3D Action Driving Game3.64 / 5.00 5,074 Views
A paranormal curse is killing students at a high school...and you're next.3.58 / 5.00 5,400 Views
Help CrazyDad turn off a pesky neon sign or he’ll go crazy!3.55 / 5.00 8,064 Views
At 10/19/11 07:23 PM, Xyphon202 wrote: 1. Theme parks
2. Video games
3. MP3 Players
5. Pretty much fucking ANYTHING you do that is entertaining and doesn't improve your physical shape.
Incorrect. You neglect to regard the first part of the statement: harmful. None of these things are inherently harmful. Drugs are.
Great, let's revert back to 1940 then.
No, let's get rid of the sources of death and harm in society, which are drugs like alcohol/tobacco etc.
At 10/19/11 07:29 PM, Suprememessage wrote: Alright, let's ban thinking, it doesn't benefit anyone, and it can be criminal thought, and it can be a waste of time if no conclusion is made. Seriously, how fucking stupid do you think we would have to be to ban things with that. That would be like bringing back the 1800s.
Incorrect, once again. Thinking is not empirically and specifically a harmful action. Consumption of drugs is empirically and specifically harmful both to the individual and to everybody who has to deal with that individual.
I don't see why everyone wants it legalized, it doesn't stop anyone now from using it for personal use and it'd only put dealers at a disadvantage.
At 10/19/11 08:44 PM, Xyphon202 wrote:No, let's get rid of the sources of death and harm in society, which are drugs like alcohol/tobacco etc.And firearms, any form of weapon, cars, electricity, basic tools, rope, and anything that can fall on you, oh yeah, and a WHOLE LOT of other shit.
Welp, looks like we're back before the wheel now.
I actually agree that firearms ought to be banned for general use. As for the other stuff, its positive use and intention far outstrips its negative use and intention. You guys sure love that slippery slope fallacy.
At 10/19/11 09:49 AM, frigi wrote:
It´s it time to ilegalize alcohol in a manner similar to marijuana?
Its only rape if you say no.
Say no to rape.
At 10/19/11 08:48 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: That makes me wonder why marijuana has medicinal uses and how alcohol has been shown to have beneficial effects on the body, especially on the heart.
Regardless of whether a marginal benefit is incurred, the social catastrophe that already exists as a result of their proliferation far outstrips the positive impacts you've outlined.
Drugs cause all of society's problems? That's simply not true.
That's your "all," not mine.
And I'll just repeat what I said earlier: marijuana and alcohol have actually been shown to have beneficial effects on the body when used correctly and in moderation.
And I'll repeat what I said earlier. Regardless of whether a marginal benefit is incurred, the social catastrophe that already exists as a result of their proliferation far outstrips the positive impacts you've outlined.
These drugs aren't even much of a threat to others who witness the people using them or are otherwise within the vicinity of them.
Inebriation, drunk driving, drug-abuse in general has harmed a ridiculous number of people, their families and their children. I dunno about you, but to me that's wrong, and allowing an industry to continue to make a profit off of the death of innocent people is messed up.
At 10/19/11 08:49 PM, Xyphon202 wrote: Stuff like positive use outstrips its negative use is well... Completely subjective. I could say that marijuana's positive use outstrips the negative use, and I do believe that to be so. Marijuana is entertaining and makes you happy. You are a bit disorientated but as long as you are responsible that is a non-issue. The long term effects are essentially nonexistent and the short term effects have almost no effect at all.
Responsibility is a moot point, because some people will always be irresponsible regardless of how much some responsibility guidelines are promoted. Those irresponsible and reckless ones, like drunk or inebriated drivers, will cause people to die, and I cannot countenance a system that allows that to occur without scrutiny and proactive measures.
At 10/19/11 11:01 AM, Rallard wrote: Saw on the news for the first time the majority of Americans feel weed should be legal and, as the reporter put it, it's an "all time high."
Actually it was 50%, I know this because I saw the same program and the same pun was said. I do agree that Cannabis should be legal though. Also, I'm pretty baked right now, so this is kind of amusing.
Yes, I originally joined in '07. What can i say? I missed you guys.
At 10/19/11 09:06 PM, Jedi-Master wrote:That's your "all," not mine."No, let's get rid of the sources of death and harm in society, which are drugs like alcohol/tobacco etc."
I sure don't see "all" in that sentence. Nor do I see an implication of it. The sources of death under discussion are drugs, though, which is what I was referring to, not any other sources of death. It's really nitpicky to focus on silly things like that -- do you really think I meant to say that drugs are responsible for every death in America? C'mon
Even if this is the case, that doesn't necessitate prohibition as the only answer and/or the best answer to the problem. People will just circumvent the law. History shows this to be true time and time again.
Precisely, they will circumvent the law, which is why those "harsher penalties" I spoke of earlier would be necessary to counter them.
Umm, these industries make a profit off of people with money and a will to buy their stuff. Those people who drive while drunk and do other dumb things are just being irresponsible, which is something that can be remedied by strongly encouraging moderation in consumption.
As stated before, this warning will go ignored, because people are stupid. This is why society requires protection by law enforcement; to keep the stupid people from killing themselves and their neighbors/children.
Oh sure, there may always be people who will be irresponsible, but if society were to instill the idea, to the best of its ability, that moderation of consumption is more ideal, then the overwhelming majority of people will be responsible, and that's all that matters.
I am utterly positive that there is no empirical proof of this since it has never been attempted. I personally can't see it working. It's a matter of opinion, though, until somebody does a study on it.
And with regard to drug abuse, we should not punish these people harshly. Rather, we should try to rehabilitate them. Harsh punishments help no one and don't make addicts stop using and abusing their drug(s) of choice.
Oh I absolutely agree with rehabilitation. That should always be our first measure. But as we are all aware, recidivism is quite common amongst abusers. For those who repeatedly violate the safety of our society by consuming drugs, there should be harsher penalties to discourage it.
At 10/19/11 09:04 PM, Xyphon202 wrote: Then you are being contradictory to your earlier statement where you said that the things I listed should not be banned. What if I take a car and kill people when I'm NOT under the influence of anything? Then should cars be banned because some people are irresponsible? What if I am using a power tool and kill someone by mistake out of irresponsibility? Now should that be banned? Think for a minute, and realize what you are saying.
Nah, I've said pretty consistently that the intention and use of these other items is positive, whereas drug usage is inherently negative (destroys mental and physical health of individual & family/acquaintances). The possibility that a car or a person may become involved in an accident is the product of chance -- a chance which is exponentially increased by the consumption of drugs. Using these everyday "risky" items is not inherently wrong, and in doing so everybody accepts the possibility that an accident may occur. However, using dangerous items in combination with drugs is inherently wrong. The fact that people are able to do this is wrong as well.
My dealer isn't gonna like this, but I am. Haha.
Naw I don't even skoke that much anymore.
At 10/19/11 08:41 PM, Bolo wrote:
with that individual.
But tobacco is harmful and it's legal, Marijuana isn't nearly as harmful, yet it's illegal.
Ecchi first, ask questions never.
At 10/19/11 09:28 PM, Xyphon202 wrote: The intention of consuming drugs is positive, it is to feel happy and feel good, and marijuana has very minor side effects. If you want to get into the fact that yes, all drugs have negative side effects, we can start looking at even more things that help us with side effects.
Drugs are inherently mind-altering which we have already established is the precursor to mental and physical damage both to the abuser and to his immediate friends/family or anybody who comes into contact with him while he is being reckless/irresponsible.
Calculators: They help us preform tasks with ease and are essential to our society. Oh wait! They take away part of our logical thinking and ability to solve problems on our own. And so does the REST of technology.
This is an invalid comparison, though. Calculators are tools that operate rationally, within a set of rules that bind them and allow for a very logical advantage in informational processing. Drug usage involves an imposition of irrational thought and decreased ability to perform tasks, as well as a mental and physical degradation, on an already irrational human brain. You can't equate the biological with the technological in this respect.
Cars: They help us get places faster and are essential to our society. Oh wait! They are economically hurtful to each person using them as gas is expensive, and is also hurtful to our economy. So, why do we drive cars if it costs so damn much? Well, we are willing to live with the side effects because to us, the positives outweigh the negatives. Same with calculators. I'd rather be able to preform math quickly and efficiently then know how to find out how the Sin function on my calculator is actually done (I know the basics, I just never went into too much of it).
This is also an invalid comparison, as cars and calculators (as previously stated by the way) are not inherently harmful devices. Drugs are empirically proven as health destroyers and people destroyers.
So, if people are willing to live with the side effects of marijuana, who are you to say that they can't? Let's get into things that cause deaths now why don't we! Apparently marijuana causes deaths with irresponsibility. And so do CARS. So you can't use that as an argument anymore, deaths of other people is now completely debunked because even without marijuana these deaths could still happen if someone is irresponsible.
I say they can't abuse drugs because their actions harm others. Simple as that.
The fact that people are able to do this is wrong as well.Oh yes, the fact that there is some sort of freedom in our world.
Oh dear, not freedom!
Freedom to kill is pretty awesome, apparently.
This will not work, the government listens little to these things. If we want to change the way things are run we have to change it ourselves through more brash means. And not just 100 people... thousands.
At 10/19/11 11:49 AM, 123mine123 wrote: NO!!!!
Marijuana is a dangerous drug and should only be used when the doctor sez so because of your health problems!!!!!
TAKE THIS PETITION DOWN!!!(
are you sure about that? cause alcohol is just bad but it's the person that makes it dangerous
"if you're ever getting buttfucked go with scarlet velvet " - Bantam
At 10/19/11 09:46 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: You said the sources of death and harm in society, which are drugs like alcohol/tobacco etc." You are directly asserting that all harm and every death is the result of drugs.
We've been discussing drugs as the sources of death. Not any other sources of death. The introduction of red herrings like that is merely a distraction to the argument.
No matter what context that statement was made in, it was pretty unequivocal that you stated that drugs cause all deaths and are the source of all harm in society. I have the quote to prove it.
You have a quote that does not contain the word "all" and pretty clearly refers to the sources of death being discussed in this topic. Like drugs, this is a waste of my time.
This didn't work in the Era of Prohibition in the U.S.
Again, that was the 1920s. I'd like to see it tried again.
And it's not working all that much now. I have had quite a few friends who smoke weed and I know people who still do. Guess what? They're not likely to spend anytime in prison unless they do something stupid to get themselves caught.
Not enough resources dedicated to it. In order to deter usage, you gotta go all in.
And your idea of "harsher penalties" isn't really a good idea. First, it's already nearly impossible to enforce these drug laws. My weed-smoking friends are testimony to that fact. Why aren't they in jail now? Because it's not too difficult to circumvent these particular laws and avoid apprehension. "Harsher penalties" won't catch these people in the act; "harsher penalties" only deal with them after they've already been caught, and police aren't omnipresent, which is why drug laws are so difficult to enforce.
Enforcement is lax, that's why. Increase the level of enforcement, get people to turn on drug abusers for cash rewards.
Second, "harsher penalties" will simply overcrowd the prisons, which I've been saying repeatedly to you, yet you ignore this fact. Unless your idea of harsher penalties does not entail jail time, then you're going to have to rethink your stance on this issue. Harsher penalties don't deter most criminals from doing anything once or even twice. Why do you think the jail systems in the U.S. are referred to as "revolving doors"? Most offenders commit the same crime or a similar crime after they are released. They are not at all deterred by harsher punishments.
Again, as I've stated countless times, prisons are not at all part of the solution I'm proposing.
People are stupid? Why do you have such a contemptuous view of others?
And forgive me for asking, but are you any smarter? I don't mean to offend you. I'm just asking.
I don't kill people by practicing destructive habits, so I guess you can judge for yourself.
Yeah, but prohibition won't effectively deter people from doing stupid things like that.
I think with the right policies, it definitely could.
And I am utterly positive that there is no empirical proof that prohibition has ever worked, because it's been tried before and didn't work.
Not enough incentive in the 1920s to get people to stop. So let's give them some this time.
This is the way things are in many jurisdictions. It's not working.
Precisely why a change in the concept of enforcement is required.
At 10/19/11 09:41 PM, Xyphon202 wrote: And what if I think that the positives outweigh the negatives? Am I wrong? Nope, it's subjective.
Nah, death and health degradation is actually the most negative side effect that exists, and it is inherently linked with drug abuse.
Yes I can. The point was that we use many things in our day to day life that have negative side effects.
But what you ignore is that their positives vastly outweigh their negatives. It simply cannot be said that that the vast majority of people who use calculators or cars on a very regular basis experience a negative effect on health. The same cannot be said of drug abusers on the whole, who do experience a negative effect on health, and may even cause death for some people as a result of their actions.
They aren't inherently harmful, but the use of them are. Gas costs are harmful, lack of logical thought(calculators) is harmful. Marijuana is not harmful if it's just there, but the use of it is.
Lack of logical thought is not physically and mentally destructive -- humans survived for thousands of years without calculators after all. Cars are not inherently physically and mentally destructive -- 99% of the people who use cars use them freely and without harm. People who abuse drugs on the other hand, by putting smoke in their lungs, alcohol in their bloodstreams, any sort of altered mental or physical state induced unnaturally like that for recreational purposes, experience a much less rosy outlook, and their endangerment of society is unconscionable.
You can't judge if someone's actions harm others without seeing them do so. Maybe you should need a license to use these things, and then when you do something wrong, it is taken away. People who can drive have the ability to harm others, but that doesn't mean it should be banned, because they could always well.. Not harm others. The right is only taken away if they do harm others.
There are literally thousands of cases of drunk driving, drunk abuse, drunk this/that, smoky environments for young children, strung-out addict parents screwing up childrens' lives. I'd say that's a pretty concrete thing, and needs to be addressed.
Don't put words in my mouth, I'm just saying that freedom to smoke marijuana is not a big deal.
Well, the discussion here is much larger than just marijuana. We're talking all drugs, and have been for a while. The ability of marijuana to induce an altered mental state exists too, though the immediate threat is less severe.
At 10/19/11 10:06 PM, Xyphon202 wrote: There are literally millions and millions deaths per year due to car accidents.
Let's not pull facts out of our asses.
Number of motor vehicle deaths in the US by year. That's in the US only though. About 33,000 last year. There were 671 million cars being driven in the world in 1996. Hard to find the number of these that were in the US, that year, but in 2008, 256 million were from the US. The number of vehicles has obviously gone up, but the number of fatalities since 1996 has gone down quite a bit. So let's say that the US comprises between 1/3 and 1/2 of the world's cars. This would lead at most 100,000 deaths per year worldwide due to car accidents.
At 10/19/11 11:03 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Don't you guys already have a big enough unemployment and poverty problem? Why would you want to increase those?
if people could be high in public legally they could go to work and use that shit to concentrate on ofice work and shits
At 10/19/11 09:49 AM, frigi wrote: Legalize and Regulate Marijuana in a Manner Similar to Alcohol.
LOL. As if the world isn't fucked enough already, that's just what we need, zombie food.
i like how neither the OP nor anyone else in this thread has stated that this site has been done before with the exact same results a year ago, with marijuana legalization getting the most votes and obama literally just laughed away then made legislation to hurt medical MJ
this site is months old, the top petitions are about weed and aliens. nothings going to happen, it's an online petition
The day pot is legalized across the U.S is the day the four fuckin' horsemen shove swords up all our asses.
DON'T FUCKING TOUCH SWORDS! - Tripp Fisk
MY NAME IS BADASS! - NedSchneebly
At 10/19/11 10:42 PM, Boss wrote:At 10/19/11 11:03 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: Don't you guys already have a big enough unemployment and poverty problem? Why would you want to increase those?if people could be high in public legally they could go to work and use that shit to concentrate on ofice work and shits
Alcohol and Weed alters your ability to think and work, that is why people are not allowed to do either at or before work. Illegality is a very small part of why people get fired for having marijuana in their system aside those caught in a random blood test (which those would increase by the way).
Before you make the argument about cigarettes...
Smokes do not (drastically) alter your ability to think or work unlike Weed and Alcohol. That is why they are allowed by most businesses today.
At 10/19/11 06:13 PM, Timchik wrote:At 10/19/11 06:01 PM, 420SWED wrote:I find it sad that I expected you to post here.At 10/19/11 09:56 AM, ValkyrieCommander wrote: I've seen that petition on 4chan before. In fact I'm half sure there was already a topic about it on here.wth is 4chan?
I might be wrong though.
dont worry as do i. but seriously wtf is 4chan.
also im from canada and i even signed that funny how they would count me.
i will form my foot in your ass!
Imagine if instead of having to chop someones head off for screwing up a delivery of drugs you could just sue him? Wow think of the possibilities, and all the drive byes slowly melting away. K maybe not that drastic but seriously has anybody thought about that?
I sometimes doubt it, most lawmakers are too narrow minded and sucked into a dogmatic lifestyle of religion to truly give a shit about what's best for the country. They believe that if they were to make the country more like what Jesus wants it would be good for everybody, which is total horse shit because religion is about control not freedom, but that's been flamed over millions of times in general.
I signed it, and honestly you ought to pull your heads out of your asses and wipe the shit out of your mouths if you don't think it should be legal. Cuz all I'm hearing is a bunch of shit.
At 10/20/11 01:50 AM, psychicpebble wrote: Signed,
Brace for mad taxation.
What, did you think the government would pass this drug without taxing the everlasting living shit out of it? No - you're dead wrong if you didn't.
Taxation on tobacco and alcohol is already intense. Such a heavily disputed product, however, will without a doubt be more than a little pricey due to taxes alone. The Christian social stigma accusing it as the Devil's Drug does not overpower the potential money well that this can craft for the federal government and the nation as a whole. :3
At 10/19/11 08:48 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: And I'll just repeat what I said earlier: marijuana and alcohol have actually been shown to have beneficial effects on the body when used correctly and in moderation.
Inhaling hot smoke in your lungs can be beneficial? Damn lol.