Happy Atheist Forum

I couldn't find this topic on this forum or under the "Social Issues and Causes" category, so I will make it now.

Almost everyone I know (at least every atheist) has no problem with cannabis being legalized. It is arguably the least negatively consequential thing that could happen to any society. What's the absolute very worst that could ever happen? People get stonded shitless whilst driving and drive 30mph under the speed limit and do no harm at all to anyone else? Kind of a no brainer unless you've suffered enormous amounts of brain trauma as a result of alcohol. As the whole saying around this controversy goes; "pot isn't even as dangerous as alcohol." The understatement of the millenium.

The issue I want to propose is as follows: what is you principle for being for or against bans on drugs (intoxicating substances including alcohol)? I honestly see no benefit whatsoever in prohibiting the use/sale/distribution of any drug regardless of its mythicalized potency or whatever else. People who can keep their drug use to themselves and avoid damaging the safety of people around them don't pose a threat to anyone. People who pose a threat to others should be dealt with whether they have a propensity for drug use/abuse or not. If they abuse/use drugs and cause safety problems, that's another issue and should be dealt with accordingly. But otherwise, there is literally no consequence if they can restrict the harm of their drug use to themselves. Whether it be the "hard" drugs, which I would argue are not nearly as volatile as alcohol, or "mild" drugs, people should by no means be harassed, persecuted, or in any other way violently bullied for doing such a thing by 3rd party arbitrators.

What seems to purvey this for other people is not the principle of whether or not people can go about their lives without being harassed by various (violent) people, but how powerful and/or acceptable the substances they take are. If the substances people take are so powerful such that we perceive them as being scary (meth, cocaine, MDMA, heroin, ect) then they should be subject to a different amount of legal action as opposed to users of acceptable drugs like cigarettes, alcohol, methadone, vicotin, prozac, etc. What this often yields itself to is an argument against the use of drugs as opposed to an argument whether or not certain drugs should be illegal.

I find most people fall under one of these categories or perhaps a mix of them. All varying levels of punitive punishment involved.
1. All drugs outside of prescription drugs, tobacco, and alcohol should be illegal.
2. Drug laws should be less draconian than they are now, but still basically the same.
3. We should legalize "lighter drugs" like cannabis or shrooms (maybe even some other hallucinogenics) full with no taxes or regulations.
4. We should legalize these "lighter drugs" with taxes and regulations.
5. We should legalize all drugs regardless of our perceived dangers of them and tax and regulate the shit out of them.
6. Who cares? We should just allow free enterprise to allocate the use of drugs.

Honestly, I belong to category 6 of the outline. I do not wish to partake in the use or associate with those who use almost any drug but could not care less how other people decide to choose their own life styles independent of my own. Obviously there are plenty of unprincipled busy bodies who want to control and socially engineer people into doing certain things, but I see that as a selfish way of advancing one's own dogmatic ideologies and violently imposing them onto everyone else. It really is a peppeve of mine to see people campaigning and advocating a certain life-style for people other than themselves whether it be recreational, religious, hygienic, personal, economical, etc. I see it as a way for people to live vicariously through society and see it as a reflection of themselves so they can feel either accomplished or disappointed.

So anyway, post your general positions and arguments regarding the prohibition of drugs. It doesn't matter where you live, share your thoughts.

What ever someone wants to do with his/her body is not the business of the police, unless that person causes harm to others. For me there is no difference, whether someone is drunk or stoned while driving; or whether he/she steals to buy cocaine or booze. When stopped by the police, it is that driving under influence part that should be punished; not the possession of drugs.

Fact is, that is impossible to stop the flow of drugs coming into the country. Question is how to deal with that fact. Trying to "control" the drugs problem by demonizing the drugs users; penalizing them for their (unhealthy) habits? Or trying to help the drugs users, to get rid of their drugs dependency? I think that the last approach is much better. I also believe that the illegality of drugs makes them exciting for people, who are still in their experimenting drugs phase. Legalizing drugs would solve many problems. It will move the drugs-traffic out of criminal hands and provides better control over the quality, quantity and prices of the drugs.

I guess I'm somewhere between a four and a five. I think cannabis should be legal as well as a lot of other drugs, that way they'll be cleaner. However, substances commonly used as "date rape" drugs should be kept illegal. Probably Meth, too, because it's dangerous to make.

I can only speak on my experiences and most of my information is only relevant to Scotland.  

Most of the drugs that are attempted to be smuggled into Scotland make it through, this is a face the police in are very open about. I can not quite remember the statistic but Scotland actually has a higher ratio of cocaine users than even America.

The war on drugs is most likely unwinnable, drugs need to be classed as an issue of health and not a criminal issue.

Portugal decriminalized drugs (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization), but whether that would work in different countries is more difficult to see.

Personally, yes I have indulged in the past. Now I abstain.

I think if someone wants to get high, they should be entitled to the opportunity as long as I don't have to be pestered by them begging for money, stealing stuff or just lying around in a heap of needles.

However, as long as the stuff they use comes from the illegal manufacturing industry, I'm very much opposed to any drug use.

For Free Drugs
Criminals will be deprived of income.
Some countries may find it easier to maintain order.
Crime perpetrated to finance habits would plummet.
Save money locking people away.
Save money employing people to lock people away
If it is recognised that some humans seek a high, some non damaging solutions may be found.
Insurance costs would fall.

Against Free Drugs
Criminals have lost an income stream, they'll find another.
If every body is on drugs, we'll all have to eat cheese snacks.
Politicians will have to find something else to vilify.
It will be more unsafe on the road.

It would be nice to have the issues discussed reasonably.

Sorry libertarians, but street drugs are far too pervasive to become legal.  Cigarettes, for example, are ubiquitous.  Imagine if the same amount of people were victim to much harsher drugs such as methamphetamine or cocaine.  And if street drugs are ever legalized, they would pervade too much and will never be able to made illegal again for that reason.  Similar to how cigarettes cost the U.S. economy dozens of billions each year, harsher drugs would cost more for the U.S. economy.  I wouldn't even advocate for the legalization of marijuana; that would be a gateway.

Libertarians say "you do what you wish with your body; it's not the government's job to take care of you".  What they fail to understand is that government has already taken the role as a paternal caregiver in our society.  If the government legalizes heroin; it would put a huge strain on the taxpayers for the welfare state to fund methadone clinics and such.

Quote from: "jduster"Sorry libertarians, but street drugs are far too pervasive to become legal.  Cigarettes, for example, are ubiquitous.  Imagine if the same amount of people were victim to much harsher drugs such as methamphetamine or cocaine.

You are presuming not only that the use of these drugs will necessarily increase if they are legalized, but you also use language to indicate that the same amount of people could use these drugs as smoke cigarettes if they were legalized. This is an unsubstantiated presupposition that not only is purely speculative and has no evidence for it but actually it has much evidence against it. Take the amount of people who take cannabis and psilocybin mushrooms in Amsterdam before they allowed people to use it legally and after.  Even take that study that was already posted on this thread about the decriminalization of drug use in Portugal. Also consider that when these drugs are illegal they are sold at a much higher price and at much higher profit margins, thus attracting pushers to sell them to anyone and everyone with more urgency than would under a legal market.

QuoteAnd if street drugs are ever legalized, they would pervade too much and will never be able to made illegal again for that reason.  Similar to how cigarettes cost the U.S. economy dozens of billions each year, harsher drugs would cost more for the U.S. economy.  I wouldn't even advocate for the legalization of marijuana; that would be a gateway.

So since heroin was once legal it pervaded society so much that it couldn't be made illegal originally? "Harsher drugs", which I would contend and actually less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol, already cost the US health care system in ER costs and in addiction treatment. Not to mention, the drug war costs tens of billions in law enforcement and incarceration. Seriously, if you want to bring up this cost issue, try considering what drug prohibition already costs. And that gateway drug thing is yet again a purely unsubstantiated speculative claim that doesn't even make sense. The only conceivable reason it could be considered a gateway drug (and even this claim under current conditions is demonstrably false http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 073507.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100902073507.htm)) is because it's sold by the same kinds of dealers who sell "harsher" drugs. If it were to be sold at legitimate businesses, do you honestly think that it would still be a gateway drug then? They sell energy drinks at the same stores they sell cigarettes and beer though. Would you consider them to be gateway substances to those things also? I bet you could find plenty of statistics showing that almost every smoker and/or drinker started on those energy drinks.

QuoteLibertarians say "you do what you wish with your body; it's not the government's job to take care of you".  What they fail to understand is that government has already taken the role as a paternal caregiver in our society.

Also keep in mind you don't have a choice in whether or not the government is the primary caregiver. You have to pay them regardless if you want to or not. So regardless whether or not the government actually does supposedly take care of everyone, that doesn't mean it's their job and it doesn't mean it is qualified to be such a thing.
 

QuoteIf the government legalizes heroin; it would put a huge strain on the taxpayers for the welfare state to fund methadone clinics and such.

I already addressed this.

Anyway, I know I responded rather seriously despite knowing that this is obviously a troll post with very generic arguments filled with easily torn down myths and fallacies, but why not get a little back and forth going at the meat of the issue even if it is responding to a troll comment?

And btw, wanting drugs to be legal or decriminalized does not make you a libertarian. It simply means you are against the asinine concept of drug prohibition.
You could be a follower of pretty much any political ideology (except maybe a theocratic police statist?) and still oppose drug prohibition.

Quote from: "jduster"I wouldn't even advocate for the legalization of marijuana; that would be a gateway.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy.  Milk, by this standard, is a gateway.

Quote from: "jduster"Sorry libertarians, but street drugs are far too pervasive to become legal.  Cigarettes, for example, are ubiquitous.  Imagine if the same amount of people were victim to much harsher drugs such as methamphetamine or cocaine.  And if street drugs are ever legalized, they would pervade too much and will never be able to made illegal again for that reason.  Similar to how cigarettes cost the U.S. economy dozens of billions each year, harsher drugs would cost more for the U.S. economy.  I wouldn't even advocate for the legalization of marijuana; that would be a gateway.

Libertarians say "you do what you wish with your body; it's not the government's job to take care of you".  What they fail to understand is that government has already taken the role as a paternal caregiver in our society.  If the government legalizes heroin; it would put a huge strain on the taxpayers for the welfare state to fund methadone clinics and such.

Can you site some sources for your information here please?

Also, the concept of gateway drugs - as thumpy pointed out - is total bs.  Claiming that marijuana is a gateway to other drug use is like claiming that breathing air is a gateway to drug use.  Technically you may be correct, but that doesn't mean that observation is relevant in the way you seem to think it is.

Your last sentence is kind of misleading - do you honestly believe that a major obstacle currently keeping people from becoming heroine addicts is the illegal status of the substance?  In fact, when has prohibition ever actually worked?  I thought that generally drug addicts are drug addicts regardless of legality - though I could be wrong about that.

Quote from: "jduster"If the government legalizes heroin; it would put a huge strain on the taxpayers for the welfare state to fund methadone clinics and such.

Damn, I about missed this.  Don't you think these can be funded by the taxes on the legal drugs, with perhaps some money left over for the general fund?

I haven't crunched the numbers, but I don't see that as being outside the realm of possibility.

Quote from: "jduster"I wouldn't even advocate for the legalization of marijuana; that would be a gateway.

I don't think so. Not if people were to put it into perspective. Marijuana is nowhere near as bad for the health as alcohol or tobacco. Cannabis can actually have health benefits. There's no comparison to other drugs.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "jduster"I wouldn't even advocate for the legalization of marijuana; that would be a gateway.

I don't think so. Not if people were to put it into perspective. Marijuana is nowhere near as bad for the health as alcohol or tobacco. Cannabis can actually have health benefits. There's no comparison to other drugs.

Why does tobacco smoke cause cancer and Marijuana smoke not cause cancer? This thought has always intrigued me. One can't buy filter tip splifs AFAIK so is Marijuana smoke inherently less dangerous than tobacco? Or is it that smoking 40 splifs a day is pretty much an impossibility? Is there a sort of dope feedback loop that stops the consumer smoking more dope?

The smoke issue is interesting as the WHO put wood smoke as one of the highest health risk factors facing people who cook over an open fire. Smoke is not good for lungs. There are combustion chemicals and particulate matter that would effect the lungs of the user/inhaler. Without evidence I would contend that there would be no reason to consider the smoke of any one leaf to be any less or more harmful than any other leaf in terms of combustion by products. I realise that there is nicotine in tobacco smoke and this is the addictive substance which may well be the cause of chain smoking, but other than that is tobacco smoke any more harmful than any other smoke?

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "jduster"I wouldn't even advocate for the legalization of marijuana; that would be a gateway.

I don't think so. Not if people were to put it into perspective. Marijuana is nowhere near as bad for the health as alcohol or tobacco. Cannabis can actually have health benefits. There's no comparison to other drugs.

Why does tobacco smoke cause cancer and Marijuana smoke not cause cancer? This thought has always intrigued me. One can't buy filter tip splifs AFAIK so is Marijuana smoke inherently less dangerous than tobacco? Or is it that smoking 40 splifs a day is pretty much an impossibility? Is there a sort of dope feedback loop that stops the consumer smoking more dope?

The smoke issue is interesting as the WHO put wood smoke as one of the highest health risk factors facing people who cook over an open fire. Smoke is not good for lungs. There are combustion chemicals and particulate matter that would effect the lungs of the user/inhaler. Without evidence I would contend that there would be no reason to consider the smoke of any one leaf to be any less or more harmful than any other leaf in terms of combustion by products. I realise that there is nicotine in tobacco smoke and this is the addictive substance which may well be the cause of chain smoking, but other than that is tobacco smoke any more harmful than any other smoke?

Smoking marijuana involves breathing smoke in deeply and holding it.
So although smoking less than tobacco smokers, the potential for damage is there.
I don't think it would be too hard to produce a product from marijuana that is safer than smoking it.
http://www.poisoncentertampa.org/poisonous-plants.aspx (http://www.poisoncentertampa.org/poisonous-plants.aspx)

QuoteOleander, Lily of the Valley, Foxglove      All parts of the plants are poisonous if swallowed or if smoke from a burning plant is inhaled. Symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps, dizziness, low blood pressure, slow pulse and seizures.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I don't think it would be too hard to produce a product from marijuana that is safer than smoking it.

There is a company in the UK working on extracting, refining and medicalising the active compounds in Marijuana, and it can always be added to cakes  

Quote from: "Tank"Why does tobacco smoke cause cancer and Marijuana smoke not cause cancer? This thought has always intrigued me. One can't buy filter tip splifs AFAIK so is Marijuana smoke inherently less dangerous than tobacco? Or is it that smoking 40 splifs a day is pretty much an impossibility? Is there a sort of dope feedback loop that stops the consumer smoking more dope?

I think the problem with tobacco is all the additives that make it burn long, and evenly, that make it more dangerous but Puddinghead is right.  One of the carcinogens from smoking is simple heat, which makes mistakes in DNA transcription more likely during mitosis.

I remember a recent study that came out that found that there was little proof that smoking marijuana can lead to lung cancer, even with heavy use.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

QuoteThe largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

I have no idea if this study has since been discredited or anything, but it would seem from this that cannabis contains a chemical, THC, which may help in disposing of aging cells which could be cancerous.  This would explain why smoking something - which we can all pretty safely assume is a bad thing to do - does not result in the usual negative side effects in this case.  Though smoking marijuana does still kill the cilia in your throat, which isn't optimal.

If you're healthy, smoking stuff, no matter what that is, is probably bad for you. If not though, the benefits may outweigh the risks.

Just as long as it does not suport a bloody and cynical illegal industry and finance at least a dozen guerilla wars  

Quote from: "Asmodean"Just as long as it does not suport a bloody and cynical illegal industry and finance at least a dozen guerilla wars  

Which is precisely why I feel that prohibition is generally a bad idea.  It's not the substances that support these things, it's the fact that the substances are illegal but are still in high demand.

@ pinko well I'll be darned! How counter intuitive and interesting.

On the cannabis cancer thing, I really don't know much about it. In the documentary "Super High Me", they guy's lung capacity was down something like 7-8% after smoking, inhaling, etc for 30 days straight. Not sure if it was just the joints that caused it or if simply inhaling with a bong could have contributed, but nonetheless there was damage. For the sake of it, we'll just say smoking cannabis can cause cancer by default. That's still not strong enough reason to consider it even close to as dangerous as tobacco.

Smoking out of paper or pipes is not the only way to do get high off of. You can use a vaporizer and get rid of almost all the allegedly harmful stuff, eat it, etc and it won't be nearly as harmful as smoking it if smoking it actually does cause significant harm. Whereas with tobacco the cancer just moves where the tobacco is. If you go from cigarettes to skoal, you basically trade lung cancer for mouth cancer. I have never heard of anyone baking tobacco or vaporizing or anything like that, so...

Also, most of the products sold in california to patients are made so they can be used without smoking... because most of the patients are physically unable to smoke. The cancer thing even if true is not a strong argument to me at all. The vaporizers are sold for WAY less than the weed, likely because it's not illegal to make and sell them, and you can either accept the risks and keep smoking joints or you can get high some other way.

I've always found it ironic that caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are legal drugs.  I agree that cannabis would be self-regulating since no human can smoke near as much of it as they do tobacco.  I also agree that the negatives are far outweighed by the positives.  The man can tax it, the man can save tax money on running jails for people who aren't criminals, less addiction among painkiller abusers and by proxy less tax money going into addiction recovery programs...etc etc.  The list goes on and on.

Weed is God.
The war on drugs was implemented only beacuse govts feel like drugs are something they should control.
ou know its bad when bob the drug dealer has more money than his state gov.

this one goes here then...

"...I have read the arguments for and against, on many a thread, the antis and the pros falling into the same traps, the debate remaining in sea of confliction, experts on the subject appear without ever having succumbed to, and others who have succumbed too much, too often, then the google genius's appear, copy and pasting opposing propaganda, and the only cry that seems to make sense, is education, education, education. Yet that is flawed as our teenagers now play Russian roulette with their health, regardless of the new super strengths, for the education they really need, what they should see, before pulling the trigger, is mum and dads mental health reports then..."

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg709.imageshack.us%2Fimg709%2F2143%2Fmyfirstjointmr5.jpg&hash=15113660f9ba6fa00ef17a55a51d2379a5cbde3c)

Quote from: "Jats"this one goes here then...

"...I have read the arguments for and against, on many a thread, the antis and the pros falling into the same traps, the debate remaining in sea of confliction, experts on the subject appear without ever having succumbed to, and others who have succumbed too much, too often, then the google genius's appear, copy and pasting opposing propaganda, and the only cry that seems to make sense, is education, education, education. Yet that is flawed as our teenagers now play Russian roulette with their health, regardless of the new super strengths, for the education they really need, what they should see, before pulling the trigger, is mum and dads mental health reports then..."

tl/dr: "I'm the expert, the rest of you are trapped."

"...ahh the old too long didn't read response, another little dig from thumper who's trying them all, one by one..." and then Jats waits for the next predictable "...nope not yet, but for sure he will be along shortly, if not this time but the next then, and as we go along then all you do is reveal your self to all here, tho not to me for I have seen it all before, as you are most recognisable by your fear, that shines with every word, so, keep not reading then for there will be many a post about you in Random Stuff for sure for those that do, which they always do..." and Jats goes back to watching the Pats then

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi819.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz117%2FTeddyheadspin%2Froomba.gif&hash=ff7dc6ac6f2840ecb3e8bc8493c0d7ae9e1eb11b)

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"It would be nice to have the issues discussed reasonably.

You absolutely hit the nail on the head there. The knee-jerk reaction of the UK media about drugs makes it almost impossible to talk about reasonably without some salivating, daily mail reading blowhard trying to ruin the proceedings. It is strange how hysterical points of view take hold of ordinary people. Take my work colleague for instance. She's a nice person. She's intelligent and kind but through conversation once, i let on that i smoke weed on a regular basis. Her face dropped the same way a fundie would when finding out i'm atheist. After quizzing her for a while, all her objections were based upon the bullshit the media taught her to regurgitate which had no root in reality whatsoever. She wouldn't budge though.  

It has always puzzled me how contrary to reality these people's views are and how stoically they seem to hold onto them. Hmm, there's something familiar about that...

Quote from: "Jats"Yet that is flawed as our teenagers now play Russian roulette with their health,

You seem to have made a great many asumptions through out your post but I would like clarification on this. Which teenagers are allowed to drink in America? Which teenagers under 18, leagaly adult age, are allowed to use nicotene products? Califonia is putting forth a bill to make weed legal for adults over 21. I have never heard of anyone ever saying we should make marijuana leagal for anyone other then adults, on this forum or anywhere else for that matter. So amoung the many assumptions you made in you statement how did you come to the conclusion that weed would be somehow legal or more available to teenagers then cigerettes or alcohol? Seems like irational fear mongering to me.

Quote from: "karadan"It has always puzzled me how contrary to reality these people's views are and how stoically they seem to hold onto them. Hmm, there's something familiar about that...

I believe I have written this on this board somewhere before (and if I haven't then ihateyoumike has, because he was there) but my grandfather is a Catholic priest. He returned to the seminary after my grandmother passed away in the late 80's. He was at my parent's house one holiday evening a while back and we were eating mom's pizza (sooooo good, wish I would have been stoned... it would have been a veritable orgy in my mouth) and I asked him a couple of "what does the Church think about x" type questions.

Generally, I consider him one of the most intelligent people I've ever encountered, but as he gets older, and as I get older, the perceived gap between he and I has narrowed significantly. And they say weed kills brain cells...

Anyway, I asked him what the Church's stance on weed was. He said that obviously it is frowned upon because of the mind altering capacity. What about alcohol, I asked? He had no response, he just took a hefty swig of his Guinness. What really got me was he started to halfway defend weed saying "I personally have nothing wrong with it" but said he never took it and would persuade anyone else to never take it because... get this... the chemicals can store in your spinal fluid and be released at random points. Oh Jesus, imagine if you were driving when that happened. Oh wait, it doesn't happen. No one has ever had a weed flashback. Add that to the list of things that have never happened, along with a weed OD.

I couldn't believe it... I wanted a weed flashback so bad at that point.

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "Jats"Yet that is flawed as our teenagers now play Russian roulette with their health,

You seem to have made a great many asumptions through out your post but I would like clarification on this. Which teenagers are allowed to drink in America? Which teenagers under 18, leagaly adult age, are allowed to use nicotene products? Califonia is putting forth a bill to make weed legal for adults over 21. I have never heard of anyone ever saying we should make marijuana leagal for anyone other then adults, on this forum or anywhere else for that matter. So amoung the many assumptions you made in you statement how did you come to the conclusion that weed would be somehow legal or more available to teenagers then cigerettes or alcohol? Seems like irational fear mongering to me.

Jats scratches is head puzzled "...I made no such assumptions in my post, yet it seems you presume from it that I am anti drugs..." Jats has is first belly laugh of the day "...and legality has a different age around the nations, all of us knowing too that some are more adult than others and some never quite make it, there can also be no argument that whatever age is set that is the target to do it before then, whatever taboo you speak of, as I did, as many of you did, and many of ours will, for that is part of the thrill, so for someone to attack a post that screams 'education, education, education' with a retort of 'irrational fear mongering' is just proof of the only assumption I make on forum-land and that is people will read what they want to read then, despite what's actually written..." and Jats chuckles at Karadans post knowing exactly where he is coming from and scrunching up several pages of reclaimed said paper ready to start his fire later, where he will smile with immense satisfaction at his chosen use for them

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi354.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr418%2FShadowGuy6%2FVenture%2520Bros%2FFirestarter.jpg&hash=fb8d230e8da5da2962194c02a0575cb90273fc74)

Quote from: "Jats""...ahh the old too long didn't read response, another little dig from thumper who's trying them all, one by one..." and then Jats waits for the next predictable "...nope not yet, but for sure he will be along shortly, if not this time but the next then, and as we go along then all you do is reveal your self to all here, tho not to me for I have seen it all before, as you are most recognisable by your fear, that shines with every word, so, keep not reading then for there will be many a post about you in Random Stuff for sure for those that do, which they always do..." and Jats goes back to watching the Pats then

I ed, "fear"

That was a shitty game, too.

No offense to the livewriters...but you guys do come off as condescending.  Even though your posts are well thought out, and eloquent, there is a slight tinge of superiority in the content.

Quote from: "DropLogic"No offense to the livewriters...but you guys do come off as condescending.  Even though your posts are well thought out, and eloquent, there is a slight tinge of superiority in the content.

What else do you expect from people on the internet? The place where people gather from anywhere and any time zone to dominate over all those who oppose. Even though no one discusses anything of substance, bizarre and petty arguments permeate throughout the whole debate. Little is accomplished from the endless back and forth as it seems, but it's the internet; and it's still no less rousing.

But anyway, this might sound awfully strange, but one thing I would like more than talking about how it would be nice to have a reasonable discussion would be to actually have a reasonable discussion about the issues pertaining to this topic.

And btw, Jats, this isn't propaganda from an anti-drug war think tank or anything. It's an economic analysis on how different policies targeting drugs in certain ways can affect the use of drugs, the price of drugs, and mainly the violence that would result from such policies. It was the first time I saw a thoroughly philosophical deduction of this issue and hypothetical scenarios the could result given particular events.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/ ... lence.html (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/drugs_and_violence/Drugs_and_violence.html)

To anyone who dislikes the third person posts as much as I do - the foe option is AMAZING.  I kept having to stop myself from complaining about posts written in that ridiculous style.  Now, I don't even have to look at those posts unless someone else quotes something of interest that they said - which rarely seems to happen.  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"To anyone who dislikes the third person posts as much as I do - the foe option is AMAZING.  I kept having to stop myself from complaining about posts written in that ridiculous style.  Now, I don't even have to look at those posts unless someone else quotes something of interest that they said - which rarely seems to happen.  

Yes! That's exactly what I just did.

Before we get back to the topic at issue I just want to present my opinion on the posting style of, what are their names, rats and fleas. It's completely silly. It's so precious, so affected. It reeks of insincerety and pretentiousness. I personally think it's very juvenile.

Whatever it is, it is not anywhere close to even approaching clever, which is obviously what that rubbish is imagined to be by the perpetrators of these annoyances.

That was fun. Okay, I'm through now.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"To anyone who dislikes the third person posts as much as I do - the foe option is AMAZING.  I kept having to stop myself from complaining about posts written in that ridiculous style.  Now, I don't even have to look at those posts unless someone else quotes something of interest that they said - which rarely seems to happen.  :D

So we are agreed, those who seek to escape the norm by means of words are condemneded and then condemneded again.
It's not our fault we condemned them, they just weren't right.
Let's rejoice now brothers and sisters in the condemning.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"So we are agreed, those who seek to escape the norm by means of words are condemneded and then condemneded again.
It's not our fault we condemned them, they just weren't right.
Let's rejoice now brothers and sisters in the condemning.

I wasn't condemning his stylistic flaws, plentiful though they are.  I was critiquing his condemning of pronouncements on the issue, immediately followed by him issuing a pronouncement.