I'm going to assumes by "your last post" you actually meant this one because the other 1 million posts before this one didn't have anything to even respond to. Here's the thing. I prove you wrong about someone ruining their life and it causing problems where it's not due to poverty, like you and Dr. tried to say and then you got pissy. You do realize that saying something louder doesn't make you more right?

Anyways, back to the point. When you are willing to break one law to do something as destructive to your life as become a junky, what do you think happens at that point? Once you hit the bottom there really isn't much left for you but to look for your next fix and you'll d w/e you need to to get it. That's when other people start getting hurt. This doesn't even take into account the fact that a first time users cause harm to others while under the influence.

This is the funny part about those of you who are against drug prohibition. You want all drugs to be legalized but when you start looking completely retarded you fall back on some of the more "benign" drugs like marijuana because your arguments are unsustainable for the harder substances. It's really almost comical to watch. Your stance is so untenable that you can't stick to one line of thought....or that because your brains are baked? I guess it's the chicken or the egg argument there.

Again, your insults are tiresome. I'm sure they're becoming tiresome for the Mods, too.

If I thought you had any real desire to discuss the topic, I might indulge you. But you've proven that you'd rather attack the person than their ideas and opinions, and that's pretty immature...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

ATTENTION

Discuss the thread topic and not one another. This thread is on the verge of being closed as it has become a flame-fest.

Matt

Ok, perhaps we are getting off topic a tad. Fishjoel, you are assuming that everyone who does hard illicit or even prescription drugs is going to crash and burn. But the truth is a very small percentage actually become, as you term, junkies. You are still condemning people for crimes they have not committed. You are saying "you cannot do drugs because you will eventually hurt other people". My point is you cannot know what anyone is going to do in the future. You cannot punish someone for something they have not done. Since a very small percentage "might" become addicted and start stealing for their fix, you want to punish the other 95% for what the 5% "might" do in the future? And the same logic is used towards concealed carry, just substitute guns for drugs.

Regardless of what drugs have the potential to do to you if you abuse them, in a free society we should not be restricting them because they may or may not be abused. Where would it end? Here's some examples: Rust and aluminum mixed together makes thermite. Thermite has a massive potential for destruction. With readily available electronic components one could build a device that could knock out every computer for miles. Car ECU's, home PC's, unshielded government and business computers, the computer device that turns on and off your sprinklers and the stop lights in town.......etc, etc...So, do we outlaw electronic components next? How about rust and aluminum? Once you start regulating a weed or a flower or a compound, where does it end? It doesn't. So, you say "well I dont use any of those things so I don't care" but I can guarantee you that there are items or products that you need to make your living that could eventually be demonized and banned because of their "potential for abuse". Outlawing something simply because it has a "potential for abuse" should not be allowed in a free society. America, the so called "Land of the free" has more laws and imprisons more of its citizens then any other country ever in the history of man. IMHO this is an abomination. It is not freedom and it has nothing to do about justice.

Fishjoel, do not expect to insinuate I'm on drugs and not have me stand up for myself.
Steve, do not expect to tell me that your only purpose in this thread is to irritate people who disagree with you and expect me to not offer you the same.
I am not here to flame people. But when you dish it out, I will throw it back at you.

I apologize for my part in the flames.

This has been a good discussion for the most part and I hope the thread will not be closed.

I will do my part and no longer attack people, just their so-called evidence.

Here is an interesting story on a study on cocaine from WHO which was buried for 14 years.

Suppressed report raises questions about drug policy

I know this is not about pot, but it shows how studies that do not support current drug policy are sometimes buried, while studies that SUPPORT current drug policy are plastered all over the news, with no regards to how flawed the study might be.

Junk science.

You said "If you thought"...How do you know what I think? I've asked you a number of times what your position was on the topic being discussed. Not only did you refuse to state your position, you came right out and stated that your only purpose in the thread was to irritate liberals because you think its funny.
And now you have the audacity to act like I'm the one who is being immature?
That just does not work for me. You want to become involved in the topic, I will debate you on it. I am not the one who's stated sole purpose for being here is to irritate people for your amusement.

I don’t. I don’t believe I said that I did…

Because you opted to employ the pathetically weak “attack the poster, not the opinion” tactic, I felt amazingly uncompelled to respond to you. You’ve yet to give me a reason to alter that…

No I didn’t. I never said that was my “purpose” in this thread. Link to where I said that.

Let me refresh your memory: I said (sarcastically, at that) I like that marijuana is illegal, because it gets libs all spun up. Nowhere in that statement do I discuss any “purpose” in this thread…

Apparently, yes.

And why do I have the audacity to act like you’re the one being immature?

Well, because you are. Attacking an opinion is one thing. Attacking the person is quite another. You opt to do the latter, so I’m secure in my assessment of your level of maturity.

And I don’t care if you don’t like that…

Well, too fuckin’ bad for you then, huh?

No you won’t, because I do not believe you possess the required level of maturity to discuss the topic without your going off on some childish, name-calling rant…

No, you would be the one who personalizes everything, insults people as opposed to ideas, and acts in an immature fashion.

You won’t debate the topic with me, because you don’t deserve to. You haven’t earned that privilege…

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

I think we should end the drug war, simply because it is a waste of taxpayer money that could be better spent on the general welfare.

Weed is no more destructive to your body than ciggerettes and alcohol. It should be legal to possess and smoke but not to sell. Heads don't want the FDA processing their mary jane.

Ya know, if you mention the words "General Welfare" one more time, I might just hang myself.

Retro Fit (@ Post #530),

I realize that not all people on drugs will turn into crazed junkies and will go out and rape/pillage/murder. I mean, all of those things happen with alcohol too, right? And you're right about some substances being used to make a bomb or w/e and conceal and carry laws. Here's the difference. What good does drugs do besides the strict medical purposes some of them could be used for? That's the problem. There isn't anything positive about them. My wife grew up in a home with parents that used mostly just marijuana and it was not a pleasant environment for her.

I have no problem with you standing up for yourself. I wasn't that concerned with some of the flames, if you want to stand up for yourself from me insinuating that you do drugs then just say that you don't do drugs. I think that's a pretty simple solution to that.

General Welfare

Hemp has a myriad of medical applications. Only a few that I'm aware of involves getting "High".
Those few are to aid chemo-therapy patients by controlling their nausea so they can keep their weight up, to aid people with certain types of speech impediments to be able to talk coherently (yes, it actually makes it possible for some people to be able to talk). Controlling Glaucoma, headaches and to just relax after a stressful day. It could save a lot of people a lot of money on prescription drugs that don't work as well, if people were allowed to grow it.
I'm sorry about your wife's parents but did it ever cross yours or her mind that the pot might not of been the reason their environment was bad?

I did say that I don't do drugs, but you probably know that. How about if we just start off fresh and go from there...Ok?

lol

Nice try, but you are not the one is driving me batty.

Your posts are pretty good. You seem to be less emotionally tied to this topic than most people I have seen who support marijuana prohibition. You asked what good are drugs? A fair question and one that can be answered by asking what good are alcohol and tobacco?

The thing is, marijuana is here. It is easier for high school seniors to get than beer, or tobacco, both of which are LEGAL. Marijuana is used by almost half of high school students before they graduate and if you included drop outs in that stat it would be much higher than half. Thirty percent of kids have witnessed a drug transaction on school property. More people die from aspirin than from marijuana. The government first told us that smoking one marijuana joint would make people rape and murder. They created the Reefer Madness campaign and made outrageous claims which no one believes anymore. After people realized that everything they were told about marijuana was a lie, the government changed their tune and then told us marijauna was harmful to our health. Then when people realized this was a lie, they changed their tune again and claimed that marijuana was a gateway drug. Now, since the Gateway theory have been exposed as another lie, the government has gone back to trying to fund research which shows marijauna is harmful to our health again. However, if you look at the methodology of most of these studies, it is easy to rip them apart, just like I did on the other marijuana thread and the alleged studies that were presented.

Thinking people might ask themselves why the government has worked so hard to demonize a drug that is much less harmful than alcohol, or tobacco.

Steve, I wanted to respond to your last post. Didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. But, I haven't "earned" the right to actually discuss the thread topic with you so what is the point?