[El Chinito loco]

(09-06-2016 11:06 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Also, had to post this I found during research. Caption is "cocaine for kids", hilarious

I wonder how hammered people were on a daily basis back then.

You could get morphine pretty easily. Opiates of all variety were prescribed or used to take the "edge" off for high society ladies. Men tended to drink pretty hard too even during prohibition.

A lot of people must have been loaded to the tits. If you were a sober teetotaler you probably came across as a genius to most.

[MMX2010]

Beast,

You lost this debate, permanently, when you stated that you don't care how many twelve year olds get high.

I strongly suggest that you read SJWs Always Lie, so that you can learn how persuasion works, and so you don't get trapped into loudly saying things like, "I don't care how many twelve year olds get high."

[Ghost Tiger]

(09-06-2016 10:32 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(09-06-2016 09:11 AM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

Comparing alcohol prohibition to the ban on illicit drugs is flawed logic. This argument has been soundly defeated.

Not at all. I might concede if alcohol & tobacco were at the bottom of the harm scale, but since they sit in the middle, it's a firm argument that you haven't addressed.

I have addressed it. The degree of harm caused by alcohol and tobacco is irrelevant because they're not forbidden. They have been accepted culturally. The other illicit drugs have not, ergo, they are still forbidden. This is a key difference that is either escaping you or you're deliberately ignoring it. Which is it?

Phoenix Wrote:

Before I bother addressing the other items, should we also ban tobacco and alcohol or not?

I've clearly answered that question by indicating that I agree with all of Dalrymple's arguments. Therefore... if you would like the answer spelled out clearly for you my pedantic little friend... the answer.. is

NO

Now you can go ahead and "bother" to address the other items, should you choose to do so.

Just to clarify before you get pedantic again... my argument is that we should keep the illicit (which means "forbidden") drugs illicit. We leave the non-illicit ones non-illicit. I did say this in the Trump thread but I'll say it again here, I can live with weed being decriminalized or even legalized since Troolander won his damn election. Weed is a genie that has escaped the bottle. There's no use fighting to stuff it back in now. But as I said, THC levels in indoor-grown weed have skyrocketed and weed is now more dangerous than ever before. I don't think it's a good idea to make it legal but I didn't think it was a good idea to elect Troolander either. (sigh)

[The Beast1]

(09-06-2016 12:22 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Beast,

You lost this debate, permanently, when you stated that you don't care how many twelve year olds get high.

I strongly suggest that you read SJWs Always Lie, so that you can learn how persuasion works, and so you don't get trapped into loudly saying things like, "I don't care how many twelve year olds get high."

How did i lose? Care to explain this to me?

Will reading this book explain your spectrum style arguing tactics? None of your posts have made any sense, they're entirely fluff and when pressed on a point your resort to, "you've failed, read this book so you can get onto my own ivory tower."

Your post here is akin to a kid covering his ears going, "la la la la."

I'll let other posters pick you apart. Sorry bro, you're out in left field

(09-06-2016 12:29 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

, THC levels in indoor-grown weed have skyrocketed and weed is now more dangerous than ever before. I don't think it's a good idea to make it legal but I didn't think it was a good idea to elect Troolander either. (sigh)

There have been zero deaths associated with marijuana overdosing regardless of how high the THC content is. The Huffpost has a great article with citations on the matter:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mari...a68880a217

There are 88,000 deaths annually from alcohol overdoses.

While you'll find drunk driving statistics for marijuana, i challenge you to find a report of someone dieing. Dying being different from having a panic attack and being admitted. If anything they should spend a night in a jail cell (aka drunk/stoned tank) instead of the ER. It'll impart a better lesson.

[Slim Shady]

You make these drugs legal for adults, and only adults. If someone gets addicted and suffers, there can be no social safety net for them. There has to be no taxpayer funding for treatment/rehab/detox/social welfare for these people. That is how it has to be to make the risk/reward function work correctly, not just for the people who take drugs, but for the ones who don't.

If they end up on the street and commit crimes, then they go to jail. If they show that they are negligent and abusive in their parenting, like an alcoholic, their children are taken away by the state because the child is not responsible for the parent's drug use. The only one who gets a safety net here is the non adult child. The rest is based on freedom of choice, and the principle of responsibility for the consequences of those choices.

Nobody wants 12 year olds getting high. If they do (which already currently happens with alcohol, weed, opiates/pills, and even cough syrup) that is a crime.

[MMX2010]

The Beast,

No, I don't care to explain how you lost, because the book does a better job.

You should also research "branding", especially what "brand" drug users and drug promoters already possess, and how not to let yourself get "tagged" with that "brand".

[Slim Shady]

A part of this debate actually ties into the legalized suicide debate. Not necessarily the euthanasia debate, but that is also somewhat linked.

Essentially, are there certain substances, and I think that there are, that have such an adverse effect in even one trial (either directly physically, or in terms of hyper-addictive propensities) that the choice to consume them can be labeled as intentional self harm to such a degree as to be considered in the same plane as attempted suicide?

It may then be okay to control only those substances, such as that alligator drug that was going around for example. Here it gets murky, because the levels are subjective. Of course if we legalize suicide, then it may not be a problem.

[MMX2010]

Slim Shady,

I agree with everything you wrote, but I don't support legalizing suicide for the same reason I don't support legalizing drugs: most people do better with explicit expectations, and legalizing both of those sends the wrong expectations.

[The Beast1]

(09-06-2016 12:42 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

The Beast,

No, I don't care to explain how you lost, because the book does a better job.

You should also research "branding", especially what "brand" drug users and drug promoters already possess, and how not to let yourself get "tagged" with that "brand".

What is this nonsense?

I'm out, time to hit a bowl and eat dinner. I'l let someone else do the honor of picking your (non) argument apart.

[MMX2010]

The Beast,

Are you calling it "nonsense" because you've studied branding for years and have greatly succeeded by defying it's tenets OR because you've never studied it at all and it sounds nonsensical?

[CynicalContrarian]

(09-06-2016 11:14 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

CynicalContrarian,

Can you elaborate about Portugal?

Here's one (of many) article :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...01780.html

Probably best to ask someone from Portugal for 1st hand info.

[MMX2010]

Thanks for the Portugal article, CynicalContrarian.

[El Chinito loco]

Barring other options such as draconian death penalty and street executions the best option for most developed world countries is legalization and funding towards rehab and awareness very early in education.

I don't know why that's such a hard concept to grasp for most people.

Half-assed measures simply throws money into various government agency black holes and enriches drug lords.

The whole modern drug war crosses over with the shady neocon agenda anyways to shuffle more money into the privatized prison industry and various M.I.C. companies which provide arms and support for the drug war.

[Phoenix]

(09-06-2016 12:29 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

I have addressed it. The degree of harm caused by alcohol and tobacco is irrelevant because they're not forbidden. They have been accepted culturally. The other illicit drugs have not, ergo, they are still forbidden. This is a key difference that is either escaping you or you're deliberately ignoring it. Which is it?

"It should be forbidden because it's already forbidden", is not an argument. You wouldn't say feminism is OK because it's been accepted culturally. You wouldn't say eating albinos is OK because it's been accepted culturally.

This thread is about what drug policy should be, and why. We already know what it is.

MMX Wrote:

Beast,

You lost this debate, permanently, when you stated that you don't care how many twelve year olds get high.

I don't think you understand how debates actually work.

The purpose of a debate is to present arguments, and uncover the falsehood of the opponents arguments, with the ultimate purpose of everybody (or at least the audience) coming to a state of greater enlightenment on the topic.

It's telling you chose to say he lost the debate, and "permanently", as though it was his possession for you to seize. There are many people involved in this debate, not just him.

What you did is a logical fallacy called a "straw man". You created this bizarre story about how his smoking weed was somehow connected to other 12 year old strangers smoking weed, and then continuously attacked that "straw man" you'd just conjured up. You should be more honest.

This is one of those situations when, in spite of our anonymity, we can all be sure of each others' age.

[MMX2010]

Phoenix,

You can win debates by destroying the character of your opponents, and his, "I don't care whether twelve year olds get high!" declaration was destroying. I can always tell those who think debates are about "facts and logic" rather than persuasion.

And, no, the purpose of debates is to get what you want. Which means the drug proponents can only win this debate by getting drugs legalized. Stating that debates are about enlightenment (or self-expression) is what losers do, right before they're about to lose.

Also, there was no "strawman". There was the rhetorical (but not false) question, "How many twelve year old drug addicts is an acceptable number, just so you can get high?" That's not false because increasing the availability of drugs means they can be passes to twelve year olds. If you've been following Scott Adams, you know that fear is the most persuasive axis, so I went for it before you did.

I won't make fun of your being a liberating (this time), but I will say that you need to learn how to argue rhetorically. Refusing to argue rhetorically just means you'll get bulldozered by people like me who use rhetoric quite well. SJWs Always Lie is a great start.

[TheSlayer]

Personally I fall more on the legalize and regulate drugs side of the debate than continue with the status quo. At the very least if most drugs are not legal they should be decriminalized. Nobody benefits from sending non-violent drug users/addicts to prisons and ruining their lives with a criminal record except for the government, cops, DEA, lawyers, and other regulatory agencies. At a very basic level for me the argument is that we have wasted billions of dollars on the "War on Drugs". If my memory serves me right the US, a huge percentage of prisoners are in for non-violent drug crimes. How does that benefit society?

I think at the very least some of the drugs like marijuana, shrooms, LSD etc. should be legal and regulated. Some of the more fucked up shit like meth, cocaine, and heroin should obviously not be legal.

[Ghost Tiger]

(09-06-2016 01:45 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

"It should be forbidden because it's already forbidden", is not an argument. You wouldn't say feminism is OK because it's been accepted culturally. You wouldn't say eating albinos is OK because it's been accepted culturally.

This thread is about what drug policy should be, and why. We already know what it is.

"It should be forbidden because it's already forbidden" is not something I said. That was such a cliché of a straw man that it should go in the Wikipedia entry for straw man. Well done!

Illicit drugs should remain forbidden because addiction ruins communities.

This is a thread about whether or not drug policy should be changed, i.e. whether or not illicit drugs should be legalized. Dalrymple, MMX2010 and I are arguing that they should not, and we are doing a damn fine job of it. You are merely nitpicking at the pedantic details of our arguments in an attempt to yell "Gotcha! Logical flaw!" and in doing so you are deliberately ignoring the big picture. You can't see the forest for the trees. But it's OK, I still like you. This is a common reaction to Dalrymple's solid arguments. Most people want to believe that drug addiction only harms the addict, but this is simply not true. The addiction harms the addict's family, his employer, his fellow taxpayers... indeed his entire community.

Now, what you're saying is the following:

If illicit drugs should be forbidden because they ruin communities, then alcohol should be forbidden because it ruins communities. This is incredibly retarded. This is what Dalrymple calls "philosophical fundamentalism". How can you fail to see that it takes no effort to simply KEEP forbidden drugs forbidden, and impossible to forbid something, like alcohol, that has already been permissible in our culture for thousands of years?

[The Beast1]

(09-06-2016 12:59 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

The Beast,

Are you calling it "nonsense" because you've studied branding for years and have greatly succeeded by defying it's tenets OR because you've never studied it at all and it sounds nonsensical?

I'm calling it nonsensical because this is precisely how the left argues. It's an entirely feminine stance that doesn't archive any sort of learning and is primarily used by the lesser to seek a sort of moral victory over the other opponent.

It's telling you keep citing that book. Like a child wielding his newly discovered father's pistol. You argue just like a liberal and I replied just like I would to a liberal. A trick I learned our future president who was able to wear his opponents down by doing exactly what I did:

"You think i'm a pot head/racist/misogynist? I love the pot heads/mexicans/women!"

(09-06-2016 02:02 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

And, no, the purpose of debates is to get what you want.

Time to hassle Ghost Tiger. At least there's a cohesive argument and point there.

[Ghost Tiger]

(09-06-2016 10:26 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

Whoops! Yeah I glossed over that post.

But that is exactly the thing that stuck with me from that book -- methadone is not needed and DTs are far worse than anything a heroin addict has to combat.

I think our conclusions differed from reading it though. I'm not saying this is Dalrymple's meaning at all, but to me it was just one more reason to decriminalize heroin.

Well, I hope Dalrymple's position is clarified by the article I posted then. He's not saying heroin is less harmful than alcohol, he's getting us to ask a question about the campaign for drug legalization... and the question is... cui bono? If there are more heroin addicts, then there are more customers for methadone. Savvy? But if the heroin addicts don't actually need methadone... then Big Pharma would like us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and these aren't the droids you're looking for. Savvy?

[MMX2010]

Ghost Tiger is playing the straight man who argues with facts and even-tempered tone, while I'm playing the shock trooper troll who argues sometimes with facts and sometimes with backstabbing, low blow rhetoric.

The following are facts: As a member of the anti-legalization side, I'm a winner because I have what I want. This means I don't have to convince you (or anyone else) of my position. So I don't have to make arguments. I don't have to be convincing. I don't have to change a single person's mind. And I don't even need to be polite, because I'm a winner and you're not.

Meanwhile, if you're in the drug promoting side, you ABSOLUTELY have to convince others, because you need to change people's minds. Snark isn't advised, because snark is for winners (think trash talking in any sport), and you're a loser regarding this issue.

As a shock trooper troll, I'll do anything to knock you off your game, make you lose your focus, or undermine your character. (The only thing I won't do is lie.) If you fall for it, or if drugs aren't legalized tomorrow, then you lost yet again and it's all your fault.

Some time later, I'll explain exactly which hurdles prevent drugs from being legalized, so that you can climb over them. Just because I think those hurdles are insurmountable doesn't give you an excuse not to try.

[Ghost Tiger]

(09-06-2016 02:46 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Ghost Tiger is playing the straight man who argues with facts and even-tempered tone, while I'm playing the shock trooper troll who argues sometimes with facts and sometimes with backstabbing, low blow rhetoric.

And for the record, I hate being good cop. Bad cop is waaaaaaay more fun!

[TooFineAPoint]

I will bite on the MMX2010 argument:

I don't care how many 12 year olds get high.
I don't care how many fall with scissors when running (I'll still use scissors).
Don't care how many die in auto accidents (will still advocate car use).

The parents of these 12 year olds can care about the 12 year olds. I am not some savior angel going around trying to play "what if" to reverse time and save the life of random 12 year olds.

If anyone cares that much about 12 year olds and their safety, they are free to start an organization called "Friends Of 12 Year Olds" that will educate them about the horrors of drug use and scissor running and exploding cars.

Also, with all the drug prohibition in the western world, 12 year olds still get high. Is getting high worse than watching 8 hours of mindless tv per day, or sucking back corn syrup filled "food"?

For the record, I must state again, I don't get high and have a generally distasteful view of weed and those that use it (not all, but most). But my view (and yours) of what is good for 12 year olds matters less than the price of tea in China. Unless of course you are okay using force to make other people bend to your will.

Then I guess the question becomes: is using force better than getting high? Why? Says who?

Okay, rant over. I would very much like most people to be given several options and lots of info about alternatives to drugs. It would be preferable FOR ME if people ate green veggies and grass-fed beef and worked out and read philosophy and listened to classical music. I don't want to encourage drug use. I also don't want to use force and violence against other people unless it is in self defence.

[Laner]

I was trying to find a thread from a few years ago that went much like this one has. I can't find it.

TheBeast reminds me of the guy on that thread (Frenchie). Is this you?

It creates a difficult situation where a very high functioning pot head is convinced that, based on their level of functionality, that everyone can do it too. That those that don't, are lazy, etc.

I am convinced that weed became illegal through different means than what keeps it illegal now. There was a time when any kind of counterculture was harmful to American society. It was a time of insane balance. Any brain switch that happened, any guy who suddenly woke up from his dream life, was going to be toxic to his community.

Now, with so many different tribes operating within America, the legality of it is more grey area. The idea that a guy with weed could go to jail is insane to me. Slap a heavy fine on him, but jail should be reserved for those that can't function in the outside world without harming others.

Like that junkie who can't keep from stealing. Shit, my local 7-11 is picked clean by shoplifters, as the store security is barely allowed to function. Just last week I watched a junkie put sandwiches and gatorade in his jacket and walk out. When security tried to stop him, he just screamed "Get your fucking hands off me!" and walked out.

Yeah, most drugs and their addicts are terrible for communities. Especially when the laws for them are passed by people who never have any interaction with the results. Along with lax drug laws, SJW's are intent to pass these lax laws down to anyone who is deemed a drug addict. They fuck over the community with impunity, and when something horrible happens, its due to their "mental illness". Fuck sake, of course they have mental illness. Taking drugs everyday for fun, becomes taking drugs everyday for normality. Even my pot head buddy who smoked everyday for 21 years (since 15yo) is mentally retarded in some capacities.

[scotian]

Good cocaine costs $3/gram in Colombia and possession of a gram is legal while shitty cocaine costs $80/gram in Canada and possession is illegal. I've met way more coke users in Canada than in Colombia although drug use is becoming more common down there, they lack the drug culture that we have in North America. I have no idea if my observations add to this debate.

[Ghost Tiger]

(09-06-2016 03:06 PM)scotian Wrote:  

Good cocaine costs $3/gram in Colombia and possession of a gram is legal while shitty cocaine costs $80/gram in Canada and possession is illegal. I've met way more coke users in Canada than in Colombia although drug use is becoming more common down there, they lack the drug culture that we have in North America. I have no idea if my observations add to this debate.

When you make is $77 per gram more in Canada, would you sell any of your product locally? Hell no. Silly local people, coke is for Canucks!