Legalize?, where do you stand? Options

I can really give two fucks how harmful it is. My foundation of my point was that since my government has made marijuana illegal, I agree & will continue to agree. Get it through your stoned (No pun intended) skull, yet? Cazzo. The fact is that besides in the little pothead society, no one else wants to hear the "Yeah maaaaaan, pot should be totaly legal maaaaaaan, totaly" bullshit. & distillate, if you don't like the sarcasm in my posts, then it's simple, f%*! off & don't read 'em, capisce? Maricón estupido.

-This is amazing. I never knew just how many druggies there were on this site (Then again, with a yoda icon, how could I have missed it). I'm 'out', as it's said. I can't see myself taking anything these potheads say seriously from here on. You all have fun lighting your little buds. I do pray that most of the potheads in america get arrested. As for a smoking fox, well, since terrorism isn't a big deal for you, since no one cares about your country in the first place, you have fun.

This post has been edited by GaiusOctavian: Oct 12 2006, 09:53 AM

Well Gaius, if you read this... You're right. People who smoke weed are breaking the law and they are asking for the consequences.

But you're a crimminal too. It actually came to me out of nowhere last night it was really kinda cool too (like some super power that only potheads get). Sitting there stoned (actualy I was really drunk too) out of my mind I was like "wow! tottally radical maann" you know because thats what stoners do. I realized that you said you had been drinking for years and that if the government banned alcohol you'd stop with no problem. So why do you drink now as a minor? What? You think people didn't notice you changed the age in your profile from 19 to 99?

This is amazing. I never knew just how many druggies there were on this site (Then again, with a yoda icon, how could I have missed it). I'm 'out', as it's said. I can't see myself taking anything these potheads say seriously from here on.

You're a hypocrite and you have no credibility. How can we take you seriously from here on out? I mean if this is such a big deal that you would simply pout like a baby and walk away why do you claim to associate yourself with drug dealers? I don't think you "know" any drug dealers let alone what they sell. And if you did you're probably a customer. Besides use your head maannn. If there are sooo many potheads out there who's selling them their weed?

Maann you're pretty intelligent and you have contributed to the non-drug related threads quite a bit. Personally I would hope that something as silly as weed wouldn't stop you from continuing to be a productive member for those who are not potheads. But in all honesty I really don't care either.

Good riddence maannn I'm gonna make myself some nuachos and watch Cheech and Chong maaannnn. (I think I'm turning into a goat)

i don't care wheter he leaves either, and i find it quite insultive to be called a pothead, with a yeaaah right man attitude.
I never said i was jamaican, nor do i have a jamaican accent or look even remotely jamaican.
truth is, if he knew me in person, there is no way on earth he can tell that i smoke weed, until he does a drugg test.

This just depicts being plain narrow minded and racist. Racist here meaning being agressive towards other groups in civilisation. he can't take it when his fellow man uses a drug he knows not a single thing about. He despises those people, for some strange psychological block he can't seem to get rid of.
Yeah, LVX to you, mister narrow minded. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I think it's nationalism, not racism. Racism is specifically ethnic prejudice...

Anyway, Gaius never seemed that intelligent to me, maybe I was just biased against his attitude.

More than people that are just mislead and hold onto rediculous ideals, I hate sheep. people who just follow the leader because he's the leader, regardless of his qualifications or track record. Our government makes terrible mistakes all the time, most people's governments do - the people in it are only human, and they have prejudices, shortcomings, and blindspots like anyone else.

You can't trust anything a sheep says, it's not thinking for itself.

I have nothing intelligent to add, though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/banana.gif)

peace

Wow. I guess it's a good thing Gaius already left otherwise I probably would have just wasted a lot of mental and emotional energy on a fruitless endeavour. Oh well.

hahaha... may i humbly suggest to the naysaying drunkards: go imbibe a LOT of alcohol while its legal, so that you may forget this ridiculous LOST argument, lol.. as we all know an alcoholic loss of memory including amnesia (oh my god, i bonked that chick???) is waaaaaymore notoriously known than what happens from being merely "stoned"...

resorting to killing the opposition, ridiculous! hahaha, go ahead and try it buddy and i guarantee you wont like whats coming to ya. plus is this the only way you guys can increase the "marijuana deaths" statistics, by resorting to having potheads killed??? ROFLMAO, not on my watch

medical marijana is completely legal in "relatively enlightened" california, where i happen to live... so meeeeeeeeeeeh

the karma i am rubber you are glue coal calling the kettle black fairy:
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/1238.gif)

some studies say marihuana even prevents mental degradation and diseases such as alzheimer.

and, anyone who bad mouths about the wise yoda, can't be that intelligent.
yoda is one of the greatest master of the force of all times (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)
and he did not smoke weed, so i don't know what yoda has to do with me smoking (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

All I ask is that any opposition to any arguement, here or else where, at least consider the other side's ideas and challenge them. People who aren't interested in intelligent debate and only have a narrow minded attitude to contribute shouldn't even waste other members time beyond one or two posts just share their opinion. Otherwise its wasted effort and if your hypocrite and admit to being a hypocrite, wittingly or not, sooner or later its gonna burn you out of the debate. And for Pete's sake if you're gonna agrue don't just walk away like a little baby just because you feel out numbered!

Back to the topic at hand if I were president I would establish a law legalizing marijuana, not just decrimminalizing. That way American growers could establish competition and reduce the amount of profit crimminal organizations make. Then I would combine the war on terror and drugs. Since we are already in Iraq I think we should finish the job first. But then I think we should move on the real terrorist and the black market. Not just drugs, but guns, illegal goods, people smuggling and everything else on the black market that contributes to terrorism. Target the sources and make the main front on the war on drugs and terror not just on the American boarder but also in the countries that hardor cartels. This would potentially include Mexico. The main difference between how we handled Iraq and how I'd handle these countries is I'd give the government of each the opportunity to cooperate and aid the US in their efforts.

There is a big picture here. This poll is fitting because it includes two necessary elements of the big picture.

1) Fact: the money that would be brought in by legalising and taxing the sale of all drugs would provide enough money to the health systems of any western country to cope with a huge increase of addicts. The currrent demand for drug related health care is nowhere near met.The tax from drugs would not only meet the current demand and more it would cope with a huge increase.

2) Fact: the fact that drugs are so stringently policed means that instead of governments making money from one industry, they lose money to another! What do i mean? I mean that more ammunition was used last over the last 10 years by the wests police forces in the war on drugs, than their combined ammunitions on their wars on terror and countries.

3) Fact: any war that uses bullets costs more of the publics lives than any drug company no matter whether they are manufacturing panedol or heroin.

4) Fact: We all know everything about christianity, but how much does the average christian know obout the occult? Occult = Hidden!!! Problems are much easier to detect when they are out in the open.

5) Anyone who thinks marijuana is harmless and doesnt have long term efects has never done any work in the mental health or community services industry.

6) Drugs do cause problems, and so do gambling (legal), alcohol (legal), tobacco (biggest killer on the planet or maybe its people with guns im not sure - legal), people with guns (legal), fatty foods (legal).

My family are being manipulated. Have you noticed the knids of symbology and sacred geometry employed by advertisers and governments. Our teachings are being used on a subtle level to control us. I am a radical. I am an extremist. I am a fundamentalist. The strength of my love is wrong. It should be punished. I should not be allowed to expect better from the people i entrust with my money. I do not pay them. They tax me. They are the wise. They suckle on the backs of those who support would be withdrawn if they had the courage to see. My teacher said forgive them father: they know not what they do!!! I am naive. I am young . In time my idealism will sufer and i will renew myself; reborn in the light cloth of wrinkles. Age and regret will not conquer my inner torment. I will be to selfish to see it. I will laugh at my rotten seed and be proud. Their abominations will be miracles in light of the small works of my own cynicism and despair. Or I shall triumph and pass away, in silence. Better women than me shall put down my sword and coax the hippocrates into their comfortable arms. They will find rest there and our family shall be restored. The time will approach. Fear not the hyperbola. Seek out the greek's song. Ithaca is calling.

I am sorry! I am not who it seeks (but I hope someone is, or they will be).

This post has been edited by extinctionspasm: Oct 26 2006, 06:40 AM

1) Fact: the money that would be brought in by legalising and taxing the sale of all drugs would provide enough money to the health systems of any western country to cope with a huge increase of addicts. The currrent demand for drug related health care is nowhere near met.The tax from drugs would not only meet the current demand and more it would cope with a huge increase.

Its speculation or statistical voodoo at best. We can not know that there would indeed be enough money to cover health care costs. The costs to pay for drug rehab or drug related health problems might sore so high that the revenue generated from taxed drugs would not cover it.

2) Fact: the fact that drugs are so stringently policed means that instead of governments making money from one industry, they lose money to another! What do i mean? I mean that more ammunition was used last over the last 10 years by the wests police forces in the war on drugs, than their combined ammunitions on their wars on terror and countries.

Bullets are relatively cheap. Consider the costs to pay for an indigent crack head's rehab and total the cost of all the crack heads in the country. Thats just crack heads. Its still speculative. But I do agree with this part either way - to a degree. Remember that at one point in American history, and probably in other countries too, ALL drugs were legal. The very reason they became crimminalized was because of the social problems they caused. This also includes the moral undertones of the time. Since the morals of the time have changed I think we should be more laxed with certain drugs but some drugs I just see little potential for unless somebody developes safer versions. Unfortunately the reason people sell drugs is not to get people high but to make money. That means the cheaper, more profitable drugs win out. And they tend to be anything but safe.

3) Fact: any war that uses bullets costs more of the publics lives than any drug company no matter whether they are manufacturing panedol or heroin.

Which is why we should be directing those bullets towards the countries that harbor cartels.

4) Fact: We all know everything about christianity, but how much does the average christian know obout the occult? Occult = Hidden!!! Problems are much easier to detect when they are out in the open.

The word for government has nothing to do with solving problems. I can't think of any government that does not try to exert social control over its people. Governments are more conserned about control and power than solving problems.

5) Anyone who thinks marijuana is harmless and doesnt have long term efects has never done any work in the mental health or community services industry.

I be willing to bet those people either had pre-existing psychosis or were doing more than just pot. No drug is "harmless" but marijuana is far less harmful than shit like GHB or PCP, meth, coke, crack, heroine so forth are all FAR more dangerous than pot.

6) Drugs do cause problems, and so do gambling (legal), alcohol (legal), tobacco (biggest killer on the planet or maybe its people with guns im not sure - legal), people with guns (legal), fatty foods (legal).

Again we can look at history and see the social problems caused by drugs. Its why we made laws to regulate them. But that doesn't mean laws can't change as the minds of the people do as well.

My family are being manipulated. Have you noticed the knids of symbology and sacred geometry employed by advertisers and governments. Our teachings are being used on a subtle level to control us. I am a radical. I am an extremist. I am a fundamentalist. The strength of my love is wrong. It should be punished. I should not be allowed to expect better from the people i entrust with my money. I do not pay them. They tax me. They are the wise. They suckle on the backs of those who support would be withdrawn if they had the courage to see. My teacher said forgive them father: they know not what they do!!! I am naive. I am young . In time my idealism will sufer and i will renew myself; reborn in the light cloth of wrinkles. Age and regret will not conquer my inner torment. I will be to selfish to see it. I will laugh at my rotten seed and be proud. Their abominations will be miracles in light of the small works of my own cynicism and despair. Or I shall triumph and pass away, in silence. Better women than me shall put down my sword and coax the hippocrates into their comfortable arms. They will find rest there and our family shall be restored. The time will approach. Fear not the hyperbola. Seek out the greek's song. Ithaca is calling.

right.. please stick to the topic or related your matterial to the topic.

Of course acid 09 is right. With such poignant jingoism as "statistical voodoo" how can your objective point of view be questioned. While my first point may have been extremely stated (i concede that to call it fact is exaggerated speculation), it is no way as misleading as a phrase like statistical voodooism. While they may not have it perfect yet (this can be put down to a number of factors; decrminilisation as opposed to legalisaton, and social ethics play a part), the dutch's "statistics" while having nothing to do with voodoo, are far and away better than those currently found by the US or the UK or Australia or France or Germany or Spain or Italy or Greece or........The reality is the relativly simple economic relationship between terrorism and the health, weapons, and illegal drug industries is a well observed phenomena that has recieved plenty of academic research and support from many of your own governments departments. The atf are well known for their concern that the problem isnt drugs but guns.

Which brings me to your gung ho testosterone infused statement (to employ some jingoism of my own - its only fair that i resort to your own use of dime store psychology in order to garner the support of others for my obviously superior position on the topic), about directing the relatively "cheap" (in terms of what - what currency are you using to value these bullets? lives or mere gold - and if gold, then whose? tax payers gold? hmmm we have hit an interesting point here although i am sure the significance of it is small in comparison to your need to know that people somewhere are being shot - hell man they deserve it) bullets to the countries where the cartels are. So the choice between two systems is clear to you. Both systems have risks but you would obviously prefer one risk to the other. What are these systems and their risks?

System 1 - Drugs are manufactured by legitimate companies using current technologies and processing methods ensuring quality end products of the most safety and purity. The tax of these products will bring in literally billions of dollars a year in the united states alone. The risk being a ballooning of drug related health problems and possibly drug related crime. This situation would change the face of drug related crime greatly though. Instead of people robbing from individuals to get money for drugs, they would need to rob chemists or drug stores, reducing the amount of public victims of crime - maybe. The biggest concern of course would be the possible health problems. Maybe it is safe to assume that you are right and people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions (they should be told what they can and cant do by the government). Just look at all the alcoholics out there. I cant walk down the street anymore without my alcoholic beating stick. In fact the evidence of studies shows that with trial dercriminilisation and legalisation of drugs, drug use actually more often wanes then stays at the same rates, and never rises. Billions of possible dollars could be flowing to our governments - and to deny that there would be some benefit to us even if only in the tokenistic sense of tax cuts and wage rises - would be to deny your own intelligence. Most of the bullets fired on american citizens are owned by american companies (more voodooism).

System 2 - Involves the current methods. Drugs are illegal and huge amounts of money are being spent on policing, supporting the weapons industry - yes you are right acid09, i would much prefer my money to go to people who make guns whose only intention is to harm people, than to a company that makes drugs whose effects can harm people (though it is not the intention and not the outcome when used in a safe and informed manner). If system one were involved it would put the cartels out of business. They would become the poor thirld world populations they most often used to be representative of. There would be no need to shoot these people anymore. They couldnt aford to get guns of their own. One is a system that relies on personal choice and responibiity for its succcess, the other is one that seeks to have governments inflict choices on their people (and those of other countries). Much terrorrism is funded by drugs. Afghanistan is the biggest producer of opium in the world - one of the biggest breeding grounds for terrorists. Southeat asia is the biggest producer of meth - another or the worlds biggest terrorist breeding grounds. South america, where all the crack and coke comes from, have given up (for the most part) on political aspirarations involving violence against your precious homeland, and are more interested in developing a system of self sufficiency for themselves politically and economically (something the US does not want because that would mean the loss of billions of dollars a year in cheap labour revenue and mineral exices). The cartels here are simply out to make a buck - a reality that would be strangled if roche and those guys got the ok to start making these drugs.

Where do you think the bad drug dealer guys get their guns. Guns dont just magically appear. Neither do bullets. The weapons industry is these days a pretty tight knit community worldwide. Has been for quite some time now. Do you not find it strange that the people our millitaries and police get their weapons from, are the same people the cartels get their weapons from. The same people that gangs and thugs on the street get their weapons from. The same people who export drugs to our children export guns to them. The people that export the guns to the cartels live around the corner from you in the nicer part of town. They drive nice cars.

What you say about marijuana being less harmfull than ghb is obvious. But i would willingly bet you as much money as you can afford, and i suggest that we do this - i would be willing to bet you US$1000 through paypal that right now in western mental health facilities there are thousands of people suffering from the use of marijuana. I am talking about people who never used any other drug, and who have no history of mental illness in their families. If you are going to talk about making bets then i suggest you put your money where your mouth is friend. I will literally bet you US$1000.

You talk about gvernment control. Surely the current system concerning drugs and guns, throws much more weight behind government control than a reformed system would. This current system of drugs and guns is one of the pivotal and necessary weapons of government control. Can you not see how a change that big would errode a vast amount of government controll for the better. The biggest losers would of course be the weapons and mining industries - two of the biggest on the planet.

Illegal drugs support the weapons industry - the weapons industry supports death in a twofold manner - it supports killing people, and it is one of the biggest supports for the mining industry - the richest industry o the planet. If you can not see how interrelated these things are, and that a ground up approach is the only method available to the masses to change any of these sad realities - then you are being controlled. The bullshit you have swallowed has intergrated with your system so completely that not even Tony Robins can save you now. Do you really think "yeah they should go and kill those people"? Is that good for you? History teaches us about colonialism and the third world. Our governmets created the third world through their pillaging, the only way for them to recover is from selling us drugs and then we want to kill them for it (i am not going to start alluding to the possibility that race may have now or at some stage in this cotastrophe had something to do with it - it is too big a topic for now).

Drugs being illegal directly supports terrorism, and it directly supports the weapons industry. So two of the three biggest suporters of terrorism is illegal drugs and the weapons industry - which is supported heavily by the illegality of drugs. The third big supporter of terrorism is then oil industry - but thats a whole other topic.

P.S. The last "off topic" bit was a little personally revealing i admit, but was so closely related to the topic cause it somes up how I feel about all this stuff. You wanted to know what i think, if you had have read between the lines you would have seen that i was also generous enough to tell you how i feel. That is a gift whether yopu choose to accept it or not. As is said "The giving of a gift honours the receiver, the accepting of it honours the giver". I do not feel dishonoured though by your refusal to accept it. This is an internet forum, and comunications can be easily misinterpreted.

I wish you all the luck and love in the world and i hope for all of our sakes that the emphasis stops being on killing people which only treats the symptoms of our problems, and starts treating the causes. Love Love Love my friend - you can do it!!!

Edited to add that i just realised that acid09 you started this thread and poll. I am most sorry. It appears I have been duped by my own impatience again. It is usually the case that a humans ask others what they think about a topic so that she/he can have a sounding board and a platform to tell others what they really think is right. I am not condemming this practice, it is an innocent one - i just didnt realise at first that this was what was going on here.

This post has been edited by extinctionspasm: Oct 26 2006, 09:27 PM

As we have seen in the pass, people are more prone to do something for the simple fact they are not allowed too. If you really need an example, look at US history and when they made types of alcohol illegal. Bootlegging shot up to more than four times of what it previously was.

I say make certian drugs like weed legal, since they are as natural as everything else. The war on drugs is a joke ATM and as far as the war on terror goes, it's something completely diffrent, but almost as funny to look at.

I lost sight of this thread for awhile here

now then lets see

Of course acid 09 is right. With such poignant jingoism as "statistical voodoo" how can your objective point of view be questioned.

Not with statistics that have no backing, credibility or sitation. I hate it when people use numbers to try to push their objective point of view. Without any backing people can use numbers to say just about anything. And even then I try to avoid stats just because the ways they are conducted don't always produce reliable answers - hence statistical voodoo - a euphemism for fallacious statistics.

The reality is the relativly simple economic relationship between terrorism and the health, weapons, and illegal drug industries is a well observed phenomena that has recieved plenty of academic research and support from many of your own governments departments.

Sure but if you want to point the numbers to support your arguement you should site them.

Which brings me to your gung ho testosterone infused statement (to employ some jingoism of my own - its only fair that i resort to your own use of dime store psychology in order to garner the support of others for my obviously superior position on the topic),

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/baby.gif)
Your position seems to be that we should legalize and mass market ALL drugs. Your arguement is niether superior or infferior, but equaly valid to everybody elses, this is not a contest or battle of ego - at least not for me.

However I will say that what you claim lacks coheasion and in all honestly creates a lot of confusion. But what the hell lets continue.

in terms of what - what currency are you using to value these bullets?

Dollars bullets are payed for in dollars. Lets try not to confuse readers. Or at least me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bigwink.gif)

So the choice between two systems is clear to you. Both systems have risks but you would obviously prefer one risk to the other. What are these systems and their risks?

I think we should objectively consider that some drugs do not cause the social decention, that government propaganda would have us believe in, just because people use them. What causes the negative social impact is people who choose to use illegal drugs anyways become crimminals when if the drug(s) were perfectly legal the user would most likely be a regular member of society. If society can agree legal drugs like tobacco, caffine cold medicine, to name a few, are socially acceptable then why not marijuana as well? Or even halluciogenic mushrooms? I could conceed even ecstacy as well.

Drugs are manufactured by legitimate companies using current technologies and processing methods ensuring quality end products of the most safety and purity.

If this is the main premise of your first "system" it is unrealistic. I cannot imagine heroine or meth being "safe" in any level. Besides capitalist driven corperations have been notorious for using unnecessary additives that only worsen the long term affects of their products; all in the name of higher profits - think tobacco.

Now on the other hand I don't think the government should have the right to control the research done with any drug, aside from enforcing high codes of ethics of course. If science can't research certain drugs in America because the are schedual one, then science can not develope these drugs into ones that really are safe.

The tax of these products will bring in literally billions of dollars a year in the united states alone. The risk being a ballooning of drug related health problems and possibly drug related crime.

Perscription medicines already ring in billions. Most of which just goes right back into the pockets of coperations because they've managed to lobby in our government and buy off the system. Also these same perscription meds already do contribute to crimminal behavior. Many people become addicted to perscription drugs. People on the streets already steal or heckle these drugs to sell for their own profit too. I mean I'm sure I myself could get you just about any kind of painkiller out there (especially seraquil, percasette, and oxycotin) and probably at prices cheaper than what they're regularly sold for too.

Maybe it is safe to assume that you are right and people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions (they should be told what they can and cant do by the government). Just look at all the alcoholics out there. I cant walk down the street anymore without my alcoholic beating stick.

When did I say people can't be trusted to make their own choices? When did I say the government should be allowed to make choices for people? You should qoute me more often.

People can always be trusted to make their own choices. That doesn't mean they will be good ones. Nobody is perfect. Just because drugs like marijuana suddenly become legal doesn't mean we create this "happy day" society with no problems. Legalizing drugs can solve some problems but it can will create others as well. I believe if we legalize all drugs at once we then run the risk of creating more problems than if we just keep the scope narrowed down to a few drugs.

In fact the evidence of studies shows that with trial dercriminilisation and legalisation of drugs, drug use actually more often wanes then stays at the same rates, and never rises.

What studies? This is exactly what I mean by stastical "voodoo". You're claiming that studies support your arguement without presenting any real studies - voodoo - hokus pokus - bull shit - why should I believe anything you say? If you want to "get people on your side" my friend, seriously go find some sources to back your stance. I'm not going to believe you because you say so and I certainly hope other readers do not as well.

Billions of possible dollars could be flowing to our governments - and to deny that there would be some benefit to us even if only in the tokenistic sense of tax cuts and wage rises - would be to deny your own intelligence

I don't think more money for our government alone is what Americans would really want. They'd want that money spent in ways that benefit the people, not fund bigger more beauracratic government.

Involves the current methods. Drugs are illegal and huge amounts of money are being spent on policing, supporting the weapons industry

Look at the major premise of both of your "systems" - you can clearly see that the way I voted doesn't support either one. What you're arguing, imho, is extremes. You're trying to push your ideas based on an "either or" syllogism that is pretty much blind to any middle ground. The difference between you and me is I'm a moderate. Your a radical, or least you come off as one, my opinion.

yes you are right acid09, i would much prefer my money to go to people who make guns whose only intention is to harm people, than to a company that makes drugs whose effects can harm people (though it is not the intention and not the outcome when used in a safe and informed manner)

Quote me. Where did I say anything that supports putting my money into making guns? I did say that if we're going to seriously try to win this war on drugs we need to move the main front from our boarders and into the countries who harbor cartels. But we can't win a "war on drugs", its political move made be Regan to gain PR support because his favor was declining due to the recession he got us in the 80's. We were never meant to win this war. Regan was meant to win the publics favor and it worked - for Regan but not Americans.

If system one were involved it would put the cartels out of business. They would become the poor thirld world populations they most often used to be representative of. There would be no need to shoot these people anymore. They couldnt aford to get guns of their own.

Go to Mexico, the meth producing capitol of the Americas, and tell me its not a 3rd world nation. Go to Columbia and tell me the Cocaine and marijuana sold from there has made it anything but a 3rd world nation. The people who own these illegal businesses are not philanthropists. They are gangsters - murderers - con men - they get wealthy buy victimizing others and selling products on the black market. And not just drugs too mind you. These people also sell slaves, guns, even artillery and any number of illegal products.

One is a system that relies on personal choice and responibiity for its succcess, the other is one that seeks to have governments inflict choices on their people (and those of other countries).

Which if you can't even walk down the streets because of alcoholics, people who are addicted to legal drugs, what makes you think your system would work at all?

The cartels here are simply out to make a buck - a reality that would be strangled if roche and those guys got the ok to start making these drugs.

And they're not afraid to resort to terrorism to make their buck.

Where do you think the bad drug dealer guys get their guns. Guns dont just magically appear. Neither do bullets. The weapons industry is these days a pretty tight knit community worldwide.

Bullshit. Many of the guns that find their way into the US come from Columbia and China via trade routes established from southeast Asia. The southeast gets many of their guns from other organizations who've stock piled old soviet weaponry. The stuff you might see some well connected gangsters pack here in the US are government issued and aquired through corrupt officals. Some states also have laxed laws. But the majority of the heavy fire power that street thugs carry these days come from the same sources - Asia, Mexico and Columbia.

What you say about marijuana being less harmfull than ghb is obvious. But i would willingly bet you as much money as you can afford, and i suggest that we do this - i would be willing to bet you US$1000 through paypal that right now in western mental health facilities there are thousands of people suffering from the use of marijuana. I am talking about people who never used any other drug, and who have no history of mental illness in their families. If you are going to talk about making bets then i suggest you put your money where your mouth is friend. I will literally bet you US$1000.

Fact is if you're schizophrenic or histeronic marijuana can lead to psychotic episodes - its a halluncinogen that can cause paranoia in some users. I do think you'd have difficulty prooving that marijuana directly causes mental illness. Just because somebody smoked a lot of weed doesn;t mean thats what made them snap. it could have contributed, but now we're hitting so much grey water we could never really proove beyond a doubt. Not only I'd bet many of those same people probably used more drugs than just pot. Not only that But if you're trying to say that I don't think marijuana has any danger to it you're wrong. It is a drug and there is no absolutely safe drug. Besides I wouldn't bet you a beer unless I could see some sources - which you notoriously lack in just about every claim you make.

Illegal drugs support the weapons industry - the weapons industry supports death in a twofold manner - it supports killing people, and it is one of the biggest supports for the mining industry - the richest industry o the planet. If you can not see how interrelated these things are, and that a ground up approach is the only method available to the masses to change any of these sad realities - then you are being controlled. The bullshit you have swallowed has intergrated with your system so completely that not even Tony Robins can save you now. Do you really think "yeah they should go and kill those people"? Is that good for you? History teaches us about colonialism and the third world. Our governmets created the third world through their pillaging, the only way for them to recover is from selling us drugs and then we want to kill them for it (i am not going to start alluding to the possibility that race may have now or at some stage in this cotastrophe had something to do with it - it is too big a topic for now).

This paragraph perfectly demonstrates what I mean when I say your arguements lack any coheasion. You're scaling up the level of intrigues involved when the discussion is simply about what people think. The only reason I even argue with you is because I'm sadistic enough to pick apart your claims.

Edited to add that i just realised that acid09 you started this thread and poll. I am most sorry. It appears I have been duped by my own impatience again. It is usually the case that a humans ask others what they think about a topic so that she/he can have a sounding board and a platform to tell others what they really think is right. I am not condemming this practice, it is an innocent one - i just didnt realise at first that this was what was going on here.

Let me simplify this for you:

I'm interested in other people's opinions. I don't think I've told anybody they should believe what I believe. You on the other hand I think its plain for all to see you have your own agenda.

Yes my own agenda, you are right. Number one on my agenda when asked for my opinion was to give my opinion - number two is that in giving it i aim to develop dialogue from which people can be inspired to whether they agree with my opinion or not to actually take some action about it - the third point on my agenda being to improve the social condition for our society and to see a healthier, happier and more educated planet. Once again your use of language has been manipulative and as misleading as my own shockingly lazy "reference lacking" input to the discussion.

Its speculation or statistical voodoo at best. We can not know that there would indeed be enough money to cover health care costs. The costs to pay for drug rehab or drug related health problems might sore so high that the revenue generated from taxed drugs would not cover it.

Not with statistics that have no backing, credibility or sitation. I hate it when people use numbers to try to push their objective point of view. Without any backing people can use numbers to say just about anything. And even then I try to avoid stats just because the ways they are conducted don't always produce reliable answers - hence statistical voodoo - a euphemism for fallacious statistics.

I did not site any statistics - hence i say that to call this "statistical voodoo" is misleading and it is jingoism or jargonism - meaning you are using an oft employed coloquialism incorrectly in an attempt to sway opinion by sounding authoritative. Just because you employ an oft use verbal indicator whether it is coloquial or technical does not mean that you are right or that you are using the term correctly. You claim to pick apart my statements, yet your own while i admit are often a lot more cleverly disguised, are with thorough inspection as equally costrued as being transparent and invalid.

I did however make a claim that is touted time and again by pro legalisation campaigners (even by those like yourself acid09 who would only like to see "softer" drugs legalised) that is backed up by academic research in the areas of sociology and macro economics, that by legalising drugs the increase in government income would be enough to not only cope with the current lack of funding for drug rehabilitation, but also to deal with an increase in drug related health patients. This is a claim that needs no statistical confirmation - simple logic backs it up. The reality is that the illegal drug industry that the government currently recieves no income from, and currently spends billions of dollars on, would with legalisation see a situation where all the money spent on policing actual traficking - would before to long be phased out (and could be redirected in to things like terrorism), and on top of the reduced costs - there would be an income - a huge income. The difference being defecit (the current situation where we only spend money) versus surplus (where not only would we spend less - we would also earn some income).

Now before you jump down my throat with your "thats not rights". I will fill in the gaps for you. It is true that it cannot be known by how much the increase in funds to the government coffers would be, and there are a lot of factors to consider like increased health care, an initial period of political unrest that would need to be dealt with in countries where there are cartels, and so on. But the logical analysis is that despite the worst case scenarios in all these factors - the government would be better off financially. Now you are right - the government may not choose to spend this money wisely - but that is why it is the responsibility of individual citizens to take an active role in politics - unless they care to be anything other than whingers whos contribution is nought more than "claiming" to "pick apart" the opinions of those who actually spend time and money lobbying and working with government to improve social conditions. What is the point of any of us having an opinion if we do not take actions based on our firm beliefs, whether we let our passion affect our language to the point where we seem "radical", or we use our self reighteousness to the point that we appear "authoritative".

Sure but if you want to point the numbers to support your arguement you should site them.

Economics is not just about "numbers". Yes it is i hear you ignorantly say. No it is not just about how much money, but in which direction and how often and over what time frames money "moves". If you had have read my sentence i was talking about the financial relationships between different industries in terms of the effects that these have on each other not in terms of amounts, but in terms of the directions that money flows between them (often through third parties ie governments). Now whether we are talking about hard drugs, or soft drugs, is insignificant because these relationships are mirrored between both. Your attempt acid09 to "pick apart" my statements is self defeating, because i am putting forward ideas that suport your own opinion; whether or not you agree with mine.

However I will say that what you claim lacks coheasion and in all honestly creates a lot of confusion. But what the hell lets continue.

There is nothing incohesive about my claim. The fact that you say so only reflects your own inability to understand my argument, it is interesting that you claim to "pick apart" something that you of your own volition claim not to understand. If you think that it is misleading for me to suggest that because you claim a lack of cohesion, then you lack understanding; let me articulate how cohesive my opinion is:

1) Legalising drugs is more cost effective for governments than criminalisation. Criminalisation means spending on policing and zero income - while legalisation means reduced policing expenditure - and huge revenue from taxation. It also means that governments can control the industry through watchdogging which reduces industrial corruption (and can admittedly increase government corruption - but i would rather politicians be getting kickbacks than the types of people who you say "are gangsters - murderers - con men - they get wealthy buy victimizing others and selling products on the black market. And not just drugs too mind you. These people also sell slaves, guns, even artillery and any number of illegal products" - this is also funny that you failed to pick up on the irony in my statement about third world countries)

2) Despite whether or not you agree with my comments about the relationships between different industries, or you can perceive the cohesiveness of my discription of these - the reason i bring them up is not to scale "up the level of intrigues involved when the discussion is simply about what people think" but because you brought up the relationship between drugs and terrorism by asking the third question, and to "cohesively" articulate my point of view required the introduction of ideas surrounding the health industry and general political administerial points as well. Did you want peoples opinion or not as you claim.

The only reason I even argue with you is because I'm sadistic enough to pick apart your claims.

Bullshit. Many of the guns that find their way into the US come from Columbia and China via trade routes established from southeast Asia. The southeast gets many of their guns from other organizations who've stock piled old soviet weaponry. The stuff you might see some well connected gangsters pack here in the US are government issued and aquired through corrupt officals. Some states also have laxed laws. But the majority of the heavy fire power that street thugs carry these days come from the same sources - Asia, Mexico and Columbia.

Now lets see you put your patronising attmpts at authoritative academia where your mouth is. Lets see you provide some sources for your claims about artillery and weaponry. Just because you watched a nicholas cage movie on your day off from working at McDonalds doesnt mean you know what you are talking about any better than the rest of us buddy.

It is easy to say that i must be wrong because i havent quoted any sources, but if im so wrong lets see you quote some independant sources that prove my position to be wrong. Its all well and good to "claim" to pick apart someones argument, but youve done nothing but enter into and escalate a verbal shit slinging competition if your own attempts at "picking apart" are in no way any more grounded in fact backed up by reference than the claims you so self reighteously, and misleadingly claim to pick apart.

You didnt pick anything apart. All you pointed out was that my argument was not backed up by reference. You didnt even prove that it couldnt be backed up. That at least might have given some slight validation to you "picking apart claim". But no. All you could really do was say that my argument was incohesive. Other forum members while not necessarily agreeing with my point of view, could easily see the cohesiveness of my argument.

If you are going to try to sound clever by using big words sunshine, then make sure you know what they mean!!!! And if you are going to accuse people of having agendas, then maybe you should make sure your own arent so transparently and egotistically defended under the guise of "opinion seeking"!!!!

I await your sources which:

1) disprove the validity of the observed relationship between terrorism, drug trafficking, the health industry, mining, and federal politics.

2) disprove the logic behind my statement that "1) Fact: the money that would be brought in by legalising and taxing the sale of all drugs would provide enough money to the health systems of any western country to cope with a huge increase of addicts. The currrent demand for drug related health care is nowhere near met.The tax from drugs would not only meet the current demand and more it would cope with a huge increase."

Apon the forums receipt of these sources I will gladly provide the sources which back up my opinions; or i will do so in one week - whichever comes first!!!

Happy researching acid09 - I hope this is cohesive enough for you - oh yes and i am still happy to have a wager about the sole link between marijuana use and mental health disabilities in patients who before hand had no family history or showed any early indicators of mental health problems. For you to claim without evidence that there is no causal link here despite a lack of previous mental health issues, is hugely irresponsible considering the numbers of young people who frequent this forum, and personally irresponsible since you yourself are nowehere near old enough to have had any personal experience to make you by any means an authority on the matter.

Again - happy researching!!!

Do you think drugs should be legalized?

-yes, all drugs: If any drug use is problematic, then education would be more effective than prohibition. Many drugs have effects that are beneficial, like cocaine being used as a pain reliever in the past. Any substance, when abused, has the potential to harm. In the spirit of freedom, individuals should have the choice to suffer the consequences or enjoy the benefits of their actions. This shouldn't be construed as me thinking that drunk-driving, doing surgery high, or selling crack to minors should be legal. There is a responsibility involved which is where the law should step in. But someone leisurely enjoying a mind-altering experience in their own homes, with that I see nothing wrong. Also the commercial aspect needs to be addressed. A person cannot simply "make" drugs for selling. It would be nice for some sort of licensing program, like driving a car. However, if a person knew how to "make" a certain substance for personal use, there shouldn't be any problem. And I mean this for all drugs. Education is the most important factor, not enforcement.

Do you think "the war on drugs" is really worth it? Please explain your answer.

-no: There are many reasons. Because there is a lot of money to be made in illegal drug commerce; there is a lack of social, psychological & health education concerning drugs; there are many other industries tied to illegal drug commerce such as, the prison industry, the law enforcement industry, the arms industry, the mental health industry, real estate industry, & more; humans have used drugs for various reasons throughout history and most likely will continue; the "war on drugs" is a political red herring; illegal drugs are a global commodity; the "war" is questionable by its categorization of relatively harmless, non-addictive & possibly beneficial "drugs" like marijuana with harder drugs like heroin; cigarettes kill more people than some "drugs", so does alcohol;... i'll stop here.

If you could choose between "the war on terror" or "the war on drugs" which would it be?

-neither: Both "wars" are fallacies. Some people will always be afraid of something, and some people will always have the power to instill fear(terror) in others. The only way to put an end to this is to empower every individual against fear, which is not what the "war on terror" is doing. Drugs are a necessary part of human culture. The "war on drugs" had questionable origins, with many government endorsed studies being repeatedly done and then ignored when the results proved that some drugs weren't as harmful as they were thought. Thus the propaganda, which can also be called miseducation, began. Why fight a war based on misinformation? Why is it called "the war on drugs," and not the war on the trafficking, dealing and illegal use of drugs? Who benefits most from these "wars"?

Disclaimer: In no way is this post trying to promote or glamorize the use of illegal drugs. If, whereever you reside, drugs are illegal then you should keep yourself out of trouble. If, for whatever reason, you wish to experiment with any illegal substances, you should do your best to do objective reseach on the substance and its effects on the mind, body, and possibly the spirit. If you do use, use responsibly. As with any venture in life, you should partake it from the most educated position possible.

Once again your use of language has been manipulative and as misleading as my own shockingly lazy "reference lacking" input to the discussion.

Most people are not as scholarly as yourself. The only thing I'm authoritating is the long winded flaws in your arguement. My "jargonism" is a meager attempt to try and put the matterial you spew into a context that everyday people can understand. You can call it what you want.

You didnt pick anything apart. All you pointed out was that my argument was not backed up by reference.

And that you lack cohession in your thoughts - to it simply - you babble.

Now lets see you put your patronising attmpts at authoritative academia where your mouth is. Lets see you provide some sources for your claims about artillery and weaponry.

I'm not trying to proove anything only demonstrate the flaws in your arguement. I'm not even interested in swaying people's opinions. I've already stated what I think about this thread's subject I just think its funny to watch you babble on about this and that while pressume to be any kind of authority with no credibility to back it up.

The point i am making is that you haven't pointed out any flaws in my argument. All you have done is showed where flaws "may" exist. To show that there are flaws would require you to go and gather evidence to prove that my claims were not true. The basis of your flawed argument is that my own arguments lack substantiating evidence. This is a most ignorant and self depreciating argument to make because you have no proof of it. You have just assumed that my arguments cannot be backed up by evidence - but in fact they can. Your own argument meanwhile is unable to be substantiated due to the very fact that there is a well spring of evidence available upon which I base my argument.

I never tried to "pick apart" anyone elses opinion. Only to put forth my own (one that can be supported by a wealth of academic and practical research). You also attempt to be clever with your language in the hope to make me look stupid, but it is only yourself who you are shedding any light on. For example what exactly is a "long winded flaw". Is it a flaw that is expressed long windedly? If so what gives the flaw this "long winded" expression. Does it give it to itself? Is it given by the subject within which the flaw exists, and if so then is it the flaw or the subject that is long winded? Laziness is a flaw. Can someone suffer from "long winded" lazines? Im sorry if this isn't coherent. Am i babbling?

You are consistently trying to dispute my argument and say that it is incoherent, that it is unsubstantiated, that it lacks credibility, and that despite the way i present myself that it lacks authority. It is all well and good to say these things, but not if you cannot utilise the very qualities you accuse my arguments of lacking.

Despite using single words like credibility, authority, substantiality, incoherence and evidence; you have said nothing that proves the validity of your use of these words in your claims.

You saying thats bullshit, doesnt prove that something is bullshit. You saying something lacks credibility doesn't mean its incredible. You saying there is no evidence doesnt mean there is no evidence. All it shows is that you are trying to make people believe that what i am saying is untrue, but that you are unwilling to show why, where and how it is untrue. In an educational discussion about a given subject people often make claims (and i admit that as yet i have not backed up mine with links to any evidence - but i have promised that i will at the end of a week - this is out of courtesy to you to allow you the time to gather evidence to prove that your claims about the unreliability of my argument ar valid), and others will make counter claims. It is useless to just say that is wrong - which is all you have done - you have to say why it is wrong; and it is useless to accuse someones argument of lacking substantiality if you can not prove its insubstantiality with evidence. Otherwise you are simply ego mongering.

"He hasnt proven what he said so it must be wrong. Im not going to prove that its wrong but you should believe me when i say its wrong because its me saying it!!!" This is all you have really said - why do you need to so self admittedly "sadistically", childishly, and ignorantly enter into this kind of discussion.

When it comes to the cohesion of my thoughts, when people are talking about the cohesiveness of thoughts, they are talking about each thought having a laterall or logical link to the previous one. Ideas and their representation in speech are deemed to be incohesive or incoherent when there is no longer any logical or lateral link between one thought and the next, or when concepts cease to be relative to a central theme. The central theme you posed by starting this thread was a very broad one; and any politician, academic, business executive, or social worker will tell you that it is one that cannot be discussed without considering in terms of its broader ramifications, and including a vast array of concepts and social aspects in the discussion. Not at least without sacrificing a sense of clarity, cohesiveness, or coherence to the discussion.

All the points i raised were relative to the central theme, and were either logically or laterally linked both to that central theme and to the preceeding concept. So to say that my speech is incoherent or incohesive is obviously just an empty use of these words. This implies then that you either do not know what the words actually mean, or that you are using them misleadingly to achieve some goal which could not possibly be known to any but yourself (it may even be unknown to you why you are trying incapably to make a mockery of myself and my personal opinion).

Maybe the clarity of my expression itself was not perfect, but that was the result of laziness - a mistake in no way intend to make ever again in discussions with you acid09 - since you jump on literal representations, and fail to read between the lines to the implied meanings. I apologise for lazy and at times possibly cryptic speech, but despite my use of these the coheseiveness and coherence of my language is still easily discernable. The fact remains though that there is no point continuing to push the idea that my arguments are incoherent or incohesive because i have just proven definitavely (by definitive i mean in relation to definition, in that the meaning is definite) that they are in fact completely cohesive and coherent. Are you now going to say that the dictionary is wrong. Or that despite what the dictionary says everyone else knows what you mean when you say coherent or cohesive - the fact is that i dont!!!

When it comes to credibility - who do you think you are? Where is your credibility? If you arent trying to sway peoples opinion then why did you bother to respond to my posts in the first place. Or is that just because you are sadistic? Although it will be funny for you to say so again, since this is a serious topic i think that it would be disrespectful to the victims of drugs and terrorism and their respective wars to say so dont you? Who are you that people should believe you when you say that my argument lacks credibility, or authority, or coherence; if you yourself are unwilling or unable to actually state why, where, or how my opinion lacks credibility, or authority, or coherence.

What is your motivation behind constantly trying to pick apart my argument, show its flaws, its lack of coherence? It has become bleedingly obvious that it is not simply for the reason that my argument lacks credibility or coherence. I have already proven that my arguments are in fact coherent, whether or not you emptily continue to claim that they are not in the hope that in repeating the lie it will be believed - oh but thats right - you dont care what people believe. Your just picking apart my argument for the sake of it? Its time to be honest with yourself and with us my friend, and call a spade a spade.

I am more than willing to concede that the arguments i have made are no longer valid if you can provide some new evidence to the contrary. But for the mean time no matter whether anyone else believes me or not i will stand by them because i have seen and read the evidence that supports them. If you or anyone can provide new evidence that disproves these ideas, then of course as a peron who is interested not only in my own subjetive truth but also in greater objective truths i am happy to be lead by reason and sound logic to a greater understanding of the realities surounding these issues.

If the best you can do though is to use language incorrectly, and try to urge persuasion based on arrogance and empty conceptualisations rather than any sound logic or reasoning; then it is impossible for me to take anything you say with anything more than a grain of salt.

Go to your tarot deck and meditate on the tower card - this is the most loving thing i can say to you.

I never tried to "pick apart" anyone elses opinion. Only to put forth my own (one that can be supported by a wealth of academic and practical research).

Academic? Practical? I have yet to see anything to back your claims. Its not that you're sharing your opinion, thats what this thread is suppose to be about; its that you seem to be trying to prove your opinion without actually supporting it with any real evidence. What you have done is brought up a lot of interesting ideas in very long and hard to read posts (that whole coehesiveness thingy) and tried to validate the *truth* of your arguement by saying that it is substantiated by so many studies and never once cited anything.

Until you can make a vaild argument to support your opinion I don't need to discredit you any further. Besides I'm not trying to say you're opinion is wrong. I'm trying to say there is no *proof*- in your posts- that validates any truth to your opinion. Which it seems to me you are not just trying to share your thoughts, you're tyring to prove that they are right or maybe "better" than others - thats just my opinion. If want to prove your point and have it seem somewhat believable you need to find the proof and add it to your opinion.

To show that there are flaws would require you to go and gather evidence to prove that my claims were not true. The basis of your flawed argument is that my own arguments lack substantiating evidence.

Umm do you know anything about arguments? I pointed out that your arguement is not valid. Its not valid for the reasons we've continually rehashed over and over. Therefore I do not need to provide any contradictory evidence because your arguement is not valid. Informal debate or not if you can't present your argument in a valid format I have no interest in wasting my time trying to discredit you further. You've done that well enough on your own.

You also attempt to be clever with your language in the hope to make me look stupid, but it is only yourself who you are shedding any light on.

What a clever way to call me stupid. But I'll tell you straight up if I thought you were stupid I'd just say it I wouldn't sugar coat it.

Am i babbling?

Hmmm...Lets see

The point i am making is that you haven't pointed out any flaws in my argument. All you have done is showed where flaws "may" exist. To show that there are flaws would require you to go and gather evidence to prove that my claims were not true. The basis of your flawed argument is that my own arguments lack substantiating evidence. This is a most ignorant and self depreciating argument to make because you have no proof of it. You have just assumed that my arguments cannot be backed up by evidence - but in fact they can. Your own argument meanwhile is unable to be substantiated due to the very fact that there is a well spring of evidence available upon which I base my argument.

I never tried to "pick apart" anyone elses opinion. Only to put forth my own (one that can be supported by a wealth of academic and practical research). You also attempt to be clever with your language in the hope to make me look stupid, but it is only yourself who you are shedding any light on. For example what exactly is a "long winded flaw". Is it a flaw that is expressed long windedly? If so what gives the flaw this "long winded" expression. Does it give it to itself? Is it given by the subject within which the flaw exists, and if so then is it the flaw or the subject that is long winded? Laziness is a flaw. Can someone suffer from "long winded" lazines? Im sorry if this isn't coherent. Am i babbling?

You are consistently trying to dispute my argument and say that it is incoherent, that it is unsubstantiated, that it lacks credibility, and that despite the way i present myself that it lacks authority. It is all well and good to say these things, but not if you cannot utilise the very qualities you accuse my arguments of lacking.

Despite using single words like credibility, authority, substantiality, incoherence and evidence; you have said nothing that proves the validity of your use of these words in your claims.

You saying thats bullshit, doesnt prove that something is bullshit. You saying something lacks credibility doesn't mean its incredible. You saying there is no evidence doesnt mean there is no evidence. All it shows is that you are trying to make people believe that what i am saying is untrue, but that you are unwilling to show why, where and how it is untrue. In an educational discussion about a given subject people often make claims (and i admit that as yet i have not backed up mine with links to any evidence - but i have promised that i will at the end of a week - this is out of courtesy to you to allow you the time to gather evidence to prove that your claims about the unreliability of my argument ar valid), and others will make counter claims. It is useless to just say that is wrong - which is all you have done - you have to say why it is wrong; and it is useless to accuse someones argument of lacking substantiality if you can not prove its insubstantiality with evidence. Otherwise you are simply ego mongering.

"He hasnt proven what he said so it must be wrong. Im not going to prove that its wrong but you should believe me when i say its wrong because its me saying it!!!" This is all you have really said - why do you need to so self admittedly "sadistically", childishly, and ignorantly enter into this kind of discussion.

When it comes to the cohesion of my thoughts, when people are talking about the cohesiveness of thoughts, they are talking about each thought having a laterall or logical link to the previous one. Ideas and their representation in speech are deemed to be incohesive or incoherent when there is no longer any logical or lateral link between one thought and the next, or when concepts cease to be relative to a central theme. The central theme you posed by starting this thread was a very broad one; and any politician, academic, business executive, or social worker will tell you that it is one that cannot be discussed without considering in terms of its broader ramifications, and including a vast array of concepts and social aspects in the discussion. Not at least without sacrificing a sense of clarity, cohesiveness, or coherence to the discussion.

All the points i raised were relative to the central theme, and were either logically or laterally linked both to that central theme and to the preceeding concept. So to say that my speech is incoherent or incohesive is obviously just an empty use of these words. This implies then that you either do not know what the words actually mean, or that you are using them misleadingly to achieve some goal which could not possibly be known to any but yourself (it may even be unknown to you why you are trying incapably to make a mockery of myself and my personal opinion).

Maybe the clarity of my expression itself was not perfect, but that was the result of laziness - a mistake in no way intend to make ever again in discussions with you acid09 - since you jump on literal representations, and fail to read between the lines to the implied meanings. I apologise for lazy and at times possibly cryptic speech, but despite my use of these the coheseiveness and coherence of my language is still easily discernable. The fact remains though that there is no point continuing to push the idea that my arguments are incoherent or incohesive because i have just proven definitavely (by definitive i mean in relation to definition, in that the meaning is definite) that they are in fact completely cohesive and coherent. Are you now going to say that the dictionary is wrong. Or that despite what the dictionary says everyone else knows what you mean when you say coherent or cohesive - the fact is that i dont!!!

When it comes to credibility - who do you think you are? Where is your credibility? If you arent trying to sway peoples opinion then why did you bother to respond to my posts in the first place. Or is that just because you are sadistic? Although it will be funny for you to say so again, since this is a serious topic i think that it would be disrespectful to the victims of drugs and terrorism and their respective wars to say so dont you? Who are you that people should believe you when you say that my argument lacks credibility, or authority, or coherence; if you yourself are unwilling or unable to actually state why, where, or how my opinion lacks credibility, or authority, or coherence.

What is your motivation behind constantly trying to pick apart my argument, show its flaws, its lack of coherence? It has become bleedingly obvious that it is not simply for the reason that my argument lacks credibility or coherence. I have already proven that my arguments are in fact coherent, whether or not you emptily continue to claim that they are not in the hope that in repeating the lie it will be believed - oh but thats right - you dont care what people believe. Your just picking apart my argument for the sake of it? Its time to be honest with yourself and with us my friend, and call a spade a spade.

I am more than willing to concede that the arguments i have made are no longer valid if you can provide some new evidence to the contrary. But for the mean time no matter whether anyone else believes me or not i will stand by them because i have seen and read the evidence that supports them. If you or anyone can provide new evidence that disproves these ideas, then of course as a peron who is interested not only in my own subjetive truth but also in greater objective truths i am happy to be lead by reason and sound logic to a greater understanding of the realities surounding these issues.

If the best you can do though is to use language incorrectly, and try to urge persuasion based on arrogance and empty conceptualisations rather than any sound logic or reasoning; then it is impossible for me to take anything you say with anything more than a grain of salt.

Go to your tarot deck and meditate on the tower card - this is the most loving thing i can say to you.

Yep I'd say so.

I am more than willing to concede that the arguments i have made are no longer valid if you can provide some new evidence to the contrary.

I can't remember the exact term for the fallacy but what it means is when one uses "authorities" (in this case studies and government agencies) to attempt to prove or validate a claim without actually presenting any real evidence. You're attempting to prove your opinion is "right" or the "best" by basically naming authorities without anything to back it up. Again its not that I think your opinion is wrong but your arguement is not valid.

If the best you can do though is to use language incorrectly, and try to urge persuasion based on arrogance and empty conceptualisations rather than any sound logic or reasoning; then it is impossible for me to take anything you say with anything more than a grain of salt.

Man you're ass backwards. This accusation is exactly what I've been saying about your arguement from get go. I'n not trying to claim to be any authority on the matter I thik if readers look at this thread and what you've posted the can make their own judgements. And now you're trying to turn the tables to pin it on me? Since you've said it yourself I think you should go get your evidence or let the topic go.

What is your motivation behind constantly trying to pick apart my argument, show its flaws, its lack of coherence?

Because when I see pompous egocentric babbling idiots such as yourself I am overwhelmed by the compulsive urge to be an ass-hole

This post has been edited by Acid09: Nov 14 2006, 03:09 PM

Why do you continually feel the need to repeat your boring point that my opinion isnt backed up by fact in my post. Everybody can see this i have conceeded this point repeatedly. Like i said, which you seem so hesitant to mention in your posts, is that i have promised to provide back up evidence for my opinion.

The reality is though I shouldn't and don't need to. Not because because it is true whether i back it up or not, but because as all you ever asked for was my opinion, thats all i provided. I didnt think i needed to back it up with evidence. Many people have made claims in this thread that lack any substantial evidence.

The obvious reality which you seem to miss, depite your constant disrespectful tone and insulting remarks, is that the reason you so desperately need to point out that my opinionated post lacks evidence within the frame within which it is contained, is because.......

You disagree with it. So instead of simply saying "although i have done no research which can disprove your claim, i do not agree with it" you resort to a dishonest and sneaky method of putting "your" opinion across by saying that my opinion lacks credibility - and therefore people should agree with yours.

You are the one who started this thread. It is you who is trying so covertly to push your own opinion by attempting to discredit mine - something you have still failed to do. All you have done is show that when the going gets tough, the best you can do is resort to petty name calling. In the same sentence that you call me "pompous" and "egocentric" you also call me a "babbling idiot"; this after already inferring that i am stupid. I am "pompous" and "egocentric" am i? I havent called anyone a "babbling idiot". I will say though that after calling what are obviously easy to read statements babble, and incoherent, it is becoming clear that you do lack some skills in comprehension.

Now I am considering a little name calling of my own but instead ill be a little nice to you. I ll eat a little humbe pie:

No my opinion was not backed up by evidence in my post. Yes it could easily be construed that i was saying my opinion was better - and in fact i think it is since it is based on research and evidence (which i will provide - i can give you reams of it if you want) - but this in no way means that i think i am better than you or anyone else. This is not about "me". Its not about "you" despite our best efforts to make it so. This is about a touchy subject - one that through my work and studies i have learned a lot about. I don think i am better. I think that based on what you have written though, i am more informed than you. This may be wrong, i am willing to concede this if its true - i dont really giva a f%*! about whos right or wrong:

I just give a f%*! about peoples lives. I give a f%*! about creating the situation which is simultaneously best for individuals and masses. This is an agenda of mine. Yes my agenda is for the good of people. I suspect that beneath your turbulent desire to insult me, yours is also. Yours and my vision of this may not converge harmoniously - but this doesnt mean that either of us are wrong. It just means that we dont undertand eachothers visions. This is fine. But you and I do ourselves no favours by name calling or by using sneaky or manipulatrive argumentative techniques to persuade others.

I apologise if not providing evidence to back up my opinion on a forum is sneaky or manipulative. But since you are so intent on attempting to convince people to ignore my opinion because it lacks instant verification, then you could at least use some verification of your own. Or have a little patience and wait for mine. It will come.

Untill then i again suggest you meditate on the Tower tarot card. I may be pompous - but am i wrong?

I'm just messing with you because I think its funny you continually respond to my redundant remarks with incredibly long posts. You must either type really really fast or are unable to say anything in less than 5 sentances. You must be an accountant (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Honestly your opinion is your opinion and should not have to provide any proof of that, its yours. I just personally find it a lot easier to respect people's opinions if they cite sourcs for the authorities, studies and numbers they claim. If they don't it does make people seem pompous. I really don't care if you get evidence or not. Besides I'd only continue to antagonize you regardless.

You dont know what you are getting yourself into bubby. Pull-ups don't make you a man. Mindcorp Management will be continuing to scan every post you make on this forum, and any inconsistencies or pompous remarks lacking in evidence will result in summoning the sisters of the flaming spam of apocolypse. You have been warned!!! No bow down and renounce all this humanity bullshit; you're a virus with shoes (kudos to those who know- and this line is not mine to those who dont - i thought it was rather fiting though).

You must be a non smoker - or are you just pro life?

The ghost of bill hicks will be putting cigarettes out on your soul tonight!!!!!

You must be a non smoker - or are you just pro life?

Actually I'm a smoker (cammel wides), a drinker and pothead who's pro-choice and a moderate.

Now I'm going to stoop to your level and be a long winded jackass for a moment.

You're about as clever with your insults as you are with your arguements. If I was as juvenile I'd still be in middle school. The simple fact you continue to post to these threads just shows what a egocentric self-rightous nut you really are. You're user name is pretty accurate. From now on I will reffer to you as Spaz.

Judging by the content of your posts you're probably an elitist left-wing radical who is utterly convinced his views are for the "good" of humanity. You're arogance is demonstrated by the fact you've continuely come back to this and the vegeterian thread as though it were some kind of contest to prove you're more right than everybody else, or at least me since you've made numerous remarks about me. Nobody gives a shit what you think. I'd be suprised if anybody cared what I think.

Your long, repeatative strawman arguements also demonstrate that, while you're probably are an intelligent guy, you also may have an underlying inferiority complex that predisposes you try to prove your intelligence to others. You might also be a boarderline sociopath as this complex is very self-serving. See you're probably not going to simply shut up and drop this thread. You're going to continually come back with another lame post that makes you in your deluded little word believe you've out done me or somehow proven you're smarter. It just shows what a pseudo-intellect you really are. But I don't presume to know you so I could only speculate.

Honestly I don't care if you actually are smarter or not. I'm don't care if your "right" either. I'm just trying to piss you off. Why? Because your attitude sucks. I don't think you want to a part of this site to learn about the occult or contribute to this online community. You're only here to use this site as a platform to try and push your politics on others and feel special about it. On top of that I don't particularly like you because of your attitude and I can't imagine that many others on this site really do either. You should probably leaving sm and find another site to troll.

And judging by you're riddiculous "insults" I'd say I am getting you emotionally involved in the topic. Generally speaking when an arguer resorts to adolestant name calling and threats :

You have got to be the most self reighteous little twat I have ever come across. Hahahah!!!! You are such a deluded little tool. Have anoither great day with your prick in your hand you little shit!!!

You dont know what you are getting yourself into bubby. Pull-ups don't make you a man. Mindcorp Management will be continuing to scan every post you make on this forum, and any inconsistencies or pompous remarks lacking in evidence will result in summoning the sisters of the flaming spam of apocolypse.

it indicates that the defending arguer has exhausted their arguement and realizes they've lost, cannot win or *that its pointless to try to "win" or even prove who's right or wrong*. I'd try door number 3 Jim.

No bow down and renounce all this humanity bullshit; you're a virus with shoes

Well you got me there better pat yourself on the back, treat yourself to some ice cream and feel special.

You have been warned!!!

You can flame me all you want, so long as it stays in fight club. If it tweaks your ego you can even bring in your little buddies and join in on the fun. But because you've threatened to spam and flame this site I'm warning you; from here on out I will monitor your posts. Any spam anywhere on this site or flames to any members outside of fight club, including private messages, will result in revocation of your account as per sey the forum guidlines:

The one post wonders that sign up to this site with the primary intention of posting garbage and "stirring the pot" will be banned immediately without warning. This sort of use will NOT be tolerated at any time. Generally, violating member will get 3 warnings and be put in 7 days moderation queue before permanently banned if violation persist

You may not make personal attacks on other users or staff members either in public forums or private messages.

We don’t like SPAM! and we’re sure you don’t either. We’re proud of our site and want it to be the best. We don’t mind it if you’re from a competing site but we don’t like it if you spam your site here. So don’t advertise your site on ours and we won’t come and advertise our site on yours. We’re also not at all keen on you posting and asking for people to visit your site and become members. We wouldn’t do that to you so it’s only right you don’t do it to us.

That "stiring the pot" part is justification to negate the 3 warning rule.

This post has been edited by Acid09: Nov 17 2006, 03:57 PM

Actually my interest in the occult is why im at this site. I do not consider myself to be in any means an expert on the occult. In fact after years of solitary research and practice, i have only just in the last week been blessed with having received a teacher into my life. Something i am very excited about. Especially when i view it in terms of a lot of hermetic and rosicrucian literature; ie that one will not receive a teacher untill one is ready to learn. By that rationalisation i obviously am only at the begining of my occult journey despite having been studying for years. In fact i have learned a lot from reading posts from users of this site: Nero for one is someone whos posts i have found to be most useful, and Ashnook as well.

Maybe i am guilty of being over zealous. But then 1 = 10. Not that i necessarily subscribe to this graded ascension - its just a good allegory. I apologise for offending you. Despite my own initial desire to use the reputation system against you i chose not to. I respected who you were despite wether i agreed with where you were coming from or not. I didnt think our little discussions warranted resorting to petty levels of point scoring. I am not suggesting either that this is what you did in reporting me, only that for myself that is the rationalisation i used for not reporting you. Maybe i shouldnt type that last bit. Well it is my truth and i should respect you enough to be honest about it.

My maybe sociopathic and psychologically inferior desire is to say that yes i did this and that but; you did this and that but i wont. Ill simply say that i can see where i have erred in my arguments or discussions with you and i thank you for providing me with an opportunity to learn and grow. I see this opportunity as an invitation from you, as a representative of THE ALL. I accept this invitation graciously, and i apologise for:

1) Using this forum as a platform for ego gratification and self serving self promotion (I am in no way being carcastic in saying this - i concede that there has definitely been an element of this to my posts).

2) For offending you and resorting to petty and childish name calling, and futile and dirty methods of convercing.

I am most sincerely sorry. There has been an element of truth in the things you have said about me, and despite the fact that way that you said them was so astonishingly hurtful and disrespectfull as to warrant an attitude from me of no reply, in respect to this truth i will respond, and also to the best of my ability in kind. No matter whether or not we agree politically, psychologicaly or socially on method, i can see the common ground apon which we as occultists (i hate that word) tread. I think it is more important for us to stick together no matter how radically left wing that sounds, than it is for us to be displaced and disparraged by technical specifics.

In the words of some of the greatest men of all time, though i in no way include myself in their company:

I AM SORRY!!!

(PS - I will also add that i promise that in future i will do my best to be self aware enough to ensure that my contributions to this forum are nothing short of the epitome of constructive and productive)

(edited to remove unnecessary babble (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bigwink.gif) )

This post has been edited by extinctionspasm: Nov 17 2006, 09:19 PM

Nobody is perfect, I sure as hell am not, but we can always improve ourselves.

Weeks ago when this whole things started the thing that stuck out was your attitude. Because I percieved that as negative to this site I descided to provoke you, yes I intended to put you in the hot seat. I did it and said the things I did because I figured it would result in one of two out comes: a) it'd prove that you weren't really interested in this site because you left or got banned or b) you really are more interested in this site than winning pointless arguments and let the bickering go.

You're last post at least suggests that option b is what you chose.

Now when I said I didn't like you that wasn't entirely true nor representative of the site. I only meant I didn't like the attitude.

The only said that actually upset me was the remark to spam and flame the site. You implied you were going to rain in hell on the site, which has done you no wrong, instead of just keeping it here with me.

But no need to appologize further you'e talked the talk now walk the walk.

I hope for the sake of younger more fragile members who have already or are yet to join this forum that it is not the policy here to test "newcomers"; no matter what their first few post may be like.

As a managing member of various ngo's i am also aware of the necessity for management (in the case of internet forums - moderators) to maintain best practice policies in terms of ethics and professional standards in the way that they relate to service users, other staff, and interested third parties. In a democratric system (which this forum is part of despite its existence on the anarchic world wide web, due to it being a free service provided by a profit based business) it is just as, and if not more important for the management to be "tested" for the purposes of ensuring the success of the business not only in terms of profit but also in terms of service delivery (some would suggest that these are the same but there are uncountable instances of businesses who enjoyed huge profits despite their extremely poor service until some sort of regulatory body stepped in). It is also simply a matter of ethics and ensuring that power relationships are not unhealthy, and authority is not used innappropriately, not just because businesses are found to be more successful when these are in check, but because that is the kind of society we as europeans, brits, americans, australians, asians, easteners, and africans, humans wish to be involved in.

I am not saying this to in any way suggest that until now you have used your power as a moderator inappropriately, in fact i would say that you have not. I say it only to point out that for the sake of the forum you and all paid and non paid facillitators must be scrutanised as well as the service users, if this is truly to be the kind of forum i think you were hinting at in your previous post.

If people in positions of authority are to be authoritative they must exercise the power that the positions afford. If they are to exercise power though, it must be done in a way that is devoid of all hypocrisy, and is not in the manner of power for powers sake. It must be remembered that it is the position that carries the weight of power, and not the individual who holds it.

I think too that there has got to be a recognition of the position that a managing member of an organisation holds, in every word they speak and every action they direct. No matter what your interest may be in, or your passion for the product or service which you help to deliver, you cannot pick and choose when you are a representative of the organisation and when you are not. As a moderator of this forum you are "always" a representative of this organisation, and as such whenever you are on this forum, your words and actions are always representative of it (people who are notprepared to accept these responsibilities should not be managers or moderators of organisations - whether they are paid or not - as most organisational management and moderator positions are not).

The point i am getting at when expressed succinctly is that if you as a moderator of this forum are going to implore members with which you converse with to "walk the walk".
Then you must be certain that you yourself are doing so one hundred percent of the time.

I hope that you are as practical in the application of your theory as you have asked me to be, otherwise your position as moderator means nothing.

I supect you will be though, and in saying so i must say a word in recognition and appreciation that non paid members of organisations such as this do. They put a lot of time and effort in behind the scenes that everyday service users dont see - and for this to all of the staff and moderators at sacred-magick, i would like to say a big:

THANKYOU!!!

This post has been edited by extinctionspasm: Nov 19 2006, 07:51 PM

Back on topic

First I voted the way I did on the poll because I do not think using recreational drugs is any more amoral than stuffing one's face at a fast food join or needlessly putting themselves in harms way sky diving or bungee jumping and so on. However I did vote that we maintain that certain drugs remain illegal because of their highly addictive nature and the amount of crime that seems to stem from the organizations that distrbute these and being addicted to these. Then something got me thinking:

A friend and I were having a converstation about this. He suggested something kind of interesting. He pointed out that if ALL drugs were legal we could require users to get a permit or license of some kind in order to be able to legally use them. Of course there would certainly still be users who would do their thing without a license just as there are people who drive or own guns without a license. But what it would do is allow a large portion of the public a way to be able to legally use their drug(s) while at the same time take the drugs off the black market. This would reduce organized crime and legitamize the Government's ability to tax the drug corperations that manufactured/grew them. The government could also make money selling drug permits. Of course its not full proof and I'll get to that in a minute.

So I asked how would we go about handing out licenses? Would we require people to get a license that allows them to use any drug or a license that allows them to use certain drugs; would we have to make a permit for each drug? My friend's idea was make licenses for drug use according to their schedualed classifaction. Stuff like tobbaco, even caffine would be availible to people who are at least 18. Where as marijuana, alcohol, salvia and x would be availible to people who are at least 21. The the harder drugs would be availible to people's 25 and older. My friend had other restrictions too like a person must be a legal citizen and could not have had any felony or prior drug convictions, no drug related crimes either and some other stuff I can't remember. And he listed a myraid of reason why one might have their license(s) revoked (ei driving under the influence or selling to people who don't have permits). Also try and recognize this is just an idea one that certainly has many holes as we were at a bar and pretty buzzed ourselves.

While considering permits and such the topic of perscriptions came up. We agreed that if licenses were the way to go that perscriptions would serve as termporary licenses and there would be no changes to them. The reasoning is that perscription drugs are meant to be used as medicine and most have very little recreational value. The problem is that many street drugs out there are perscription drugs.

A society that allows recreational drug use to those who have permits has some advantages: Having people get permits means they are of a certain age and meet certain requirements. It also allows for a government database to open up that would keep track of registored drug users. Street drugs are inaffect taken off the black market and thus affect organized crime. This would help lower the prices making it cheaper and more affordable reducing the need to resort to crime. Being legal this opens new industries for Americans to capitalize on as well as legitimize research for the production of safer drugs. Law enforcement would not be as overloaded on drug possession charges and ideally drug related crimes. The government would be able to make money off both the sale of permit, the companies who make the drugs and those that sell them as well. The money made from drugs could go towards any number of possible programs and I do think we would need to make legislation for this to ensure this money doesn't just go into the pockets of government officals or others.

Of course new problems arise as well - drug cartels might switch from selling street drugs to perscription drugs or manufacturing new drugs not covered by permits. Enabling so many people to legally use drugs means that there would be very little the law could do to enforce the sale of drugs to people who cannot get permits, other than severealy increase the penalties. In fact handing out permits might enable current drug dealers a front for their businesses. There's also no garuntee that current drug addicts would actually pay for permits when they're probably more interested in buying drugs. Making hard drugs more readily availible means a possible increase in the number of addicts as well as DUI offense or work related problems.

Its not full proof but its an idea. Any feed back?

Man....after reading all of this...I think I need a joint.


Lol. Jk. I dont smoke marijuana or drink. From what I know about both of them, I think it would make more sense to make alcohol illegal, and marijuana legal. Maybe Im missing something...idk. I dont know of anything alcohol does good for someone. And weed seems to calm people down, let them have a good time. Alcohol also has bad after effects. Marijuana is bad for your lungs, so if one used it another way, other than smoking, it seems like there would be no problem to me.

Be blessed.

Well some info that may or may not have already been mentioned:

Pot can have a variety of affects. In some people it can cause sensations of paranoia and can cause people to shake. It also does lower one's motor function. But the euphoria can help many users calm down, relax, feel pleasurable even intensify sex and reduce pain. It is bad for the lungs, throat and tongue too. Plus the THC molecules are not water soluble and so they can cling to fat cells in the body. The body can disdinguish between normal fat cells and the one's tainted with THC and so it avoids the THC ridden fat cells. Some of these fat cells can remain in the body for decades.

Alcohol certainly reduces pain and causes the body to release endorphines that can create a pleasurable sensation. It also decreases anxiety. In moderate to large doses alcohol desensitizes the body causing the capillaries to constrict. This can lower one's body heat but a person might actually feel warmer because they are desensitized. Alcohol, of course, is hard on the liver, kidnies and stomach. It can also damage nerves and reduce the minds ability to remember or learn new things. But again the side affects, just as with the direct affect, of any drugs vary from one person to the next.

I suppose that the questions are more for people from the USA. Here in Canada we have had legal medical use of marijuana for 8 or 10 years. As a therapist I have had clients come to me and essentially ask for my blessings for their personal use of marijuana to help with their medical condition. I can't give them my blessings due to professional regulations, but I don't discourage them either.

Our marijuana laws were declared unconstitutional about 3 or 4 years ago and they haven't been able to agree on laws to replace them. So the police don't arrest anyone for possession anymore. The laws are still on the books, but the charges would be thrown out of court if they were used. In my city we have a weed cafe in which you can buy joints or bags of weed and smoke them in the cafe as long as you are a member.

Laws concerning harder drugs are unaffected though and it is still illegal to grow or sell large amounts of weed. We still have the same problems with crack and opiates. I'm told that there are about 20,000 addicts in my city which has a population of 500,000. There is still plenty of work for the cops.

Personally, I haven't smoked weed in over 20 years. I haven't even had a drink in almost as long, however that is a personal choice. Many of my friends toke up, sometimes in my presence. I figure that weed is about the same as booze.

Greetings everyone,


I believe that before matters of such great importance can be seriously discussed we must all sit down and smoke the proverbial joint. For those of us who against legalization at least sit down and drink a proverbial beer with us.

Gaius quit the forum and Yoda will not pass the joint.

We only have two years left with George Bush and his war of terror.

Everybody smile and be happy.

Salute!

This post has been edited by smasher666: Nov 28 2006, 04:01 PM