culturally (not equivalent to cocaine), or [is it] another example of the ill-effects of the war on drugs?

I think it's another example of the ill-effects of the war on drugs, and it's a shame that people who have absolutely nothing to do with the drug trade or the cartels are being effected by it.

Well beware of the consequences there.. And from everything else too!

fearful

But not to say I wasn't like that. I had anxiety, I used to support the popular culture consensus reality views. My personality was more in line with the 'Average Joe'. (except Militant Atheist from primary school) Then I've had a bunch of experiences with things that altered my perception and now here I am. No fear. No more 'mental illness' if anxiety personality can be claimed that. No more ingesting things that make me physically ill. No more being on the receiving end of Perception Management. No more television.

Is that another deviation from what the "Average Joe" would say? I'll act like nothing ever happened to me and layoff that terminology. Eat some conventional food with hundreds of chemicals, made with chemical laden water! Some of it radioactive! Like cesium-137 from Japan! Stop it Troll! conform

I'm sorry, I'm just trying to help you. I may be trying to refine OP argument OR supporting the Drug War. Aristotle logic?

You make some excellent points Elfer, and I'd like to add to them.

If for some weird reason, if we legalized all drugs tomorrow, how many of us would go out and do heroin? How many of us would do heroin because it became legal? Absolutely-freaking-nobody because we all know it's a dangerous drug and a very stupid thing to do. This is Ron Paul's argument, and to that extent, I do agree on him. With the right amount of drug education (which, like sex education, I believe should be part of school curriculum, but that's a different topic completely) and parental advice (Again, draw parallels to sex education) people can be smart about their choice.

Consider also the effects on the political spectrum as well ending the War on Drugs. Liberals get more freedom around drug use. Conservatives get less government spending. That's a win-win right there, something very rare in today's government.

At 10/7/11 01:05 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: If for some weird reason, if we legalized all drugs tomorrow, how many of us would go out and do heroin? How many of us would do heroin because it became legal? Absolutely-freaking-nobody because we all know it's a dangerous drug and a very stupid thing to do.

i wonder if it would be reasonable to think some would stop doing some of the "softer" drugs if they were legal (or wouldn't have done them), if it wasn't an opportunity to "rebel."

Easy to say, but like in the case of Charlie Parker. He was prescribed opiates in a hospital and became addicted and went on to heroin. Since he was so cool others who looked up to him followed suite. Marijuana is obviously the gateway-drug. Since you adhere to the dearly beloved notion of "cool" who knows where it will take you.

At 10/7/11 01:05 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: You make some excellent points Elfer, and I'd like to add to them.

If for some weird reason, if we legalized all drugs tomorrow, how many of us would go out and do heroin? How many of us would do heroin because it became legal? Absolutely-freaking-nobody because we all know it's a dangerous drug and a very stupid thing to do. This is Ron Paul's argument, and to that extent, I do agree on him. With the right amount of drug education (which, like sex education, I believe should be part of school curriculum, but that's a different topic completely) and parental advice (Again, draw parallels to sex education) people can be smart about their choice.

Consider also the effects on the political spectrum as well ending the War on Drugs. Liberals get more freedom around drug use. Conservatives get less government spending. That's a win-win right there, something very rare in today's government.

Except that decriminalization or legalization aren't required to teach people about the dangers of drugs it just makes it easier for drug addicts to fuel their habit. If you read the article it says that those addicts who are caught can refuse treatment and they won't face any criminal charges or even placed in a facility Even with all the information out there about the dangers of these drugs and the governments attempts at scare tactics people still wind up doing drugs and becoming addicted. Even with legal drugs which are also dangerous and which the public has easy access to information about, people still use them. There might not be some explosion of drug users if drugs are decriminalized but that doesn't mean there won't be more drug use among those already using them. I'm all for treating addicts to stop them from using drugs but I don't agree that complete decriminalization is the fix all cure that some people seem to think it is.

At 10/7/11 11:06 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I have two responses to this.

First, you speak of penal deterrents to breaking the addiction. What about penal deterrents to start or upgrading an addiction?

This is, I think, the main point demonstrated by Portugal: Criminal charges are not an effective deterrent against people starting to use drugs. They haven't seen the uptick in drug use that people seem to believe will happen if drug use is no longer a criminal offense.

Second, at least in my county, much of the drug prosecution and punishments are meant to force the user into treatment. We have correctional centers, drug court, treatment packages and a bunch of other programs that are attached as conditions on to probation for drug offenses.

This still leaves people with a criminal record, which can act as a deterrent to seeking treatment on their own. There really doesn't seem to be a big upside to getting the criminal justice system involved.

At 10/7/11 01:47 PM, djack wrote: If you read the article it says that those addicts who are caught can refuse treatment and they won't face any criminal charges or even placed in a facility Even with all the information out there about the dangers of these drugs and the governments attempts at scare tactics people still wind up doing drugs and becoming addicted.

And that would be THEIR DECISION, not the state's. That's where the idea of social Darwinism comes in; if somebody is so far gone in their drug addiction that they would refuse the chance to get clean, why should the state force them to go to rehab? Let them overdose in the gutter somewhere, and use the money that the state would have spent forcing them to go to rehab on somebody who wants to go there and wants to get clean.

There might not be some explosion of drug users if drugs are decriminalized but that doesn't mean there won't be more drug use among those already using them.

Which is a valid point. Portugal is is just one country, and it is not without reason to assume that the results would be different from one country to another depending on cultural differences, especially going across the pond to the United States. However, I don't think it's reasonable to send someone to prison and ruining their lives for years to come for smoking a joint or having some cocaine on their person, either, and that's part of what decriminalization seeks to fix.

At 10/7/11 01:37 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i wonder if it would be reasonable to think some would stop doing some of the "softer" drugs if they were legal (or wouldn't have done them), if it wasn't an opportunity to "rebel."

No doubt. You also have to consider the social and cultural aspects of drug use. One of the notions of causal drug use is the idea of doing something "forbidden", even with legal drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes. Honestly, why do you think college kids want to get wasted otherwise? It's stupid to wake up in the morning, puke all over your clothes and a wicked headache. It's definitely a social/cultural aspect. Same thing with cigarettes. If you really wanted to get a high, why not smoke pot, which is a lot less chemicals and a better rush. Again, the notion of fighting against the man.

At 10/7/11 01:47 PM, djack wrote: Except that decriminalization or legalization aren't required to teach people about the dangers of drugs it just makes it easier for drug addicts to fuel their habit. If you read the article it says that those addicts who are caught can refuse treatment and they won't face any criminal charges or even placed in a facility Even with all the information out there about the dangers of these drugs and the governments attempts at scare tactics people still wind up doing drugs and becoming addicted. Even with legal drugs which are also dangerous and which the public has easy access to information about, people still use them. There might not be some explosion of drug users if drugs are decriminalized but that doesn't mean there won't be more drug use among those already using them. I'm all for treating addicts to stop them from using drugs but I don't agree that complete decriminalization is the fix all cure that some people seem to think it is.

I'm not claiming that legalization of all drugs is the miracle fix that we're all looking for. What I'm saying is that legalizing drugs does necessarily created more addicts because most people are smart about these things. Even with these "scare tactics" (which, as far as I'm concerned, are mostly and ironically about the two legal drugs, tobacco and alcohol) people are smart about illegal drugs. Sure, there'll still be addicts, but, as Sol said earlier and to a certain extent you can apply that same logic to "hard" drugs, it's because of the fact there's the notion that it's "rebellious" and thus a way to fight against the system.

I'm pretty sure most people do it to get high or "rush". A dopeamine release usually. Also pot is a plant containing many active drugs. Such as CBD, THC, other cannabinoids. Which is why marinol etc isn't quite the same. More active chemicals on top of chemicals that constitute the plant compared to a drug that is one chemical or something vodka which is just one too.

That's my problem, you people pick sides. Either/or then you allow those on "your side" to say the most ignorant things without calling them out.

At 10/7/11 08:20 AM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Let me guess you can't read any later where that was already mentioned and I responded to it. Are you completely clueless?

Troll

Refuted already. Please stay on the topic like I am doing. Try reading through it before posting. I am sorry that you live in fantasy land as indicated by others posts I addressed later. But if you want to play unfounded personal attacks I'll play ones that are founded you meme machine foul mouthed sexist twat. If your job is the one you claim then that is even more laughable.

At 10/8/11 10:14 AM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Refuted already. Please stay on the topic like I am doing.

No it's not, and no you're not.

Well let's see, 99.9% I made in this topic are ones involving the topic. The other ones are responses to attacks made on me. Which I never initiate. But oh somehow it's my fault. And your view of the territory or map to the point that you harm yourself upon each ingesting of everything. Not just drugs... What do you expect from being raised in a culture where you love "profit over your wellbeing". Would rather just buy video games and parrot slogans from disgusting internet pop culture.

At 10/8/11 11:45 AM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Not just drugs... What do you expect from being raised in a culture where you love "profit over your wellbeing". Would rather just buy video games and parrot slogans from disgusting internet pop culture.

What the hell are you even talking about?

I said you have a fantastical worldview. You ingest crapand in the case of that other user. Ingest drugs to treat your anxiety which is psychological. "Profit > Wellbeing" Instead of eating good you'll buy little simulations. Whacking it to airbrush because you live in fantasy world, the most beautiful world to you. "Parroting" thinks you've learned from 4chan.org or the General Forum. Might not be your case but certainly others who post in here.

first you get high, then you get addicted, then you get arrested, then you get detoxed and released with a criminal record that says "DO NOT HIRE THIS PERSON", and then take the 90% ineffective 12 step cult, then people act surprised when you relapse.

war on drugs working as intended.

while i still haven't been able to find an intelligible argument within any of your posts, you do bring up an important point relative to this discussion; what is well-being and how do we achieve it?
is it solely physilogical health; is keeping all your organs nice and shiny the most important pupose in life? is "profit" (i assume you mean pleasure gathered by various external means) paramount to our existence?

i honestly don't see how the first can be of sole importance without pleasure ("fulfillment" if you will), nor do i understand how the nature of pleasure is of importance (whether it is external or internal [i think the differentiation in itself is a crock]).

How are you talking to here? Try reading a dictionary then you might "achieve it"
"intelligle argument"
Do I need to tutor you through the wikis as seen in my initial post?
"Read this it in its entirety sonny"
Then read such 'readable' arguments as the one involving Parker or maybe the one addressing the "rebel" to get high, instead the mechanism of addiction is from dopamine release. But you think you have the willpower, much like you think your decisions are of your own autonomous choosing.

Thinking in either/or logic. It's either this or that

"nice and shiny"

Right with soap huh, I know. You people like being conned. While arguing "this is what society is!" like in that other topic. Yeah paramount to existence

Ok ok I've changed my mind, lets just say these are personal preference.

Just that yours is based moreso on selectively conveyed or denied

information to you by loving entities you rigourously defend. They know the

(health) implications but they're still good.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e n/wiki/Perception_management

That your speak of "shiny organs" and "paramounts to existence" isn't

intelligible to some.

Awareness cannot be increased and the way you think and act is all good.

Especially if it is attained by something like meditation. That's religus

and that's bad!
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e n/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

Which is why you'll use 'to be' language for obviously subjective things

such as movies, music, etc. This sucks! No I'm correct! Cortisol release

stress response time! The group of ideas of phenomena is right or wrong!

Never partly true or partly false!

I'm intent on getting the last word, I beleive I can do it by saying "This

is intelligible" "This is irrelevant" but not provide as reason as to why.

Reminds me of my old conservatively dressed neighbour who turned crack

addict. Or any 'highly intelligent' person becoming an addict
http://www.mediafire.com/?16bobbn8q7eba3 9

At 10/8/11 02:57 PM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Right with soap huh, I know. You people like being conned. While arguing "this is what society is!" like in that other topic. Yeah paramount to existence

Your schizophrenic writings are making me think you are much too invested in the subject matter to be useful here.

Too bad it isn't 'schizophrenic' fool. Prove otherwise, read a medical dictionary beforehand.

Also, the punishments we use (such as jail time) for things like weed creates criminals. Throwing normal people in an environment where they are surrounded by criminals puts them in a criminal mindsets and actually turns these people in to criminals themselves. This causes them to be MUCH more likely to be sent to jail again.

A very ineffective and expensive policy indeed.

Its pretty easy to chase the people against legalization of drugs in circles with these arguments, if you catch my drift.

At 10/10/11 01:00 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Its pretty easy to chase the people against legalization of drugs in circles with these arguments, if you catch my drift.

Sometimes in life, there are certain things that no amount of logic can overcome. These include, intuition, morals, and faith. Logic often cannot overcome these, and in many cases, it shouldn't. We are humans, not robots.

At 10/10/11 01:00 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Its pretty easy to chase the people against legalization of drugs in circles with these arguments, if you catch my drift.

Right, but the initial one is defectice and regards decriminalization where this type described in the article is "reduction" with cherry picked stats/surveys of little kids with no money that has dropped in value over the years. Then the later arguments were responded to but not responded back, because that is the mechanism of addiction. In one thread you go "love isn't real it's just chemicals" well these are just chemicals that alter your behavior based on ones that are endogenous. Like how people love chocolate, it produces endorphins.

Haven't chased anyone anywhere.