I’m on a new mission to make alcohol illegal. It’s more potent than ever today, it’s damaging unborn babies, ruining families, and it’s the government’s right to tell you that you can’t drink alcohol.
Vote yes to the 18th amendment!
A delusional mother that believes prohibition endangers her loved ones. She belongs in a psych ward!
Vote yes to the 18th amendment!
End addiction subsidies too.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Again, as long I don’t have to pay one penny to take care of the junkies out there, I’m cool. Pay for your own rehab and drug related medical issues, and we’ll both be happy.
You already pay tons of pennies. Almost every one of these junkies in jail receives welfare, medicaid food stamps or disability insurance. Why not legalize it, this way the government will have no control over what goes in these peoples body. Then for every new addict created we will have to subsidize them with our tax dollars so we can care for the junkie we LEGALLY created.
Legalizing more harmful products will slide us down a very slippery slope. Smokers and drinkers cost everyone enough in healthcare. Think of all the new babies born with much harsher disabilities. Heroin and cocaine do much more iter-uterine damage than smoking or casual alcohol use. Hell if the fetus repetetively detox’s it can die. Happens all the time to pregnant junkies, either that or they are born severly disabled.
If you think for one minute that legalizing it will not create more users you are sadly mistaken.[/quote]
You know what most people die from?
CHD´s.
Can a government therefore ban junkfood on the same grounds you argued for above?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Then for every new addict created we will have to subsidize them with our tax dollars so we can care for the junkie we LEGALLY created.
“We” do not “create” anything that has to do with the personal choices of others.
Do you not think junkies would be junkies regardless of whether drugs are legal or not? What is the difference between a heroine addict and an alcoholic? Legality has nothing to do with addiction.
You speak like a state sponsored, know-nothing, law enforcement goon.[/quote]
Yes you must be right. Because making something legal doesn’t make it way more available to the general public therefore creating a bigger problem?
The difference between a heroin addict and an alcoholic is simple. A heroin addict will rob, murder and steal to continue to get high. In 13 years in LE, I have never seen an alcoholic brought in because he murdered someone over 10 dollars for his next fix.
[quote]orion wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Again, as long I don’t have to pay one penny to take care of the junkies out there, I’m cool. Pay for your own rehab and drug related medical issues, and we’ll both be happy.
You already pay tons of pennies. Almost every one of these junkies in jail receives welfare, medicaid food stamps or disability insurance. Why not legalize it, this way the government will have no control over what goes in these peoples body. Then for every new addict created we will have to subsidize them with our tax dollars so we can care for the junkie we LEGALLY created.
Legalizing more harmful products will slide us down a very slippery slope. Smokers and drinkers cost everyone enough in healthcare. Think of all the new babies born with much harsher disabilities. Heroin and cocaine do much more iter-uterine damage than smoking or casual alcohol use. Hell if the fetus repetetively detox’s it can die. Happens all the time to pregnant junkies, either that or they are born severly disabled.
If you think for one minute that legalizing it will not create more users you are sadly mistaken.
You know what most people die from?
CHD´s.
Can a government therefore ban junkfood on the same grounds you argued for above?
[/quote]
Every argument you ave presented has been hard to refute. It’s just hard to see what I have seen WRT what drugs do to otherwise healthy families, it’s hard to think legalizing them would do anything but create more problems. Granted alcohol destroys families, but not in the same way I have seen first hand drugs destroy families.
Drugs, alcohol and cigarettes may be equally as addictive. I will repeat it again, I have never seen a head bashed in with a hammer or a throat slashed with a broken bottle for 10 bucks over a next drink or cigarette. I have for meth, crack and heroin.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Again, as long I don’t have to pay one penny to take care of the junkies out there, I’m cool. Pay for your own rehab and drug related medical issues, and we’ll both be happy.
You already pay tons of pennies. Almost every one of these junkies in jail receives welfare, medicaid food stamps or disability insurance. [/quote]
Oh, I think we should do away with all those things. If you should be free enough to screw up your life, you should be free enough to face the consequences all by yourself.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
I will repeat it again, I have never seen a head bashed in with a hammer or a throat slashed with a broken bottle for 10 bucks over a next drink or cigarette. [/quote]
You have never lived in Britain.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Again, as long I don’t have to pay one penny to take care of the junkies out there, I’m cool. Pay for your own rehab and drug related medical issues, and we’ll both be happy.
You already pay tons of pennies. Almost every one of these junkies in jail receives welfare, medicaid food stamps or disability insurance.
Oh, I think we should do away with all those things. If you should be free enough to screw up your life, you should be free enough to face the consequences all by yourself.
[/quote]
You forget, you are dealing with people who want to be able to do what they want to do, then sue someone because that someone is responsible for what happened to them, not the individual partaking in the act. How could these innocent people possibly be responsible for their actions when the government said it was ok.
Example, all the cigaette lawsuits and McDonalds made me fat lawsuits. Once it’s legalized you open up a whole new laundry list of people who won’t take responsibility for their actions and expect government support.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
Drugs, alcohol and cigarettes may be equally as addictive. I will repeat it again, I have never seen a head bashed in with a hammer or a throat slashed with a broken bottle for 10 bucks over a next drink or cigarette. I have for meth, crack and heroin.[/quote]
It is the cost prohibition created by the black market that causes this. Repeal prohibition and violence connected to meth, etc, will disappear. People will not fight over cheaply procurable goods.
Remember what alcohol prohibition did for bootleggers.
Here’s an interesting article about the so-called health risks of cannabis and opium. Remarkably, it was published in the Straits Times in Singapore, where drug dealers are hanged and abusers are flogged, but where drugs are just as prevalent as they are anywhere.
HAS THE OPIUM MYTH GONE UP IN SMOKE?
LONDON - British Home Secretary David Blunkett has reclassified cannabis to the lowest grade on the scale of controlled substances. The British government - and others including Canada and several US states - are re-evaluating their narcophobic views which took root a century and a half ago in China and led to the Opium Wars.
Governments are realising that not all drugs are an unmitigated evil and a difference is being drawn between synthetic hard drugs that threaten society and purified natural substances with medicinal values and a place in Asia’s traditional cultures.
The war that Western imperialism forced on the decaying Qing empire, and which identified China as the original victim - Patient Zero - of a global drug plague, actually coincided with the conviction among both the Chinese and British governments that drugs were bad and required suppressing.
Understandably, the opium trade has been called ‘the most long-continued and systematic international crime of modern times’ perpetrated by the West on a vulnerable Asian nation. But what exactly was the effect of this supposedly pernicious substance?
Opium’s impact on health has been dramatised. Medical evidence points to only one effect - mild constipation. In Britain, frequent users did not suffer any detrimental effects. On the contrary, they enjoyed good health into their eighties.
South Asians took opium pills without any serious social or physical damage. In contrast, imported European spirits faced strong opposition from India’s Hindus and Muslims. Contrary to folklore, few opium users in China or elsewhere lost control of themselves.
In the late 1930s, when prices soared in Canton, most users halved their consumption to make ends meet. Obviously, spiralling addiction was not the inevitable result of smoking.
China’s elite in the tumultuous 1800s regarded opium as the new status symbol - like fine calligraphy in traditional society. Connoisseurship was a carefully cultivated gentleman’s art and ‘Patna opium’ the exotic indulgence. Smoking paraphernalia became collectors’ items, much like Europeans collected Wedgwood tea sets. Expensive pipes fashioned out of precious blackwood or jade and inlaid with ornate silver decoration became social markers.
Rock-bottom prices in the late 19th century nationalised an elite pastime without any of the sinister effects that haunt the lay imagination. A British consul in Hainan reported that ‘although nearly everyone uses it, one never meets the opium skeleton vividly depicted in philanthropic works, rather the reverse - a hardy peasantry, healthy and energetic’.
Seeking the dismal opium den of lore, Somerset Maugham found clean and tidy places, as a League of Nations report in 1930 noted, where the only customers were an elderly rubicund gentleman reading a newspaper, two friends chatting over a pipe, and a family with a child!
‘Opium was our medicine, it was all we had,’ cried an ex-Kuomintang soldier. Opium was the only pain-killer available to Britain’s working classes until penicillin appeared in the 1940s.
In the early 1820s, a painful global cholera epidemic proved opium to be the perfect analgesic though, admittedly, it also caused constipation.
So why did the world engage in what Professor Frank Dikotter of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies calls a narcophobic discourse?
As modern medicine developed, the new European medical associations sought moral authority and legal power by transforming opium from a European and Asian folk remedy into a controlled substance.
At the same time, narcophobia became an effective scapegoat for China’s rulers. Opium was both the enemy within - morally depraved and physically weak addicts - and the enemy outside - conniving foreign powers bent on enslaving the country.
But the cure proved worse than the disease. Smokers incarcerated in detoxification centres died often within days after relying for years on opium to combat various diseases.
Tragically, the ban encouraged smuggling of hard drugs like morphine, heroin and cocaine which are a menace to stability. They did not require complicated user paraphernalia. What was needed were syringes, which the poor re-used without disinfecting. Needles spread disease and hundreds of bodies with injection marks were found by the road in Manchurian cities.
In trying to erase an unhappy past, communist China also stamped out a sophisticated smoking culture that had evolved over centuries. Europeans introduced tobacco in the 16th century, the Chinese laced it with opium in the 18th century, and dropped the tobacco in the 19th as the quality of British opium improved and stabilised.
The circle closed in the 20th century with a return to tobacco in the form of cigarettes. Deng Xiaoping attributed his longevity to cigarettes. ‘Young Asia no longer smoked (opium) because grandfather smoked,’ noted the famous French philosopher Jean Cocteau.
Mr Blunkett is forcing Britain to shake off a century of narcophobia by downgrading marijuana and focusing on the very real danger posed by synthetic substances. That is well and good. What is still required, though, is more examination of Patient Zero’s example and experience, and a truly effective global drug policy that protects public health without counter-productive alarms and excursions.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
You forget, you are dealing with people who want to be able to do what they want to do, then sue someone because that someone is responsible for what happened to them, not the individual partaking in the act. How could these innocent people possibly be responsible for their actions when the government said it was ok.
Example, all the cigaette lawsuits and McDonalds made me fat lawsuits. Once it’s legalized you open up a whole new laundry list of people who won’t take responsibility for their actions and expect government support.[/quote]
So ban lawyers.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
I feel sorry for the guy, but who would have thought the police doesn’t like people carrying guns, concealed or otherwise.
Is there anybody out there who’s in law enforcement and against gun control?
I am dead set against gun control! If you control guns the only thing you do is make it harder for the honest people to own them and protect themselves. The bad guys will always have guns.
For me to purchase another off duty weapon in this state I am subject to the same rules as joe citizen. When I bought my Glock 27 it took 3 months for my permit to purchase to get to me. If some low life wanted to get a gun guess what his waiting period is.[/quote]
How could this have been avoided?
The guy was carrying a concealed weapon and felt threatened. So he got his gun out.
The undercover cops were sure they were up against a bad guy, and now they see him going for his gun.
So how could this have been avoided, in real life? Not in heinsight, not like “they should have identified themselves”. Imagine you are the officer in the night and you saw that man, convinced he’s a crook, going for his gun.
Is there any doubt this would not have happened if the guy had not been armed?
These dangerous situations can’t be avoided if you have citizens out there carrying guns.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
Drugs, alcohol and cigarettes may be equally as addictive. I will repeat it again, I have never seen a head bashed in with a hammer or a throat slashed with a broken bottle for 10 bucks over a next drink or cigarette. I have for meth, crack and heroin.[/quote]
Prepare for your argument to fail yet again…
Have you ever seen a drunk man smash another person’s head with a hammer?
Have you ever seen a drunk man slash another’s throat?
Have you ever seen a drunk driver kill a family of four?
I don’t see you calling for liquor to be illegal though, are ya???
You’re not going to win this debate. Prohibition fails on every level. Alcohol and cigarettes cause just as much harm as illegal drugs, you’ve just been programmed over the last 40 years to believe they don’t.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
I feel sorry for the guy, but who would have thought the police doesn’t like people carrying guns, concealed or otherwise.
Is there anybody out there who’s in law enforcement and against gun control?
I am dead set against gun control! If you control guns the only thing you do is make it harder for the honest people to own them and protect themselves. The bad guys will always have guns.
For me to purchase another off duty weapon in this state I am subject to the same rules as joe citizen. When I bought my Glock 27 it took 3 months for my permit to purchase to get to me. If some low life wanted to get a gun guess what his waiting period is.
How could this have been avoided?
The guy was carrying a concealed weapon and felt threatened. So he got his gun out.
The undercover cops were sure they were up against a bad guy, and now they see him going for his gun.
So how could this have been avoided, in real life? Not in heinsight, not like “they should have identified themselves”. Imagine you are the officer in the night and you saw that man, convinced he’s a crook, going for his gun.
Is there any doubt this would not have happened if the guy had not been armed?
These dangerous situations can’t be avoided if you have citizens out there carrying guns.[/quote]
Sure.
Disarm policemen.
Ha! Orion, you may be onto something here. Imagine a society in which the citizens are all armed, the police aren’t, drugs are legal, and there are no lawyers. The government regulates the purity and potency of all drugs, and the only tax is the one levied on their sale.
It would either be utter chaos, or utter paradise. Maybe both.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Drugs, alcohol and cigarettes may be equally as addictive. I will repeat it again, I have never seen a head bashed in with a hammer or a throat slashed with a broken bottle for 10 bucks over a next drink or cigarette. I have for meth, crack and heroin.
Prepare for your argument to fail yet again…
Have you ever seen a drunk man smash another person’s head with a hammer?
Have you ever seen a drunk man slash another’s throat?
Have you ever seen a drunk driver kill a family of four?
I don’t see you calling for liquor to be illegal though, are ya???
You’re not going to win this debate. Prohibition fails on every level. Alcohol and cigarettes cause just as much harm as illegal drugs, you’ve just been programmed over the last 40 years to believe they don’t.[/quote]
I wasn’t going to respond to oyur nonsense anymore, but since you are comparing apples to my oranges I will. Of course alcohol contributes to crime. In 13 years in law enforcement I have never seen a person kill or maim another for their NEXT DRINK or NEXT CIGARETTE. I have seen alcohol fueled violence.
Dealing with special programs in my county such as drug court I do see how many thefts(burglarizing a house) and robberies(physical violence used to take property or money) are comitted on crack, meth and heroin. It far outweighs the violent crimes comitted because of alcohol. When you sit in on pre-sentencing interviews and hear person after person state “I did not care who or what I hurt as long as I got the money for my next fix”. There is no comparison in the way these drugs alter your mind as opposed to alcohol.
http://www.stopmethaddiction.com/effects-of-meth.htm
http://www.bloodalcohol.info/how-alcohol-affects-your-body.php#alcohol-brain
Similar damage?
[quote]snipeout wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Drugs, alcohol and cigarettes may be equally as addictive. I will repeat it again, I have never seen a head bashed in with a hammer or a throat slashed with a broken bottle for 10 bucks over a next drink or cigarette. I have for meth, crack and heroin.
Prepare for your argument to fail yet again…
Have you ever seen a drunk man smash another person’s head with a hammer?
Have you ever seen a drunk man slash another’s throat?
Have you ever seen a drunk driver kill a family of four?
I don’t see you calling for liquor to be illegal though, are ya???
You’re not going to win this debate. Prohibition fails on every level. Alcohol and cigarettes cause just as much harm as illegal drugs, you’ve just been programmed over the last 40 years to believe they don’t.
I wasn’t going to respond to oyur nonsense anymore, but since you are comparing apples to my oranges I will. Of course alcohol contributes to crime. In 13 years in law enforcement I have never seen a person kill or maim another for their NEXT DRINK or NEXT CIGARETTE. I have seen alcohol fueled violence.
[/quote]
My nonsense? Personal freedom in what one chooses to consume or ingest is nonsense? You’re an utter moron, and you’ve dodged 90% of my comments because you have no fucking rebuttals.
How the fuck is it apples and oranges??? Violence as a result of drugs, whether because of heroin or alcohol, is still violence as a result of drugs. How the fuck are they not comparable?
So what you’re telling me is that killing to get a fix is terrible, but killing a person while in a drunken rage is OK? You are lacking in any kind of common sense or logic.
And until you start producing some statistics on number of crimes committed while high, and stats on crimes committed while high as compared to drunk- your personal opinion about it means DICK.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
In 13 years in law enforcement I have never seen a person kill or maim another for their NEXT DRINK or NEXT CIGARETTE.
[/quote]
Snipe, you really need to get out more.
Man stabbed to death over a cigarette, South Africa
http://www.citizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=86102,1,22
Woman shot to death over a cigarette, Baltimore, Maryland
http://wjz.com/local/cigarettes.dawn.shipley.2.716503.html
Man stabbed to death over a cigarette, Zimbabwe
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/crime17.18896.html
Man beaten to death over cigarettes, Tucson, Arizona
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/blog/view/841
Man beaten to death over pack of cigarettes, Waverly, Ohio
Man stabs wife to death over cigarettes, Sofia, Bulgaria
Man beaten to death over cigarettes, Washington DC
And my very favorite, 2-year old girl stomped and beaten to death over cigarettes, Singapore.
http://falseimages.blogspot.com/2009/01/child-killed-over-pack-of-cigarettes.html
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Ha! Orion, you may be onto something here. Imagine a society in which the citizens are all armed, the police aren’t, drugs are legal, and there are no lawyers. The government regulates the purity and potency of all drugs, and the only tax is the one levied on their sale.
It would either be utter chaos, or utter paradise. Maybe both.[/quote]
I do not see the problem.
Once a policeman sees a crime, he politely asks a citizen for a gun so that he may prevent it ;-)…