Yes, I probably would. I've never used any drugs that weren't prescribed; I'm not really drawn to that sort of thing and it's certainly not worth the risk given my lifestyle. Besides the legal risks, I spend a lot of time doing stuff I should be completely sober for if I want to stay alive, and you never know what shit will end up in illegal drugs anyway.

However, I am curious how certain drugs might influence my creativity, so I would probably experiment if I could buy pharmaceutical grade drugs from the local CVS.

Quote: (11-03-2016 04:16 PM)Red_Pillage Wrote:  

That's some circular logic right there. It makes absolutely no sense. Let's forget about all the many lives destroyed, people murdered, and communities torn apart as an indirect result of the war on drugs. Oh and lets not forget BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

It's elementary logic.

Those who want drugs to be illegal, want drugs to be illegal. Those who want drugs to be legal, want drugs to be legal.

On day one of the War on Drugs, drugs were illegal. So the Anti-Legalize people won the day. And from day one of the War On Drugs until today, drugs are still illegal. So the winning percentage of the Anti-Legalize side is 1.000.

I will, however, concede that the Pro-Legalize side has won some victories by making medical marijuana legal in certain states. But that's a far cry from what the pro-Legalize side wants.

So the winning percentage of the Anti-Legalize side is roughly 0.9999995.

Quote: (11-03-2016 05:26 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

So you didn't say captain_shane had the moral development of a teenager, that people who smoke weed are little girls who wear diapers, and that your arguments are based on emotion?

I said all of those things, and I still believe in them.

I'm also silently glowing, because your engaging in this discussion is completely ineffective persuasionwise. And so I'm looking forward to yet another tomorrow when Pro-Legalize people don't get what they want, making them Losers For The Day.

How does it feel knowing that you're not going to get what you want, because your arguments aren't compelling enough to convince people? I'll bet it sucks. But not enough for you to change your tactics.

Quote: (11-03-2016 05:43 PM)realologist Wrote:  

Would anybody change any of their current drug use if certain drugs were legalized/decriminalized?

I wouldn't. But if a specific drug were legalized and nothing horrible happened within fifteen years, I'd admit I was very wrong about that particular drug.

Quote: (11-03-2016 08:57 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

I said all of those things, and I still believe in them.

I'm also silently glowing, because your engaging in this discussion is completely ineffective persuasionwise. And so I'm looking forward to yet another tomorrow when Pro-Legalize people don't get what they want, making them Losers For The Day.

How does it feel knowing that you're not going to get what you want, because your arguments aren't compelling enough to convince people? I'll bet it sucks. But not enough for you to change your tactics.

And you've "persuaded" half the people in this thread that you're a massive douche.

I already said I live in a country where drug dealers and users are shot in the street. But keep pretending that you're somehow triggering me because you disagree with my political opinion on a message board.

Quote: (11-03-2016 09:48 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

And you've "persuaded" half the people in this thread that you're a massive douche.

That doesn't matter. The only goal of the Pro-Legalize crowd is to get drugs legalized. There are no substitute victories, like "accusing an Anti-Legalize person of being a douche", or "not being a douche while discussing the issue".

You either get drugs legalized, or you don't.

Quote:Quote:

I already said I live in a country where drug dealers and users are shot in the street. But keep pretending that you're somehow triggering me because you disagree with my political opinion on a message board.

I'm not pretending I'm triggering you.

I'm pointing out that you're not achieving victory conditions.

I looked up when the War On Drugs started, and Google said 1971 with Nixon. If that's true, then regarding US Drug Policy, I haven't experienced a single day of loss in my entire life. Every day I've been alive, the drugs I don't want to be legal have never been legal.

So your experience may be different by living in the Philippines. But if you lived in the US, you and the people you agree with will have experienced literally zero days of victory, (unless they're older than 45). And 15,000 consecutive days of losing puts you in no position to look down on me.

Quote: (11-04-2016 02:57 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

That doesn't matter. The only goal of the Pro-Legalize crowd is to get drugs legalized. There are no substitute victories, like "accusing an Anti-Legalize person of being a douche", or "not being a douche while discussing the issue".

You either get drugs legalized, or you don't.

I'm not pretending I'm triggering you.

I'm pointing out that you're not achieving victory conditions.

I looked up when the War On Drugs started, and Google said 1971 with Nixon. If that's true, then regarding US Drug Policy, I haven't experienced a single day of loss in my entire life. Every day I've been alive, the drugs I don't want to be legal have never been legal.

So your experience may be different by living in the Philippines. But if you lived in the US, you and the people you agree with will have experienced literally zero days of victory, (unless they're older than 45). And 15,000 consecutive days of losing puts you in no position to look down on me.

MMX your posting amuses me. Based on your content that I've seen on other topics I know that you're capable of high quality posting, but this is certainly below par.

Your style of dialogue reminds me of some of the 'DEBATE ME BRO' hardcore atheists that I've known: they are also obsessed with achieving some kind of 'victory' over their opponents (emphasis on the bolded portions of your writing).

You show evidence of black-and-white thinking: you seem to accept that all drugs banned by the government are BAD, purely due to the fact that the government has banned them.

In your own words:

Quote:Quote:

illegal drugs are long-rejected parts of the community, so anyone who takes them is, at minimum, socially impaired (a sort of aspie who doesn't intuitively understand basic (and advanced) social bonding rules, and is therefore anti-government, anti-religion, and anti-schools). Or is, at maximum, a socially impaired destructive individual, (a similar sort of aspie who not only doesn't get it, but hates everyone who does).

The point of this is that your thinking lacks nuance: obviously dangerously addictive and harmful drugs like heroin and meth should be banned, and are rightfully banned by the government. On the other side of the coin, however, I am extremely grateful that I have had access to certain psychedelics which are certainly illegal in the United States, and I can state with utmost certainty that they have provided a significant benefit to my own life.

Since you yourself state that you have never taken any illegal drugs, nor have any intent to take them (and I respect your personal decision), I think you lack perspective on the subtleties of this subject.

The biggest benefit of drugs being legalized is not the ability to use the actual drug itself. It's the elimination of most of the criminal activities, black market and gang banging as a result of the banning drugs.

If you take these off the black market and put the production and sales in more honest people there will be a lot less problems. "No honor amongst thieves" is a very true statement. Most people will reach out to a legitimate and more trust worthy market. This will put shady drug dealers and gangbangers out of business because there is no more money in it.

Nobody is pro-drug addiction. If someone has an addiction to any substance they should stop whether it is legal or not. That comes down to the individual.

Quote: (11-04-2016 03:29 AM)thebassist Wrote:  

Since you yourself state that you have never taken any illegal drugs, nor have any intent to take them (and I respect your personal decision), I think you lack perspective on the subtleties of this subject.

No doubt. That's why I very much appreciate the arguments of people like realologist and CynicalContrarian. They both spoke from experience in a way that didn't directly address me, nor attempt to make me feel unimportant. Their arguments are well-organized and convincing, and also have the humorous implication, "We took all the craziest drugs, so we could tell you which drugs aren't really crazy." (Even if neither of them took any drugs, the implication is there.)

Compare this to captain_Shane's, "I don't care if any children get addicted to illegal drugs. That's not my problem." and Enigma's, "I'm better than you, because I'm not a douche" snark. Both of these tactics are anti-convincing (meaning, they make me want to keep drugs illegal out of spite to both of them), and have been used so often that you'd expect them to already know how anti-convincing they are. Worse, it's easy for me to argue that they behave that way because they've taken way too many illegal drugs.

Quote:Quote:

The point of this is that your thinking lacks nuance: obviously dangerously addictive and harmful drugs like heroin and meth should be banned, and are rightfully banned by the government. On the other side of the coin, however, I am extremely grateful that I have had access to certain psychedelics which are certainly illegal in the United States, and I can state with utmost certainty that they have provided a significant benefit to my own life.

I defend my dickish behavior in three ways.

One, I warned everyone somewhere in this thread. I think it was on page two.

Two, I'm only a dick in response to people being dickish.

And, three, if enough people like you can state your case in non-dickish fashion, I will definitely listen to your argument. You and realologist have done a good job of making your points without being uncivil, and so I've been civil to both of you.

While I can't guarantee that you'll flip American drug policy, I can guarantee that some of you use anti-convincing tactics. And y'all need to stop.

Quote: (11-04-2016 03:29 AM)thebassist Wrote:  

obviously dangerously addictive and harmful drugs like heroin and meth should be banned

I have messed around with so-called "hard" drugs in the past. Not the smartest decision, by any means.

Now, tell me why I should be in jail.

Because of all those hookers you strangled.

Quote: (01-03-2017 06:18 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

Quote: (11-04-2016 03:29 AM)thebassist Wrote:  

obviously dangerously addictive and harmful drugs like heroin and meth should be banned

I have messed around with so-called "hard" drugs in the past. Not the smartest decision, by any means.

Now, tell me why I should be in jail.

Users should be sent to rehab, sellers should be fined or jailed depending on the quantity and toxicity of the substance.

↑ Ok, so users should be sent to rehab. It's not something I necessarily agree with, but I could definitely understand why someone would advocate that.

The only problem is that in the modern world, records are kept. The government keeps records of everyone who has ever been in drug treatment. In most countries, for example, anyone who has ever been in a drug treatment program, voluntary or otherwise, is barred for life from owning a firearm (that is, if firearms have not been banned completely). Even in the US, if a court sentences you to any kind of mental health treatment (I am not sure if mandatory drug rehab is included in this), you are automatically barred from owning a firearm for life.

The firearm thing is just one example (albeit a very important one for any man who values his ability to protect himself and his family, and not depending solely on the government for protection) of how record-keeping can haunt someone long after they've conquered their drug problem. Record-keeping of those deemed to be "drug-addicts" can ultimately do more harm than good in the life of a user.

I would understand if you were to say "fuck drug users. Send them to rehab and put their names on a national drug-user registry, for all I care. My goal is not to help them, but rather to keep them off the streets." However, if your goal is ultimately to help drug users straighten out their lives, mandatory rehab is just not the answer. In my opinion, their name being in a database as a "drug user" will do more harm to them in the long run than any amount of help the rehab can offer, at least in the current political and legal environment.

Owning a firearm is a privilege, just like driving a car. Frankly, if you have a history of illicit drug use it indicates a high probability that you have mental health issues and you are comfortable with breaking the law, ergo, we don't want you owning a firearm. You forfeit the privilege when you chose to indulge in the illicit drugs. You are still free to lift, eat healthy, and learn martial arts for self-defense. Firearms are not an essential item for this purpose. However, that particular recommended strategy will be executed more effectively if you stay off the dope.

^ I agree only with the temporary loss of any fundamental right, as much as rights are simply a concept in any case.

Regardless, it's ridiculous to ban someone from owning a gun for life because they ran afoul of a federal law, perhaps even decades ago. There was a case where a father and son found an Indian arrowhead and, having no idea it was illegal to do so, took it home. Federal charges. Ignorance is not a defence. Plea bargain. No guns. Ever. Fair? No. Ridiculous.

This is a failure more of the stupid "punishment for life" laws that we dump on top of a person's regular punishments. When you've done your time you should go back to being a "free man". We only cringe at that idea because sentencing is a joke and prisons are now gang hangouts.

Regardless, every man should be able to regain his right to vote and own a gun if he can demonstrate that he's turned his life around. You can't be reintegrated into a society where you're eternally treated as a second class citizen for something you did a half a lifetime ago.

^ I agree 100% Leonard. That's what pardon processes are for and we have a pretty good system here in Canada, although legal fees can be expensive. But once you have your pardon, you may have to undergo an interview with the chief regional RCMP firearms officer, but you will likely be granted your federal firearms license. I was never convicted nor even charged in my run-in with police, but I still had to do a telephone interview with the RCMP for my license renewal, so I know how the process works. Once the officer heard my story he said, "Wow, that's a really interesting story. Sorry I can't issue you a license." When I said, "WHAT?!", he laughed heartily and said, "Just kidding!" So sure, there needs to be a process by which a man who has turned his life around can regain his privileges, just like I think women should lose the right to vote but instead have access to a process wherein they could apply for the privilege after passing a citizenship test and confirming eligibility for the draft (the latter condition will scare most of them off). But I stand by what I said above. I am fine with addicts losing their privilege to own firearms. Most of them are too disorganized to take advantage of the pardon process anyway, so it all works out. Fuck 'em. WRT legal fees for good men (like you), I think this is an area where the manosphere could evolve where we could crowd-fund our brothers-in-arms and help them achieve redemption.

Cheers

Quote: (01-03-2017 08:03 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

^ I agree only with the temporary loss of any fundamental right, as much as rights are simply a concept in any case.

Regardless, it's ridiculous to ban someone from owning a gun for life because they ran afoul of a federal law, perhaps even decades ago. There was a case where a father and son found an Indian arrowhead and, having no idea it was illegal to do so, took it home. Federal charges. Ignorance is not a defence. Plea bargain. No guns. Ever. Fair? No. Ridiculous.

This is a failure more of the stupid "punishment for life" laws that we dump on top of a person's regular punishments. When you've done your time you should go back to being a "free man". We only cringe at that idea because sentencing is a joke and prisons are now gang hangouts.

Regardless, every man should be able to regain his right to vote and own a gun if he can demonstrate that he's turned his life around. You can't be reintegrated into a society where you're eternally treated as a second class citizen for something you did a half a lifetime ago.

Exactly. If I were to lose my right to own firearms in the US, I would consider it to be a loss of citizenship. The US constitution (2nd amendment) clearly states that all citizens have the right to protect themselves with firearms. Therefore, if you lose that right (along with the right to vote and serve in the military), then you are not really a citizen anymore, just a lawful permanent resident.

And to anyone who says that owning firearms is not essential to self-defense, that is simply not true. If you are barred for life from owning a firearm, that means you will forever be dependent on the state to protect you. Even if you know martial arts, if someone confronts you with a gun, you will be no match for them.

You will never really be able to truly protect your family. If anybody breaks in to your house with a gun, your only option will be to call the police. If a war or any sort of conflict breaks out, your only option would be to become a refugee and depend on other men to protect you.

I don't think it's fair to condemn someone to this for life in the name of "helping them get their lives together."

Make up your mind. Do you want to help drug users get their lives together, or do you want to punish them for life? You can't have it both ways.

Quote: (01-03-2017 02:03 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

Owning a firearm is a privilege, just like driving a car.

Actually, in the US, owning a firearm is a right granted to all citizens by the constitution. Driving a car is not.

Quote: (01-03-2017 08:03 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

^ I agree only with the temporary loss of any fundamental right, as much as rights are simply a concept in any case.

Regardless, it's ridiculous to ban someone from owning a gun for life because they ran afoul of a federal law, perhaps even decades ago. There was a case where a father and son found an Indian arrowhead and, having no idea it was illegal to do so, took it home. Federal charges. Ignorance is not a defence. Plea bargain. No guns. Ever. Fair? No. Ridiculous.

This is a failure more of the stupid "punishment for life" laws that we dump on top of a person's regular punishments. When you've done your time you should go back to being a "free man". We only cringe at that idea because sentencing is a joke and prisons are now gang hangouts.

Regardless, every man should be able to regain his right to vote and own a gun if he can demonstrate that he's turned his life around. You can't be reintegrated into a society where you're eternally treated as a second class citizen for something you did a half a lifetime ago.

I could not agree more. Every new law in the US these days is a felony, it seems like, even if there's absolutely no victim and no danger to society. And loads of federal laws are absurd and outdated.

One of my relatives found a freshly dead hawk on a hike last year. She picked it up thinking to get it stuffed as a cool display piece. At camp, my other relatives told her just how illegal it was to do that--even possessing a hawk feather or shell fragments is against federal law--and immediately disposed of the hawk in case some asshole DEC type came by.

The law against even possessing migratory bird parts, even if you didn't kill the bird or inconvenience it in any way, was passed in 1918. You can get sent to jail for possessing a feather you picked up even if you don't know what bird it came from and the bird is not even remotely threatened with extinction.

Absolute swarms of geese migrate through this area every year. They're like feathery rats, they shit all over everything and sometimes attack people. There's no end to the fuckers.



Fuck geese. But if I so much as pick up a goose feather, I can be charged with a federal crime, fined, and sent to prison.

How is it rational to enforce malum prohibitum laws that were passed before 99.99% of the people living today were even born? Every law should be required to have a sunset clause. 5 year sunset as standard, 10 years max with 60%+ approval in Congress.

Not gonna hold my breath.

Neither Rob Banks nor Ghost Tiger's stances can really be reconciled.

As has been hashed out earlier in the thread, you're not dealing with this issue in a vacuum.
What works in rural Kansas will not in urban Detroit.
Normally in the case of the US I would say "state's issue, vote with your feet", but the Constitutional Democracy of the US has been dead for many years, possibly to never return, so that's a moot point.

One man can argue that the principles are the important thing (Banks) while another man can argue that principles are academia and what matters is reality and how to deal with it (Ghost Tiger).

I can't fault either, but the two are not reconcilable in this case, and it's not worth getting worked up over in any case since none of us have the capacity to change a damn thing.

Like I said earlier, I fully understand (although I may not agree with) someone who basically says "fuck drug users. Throw them in rehab. Lock them up. Take away their rights for life. They deserve to be 2nd class citizens. It's their own damn fault."

What I can't stand is people who claim their goal is to help drug users "get their lives back together" but advocates locking the up (whether in a rehab or jail) and subjecting them to lifelong 2nd class citizenship.

Helping them is great, but in my experience you can't help them until they want to be helped and meanwhile they have a tendency to destroy the lives of others on their "journey of discovery".

As I mentioned earlier, it's amusing that drug users (and drug legalization supporters) frame every step of drug policy discussion around, "Is it good for drug users? Will it harm drug users? But what will the drug users think?"

From there, Rob Banks uses the word "citizen" over and over again - as if "citizenry" were a permanent state-of-being that gives him "rights", rather than a permanent state-of-mind that produces a consistent set of pro-communal actions which make the community want to give you "rights".

^ Great point MMX2010.

Rob Banks, what MMX2010 and I are saying is: yes losing your right to own a firearm is like losing your citizenship, or at least a part of it, and we're OK with that, and you deserve it. I support the implementation of a process by which you can regain said citizenship or part thereof by proving yourself worthy, but the overall risks and consequences are acceptable. The punishment does indeed fit the crime.

Quote: (01-04-2017 11:50 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

As I mentioned earlier, it's amusing that drug users (and drug legalization supporters) frame every step of drug policy discussion around, "Is it good for drug users? Will it harm drug users? But what will the drug users think?"

From there, Rob Banks uses the word "citizen" over and over again - as if "citizenry" were a permanent state-of-being that gives him "rights", rather than a permanent state-of-mind that produces a consistent set of pro-communal actions which make the community want to give you "rights".

I was responding to Samseau's post, in which he said the following:

Quote: (01-03-2017 12:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Users should be sent to rehab, sellers should be fined or jailed depending on the quantity and toxicity of the substance.

He seems to be implying that he thinks sending users to rehab will help them in the long run. That's why I responded that I don't think it will help drug users in the long run to be branded by the state as "drug addicts" for the rest of their lives.

At least your argument and Ghost Tiger's argument are consistent. You don't pretend that you care about helping drug users.

That is why I, although I support legalization, support the Conservative position (lock 'em up for a long time) more than the liberal position (let's send the drug users to rehab and heeeeeeeelp them). At least the conservative position is consistent. You believe drug use is a crime and should be punished as such. You don't pretend like you're doing it for the drug user's benefit.

As a matter of fact, I support Duterte's policy (in the Philippines) of killing drug users on the spot more than I support the liberal US policy. The US policy sends mixed signals. If you get caught with drugs, you can potentially get a harsh punishment, but at the same time, drugs are seen as "cool" and liberal politicians are constantly trying to make life easier for drug users and dealers, despite the fact that drugs are illegal.

I think you need to have a consistent policy. You either need full legalization (which I support), or you need full Duterte-style prohibition. You can't have this wishy-washy middle ground where kids and teenagers are getting mixed signals about drugs, and where a few unlucky drug users are getting punished but the majority are able to slip under the radar.