Liberal Forum

This is why I oppose and will always oppose drug legalization:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... YQeHQGC3J3

https://www.city-journal.org/article/do ... lize-drugs

We don't need more dangerous violent psychotic drug-addicts in our street (they need to be sent to rehab and/or a psychiatric ward) and I think three attemps on my life by people who tried to harm me and/or kill me during a drug-induced psychosis were more than enough for me to oppose drug legalization (I'm lucky to be alive to tell the tale but not everyone who experienced this was as lucky as I was, there were cops nearby who saved my life because they were in the right place at the right time), I also think that my best friend being on anti-psychotic medication for life because of past drug use is also more than enough for me to oppose drug legalization (that and because I don't want my little nephews age 9 and 7 to grow up in a world where such extremely dangerous and highly addictive substances are legal and supporting drug legalization is sending little children confusing, mixed messages about those extremely dangerous and highly addictive substances and how scientists and mental health experts are warning the public by the dozens of thousands about those substances' dangers and harm to mental health).

Mimi.
 
 

Cannot correct corruption saving ideas that corrupted everyone so far. Planning for social tomorrows demands everyone believe today isn't eternity changing everything left only adapting as timed apart now.

Genetics only times reproductions apart as adapting to the moment here regardless which longitude and latitude, generation gap, ancestral lineage, franchise of humanity, they live in occupying space in this atmosphere.

Mimi » 07 Feb 2024, 7:52 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 7:52 am

This is why I oppose and will always oppose drug legalization:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... YQeHQGC3J3

https://www.city-journal.org/article/do ... lize-drugs

We don't need more dangerous violent psychotic drug-addicts in our street (they need to be sent to rehab and/or a psychiatric ward) and I think three attemps on my life by people who tried to harm me and/or kill me during a drug-induced psychosis were more than enough for me to oppose drug legalization (I'm lucky to be alive to tell the tale but not everyone who experienced this was as lucky as I was, there were cops nearby who saved my life because they were in the right place at the right time), I also think that my best friend being on anti-psychotic medication for life because of past drug use is also more than enough for me to oppose drug legalization (that and because I don't want my little nephews age 9 and 7 to grow up in a world where such extremely dangerous and highly addictive substances are legal and supporting drug legalization is sending little children confusing, mixed messages about those extremely dangerous and highly addictive substances and how scientists and mental health experts are warning the public by the dozens of thousands about those substances' dangers and harm to mental health).

Mimi.

Human nature does better when it's free. For example, America has over 110 million gun owners and over 300 million guns legally owned. Yet, our gun deaths are only .004%. Libs love to think that their is a huge gun problem in America. However, if you stand back and look at the data, there isn't. With that many guns and gun owners, if we had a gun problem, then we would know it. There wouldn't be a debate. 

I also read that in some nations, they don't have speed limits. Yet, they have disproportionately have far less accidents than on roads that do have speed limits. 

I am not saying this will always be the case. However, I tend to think that of people were free to use drugs, then maybe there would be less drug use. It appears as an oxymoron, but my examples say it isn't.

Vegas » 07 Feb 2024, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 10:13 am

Human nature does better when it's free. For example, America has over 110 million gun owners and over 300 million guns legally owned. Yet, our gun deaths are only .004%. Libs love to think that their is a huge gun problem in America. However, if you stand back and look at the data, there isn't. With that many guns and gun owners, if we had a gun problem, then we would know it. There wouldn't be a debate. 

I also read that in some nations, they don't have speed limits. Yet, they have disproportionately have far less accidents than on roads that do have speed limits. 

I am not saying this will always be the case. However, I tend to think that of people were free to use drugs, then maybe there would be less drug use. It appears as an oxymoron, but my examples say it isn't.

Owning guns is a responsibility.
Driving safely likewise is a responsibility.
Both of these can be taken away (in the legal sense) when that responsibility lapses enough.

Rampant drug use is the opposite of responsibility.
It affects judgement and looses instinctual behavior on the surroundings.

btw
Not one of the three remains in the "victimless crime" zone either.

DeezerShoove » 07 Feb 2024, 10:24 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 10:24 am

Rampant drug use is the opposite of responsibility.
It affects judgement and looses instinctual behavior on the surroundings.

btw
Not one of the three remains in the "victimless crime" zone either.

Not true. Alcohol is legal, but we still bear responsibility for our behavior with it. Drug use is no different. People bear responsibility for even touching it in the first place. 

Vegas » 07 Feb 2024, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 10:13 am

Human nature does better when it's free. For example, America has over 110 million gun owners and over 300 million guns legally owned. Yet, our gun deaths are only .004%. Libs love to think that their is a huge gun problem in America. However, if you stand back and look at the data, there isn't. With that many guns and gun owners, if we had a gun problem, then we would know it. There wouldn't be a debate. 

I also read that in some nations, they don't have speed limits. Yet, they have disproportionately have far less accidents than on roads that do have speed limits. 

I am not saying this will always be the case. However, I tend to think that of people were free to use drugs, then maybe there would be less drug use. It appears as an oxymoron, but my examples say it isn't.

What are the reasons ancestors take drugs? To ease the guilt of denying why they exist in real time. Escape their brain navigating time in a body never same total sum twice trying to relive the past every generation gap forward as ordered by previous generations and current events.

Why I never did drugs to escape what I am. I never paid to believe who I could have been instead. I don't owe an eternal debt to denial.

Vegas » 07 Feb 2024, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 10:27 am

Not true. Alcohol is legal, but we still bear responsibility for our behavior with it. Drug use is no different. People bear responsibility for even touching it in the first place.

Whatever you say.
I always hear that argument in reply (something close to it anyway).
Just waiting for your "You're a prohibitionist!" cry.   

What is responsible Ecstasy use? Meth and crack responsible use?
Blah, blah, blah, right?
We end up in a subjective spiral based on personal experience vs stats.

An axe can kill. A pillow can kill. People are kind of **** up.

DeezerShoove » 07 Feb 2024, 11:22 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 11:22 am

Whatever you say.
I always hear that argument in reply (something close to it anyway).
Just waiting for your "You're a prohibitionist!" cry.   

What is responsible Ecstasy use? Meth and crack responsible use?
Blah, blah, blah, right?
We end up in a subjective spiral based on personal experience vs stats.

An axe can kill. A pillow can kill. People are kind of **** up.

Either way, we have no way of knowing unless it's done. Otherwise, all we can do is speculate. 

Nostradamus'omh » 07 Feb 2024, 10:31 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 10:31 am

What are the reasons ancestors take drugs? To ease the guilt of denying why they exist in real time. Escape their brain navigating time in a body never same total sum twice trying to relive the past every generation gap forward as ordered by previous generations and current events.

Why I never did drugs to escape what I am. I never paid to believe who I could have been instead. I don't owe an eternal debt to denial.

             Neanderthal Men probably took drugs ---- to make Neanderthal women look more doable. 

Mimi » 07 Feb 2024, 7:52 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 7:52 am

This is why I oppose and will always oppose drug legalization:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... YQeHQGC3J3

https://www.city-journal.org/article/do ... lize-drugs

We don't need more dangerous violent psychotic drug-addicts in our street

You have not demonstrated that legalization causes that.

The status quo is that narco-traffickers regulate the market. They decide how much drugs cost and who is allowed to buy them and where - and under what conditions - they will be sold. This was the status quo under alcohol prohibition, as well.

If legalized, drugs would be taxed and regulated by the establishment. Sales to children would come to an abrupt halt.

It is during childhood that people are most often exposed and addicted to drugs - by criminals, who hand out free samples. The government would not hand out free samples to children. They don't do that with booze.

Your implied premise that legalizing, taxing, and regulating drugs would result in MORE addicts rather than less is an example of blithe thoughtlessness.

Here is an idea: Think your **** through.

Vegas » 07 Feb 2024, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 11:23 am

Either way, we have no way of knowing unless it's done. Otherwise, all we can do is speculate.

My speculation is that I don't see how it gets any better on the street just because you legalize it and switch the people who are making money from the trade. Neither party cares about the clientele. 

DeezerShoove » 07 Feb 2024, 11:32 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 11:32 am

My speculation is that I don't see how it gets any better on the street just because you legalize it and switch the people who are making money from the trade. Neither party cares about the clientele.

What business cares about their clientele anyway? Do you really think Walmart or any company cares about their customers?

Vegas » 07 Feb 2024, 11:34 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 11:34 am

What business cares about their clientele anyway? Do you really think Walmart or any company cares about their customers?

You make my point nicely.
Legalizing can only make things worse.

There is no benefit to even trying.
(That's my take-away from what you just said.)

DeezerShoove » 07 Feb 2024, 11:39 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 11:39 am

You make my point nicely.
Legalizing can only make things worse.

There is no benefit to even trying.
(That's my take-away from what you just said.)

That isn't what I said. I said that we can't know if it will make it better since it's never been done. 

Kobia2 » 07 Feb 2024, 11:29 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 11:29 am

             Neanderthal Men probably took drugs ---- to make Neanderthal women look more doable. 

You are making a joke, correct? Don't think they made drugs more than ate the correct or wrong plants, insects, or animals.

Vegas » 07 Feb 2024, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 10:13 am

Human nature does better when it's free. For example, America has over 110 million gun owners and over 300 million guns legally owned. Yet, our gun deaths are only .004%. Libs love to think that their is a huge gun problem in America. However, if you stand back and look at the data, there isn't. With that many guns and gun owners, if we had a gun problem, then we would know it. There wouldn't be a debate. 

I also read that in some nations, they don't have speed limits. Yet, they have disproportionately have far less accidents than on roads that do have speed limits. 

I am not saying this will always be the case. However, I tend to think that of people were free to use drugs, then maybe there would be less drug use. It appears as an oxymoron, but my examples say it isn't.

At the end of the civil war, hundreds of thousands of people were addicted to various forms of the poppy flower - laudanum, powders, morphine, opium, what have you. These junkies had to "go see the chinaman" to function. There was mass addiction and there was no law against it. A man could be a pill head, and so long as he earned his keep, no one could fault him. 

In that environment, the most common reaction was a cold-turkey lock down. The junky in question would secure the promise of those who loved him that no matter what he said or how he pleaded, they would not untie him. 

Drug addiction is a crime against the addict. The addict is generally given drugs when he is too young to contract. The government - and by this, I do NOT mean the local mayor or the cop on the beat, but the bankers who employ them - understands addiction far better than does the addict. The bankers understand that SCORING, in and of itself, is an addiction. Like cigarette makers, they are continually refining the addict's prison - adding to the game and keeping the junky hooked. 

Just look at smoking. There is the addiction, and there is the habit. The addiction is nicotine. The habit is every little thing that delivers the nicotine. That is why vaping is more effective than any other smoking cessation plan. It replaces every element of the habit, from the movement of hand to mouth to the inhalation and the throat hit. The addict is able to gradually step down the nicotine to a zero before giving up the habit portion of the addiction. 

Likewise, scoring drugs is a habit. Pitting oneself against the various impediments to ACQUIRING drugs becomes a game to which one is arguably addicted (or at least by which one is obviously obsessed). The manipulators understand this. If drugs were readily available, the prospect of quitting would not be undermined by the habit of scoring. 

DeezerShoove » 07 Feb 2024, 11:39 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 11:39 am

You make my point nicely.
Legalizing can only make things worse.

There is no benefit to even trying.
(That's my take-away from what you just said.)

People do what they're gonna do regardless of legality. I don't think legalization will add any to the peripheral crimes user commit. I don't feel like paying to incarcerate someone for using drugs and ruining their own lives. Survival of the fittest.

Vegas » 07 Feb 2024, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 10:13 am

Human nature does better when it's free. For example, America has over 110 million gun owners and over 300 million guns legally owned. Yet, our gun deaths are only .004%. Libs love to think that their is a huge gun problem in America. However, if you stand back and look at the data, there isn't. With that many guns and gun owners, if we had a gun problem, then we would know it. There wouldn't be a debate. 

I also read that in some nations, they don't have speed limits. Yet, they have disproportionately have far less accidents than on roads that do have speed limits. 

I am not saying this will always be the case. However, I tend to think that of people were free to use drugs, then maybe there would be less drug use. It appears as an oxymoron, but my examples say it isn't.

If you follow that logic, if we eliminate laws against murder we should see a noticeable drop in the number of people who die violently at the hands of others.

 

Cedar » 07 Feb 2024, 11:47 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 11:47 am

People do what they're gonna do regardless of legality. I don't think legalization will add any to the peripheral crimes user commit. I don't feel like paying to incarcerate someone for using drugs and ruining their own lives. Survival of the fittest.

Can I kill the **** without too much paperwork after they are unleashed on me and my family?
That keeps the prisons less cluttered too.

The dead heads you are "defending" get to stay in mom's basement (dodging her tears).
We get to kill the needy ones who go out **** with society.

Moderation preserved. Street cleaning enhanced. Saving tax dollars.
Everyone happy.  

Vegas » 07 Feb 2024, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2024, 11:40 am

That isn't what I said. I said that we can't know if it will make it better since it's never been done.

You said we are just speculating anyway.
None of this is knowable. I can speculate on your speculation.