Weed decriminalization begins this Friday[views:14720][posts:187]________________________________________ [Jan 2,2009 1:28pm - Conservationist ""] ouchdrummer said: 1. Am I grouped in this "most people" category that you speak of? If not, would you mind elaborating for me? (you)what I'm against is a dominant paradigm that's inaccurate. 2. Could you tell me the "dominant paradigm" that your referring to? I don't think one was made by anyone in this conversation. (you)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. (you)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. (you)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? 4.... and yet again you confuse me. I don't see how this is relevant. Heroin is illegal mind you, so it sounds like the point your making with this first paragraph is to say that tax payers shouldn't fund programs for rehabilitation, or programs to help people with drug problems survive. (which I disagree with because i see it as a disease... while being self inflicted, it's still near impossable to stop by yourself. And i think people with those kinds of problems should be helped. Even if they were to institute a series of laws that would make all treatment funded by the government a loan that would that the government would at least attempt to collect on. But i am a "fag" liberal so i don't expect you to agree with that.) 5 - But what does that have to do with legalization? I don't see how it applies since the "paying for treatment" situation would be the same with legal or illegal substances as it is for alcohol AND heroin. So where does the connection to this conversation come in? 6 - Maybe i am fucking nuts, or maybe i really don't understand all the big words you seem to love using so frequently, but in these last couple posts i feel like you say things that only loosely have to do with what's being talked about, and even then not in any way that would really have any bearing on whatever debated issue is at hand. 1. I don't know. 2. Any dominant paradigm that's inaccurate. 3. The point is that no question comes down to individual actions alone. Society is collective. 4. The point being made was: who takes care of secondary consequences? 5. The question of whether something should be legal: is it good for society? If people are taking drugs, and it's making them inert, and other people have to pay for them, that makes that society ridden with parasites. In other words: how many heroin addicts would you pay for out of your paycheck alone? Someone has to pay for them. Who? And if the money could go to better things, why pay for them at all? 6. See other post. Implications are inherent. 7. I'm pro-legalization of all drugs with no age limit, sold at cost, as a eugenic measure. However, I thought Pires' statement was a useful one that isn't repeated enough. |
| ________________________________________ [Jan 2,2009 1:30pm - Conservationist ""] ouchdrummer said:prove it and show me how the three things i asked you about apply to the debate at hand. Because i AM trying to read into the implications of what your saying.. and the conclusions your bringing me to are confusing. It just comes down to implications versus the idea of an object on its own having a justification. Legalizing drugs isn't a question of individuals, or of drugs, but the interaction of drugs, individuals and the collective, so we have to consider all implications. It's the same way with any policy debate. I can state that killing serial killers will cost more money, but that's just a disadvantage. The question we're debating is whether killing serial killers will accomplish our objective, which in all cases is a healthier, more efficient, more productive society. |
| ____________________________________ [Jan 2,2009 1:52pm - ouchdrummer ""] wow, you are seriously perpetuating my thought that your "debate" skills have been skewed by years of some potent psychotropic hallucinogen. (i know, that's funny coming from me.) But seriously... my first question was asking you to elaborate on something that you said you WOULD elaborate on but most people wouldn't appreciate the reasons. I wanted you to humor me and explain anyways, and you said "i don't know"? So when you stated the "I'd explain but most people wouldn't appreciate my reasons" you were actually saying "I am totally full of shit, and have no real justification to back up what i am saying. So i will redirect and state some nonsense that most people won't even try to understand." And AGAIN the heroin reference. If it happens with an ILLEGAL drug (heroin) AND a LEGAL drug (alcohol), and their legal status has NO effect on whether or not we pay for it, then what does it have to do with legalization? |
| ____________________________________ [Jan 2,2009 1:52pm - ouchdrummer ""] your nuts. |
| ______________________________ [Jan 2,2009 3:07pm - yummy ""] It took me like two or tree daze to read dis. |
| ____________________________________ [Jan 2,2009 3:19pm - ouchdrummer ""] yummy said:It took me like two or tree daze to read dis. did you read all of it? |
| ______________________________ [Jan 2,2009 3:25pm - yummy ""] All encompassingly. |
| _____________________________ [Jan 2,2009 11:02pm - pam ""] ouchdrummer said:that'd be great. I know she's talked to more than a couple people about it, and has filled out apps for cheaper insurance three times. I haven't been going through the process with her so i don't know which ones, but i know she said there are different apps for different programs. Whether or not they are state assisted, or state run programs i don't know, but ANY number you can provide would definitely help. thank you. Well in order to get Commonwealth Care, you must make under 300% of the federal poverty limit, which right now for a family of 3 is a little under 53,000 dollars a year. So I have no idea why they're denying this to her unless she's making good money, but obviously isn't if her kids are on Masshealth. Here's all the info on the guidelines: http://www.massresources.org/pages.cfm?contentID=81&pageID=13&Subpages=yes I did a bunch of googling and there's a few law firms tackling illegal denying of Commonwealth Care, if she's really eligible (I don't know the reason they're denying her) than she should sue them. But obviously only if she's being wrongfully denied and most law firms like this one http://www.healthlawadvocates.org/priority-areas?id=0013 will probably do a free consult to see if she is. If she hasn't already went to her local community action center (let me know what town she's in I can look it up) she should go there, too. They'll have free advocates for her to talk to. Basically she's got kids on Masshealth, obviously isn't rich, she should be getting commonwealth care. |
| _________________________________________ [Jan 2,2009 11:08pm - Conservationist ""] ouchdrummer said:my first question was asking you to elaborate on something that you said you WOULD elaborate on but most people wouldn't appreciate the reasons. I wanted you to humor me and explain anyways, and you said "i don't know"? So when you stated the "I'd explain but most people wouldn't appreciate my reasons" you were actually saying "I am totally full of shit, and have no real justification to back up what i am saying. So i will redirect and state some nonsense that most people won't even try to understand." And AGAIN the heroin reference. If it happens with an ILLEGAL drug (heroin) AND a LEGAL drug (alcohol), and their legal status has NO effect on whether or not we pay for it, then what does it have to do with legalization? You question my debate skills. What are yours? First, there was no redirection. Saying "I don't know" is honest. Second, all drugs are subject to the legalization debate. Alcohol has been criminalized. The question isn't their current status, but should they be legal. |
| ______________________________________ [Jan 2,2009 11:22pm - SkinSandwich ""] Conservationist said: ouchdrummer said:my first question was asking you to elaborate on something that you said you WOULD elaborate on but most people wouldn't appreciate the reasons. I wanted you to humor me and explain anyways, and you said "i don't know"? So when you stated the "I'd explain but most people wouldn't appreciate my reasons" you were actually saying "I am totally full of shit, and have no real justification to back up what i am saying. So i will redirect and state some nonsense that most people won't even try to understand." And AGAIN the heroin reference. If it happens with an ILLEGAL drug (heroin) AND a LEGAL drug (alcohol), and their legal status has NO effect on whether or not we pay for it, then what does it have to do with legalization? You question my debate skills. What are yours? First, there was no redirection. Saying "I don't know" is honest. Second, all drugs are subject to the legalization debate. Alcohol has been criminalized. The question isn't their current status, but should they be legal. You want to tangle chump? Flagpole, three o'clock. be there. |
| _________________________________________ [Jan 2,2009 11:35pm - Conservationist ""] SkinSandwich said: Conservationist said: ouchdrummer said:my first question was asking you to elaborate on something that you said you WOULD elaborate on but most people wouldn't appreciate the reasons. I wanted you to humor me and explain anyways, and you said "i don't know"? So when you stated the "I'd explain but most people wouldn't appreciate my reasons" you were actually saying "I am totally full of shit, and have no real justification to back up what i am saying. So i will redirect and state some nonsense that most people won't even try to understand." And AGAIN the heroin reference. If it happens with an ILLEGAL drug (heroin) AND a LEGAL drug (alcohol), and their legal status has NO effect on whether or not we pay for it, then what does it have to do with legalization? You question my debate skills. What are yours? First, there was no redirection. Saying "I don't know" is honest. Second, all drugs are subject to the legalization debate. Alcohol has been criminalized. The question isn't their current status, but should they be legal. You want to tangle chump? Flagpole, three o'clock. be there. Show up or you're a Macintosh user. |
| _____________________________________ [Jan 3,2009 12:05am - xanonymousx ""] the cops were on tv saying how bad this was. |
| _________________________________________ [Jan 3,2009 12:17am - Conservationist ""] The truth of it is -- Most people suck. I don't want them using drugs on my dime, because they'll fuck it up and cause fucking problems. I have no problem with frontier zones where drugs are legal. Go there and buy. You get ripped off, or anally raped, well, it's not our jurisdiction and not our problem. Yes, destroy all drug treatment programs. They don't work. Send drug addicts to the drug zone. Let nature sort out the winners from the losers. 7 billion people, and most of them too clueless to contribute anything. Fuck these people. They're obsolete. |
| ________________________________________ [Jan 3,2009 8:40am - Conservationist ""] Half-baked policy yields: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...k_at_ticketing_marijuana_offenders/ |
| __________________________________________ [Jan 3,2009 9:08am - FuckIsMySignature ""] "If the Legislature enacts some changes, we'll be happy to do it in the future, but as it stands now we're not going to be issuing civil citations," he said. If an officer spots someone smoking marijuana, he said, "We will confiscate it and the person will be sent on their way." |
| _______________________________________ [Jan 3,2009 9:28am - josh_hates_you ""] this is the part that i find most interesting.......... More fundamentally, they complain that officers have no way of determining the identity of people they stop on the street for smoking marijuana. Before the law was changed, officers could arrest them, or threaten them with arrest to force them to show identification. Now, they say they cannot force users to show IDs, and cannot arrest them if they refuse to identify themselves. And they say there is no penalty if a marijuana user gives a false name to a police officer. So i can walk around smoking weed all day long and if a cop stops me to write a ticket I can just tell them my name is john johnson and to fuck off? |
| __________________________________________ [Jan 3,2009 9:29am - FuckIsMySignature ""] apparently. this article put me in a terrific mood. |
| _________________________________________ [Jan 3,2009 10:04am - Conservationist ""] josh_hates_you said:So i can walk around smoking weed all day long and if a cop stops me to write a ticket I can just tell them my name is john johnson and to fuck off? Yes. Or more precisely: you can tell them your name is John Johnson. Telling cops to fuck off is asking for trouble. |
| _____________________________________ [Jan 3,2009 10:45am - xanonymousx ""] Drug rehab programs only work if after the rehab, the person goes into a more sable environment, not back where they came from around all of the drugs, i know and recenltly had a death in the family because of an overdose to heroin. he got out of jail, but went back to the same place, found some drugs and now he is no longer here god bless his soul, but this is not about heroin its about weed which is a completely different drug |
| _____________________________ [Jan 3,2009 10:49am - pam ""] xanonymousx said:Drug rehab programs only work if after the rehab, the person goes into a more sable environment, not back where they came from around all of the drugs, i know and recenltly had a death in the family because of an overdose to heroin. he got out of jail, but went back to the same place, found some drugs and now he is no longer here god bless his soul, but this is not about heroin its about weed which is a completely different drug All too familiar with this truth. |