Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminalize drugs


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminalize drugs Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/4/2011 5:38:17 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Perhaps then you might tell us the primary difference between coke and crack?

I'll answer your question if it makes you happy TX. Everyone knows coke is mainly snorted, sometimes injected. Freebase coke is smoked. Crack is similar to freebase but uses soda and it became hugely popular in da 80's. It gives a much more intense but quicker buzz. This is common knowledge. It caused a big fucking mess mainly in poorer communities, created da crack baby phenomenon, was da subject of numerous hollywood movies and now folks like you want to legalise it!



Wrong answer...
you can guess again or perhaps go to google and look up the answer. Then you could come back here and we could have a discussion about this subject and you would be able to contribute constructively.

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/4/2011 5:44:45 PM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Perhaps then you might tell us the primary difference between coke and crack?

I'll answer your question if it makes you happy TX. Everyone knows coke is mainly snorted, sometimes injected. Freebase coke is smoked. Crack is similar to freebase but uses soda and it became hugely popular in da 80's. It gives a much more intense but quicker buzz. This is common knowledge. It caused a big fucking mess mainly in poorer communities, created da crack baby phenomenon, was da subject of numerous hollywood movies and now folks like you want to legalise it!

Wrong answer...
you can guess again or perhaps go to google and look up the answer. Then you could come back here and we could have a discussion about this subject and you would be able to contribute constructively.


This exchange has become a fucking joke lol. Just googled da words "crack" and "cocaine" so here is a link from page one, it confirms da differences between the drugs I stated: http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs-alcohol/crack1.htm

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/4/2011 5:45:41 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I just told you how it is possible to say. lol. I'll say it once more to be charitable. Illegality curbs use through law enforcement and severe punishment for possession. Doesn't stop it but it curbs it substantially. Is that simple enough or will I have to say it again? If you think that is wrong then you provide proof da laws have never stopped anyone.


Your simple explanation is wrong.
The war on drugs has not curbed drug use substantially as you claim.
I did not say the laws never stopped anyone from using drugs,you said that and if you believe it then it would be up to you to prove it.

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/4/2011 5:48:38 PM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

I just told you how it is possible to say. lol. I'll say it once more to be charitable. Illegality curbs use through law enforcement and severe punishment for possession. Doesn't stop it but it curbs it substantially. Is that simple enough or will I have to say it again? If you think that is wrong then you provide proof da laws have never stopped anyone.


Your simple explanation is wrong.
The war on drugs has not curbed drug use substantially as you claim.
I did not say the laws never stopped anyone from using drugs,you said that and if you believe it then it would be up to you to prove it.


It is beyond stupid to say intensive law enforcement and severe criminal sentencing for the possession of hard drugs made no substantial difference to the consumption of drugs. It doesn't have to be proved. It is a self evident fact.

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/4/2011 5:51:44 PM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

It is beyond stupid to say intensive law enforcement and severe criminal sentencing for the possession of hard drugs made no substantial difference to the consumption of drugs. It doesn't have to be proved. It is a self evident fact.
The Earth is flat. It's a self-evident fact.


_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/4/2011 5:58:47 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

This exchange has become a fucking joke lol. Just googled da words "crack" and "cocaine" so here is a link from page one, it confirms da differences between the drugs I stated: http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs-alcohol/crack1.htm


The following quote from your cite would indicate to anyone with basic knowledge of the pharmacopia that the authors of your article know less than you about coke.
quote:

people began to realize that cocaine was an addictive narcotic,

Get a dictionary and look up narcotic.
Now look up cocain and then tell us all how coke is a narcotic.
Why have you entered a discussion without preparing yourself with knowledge about the subject being discussed?


(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/4/2011 6:59:11 PM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster
quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
It is beyond stupid to say intensive law enforcement and severe criminal sentencing for the possession of hard drugs made no substantial difference to the consumption of drugs. It doesn't have to be proved. It is a self evident fact.
The Earth is flat. It's a self-evident fact.

So you are saying intensive drug law enforcement and very strong criminal sentencing had no substantive effect on reducing drug consumption? Seriously? If thats a yes then there must be something very wrong with your ability to reason. Fear of severe punishment alone is a strong inducement not to do a certain thing. Thats why punishment exists.


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

This exchange has become a fucking joke lol. Just googled da words "crack" and "cocaine" so here is a link from page one, it confirms da differences between the drugs I stated: http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs-alcohol/crack1.htm

The following quote from your cite would indicate to anyone with basic knowledge of the pharmacopia that the authors of your article know less than you about coke.
quote:

people began to realize that cocaine was an addictive narcotic,

Get a dictionary and look up narcotic.
Now look up cocain and then tell us all how coke is a narcotic.
Why have you entered a discussion without preparing yourself with knowledge about the subject being discussed?


Firstly, that is just one word in an article. Do a similar google search and you'll find other sites saying da same thing. Secondly, I did not read da site before commenting on this thread. It was only cited to back up my recent point buddy. Thirdly, you are wrong by definition. Words often have numerous differing meanings. Here is wiki on the word itself:
quote:


The term narcotic (pronounced /nɑrˈkɒtɨk/) originally referred medically to any psychoactive compound with any sleep-inducing properties. In the United States of America it has since become associated with opioids, commonly morphine and heroin and their derivatives, such as hydrocodone. The term is, today, imprecisely defined and typically has negative connotations.[1] When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation, such as PCP or marijuana.


< Message edited by WantsOfTheFlesh -- 6/4/2011 7:02:11 PM >


_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/4/2011 7:15:02 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

So you are saying intensive drug law enforcement and very strong criminal sentencing had no substantive effect on reducing drug consumption?

You obviously do not get out much. The u.s. consumes more drugs now than at any time since these laws were passed. So it obviously has not had the desired deterent effect.

Seriously? If thats a yes then there must be something very wrong with your ability to reason. Fear of severe punishment alone is a strong inducement not to do a certain thing. Thats why punishment exists.

They beat people with a stick for breaking the laws in singapore and yet they continue to do so. So obviously it is not working.

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/4/2011 7:22:10 PM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

So you are saying intensive drug law enforcement and very strong criminal sentencing had no substantive effect on reducing drug consumption?

You obviously do not get out much. The u.s. consumes more drugs now than at any time since these laws were passed. So it obviously has not had the desired deterent effect.

Seriously? If thats a yes then there must be something very wrong with your ability to reason. Fear of severe punishment alone is a strong inducement not to do a certain thing. Thats why punishment exists.

They beat people with a stick for breaking the laws in singapore and yet they continue to do so. So obviously it is not working.

Not only that (deterrence), but there isn't even a baseline to measure illegalization/armed thug deterrence; only moving averages.


_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/4/2011 7:22:16 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Firstly, that is just one word in an article. Do a similar google search and you'll find other sites saying da same thing. Secondly, I did not read da site before commenting on this thread. It was only cited to back up my recent point buddy. Thirdly, you are wrong by definition. Words often have numerous differing meanings. Here is wiki on the word itself:


The word narcotic has a specific meaning in the pharmacopia and the fact that you or anyone else uses that word incorrectrly does not make your usage correct.

quote:

When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation, such as PCP or marijuana.



It would appear that wiki has their head up their collective asses on this one. Consider the states that have legaliized medical marijuana.
Cops and other punks with an agenda that is anti drug like to call marijuana a narcotic and all that does is validate their ignorance..
It would appear that you would prefert to argue from a position of ignorance.

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/4/2011 7:23:39 PM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

So you are saying intensive drug law enforcement and very strong criminal sentencing had no substantive effect on reducing drug consumption?

You obviously do not get out much. The u.s. consumes more drugs now than at any time since these laws were passed. So it obviously has not had the desired deterent effect.


Please male some effort to follow da argument of an opponent. I repeatedly said it had not completely prevented consumption and its well known there were intermittent drug epidemics when drug use spiralled before more control was gained again. Laws never stop anything. Crimes across da spectrum are still very common despite those laws.

quote:


Seriously? If thats a yes then there must be something very wrong with your ability to reason. Fear of severe punishment alone is a strong inducement not to do a certain thing. Thats why punishment exists.

They beat people with a stick for breaking the laws in singapore and yet they continue to do so. So obviously it is not working.


... and they cut limbs off in Saudi. Its still da same argument as above. Prevention/enforcement is imperfect, and in case you've forgotten I support some leniency for drug users.

< Message edited by WantsOfTheFlesh -- 6/4/2011 7:24:01 PM >


_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/4/2011 7:25:53 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I support some leniency for drug users.


Now ain't you just sweet as cake.

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/4/2011 7:35:24 PM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

Firstly, that is just one word in an article. Do a similar google search and you'll find other sites saying da same thing. Secondly, I did not read da site before commenting on this thread. It was only cited to back up my recent point buddy. Thirdly, you are wrong by definition. Words often have numerous differing meanings. Here is wiki on the word itself:

The word narcotic has a specific meaning in the pharmacopia and the fact that you or anyone else uses that word incorrectrly does not make your usage correct.

Yes it does but you must be incredibly simple to think a given word can only have one meaning or context for use. Just go to a dictionary and you'll see many words if not most have numerous meanings that often conflict but are used in different contexts. You claimed da word was used wrongly in the article. However you like to moan darlin' but it wasn't.

quote:


quote:

When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation, such as PCP or marijuana.

It would appear that wiki has their head up their collective asses on this one. Consider the states that have legaliized medical marijuana.
Cops and other punks with an agenda that is anti drug like to call marijuana a narcotic and all that does is validate their ignorance..
It would appear that you would prefert to argue from a position of ignorance.


Ever thought its not wiki that has its head up its ass but yourself? People use words loosely. Just cause it was legalised medically doesn't mean its not defined as narcotic (see bold).

Its an understood definition. From: Drugs and Narcotics - Drug Laws, Drug Policy And Law Enforcement, Crack Cocaine, Race, And The War On Drugs: "U.S. law categorizes these substances differently. Commonly, federal and state statutes distinguish drugs from narcotics. Drugs are substances designed for use in and on the body for the diagnosis, cure, treatment, or prevention of disease. These substances are regulated by the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA). Drugs have been defined to include such things as herb tonics, cold salves, laxatives, weight-reduction aids, vitamins, and even blood. Narcotics are defined by statute as substances that either stimulate or dull an individual's senses, and that ordinarily become habit-forming (i.e., addictive) when used over time. The regulation of narcotics falls into two areas. Legal narcotics are regulated by the FDA and are generally available only with a physician's prescription. The production, possession, and sale of illegal narcotics—commonly called controlled substances—are banned by statute."

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/4/2011 7:39:03 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
When have we ever had a war on drugs?

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/5/2011 2:25:11 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

So you are saying intensive drug law enforcement and very strong criminal sentencing had no substantive effect on reducing drug consumption?

You obviously do not get out much. The u.s. consumes more drugs now than at any time since these laws were passed. So it obviously has not had the desired deterent effect.

Seriously? If thats a yes then there must be something very wrong with your ability to reason. Fear of severe punishment alone is a strong inducement not to do a certain thing. Thats why punishment exists.

They beat people with a stick for breaking the laws in singapore and yet they continue to do so. So obviously it is not working.


Not only do they beat them with sticks, they also execute people in Singapore for some drug offences.

As they also do in Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia to name another few countries in the region. The death penalty has been used in those countries for decades now.

There has been no reduction either the number of addicts or the levels of drugs consumed or trafficked in any of these countries that I have seen, either in the literature or in fact. Quite the opposite - the drug trade is larger richer and more powerful than ever, by all accounts drugs are more freely available than ever.

But you don't have to go as far as SE Asia to discover that the death penalty hasn't been effective in combating the drug trade. Your neighbour, Mexico, has suffered about 40,000 drug-related killings/murders in the last few years.

As far as I can tell the flow of drugs into the USA via Mexico is getting larger all the time, and the poisonous results of drug prohibition in Mexico are becoming more destructive.

And there are people who still claim that prohibition reduces the drug trade and/or drug consumption???? What are they on? I want some! No I want at least 50! Plain wrapping please!

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 6/5/2011 2:27:38 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/5/2011 3:09:50 AM   
ClassIsInSession


Posts: 305
Joined: 7/26/2010
Status: offline
Drug use and abuse is such a multi-faceted and complex issue I don't think anytihng can be branded in black and white terms.

As I grew up around a lot of drugs, and the people who dealt them and did them, I can say that in my experience, the tendency for drugs to create problems is very much a matter of personality and self esteem. The vast majority of people I witnessed playing graduating steps, like from marijuanna to coke to crack etc, were typically extremely insecure people who because of their insecurities made very poor choices based on priorities that were not in order. I think quite a few of these people would hit rock bottom regardless of legality and many wind up dead as a result.

On the other hand, I've known drug users that range from casual pot smokers to full blown heroine addicts who were able to maintain their lives just fine. Sure, they did drugs, and perhaps they did them to excess on occassion, but they managed to hold jobs, keep relationships and otherwise acted in a healthy manner.

If we went purely from a "health" perspective, and started banning anything that was bad for our health, most of our diets would have to go away, with the trans fats, the GMO foods, the gluten, etc. And the list would change every 5-10 years because new research would be linking a health problem to something. Health should never be mandated. Death is caused by a disease called life, and it inevitably comes to all of us, when it does, it is the result of the failure of one or more of our vital organs. How we get those organs to fail is sometimes a known and sometimes a mystery. Not insignifcant is the number of deaths that result from prescription medications, whether it is an unusual reaction to it, an improper usage of it, or a misdiagnosis of the underlying problem that was to be treated. MRSA staph is increasingly killing a significant number of people in the hospitals around the country.

That said, we have a very long journey ahead before we can definitively say what really causes what, we have statistics and research, some better than others to give us a guide, but often medicine is as much an art as it is a science.

Personally, I think legalization from a liberty standpoint and from a very practical economic standpoint makes very good sense. I would still think there should be penalties for driving under the influence or coming to work under the influence, but beyond that, what a person does to themselves in the privacy of their own home or the home of a friend shouldn't be anyone's business so long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else.

What I have noticed over the years though is that cocaine/crack seems to cause a permanent emotional imbalance for long term users, and even if they stop it doesn't seem to go away. The emotions become more turbulent and apt to change for what seems to be no good reason.

My parents were pretty smart in the way they approached the drug issue with me at a fairly early age. They presented me with a book that gave unbiased facts about every illegal substance. Because I read it, I never did cocaine or heroine, MDMA (XTC), and quite a number of other drugs, mainly because of the addictive properties, but also because I never had the desire to run from life and the effects seemed to numb the senses rather than enhance them.

Marijuanna is a drug I think is ridiculous to criminalize, but it isn't without potential problems. Everyone knows about the potential cancer causing properties of inhaling it, but moreso than that, I think the greatest drawback to marijuanna is what I call the "Rip Van Winkle" effect. Many people who smoke frequently have big dreams (perhaps even more so because of the enhanced creative/visualization properties) but often fail to produce real and measurable strides toward their dreams, so one day they wake up and realize 10 years have passed and they don't have nearly as much to show for it as the peers around them who didn't smoke or didn't smoke regularly.

Ultimately though, these are things that while I agree, the true facts should be presented, should be left for the individual to determine for themselves.

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/5/2011 8:15:07 AM   
hot4bondage


Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2009
Status: offline
The legal community uses the term "narcotic" loosely. The scientific and medical communities do not. Which word sounds scariest--psychotropic, hallucinogen, stimulant, or narcotic? Or how about narco-trafficker? Scientific definitions be damned if there's a scarier-sounding word to use. Doesn't that suggest an inclination toward strength rather than accuracy?

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/5/2011 8:56:07 AM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession
As I grew up around a lot of drugs, and the people who dealt them and did them, I can say that in my experience, the tendency for drugs to create problems is very much a matter of personality and self esteem. The vast majority of people I witnessed playing graduating steps, like from marijuanna to coke to crack etc, were typically extremely insecure people who because of their insecurities made very poor choices based on priorities that were not in order. I think quite a few of these people would hit rock bottom regardless of legality and many wind up dead as a result.

On the other hand, I've known drug users that range from casual pot smokers to full blown heroine addicts who were able to maintain their lives just fine. Sure, they did drugs, and perhaps they did them to excess on occassion, but they managed to hold jobs, keep relationships and otherwise acted in a healthy manner.

I knew a reasonable number of people that used hard drugs for extended periods but wouldn't say its a huge number. A few were people who were damaged and went on to make bad choices but others didn't. A few were pretty successful confident folks but their drug use spiraled out of control so couldn't say its clear cut thou they made a comeback (cept at least two I know of who are six feet under) but after a fair bit of damage to themselves and others. Most I know were recreational, a few were heavish users that seem OK today though again a few of them went to rehab programs although they weren't truly what most would call addicts.

quote:


If we went purely from a "health" perspective, and started banning anything that was bad for our health, most of our diets would have to go away, with the trans fats, the GMO foods, the gluten, etc. And the list would change every 5-10 years because new research would be linking a health problem to something. Health should never be mandated. Death is caused by a disease called life, and it inevitably comes to all of us, when it does, it is the result of the failure of one or more of our vital organs. How we get those organs to fail is sometimes a known and sometimes a mystery. Not insignifcant is the number of deaths that result from prescription medications, whether it is an unusual reaction to it, an improper usage of it, or a misdiagnosis of the underlying problem that was to be treated. MRSA staph is increasingly killing a significant number of people in the hospitals around the country.

I think there should be some distinction between unhealthy foods, medications and the effects of some of the harder drugs. Very many foods can have a negative impact on health depending on comsumption. Supposedly "bad" foods are fine in small doses over time. BTW I would support banning trans fats. Hydrogenated vegetable oil doesn't contribute any essential ingredient to foods. It just replaces other fats to give a longer shelf life which really only benefits manufacturers. Medications typically cure people of ailments sometimes life threatening ones. They can have serious side effects but bring huge benefit to us all. There are some medicines that are relatively dangerous but still used. Recreational drugs can help stress like alcohol but not much else so perhaps the health issues should be viewed even more critically cause da positive in relation to a potential negative is a lot smaller.

quote:


That said, we have a very long journey ahead before we can definitively say what really causes what, we have statistics and research, some better than others to give us a guide, but often medicine is as much an art as it is a science.

Ultimately though, these are things that while I agree, the true facts should be presented, should be left for the individual to determine for themselves.

I agree. A few people on here act as if I'm a reactionary. I think if any drug is shown not to generally have serious side effects then it should be legal. As legal as alcohol! I'm just worried bout the potential effects of pretty much blanket legalisation. As such it isn't just a question of individual liberty but what da consequences could be for society as a whole.


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
And there are people who still claim that prohibition reduces the drug trade and/or drug consumption???? What are they on? I want some! No I want at least 50! Plain wrapping please!

What I really can't believe is that people around here like La Tweakapalle and Hippiekinkster can't accept that the current regime didn't have any significant impact on minimising drug consumption. Remember the contention was not that it stopped drugs. Yes drug use increased a good deal in society since da 60's but equally society changed dramatically. Values completely transformed, drug use became fashionable, and there was far less respect for authority (whether warranted or not). This contributed to the increase in drug use.

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to ClassIsInSession)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/5/2011 9:00:26 AM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage
The legal community uses the term "narcotic" loosely. The scientific and medical communities do not. Which word sounds scariest--psychotropic, hallucinogen, stimulant, or narcotic? Or how about narco-trafficker? Scientific definitions be damned if there's a scarier-sounding word to use. Doesn't that suggest an inclination toward strength rather than accuracy?

I couldn't say why they would have selected that word. Legal lingo is an odd thing where some words can mean very different things to other contexts but I reckon psychotropic might sound just as scary as narcotic.

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to hot4bondage)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminal... - 6/5/2011 11:02:45 AM   
hot4bondage


Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage
The legal community uses the term "narcotic" loosely. The scientific and medical communities do not. Which word sounds scariest--psychotropic, hallucinogen, stimulant, or narcotic? Or how about narco-trafficker? Scientific definitions be damned if there's a scarier-sounding word to use. Doesn't that suggest an inclination toward strength rather than accuracy?

I couldn't say why they would have selected that word. Legal lingo is an odd thing where some words can mean very different things to other contexts but I reckon psychotropic might sound just as scary as narcotic.


I think they like the K sound. K9, contraband, no-knock... One thing is for certain, the legal community has a relatively loose and self-serving definition. They've had long enough to catch up with with the scientific terminology. Any coincidence that marijuana is STILL defined by our government as a "Schedule I narcotic with NO medical use?" The seeds are full of protein, for fuck's sake. Have you considered that your argument is based on the collectivist belief that you do not own your own body? That's a pandora's box, and I guaranfuckingtee it won't stop with the eradication of french fries. Prohibition is a counter-productive fraud.

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Global leaders call for a major shift to decriminalize drugs Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109