.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to Conservationist.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="Conservationist:860459"][QUOTE="ouchdrummer:860370"] 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. [/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.019 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][