Amerika

Off Topic
281

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Professor X wrote:
De sleeplijn wrote:
Yeah but everyone is still jumping to conclusions. Like that Benoit guy who killed his Mrs and Kid. Don’t worry about the facts, blame it on the steroids. That will make everyone feel at ease when there is an evil to blame for it. People don’t want to think any more about the issue. Pin the blame and move on.

You seem to be very comfortable allowing others to control your decisions and options whether they be logical and scientifically sound or not. I could have sworn this country was founded by men (and women) who were trying to escape that sort of captivity.

Yes, Professor, but De Sleeplijn’s current country was founded (or at least populated) by men and women who were quite literally in captivity. So his comfort seems understandable.[/quote]

Hey, don’t blame us for his attitude just because he’s living here. I’ve never heard an Aussie say the government has the right to force us to do whatever they want.

282

Too late. This is my first encounter with an Australian and first impressions are the strongest. I’m going to assume you’re strict totalitarians.

283

[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
Too late. This is my first encounter with an Australian and first impressions are the strongest. I’m going to assume you’re strict totalitarians.[/quote]

It’s starting to feel that way over here - Australia feels like a very controlled society. There are those who support and defend the status quo, those who rebel against it, those who are against it but don’t feel there is much they can do about it, and those who are too comfortable and apathetic to do anything.

This country is only 200 years old, so there is still an undercurrent of convict mentality side by side with the ruling elite. It’s not quite the Land of the Free just yet - and if it DID become the land of the free, I foresee that there would be wild yahoo renegades running amuck, because it is only strict control that keeps them in line.

284

[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
Too late. This is my first encounter with an Australian and first impressions are the strongest. I’m going to assume you’re strict totalitarians.[/quote]

How many times does he have to say he not a fucking Australian, he’s a fucking Americian.

285

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Professor X wrote:
De sleeplijn wrote:
Yeah but everyone is still jumping to conclusions. Like that Benoit guy who killed his Mrs and Kid. Don’t worry about the facts, blame it on the steroids. That will make everyone feel at ease when there is an evil to blame for it. People don’t want to think any more about the issue. Pin the blame and move on.

You seem to be very comfortable allowing others to control your decisions and options whether they be logical and scientifically sound or not. I could have sworn this country was founded by men (and women) who were trying to escape that sort of captivity.

Yes, Professor, but De Sleeplijn’s current country was founded (or at least populated) by men and women who were quite literally in captivity. So his comfort seems understandable.[/quote]

Comfort my arse, most Aussie’s i know have a inbuilt distrust of authorities and goverments that has been due to to the convict past, captivity tends to foster distrust.

286

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I believe it is time for the illegalization of alcohol.[/quote]

Alcohol is a stupid drug, yes. As for making it illegal, I don’t know. It’s not that dangerous.

I’d rather see a “tiered” approach to the drug laws:

  1. Not dangerous unless you’re a moron. Examples: alcohol, marijuana. No restrictions, except minimum age of purchase.

  2. Potentially dangerous in some cases. Examples: many psychedelics such as LSD and mescalin. Consumption should be allowed but with more restrictions. E.g., in some places in Europe it used (or still is?) to be legal to do drugs in certain places specially designated by the government. I’m not saying this is the only or the best solution, but something along those lines seems reasonable.

  3. Very dangerous and addictive. Examples: meth. These should be fully banned.

There should be exceptions to the various controls and regulations, but only for scientific and medical purposes. E.g., if a research team at Stanford University wants to study the effects of LSD on [insert geeky neuroscience term here], they should be allowed to, assuming they provide the paper trail and justifications and all that stuff.

IMO, that’s a sane drug legislation.

The current situation, with some people behind bars for smoking a joint, while other people drink themselves senseless and then go on a rampage and get only a slap on the wrist - it’s totally and utterly insane. Sure, jail the morons who do meth, but man, pot is actually a lot less dangerous than alcohol.

287

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
if it DID become the land of the free, I foresee that there would be wild yahoo renegades running amuck… [/quote]

Which might be kinda cool, actually.

288

[quote]florin wrote:
3. Very dangerous and addictive. Examples: meth. These should be fully banned.[/quote]

And what about nicotine? Just as addictive and quite dangerous, so I’ve heard.

289

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You seem to be very comfortable allowing others to control your decisions and options whether they be logical and scientifically sound or not. I could have sworn this country was founded by men (and women) who were trying to escape that sort of captivity. [/quote]

It’s not Nazi Germany you know. The Western World live a pretty free lifestyle and if I have to forgo AAS legally prescribed by my doctor so be it. The fact that I live my life 99% the way I want to is something I am very happy with.

We’ve come a long way from the 60’s and 70’s even. Teenagers only go to war if they enlist in the services. They are not forced like they were back then. I have very few gripes with the US Government and my current residence in Australia.

Life is good.

290

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Yes, Professor, but De Sleeplijn’s current country was founded (or at least populated) by men and women who were quite literally in captivity. So his comfort seems understandable.[/quote]

England were the one short changed in the long run. The best beaches in the world, perfect weather, perfect surf and natural beauty. Any Aussie should be happy with the fact their great grandfathers were criminals. LOL.

I’ve said it in my post before. In the Western world, we live a great life. Make no mistake there. I’m happy in life and enjoy both the US and Australia immensely.

291

[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
It’s starting to feel that way over here - Australia feels like a very controlled society. There are those who support and defend the status quo, those who rebel against it, those who are against it but don’t feel there is much they can do about it, and those who are too comfortable and apathetic to do anything.
[/quote]
Not starting a fight here, but which parts of Aussie society make you feel controlled? There is not a more free country in the Western world.

Guys live off the Government here their entire lives. A guy I work with gets around $400 on the dole per fortnight and so does his Mrs . And they earn the max amount possible at a part time job which is around $150 a week. They live a truly stress free and easy life. If they have kids, the Government gives them a $5000 handshake and then ups the weekly dole payments.

I’ve never been to a country on earth where this kind of lazyness is encouraged. You can work if you want, if you don’t the Government will make sure you don’t live in discomfort. That’s freedom.

292

[quote]florin wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I believe it is time for the illegalization of alcohol.

Alcohol is a stupid drug, yes. As for making it illegal, I don’t know. It’s not that dangerous.

I’d rather see a “tiered” approach to the drug laws:

  1. Not dangerous unless you’re a moron. Examples: alcohol, marijuana. No restrictions, except minimum age of purchase.

  2. Potentially dangerous in some cases. Examples: many psychedelics such as LSD and mescalin. Consumption should be allowed but with more restrictions. E.g., in some places in Europe it used (or still is?) to be legal to do drugs in certain places specially designated by the government. I’m not saying this is the only or the best solution, but something along those lines seems reasonable.

  3. Very dangerous and addictive. Examples: meth. These should be fully banned.

There should be exceptions to the various controls and regulations, but only for scientific and medical purposes. E.g., if a research team at Stanford University wants to study the effects of LSD on [insert geeky neuroscience term here], they should be allowed to, assuming they provide the paper trail and justifications and all that stuff.

IMO, that’s a sane drug legislation.

The current situation, with some people behind bars for smoking a joint, while other people drink themselves senseless and then go on a rampage and get only a slap on the wrist - it’s totally and utterly insane. Sure, jail the morons who do meth, but man, pot is actually a lot less dangerous than alcohol.[/quote]

Top post. Best one of the thread. You actually addressed the issue at hand. High five.

293

[quote]florin wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I believe it is time for the illegalization of alcohol.

Alcohol is a stupid drug, yes. As for making it illegal, I don’t know. It’s not that dangerous.

I’d rather see a “tiered” approach to the drug laws:

  1. Not dangerous unless you’re a moron. Examples: alcohol, marijuana. No restrictions, except minimum age of purchase.

  2. Potentially dangerous in some cases. Examples: many psychedelics such as LSD and mescalin. Consumption should be allowed but with more restrictions. E.g., in some places in Europe it used (or still is?) to be legal to do drugs in certain places specially designated by the government. I’m not saying this is the only or the best solution, but something along those lines seems reasonable.

  3. Very dangerous and addictive. Examples: meth. These should be fully banned.

There should be exceptions to the various controls and regulations, but only for scientific and medical purposes. E.g., if a research team at Stanford University wants to study the effects of LSD on [insert geeky neuroscience term here], they should be allowed to, assuming they provide the paper trail and justifications and all that stuff.

IMO, that’s a sane drug legislation.

The current situation, with some people behind bars for smoking a joint, while other people drink themselves senseless and then go on a rampage and get only a slap on the wrist - it’s totally and utterly insane. Sure, jail the morons who do meth, but man, pot is actually a lot less dangerous than alcohol.[/quote]

I generally agree with this approach.

294

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
florin wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I believe it is time for the illegalization of alcohol.

Alcohol is a stupid drug, yes. As for making it illegal, I don’t know. It’s not that dangerous.

I’d rather see a “tiered” approach to the drug laws:

  1. Not dangerous unless you’re a moron. Examples: alcohol, marijuana. No restrictions, except minimum age of purchase.

  2. Potentially dangerous in some cases. Examples: many psychedelics such as LSD and mescalin. Consumption should be allowed but with more restrictions. E.g., in some places in Europe it used (or still is?) to be legal to do drugs in certain places specially designated by the government. I’m not saying this is the only or the best solution, but something along those lines seems reasonable.

  3. Very dangerous and addictive. Examples: meth. These should be fully banned.

There should be exceptions to the various controls and regulations, but only for scientific and medical purposes. E.g., if a research team at Stanford University wants to study the effects of LSD on [insert geeky neuroscience term here], they should be allowed to, assuming they provide the paper trail and justifications and all that stuff.

IMO, that’s a sane drug legislation.

The current situation, with some people behind bars for smoking a joint, while other people drink themselves senseless and then go on a rampage and get only a slap on the wrist - it’s totally and utterly insane. Sure, jail the morons who do meth, but man, pot is actually a lot less dangerous than alcohol.

I generally agree with this approach.[/quote]

Steroids don’t fit into any of your tiers. It is non-addictive, non-habit forming, non-narcotic, not mind altering, poses no threat to society.

Where do you put them on your list?

Define “dangerous”.

295

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
florin wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I believe it is time for the illegalization of alcohol.

Alcohol is a stupid drug, yes. As for making it illegal, I don’t know. It’s not that dangerous.

I’d rather see a “tiered” approach to the drug laws:

  1. Not dangerous unless you’re a moron. Examples: alcohol, marijuana. No restrictions, except minimum age of purchase.

  2. Potentially dangerous in some cases. Examples: many psychedelics such as LSD and mescalin. Consumption should be allowed but with more restrictions. E.g., in some places in Europe it used (or still is?) to be legal to do drugs in certain places specially designated by the government. I’m not saying this is the only or the best solution, but something along those lines seems reasonable.

  3. Very dangerous and addictive. Examples: meth. These should be fully banned.

There should be exceptions to the various controls and regulations, but only for scientific and medical purposes. E.g., if a research team at Stanford University wants to study the effects of LSD on [insert geeky neuroscience term here], they should be allowed to, assuming they provide the paper trail and justifications and all that stuff.

IMO, that’s a sane drug legislation.

The current situation, with some people behind bars for smoking a joint, while other people drink themselves senseless and then go on a rampage and get only a slap on the wrist - it’s totally and utterly insane. Sure, jail the morons who do meth, but man, pot is actually a lot less dangerous than alcohol.

I generally agree with this approach.

Steroids don’t fit into any of your tiers. It is non-addictive, non-habit forming, non-narcotic, not mind altering, poses no threat to society.

Where do you put them on your list?

Define “dangerous”. [/quote]

Between 1 and 2. Don’t let kids have them. Controlled use is OK with doctors supervision. Even if adults can handle them fine you would still see tons of kids using them if they were sold OTC so that is why I want some sort of prescription necessary.

I think more doctors would prescribe them if the restrictions on acceptable uses were lifted.

296

Come on Zap, legal drugs are harder for children to acquire than illegal drugs. Why does no one get this?

297

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Come on Zap, legal drugs are harder for children to acquire than illegal drugs. Why does no one get this?[/quote]

I honestly think it has to do with where you live or grew up. I doubt most people in Houston think it is difficult for a kid to find a source for weed. That same kid would have a harder time getting alcohol even though alcohol kills more people and causes more problems in society.

I don’t understand why so many still don’t see that the restrictions and laws happen to be the largest part of the problem. They create the black market.

298

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Come on Zap, legal drugs are harder for children to acquire than illegal drugs. Why does no one get this?[/quote]

Not sure if you are being facetious or not, but I disagree. Both are equally easy to get. My younger brother went to a pretty rural high school and he still had his choice of everything from weed or ecstasy to soma, vicodin, or valium.

Alcohol isn’t hard to come by either. At 16 he could buy his own without getting carded. He never had trouble getting an older friend to buy for him either if need be.

299

Well in my experience back in middle and high school I had quick and easy access to almost any illegal substance I wanted. If I wanted alcohol or cigarettes though, it was substantially much more difficult to come by.

300

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t understand why so many still don’t see that the restrictions and laws happen to be the largest part of the problem. They create the black market.[/quote]
I think they do. Everyone knows that the drug policies in this country have failed miserably, it’s just that no one’s taking any kind of action to make Congress listen up. It’s too bad steroids don’t have any lobbyists, we’d have AAS legal in a year.