[Rob Banks]

(01-16-2017 09:51 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Stoner logic suffers from serious lack of nuance regarding punishment.

Rob Banks mentions "jailing women who have premarital sex" (and he defends Muslims who perform "honor killings" of women who were raped,...

For the last time, I did not defend Muslims who perform "honor killings." I was comparing Muslim "honor killings" to draconian prison sentences (up to and including execution) for drug dealers/users, which are both bad things in my opinion.

Just because I think Muslims have a "right" to perform honor killings in their own countries (i.e. the U.S. shouldn't send troops in to stop them from doing it) doesn't mean I'm "defending" the practice.

You and Leonard are taking my words out of context. I do not "defend" or "support" Muslim honor killings. I was clearly comparing honor killings (and the idea of jailing women who have premarital sex) to draconian drug laws, which are all bad things in my opinion.

(01-16-2017 09:51 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

...but he doesn't consider things like mild mockery and refusal to associate (which are the primary punishments for drug users).

What do you mean by this? I am okay with people mocking and refusing to associate with drug users. I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

(01-16-2017 09:51 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Leonard started a thread asking whether libertarianism stems from a severe lack of masculinity, and Rob Banks' argumentation style supports that generalization.

You should check out what I actually wrote in that thread before making generalizations like that.

Just because I don't support drug prohibition doesn't mean I'm some lefty modern libertarian. I don't even call myself a "libertarian" because of what that word has come to mean.

If "libertarianism" (i.e. belief in freedom and minimal government) stemmed from a severe lack of masculinity, then I suppose the U.S. Founding Fathers must have really lacked masculinity.

There's no way of knowing what the Founding Fathers would have thought of modern drug policy, but they were definitely quite "libertarian" (as defined above) for their time, and they certainly didn't lack masculinity.

The word "libertarian" has been tainted by cucks who voted for Gary Johnson, hate Trump, and think "freedom" means open borders, gay acceptance, and child transsexualism.

[Meat Head]

I have asked this question a couple of times and no one has answered me. What is your opinion on giving drug merchants the death sentence?

[Leonard D Neubache]

You see, this is where libertarians tend to shit the bed and pretend it's a feature, not a flaw.

They'll quote the founding fathers that "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

First amendment.
Second amendment.
Non-aggression.
Non-intervention.
Principles, principles, blah blah blah.

But apparently that all comes to a screeching halt somewhere at the edge of international waters where at some point women become possessions and being raped is an acceptable reason to be executed.

Quote:

I support the right of someone like Duterte to execute drug dealers in his country if he feels it is necessary. I also support the right of Muslims to perform "honor killings" if a woman engages in premarital sex, if they feel it is necessary to discourage their women from becoming sluts. But I sure as hell don't want any of these things being done in the U.S.

Then guys like me waste inordinate amounts of time trying to untangle the twisted mental premises that lead to these kind of contradictions, which is doubly difficult because despite having no trouble with my reading comprehension in other threads I seem to be constantly misinterpreting you, Banks.

I'm done with this thread. I have real life dramas to attend to and I'm tired of leading horses to water only for them to decide they'd rather eat rocks. It was useful to the degree that Ghost Tiger imparted upon me some real wisdom. See, that's the difference. I was where you decriminalists were and then when I opened myself to some real world perspective I realised I was wrong.

But decrimninalists like communists are forever trapped in the fantasy land of academia, where the wisdom of age is forbidden, there are no such things as unintended consequences and human nature is of no relevance.

The friends-of-pot movement had failed to win me back.

I'm out.

[Ghost Tiger]

(01-17-2017 04:04 AM)Meat Head Wrote:  

I have asked this question a couple of times and no one has answered me. What is your opinion on giving drug merchants the death sentence?

Kill 'em all.

Let God sort 'em out.

[Marshall D. Teach]

Rob Banks, I suggest you disengage Leonard D Neubache because there is no way he's ever going to regard your point of view, no matter how consistently you logically present it. You're wasting your time.

At this point...

(01-11-2017 05:41 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Fact: I don't like pot-heads

Fact: I am entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically.

Fact: The above two facts are facts.

Fact: The third fact is also factual in nature.

...you could very much conclude that this had ceased to be an intellectual argument surrounding the drug policy and its effects, and had become something else entirely.

[Rob Banks]

(01-17-2017 07:23 AM)Marshall D. Teach Wrote:  

Rob Banks, I suggest you disengage Leonard D Neubache because there is no way he's ever going to regard your point of view, no matter how consistently you logically present it. You're wasting your time.

At this point...

(01-11-2017 05:41 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Fact: I don't like pot-heads

Fact: I am entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically.

Fact: The above two facts are facts.

Fact: The third fact is also factual in nature.

...you could very much conclude that this had ceased to be an intellectual argument surrounding the drug policy and its effects, and had become something else entirely.

I don't care if he agrees with me or not at this point. To be honest, I see his point. Drug use and violent crime would go way down if we decided to execute all drug dealers and sentence drug users to mandatory 20-year prison terms for a first offense, with execution for any subsequent offenses (and yes, I know Leonard did not specifically advocate for the execution of all drug dealers). I just happen to disagree with him. I would rather have a government that did not meddle so much in the private lives of citizens, even if it meant there would be more drug addicts on the streets.

I just don't like being taken out of context and being told that I won't be taken seriously because I'm "the guy who supports Muslim honor killings" when I clearly don't support them. That's the reason I felt the need to respond to Leonard's recent posts.

I'm sitting here trying to have an actual debate about drug policy. It seemed to be going well for a while. However when the drug prohibitionists run out of arguments, they seem to resort to name-calling and attempting to discredit the speaker.

Because I support legalization, everything I say is supposedly "stoner logic." My "argumentation style" supposedly "lacks masculinity." I've been accused of being high on drugs while posting, and I've been accused of supporting Muslim honor killings. Leonard even straight-up said to me "no one will take you seriously from now on because you're the guy who supports Muslim honor killings."

No one has responded to my most recent arguments. No one responded to the Milton Friedman video I posted (he has some really good arguments for why drug prohibition is harmful even to those who don't use drugs).

The fact that the prohibitionists are taking the time to insult and attempt to discredit me, but not taking the time to actually rebut my arguments, is very telling.

[Different T]

Quote:

Leonard started a thread asking whether libertarianism stems from a severe lack of masculinity

This thread is inextricably bound up with that libertarianism thread. You have Leonard saying it's all about something called "the community" which is threatened by drug use and any means are justified to combat the problem. You have a guy (probably from Cali) saying that its about "his community" and Leonard's statements are a "declaration of war" against his community. Then you have them both "internet threatening" each other by invoking proxies of other men.

Then we get to Rob Banks saying that pre-marital sex is bad for the community (it's not clear if Leonard disagrees), so why not any means neccessary to fight that? Leonard replies with "You despicable Muzzie sympathist, this is a 'fuck drunk (or otherwise intoxicated on external substances) bitches forum'" and a come to Jesus moment.

Finally, we have Ghost Tiger's "Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out."

All of this would be LOL-entertainment if it weren't such an accurate depiction of America.

[Marshall D. Teach]

(01-17-2017 09:03 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

I'm sitting here trying to have an actual debate about drug policy. It seemed to be going well for a while. However when the drug prohibitionists run out of arguments, they seem to resort to name-calling and attempting to discredit the speaker.

Its almost as if you're arguing with a typical feminist.

(01-17-2017 09:03 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

No one has responded to my most recent arguments. No one responded to the Milton Friedman video I posted (he has some really good arguments for why drug prohibition is harmful even to those who don't use drugs).

The closest you're going to get to a response is: "First question: who the fuck is Milton Friedman and why should we give a fuck about what he has to say on global drug policies?", or something of the sort, and then get referred to a psychiatrist. Sorry.

[Paracelsus]

(01-17-2017 04:04 AM)Meat Head Wrote:  

I have asked this question a couple of times and no one has answered me. What is your opinion on giving drug merchants the death sentence?

The way drug merchants seem to enjoy killing each other in places like Mexico it seems they don't have any problem with it.

[Meat Head]

Why do people do hard drugs like crack in the first place. Is it poverty? Genetics? Low iq? Environment?

[xmlenigma]

I am curious about ayahuasca.. Anyone try it here?

[Paracelsus]

(01-27-2017 12:28 AM)xmlenigma Wrote:  

I am curious about ayahuasca.. Anyone try it here?

Try this thread: archive/inde...26640.html

[MOVSM]

Israel joins Netherlands and Portugal in decriminalizing weed. I think it is our turn to do so on a national level.

Israel gives green light to decriminalize marijuana use

Quote:

By Maayan Lubell | JERUSALEM
The Israeli government voted on Sunday in favor of decriminalizing recreational marijuana use, joining some U.S. states and European countries who have adopted a similar approach.

"On the one hand we are opening ourselves up to the future. On the other hand, we understand the dangers and will try to balance the two," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet in broadcast remarks.

According to the new policy, which must still be ratified by parliament, people caught smoking marijuana would be fined rather than arrested and prosecuted. Criminal procedures would be launched only against those caught repeatedly with the drug.

Selling and growing marijuana would remain criminal offences in Israel.

"Israel cannot shut its eyes to the changes being made across the world in respect to marijuana consumption and its effects," Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said in a statement.

In the United States, 28 states have legalized marijuana for medical use and since 2012, several have also approved marijuana for recreational use.

Shaked said Israeli authorities would now put their focus on education about the possible harmful effects of drug use.

Marijuana use is fairly common in Israel. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has said that almost nine percent of Israelis use cannabis, though some Israeli experts believe the numbers are higher.

Israeli police figures showed only 188 people were arrested in 2015 for recreational use of marijuana, a 56 percent drop since 2010, and many of those apprehended in that time were never charged.

About 25,000 people have a license to use the drug for medicinal purposes in Israel, one of the world leaders in medical marijuana research.

In February, a government committee gave an initial nod for the export of medical cannabis, though final legislative measures will likely take months.

(Reporting by Maayan Lubell; Editing by Dominic Evans)

[MOVSM]

Signs of sanity:

Justin Amash Co-Sponsors Bill to End Federal Prohibition on Marijuana

Quote:

The federal prohibition on marijuana has come under scrutiny over the past few years since the adoption of legalized marijuana across the country starting in the great state of Colorado.

While many Republicans are still hesitant to support the legalization of a drug that is deemed as toxic and dangerous as heroin, there are a few liberty-minded GOP members that fill it is time to stop the craziness that has plagued our war on drugs with the enforcement of marijuana laws across the country and the restriction of freedom.

Congressman Justin Amash has signed on to a new bill introduced in the House that would end the federal prohibition on marijuana in the United States.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-cong...Sort=alpha

Quote:

“(a) Prohibition On Certain Shipping Or Transportation.—This Act shall not apply to marihuana, except that it shall be unlawful only to ship or transport, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, marihuana, from one State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, when such marihuana is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Freedom is at stake in this country and it starts with pointless wars on our freedoms that have not produced any real results but instead incarcerated an entire generation of people for smoking a natural plant.

[Nowak]

I favor decriminalization of marijuana and possibly other soft drugs.

Anti social behavior is what worries me the most.

Complete freedom for the individual leads to complete atomization of a society. Libertarianism at its pure extreme works under a society of Christian bachelors during peace time. Davis Aurini said this and he's correct.

As for a ''model'', I think drug policy in Austria works pretty well. Marijuana is decriminalized and there's no coffee shops near neighborhoods and other dwelling spaces/schools like in the Netherlands where its completely legalized for licensed merchants to sell.

[MOVSM]

Very long research paper, but worth the read.

Four Decades and Counting: The Continued Failure of the War on Drugs

Quote:

Private individuals and policymakers often utilize prohibition as a means of controlling the sale, manufacture, and consumption of particular goods. While the Eighteenth Amendment, which was passed and subsequently repealed in the early 20th century, is often regarded as the first major prohibition in the United States, it certainly was not the last. The War on Drugs, begun under President Richard Nixon, continues to utilize policies of prohibition to achieve a variety of objectives.

Proponents of drug prohibition claim that such policies reduce drug-related crime, decrease drug-related disease and overdose, and are an effective means of disrupting and dismantling organized criminal enterprises.

We analyze the theoretical underpinnings of these claims, using tools and insights from economics, and explore the economics of prohibition and the veracity of proponent claims by analyzing data on overdose deaths, crime, and cartels. Moreover, we offer additional insights through an analysis of U.S. international drug policy utilizing data from U.S. drug policy in Afghanistan. While others have examined the effect of prohibition on domestic outcomes, few have asked how these programs impact foreign policy outcomes.

We conclude that prohibition is not only ineffective, but counterproductive, at achieving the goals of policymakers both domestically and abroad. Given the insights from economics and the available data, we find that the domestic War on Drugs has contributed to an increase in drug overdoses and fostered and sustained the creation of powerful drug cartels. Internationally, we find that prohibition not only fails in its own right, but also actively undermines the goals of the Global War on Terror.

[MOVSM]

Portugal and Colorado serve as a model for U.S. and the world in drug policy success.

Someone mentioned that in tobacco use, with all propaganda and prevention policies, the lowest you can hope for is 11% of population. I think that those same 11% of population will need some sort of stimulants for what Scott Adams described as "necessary happiness". These are the 11% you will not be able to convince in any way, even though they will know themselves the risk of usage.

What you can do, is stop the rest of the population from suffering the collateral damage associated with drug use--crime, high taxation needed to fund the war on drugs, and possibly foreign incursion of drug dealers and the problems they bring.

[BrewDog]

(01-15-2017 01:20 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

So here's a hypothetical for all you guys that seem to enjoy living in "what if" land espousing your "victimless crime" mantras and "stop policing pre-crime" ideals.

You go to the change rooms at the public pool. There are a few young boys showering there. In a changing stall nearby some guy is peeking over the top of the barrier, watching the boys, and you can't be certain but you're relatively sure by the sounds of things that he's masturbating furiously.

The boys are oblivious. They are not "victims".
The man is harming nobody.
You cannot assume he will go on to molest anyone at a later date.
It would be arguable that by quenching his lusts thus that he is avoiding having to commit a more heinous crime later.

Would you allow this man to shower in the same changing rooms as your children? Would you allow him to live next door to you? Would you allow him to be the caretaker at your kid's school?

Based on your arguments so far it would be impossible for you to mount an argument against the paedophile.

As such I will brace for a barrage of "I literally can't even".

LOLOL typical right wing, alt-wrong whoreshit attempt at any logic.

"So if they smoke dope, what if they're FAGGOTS and wanna rape your kids! Is smoking dope ok then?"

I'll be so goddamn interested in hearing how smoking weed equals the desire to rape children. Please, for fucking sake tell us.

[Leonard D Neubache]

It's called a metaphor. One thing is transposed over another thing so that you can note similarities in the themes and recognise a pattern of logic and outcomes.

What's going on BD? There's been a serious drop in the standard of your posts. You drunk or wot, bro?

[Jean Valjean]

(01-11-2017 05:41 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Fact: I don't like pot-heads

Fact: I am entitled to my opinion and entitled to affect its pursuance politically.

I was about to say, "Whatever, that just makes me want to move to the Philippines all the more" and then I realized, "Wait, he's in Australia?" (I had assumed you were a U.S. voter)

Of course, pot hasn't been decriminalized in the Philippines either, but who knows, medical use might be allowed there sooner than it will be in Virginia.

[Suits]

(05-18-2017 11:11 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

It's called a metaphor. One thing is transposed over another thing so that you can note similarities in the themes and recognise a pattern of logic and outcomes.

If that's the case, then it's the worst metaphor I've ever been subjected to.

[Jean Valjean]

(01-15-2017 01:20 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

So here's a hypothetical for all you guys that seem to enjoy living in "what if" land espousing your "victimless crime" mantras and "stop policing pre-crime" ideals.

You go to the change rooms at the public pool. There are a few young boys showering there. In a changing stall nearby some guy is peeking over the top of the barrier, watching the boys, and you can't be certain but you're relatively sure by the sounds of things that he's masturbating furiously.

The boys are oblivious. They are not "victims".
The man is harming nobody.
You cannot assume he will go on to molest anyone at a later date.
It would be arguable that by quenching his lusts thus that he is avoiding having to commit a more heinous crime later.

Would you allow this man to shower in the same changing rooms as your children? Would you allow him to live next door to you? Would you allow him to be the caretaker at your kid's school?

Based on your arguments so far it would be impossible for you to mount an argument against the paedophile.

As such I will brace for a barrage of "I literally can't even".

It's really not fair to compare other political issues to pedophilia, child sexual abuse, etc. which are topics we can't possibly discuss openly and frankly using the same rules of logic and evidence that would be applicable to other subjects.

[Hell_Is_Like_Newark]

Vermont is dying from opiates.

Came up to visit my elderly parents for a few days and to celebrate my Mom's birthday. Went into Brandon for lunch and Rutland to pick up a few things. What is plainly obvious:

The opiate / meth use is out of control.

I have been in Vermont from time to time (was a VT resident for a couple years) since the early 1980s. VT was always rural welfare state (poverty, but violent crime was rare)... you always had a portion of the population that lived their entire lives on some sort of public assistance.

Now you have groups of young (all White) men and women who are strung out on drugs, loitering on street corners and in front of shopping malls. A number of these addicts have backpacks on and appear to be 'traveling druggies'. The guy I hire to maintain the septic system at my house told me how bad it is: He got hired by Walmart to service their sewer pumps, which had stopped working. The pump was clogged with used needles. The druggies shoot-up in the Walmart lavatories and flush the needles down toilet.

This situation has tangentially affected my Dad. Dad is physically deteriorating (he is pushing 90 years old) and needs hired help. There are services for cleaning and assisted living, which have been contracted. What he can't find is a laborer to help maintain the property... landscaping, gardening.. .basically moving stuff that my Dad really can't handle now.

Can't find anyone. Welfare pays more than we can afford to pay and the guys in their teens and 20s are all too spaced out on drugs. The young men are useless.

When I was a teen, we all had jobs doing labor related stuff. I was hired by a homeowner to help clean out gutters and move stuff that the owner couldn't do. For me, it was a critical part of growing up.

I have no idea how this issue is going to be solved.

Aside from the rant above: If anyone knows someone who would like some part-time work and is in / near the Middlebury to Castleton area of Vermont.. PM me. My Dad is replacing some rotted out wood trim on the barn and could use some help.