Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by Conservationist at 2009-01-02 10:20:33

ouchdrummer said	[orig][quote]
I honestly think you just play devil's advocate whenever no one's on a certain side of an argument for the sole purpose of having a debate.

Well... "for the sole purpose of having a debate" is incomplete. And most people aren't going to appreciate the reasons why having a debate might be useful, so I'll stay quiet on that.

However, there is also a practical dimension. I have smoked a shitload of weed, and seen both the good and the bad. The good is that it's fun -- anyone denying that is on drugs (errr... or something). The bad is that while you're high, often other opportunities are missed.

And that's about the best summary I can give you. I don't think I'm pro-weed or anti-weed; what I'm against is a dominant paradigm that's inaccurate.

If that ain't "third front," I don't know what is.

ouchdrummer said	[orig][quote]
And I seriously don't understand the comment about how many heroin addicts his paychecks support, so if you wouldn't mind clarifying.

It's a dual question.

There are secondary consequences to drugs. For example, heroin addicts are not known for their ability to function. Exceptions tend to decrease over time. So they become non-working members of society who still need supporting.

So the first part of the question is: if Lamp believes that the ONLY QUESTION of drug legalization is the individual taking the drug, I'm asking him how many heroin addicts he pays for, since they're going to have to get the money from somewhere.

The second part of the question is what I'm asking others: people who are on drugs (of varied kinds, including alcohol) become inactive. Who's going to pay for that, and would we rather that income go to positive things, like paying for college for a deserving kid who wants more out of life than being fjucked up?

Drugs are not a question of only the individual -- when you think about it, nothing really is.

[default homepage]

[print][

3:26:35am Jun 03,2024
load time 0.01065 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]