The War on Drugs

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
761

lol isn’t this the same thing? Can’t tell if you’re serious. If you are, then public floggings should be instated for all those who drink till intoxication. If you’re on board with that then I respect you’re opinion, though I disagree with it. Despite contaminants being within some of these pills (and no… ecstacy isn’t laced with fentanyl… I’ve seen it laced with ice before though) the actual death rate is quite low compared to alcohol, opiates, cocaine etc. However given that these deaths are entirely preventable and we can’t get these kids to stop using drugs without resorting to total authoritative measures I believe we should employ pill testing. Current trials indicate pill testing is highly successful, even convinces some to throw out drugs on them. Societal consensus GENERALLY vehemently disagrees with outright authoritative measures/extensive policing as it reduces quality of life significantly, can easily get out of hand. Kids tend to hide the pills in their underwear, in bras etc… Do you really want to go fishing around some 14 y/old girls bra because she has a pill on her, reasonably less harmful than booze if pure and designated for personal use… it’s a disturbing prospect and such practices need to be put to a stop… it’s furthermore rather traumatising for those who have previously been victims of sexual assault

I don’t respect this though, there is no excuse in my mind to accept discrimination against homosexuality aside from the basis of ignorance (in my opinion, though at this point the majority of secular society would agree with me). One cannot compare two consenting adults to having sex with a child and/or animal… an argument you priorly tried to make to justify disliking homosexuality. I don’t understand how you can dislike homosexuality when

  • it’s not a choice
  • they don’t bother you…

It’s not about an irrational fear, as a matter of fact you’re free to dislike gay people if you with (though I don’t respect this opinion, we probably wouldn’t be friends on the sole basis of this alone)… but if you’re one of the “gays ought to be put away, conversion therapy (a practice that induces more harm than good) is the answer” type of people I legitimately do have a problem with this beyond disagreeing with you’re opinion… enforcing such agendas irreversibly harm people. An interesting topic would be… If we as a society were able to implement gene therapy, distinguish whether a baby would be gay prior to birth… would we alter the gene? (if it is, in fact a gene)… I tend to think we probably would, being gay is difficult, esp on the basis of the undeserved discrimination they face.

Regardless I believe we should drop this conversation, it’ll just serve to irritate both of us (not the ideologies pertaining to drug reform… the opinions pertaining to homosexuality.)

Though I can’t understand this… if you’re pro cannabis legalisation, don’t mind alcohol being legal… what’s the problem with MDMA (if pure, a compound considerably safer than alcohol to begin with) legalisation?

I’ve found a good meme about this

[Album] imgur.com

I believe public flogging is a bit harsh for taking a pill purportedly safer than alcohol, a pill in which participants under the influence don’t hurt anyone (as a matter of fact they’re incredibly friendly)… regardless we can agree to disagree

I’ve found kids use this shit regardless of the amount of police, sniffer dogs, punishments instated for getting caught… it’s not good for you at all… but it isn’t fentanyl, meth, cocaine, alcohol or heroin, not even close. You’d have to take 6-10x+ the recreational dosage to overdose.

I’m not quite sure what public flogging is, but if it’s akin too stoning present within the bible, wouldn’t it lead to death?

It is of my opinion we should take a stance pertaining to drug use backed by scientific consensus, not societal ignorance/priorly engrained traditions and/or ideology. Perhaps not full legalisation should be backed… its dependant on whether said legalisation would eliminate/reduce black market acquisition. If not, I still strongly support the notion of pill testing. Publicly flogging a third of the populace would be ineffective. You’ve got a bunch of hot-headed, aggressive teenagers (saying you decide to flog a third of them during schoolies)… I get the feeling there would be severe backlash and/or kids rioting in the streets here.

We already have outcry regarding current government policies (sniffer dogs, cavity/strip searching)… we have political parties dedicated to the removal of roadside weed/drug testing based on measuring traces rather than impairment, we have parties dedicated (as a prime pressing issue) to instating pill testing, drug reform etc… If as a society in Aus we were to install public flogging I have a strong hunch riots/ a legitimate government overthrow would occur. You’d need to gather together a populace that is on board with such an ideology prior to it being instated (unless you’re residing within a dictatorship). Currently the vast majority here wouldn’t be on board with publicly flogging (does this mean stoning?) kids

I legitimately believe within 20 years we will have

  • legalised, regulated cannabis
  • roadside testing overhaul
  • pill testing

and perhaps even MDMA regulation, it’s a very commonly abused substance here… societal attitudes are becoming more and more progressive within subsequent generations.

I also believe our attitude towards alcohol (binge drinking is acceptable etc) will stiffen… eventually alcohol will be what cigarettes are today… this is just my opinion. I firmly believe, at least here… as times progress, intoxicants of choice will be made on the basis of harm minimisation/ how dangerous is this rather than “this is illigal, alcohol is okay but everything else isn’t”… currently the attitude present within the federal government, but probably not the general populace.

762

Furthermore, regarding MDMA

No kid should be subjected to strip/cavity searching, criminal records/prison time or death (from contaminants… no matter how rare deaths actually are) due to a stupid decision they made when they were 14-17 or even in their early 20s etc… We all make mistakes… remember that time you probably drank a little bit too much at party in HS… imagine if you’d copped a criminal record for that… or even worse went blind/died due to contaminants within the product.

Not a straw man argument, just making a comparison… and this WAS the case during prohibition. Those drinking risked criminal persecution (esp if of minority status, as the indigenous here are currently disproportionately targeted with strip searches, harsher sentencing etc), death or other serious consequence. Yet now as a society we’ve decided it’s perfectly acceptable to get drunk in ones own home and/or within controlled environments, the outcome hasn’t been great… but it hasn’t been terrible either, and prohibition induced more harm (in my opinion)

You can’t expect a kid to behave/think like a responsible middle aged man. They’re neurologically hardwired to be more impulsive, make riskier decisions… taking unmarked, untested pills is probably one of them… just as drinking bootleg booze in the 20’s/30’s was one of them… though interestingly it appears adults also partook during prohibition. you’d think given the illicit, dangerous nature of the product (bootleg booze is far more dangerous than regulated booze) adults would’ve known better

763

Maybe intoxicated to the point of causing a public disturbance. I would support that, few would deny that obnoxious and belligerent drunks deserve a beating.

Intolerance in the name of tolerance

You are bothering me right now. I came here to discuss drugs, made a comparison to how sodomy went from being a criminal offence to protected by law, and now you are coming out of the closet and going on about homophobia and gay rights. This is totally off topic, and I don’t want to hear about it.

I see no reason why the government should provide pure MDMA, and other than you I have heard nobody make such an argument. Weed and alcohol have been a regular part of society for a long time, especially alcohol, and moderate use of either doesn’t cause any significant harm. As for some pills which might contain MDMA and might not and nobody knows what is really in them, I don’t see any good argument for legalizing that or making it readily available to the public.

764

I’m not gay… You equated tolerability of drug use to that of sodomy/homosexuality being legalised. You vilify the notion (understandably) of drug use. You stated

“Just like the Gay stuff”… The REASON homosexuality is tolerated nowadays is because we were priorly in the wrong to suppress and stigmatise such a demographic. They aren’t doing anything wrong. I’m “bothering you” because you harbour homophobic ideology… I don’t respect that in the slightest… Regardless I wish to drop this unless you can give me a coherent, rationale argument as to why someone should be stigmatised for having consensual sex with another consenting adult.

Not gay…

Because… you discriminate against homosexuality… This is my subthread, if you’re uncomfortable with the notion of homosexuality, don’t wish for people to talk about it (such as myself) you don’t have to stay within this convo. Though this particular conversation regarding homosexuality is over. Talking about homosexuality certainly doesn’t violate forum rules.

Opiates were found in 0.1-0.3 percent of batches within certain countries… some found 0.0%… The 0.3 ratio was in Canada alone. If anything this presses the need for pill testing too. If kids are going to use this regardless, it’s fairly important that we test substances, see what’s in them

Well amongst particularly the teenage demographic it’s rapidly become a drug of choice, cannabis hasn’t been commonly abused for very long either. MDMA has been somewhat popular since the 60’s yet only really took off in the 2000’s whilst cannabis took off in the 60’s… As times change, ideologies change. There are many experts advocating for the legalisation of MDMA

Neither does pure MDMA used sparingly, though I can debunk this myth for you

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31310-2/fulltext

(any amount of drinking is considered to have a deleterious effect on health)

An article that pretty much sums up that study

Episodic heavy drinking during college leading to significant cognitive deficits

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341530213X

Moderate use of MDMA isn’t related to the same outcome

Intermittent dosing of MDMA isn’t correlated with inducing cognitive deficit.

I can link studies wherein cognitive deficits are acutely associated with “binge drinking”… now described as 4 standard drinks + in a singular sitting… that’s not much now is it… repeated binge drinking has been shown to induce irreversible cognitive deficits.

so… test them then

Pill testing doesn’t make anything readily available to the public. Though MDMA is already widely available to the public… I could get it delivered to me (rural area, farmland) within under thirty minutes… probably fifteen.

(political party in AUS)

Report into QLD drug use recommended decriminalising MDMA, called it a “lower harm drug” within the lines of cannabis

“he QPC said a cost-benefit analysis found decriminalising the use and possession of cannabis would save about $850 million, rising to $1.2 billion if the Government chose to fully legalise and regulate the supply of “lower-harm drugs such as cannabis and MDMA”.”

There are many advocating the legalisation/regulation of a drug now probably as common as pot was in the 70s… (not as common as it is now, but gaining momentum rapidly for a relatively high safety profile)

Twenty years from now, MDMA will have been a “regular part of society” for a long time, does this mean we should remake all the past mistakes we’ve made from weed/alcohol prohibition, wait until the very last minute wherein instead of a third of kids using it, it’s over 50-60% (And there will presumably be a

higher death rate due to contaminants if this occurs without the addition of pill testing)

Because PURE MDMA is safer than booze, if it were to phase out alcohol as the publics preferred intoxicant the world, cities at night etc would be far friendlier places.

In an optimal society we wouldn’t have any of these drugs… but we do… people use them regardless of the law and usage rates are increasing… people are occasionally (and preventably dying)… so what do we do?

765

In which case I respect (albeit disagree) with you’re opinion dictating those on MDMA deserve public floggings. However those on MDMA don’t tend to disturb, bother or hurt anyone unlike those heavily intoxicated (ethanol). The lack of regrettable decision making is one of the reasons certain subsections of todays youth prefer the substance over alcohol.

766

LMAO. You bring up sodomy and then don’t want to hear about it when no one else is talking about it before you. You equate anyone who doesn’t hate gays to being gay for some annoying reason. You’re on a political message board and your snowflake ass might come across discussion of topics that you don’t want to read. So either deal with it or stop posting in a place where you might be exposed to something that scares the piss out of you because you’re not very tough.

1 Like
767

I agree with you, however this could’ve been worded in a less harsh manner

I disliked that he equated homosexuality with beastiality/ child molestation though, there’s no correlation. one is consensual, the other two aren’t

Then practically stifled any attempt for one to talk about homosexuality…

Similarly to drug legalisation, people are scared of change… scared of what they don’t understand (homosexuality… MDMA… whatever etc). Though not always, people like Brickhead have legitimate points, I may not agree with them… but they’re legitimate

768

Probably. But I don’t have much patience considering his history of similar comments amongst similar threads. His default when someone discusses not treating anyone who is different from him like a piece of shit is to go to “you must be gay or you must be trans.” It’s middle school stuff at best.

769

I’ve seen his prior homophobic comments, he REALLY doesn’t like homosexuality

770

No shortage of diehard homophobes end up getting caught with their pants down with other dudes. See Ted Haggard, Catholic Church, etc.

771

Fair enough, but some just dislike homosexuality on the basis of religion, misunderstanding etc

I don’t think Chris Ottawa is gay. I know/I’ve seen the gay kid who picks on others for being gay, Chris Ottawa doesn’t seem like he’s that guy… though I’ve only known him from posts online, can’t make an adequate judge of character that way. Perhaps he’s trolling, perhaps he isn’t even homophobic

772

I don’t care one bit what his sexual orientation is. But you can’t bring it up on a public message board and then tell others you don’t want to hear about it. It’s quite easy not to read stuff on the t-nation forums.

773

Your personal preference doesn’t allow for other people’s personal preference.

Here’s what I don’t like–people who hold being gay or sexual preference in general in such high regard that they make it an outstanding characteristic or condition of friendship.

Here’s an IRL example of a guy I’ve been friends with for about 15 years-

Smart, educated and business wise, razor sharp wit and funny as fuck. Carring and devoted, holds relationships in high regard, married for 7 years. I’d consider him quite successful in a difficult business sector, political science major and conservative. Loves men.

Another example: guy I couldn’t stand to be around for 15 minutes–:confetti_ball: :confetti_ball: GAY!!! :sparkler: :sparkler: :confetti_ball:

And he would start fights with people based solely on that. Easily one of the most prejudiced and aggressive people I’ve ever met, and I know some very aggressive people.

And that was it. That’s as much as anybody ever gets to know about him.

So yeah, careful with that sword. It cuts both ways.

2 Likes
774

Because I didn’t come here to discuss a sexually confused teenager’s personal issues.

All I did is give an example of anti-discrimination laws that resulted from another issue, there was no attempt to debate anything relating to homosexuality because that in itself is irrelevant to this discussion.

He said he “hooked up with a man”.

How am I a snowflake? You’re the antifa-sympathizing liberal, not me.

What makes you think you are tougher than me? That’s just a dumb thing to say.

I’m not scared of anything I see here, I just have no interest in a discussion about some kid’s sexual orientation.

Where did I say anything like that?

775

Here’s what I posted two days ago

776

Doesn’t make me gay, lots of people make sub-par decisions when they’re drunk. It’s somewhat more societally accepted nowadays regardless of whether you like it or not. I know plenty of guys who have hooked up with other guys despite being predominantly heterosexual, just as I know plenty of girls who have done the same.

Well we can agree upon this, not a fan either

You’re saying some gay people are awesome, some are nasty… agreed. There’s one gay guy I can think about who I’m not fond of because he isn’t a nice person… being gay had nothing to do with that though. What I’m saying is discriminating against someone/refusing to like them on the SOLE basis of homosexuality is unacceptable. I don’t care if you’re gay, straight whatever… I do care if you’re one that equates homosexuality to beastiality and/or child molestation.

If you dislike someone on the basis of their personality thats 100% understandable, disliking someone on the sole basis of sexual orientation (something someone has no control over)… I just can’t wrap my head around that.

777

Pretty common for discussions to happen around topics when they are brought up. You’ve posted long enough to know that. No one brought that up but you. So don’t cry about it.

Which doesn’t make someone gay. Also who gives a shit? You’re upset that someone who lives thousands of miles away from you hooked up with a man?

I don’t sympathize with them one bit and you saying so doesn’t make it true. I called you a snowflake and not very tough because you threw a fit when someone talked about something you don’t like. You ever considered that a good way to avoid that would be to avoid message boards dedicated to political discussion?

I’m able to read things on the internet that I’m not a fan of and be ok with it?

You’ve said must be a fan of transsexuals and alluded to people who have supported gay rights as being gay. Which is middle school type thinking. Wanting people to not be treated like shit doesn’t make you gay or a transsexual. I would argue it makes you a caring human.

778

Sure doesn’t seem like it. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

I also made a comment implying that another poster might be a flat earther. Should the thread have become a discussion of whether or not the earth is flat?

Yes, who gives a shit, so I don’t need to hear about it. Glad we agree on that.

779

the earth… IS… flat. Have you ever been on a plane? Do you see any curvature? (not serious)

But no, the biggest problem is that you priorly compared same sex sexual activity to beastality, sex with children… This clearly showcases a skewed view on the topic not in line with that I’d consider rational. Perhaps you were playing devils advocate, perhaps you were kidding… either way I’m not inclined to let a comment like that slip.

780

It’s ludicrous to tell people on a political message board what can and can’t be discussed. If you don’t want to see certain things stop posting.

You don’t have to. Even you have the ability to not read the forum or when you do read it not respond. The forum would be a lot better off if people weren’t on here saying “I don’t want to read it so don’t say it.”

You might also notice that none of the conversation was really about that until you popped in.