Exactly this. They profit off of the demise and misery of others.
Child trafficking and human trafficking are very big here. Pimps still exist in various forms.
1 Like
Snoop dog has bragged about being a pimp. I don’t know if he’s lying or not but he is on tv and he’s become a legitimate celebrity. Pimps are no different than slave owners. They are physically abusive to women. They are rapists. They are child molesters, sexual predators and even pedophiles. Yet, he’s been accepted as part of Hollywood in spite of their whole metoo movement.
Add to that his claims of being a drug dealer and gang member. America is a great country.
1 Like
Yea. He’s a p.o.s. Like Jay Z.
And low IQ Americans lap it up.
1 Like
Considering statistically the largest base of those using cocaine (just one substance for reference) are within the 18-25 demographic I think this answers that question. Neurologically younger people tend to be more impulsive, selfish… they don’t care about how their actions impact others and/or they simply don’t think about it.
With covid-19 for reference, I’m hearing many of my cousins, family friends are being very difficult about this. They’re leaving their houses periodically to go see friends despite the fact they’ve got family members living in their house who are 70+. It’s very selfish
But the truth is, these younger kids don’t think like a middle aged male/female… or even me for that matter.
AbSoLuTeLy nothing… I’m in full agreement with you regarding the notion that drug use by large within society (in any way, shape or form… even cannabis, alcohol, nicotine etc) serves as a detriment to the populace. It’s not something society as a whole needs, nor is it something we benefit from.
I’m not so sure about this, within retrospect to those who occasionally use drugs… they certainly don’t need it. The majority of those using drugs whom I know use on the basis of occasional use, as you’ve stipulated here
Yet there is def those who take it too far and/or get addicted. You state the majority of those who are addicts tend to be impulsive rule-breakers. This isn’t what I’ve experienced, the majority of addicts I know/knew tended to be these types
I’ve posted this video prior, but I feel as if it’s important everyone watches it. There is a stigma/lack of understanding currently regarding addiction. ALL the addicts I know/knew were the first type, those with very, very hard lives/deep rooting traumas who would abuse substances to numb emotional pain… Depending on how addictive the substance at hand was seemed to directly correlate with how out of hand the person got.
Sure… but public dismemberment seems barbaric. We already have like… life in prison for mass distributers where I live… I don’t think it can reasonably get harsher than that. Furthermore, it’s been shown via some of the links I posted prior that drug busts aren’t dwindling the supply of drugs available, nor does incarceration make these felons less likely to re-offend.
If countries can legalise/decriminalise these substances (cannabis, psilocybin… and apparently even cocaine etc) without major detriment to the populace (as seems to be the case) why not decriminalise/legalise? If the government mandated programs (such as in the Netherlands) existed wherein those hopelessly hooked could get government mandated heroin, they could like a normal life… hold down a job.
Some will stipulate that a heroin addict can’t function/hold down a job. It’s dose dependant. I can’t exactly specify what I know regarding this as it’d be potentially breaching the trust of many (even if I’m anonymous), but heroin addicts at times most certainly can hold down a job (so long as it doesn’t involved operating heavy machinery/driving). It’s an opiate, many people with chronic pain go to work/operate heavy machinery on heavy dosages of oxycodone, it’s about tolerance to the effect. Use a maintenance dose to ward off withdrawal symptoms and you aren’t getting high.
Although the guys who smoke pot all day every day (this is a generalisation) CAN be rather unproductive. This only makes up for a very small portion of users though, interestingly however this small portion of uses will consume the majority of pot. If I recall it was stated something like daily pot users in Aus consume 80% of the countries cannabis! There is also an ample body of evidence suggesting daily pot use to induce reversible (or potentially irreversible) cognitive deficits, deleteriously change the structure of the heart etc… it’s not entirely benign, but used sparingly (or even frequently) the consequence pales to that of alcohol abuse.
This is by in large due to engrained societal stigma. I don’t generalise unless you’re talking about highly addictive and/or incredibly destructive substances (occasional use of meth, fentanyl, heroin, crack etc) would ring massive alarm bells for me if the person was otherwise sober, a sane, sober person generally won’t use these substances.
The same goes with alcohol actually, if I see someone having a “couple” too many 2-3x weekly it does ring alarm bells. Especially when you’ve got these people frequently getting all emotional/saying stupid things they regret under the influence, then the next day proclaiming “I was so emotional, I don’t know what came over me”…
If a rule isn’t fair it doesn’t mean I/others have to just accept said rule. Now I’m not for legalisation/decriminalisation because I want to take drugs… I’m for the legalisation/decriminalisation aspect because I believe prohibition/penalisation induces more harm than it does good. I’ve linked numerous pieces of literature, used anecdotal examples (backed by statistics) to enforce my opinion.
I have one story I wish I could share on here that further honed my opinion home about someone who was on the brink of death due the ingestion of something. I simply thought “if he was going to do this anyway, this would have never happened had the product been regulated”.
The matter of the fact is, people use these substances regardless… and those who drink aren’t any better (drink to the point of intoxication that is, one beer is very different from fifteen), harsh penalties aren’t working… capitol punishment for drug users isn’t ethical, there are a myriad of potential implications that could stem from incredibly harsh treatment (look at the Phillipines, political activists being used as scapegoats and the amount of methamphetamine networking/production/importation/exportation within the country hasn’t decreased).
The rationale here is that kid popping a tablet of (lets say pure) MDMA isn’t harming anyone at all, the worst case scenario in terms of damage they induce to others is that they’re too friendly and thus irritate you because they’re so nice. It isn’t exactly unethical behaviour in my opinion, we can agree to disagree regarding this. I don’t even think drinking a six pack of beer (or hell even a slab if you can handle it) within the right circumstance is unethical. It’s a hell of a lot worse than the MDMA (given the alteration of you’re demeanour whilst highly intoxicated)… but for the right occasion I don’t have a problem with that either. This isn’t to condone drug use, neither scenario is healthy for the user.
Drug dealers profit off the misery others. The person using the drugs isn’t profiting off anything… if anything they’re at a net loss because they’re harming themselves
If you consider a guy dealing pot/ketamine/lesser substances in terms of harm induced comparative to booze to deserve dismemberment, I assume you also despise the liquor industry and thus believe these retailers profit off the misery off others (I also harbour this opinion, thus we’d be in agreement… aside from the dismemberment part)
Highly aware of this, it’s very sad. Those who traffic humans I would agree… death penalty.
Finally, neurological hardwiring… perhaps some are neurologically hardwired to be more impulsive (barring sociopathy/psychopathy)… In which case should medical treatment be catered towards them prior to self destructive behaviour being initiated or should we let them rot/eventually impose harsh penalties upon them? This is a question I have, as I don’t have an answer here
How so? Why shouldn’t consenting adults be able to have sex… this isn’t a played out argument, it’s common sense. Same sex sexual activity between two consenting adults in private doesn’t hurt anyone… It is most certainly benign. If you don’t believe this to be the case, please link me some data to prove otherwise.
As to pornography… what’s you’re opinion on porngraphy. I for one think if porn was banned we’d have an incredibly shady, unrestricted market. Statistically (within one survey I looked at) 73% of women, 98% of men reported looking at porngraphy within the past six months… you’re going up against the vast, vast, vast majority of people if you wish to campaign to get it banned.
Viewing consensual porngraphy (NOT child porngraphy) is by in large part a victimless crime. The hypothesis of dopamine related dysregulation, requiring more extreme stimulus to get off has been thrown around, yet this seems to only relate to a very minute select few. The majority can view porngraphy within a healthy fashion, and whilst it may not be “real sex” I’d argue it can help a couple find out what they prefer in bed/spice up their life a bit…
In Australia attitudes towards sex ARE generally somewhat more lenient compared to America (note I said generally), for instance it’s incredibly rare you’ll have a parent saying “no” to their 17y/o daughter going out unsupervised with a boy… sex during adolescence certainly isn’t a big deal here at all. The age restriction to buy playboy here is generally… fifteen… You’d have a very hard time convincing Australia to ban pornography.
Buying pornographic CD’s here is generally more difficult as we do have restrictions as to where X rated films can be sold (understandably)… but the internet now exists.
Government regulated prostitution also exists here… and because of this “pimping” is very, very rare. Many girls work independently. STI transmission is extremely rare stemming from sex workers, the rates of sexual violence within the industry (whilst still too high) have dropped exponentially, more importantly no one is going to prison for consensually soliciting sex @marine77 correct me if I’m wrong but I believe Nevada has also legalised prostitution?
All in all, our approach to prostitution worked… locking up prostitutes is one of the most counterproductive things one could possibly do in my opinion (pimps… that’s a different story. Serious punishment should be implemented)
@BrickHead I believe we fall within different paradigms within the political scale. Same with @marine77
As to Brickhead, I don’t believe we are all that far off regarding how left/right right we are… I think we differ dramatically regarding whether we cater towards authoritarianism or libertarianism.
This takes like five minutes… it isn’t foolproof but if you know what you’re beliefs are (politically) the results should come out fairly similar in comparison to where you believe you reside on the political scale. Theres a test one can take here https://www.politicalcompass.org
regarding the determination of political views. If you’re interested, you can take the test and post the results (both @brickhead and @marine77)
Here are my results
Also @BrickHead what is you’re opinion on homosexuality? Do you believe it’s a choice? Do you believe it’s immoral?
As usual, I’ll have to respond in detail at some other time. Thanks for the response. For now, here is my result.
Odd… I had you pegged as alt-right at the least…and a neo-Nazi at worst.
jk
1 Like
The Political Compass thing is okay. It places me in the Right-Libertarian area, which is accurate. It does, however, have a major flaw: It asks questions without regard to State action, and many which show no regard for property rights.
Huh, interesting.
Lefty
(Just kidding)
Isn’t this similar to being a Neo Nazi? Both are very far right. I’m not all that familiar with internet trolling, I was under the opinion both alt right and neo nazis were incredibly hateful demographics that fell under the “right” side of the political scale. Nazis stand for authoritarian principles, unsure about alt-right.
Yes, hence it’s a snapshot/guesstimate as to where you might fall.
It should be even better for most people, who see no difference between individual and State actions, than it is for me.
Do you believe states should have the right to draft legislature pertaining to certain issues (abortion, drugs, guns, LGBTQI rights etc)
@marine77 the conversation has mysteriously teleported from one thread to another
Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home : Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
This doesn’t pertain to public shootings, but at the very least this theory has been shown to be potentially false when looking at in home shootings.
“For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.”
It should be noted even though rates of gun violence are high in the US… Rates of death pale in comparison to alcohol/tobacco use (alcohol attributing to 88,000 deaths/year tobacco attributing to 480,000). This doesn’t mean it’s okay, yet in the grand scheme… Guns are considerably less deadly
In 2017 you had 39261 (counting suicides) gun deaths. Roughly 47000 opiate overdoses in 2018… The differences are… Opiates ravage communities, acutely, guns are far deadlier than a tablet of oxycodone (compared to fentanyl perhaps not, even then… There’s a therapeutic dose of fentanyl, I’ve been given fentanyl before within a medical setting)
We don’t make a big deal about gun violence yet we make a HUGE deal about opiates to the point wherein patients who actually need these drugs are cut off.
Ideally? There would be no States; membership in any defense organization-type-of-thing would be voluntary and subject to the rules agreed upon by its membership.
As is, in the U.S.? Yes.
Interesting… I could certainly see an argument being made here in terms of when federal/state laws overlap, leading to unnessecary complications.
I’m slightly confused, are you talking about the millitary, like drafting in times of war?
No. The existence of States is sold to us as being of defensive benefit to all; I believe membership should be voluntary.
I wouldn’t know, but do you know of any countries that follow this model?
I know stateless nations and nation states exist, as to whether they follow you’re conveyed ideology I’m unsure
What’s you’re rationale for abolishing the existence of states. I’m not particularly well versed in regards to the benefits/detriments that could be associated, nor am I familiar with the reasoning as to why one would want to abolish states.
I’m curious, and due to a lack of education pertaining to this issue I have no bias towards either side
No.
I believe in personal property rights. Al owns his property. Al joins Ala in order to use things Ala owns and/or controls. Ala joins Alan in order to use things Alan controls. I see no reason that Ala should not be permitted to remove its property from and leave Alan if Alan makes rules by which Ala does not wish to be bound(or if Alan wears the wrong color socks). I also see no reason that Al should not be permitted to remove his property from and leave Ala if he wishes to remain with Alan, survive on his own, join Bob, etc.
Good analogy. Thank you for the explanation
1 Like
Not everything in National Socialism was “right” politically and economically. Some of what was implemented would be considered left. There was a mixed economy and entrepreneurship was encouraged. There was universal healthcare; you know the thing that Bernie wants.
Anyway, he was obviously joking considering I’m Jewish.
Regarding your question on homosexuality, I think that, like race, is an awful topic for some to discuss on here because anything stated that is considered remotely critical, though definitely NOT hateful, leaves one open to libel. There are people who seem to be literally waiting, like practically on lookout, to see who they can peg as racist/homophone/xenophobe/bigot/anti-Semite/etc. Even Jews who are critical of Israel are considered anti-Semitic. Much discourse about race and sexuality turns into a stupid, disingenuous game! I’m not saying you would do that but it’s been done.