Drugs

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by danoff
M5

Personal attacks seem to be a common theme on this forum. I’d like to address your most prominent points.

I didn't make any personal attacks. The only personal comment to you was based on your wacky reasoning.

Please back this statement up with some supporting evidence other than... I am not swayed by that claim and you shouldn't let yourself be.

How about this: I don't, and sit here and laugh at your radical belief that legalised drugs will cause less people to drive while under their effect. At least nobody can accuse you of being objective.

Also, you seem to have dismissed my point that police would be freed up to perform more important duties. I would like for you to consider it further.

Marijuana use is hard to detect at a roadside checkpoint or stop. Much harder than alcohol. Besides, it won't free up any police to do anything. We're not going to legalise all drugs, so there'd still be drug police officers, and we'd need more traffic officers to deal with the rise in DWI. Although wait - there would be no rise in DWI. My mistake.

Is not going to convince me that freeing up the coast guard (and a lot of the government money in the coast gaurd) to serve as police or in the military would not be useful.

People don't join the coast guard to drive Crown Victorias on land and pull over suspicious rental cars.

Exactly how am I spinning anything. Please explain that statement.

Wasn't it you who asked me for proof that legalisation of drugs would cause more people do drive while on drugs? And wasn't it you who doesn't blame alcohol for DUI?

YES. I DO. They’re caused by people. Liquor sits in a bottle and does nothing. People (not liquor ok?) go out and drive and kill other people. How can you miss that?

So then what's the point of discussing this with you? You're beliefs are so radical that you actually believe that if alcohol didn't exist, there'd still be DUI deaths (because liquor sits in a bottle and does nothing - it's people, remember?).

You only addressed that small snippet of what I said because my reasoning on drunk driving (especially next to your gun control analogy) is so clear and obvious (both alcohol and people are at fault) that all rational people agree - you're clearly irrational on this issue.

Who is really to blame here? The alcohol, people who drink alcohol responsibly, or the people doing the killing? Think about the gun analogy more and restrict it to guns only. Without guns, nobody would be shot… does that mean guns kill people? NO. People kill people.

I'll explain it again. Without guns, people would not be shot. But a murderer who would've had a gun has replaced it with a knife or something. People will still die by murderers. Meanwhile, without alcohol, THERE WILL BE NO DRINK DRIVING DEATHS. None. Do you honestly not see the connection between alcohol and DUI deaths?

 

[Danoff]

I'll get to most of that later. I want to make one point quickly though.

You're missing the point. I didn't say that there would be DUI deaths without alcohol. I said that people were to blame for DUI deaths. How can alcohol be to blamed for anything? It's an inanimate object. The people are still responsible. Alcohol can bear no responsability.

And you're still missing the gun control analogy. Without guns, there would be no SHOOTINGS. But guns are not to blame for SHOOTINGS.

I don't know if I can make it clearer than that.

 

[Danoff]

I think I thought of a way to make it clearer than that.

You have said that without alcohol, DUI's would not happen. The conclusion is that alcohol is responsible for DUI's. Well, without a car, DUI's would not happen. Why then is the car not at fault? Perhaps we should make all cars illegal to prevent DUI's.

The problem here is that a car can't be at fault because it doesn't have any choice in what it does. Doesn't have a brain. Neither does alcohol.

So the person with the brain is at fault. The moron who decides to drive while loaded. If this person is incapable of controling his/her self while loaded, this person should then not decide to get loaded.

So the conclusion here is that cars and alcohol are not at fault for drunk driving even though without them drunk driving could not occur.

 

[ledhed]

I doubt if any drink could get FDA approval . Alchohol is a drug , caffien is a drug etc . etc. we could all make arguments for and against any particular drug or poison as it may be. The bottom line should be left to the individual. You should be free to chose to use your body in any way you chose to as long as you accept the responsibility for your actions. why is it ok to get drunk legally and not ok to smoke pot and get high ? The whole history in the U. S. of our drug laws are full of contradictions. We banned alchohol but allowed cocain and morphine use during prohibition. We banned opium because we were afraid of the chinese using it to steal white women. We outlawed pot because we were afraid black people were using it to steal white women. Drugs must be womens fault. Drug laws for the most part are a drain on society. sending someone to prison for ten years for having pot on his person is a rational thing to do ? To put it in perspective manslaughter will get you ten years. The prisons are full of drug users learning the higher criminal arts, and we are all paying for it. With more than just money.

 

[DGB454]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Then what about alcohol? It's already illegal to drive under the influence... so by your logic, the next step is to make alcohol consumption illegal as well.

Driving while intoxicated is driving while intoxicated, no matter what the intoxicant is.

I agree.


I can't stop idiots from driving drunk because law says they can drink and bars encourage people to drive when drunk. But I can help to keep more drugs from being legal .

 

[Danoff]

DGB 454

I can't stop idiots from driving drunk because law says they can drink and bars encourage people to drive when drunk. But I can help to keep more drugs from being legal.

This is true, you have direct control (through voting) over whether or not additional drugs become legal and indirect control over drunk drivers (police).

What you’re saying is that fundamentally you don’t trust people. You don’t trust drug users not to drive and you don’t trust police to be able to apprehend wreckless drivers to a sufficient degree that people are discouraged from driving high. So you have decided that you’re in favor of restricting everyone’s rights so that you don’t have to trust people and the police to behave themselves and do their jobs respectively.

What’s the difference with guns?

People get shot with guns. You don’t have control over what people do with their guns, but you do have control over whether or not it is legal to own a gun. Therefore you can prevent people from legally obtaining guns. So you must be in favor of strict gun control.

Also, you’d have to want to restrict alcohol. You can vote in such a manner as to attempt to bring about prohibition. If you can’t trust people to not drive drunk, and can’t trust police to do a good job of taking care of the problem, then you can’t want alcohol to be legal.

How about knives? People get stabbed every year by the thousands. Police aren’t able to stop them all. Therefore if we got rid of all sharp objects, fewer people might get stabbed.

What about cars? People kill other people with cars - people who aren’t even drunk at the time. The police can’t catch them all doing wreckless things in time to discourage them from driving the way they are. We end up with a bunch of innocent people killed by morons behind the wheel. If cars were illegal, fewer people would get killed by them. Therefore cars should be legal.

What about life? People are alive all the time and eventually die. If fewer people were alive, fewer people would get killed by it. Therefore we should prevent new babies from being born and bring about the extinction of humankind.


Tell me what is wrong with the following argument that I have been illustrating with the examples above:

Making drugs legal might kill a few more people on the road (might, not even necessarily). People get killed by other people all the time and we cannot restrict personal freedoms enough to prevent those people from dying. We must rely on police and trust that the majority of citizens will behave themselves. Personal freedoms = innocent death. The funny thing is, lack of personal freedoms = innocent death too. It’s uncontrollable. So why restrict personal rights in a vein attempt to prevent wrongdoing?

 

[Duke]

Unfortunately, not enough people understand the concept of "slippery slope" as it applies to logic.

 

[milefile]

I think some people have a bias against "drugs" in general. And I think DGB might be one, or maybe not.

But some people think drugs and they think of Cheech and Chong and incomprehensible dunderheads laughing at nothing like Beavis and Butthead. They think of Spicolli tumbling out of his van at school in a cloud of pot smoke. And they assume that's what everybody will turn into.

I smoked for ten years almost every day and I got up at 5:30 and went to work, got married and bought a house and paid my bills and lived a decent responsible life. No I can't say there wasn't any negatives, but I can say there were none that would've affected DGB, even if he was my next door neighbor. And he would never have even known. In fact, I think most people would be surprised to find out how many people they know who are recreational drug users. Ones who wear it on their arm like it's something to be proud of are idiots and would be with or without drugs and are easy to pick out.

And the personal/existential negatives involved are simply out of the realm of government. People form their own lives and make their own decisions.

 

[Danoff]

M5

I didn't make any personal attacks. The only personal comment to you was based on your wacky reasoning.

You effectively called me an idiot by claiming that I was drunk while writing this. Whatever, just try to keep things on the level of facts and logic. It makes for a much nicer conversation. Otherwise I retaliate and you retaliate and we end up insulting each other all day.

How about this: I don't, and sit here and laugh at your radical belief that legalised drugs will cause less people to drive while under their effect. At least nobody can accuse you of being objective.

Nobody can accuse ME of being objective? You’re the one who’s refusing to engage in a factual discussion. I’m happy to hear other points of view. You’re claiming that you don’t have to back anything you say up – that you can rest your case on itself.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I couldn’t care less how many people agree with me. That doesn’t make me an more wrong. And the number of people who agree with you doesn’t make you right. I’m not going to believe whatever you say because you say that many others agree with you. If people did that throughout history, there would never have been any progress.

So indulge me and do yourself a favor and actually try analyzing your position and presenting some facts about your claims that the numbers will certainly go up. I’d love to hear it. If you can’t do that, you really have no business making claims.

Marijuana use is hard to detect at a roadside checkpoint or stop. Much harder than alcohol. Besides, it won't free up any police to do anything. We're not going to legalise all drugs, so there'd still be drug police officers, and we'd need more traffic officers to deal with the rise in DWI. Although wait - there would be no rise in DWI. My mistake.

Why wouldn’t we legalize all drugs? That’s what I’m advocating. So there would be no drug police officers other than those looking for drugged up driving and minors with drugs.

Also, I’m not claiming that there would be no rise in DWI. I said there probably would. I said, no listen carefully because you’ve missed this a few times, you cannot guarantee that there would be a rise in DWI. You can site reasons why it would go up (though you haven’t) and I can site reasons why it would stay the same or even go down.

Marijuana use is hard to detect at a roadside checkpoint? Fascinating. So what? If they can’t find anything wrong with the person’s driving, let them drive. You’re also forgetting that there doesn’t need to be any proof of drug use to pull someone over. You can be pulled over for wreckless driving.

People don't join the coast guard to drive Crown Victorias on land and pull over suspicious rental cars.

Missed the point again. Some of the MONEY used to fund the coast guard would could then be used to fund police. That means more jobs for police and fewer for the coast guard and whatever other services are involved with drug interdiction.

Wasn't it you who asked me for proof that legalisation of drugs would cause more people do drive while on drugs? And wasn't it you who doesn't blame alcohol for DUI?

I fail to see how that is a spin on anything. I’m obviously missing something. Please explain in more detail.

You only addressed that small snippet of what I said because my reasoning on drunk driving (especially next to your gun control analogy) is so clear and obvious (both alcohol and people are at fault) that all rational people agree - you're clearly irrational on this issue.

Citing facts that you can’t back up is irrational. What I’m doing is actually discussing the issue rather than running away from it. I don’t see how that is irrational.

You’re never going to convince anyone of anything by claiming that your arguments are clear and obvious. So don’t bother making the claim.

Also, I believe I have addressed everything you said. Please point me toward the points that you have made that I haven’t addressed. I’m pretty sure that almost everything you type ends up in one of my posts eventually. I’m trying to do a thorough job about that, but let me know if I missed anything.

What’s wrong with what I’m saying? Why do you think that legalization of drugs will cause an increase in DUI’s? The people who are doing drugs now are the same ones who will be doing drugs after their legalization, and they’ll drive just as much as they do now. Oh but wait, we’ll have more police officers to take care of that.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by danoff
I'll get to most of that later. I want to make one point quickly though.

You're missing the point. I didn't say that there would be DUI deaths without alcohol. I said that people were to blame for DUI deaths. How can alcohol be to blamed for anything? It's an inanimate object. The people are still responsible. Alcohol can bear no responsability.

And you're still missing the gun control analogy. Without guns, there would be no SHOOTINGS. But guns are not to blame for SHOOTINGS.

I don't know if I can make it clearer than that.

By your fourth-grade 'logic:' If alcohol is not to blame for driving under its influence, and people are the ONLY things you can blame, then people - the only things you can blame - would still drive under the influence of alcohol if there is no alcohol. Because people are to blame for DUI, so all you need for DUI is people. Since they're the only things you can blame.

Same logic - if guns are not to blame for shootings, then people are the ones shooting. Take a gun out of the equation, and people will still shoot people, only with some other object, though I'm unsure what.

I think I thought of a way to make it clearer than that.

You have said that without alcohol, DUI's would not happen. The conclusion is that alcohol is responsible for DUI's. Well, without a car, DUI's would not happen. Why then is the car not at fault? Perhaps we should make all cars illegal to prevent DUI's.

The problem here is that a car can't be at fault because it doesn't have any choice in what it does. Doesn't have a brain. Neither does alcohol.

So the person with the brain is at fault. The moron who decides to drive while loaded. If this person is incapable of controling his/her self while loaded, this person should then not decide to get loaded.

So the conclusion here is that cars and alcohol are not at fault for drunk driving even though without them drunk driving could not occur.

The car is not the catalyst. Alcohol and people COMBINED are the catalyst.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by danoff
M5


You effectively called me an idiot by claiming that I was drunk while writing this. Whatever, just try to keep things on the level of facts and logic. It makes for a much nicer conversation. Otherwise I retaliate and you retaliate and we end up insulting each other all day.

Again, based on your strange logic.

Nobody can accuse ME of being objective? You’re the one who’s refusing to engage in a factual discussion. I’m happy to hear other points of view. You’re claiming that you don’t have to back anything you say up – that you can rest your case on itself.

You're right - I'm the one who's claiming that people alone drive under the influence. No, no - that's you.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I couldn’t care less how many people agree with me. That doesn’t make me an more wrong. And the number of people who agree with you doesn’t make you right. I’m not going to believe whatever you say because you say that many others agree with you. If people did that throughout history, there would never have been any progress.

Oh, okay.

So indulge me and do yourself a favor and actually try analyzing your position and presenting some facts about your claims that the numbers will certainly go up. I’d love to hear it. If you can’t do that, you really have no business making claims.

I would, but you're too immersed in your own viewpoint to consider mine. Since facts would take time to find, I'd prefer to share them with somebody open-minded. I know you're comeback: I'm not open-minded. Well, I've got reasons. I'm unsure of yours.

Why wouldn’t we legalize all drugs? That’s what I’m advocating. So there would be no drug police officers other than those looking for drugged up driving and minors with drugs.

The day we legalise ecstasy will be the day I flee the country. That drug is very simply a killer. If you're proposing its legalisation, let's let the conversation stop right here.

Marijuana use is hard to detect at a roadside checkpoint? Fascinating. So what? If they can’t find anything wrong with the person’s driving, let them drive. You’re also forgetting that there doesn’t need to be any proof of drug use to pull someone over. You can be pulled over for wreckless driving.

Acura.

Marijuana use is hard to detect based on somebody's breath or ability to do roadside tests. It's not hard to detect based on actions while driving.

Missed the point again. Some of the MONEY used to fund the coast guard would could then be used to fund police. That means more jobs for police and fewer for the coast guard and whatever other services are involved with drug interdiction.

No, no - this is a direct quote:

freeing up the coast guard (and a lot of the government money in the coast gaurd) to serve as police or in the military would not be useful.

That's "freeing up the coast guard to serve as police." Not "taking money from the coast guard to give to police.

Citing facts that you can’t back up is irrational. What I’m doing is actually discussing the issue rather than running away from it. I don’t see how that is irrational.

They faked the moon landing in Joshua Tree. Bastards.

You’re never going to convince anyone of anything by claiming that your arguments are clear and obvious. So don’t bother making the claim.

Remember that shark who was alone in her tank since her birth and had a baby shark? That shark was the second coming of Jesus.

What’s wrong with what I’m saying? Why do you think that legalization of drugs will cause an increase in DUI’s? The people who are doing drugs now are the same ones who will be doing drugs after their legalization, and they’ll drive just as much as they do now. Oh but wait, we’ll have more police officers to take care of that.

You're right - when we legalise all (that's "all") drugs, the only people who will purchase them will be the ones doing the drugs now. No new people will try them.

 

[DGB454]

Originally posted by danoff
DGB 454


This is true, you have direct control (through voting) over whether or not additional drugs become legal and indirect control over drunk drivers (police).

What you’re saying is that fundamentally you don’t trust people. You don’t trust drug users not to drive and you don’t trust police to be able to apprehend wreckless drivers to a sufficient degree that people are discouraged from driving high. So you have decided that you’re in favor of restricting everyone’s rights so that you don’t have to trust people and the police to behave themselves and do their jobs respectively.

What’s the difference with guns?

People get shot with guns. You don’t have control over what people do with their guns, but you do have control over whether or not it is legal to own a gun. Therefore you can prevent people from legally obtaining guns. So you must be in favor of strict gun control.

Also, you’d have to want to restrict alcohol. You can vote in such a manner as to attempt to bring about prohibition. If you can’t trust people to not drive drunk, and can’t trust police to do a good job of taking care of the problem, then you can’t want alcohol to be legal.

How about knives? People get stabbed every year by the thousands. Police aren’t able to stop them all. Therefore if we got rid of all sharp objects, fewer people might get stabbed.

What about cars? People kill other people with cars - people who aren’t even drunk at the time. The police can’t catch them all doing wreckless things in time to discourage them from driving the way they are. We end up with a bunch of innocent people killed by morons behind the wheel. If cars were illegal, fewer people would get killed by them. Therefore cars should be legal.

What about life? People are alive all the time and eventually die. If fewer people were alive, fewer people would get killed by it. Therefore we should prevent new babies from being born and bring about the extinction of humankind.


Tell me what is wrong with the following argument that I have been illustrating with the examples above:

Making drugs legal might kill a few more people on the road (might, not even necessarily). People get killed by other people all the time and we cannot restrict personal freedoms enough to prevent those people from dying. We must rely on police and trust that the majority of citizens will behave themselves. Personal freedoms = innocent death. The funny thing is, lack of personal freedoms = innocent death too. It’s uncontrollable. So why restrict personal rights in a vein attempt to prevent wrongdoing?

Drugs are mind altering. Guns are not mind altering. Life itself is not mind altering. Cars are not mind altering. Knifes aren't mind altering.

If bars were all closed it wouldn't bother me. They encourage drunk driving. Unless of course you live within walking distance of one or you know of one that delivers.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by DGB454
Drugs are mind altering. Guns are not mind altering.

Guns are mind splattering.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by milefile
Guns are mind splattering.

Nice, I liked it.

 

[DGB454]

Originally posted by milefile
I think some people have a bias against "drugs" in general. And I think DGB might be one, or maybe not.

But some people think drugs and they think of Cheech and Chong and incomprehensible dunderheads laughing at nothing like Beavis and Butthead. They think of Spicolli tumbling out of his van at school in a cloud of pot smoke. And they assume that's what everybody will turn into.

I smoked for ten years almost every day and I got up at 5:30 and went to work, got married and bought a house and paid my bills and lived a decent responsible life. No I can't say there wasn't any negatives, but I can say there were none that would've affected DGB, even if he was my next door neighbor. And he would never have even known. In fact, I think most people would be surprised to find out how many people they know who are recreational drug users. Ones who wear it on their arm like it's something to be proud of are idiots and would be with or without drugs and are easy to pick out.



And the personal/existential negatives involved are simply out of the realm of government. People form their own lives and make their own decisions.

Milefile.
Youre right. I do have a bias against drugs. I also did them for years and I know what they can do. I know how they can distort a persons reasoning. I have nothing against people who were like you were and used them at home and didn't hit the road with them but I know that there will be people doing just that. It's inevitable. It happens with alcahol and it would happen with drugs.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, here we go. I’ll try to sift through this.

You're right - when we legalise all (that's "all") drugs, the only people who will purchase them will be the ones doing the drugs now. No new people will try them.

Well I think that’s pretty close. Do people really not do drugs because they are illegal? I think it has more to do with not wanting to do drugs. How many people do you know personally who wish they could do cocaine if it were only legal.

They faked the moon landing in Joshua Tree. Bastards…. Remember that shark who was alone in her tank since her birth and had a baby shark? That shark was the second coming of Jesus.

This remark shows a lack of pride in your own mental capacity. What I get out of this is that you don’t care what you say. Things that come out of your mouth are not required to have any thought behind them at all. Do you care what you stand for? Do you want to be taken seriously for your mental capability? I understand that you’re trying to make light of all of this. That’s fine, you can joke around. But you shouldn’t joke around to avoid having to respond to my points. It tells me that you don’t have a good answer.

No, no - this is a direct quote… That's "freeing up the coast guard to serve as police." Not "taking money from the coast guard to give to police.

So let me get this straight… you’re claiming that if we took money away from the coast guard it would disappear? You’re correct, the way I worded that does indicate people rather than money - that was not my intent. I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.

It’s beside the point really, I would feel this way even if it didn’t save us any money (though I have itemized how it would and you have yet to even attempt to refute the majority of that list).

Marijuana use is hard to detect based on somebody's breath or ability to do roadside tests. It's not hard to detect based on actions while driving.

YUP!!! You made my point. Read what I said about being pulled over for wreckless driving.

The day we legalise ecstasy will be the day I flee the country. That drug is very simply a killer. If you're proposing its legalisation, let's let the conversation stop right here.

Guess we should stop the conversation. Who is it killing? The people doing the drug? That’s their choice. If they want to risk their lives to get high…. WHY NOT LET THEM?

(that is, by the way my whole point. And it’s de-legislation that I’m proposing)

I would, but you're too immersed in your own viewpoint to consider mine. Since facts would take time to find, I'd prefer to share them with somebody open-minded. I know you're comeback: I'm not open-minded. Well, I've got reasons. I'm unsure of yours.

And again with the personal attacks. If you want to turn that into a fact you need to substantiate it with evidence. Give me a reason to believe that I am too immersed in my own viewpoint to consider you. SHOW ME how that is true.

If you can’t take the time out of your busy schedule to put some thought into your posts, don’t try to win any arguments. It’s fine to post your opinion and let others disagree and leave it at that. But if you want to start a serious discussion, you’d better be willing to put some time into it and find some supporting evidence.

You're right - I'm the one who's claiming that people alone drive under the influence. No, no - that's you.

The way you used this quote was to claim that I am resting my case on itself. I am stating (factually) that alcohol is an inanimate object and cannot be blamed for anything. You are correct when you say that I think that people are the only ones to blame. I do not regularly ascribe blame to inanimate objects. When my car runs out of gas I don’t blame the car. When my television stops working I don’t blame the television. When a bridge collapses I don’t blame the bridge.

The car is not the catalyst. Alcohol and people COMBINED are the catalyst.

Oh yes it is! The car and the alcohol are both requirements for anyone attempting to have a successful DUI experience. It is just as much a requirement and responsible for the accident as alcohol.

By your fourth-grade 'logic:' If alcohol is not to blame for driving under its influence, and people are the ONLY things you can blame, then people - the only things you can blame - would still drive under the influence of alcohol if there is no alcohol. Because people are to blame for DUI, so all you need for DUI is people. Since they're the only things you can blame.

OK here’s where you figure out that people are the only things that can be blamed. I am not claiming that one can successfully achieve a DUI without alcohol or cars. That would be silly (see my statement above). I am not claiming that people would drive under the influence of alcohol without alcohol. I am saying that… (read carefully here, try not to get lost in the words) people (yup, people, not inanimate objects) are the only thing that can be blamed (that’s blamed, not required to successfully pull off, but blamed) for drunk driving.

So to recap. You can’t blame alcohol for drunk driving. That doesn’t mean that alcohol isn’t required for the drunk driving experience, it means that alcohol cannot be blamed. Blaming alcohol is right out. You can blame the people involved. You could blame the driver, the passenger, maybe the driver’s parents a little bit. But you can o-n-l-y blame people. You can’t blame the person’s cat, car, alcohol, gun, bible, soft drink, windshield wipers, or anything else inanimate for the accident. You can only blame the person. That’s the person, who can only be blamed. The person, by the way, is the only thing that can be blamed. You cannot blame an inanimate object. Inanimate objects cannot be blamed. They can’t do anything. They’re inanimate objects, they make no decisions.

One more time for the record (with less repetition)

The person who decides to drink and drive is at fault (alone) for that decision. That person requires many tools to get the job done: alcohol, money, a car, a road, a person to hit… all of those things are required… but none of them can be blamed. They are all catalysts (if you want to call them that), but they bear no responsibility for the person’s actions. Why do they bear no responsibility for the person’s actions? Because they cannot make any decisions, only a person can make decisions.

Ok, let me know if that wasn’t clear enough.

Same logic - if guns are not to blame for shootings, then people are the ones shooting. Take a gun out of the equation, and people will still shoot people, only with some other object, though I'm unsure what.

OH! Here you’re almost seeing it. You’re unaware of what they would shoot people with. How about if the word shooting only referred to shooting someone with a bullet out of a gun… would guns then be to blame for the shootings? Perhaps, just maybe it would be the people doing the shooting that would be to blame.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by danoff

Well I think that’s pretty close. Do people really not do drugs because they are illegal? I think it has more to do with not wanting to do drugs. How many people do you know personally who wish they could do cocaine if it were only legal.

Eleven. Whoa!

This remark shows a lack of pride in your own mental capacity. What I get out of this is that you don’t care what you say. Things that come out of your mouth are not required to have any thought behind them at all. Do you care what you stand for? Do you want to be taken seriously for your mental capability? I understand that you’re trying to make light of all of this. That’s fine, you can joke around. But you shouldn’t joke around to avoid having to respond to my points. It tells me that you don’t have a good answer.

Did you catch the 'Acura' remark, too? I thought that showed a fair lack of pride (in the name of love) also.

So let me get this straight… you’re claiming that if we took money away from the coast guard it would disappear? You’re correct, the way I worded that does indicate people rather than money - that was not my intent. I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.

I don't know where you got the thing about the money disappearing, but money often disappears when the government is given the ability to handle it.

YUP!!! You made my point. Read what I said about being pulled over for wreckless driving.

I would, but I'm a lazy son of a *****, and that would require finding it first.

My point is that you really need to take somebody in to police central and do a blood test to know for sure if they're under the influence of marijuana.

Guess we should stop the conversation. Who is it killing? The people doing the drug? That’s their choice. If they want to risk their lives to get high…. WHY NOT LET THEM?

Let's stop the conversation then.

A good high school friend of mine died when taking ecstasy when she did not know the dangers of the drug. Two people who were as close as you can get to me were hit and killed by a drink driver (not just a driver - that would imply just a person - a DRINK driver) in 1995. It's clear to me that you're talking based on what you've heard of drug abusers and drink drivers - I'm talking from what I've known.

This is the first argument I've ever been able to walk away from where I can honestly say I do not respect your viewpoint. Seeya.

 

[westside]

Your high school friend shouldn't have taken the drug without knowing the risks first.

I'm sorry about your friends who were killed by a drunk driver. Do you not blame the driver at all for it? I would. I don't think I would ever forgive someone for drunk driving and killing someone. But does that mean the rest of us shouldn't be allowed to drink responsibly?

Don't walk away--I was enjoying reading this thread.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by westside
Your high school friend shouldn't have taken the drug without knowing the risks first.

Perhaps so, but not everybody is educated enough to know that - plus, all ecstasy is different. Some are so spiked they can kill, some are basically duds that don't do a thing.

I'm sorry about your friends who were killed by a drunk driver. Do you not blame the driver at all for it? I would. I don't think I would ever forgive someone for drunk driving and killing someone. But does that mean the rest of us shouldn't be allowed to drink responsibly?

Of course I blame the driver, I still do, I always will, just as much as I blame his inability to control his consumption of alcohol. But if alcohol were banned, it wouldn't have happened. And, not everybody drinks responsibly - it's shown too often. One bad apple...

Don't walk away--I was enjoying reading this thread.

I was enjoying participating in it. Not anymore.

 

[westside]

Why not anymore? What changed?

 

[milefile]

His mood. I undesrstand.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by milefile
His mood. I undesrstand.

Yep, totally.

I like it when people address me as 'M5,' though, because it makes me feel like a super-sedan. Vroom!

 

[westside]

What changed your mood? Was it when danoff said that you basically don't trust anyone? I'm trying to figure out what it was that started it.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
What changed your mood? Was it when danoff said that you basically don't trust anyone? I'm trying to figure out what it was that started it.

This is one very annoying attitude that not only you display. You question him like he is obliged to answer you, like he owes you an explanation. He is not, nor is anyone else required to argue until everyone is satisfied, which almost never, ever, happens anyway. Why do you care to know why he lost interest? Maybe theres a good show on TV. Maybe he's getting laid. Maybe he was tired. Why do you want to know?

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by M5Power
Perhaps so, but not everybody is educated enough to know that - plus, all ecstasy is different. Some are so spiked they can kill, some are basically duds that don't do a thing.

In all honesty, these are two of the most compelling reasons in favor of legalization.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by M5Power

<-snip->
Does anybody find it interesting that neon_duke is against public smoking but for public drug use?

no,.. I feel the exact same way,... I smoke cigs and pot. Anything and everything like those, alcohol, cigs, pot acid, shrooms, coke, ect,... should be legal to use IN THE PRIVACY OF YOUR HOME,.... and no where else. Yes, that means the banishment of night clubs IMO.

 

[milefile]

Where did you come from?

 

[Danoff]

You question him like he is obliged to answer you, like he owes you an explanation

What part of what westside said indicated that M5 was obliged to answer. See line 33.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by milefile
Where did you come from?

my mommy.........














seriously,... I've been busy with my new house, and we have an internet tracker at work now,.. so,.. ya,... no more fun and lots more work,.. but good work,.... I like working on the house,... very self-satisfying,... kinda like runnin GT3,.. only now I have somthing to show for my efforts

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
What part of what westside said indicated that M5 was obliged to answer. See line 33.

This part:

What changed your mood? Was it when danoff said that you basically don't trust anyone? I'm trying to figure out what it was that started it.