.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ouchdrummer.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="ouchdrummer:860370"][QUOTE="Conservationist:860363"][QUOTE="ouchdrummer:860345"]I honestly think you just play devil's advocate whenever no one's on a certain side of an argument for the sole purpose of having a debate. [/QUOTE] Well... "for the sole purpose of having a debate" is incomplete. And most people aren't going to appreciate the reasons why having a debate might be useful, so I'll stay quiet on that. However, there is also a practical dimension. I have smoked a shitload of weed, and seen both the good and the bad. The good is that it's fun -- anyone denying that is on drugs (errr... or something). The bad is that while you're high, often other opportunities are missed. And that's about the best summary I can give you. I don't think I'm pro-weed or anti-weed; what I'm against is a dominant paradigm that's inaccurate. If that ain't "third front," I don't know what is. [QUOTE="ouchdrummer:860346"]And I seriously don't understand the comment about how many heroin addicts his paychecks support, so if you wouldn't mind clarifying.[/QUOTE] It's a dual question. There are secondary consequences to drugs. For example, heroin addicts are not known for their ability to function. Exceptions tend to decrease over time. So they become non-working members of society who still need supporting. So the first part of the question is: if Lamp believes that the ONLY QUESTION of drug legalization is the individual taking the drug, I'm asking him how many heroin addicts he pays for, since they're going to have to get the money from somewhere. The second part of the question is what I'm asking others: people who are on drugs (of varied kinds, including alcohol) become inactive. Who's going to pay for that, and would we rather that income go to positive things, like paying for college for a deserving kid who wants more out of life than being fjucked up? Drugs are not a question of only the individual -- when you think about it, nothing really is.[/QUOTE] Ok. I appreciate your explaining your stance a little better, although i still have a couple questions for you. (you)Well... "for the sole purpose of having a debate" is incomplete. And most people aren't going to appreciate the reasons why having a debate might be useful, so I'll stay quiet on that. 1. Am I grouped in this "most people" category that you speak of? If not, would you mind elaborating for me? (you)what I'm against is a dominant paradigm that's inaccurate. 2. Could you tell me the "dominant paradigm" that your referring to? I don't think one was made by anyone in this conversation. (you)There are secondary consequences to drugs. For example, heroin addicts are not known for their ability to function. Exceptions tend to decrease over time. So they become non-working members of society who still need supporting. So the first part of the question is: if Lamp believes that the ONLY QUESTION of drug legalization is the individual taking the drug, I'm asking him how many heroin addicts he pays for, since they're going to have to get the money from somewhere. The second part of the question is what I'm asking others: people who are on drugs (of varied kinds, including alcohol) become inactive. Who's going to pay for that, and would we rather that income go to positive things, like paying for college for a deserving kid who wants more out of life than being fjucked up? 3.... and yet again you confuse me. I don't see how this is relevant. Heroin is illegal mind you, so it sounds like the point your making with this first paragraph is to say that tax payers shouldn't fund programs for rehabilitation, or programs to help people with drug problems survive. (which I disagree with because i see it as a disease... while being self inflicted, it's still near impossable to stop by yourself. And i think people with those kinds of problems should be helped. Even if they were to institute a series of laws that would make all treatment funded by the government a loan that would that the government would at least attempt to collect on. But i am a "fag" liberal so i don't expect you to agree with that.) But what does that have to do with legalization? I don't see how it applies since the "paying for treatment" situation would be the same with legal or illegal substances as it is for alcohol AND heroin. So where does the connection to this conversation come in? Maybe i am fucking nuts, or maybe i really don't understand all the big words you seem to love using so frequently, but in these last couple posts i feel like you say things that only loosely have to do with what's being talked about, and even then not in any way that would really have any bearing on whatever debated issue is at hand. [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.003 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][