Diogenes wrote:MSimon believes that it is every individual's right to consume whatever drugs in whatever quantities that an individual so chooses. If you are going to attempt to pass yourself off as clever, the first thing you should do is LEARN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
Diogenes, that leaves you entirely out of civilized company, because you are way more a raving lunatic on the topic than MSimon is.
And yes, MSimon is way out on a cliff edge about it. Diogenes is the coyote who won't look down.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
palladin9479 wrote:
Well at least their taking steps to standardize and categorize it.
It should be treated like Alcohol, have to be over a certain age to buy and can only be manufactured and distributed at licensed facilities.
As for D, he responded with five posts, to himself. So yeah, didn't even bother reading.
God forbid that the slightest touch of sanity should ever cross your doorstep.
The topic (which you can't seem to grasp) is the total legalization of all drugs in a completely unregulated fashion. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THC.
MSimon believes that it is every individual's right to consume whatever drugs in whatever quantities that an individual so chooses. If you are going to attempt to pass yourself off as clever, the first thing you should do is LEARN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
There is currently no distinction between hard or soft drugs. THC is a schedule 1 substance, that places it in the exact same category legally as Heroine, Meth and Cocaine. THC is also the largest contributor to costs, both financially and socially, in the ongoing prohibition of "drugs". The current prohibition has become a political tool nothing else. There are no standards nor concrete definitions for the various categories used, its just an amorphous description of "drugs are bad". When you deal in such absolutes inevitably you end up being wrong.
So instead of "all drugs" you should instead categorize and define class's of drugs based on their actual impacts, not a religious feeling of "if it feels good it must be bad". Once you've done this, then and only then will I take anything your saying seriously.
It is apparent to me that you've not read very much that i've wrote, else you wouldn't have made such a response. My argument has been pretty consistently "look what happened to China!"
palladin9479 wrote:
And BTW, THC is used as the counter to the "drugs are all bad!!" because it is the perfect example of a failure in the "war on drugs". It's a nontoxic substance with mild psycho active properties and no known negative side effects, yet it was attacked and categorized next to deadly narcotics. It show cases where your all your arguments fall apart, namely in that you can't trust a bureaucracy in things like prohibition.
Make this simple for me. Do you believe people should be allowed to use Heroin, crack, meth, etc. ?
If not, who should stop them?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote:MSimon believes that it is every individual's right to consume whatever drugs in whatever quantities that an individual so chooses. If you are going to attempt to pass yourself off as clever, the first thing you should do is LEARN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
Diogenes, that leaves you entirely out of civilized company, because you are way more a raving lunatic on the topic than MSimon is.
And yes, MSimon is way out on a cliff edge about it. Diogenes is the coyote who won't look down.
Yes, suggesting that Drugs are dangerous to the nation is a raving lunatic position.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote:
Diogenes, that leaves you entirely out of civilized company, because you are way more a raving lunatic on the topic than MSimon is.
I would think that on a forum dedicated to science we would have more rational arguments.
Why do you think allowing people to be accountable for their own decisions is a "raving lunacy"?
When I was growing up there was a proposal in my country to allow freedom of speech. A lot of people believed that allowing people to publish whatever is on their mind would cause considerable civil unrest. After all there are a lot of people with crazy and offensive ideas, the whole country could be destabilized if there were no censorship.
Well the proposal went thru. I guess a lot of people are in fact disturbed by the stuff you can read in the papers and hear in TV.
Why do you usurp having a power to decide what other people can or cannot do with their lives? Why do you call "raving lunatics" those who believe nobody should have such power and control over other people?
Back to the original subject of the thread, the DEA is cracking down on "Medical Marijuana" shops in California. Then again, the democrats are probably counting on this asylum to support them regardless of what they do.
MSimon believes that it is every individual's right to consume whatever drugs in whatever quantities that an individual so chooses.
What is your plan to prevent that? Because that is exactly the nature of current reality. The legality or otherwise makes no difference except for determining the distribution channels. For a lot of people "distributed by criminals" seems to be a very solid preference. I don't know why but there you have it. And quite a few of those claim to be conservative. But since when did conservatives support criminals? It is a paradox. Unless you understand Baptist/bootlegger coalitions. Prevalent everywhere but especially virulent in America. We LOVE our moral panics in the Good 'Ole USA.
I know. Facing reality puts me way out on a limb. It has been a life long curse. I rather enjoy it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
hanelyp wrote:Back to the original subject of the thread, the DEA is cracking down on "Medical Marijuana" shops in California. Then again, the democrats are probably counting on this asylum to support them regardless of what they do.
My guess is that it is cutting into cartel profits and the word went out. The statements supporting this particular effort were especially nonsensical.
Ever notice that what ever hints a presidential pol gives while running for office the enforcement effort only goes one way?
"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government." - William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995
I assume that is what conservatives want and liberals are forced to vote for (plata o plomo). At this late date I assume anyone favoring Drug Prohibition is in the pay of the cartels. Some with a gun to their heads, some willingly.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.