Why all drugs should be legalized, and PRODUCED.

[King Seth]

Riviera de la Mancha

King Seth

Riviera de la Mancha

The Unknown Writer

You're allowed guns in America but you're not allowed drugs.

Because drugs don't harm you, they harm others.

Seems legit.

You are actually only in limited cases allowed either- drugs and guns are both very regulated.

Sorry but last time I checked there wasn't a propaganda campaign directed at making the people who use guns look like they are a lower class of people.

Check again then champ- the Brady Campaign, as much as I like some of their legislation, uses alot of anti-gun ownership legislation. And you come to a state like CA where I live and you will not be for want of gals and gents willing to trade in some 'Stupid gun-totting red-neck' jokes.

There is definitely an anti-gun and gun owner sentiment, not that that even has any relevance to my points.

I didn't say anti-drug sentiment. I said anti drug propaganda. There is a large difference.

Your original point was about regulation right? How there's regulation for both. Bullshit, there's gun regulation, there's prescription medicine regulation and then there is drug legislation. An entire sector of entertainment and religious items declared illegal and immoral by an authoritarian body.

Big difference.

[redroosters]

~Melesha~

;;On a side note: why do a lot of meth heads act like the stereotype? Never have I once picked at my skin, neglected my dental hygiene, stolen from someone, or lost myself to meth. I have done ALL of the above, and more from heroin. This is why after I smacked smack in the ground, I've never wanted to go back. Quite frankly, I hated heroin from the start, the high to me is SO unpleasant, and I could never bang it and smoke weed or cigarettes, I'd throw up my guts.But, regardless of me hating the high, once I got sick, every amount of me tried to stay away, every day I'd wake up and say "Okay, deal with the sickness for today, you can do it." Yeah, and I'd pass out face first in the shower, and have seizures if I did that.

I'm curious, why the ******** do people do this s**t in the first place? Firstly, you have to stab yourself with a ******** needle to get it up inside you. Who the ******** is willing to do that who's not already hooked on the stuff, I ask you?

[Riviera de la Mancha]

King Seth

Riviera de la Mancha

King Seth

Riviera de la Mancha

The Unknown Writer

You're allowed guns in America but you're not allowed drugs.

Because drugs don't harm you, they harm others.

Seems legit.

You are actually only in limited cases allowed either- drugs and guns are both very regulated.

Sorry but last time I checked there wasn't a propaganda campaign directed at making the people who use guns look like they are a lower class of people.

Check again then champ- the Brady Campaign, as much as I like some of their legislation, uses alot of anti-gun ownership legislation. And you come to a state like CA where I live and you will not be for want of gals and gents willing to trade in some 'Stupid gun-totting red-neck' jokes.

There is definitely an anti-gun and gun owner sentiment, not that that even has any relevance to my points.

I didn't say anti-drug sentiment. I said anti drug propaganda. There is a large difference.

Your original point was about regulation right? How there's regulation for both. Bullshit, there's gun regulation, there's prescription medicine regulation and then there is drug legislation. An entire sector of entertainment and religious items declared illegal and immoral by an authoritarian body.

Big difference.

And I am talking about propaganda as well.

Ah, I see your problem... you didnt read the comment I posted to. Here is what the poster said, "You're allowed guns in America but you're not allowed drugs.". I am saying that that statement is false; your ability to own guns is very regulated, and you are allowed drugs so long as they meet those set of regulations.

To say that there are rules governing illegal drugs is pointless. Its illegal, so of course its going to have rules over it. "Authoritarian"? Please. Dude, go live under a true authoritarianism regime like Russia or North Korea. I get that you dont dig the man harshing your mellow, but dont go drama queen with bananas claims.

[King Seth]

Riviera de la Mancha

King Seth

Riviera de la Mancha

King Seth

Riviera de la Mancha

The Unknown Writer

You're allowed guns in America but you're not allowed drugs.

Because drugs don't harm you, they harm others.

Seems legit.

You are actually only in limited cases allowed either- drugs and guns are both very regulated.

Sorry but last time I checked there wasn't a propaganda campaign directed at making the people who use guns look like they are a lower class of people.

Check again then champ- the Brady Campaign, as much as I like some of their legislation, uses alot of anti-gun ownership legislation. And you come to a state like CA where I live and you will not be for want of gals and gents willing to trade in some 'Stupid gun-totting red-neck' jokes.

There is definitely an anti-gun and gun owner sentiment, not that that even has any relevance to my points.

I didn't say anti-drug sentiment. I said anti drug propaganda. There is a large difference.

Your original point was about regulation right? How there's regulation for both. Bullshit, there's gun regulation, there's prescription medicine regulation and then there is drug legislation. An entire sector of entertainment and religious items declared illegal and immoral by an authoritarian body.

Big difference.

And I am talking about propaganda as well.

Ah, I see your problem... you didnt read the comment I posted to. Here is what the poster said, "You're allowed guns in America but you're not allowed drugs.". I am saying that that statement is false; your ability to own guns is very regulated, and you are allowed drugs so long as they meet those set of regulations.

To say that there are rules governing illegal drugs is pointless. Its illegal, so of course its going to have rules over it. "Authoritarian"? Please. Dude, go live under a true authoritarianism regime like Russia or North Korea. I get that you dont dig the man harshing your mellow, but dont go drama queen with bananas claims.

American government is authoritarian, I mean, it isn't as bad as North Korea in some ways, but in others (specifically global influence) it's far worse.

But gun ownership is not "very" regulated, it's far easier to get a gun compared to a drivers licence. (provided you aren't a felon or a crazy). (s**t look up getting a gun in Texas, if you aren't horrified, you should be.)

As far as I can see the regulations over alcohol are slightly less prohibitive than say magic mushrooms. Which makes no sense.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

King Seth

Riviera de la Mancha

King Seth

Riviera de la Mancha

King Seth

Sorry but last time I checked there wasn't a propaganda campaign directed at making the people who use guns look like they are a lower class of people.

Check again then champ- the Brady Campaign, as much as I like some of their legislation, uses alot of anti-gun ownership legislation. And you come to a state like CA where I live and you will not be for want of gals and gents willing to trade in some 'Stupid gun-totting red-neck' jokes.

There is definitely an anti-gun and gun owner sentiment, not that that even has any relevance to my points.

I didn't say anti-drug sentiment. I said anti drug propaganda. There is a large difference.

Your original point was about regulation right? How there's regulation for both. Bullshit, there's gun regulation, there's prescription medicine regulation and then there is drug legislation. An entire sector of entertainment and religious items declared illegal and immoral by an authoritarian body.

Big difference.

And I am talking about propaganda as well.

Ah, I see your problem... you didnt read the comment I posted to. Here is what the poster said, "You're allowed guns in America but you're not allowed drugs.". I am saying that that statement is false; your ability to own guns is very regulated, and you are allowed drugs so long as they meet those set of regulations.

To say that there are rules governing illegal drugs is pointless. Its illegal, so of course its going to have rules over it. "Authoritarian"? Please. Dude, go live under a true authoritarianism regime like Russia or North Korea. I get that you dont dig the man harshing your mellow, but dont go drama queen with bananas claims.

American government is authoritarian, I mean, it isn't as bad as North Korea in some ways, but in others (specifically global influence) it's far worse.

But gun ownership is not "very" regulated, it's far easier to get a gun compared to a drivers licence. (provided you aren't a felon or a crazy). (s**t look up getting a gun in Texas, if you aren't horrified, you should be.)

As far as I can see the regulations over alcohol are slightly less prohibitive than say magic mushrooms. Which makes no sense.

As I thought... you dont know what 'authoritarian' means at all. You just heard the word somewhere and thought it would be dynamite to try out one day.

Easier to get a gun than a driver's license? Are you high now?

Even in Texas, where you are practically issued one once you come out of the birth canal, you need a state issued i.d., which makes it about the same as getting a driver's license. Then, you can go to a state like CA, where you need an i.d., a waiting period, there is a background check, and you need to register your fire arm anytime you sell it or transfer it to someone. State laws vary widely on guns, while driver's licenses are fairly consistent. That you dont know this just screams about how little you know about the topic of regulation in general.

In the end, you still have not addressed my point- there are regulations for both guns and drugs. You can whine about varying ease with some, but my point is still unaddressed by you.

[redroosters]

Riviera de la Mancha

I am saying that that statement is false; your ability to own guns is very regulated, and you are allowed drugs so long as they meet those set of regulations.

To say that there are rules governing illegal drugs is pointless. Its illegal, so of course its going to have rules over it. "Authoritarian"? Please. Dude, go live under a true authoritarianism regime like Russia or North Korea. I get that you dont dig the man harshing your mellow, but dont go drama queen with bananas claims.

"Very"? No.

If you think your government isn't authoritarian, you clearly have not seen them arbitrarily exercise authority. Just because there are people who have, historically, done worse things with power doesn't mean that they won't do so here, or that they wouldn't, or that the people here aren't using their power for evil. Also, that was the cheesiest goddamn thing I've read all day. I really don't like you, man.

[Ratreoz]

Riviera de la Mancha

I saw only one argument, and its the classic stoner argument; "Like, I totally have, like, free will, so why come the government can like tell me to not smoke? Now where did my scooby snax go...".

Same reason the government can regulate drunk drivers- they present risks to the community. Tweekers and their kind present risks to the community, even when on 'pure' forms of their drugs.

How does a psilocybin user present risks to society?

[Physiqual]

redroosters

~Melesha~

;;On a side note: why do a lot of meth heads act like the stereotype? Never have I once picked at my skin, neglected my dental hygiene, stolen from someone, or lost myself to meth. I have done ALL of the above, and more from heroin. This is why after I smacked smack in the ground, I've never wanted to go back. Quite frankly, I hated heroin from the start, the high to me is SO unpleasant, and I could never bang it and smoke weed or cigarettes, I'd throw up my guts.But, regardless of me hating the high, once I got sick, every amount of me tried to stay away, every day I'd wake up and say "Okay, deal with the sickness for today, you can do it." Yeah, and I'd pass out face first in the shower, and have seizures if I did that.

I'm curious, why the ******** do people do this s**t in the first place? Firstly, you have to stab yourself with a ******** needle to get it up inside you. Who the ******** is willing to do that who's not already hooked on the stuff, I ask you?

Before I ever snorted, smoked, or popped any meth/opiate, I shot up. Ever since I can remember watching a movie and my mom telling me "to stick a needle in your arm to get high, makes you sick in the head", I wanted to, actually. wink

[Physiqual]

Riviera de la Mancha

~Melesha~

Riviera de la Mancha

I saw only one argument, and its the classic stoner argument; "Like, I totally have, like, free will, so why come the government can like tell me to not smoke? Now where did my scooby snax go...".

Same reason the government can regulate drunk drivers- they present risks to the community. Tweekers and their kind present risks to the community, even when on 'pure' forms of their drugs.

That's quite a lopsided view. How is obesity, or sex not a risk to communities? We don't outlaw sugar, condoms, birth contraception, or anything else.

Quite frankly, there should be no reason why basic natural poisons are completely legal, yet something that gets you high is. And realize that the stereotypes of tweakers, were invented because of Americans being forced to use such strong chemicals, which in turn are the reasons for most effects. Drunks aren't a concern for communities? I can certainly do a lot more to harm people when I'm drunk, than tweaked. lol

Yeah Shaggy- the day you can prove to me that the average fat man is like to go on a rampage like a dude on PCP or that the guy who gets strange on the regular is as likely to wreck a car as a guy behind the wheel on a crack high, then I will take you seriously.

And pro-tip there cheech- medicines, especially prescription drugs, are heavily regulated.

Are you high now? Drunks are a huge concern. Where do you get the idea that they are not?

Since when did I condone driving under any substances?

[Riviera de la Mancha]

redroosters

Riviera de la Mancha

I am saying that that statement is false; your ability to own guns is very regulated, and you are allowed drugs so long as they meet those set of regulations.

To say that there are rules governing illegal drugs is pointless. Its illegal, so of course its going to have rules over it. "Authoritarian"? Please. Dude, go live under a true authoritarianism regime like Russia or North Korea. I get that you dont dig the man harshing your mellow, but dont go drama queen with bananas claims.

"Very"? No.

If you think your government isn't authoritarian, you clearly have not seen them arbitrarily exercise authority. Just because there are people who have, historically, done worse things with power doesn't mean that they won't do so here, or that they wouldn't, or that the people here aren't using their power for evil. Also, that was the cheesiest goddamn thing I've read all day. I really don't like you, man.

I work in government, so I have likely seen more uses of force than you have, so check your self right there. The problem is that, unlike alot of people here, I have gotten to know people from all over the world, from Russia, North and South Korea, a number of places in Africa too. So, when it comes to "authoritarian" or "arbitrary", my scale for these terms is alot more worldly than most.

Good news- I dont like people who dislike people without getting to know them. High five!

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Ratreoz

Riviera de la Mancha

I saw only one argument, and its the classic stoner argument; "Like, I totally have, like, free will, so why come the government can like tell me to not smoke? Now where did my scooby snax go...".

Same reason the government can regulate drunk drivers- they present risks to the community. Tweekers and their kind present risks to the community, even when on 'pure' forms of their drugs.

How does a psilocybin user present risks to society?

Depends on what form we are talking here. You talkin shrooms or LSD?

As stupid as shroom use is personally, I can get that its not the worst in the world and can see expanding its uses to even work as a kind of medicine, which would take it off of the Title 1 list of drugs. Its not the possibility for negative emotional states in people if used in high does, and that is certainly problematic, but I would be willing to at least entertain the idea of legalizing them.

LSD? No way- last thing we need is a bunch of risky sex going about and all the problems that entails.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

~Melesha~

Riviera de la Mancha

~Melesha~

Riviera de la Mancha

I saw only one argument, and its the classic stoner argument; "Like, I totally have, like, free will, so why come the government can like tell me to not smoke? Now where did my scooby snax go...".

Same reason the government can regulate drunk drivers- they present risks to the community. Tweekers and their kind present risks to the community, even when on 'pure' forms of their drugs.

That's quite a lopsided view. How is obesity, or sex not a risk to communities? We don't outlaw sugar, condoms, birth contraception, or anything else.

Quite frankly, there should be no reason why basic natural poisons are completely legal, yet something that gets you high is. And realize that the stereotypes of tweakers, were invented because of Americans being forced to use such strong chemicals, which in turn are the reasons for most effects. Drunks aren't a concern for communities? I can certainly do a lot more to harm people when I'm drunk, than tweaked. lol

Yeah Shaggy- the day you can prove to me that the average fat man is like to go on a rampage like a dude on PCP or that the guy who gets strange on the regular is as likely to wreck a car as a guy behind the wheel on a crack high, then I will take you seriously.

And pro-tip there cheech- medicines, especially prescription drugs, are heavily regulated.

Are you high now? Drunks are a huge concern. Where do you get the idea that they are not?

Since when did I condone driving under any substances?

You didnt. I never claimed you did.

I bring that up because for every hippie out there who is all, "But like, dude, I like, totally use responsibly!" there is at least two other rubes who dont and think its okay to get behind the wheel of a car high or some other equally stupid thing. Hell, we are still having issues with drunk driving and how many of us have had it beaten into us that that is not kosher? We cant even keep drinking as controlled as we should, so I cant support tossing in more substances whole sale into the mix of legal drugs people will use irresponsibly and increase property damage and deaths in the process.

As I expressed to another poster, I can see conversations on some stuff, like weed and some shrooms for instance, but I will never ever be sold on the idea that we ought to legalize PCP and the like. I have had to twice deal with people on PCP in my neighborhood, and I wont support legalizing that or any other hard drug.

[Ratreoz]

Riviera de la Mancha

Ratreoz

Riviera de la Mancha

I saw only one argument, and its the classic stoner argument; "Like, I totally have, like, free will, so why come the government can like tell me to not smoke? Now where did my scooby snax go...".

Same reason the government can regulate drunk drivers- they present risks to the community. Tweekers and their kind present risks to the community, even when on 'pure' forms of their drugs.

How does a psilocybin user present risks to society?

Depends on what form we are talking here. You talkin shrooms or LSD?

LSD is not psilocybin, so the former, though I'd be willing to argue the case for both.

Quote:

As stupid as shroom use is personally, I can get that its not the worst in the world and can see expanding its uses to even work as a kind of medicine, which would take it off of the Title 1 list of drugs. Its not the possibility for negative emotional states in people if used in high does, and that is certainly problematic, but I would be willing to at least entertain the idea of legalizing them.

How is it stupid?

Note: Your approach is a** backwards. The default position should be legalisation.

Quote:

LCD? No way- last thing we need is a bunch of risky sex going about and all the problems that entails.

... What?!
I assume you meant to write "LSD". In that case I will point out that the effects of psilocybin and LSD are nearly identical and neither lead to risky sex, but even if you weren't hilariously mistaken you would have to favour the prohibition of alcohol as well to be consistent.

[Kilomech]

~Melesha~

* The government already produces both meth and heroin, and probably tons of other unheard drugs, on a daily basis. Morphine, and other opiates, are proof of that, and the amountless ADD/ADHD meds are proof of meth/amphetamine production. You can actually be prescribed FULLY legal methamphetamine for narcolepsy. It is marketed under Desoxyn.

Very true. While things like Aderall, Vyvance and Ritilin aren't quite as strong as straight meth, they ARE still amphetamines.

~Melesha~

* There are WAY too many myths and legends that sprouted from the 90s to now, because the recent drug epidemic started in the early 90s. While meth may have been produced by battery acid, rat poison (myth), and many other hostile chemicals, the government can synthesize it without the need of ANY of those chemicals, so why force Americans to use them? Meth aside, street heroin is just as much of a victim, unknowingly to most people, to have harsh chemicals added in.

I agree completely. Legal production means there will be safety regulations and that dosages will be clearly labelled. Hell, even just having the government tell us the truth about the side effects of illegal drugs would save thousands of lives.

~Melesha~

;;On a side note: why do a lot of meth heads act like the stereotype? Never have I once picked at my skin, neglected my dental hygiene, stolen from someone, or lost myself to meth. I have done ALL of the above, and more from heroin. This is why after I smacked smack in the ground, I've never wanted to go back. Quite frankly, I hated heroin from the start, the high to me is SO unpleasant, and I could never bang it and smoke weed or cigarettes, I'd throw up my guts.But, regardless of me hating the high, once I got sick, every amount of me tried to stay away, every day I'd wake up and say "Okay, deal with the sickness for today, you can do it." Yeah, and I'd pass out face first in the shower, and have seizures if I did that.

Meth makes you tweak out. Some people tweak out on different things than others. Myself? I clean. Like a mad-woman. I just need something to do otherwise I get antsy. Sometimes I also play online MMOs for hours on end but honestly? That feels like of like a waste of time. I've never tried heroin, though. If I did try it, I certainly wouldn't inject it. On a side note, I'm going through withdrawals right now and my moods are jumpy. :/

[LadyVeng3ance x]

~Melesha~

* We were born into a world where we're blessed to have free will. I don't understand why a MAN MADE system can tell me what I can and cannot ingest. Nor, do I understand why one man can "own" a part of mother nature, or land. We don't try to OWN time, so why do we seem to want to e

This made your whole post invalid.

Seriously? Its because of our free will we need laws. If we didnt have them, we would be like animals. Killing each other, raping each other, beating each other up.
What you are saying makes no sense, i see drug addicts all the time, they are ******** up, their lives are ruined. Why the hell would any government allow that to happen?

You must have taken too much acid while watching the new justin timberlake movie about time.
We take land because we can, we cannot control time, and its not as if they have not tried. You have to work to live, time spent. You can get surgery, pills etc etc, years taken back. At least we think we get it back.