Marijuana?

[JIM]

 

 

 

Goddess, quit trying to psychoanalyze everything I'm saying, "you have a problem with people telling you what to do." No, I have a problem with people in an unjustifiable position of control telling me what to do. If I'm on a plane and the pilot tells everyone to put on their oxygen masks I have no problem doing it because the pilot is in a position of justifiable authority. The government however, is not.

 

 

 

I completely agree. I think the problem is education.

 

 

 

People espouse these silly ideals regarding society and the governments right to impose its will upon us for the apparent 'good of all' but I think this is a symptom of the complete lack of any REAL education nowadays.

 

 

 

I for one was never taught about the history that mattered, the Magna Carta, the rule of Law etc. I was only ever taught fluff topics like the Ancient Egyptians/Greeks and a bit on the Tudors and Stuarts. Whilst these were interesting topics I've begun to wonder as I've grown up why my state-run education lacked anything of real worth, sure I learnt how to add, multiply and construct half-decent sentences but the words "Liberty" and "Protect your personal freedoms" never really came up in any form. Given the history of the world to date, shouldn't these be the important issues?

 

 

 

I look at the sort of stuff my little cousins are bringing home from school nowadays on sex, drugs etc and I can't believe it. I truely feel that the school systems, along with the media and other institutions serve as propaganda outlets, seeking to indoctrinate the youth of today to a way of thinking that is more easy to control.

 

 

 

The sheer dumb ignorance in this post has been astounding and IMO is a direct result of the state taking over education with a sprinkling of media driven naivety. Education is no longer something used for the enlightenment of the species but a way to indoctrinate a nation and prepare you for a life of servitude to a system that keeps you and everyone else perpetually in debt.

 

 

 

My advice to many of the sheeple in this thread would be to actually do your own research on the subject. Stop repeating the drivel of those who would gain by imposing more laws on you, giving them more ways to criminalise you for behaviours or acts that harm nobody and for which there is no complaint.

 

 

 

Find independent researchers who bare no allegiance to anyone/thing but good unbiased data and above all, turn your television off.

 

 

 

Start thinking for yourselves and let others do the same. Your will is your own, not mine.

[Zierro]

Freedom > safety

 

 

 

Yes, I agree. The government shouldn't be telling us what to do for ridiculous reasons. However, let's put this into context. If something has a huge detrimental effect (bad outweighs the good) then safety should come first. Can you enlighten me on how heroin being legal would benefit society? Because I can give several reasons on why it doesn't.

 

 

 

To the guy who said "oh suicide bombing should be legal then huh", no, because the act of bombing is an outward action aimed at other people and designed specifically to kill people.

 

 

 

I thought we were ignoring the effects these actions have on society?

 

 

 

As for your argument about being designed to fulfill an outcome, I don't get it. If I keep committing an action which accidentally kills thousands of people, that is more acceptable than an action where I purposely kill one? It doesn't work that way. Legality should be based on the inevitable outcomes and not just the intentions alone.

 

 

 

Goddess, quit trying to psychoanalyze everything I'm saying, "you have a problem with people telling you what to do." No, I have a problem with people in an unjustifiable position of control telling me what to do. If I'm on a plane and the pilot tells everyone to put on their oxygen masks I have no problem doing it because the pilot is in a position of justifiable authority. The government however, is not.

 

 

 

So it has to do with who they are and not what they're saying?

 

 

 

My advice to many of the sheeple in this thread would be to actually do your own research on the subject. Stop repeating the drivel of those who would gain by imposing more laws on you, giving them more ways to criminalise you for behaviours or acts that harm nobody and for which there is no complaint.

 

 

 

Not everyone who feels that heroin is bad are "government sheep". :roll:

[JIM]

Who said anything about Heroin? I certainly didn't.

 

 

 

Did I call you a government sheep? lol

[venomai]

If marijuana is legalized there will be a tangible standard to go by and it will serve to show the public, illegal = bad, legal = okay.

 

This is a horrible standard, and it should be stamped out. How "hard" or dangerous a drug is, and particularly whether or not its use should be discouraged, should be seen as completely independent from its legal status.

 

 

 

Heroin and morphine, for example, are practically identical in their chemical makeup, effects and potential risks. However, to suggest that morphine use is "okay" just because it is legal -- and, likewise, that heroin use is "bad" just because it is illegal -- would be ludicrous. These are both "hard" and potentially dangerous/addicting drugs, regardless of whether we class them as licit or illicit, and neither one should be discouraged any more than the other.

 

 

 

That type of drug use should be discouraged at all times.

 

Keep in mind; alcohol and nicotine are both "hard drugs" in the sense that they are potentially dangerous and addicting. Hundreds of thousands more people have died from and/or developed an addiction from (ab)using these two legal commodities.

 

 

 

Western culture needs to stop classifying drugs as "okay" or "bad" to use, and start considering the manner in which they're being used as "okay" or "bad."

 

 

 

Although it may come as a surprise, the vast majority of cocaine and heroin users are not dysfunctional addicts. In fact, a number of them continue to use it, sometimes for years, without developing an addiction and/or without allowing the drug to interfere with their social life, career, etc.

 

 

 

Hunt and Chambers (1976) note that "Of all active heroin users, a large majority are not addicts: they are not physically or socially dysfunctional; they are not daily users and they do not seem to require treatment ..." [1]

 

 

 

The 1994 National Comorbidity Survey estimates suggest that about 17% of cocaine users, 23% of heroin users and 32% of tobacco users had become drug dependent. [2]

 

 

 

A 2005 report, Occasional and controlled heroin use: Not a problem? presents a very interesting insight into "controlled" heroin users, concluding with:

 

"This study has focused on a largely hidden population of non-dependent and controlled dependent heroin users who saw their use to be relatively problem-free. Our findings suggest that sustained heroin use does not inevitably lead to dependency, and that dependency will not always cause users significant problems particularly involvement in crime and personal degeneration. We have demonstrated that, for some people, using heroin does not strip them of the ability to make conscious, rational and autonomous decisions about their drug use. The descriptions of heroin use presented here contradict the stereotypes that are to be found in the medias treatment of the topic and political statements about it. They almost certainly conflict with popular beliefs about the drug."

[Zierro]

Who said anything about Heroin? I certainly didn't.

 

 

 

Did I call you a government sheep? lol

 

 

 

If you read back, I am for legalization for marijuana but against heroin. Truenoob disagreed and said heroin should be legal too.

 

 

 

Venomai: Sorry, I didn't mean to say that the only thing we should be looking at is the danger factor - there are other things to take into account (medical use).

 

 

 

This is a horrible standard, and it should be stamped out. How "hard" or dangerous a drug is, and particularly whether or not its use should be discouraged, should be seen as completely independent from its legal status.

 

 

 

It might not be the perfect standard, but it sure as hell is a lot better than our current one. You can't just strip the whole morality/legality mentality from existence. It's inevitable. People are more likely going to think there are negative effects to that which is illegal than to that which is legal. The best approach would be to take advantage of this and make our (inevitable) standard a more accurate one.

 

 

 

Keep in mind; alcohol and nicotine are both "hard drugs" in the sense that they are potentially dangerous and addicting. Hundreds of thousands more people have died from and/or developed an addiction from (ab)using these two legal commodities.

 

 

 

These are also widely abundant which speaks for the amount of deaths they have caused.

 

 

 

Western culture needs to stop classifying drugs as "okay" or "bad" to use, and start considering the manner in which they're being used as "okay" or "bad."

 

 

 

That is completely understandable but I don't see how drugs such as heroin or meth can be used very responsibly. Sure, there are cases where people don't have their lives ruined from the drugs but there are also cases where people don't get into car accidents while driving drunk.

 

 

 

The 1994 National Comorbidity Survey estimates suggest that about 17% of cocaine users, 23% of heroin users and 32% of tobacco users had become drug dependent. [2]

 

 

 

Which speaks for the dependency but not the lethality. Using heroin one time is far more dangerous than smoking a cigarette even though cigs can be considered more addicting.

[venomai]

What beneficial use does heroin have? I know that morphine is used to calm patients but I've never heard of a medical heroin.

 

Heroin has the same medical benefits as morphine (as the effects are the same) but it is more potent and generally faster-acting (hence its preference among addicts).

 

 

 

What is the difference between heroin and morphine?

 

 

 

It might not be the perfect standard, but it sure as hell is a lot better than our current one.

 

Unfortunately, this is the current standard. However, in recent years, these trends have been changing. As education improves, more people are beginning to view certain legal drugs (i.e. tobacco) as "bad" and certain illegal drugs (i.e. marijuana) as "okay."

 

 

 

That is completely understandable but I don't see how drugs such as heroin or meth can be used very responsibly.

 

Read the report I cited about controlled heroin users; it describes how these sustained users do not allow the drug use to interfere with their social lives, work, family, etc. In all respects, they appear to be using it in a "responsible manner."

 

 

 

Or, for some lighter and less academic reading on the subject...

 

The surprising truth about heroin and addiction

 

In 1992 The New York Times carried a front-page story about a successful businessman who happened to be a regular heroin user. It began: "He is an executive in a company in New York, lives in a condo on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, drives an expensive car, plays tennis in the Hamptons and vacations with his wife in Europe and the Caribbean. But unknown to office colleagues, friends, and most of his family, the man is also a longtime heroin user. He says he finds heroin relaxing and pleasurable and has seen no reason to stop using it until the woman he recently married insisted that he do so. 'The drug is an enhancement of my life,' he said. 'I see it as similar to a guy coming home and having a drink of alcohol. Only alcohol has never done it for me.'" ...

 

 

 

Which speaks for the dependency but not the lethality. Using heroin one time is far more dangerous than smoking a cigarette even though cigs can be considered more addicting.

 

A single, controlled dose of heroin (or morphine, for that matter), administered safely, will not produce dependence or any significant health problems. (Otherwise, neither heroin nor morphine would be used as a medicine.)

 

 

 

In any case, heroin (an illicit street drug) is not analogous to a tobacco cigarette (a legally produced delivery device for nicotine). A better analogy would be a heroin cigarette compared to a tobacco cigarette, both of which were produced and regulated legally. In such a case, smoking either cigarette once would not be at all lethal, harmful or addicting.

 

 

 

Interestingly, in regard to lethality alone, nicotine is a more toxic drug than heroin. In humans, the LD50 of nicotine is ~0.5-1.0 mg/kg[1], whereas the LD50 of heroin is ~1.0-5.0 mg/kg[2].

[JIM]

Who said anything about Heroin? I certainly didn't.

 

 

 

Did I call you a government sheep? lol

 

 

 

If you read back, I am for legalization for marijuana but against heroin. Truenoob disagreed and said heroin should be legal too.

 

 

 

 

I did read back. Your reply was in response to something I said though, not Truenoob, and I hadn't mentioned Heroin once in my post. You also implied I called you a "government sheep". Perhaps you should have read through your response before posting.

 

 

 

Venomai put forward a proposal in his last post that I am in full agreement with:

 

 

 

Western culture needs to... start considering the manner in which they're being used as "okay" or "bad."

 

 

 

How much better would that be? The USE of any drug shouldn't be the issue. I use, I don't commit crimes to fund my "habit" (a buzz word used when discussing the topic of "drugs", it has negative connotations and is rarely relevant to the overall topic) and any effect it has on my health is entirely my business and nobody elses.

 

 

 

If you're to believe the hype that marijuana is a "gateway drug" explain my own use for 6 + years - I don't have needle tracks, I work, I'm alert, intelligent and responsible. I hold a respectable job in a caring profession and I am in regular with contact with many other upstanding members of the community who toke more than all the Rastas in Babylon(!) combined and yet, aren't junkies!

 

 

 

We are criminals and could be locked up for smoking a plant that has been smoked since the dawn of man?

 

 

 

With regards to other drugs - providing that whatever it is they're using isn't the produce of slave/child labour and the person using hasn't infringed on another persons rights in order to obtain it - I see absolutely no problem in it.

 

 

 

If you make it illegal you create a black market and in turn, crime. Your government would have you believe that the crime generated from drugs is due to the drug itself but this is illogical. These drugs have been around for thousands of years, if it were the drugs themselves drug related crime would have been around for centuries. If weed hadn't been made illegal, I could grow it in my back garden no problems. I wouldn't have to go out to the dodgy part of town putting myself in danger to waste my money on a tiny bit of skunk that is laced with god-knows-what.

 

 

 

People need education and enlightenment. They need guidance and support. They do not need heavy handed governments passing moral judgements on their populaces, all the while pillaging third world countries of their liberties and resources through global economic monopolies.

 

 

 

People will never stop using drugs and as long as they don't harm anybody else should never stop, IMO. How does a collection of Acts and Statutes (read the definition of an act or statute, they apply to corporations ONLY and are voluntary) take away our natural born right to freedom?

 

 

 

Why do people settle for the rights they are presented with rather than the rights they are naturally entitled to?

 

 

 

Freedom? Natural Born Rights? YOU CLUCKING WISH.

[Zierro]

Heroin has the same medical benefits as morphine (as the effects are the same) but it is more potent and generally faster-acting (hence its preference among addicts).

 

 

 

I've edited my post just to let you know. I didn't get your point at first. Anyways, I do have to say that underground morphine usage should be frowned upon as well.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, this is the current standard. However, in recent years, these trends have been changing. As education improves, more people are beginning to view certain legal drugs (i.e. tobacco) as "bad" and certain illegal drugs (i.e. marijuana) as "okay.

 

 

 

I was mainly getting at the legalization for marijuana and not trying to put too much emphasis on the other drugs. I do think that if marijuana were to be legalized then people wouldn't inevitably put this nearly harmless drug in the same vein as drugs that are very harmful. It would give more credibility to the government.

 

 

 

Read the report I cited about controlled heroin users; it describes how these sustained users do not allow the drug use to interfere with their social lives, work, family, etc. In all respects, they appear to be using it in a "responsible manner."

 

 

 

There are always exceptions to the rule. Like I said, there are cases where no one gets hurt while driving drunk but this doesn't mean we should ignore all the other cases where people do get hurt.

 

 

 

In any case, heroin (an illicit street drug) is not analogous to a tobacco cigarette (a legally produced delivery device for nicotine). A better analogy would be a heroin cigarette compared to a tobacco cigarette, both of which were produced and regulated legally. In such a case, smoking either cigarette once would not be at all lethal, harmful or addicting.

 

 

 

Was this how things were with that survey? I assumed that, because we're talking about users and not just the drug in itself, that we should take into account the most common form of intake.

 

 

 

I did read back. Your reply was in response to something I said though, not Truenoob, and I hadn't mentioned Heroin once in my post. You also implied I called you a "government sheep". Perhaps you should have read through your response before posting.

 

 

 

Perhaps you should, because the topic being addressed was heroin use. You can play dumb all you want but it's quite obvious that you were stating people aren't doing their own research and being sheeple (i.e. government sheep). Since you weren't talking about heroin, I apologize, but it was what was being discussed so it was taken that way.

[LP]

Legalize it, all I have to say

 

 

 

Some of my reasoning

 

http://cannabisletter.blogspot.com/

[JIM]

 

Perhaps you should, because the topic being addressed was heroin use. You can play dumb all you want but it's quite obvious that you were stating people aren't doing their own research (i.e. government sheep). Since you weren't talking about heroin, I apologize, but it was what was being discussed so it was taken that way.

 

 

 

How does someone not researching their own material make them a government sheep and how did I imply that? Are you familiar with what a strawman argument is? Familiarise yourself if you don't already know as you seem to employ the technique a lot and it's flawed.

 

 

 

I was talking about personal liberties and Marijuana. Sorry if I didn't get your little in-road in the thread entitled Marijuana?. Funny that, eh?

[Zierro]

Dude, you said the word sheeple in your post...

 

 

 

My advice to many of the sheeple in this thread would be to actually do your own research on the subject. Stop repeating the drivel of those who would gain by imposing more laws on you, giving them more ways to criminalise you for behaviours or acts that harm nobody and for which there is no complaint.

 

 

Sheeple - It is often used to denote persons who voluntarily acquiesce to a perceived authority, or suggestion without sufficient research to fully understand the scope of the ramifications involved in that decision, and thus undermine their own human individuality or in other cases give up certain rights. The implication of sheeple is that as a collective, people believe whatever they are told, especially if told so by a perceived authority figure believed to be trustworthy, without processing it or doing adequate research to be sure that it is an accurate representation of the real world around them. The term is generally used in a political and sometimes in a religious sense.

[JIM]

Dude, you said the word sheeple in your post...

 

 

 

Implying that people play Lemmings and follow one after the other without any real thought. People react to stimulus rather than think things through. It was a small point in a post with alot more substance too. Hardly calling anyone who disagrees with me a "government sheep". :roll:

[Zierro]

Dang, that's hypocritical. You said I need to find out what a strawman is since I said you're calling the other side government sheep. Now you're saying I was talking about "anyone who disagrees with you". :lol: You made my day.

[venomai]

I do think that if marijuana were to be legalized then people wouldn't inevitably put this nearly harmless drug in the same vein as drugs that are very harmful.

 

As it stands, very few people place marijuana in the same vein as those "drugs that are very harmful" (assuming you are referring to cocaine, heroin, etc).

 

 

 

There are always exceptions to the rule.

 

Are you reading any of my posts?

 

 

 

Research suggests that dysfunctional addicts and fatal overdoses are exceptions to the rule. The vast majority of users do not develop an addiction, do not develop significant health or social problems and do not overdose and die as a result of their heroin/cocaine use.

 

 

 

Like I said, there are cases where no one gets hurt while driving drunk but this doesn't mean we should ignore all the other cases where people do get hurt.

 

If an individual is drunk in public and poses a risk to himself or others, whether or not he is behind the wheel of a car, then the appropriate action should be taken to ensure everyone's safety. Prohibiting alcohol in its entirety, however, is rarely the appropriate action to such a problem.

 

 

 

I assumed that, because we're talking about users and not just the drug in itself, that we should take into account the most common form of intake.

 

However, as I've said, comparing the lethality of an illegally produced street drug to a legally produced tobacco cigarette is a poor analogy, regardless of which methods are most common.

[JIM]

Dang, that's hypocritical. You said I need to find out what a strawman is since I said you're calling the other side government sheep. Now you're saying I was talking about "anyone who disagrees with you". :lol: You made my day.

 

 

 

Uh.. okay. Maybe I'm reading a different post to you but from where I'm standing it seemed like you'd skipped my post entirely to pick on one passage of little consequence in the larger message I was trying to convey. I took that to mean you disregarded the rest of my post and were taking an opposing view.

 

 

 

I make a post about people claiming the rights they are born with and you reply with:

 

 

 

Not everyone who feels that heroin is bad are "government sheep".

 

 

 

There's you creating an issue out of thin air I was neither talking about Heroin or labelling any one particular group as government sheep. This is where I got the "anyone who disagrees with me" line. It's also an example of strawman usage.

[Zierro]

As it stands, very few people place marijuana in the same vein as those "drugs that are very harmful" (assuming you are referring to cocaine, heroin, etc).

 

 

 

What are you talking about? This very thread is proof that people think marijuana is a lot worse than it actually is - and only because of it's legal state.

 

 

 

Are you reading any of my posts?

 

 

 

Research suggests that dysfunctional addicts and fatal overdoses are exceptions to the rule. The vast majority of users do not develop an addiction, do not develop significant health or social problems and do not overdose and die as a result of their heroin/cocaine use.

 

 

 

How does this nullify my point? If you want to talk semantics, crashing while driving drunk is the exception to the rule. There are more cases where people get home safely than cases where they crash. This doesn't mean drunk driving should be allowed.

 

 

 

And please stop the hostility. We don't agree on anything but that doesn't mean we need to jump down each other's throats.

 

 

 

If an individual is drunk in public and poses a risk to himself or others, whether or not he is behind the wheel of a car, then the appropriate action should be taken to ensure everyone's safety. Prohibiting alcohol in its entirety, however, is rarely the appropriate action to such a problem.

 

 

 

Not quite sure if this is relevant. Mind expanding?

 

 

 

However, as I've said, comparing the lethality of an illegally produced street drug to a legally produced tobacco cigarette is a poor analogy, regardless of which methods are most common.

 

 

 

Then why is comparing the dependency any different?

 

 

 

I see no reason to ignore what methods are most common. The point of research is to find out the truth in the real world, not just the truth confined in a laboratory. That being said, do you really think this means that a regular tobacco user is in more danger than a heroin user?

 

 

 

There's you creating an issue out of thin air I was neither talking about Heroin or labelling any one particular group as government sheep. This is where I got the "anyone who disagrees with me" line. It's also an example of strawman usage.

 

 

 

But you quoted Goddess who quoted Truenoob who quoted me. Look, I already told you it was a mistake from both of us and I even apologized. Why are you dragging it out?

[mmmcannibalism]

Not quite sure if this is relevant. Mind expanding?

 

 

 

you have the right to do whatever you want to yourself, but you cant impose on other people's rights. If your in the privacy of your home or another secure location I dont care if you want to inject urine into your body its your choice. The main divisions on drug law come about as a matter of public safety. Alcohol is legal but its intoxicating effects are on the same level as marijuanas, so why should marijuana be illegal. The reason a portion of pro marijuana people are against legal heroin or coke is that they are much more destructive across the spectrum. If you smoke pot fairly regularly then you may end up with lung cancer and you will hurt your health, but if you use heroin or coke regularly it will "destroy" your body in a much quicker manner. At a truly libertarian level they should all be legal, but its unrealistic to deny the greater amount of harm the harder drugs can cause.

[wild_goat_14]

I did not consent to the state's control.

 

 

 

You do so by living here. If you don't like it, leave.

[Zierro]

Not quite sure if this is relevant. Mind expanding?

 

 

 

you have the right to do whatever you want to yourself, but you cant impose on other people's rights. If your in the privacy of your home or another secure location I dont care if you want to inject urine into your body its your choice. The main divisions on drug law come about as a matter of public safety. Alcohol is legal but its intoxicating effects are on the same level as marijuanas, so why should marijuana be illegal. The reason a portion of pro marijuana people are against legal heroin or coke is that they are much more destructive across the spectrum. If you smoke pot fairly regularly then you may end up with lung cancer and you will hurt your health, but if you use heroin or coke regularly it will "destroy" your body in a much quicker manner. At a truly libertarian level they should all be legal, but its unrealistic to deny the greater amount of harm the harder drugs can cause.

 

 

 

You pretty much summed up my point. I think the government has too much control when it comes to drugs, but this isn't to say they shouldn't have at least a little bit of control. Lines should be drawn on both ends. The government shouldn't completely win and the drug users shouldn't completely win - it should be a compromise.

[venomai]

What are you talking about? This very thread is proof that people think marijuana is a lot worse than it actually is - and only because of it's legal state.

 

No doubt people are misinformed about marijuana, but rarely to the point that they place it alongside cocaine and heroin. And it is not necessarily due to its legal state; the more likely influence over this ignorance are the common myths, constant media hype and lack of proper education.

 

 

 

How does this nullify my point?

 

Unless I'm mistaken, you are claiming that "cases where no one gets hurt" are "exceptions to the rule" in regard to heroin use. However, this is not necessarily true, as the vast majority of heroin users do not develop an addiction, do not overdose and die, etc.

 

 

 

I see no hostility here.

 

 

 

Not quite sure if this is relevant. Mind expanding?

 

The relavent point here is that, while we do not allow drunk driving, we do (socially and legally) allow the consumption of alcohol (and even drunkenness) given that it does not put others at risk.

 

 

 

I'm not suggesting that drunk driving -- or intoxication of any sort that puts others at serious risk -- should be socially or legally accepted. However, as I've pointed out, the mere use of heroin/cocaine does not always put others or the individual at risk, and therefore we should not be viewing all cases of heroin/cocaine use as if it were a case of drunk driving. (On the other hand, drunk driving, as it significantly impairs the individual's ability to drive, does put the individual and others at a significant risk.)

 

 

 

Then why is comparing the dependency any different?

 

It's not; my apologies if it comes off like I'm suggesting nicotine is "more addicting" than heroin. I included tobacco in the list of dependency estimates as a reference point, i.e. as a drug that is commonly perceived as extremely addicting.

 

 

 

I have no interest in debating whether any one addicting drug is "more addicting" than another addicting drug (be it alcohol, nicotine, heroin or cocaine). I see them all as "addicting drugs."

[Zierro]

No doubt people are misinformed about marijuana, but rarely to the point that they place it alongside cocaine and heroin. And it is not necessarily due to its legal state; the more likely influence over this ignorance are the common myths, constant media hype and lack of proper education.

 

 

 

They don't equate it completely to those drugs, but they put them closer than they should be. And I have a gut feeling that the reason the myths and media hype exists is because of the legal state. It's the same way with LSD. The drug actually isn't that bad at all, but yet it is considered in the eyes of many, the most hardcore.

 

 

 

Unless I'm mistaken, you are claiming that "cases where no one gets hurt" are "exceptions to the rule" in regard to heroin use. However, this is not necessarily true, as the vast majority of heroin users do not develop an addiction, do not overdose and die, etc.

 

 

 

Okay, scratch the "exception to the rule" thing because it's being taken too literally. What I meant was that we shouldn't ignore the cases where people do develop an addiction, overdose, etc. because even though it might be rare, it's still a risk not worth taking. The drunk driving example was the best I could think of at the time, but allow me to bring up a new one: "Dying from eating a wild mushroom is rare since the majority of mushrooms in the wild are not poisonous. This suggests it is okay to eat wild mushrooms."

 

 

 

I see no hostility here.

 

 

 

The hostility was you telling me that I'm not reading any of your posts. Of course I am reading your posts, or else I wouldn't be responding to them.

 

 

 

However, as I've pointed out, merely being intoxicated on heroin/cocaine does not necessarily put others (or the individual) at serious risk, and therefore we should not be viewing all cases of heroin/cocaine use as if it were a case of drunk driving.

 

 

 

I see where you're coming from now. You're right - this is no reason to make alcohol illegal, but heroin is more dangerous than alcohol and this is the point where I think the line should be drawn. Both sides of the debate do bring up valid points (although I am more in favor of pro-drug) so like I told mmmcannibalism, I think the fairest thing to do would be to make a compromise. The government shouldn't be too strict but at the same time they should keep a watch on us. This is the best possibility I can think of that pleases both parties.

[JIM]

I did not consent to the state's control.

 

 

 

You do so by living here. If you don't like it, leave.

 

 

 

That's wrong.

 

 

 

By signing your Birth Certificate your parents are consenting for you to be wards of the state. This creates a corporate entity that shares your name (although it is always in BLOCK CAPITALS - ie. JIM SCAPERUNER) and your parents bare witness on the certificate that you represent that legal corporate fiction, it is called your PERSON. Forget what you know about the word "Person" in everyday English. In law, this word means something entirely different - look it up. This legal fiction you represent is given approved forms of ID (such as passport etc, you can check your own official forms of ID your name is always in BLOCK CAPITALS) and is seen as a consenting individual purely on the basis that they continue to use the system and those forms of ID which are tools of the system.

 

 

 

In short, you are basically an employee of your government, which just so happens to trade on the stock market as a full-profit organisation. You have an employee number too, it's called a National Insurance (Social Security) number. Statutes and Acts are tools of the company (country). They are not actually laws, if you look up the definition of statutes and acts you'll find that they are consent only and apply to CORPORATE ENTITIES, not MAN.

 

 

 

Drug prohibition 'laws' are all infact, statutes/acts.

 

 

 

We all live in Common Law jurisdictions and as such, are afforded the right to not have to enter into any contract unwillingly or unknowingly. However you only have this right if you claim it and it is possible to do so but if you do you willingly relinquish your former life of limited liability and have to fend for yourself in a FULL liability world.

 

 

 

I know this sounds a bit out there but it is all entirely true. It is how they get away with claiming we are a "free" western world. You ARE free, everything they do to you is fully consented by you because you CONTRACT to agree to their terms in return for letting you join their system. Even if "joining" and being a "willing participant" means they get you from birth and don't educate you as to your other options.

[Chained_life]

I've actually changed my position on Marjuana recently, while I still hold the belief that it does lead to other drugs (I've seen it happen right in front of my eyes) I believe it will save the life of those defending this country. I could care less if you choose to do it, nor do I care if you're safe. Ramos and Compean were two jailed border patrol agents, who were given 10+ years for shooting an illegal who was smuggling drugs (marjuana to be specific). I personally would not have cared less if they shot him dead in the head, but he lived and they got into trouble for not reporting it, the illegal testified, they got their sentence while he went free. They were recently pardoned (well, their sentences were commuted, thank god)

 

 

 

I believe there would be no need for illegals to smuggle marijuana into this country, if if was legal. that illegal would've been some other place, possibly smuggling other drugs. I'm not a drug guy, I don't care to do drugs, I have done them, but I'm a cleaner guy now. I care about the agents more so than the users of the drugs. And I am still fully against the legalization of other drugs (harder). Yeah go ahead, whine and complain about how I'm an evil controlling right winger while you tell me what cars and light bulbs I can't have :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

Also, before you call me a raaaaaaaaaaycist, I'm a mexican, I like my people, just hate illegals.

[LP]

Some people also use the gateway drug excuse. Whos to say that Cannabis is a gateway drug at all? Tobacco and alcohol could just as easily be considered a gateway drug, but they are 100% legal. Just because someone smokes Cannabis recreationally doesnt automatically mean theyre going to go out and shoot heroin, or smoke meth. The gateway excuse is a faulty, unjustifiable argument, which has been proven wrong. Cannabiss illegality increases the chance someone is going to try harder drugs. Since its illegal people have to buy it from underground dealers, some of which try to push harder drugs onto their customers so they can make even more money.

 

 

 

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/sta ... nfo2.shtml

 

 

 

*See link

 

the percentage of those who have ever tried marijuana and then ended up using heroin once per month is around 1 in 1000.

 

 

 

The chart below also helps show the correlation between those who ever try a substance and then go on to ever use it at least once a month. Of the psychoactive drugs included in this survey, trying PCP was the least likely to lead to ever using it monthly (0.8%), the next least likely to lead to any monthly use was LSD (1.5%), next were inhalants (2.7%), then heroin (3.2%), then barbiturates (4.1%).

[Chained_life]

Some people also use the gateway drug excuse. Whos to say that Cannabis is a gateway drug at all? Tobacco and alcohol could just as easily be considered a gateway drug, but they are 100% legal. Just because someone smokes Cannabis recreationally doesnt automatically mean theyre going to go out and shoot heroin, or smoke meth. The gateway excuse is a faulty, unjustifiable argument, which has been proven wrong. Cannabiss illegality increases the chance someone is going to try harder drugs. Since its illegal people have to buy it from underground dealers, some of which try to push harder drugs onto their customers so they can make even more money.

 

 

 

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/sta ... nfo2.shtml

 

 

 

the percentage of those who have ever tried marijuana and then ended up using heroin once per month is around 1 in 1000.

 

 

 

 

 

A friend of mine being one of them, actually, she did it two times, once when she was in her early 20s and another when she was in her mid 30s. But to be fair, a pot head friend of hers forced her to stop using (he took care of her while she went through withdrawal). he was 100% anti-hard drug.