Welcome to Gaia! ::

Y a m i - D h a m p i r's avatar

Witty Genius

I probably shouldn't have posted here. I never checked the date of the last post from the original poster. =.=

Sorry. Sometimes I don't think before I post.

Next time I'll most likely just not post anyway.
Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

Am I needed in here? Or do we pretty much got this covered?
Y a m i - D h a m p i r's avatar

Witty Genius

I highly disagree with this.

Drug abuse and addiction, coming from a student who just took a class on Perspective of Drugs and Society, is a disease, or a disorder. There are so many factors that play into drug abuse that you wouldn't even understand.

I thought I would ask you a question, before I get to proving my point here. Do you drink coffee or soda? Do you eat chocolate? I would love to know the answer to this, because it's only going to help me prove my point.
Drugs are a very personal thing. Illegal or not, it all depends on who is using them. If an addict is an addict, something caused them to be that way. Not everyone is strong enough to get out. It doesn't mean their life is worthless and they should die. It just serves as an important lesson that we all need to be careful about how we influence other people's lives.
Desperately_Wanting
Mana-Tree
Desperately_Wanting
u straightedge?

You give him too much credit with this question. The revealing nature of the OP's attitude lies in his refusal to address the exclusion of all drugs other than illegal ones, despite the variable status of which drugs are illegal and indeed the extent of illegality by which such drugs are described - it is a perspective that has less to do with vice than it does to the condition of legislation, which can only be surmised to be the supreme element in his estimation, as he refuses to address the abuse of legal drugs, which also negatively effect an enormous audience of users. He falls squarely into the position of alignment that Florence King describes as "misanthropy of the naked intellect," specifically pertaining to this passage by Anatole France:

"When you want to make men good and wise, free, moderate, generous, you are led inevitably to the desire of killing them all."

The problem with the OP is that either he is not aware of what he is, or he is simply too much of a coward to call a spade a spade.
Damn. I asked a simple question and not only did I get one hell of a laugh, but I have yet to get a straight answer. But I sure hope you felt real special typing that up for me, kiddo.

You have no idea.
Desperately_Wanting's avatar

Aged Gaian

7,550 Points
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Millionaire 200
  • Mark Twain 100
Mana-Tree
Desperately_Wanting
u straightedge?

You give him too much credit with this question. The revealing nature of the OP's attitude lies in his refusal to address the exclusion of all drugs other than illegal ones, despite the variable status of which drugs are illegal and indeed the extent of illegality by which such drugs are described - it is a perspective that has less to do with vice than it does to the condition of legislation, which can only be surmised to be the supreme element in his estimation, as he refuses to address the abuse of legal drugs, which also negatively effect an enormous audience of users. He falls squarely into the position of alignment that Florence King describes as "misanthropy of the naked intellect," specifically pertaining to this passage by Anatole France:

"When you want to make men good and wise, free, moderate, generous, you are led inevitably to the desire of killing them all."

The problem with the OP is that either he is not aware of what he is, or he is simply too much of a coward to call a spade a spade.
Damn. I asked a simple question and not only did I get one hell of a laugh, but I have yet to get a straight answer. But I sure hope you felt real special typing that up for me, kiddo.
Desperately_Wanting
u straightedge?

You give him too much credit with this question. The revealing nature of the OP's attitude lies in his refusal to address the exclusion of all drugs other than illegal ones, despite the variable status of which drugs are illegal and indeed the extent of illegality by which such drugs are described - it is a perspective that has less to do with vice than it does to the condition of legislation, which can only be surmised to be the supreme element in his estimation, as he refuses to address the abuse of legal drugs, which also negatively effect an enormous audience of users. He falls squarely into the position of alignment that Florence King describes as "misanthropy of the naked intellect," specifically pertaining to this passage by Anatole France:

"When you want to make men good and wise, free, moderate, generous, you are led inevitably to the desire of killing them all."

The problem with the OP is that either he is not aware of what he is, or he is simply too much of a coward to call a spade a spade.
Mahrahia's avatar

8,150 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Brandisher 100
OP, for a second I was going to reply without reading your post. I know better now.

While you do raise a good point, there are probably thousands of families who wouldn't dream of executing their dear mother/father/son/daughter/brother/sister/grandparent/cousin/uncle/aunt/etc just because they do those types of drugs. They probably still have hope that someday they will quit and return to their lifestyle before drugs. I agree that the people that are on drugs do influence people who look up to them but if the drug users were killed in cold blood, wouldn't the families of theirs want some sort of revenge? Wouldn't it inspire more bloodshed?

What I would do is have the personnel lock up everyone in the penitentiary at night, refuse to open the cells and then evacuate. Then have a giant containment unit spread on them like a house undergoing extermination of pests. Then pump that area with chlorine gas. This would effectively kill everyone in the containment unit and then we could just dump the bodies somewhere. Cruel? Yes. It would solve the space problem, though.
RestrictMania
TheSilverNoble
RestrictMania
TheSilverNoble
RestrictMania
TheSilverNoble


You're not proving what you think you are.

The main reason drug violence is so high is because it is illegal. You don't see the same sort of violence associated with the alcohol industry. It is not illegal because of the extreme violence associated. It's rather the reverse.


Your post suggests to me that you ignorantly refuse to understand the effects of the drug industry.

Many cults such as the RUF was able to fund their "man-killing" operations because of the fundings from the drugs they produced. rolleyes


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_University_Fellowship

I didn't see anything that said they've been killing people. I think you're making stuff up.


Omg... I hope you are kidding. rolleyes

Otherwise you must be blissfully ignorant biggrin

RUF is this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_United_Front

--
Lol, but your post suggests to me that you have possibly did it on purpose as you have no more facts to prove your points.

smile


I don't think they exist.


Wow, I gave you the facts behind drug and crime. I gave you the Wikipedia page to prove the fact.

You tell me "I don't think they exist". That is your best argument? Not only is it just a mere opinion, your post suggests how wonderfully naive you are.

I can't believe I wasted my time trying to enlighten your narrow mind. rolleyes
Crime correlates to a lot of things. During Prohibition, alcohol (which is essentially a drug, just a very popular one) correlated to crime severely. The substance was simply in such high demand that people were willing to kill over it. Violent crime and alcohol, however, does not correlate anywhere near as much as it did when Prohibition was still in effect.

Fancy that.

Perhaps the reason for the correlation between recreational drugs and violent crime comes from t heir proscription?
XcoldhandsX's avatar

6,650 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Invisibility 100
This troll won the battle and the war.
You are all idiots.
/thread
Desperately_Wanting's avatar

Aged Gaian

7,550 Points
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Millionaire 200
  • Mark Twain 100
u straightedge?
RestrictMania's avatar

8,400 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Invisibility 100
  • Gender Swap 100
TheSilverNoble
RestrictMania
TheSilverNoble
RestrictMania
TheSilverNoble


You're not proving what you think you are.

The main reason drug violence is so high is because it is illegal. You don't see the same sort of violence associated with the alcohol industry. It is not illegal because of the extreme violence associated. It's rather the reverse.


Your post suggests to me that you ignorantly refuse to understand the effects of the drug industry.

Many cults such as the RUF was able to fund their "man-killing" operations because of the fundings from the drugs they produced. rolleyes


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_University_Fellowship

I didn't see anything that said they've been killing people. I think you're making stuff up.


Omg... I hope you are kidding. rolleyes

Otherwise you must be blissfully ignorant biggrin

RUF is this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_United_Front

--
Lol, but your post suggests to me that you have possibly did it on purpose as you have no more facts to prove your points.

smile


I don't think they exist.


Wow, I gave you the facts behind drug and crime. I gave you the Wikipedia page to prove the fact.

You tell me "I don't think they exist". That is your best argument? Not only is it just a mere opinion, your post suggests how wonderfully naive you are.

I can't believe I wasted my time trying to enlighten your narrow mind. rolleyes
; u;
no way man


evil
AndyFrench said everything that needed saying back on page 12, but whatever.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.
The legality of drugs is variable and differs with the public's estimation of their usefulness and the amount of education amassed by the judiciary to understand their benefits/detriments. Not a few currently-illegal drugs have seen legality in the past century (pic related) - indeed, not a few drugs made illegal for recreational use remain legal to use in the medical field. So I have to ask, particularly in the light of so many legal drugs being used recreationally to excess: What is the difference, other than the potential for legal punishment? Why bother making concessions for legally-obtainable drugs when they can also be abused?
Gunsmith asked the obvious question about alcohol, which is by far the most notoriously damaging mood/mind-altering drug, and it is legal. After looking through the thread, I've noticed that you never addressed her question. Why is that? Why are illegal drugs the particular exclusion?

RestrictMania
What are the results? Crime rates flying, and even drug OD rates are increasing exponentially too. ... I gave facts and figures, and I gave my opinion backed with evidence.

This might surprise you, but crime is actually dropping. Care to revise?

And don't be afraid to answer these questions; being that they are questions rather than assertions, there is no need for you to fear or mention their context or "extrapolation". I love how often you've used that word in particular in this thread, though - it strikes me that you learned it in the past week and are making a point to (over)use it.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games