[scotian]

Of course like the coffee and the whores, the best booger sugar is sent abroad where it fetches the higher dollar. Still, there is a lot of dope on the streets down there but I guess my point is that it isn't as socially accepted in Colombia as it is in North America. Even compared to most Europeans us North Americans (I'd add Brits and Aussies too) really do like to get fucked up on all types of drugs, it must be an Anglo Saxon thing.

[Ghost Tiger]

(09-06-2016 03:03 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

The parents of these 12 year olds can care about the 12 year olds.

As a parent I am disappointed in your answer my friend.

It takes a village to raise a child.

What would you permit me to do in order to protect my child from drug dealers then? Can I beat them? Can I shoot them? If it is my sole responsibility to protect my child then let me get my 9mm and I'll handle this problem my damn self.

[MMX2010]

TooFineAPoint,

I'm not sure if you read my tongue-in-cheek commentary, but I'm a member of the COMMUNITY, while you're an OUTSIDER trying to get the community to adopt your rules.

Your entire argument felt like, "If you're so concerned about the negative effects of drugs, then you can fight those negative effects with your own time and money!"

So my choices are: (1) Legalize drugs AND fight long hours to counteract their negative effects OR (2) Not legalize drugs and therefore NOT have to fight long hours to counteract their negative effects.

I KNOW that drug use is associated with self-absorption and cognitive impairment, but even a drug-addicted loser should be able to predict which choice I'll make.

0/10 - not convincing.

[Ghost Tiger]

(09-06-2016 03:39 PM)scotian Wrote:  

Of course like the coffee and the whores, the best booger sugar is sent abroad where it fetches the higher dollar. Still, there is a lot of dope on the streets down there but I guess my point is that it isn't as socially accepted in Colombia as it is in North America. Even compared to most Europeans us North Americans (I'd add Brits and Aussies too) really do like to get fucked up on all types of drugs, it must be an Anglo Saxon thing.

If by that you mean, "richest part of the world thing" then, yes, but I guess that's redundant. We get all the coke for the same reason we get all the savages, er, I mean refugees. Because the rest of the world figures we can afford the damage that will be done to our communities.

[TooFineAPoint]

(09-06-2016 03:45 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

So my choices are: (1) Legalize drugs AND fight long hours to counteract their negative effects OR (2) Not legalize drugs and therefore NOT have to fight long hours to counteract their negative effects.

How's #2 working out for us right now?

Where is your proof that you will have to fight longer hours if drugs are legalized?

We all know those are not the only choices.

To GT:

I can't care about EVERY child, nor can you. I'm sure you care more about the well-being of your own child than about other people's children, though I'm also fairly sure you don't go out of your way to hurt other people's children.

I think as a guardian, yes, you have a right to protect your child from those that would harm them. As any other defence situation, we'd have to consider necessary force.

Lots of these arguments are getting muddied by inclusion of other state meddling, like welfare, public transport, health care, those "clean" needle centers, public schools, etc.

The same villagers that are raising your child can easily be the ones that are filling his or her head with lies, selling them blue pill worldviews, turning them against their parents, or perverting them in all sorts of manners. These things can cut both ways.

Again -- good faith -- of course it would be better to have a tight-knit set of neighbors we all trust around us, and for us all to watch out for each-others' kids. But it's not a perfect world, so I have to take the negatives into account as well.

[MMX2010]

TooFineAPoint,

I'm reacting to what you said here, "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."

[Ghost Tiger]

(09-05-2016 08:18 PM)Suits Wrote:  

Relevant:

Also relevant:

[Ghost Tiger]

(09-06-2016 04:35 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

Again -- good faith -- of course it would be better to have a tight-knit set of neighbors we all trust around us, and for us all to watch out for each-others' kids. But it's not a perfect world, so I have to take the negatives into account as well.

Fair enough. My argument is that legalizing illicit drugs would make them more abundant and raise the risk to my child (I have a 15 year old daughter) as well as all the village children. So just as I am passionately pro-life, I am also passionately anti-legalization. I am my brother's keeper. And guardian of his children.

[Phoenix]

(09-06-2016 02:17 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

"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.
...
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?

Illicit means:
illicit
[ih-lis-it]
adjective
1.
not legally permitted or authorized; unlicensed; unlawful.

That means forbidden. So I'm not attacking a straw man, I'm attacking your statement that forbidden (illicit) drugs should be forbidden as meaningless.

It does not take no effort to keep currently forbidden drugs forbidden, it costs huge amounts of lives and resources. Piles of bodies in Mexico, crying sons and daughters, thousands of children in North Korea born into brainwashed despair. And you pay for that in your taxes. You also risk paying for that when the government, on a "mistaken tip", busts open your front door guns blazing in a no-knock raid.

Without drug illegalization, drug dealers occupy the same status, or less, as a bar tender. no bar tender ever pushes drinking on you. In Australia he begrudgingly fulfills his obligation at his leisure. It's only under illegal drugs, which are high priced like anything else illegal, they have a strong incentive to push the drugs on children.

[scotian]

Ghost Tiger, Canadian teens can get a bag of weed easier than a case of beer or a pack of smokes these days, because of that I disagree that legalization will increase consumption in the long term. Also, the weed dealer at school doesn't care about selling to minors (unlike a legit dispensary) and may also be selling other drugs like acid, shrooms, mdma, etc. I have a medical card in BC and have been to several dispensaries and think that they are well run and hope that the government will sell through them rather than something idiotic like mail service. If the government does it right, they will cut out the competition from underground street dealers, many who I know are now transitioning to legit work because they fear that legal weed will see their customer base disappear.

[Ghost Tiger]

(09-07-2016 08:20 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Illicit means:
illicit
[ih-lis-it]
adjective
1.
not legally permitted or authorized; unlicensed; unlawful.

Why are you still defining the word illicit? I never disputed this definition. In fact, I expressed my agreement with this definition clearly. Here is a definition for you:

Pedantic
/pəˈdan(t)ik/
adjective

Pedantic means "like a pedant," someone who's too concerned with literal accuracy or formality. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way. You don't want to go antique-shopping with a pedantic friend, who will use the opportunity to bore you with his in-depth knowledge of Chinese porcelain kitty-litter boxes.

(09-07-2016 08:20 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

That means forbidden. So I'm not attacking a straw man, I'm attacking your statement that forbidden (illicit) drugs should be forbidden as meaningless.

You wrote a statement in quotes and clearly implied that I said this statement, namely "It should be forbidden because it's already forbidden". I didn't say this and it's not something I would say, because I don't agree with it. I clearly stated what I do believe, namely that illicit drugs should be banned because they ruin communities. You held up a statement and falsely implied that I said it, ergo this was a straw man that you then proceeded to knock down. You were definitely attacking a straw man. Own your shit bro. Be a man.

Here, maybe this will help:

straw man
noun

a sham argument set up to be defeated.

(09-07-2016 08:20 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

It does not take no effort to keep currently forbidden drugs forbidden, it costs huge amounts of lives and resources. Piles of bodies in Mexico, crying sons and daughters, thousands of children in North Korea born into brainwashed despair. And you pay for that in your taxes. You also risk paying for that when the government, on a "mistaken tip", busts open your front door guns blazing in a no-knock raid.

I already said that there are problems with police militarization and poor prison administration. These problems will still exist if drugs are legalized. And drugs don't make criminals criminal. If the ban on drugs makes people criminal, then guns must kill people. If guns kill people, do forks make Michael Moore fat? Ban forks! Save Michael Moore! Oh wait, that's silly. Mikey would just eat with his ham hands. And drug-dealing criminals would just turn to pimping, robbery, kidnapping, etc. if drugs were to be legalized. The bodies in Mexico would continue to pile up. Which is why we need Trump's wall, not legalization of drugs.

(09-07-2016 08:20 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Without drug illegalization

Everything you said after that condition is assumption and fantasy. Illicit drugs have always been illicit. Like MMX2010 eloquently put it... you've lost this argument before it began. It's your task to persuade me, not poke pedantic holes in my arguments. And you've failed.

(09-07-2016 09:14 AM)scotian Wrote:  

Ghost Tiger, Canadian teens can get a bag of weed easier than a case of beer or a pack of smokes these days, because of that I disagree that legalization will increase consumption in the long term.

If they can get a bag of weed that easy, then the de facto legalization of weed in Canada, particularly B.C., has proven my point. Relaxation of restrictions leads to higher consumption. I have seen this myself all over Canada during my lifetime. Weed is far more prevalent today than it was when I was a teenager. So because of that, I disagree with you my friend.

[Laner]

(09-07-2016 09:14 AM)scotian Wrote:  

Ghost Tiger, Canadian teens can get a bag of weed easier than a case of beer or a pack of smokes these days, because of that I disagree that legalization will increase consumption in the long term. Also, the weed dealer at school doesn't care about selling to minors (unlike a legit dispensary) and may also be selling other drugs like acid, shrooms, mdma, etc. I have a medical card in BC and have been to several dispensaries and think that they are well run and hope that the government will sell through them rather than something idiotic like mail service. If the government does it right, they will cut out the competition from underground street dealers, many who I know are now transitioning to legit work because they fear that legal weed will see their customer base disappear.

Yeah already the price of weed has tanked here. In the case of weed, 'the market' has already decided that weed will be legal soon, and with that the once famous East Van grow op has almost disappeared. The only people who still buy from dealers are those who live in small towns and are too lazy to grow their own.

I travel to Washington a lot for work, and one of my clients lives on a farm in a beautiful little village in the Cascades. One little market, a sandwich/coffee shop, fuels station, church and now a weed shop. I asked my friend- a huge Trump man I might add- how it changed the town. He said not at all, though he hates drugs. He wants to shoot all meth heads on sight, but he begrudgingly said it was not bad.

Anecdotes aside, I think weed should be legal and taxed and just be done with it. Regulate the shops and make sure that they operate in the legal framework just like a private liquor store. Civilian oversight too, so the government has to hire intelligent consultants instead of some retard who has no idea what the drug world is.

The government in Canada has an amazing ability to fuck up the most basic real world solutions, and I could see this being a disaster, which to some degree, already has been.

[Phoenix]

(09-07-2016 11:40 AM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

Everything you said after that condition is assumption and fantasy. Illicit drugs have always been illicit. Like MMX2010 eloquently put it... you've lost this argument before it began. It's your task to persuade me, not poke pedantic holes in my arguments.

Glossing over the implication that MMX has ever argued eloquently; No, illicit drugs haven't always been illicit. It is very recent.

Indeed alcohol was banned (1920 Volstead Act / 18th Amendment) before marijuana (1970 Controlled Substances Act). So alcohol predates marijuana as an illicit drug in the US by 50 years. Marijuana also has a 5000 year global history: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view....eID=000026

Here's a nice snippet for you:

Quote:

Coca-Cola was introduced in 1886 and was promoted as a drink "offering the virtues of coca without the vices of alcohol." Until 1903, a typical serving contained around 60mg of cocaine.

I've heard countless stories in history lessons and from history books of areas where alcohol was a serious blight. Alcohol and cigarettes are still a serious blight in certain areas. I've simply never heard stories from history about other narcotics blights other than opium in China.

I side with Trump on this: alcohol is bad stuff. He's taught his kids as much.

Alcohol fuels sluts and violence. Have you ever met a slut who didn't drink? [actually, as an aside, that fact might be a good way to help screen for a wife...] Especially for daughters, I'd be far more concerned about alcohol and alcohol-laden establishments than I ever would marijuana. It also fuels countless deaths on the roads, and countless acts of violence. If we're dispassionately evaluating it, without regards to our own use of it, it is downright nasty.

But history proved that making it illicit just created other worse problems and did little to alter its consumption. And society has failed to learn that lesson.

What the government thinks it should attack, support or ignore should have no bearing on how we conduct our own lives and relate to each other, or what we advocate our family members do or don't do, other than with respect to interactions with the government itself.

[scotian]

[/quote]
If they can get a bag of weed that easy, then the de facto legalization of weed in Canada, particularly B.C., has proven my point. Relaxation of restrictions leads to higher consumption. I have seen this myself all over Canada during my lifetime. Weed is far more prevalent today than it was when I was a teenager. So because of that, I disagree with you my friend.
[/quote]

If relaxation of restrictions leads to higher consumption then why do teenagers in Canada (who smoke the most in the world) and the US use marijuana more often than teenagers in countries where the laws are more relaxed? http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/11/...62739.html

Quote:

Fully 28 per cent of the 11, 13 and 15-year-old Canadian children surveyed said they had smoked marijuana at some point during the last year. Countries with far more liberal drugs laws actually did better. In Holland, the rate of use was 17.05 per cent and in Portugal 10.05 per cent.

It appears to be the same scenario with alcohol such as in Europe where kids grow up able to drink alcohol from a young age (wine in France, beer in Germany, etc) yet the biggest binge drinkers in the developed world are from the US, where alcohol is much more restricted and has the highest legal drinking age in the world. https://mic.com/articles/57211/can-you-g....z3OLpaSe0

Quote:

A country's binge drinking rate reveals a great deal about the surrounding culture. Comparing patterns of alcohol consumption between the United States and the majority of European countries, for example, reveals an interesting trend. In the U.S., the nation with one of the highest binge drinking rates worldwide, people tend to abuse alcohol. In Europe, by contrast, more people enjoy drinking alcohol without binge drinking because leisurely drinking is an important part of social interaction......American drinking culture, particularly among teens, is defined by binge drinking or heavy, excessive alcohol consumption. In fact, the rate of binge drinking in the U.S. is the highest in the world. Despite the U.S. drinking age, binge drinking is the biggest problem for people under the age of 21.

As I alluded to in previous posts, I think that our drug consumption has a lot to do with our culture and I'm not so sure that the government will be able to cut down on consumption, especially of pot in Canada.

[Laner]

This sort of ties in with the urban vs suburban thread, but its worth talking about here too.

It really does take a village to raise a child, and when that village literally lives on top of each other, kids are not going to be able to get the alone time that suburban kids get.

I look at my son for example. Even the junkies and homeless know him, let alone most of the store owners and their workers. He can't even walk past the pizza joint without someone saying hi. Where will he have to go in order to be sure the neighborhood is not watching him? And scoring from the dispensary? Even though I barely smoke weed, I still know those cats and they know me. Plus getting caught selling to underage kids is a sure way to lose your business, whether alcohol, cigarettes or weed.

With this many eyes on a kid, like in Holland and Portugal, it will be much harder for kids to do drugs. Also, walking by an addict who is sleeping in his own excrement and piss does wonders for the 'cool factor' surrounding drugs.

[Ghost Tiger]

(09-07-2016 12:26 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Glossing over the implication that MMX has ever argued eloquently;

Lol. U mad bro?

Phoenix Wrote:

No, illicit drugs haven't always been illicit. It is very recent.

What you are glossing over now is the fact that these drugs were made illicit as soon as they became significantly available and their destructive effects were observed with significant frequency in our culture. Saying there was no ban before they were widely known enough to be banned is irrelevant. The drugs were unknown, then they were discovered, then they were banned. You're being pedantic again. I think that if I took you to see the CN Tower in Toronto you would say, "Hey! Speaking of height!" and then proceed to measure the height of the grass at its base and declare a violation of municipal lawn-mowing bylaws. You continue to ignore the central thesis of my argument and dance around it attacking irrelevant details. Illicit drugs should be illicit because they ruin communities. Do you dispute this? Do you think Trump disagrees with me? Now you want to set up another straw man with alcohol. I already agreed that alcohol is bad, even worse than some of the illicit drugs, but that genie is already out of the bottle. I'm seriously getting tired of going in circles with you on this. I live my life just like Trump in this area... I never touch alcohol and I encourage my daughter to follow my example. Sure Trump dislikes alcohol, but he also dislikes illicit drugs... believe me. He and I align over the weed issue and his comments regarding communities like Maine that have been devastated by heroin, and his support of that state's governor Paul LePage in his efforts to fix this problem show that Trump agrees with me in this debate over the rest of the illicit drugs. Trump is not going to legalize drugs. You would fail to persuade him to do so as you have failed to persuade me. Mrs. Bill Clinton on the other hand... well maybe she's your candidate. I'm sure she'd be more than happy to get more customers for her sugar daddy Soros' methadone producers.

[Ghost Tiger]

(09-07-2016 02:22 PM)scotian Wrote:  

If relaxation of restrictions leads to higher consumption then why do teenagers in Canada (who smoke the most in the world) and the US use marijuana more often than teenagers in countries where the laws are more relaxed? http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/11/...62739.html

That doesn't refute my argument. You would have to show me how the consumption changed when laws were relaxed, if indeed they were ever very strict at all in the places mentioned. Maybe kids in Holland smoke less weed because they can go into Amsterdam and shoot heroin in their eyeballs. I don't know, but Amsterdam is not a shining example of appetite control.

Dalrymple Wrote:

Amsterdam, where access to drugs is relatively unproblematic, is among the most violent and squalid cities in Europe.

Canadian teenagers smoke a lot of weed because Canada grows so much of it and exports massive amounts of it on the black market. Weed is as Canadian as maple syrup. Like Dalrymple says, the situation is bad, but we can make it worse with bad policy decisions. You're not convincing me otherwise with your European statistics. Apples and oranges bro.

I'm not going to get into the alcohol discussion again because I think that horse is even more dead than Ill Clinton.

scotian Wrote:

As I alluded to in previous posts, I think that our drug consumption has a lot to do with our culture and I'm not so sure that the government will be able to cut down on consumption, especially of pot in Canada.

I'm not arguing for a policy change to cut down consumption, I'm arguing against a policy change that will lead to an increase in consumption.

[Gorgiass]

(09-06-2016 11:57 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

In the Beast's case, he believes that dispensaries can prevent twelve year olds from getting access to drugs, but I believe dispensaries can't control secondary sellers providing those drugs to twelve year olds.

Thing is, you've already told us that you never have and never will smoke weed, so obviously you never tried to buy it at 12 years old. Your "belief" is completely irrelevant because you lack any real world experience in the matter.

Everyone on this thread who did has told you that it was easier for them to get illegal drugs, in my case, anything up to and including heroin as a teenager than it was for them to get beer, despite beer being available at every single store in the state I grew up in and weed (and heroin!) being very much illegal. Problem with blind rhetoric is that it only works on the blind.

For the record, I only smoke a few times a year and I hate hippies as much as the next red-blooded Murican. It's tough to make a case for relaxing restrictions on harder drugs but relaxing restrictions on weed is an easy case to understand for anyone who hasn't already argued themselves into a corner.

[scotian]

Shoot heroin in their eyeballs hahaha, Ghost Tiger can you give examples of changes in policy that have lead to an increase in consumption in Canada? Did the introduction of safe injection sites in Vancouver lead to an increase in use?

[MMX2010]

Georgiass,

Quote:

Thing is, you've already told us that you never have and never will smoke weed, so obviously you never tried to buy it at 12 years old."

Actually, I've told you that I have tried it, more than once, but I'm not narcisstic enough to conclude that just because it was okay for me, then it must be okay for the entire country.

If you're so eager to promote drugs that you cannot read exactly what I wrote, then you're not going to convince people to allow you to legally have them. If anything, you'll convince them to advocate even longer sentences because of the cognitive impairment you displayed by misrepresentating what I've stated.

------

Quote:

Your "belief" is completely irrelevant because you lack any real world experience in the matter.

After you've profusely apologized for misrepresentating my position, please tell Laner that his direct personal experience with drug dealers, encapsulated in the sentence, "Street dealers don't give a fuck as long as they get paid." is irrelevant. I look forward to you lying about the irrelevance of the personal experience of a highly-respected senior RVF member.

-----

Quote:

Everyone on this thread who did has told you that it was easier for them to get illegal drugs, in my case, anything up to and including heroin as a teenager than it was for them to get beer, despite beer being available at every single store in the state I grew up in and weed (and heroin!) being very much illegal.

This is irrelevant. And you should ask me how I know you don't have any children, and have never been responsible for raising any children.

Children make it difficult for parents to discipline them and set boundaries. Weak parents respond to the difficulties of parental discipline (and the threats of being hated by their children) by refusing to parent any further. But strong parents respond to parental difficulties by weathering the storm or doubling down.

[Gorgiass]

(09-06-2016 10:52 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

I'm open to allowing weed to be decriminalized, but you have to give me an argument showing that it's in my best interest as someone who will never use it.

(09-08-2016 11:00 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Georgiass,

Quote:

Thing is, you've already told us that you never have and never will smoke weed, so obviously you never tried to buy it at 12 years old."

Actually, I've told you that I have tried it, more than once, but I'm not narcisstic enough to conclude that just because it was okay for me, then it must be okay for the entire country.

If you're so eager to promote drugs that you cannot read exactly what I wrote, then you're not going to convince people to allow you to legally have them. If anything, you'll convince them to advocate even longer sentences because of the cognitive impairment you displayed by misrepresentating what I've stated.

I'll grant you it's possible I skipped over that in one of your walls of text. Now please explain to me how one "misrepresents" the bolded statement above. "Never". Yeah.

(09-08-2016 11:00 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:

Your "belief" is completely irrelevant because you lack any real world experience in the matter.

After you've profusely apologized for misrepresentating my position, please tell Laner that his direct personal experience with drug dealers, encapsulated in the sentence, "Street dealers don't give a fuck as long as they get paid." is irrelevant. I look forward to you lying about the irrelevance of the personal experience of a highly-respected senior RVF member.

Again, I didn't misrepresent your position, you seem to think that if you state something forcefully and repeatedly enough people will believe it's true. Sadly this is the case for many people, I try not to hang around with suckers though. Nice attempt to turn this discussion into an "Us vs you" dynamic with the "Me and my boy Laner" line. I'm calling you out on it which negates the value though. Sorry bout that, fella.

I agree 100% that "Street dealers don't give a fuck as long as they get paid." That's why taking it out of the street dealer's hands and putting it into a regulated marketplace makes it less available. Trade you a bit of logic for some of that rhetoric.

(09-08-2016 11:00 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Quote:

Everyone on this thread who did has told you that it was easier for them to get illegal drugs, in my case, anything up to and including heroin as a teenager than it was for them to get beer, despite beer being available at every single store in the state I grew up in and weed (and heroin!) being very much illegal.

This is irrelevant. And you should ask me how I know you don't have any children, and have never been responsible for raising any children.

Children make it difficult for parents to discipline them and set boundaries. Weak parents respond to the difficulties of parental discipline (and the threats of being hated by their children) by refusing to parent any further. But strong parents respond to parental difficulties by weathering the storm or doubling down.

This is the crux of the issue. Do you honestly believe that this is "irrelevant?" Nothing short of astounding if this is the case, and if you in fact can't recognize this then this discussion is clearly not going to go anywhere.

[MMX2010]

Surely you know the difference between "as someone who will never use it", and "as someone who has never used it".

This is because you know the difference between the future and the past. I'm still waiting for your apology.

-----

I'll repeat myself. Weak parents cave to their children when parenting becomes difficult. Since you've never had children, nor raised children, you're surrendering to the fact that "drugs are easily attainable". In your mind, if it doesn't come easily, it isn't worth it to keep trying. Weak mindset; weak Fucking parenting.

Strong parents know they'll be wrong sometimes, but their being wrong can NEVER, and should NEVER, be used as an excuse to undermine who a man is as a father, or who a woman is as a mother. As such, you don't effectively parent by surrendering to the weakness of others, nor by debating your children while following the Queensbury rules. You effectively parent by knowing, deep down, Who You Are and Why You Are. And you stick with this, whether you're right or wrong about any specific issue.

[MMX2010]

Quote:


I agree 100% that "Street dealers don't give a fuck as long as they get paid." That's why taking it out of the street dealer's hands and putting it into a regulated marketplace makes it less available.

As someone who follows the Trump campaign on RVF, you're quite familiar with WHO says, "Trump is a bigot fit campaigning against illegal immigration, when the number of illegal immigrants has been shrinking."

You may not, however, be familiar with the cuck-revealing, cuck-silencing counter-arguement, "But has it shrunk to ZERO, and, if not, can you explain why you care more about foreigners than your own citizens?"

[Ghost Tiger]

(09-08-2016 07:57 AM)scotian Wrote:  

Shoot heroin in their eyeballs hahaha, Ghost Tiger can you give examples of changes in policy that have lead to an increase in consumption in Canada? Did the introduction of safe injection sites in Vancouver lead to an increase in use?

Don't get me started on Insite. I fought that war HARD on the comment boards of Canadian news sites years ago and shoveled up tons of research that showed it was a bad idea, I'm not revisiting that headache. I was an internet shitlord over this issue before being an internet shitlord was cool. But the best thing I remember about that time was it was one of the few times that the Conservative Party of Canada made me proud to have voted for it when Tony Clement pulled a Trump and opposed the damn thing despite massive pressure from the Soros-funded lobby groups. Clement and Harper and the CPC lost that battle and it's sad. Soros won that battle. But the ugly fucker is losing the war come November.

If you are genuinely interested in studies that show that Insite was a bad idea, Margaret Wente of the Globe and Mail did some great writing on the subject, although the articles are old and may be behind a paywall now. One of the big lies about Insite is that the "supervised injection" services help cut down on the addicts shooting up in out the street. This doesn't happen. The addicts frequently shoot up at Insite, and then go out and shoot up somewhere else in scenarios with far less "harm reduction" measures. You see, that's what Insite promotes as its contribution to society... "harm reduction". Not "drug use reduction". Note the key difference. I argued directly with a doctor from Insite on a comment board back in the day and got him to admit that this is indeed the case (I also triggered him.. it was glorious!). Insite sets the bar incredibly low for itself in terms of effective impact. As long as Insite reduces the harm to the addict WHILE HE IS SHOOTING UP AT INSITE, then the Insite bureaucrats happily collect their pay and benefits and believe themselves to all to be modern day Florence fucking Nightingales. Oh the addicts still shoot up outside of Insite? "That's not our issue" say the Insite nightingales.

So the challenge is not for me to show you that Insite led to an increase in drug consumption in the DownTown East Side (DTES) of Vancouver my friend. It may not have been possible to increase it. You can't add contaminant to a saturated solution, eh? The challenge, rather, is for you and all the bloodsucking parasites at Insite to show me that this disgusting waste of tax money REDUCED drug consumption in any way, shape, or form. But you can't. Because they don't even ALLOW studies on these stats. If you bring up the issue, they tell you that Insite is focused on harm reduction and then proceed to give you the garbage libertarian arguments about addicts' freedom of choice... the same arguments Dalrymple destroyed in the article I posted above.

Insite isn't interested in reducing drug consumption. They are part of what Dalrymple calls The Addiction Bureaucracy. Their pay and benefits and their very identity depend on a steady supply of addicts. Those people are the scum of the earth. They're vultures feeding off the "living dead" corpses of people that they helped to kill.

EDIT: Great posts about parenting MMX2010. As a dad I endorse your message 100%. Great work bro. If I could rep you again I would.

[Gorgiass]

(09-08-2016 11:59 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Surely you know the difference between "as someone who will never use it", and "as someone who has never used it".

This is because you know the difference between the future and the past. I'm still waiting for your apology.

You're out at a bar, bullshitting with some dude while waiting for the talent to show up and get an off vibe. "Yea, I'm looking forward to seeing some girls show up though. You're straight, right?"

Response A: "Oh hell yeah man. I'll (that's I will, contracted for authenticity) never let a guy near these family jewels!"

Response B: "Oh hell yeah man. I'll never let a guy near these family jewels again!"

Oh what a difference one word can make. You better get a 6 pack, you're gonna be waiting there for a while.

(09-08-2016 12:16 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

You may not, however, be familiar with the cuck-revealing, cuck-silencing counter-arguement, "But has it shrunk to ZERO, and, if not, can you explain why you care more about foreigners than your own citizens?"

This is an absurd argument and another unrealistic goal. I'm not interested in seeing it shrink to zero at any cost just as I'm not interested in saving three children from smoking a joint at 12 by executing anyone caught with a single MJ seed. There are costs to be balanced in every situation. Shades of grey, not black and white. Logical discussions, not rhetoric. In this instance yes, my right as an adult to engage in behavior a few times a year which harms only myself, if anyone, supersedes your right to have your children go through life in bubble wrap.

Your children would statistically be far safer if we lowered every speed limit to 15 MPH and enforced by governors on every vehicle on the road. Do you find this acceptable? No? Why do you care more about being able to speed than the very lives of your own children?