nanook 1 #51 November 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't have a problem with the law. It just seems to bother the self-centered dope-heads who have to have their daily fix. They're the one's with the problem! Chuck There's another way to stop the "War on Drugs". The dopeheads actually stop using the stuff. Imagine how much that will decrease the violence, lower costs associated to fighting it and clean up some communities if there's a considerable drop in demand. . . Naah, the recreational users would never do that. Easier to push a "solution" that benefits them. and if only people would stop having sex outside of marriage - or getting drunk, or gambling, or taking up risky sports... We have a "War on infidelity, inebriation, poker and skydiving"? Although, just like recreational users, some of these activities can bring its drama onto other peoples' lives who don't want it. by your logic they should be illegal too. then we can start a 'war' on them... By your logic, drugs should be legal. Continue to cause hurt and discontent, even death to others so you can "express your liberties" (get high). Very selfish. Mexico is decriminalized. Their issues got worse. Didn't work there. that's because mexico has a long land border with a country that is a huge importer of illegal drugs. mexico will be better off when that country gets the balls to change their racist founded 'drug' laws and not whine about what others do... Now you are getting it. We are harming other people by being selfish. No one use drugs, no demand. No war on drugs. No drug violence. No addictions. We can change laws(won't decrease harm) or cause laws to be obsolete. Of course neither will ever happen. One's extrememly risky and the other, you can count on douchbags to be self-serving. This is evidence that "legalize" arguments are naive and/or self-serving. They have the gall to say it's the "laws" that cause it and completely ignore personal ongoing behaviors that continue to validate these laws in place, irrelevant of the racist origins. so we've all got to stop drinking because you say so. you'd have thought that you'd have learned from that failed experiment on turning back the tide of human nature. but obviously not. there are still 'absolutists' who believe that the future of people is forever and forever without drugs - dream on laddie. hundreds of thousands of years of human history tell us otherwise... ?? Drinking is legal. Certain behaviors associated with drinking is illegal. We're talking about War on Drugs here. Focus. . . You missing what I am trying to say here when i said: ". . .We can change laws(won't decrease harm) or cause laws to be obsolete. Of course neither will ever happen. . .". I've already been telling you it's impossible. Again, the whole "everyone should stop doing drugs and the war will end" statement is just a point that exposes drug users self-serving attitude._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #52 November 20, 2011 Quotethis guy should know... QuoteUnder Calderón, Mexican forces have made even more arrests, bigger seizures and record extraditions — winning praise and $1.4 billion in support from the U.S. But each kingpin who goes down only appears to provoke more bloodshed, as lieutenants war with one another to take over turfs. In total, there have been more than 30,000 drug-related killings in the four years since Calderón took office, compared with some 7,000 in the last four years of Fox's tenure. Such relentless murder, Fox argues, shows that the drug war cannot be won through strength of arms. "I believe that violence against violence doesn't work. It only unleashes more violence and a conflict of the size we have in Mexico," Fox says. "And it is not only in people's income, in investment, but also in the collective psychology. There is fear in the country. And when you have an environment where there is no harmony, no peace and tranquility, then no human being can make the best of themselves." http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2040882,00.html[/repl That's his opinion. Everyone has one of those. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #53 November 20, 2011 You know, I'm about tired of your twisting words just for the sake of arguing. Your arrogant, condescending attitude doesn't help your case, either. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #54 November 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't have a problem with the law. It just seems to bother the self-centered dope-heads who have to have their daily fix. They're the one's with the problem! Chuck There's another way to stop the "War on Drugs". The dopeheads actually stop using the stuff. Imagine how much that will decrease the violence, lower costs associated to fighting it and clean up some communities if there's a considerable drop in demand. . . Naah, the recreational users would never do that. Easier to push a "solution" that benefits them. and if only people would stop having sex outside of marriage - or getting drunk, or gambling, or taking up risky sports... We have a "War on infidelity, inebriation, poker and skydiving"? Although, just like recreational users, some of these activities can bring its drama onto other peoples' lives who don't want it. by your logic they should be illegal too. then we can start a 'war' on them... By your logic, drugs should be legal. Continue to cause hurt and discontent, even death to others so you can "express your liberties" (get high). Very selfish. Mexico is decriminalized. Their issues got worse. Didn't work there. that's because mexico has a long land border with a country that is a huge importer of illegal drugs. mexico will be better off when that country gets the balls to change their racist founded 'drug' laws and not whine about what others do... Now you are getting it. We are harming other people by being selfish. No one use drugs, no demand. No war on drugs. No drug violence. No addictions. We can change laws(won't decrease harm) or cause laws to be obsolete. Of course neither will ever happen. One's extrememly risky and the other, you can count on douchbags to be self-serving. This is evidence that "legalize" arguments are naive and/or self-serving. They have the gall to say it's the "laws" that cause it and completely ignore personal ongoing behaviors that continue to validate these laws in place, irrelevant of the racist origins. so we've all got to stop drinking because you say so. you'd have thought that you'd have learned from that failed experiment on turning back the tide of human nature. but obviously not. there are still 'absolutists' who believe that the future of people is forever and forever without drugs - dream on laddie. hundreds of thousands of years of human history tell us otherwise... ?? Drinking is legal. Certain behaviors associated with drinking is illegal. We're talking about War on Drugs here. Focus. . . You missing what I am trying to say here when i said: ". . .We can change laws(won't decrease harm) or cause laws to be obsolete. Of course neither will ever happen. . .". I've already been telling you it's impossible. Again, the whole "everyone should stop doing drugs and the war will end" statement is just a point that exposes drug users self-serving attitude. alcohol is a drug and so should be illegal by your definition. thinking that people are going to stop using drugs because another group of people (for racist reasons) say they can't is a denial of human reality. you might as well ask everyone to stop having sex - ain't gonna happen - ever.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #55 November 20, 2011 QuoteQuotethis guy should know... QuoteUnder Calderón, Mexican forces have made even more arrests, bigger seizures and record extraditions — winning praise and $1.4 billion in support from the U.S. But each kingpin who goes down only appears to provoke more bloodshed, as lieutenants war with one another to take over turfs. In total, there have been more than 30,000 drug-related killings in the four years since Calderón took office, compared with some 7,000 in the last four years of Fox's tenure. Such relentless murder, Fox argues, shows that the drug war cannot be won through strength of arms. "I believe that violence against violence doesn't work. It only unleashes more violence and a conflict of the size we have in Mexico," Fox says. "And it is not only in people's income, in investment, but also in the collective psychology. There is fear in the country. And when you have an environment where there is no harmony, no peace and tranquility, then no human being can make the best of themselves." http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2040882,00.html[/repl That's his opinion. Everyone has one of those. Chuck and some are worth more than others...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #56 November 20, 2011 QuoteYou know, I'm about tired of your twisting words just for the sake of arguing. Your arrogant, condescending attitude doesn't help your case, either. Chuck you take a good, long look in that mirror there cowboy...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #57 November 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't have a problem with the law. It just seems to bother the self-centered dope-heads who have to have their daily fix. They're the one's with the problem! Chuck There's another way to stop the "War on Drugs". The dopeheads actually stop using the stuff. Imagine how much that will decrease the violence, lower costs associated to fighting it and clean up some communities if there's a considerable drop in demand. . . Naah, the recreational users would never do that. Easier to push a "solution" that benefits them. and if only people would stop having sex outside of marriage - or getting drunk, or gambling, or taking up risky sports... We have a "War on infidelity, inebriation, poker and skydiving"? Although, just like recreational users, some of these activities can bring its drama onto other peoples' lives who don't want it. by your logic they should be illegal too. then we can start a 'war' on them... By your logic, drugs should be legal. Continue to cause hurt and discontent, even death to others so you can "express your liberties" (get high). Very selfish. Mexico is decriminalized. Their issues got worse. Didn't work there. that's because mexico has a long land border with a country that is a huge importer of illegal drugs. mexico will be better off when that country gets the balls to change their racist founded 'drug' laws and not whine about what others do... Now you are getting it. We are harming other people by being selfish. No one use drugs, no demand. No war on drugs. No drug violence. No addictions. We can change laws(won't decrease harm) or cause laws to be obsolete. Of course neither will ever happen. One's extrememly risky and the other, you can count on douchbags to be self-serving. This is evidence that "legalize" arguments are naive and/or self-serving. They have the gall to say it's the "laws" that cause it and completely ignore personal ongoing behaviors that continue to validate these laws in place, irrelevant of the racist origins. so we've all got to stop drinking because you say so. you'd have thought that you'd have learned from that failed experiment on turning back the tide of human nature. but obviously not. there are still 'absolutists' who believe that the future of people is forever and forever without drugs - dream on laddie. hundreds of thousands of years of human history tell us otherwise... ?? Drinking is legal. Certain behaviors associated with drinking is illegal. We're talking about War on Drugs here. Focus. . . You missing what I am trying to say here when i said: ". . .We can change laws(won't decrease harm) or cause laws to be obsolete. Of course neither will ever happen. . .". I've already been telling you it's impossible. Again, the whole "everyone should stop doing drugs and the war will end" statement is just a point that exposes drug users self-serving attitude. alcohol is a drug and so should be illegal by your definition. thinking that people are going to stop using drugs because another group of people (for racist reasons) say they can't is a denial of human reality. you might as well ask everyone to stop having sex - ain't gonna happen - ever. We've already had this commentary of human habit and reality. You are repeating both yourself and what I have already said._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #58 November 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteActually, for once he's got a point. A number of original drug laws were basically racist laws, just like a lot of the earliest gun laws. Marijuana, for those lazy Mexicans. Opium, for those no good Chinese. Saturday night specials, for the blacks. etc, etc. Marijuana, for Beatnicks and musicians! Cocaine, for wealthy whites. Saturday night specials, for white mobsters I see your point. No, you clearly don't see my point. There is clear evidence that many drug laws were racist. From wiki: QuoteThe first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug in the United States was a San Francisco ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875. The reason cited was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise." This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium. Though the laws affected the use and distribution of opium by Chinese immigrants, no action was taken against the producers of such products as laudanum, a tincture of opium and alcohol, commonly taken as a panacea by white Americans. The distinction between its use by white Americans and Chinese immigrants was thus based on the form in which it was ingested: Chinese immigrants tended to smoke it, while it was often included in various kinds of generally liquid medicines often (but not exclusively) used by people of European descent. The laws targeted opium smoking, but not other methods of ingestion.[8] As a result of this discrepancy, some modern commentators believe that these laws were possibly racist in origin and intent.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #59 November 21, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Actually, for once he's got a point. A number of original drug laws were basically racist laws, just like a lot of the earliest gun laws. Marijuana, for those lazy Mexicans. Opium, for those no good Chinese. Saturday night specials, for the blacks. etc, etc. Marijuana, for Beatnicks and musicians! Cocaine, for wealthy whites. Saturday night specials, for white mobsters I see your point. No, you clearly don't see my point. There is clear evidence that many drug laws were racist. From wiki: Quote The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug in the United States was a San Francisco ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875. The reason cited was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise." This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium. Though the laws affected the use and distribution of opium by Chinese immigrants, no action was taken against the producers of such products as laudanum, a tincture of opium and alcohol, commonly taken as a panacea by white Americans. The distinction between its use by white Americans and Chinese immigrants was thus based on the form in which it was ingested: Chinese immigrants tended to smoke it, while it was often included in various kinds of generally liquid medicines often (but not exclusively) used by people of European descent. The laws targeted opium smoking, but not other methods of ingestion.[8] As a result of this discrepancy, some modern commentators believe that these laws were possibly racist in origin and intent. O.K. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #60 November 21, 2011 QuoteMarijuana, for Beatnicks and musicians! Cocaine, for wealthy whites. Saturday night specials, for white mobsters I see your point. Chuck " . . . and only jazz musicians were smoking marijuana."" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
masterrig 1 #53 November 20, 2011 You know, I'm about tired of your twisting words just for the sake of arguing. Your arrogant, condescending attitude doesn't help your case, either. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #54 November 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't have a problem with the law. It just seems to bother the self-centered dope-heads who have to have their daily fix. They're the one's with the problem! Chuck There's another way to stop the "War on Drugs". The dopeheads actually stop using the stuff. Imagine how much that will decrease the violence, lower costs associated to fighting it and clean up some communities if there's a considerable drop in demand. . . Naah, the recreational users would never do that. Easier to push a "solution" that benefits them. and if only people would stop having sex outside of marriage - or getting drunk, or gambling, or taking up risky sports... We have a "War on infidelity, inebriation, poker and skydiving"? Although, just like recreational users, some of these activities can bring its drama onto other peoples' lives who don't want it. by your logic they should be illegal too. then we can start a 'war' on them... By your logic, drugs should be legal. Continue to cause hurt and discontent, even death to others so you can "express your liberties" (get high). Very selfish. Mexico is decriminalized. Their issues got worse. Didn't work there. that's because mexico has a long land border with a country that is a huge importer of illegal drugs. mexico will be better off when that country gets the balls to change their racist founded 'drug' laws and not whine about what others do... Now you are getting it. We are harming other people by being selfish. No one use drugs, no demand. No war on drugs. No drug violence. No addictions. We can change laws(won't decrease harm) or cause laws to be obsolete. Of course neither will ever happen. One's extrememly risky and the other, you can count on douchbags to be self-serving. This is evidence that "legalize" arguments are naive and/or self-serving. They have the gall to say it's the "laws" that cause it and completely ignore personal ongoing behaviors that continue to validate these laws in place, irrelevant of the racist origins. so we've all got to stop drinking because you say so. you'd have thought that you'd have learned from that failed experiment on turning back the tide of human nature. but obviously not. there are still 'absolutists' who believe that the future of people is forever and forever without drugs - dream on laddie. hundreds of thousands of years of human history tell us otherwise... ?? Drinking is legal. Certain behaviors associated with drinking is illegal. We're talking about War on Drugs here. Focus. . . You missing what I am trying to say here when i said: ". . .We can change laws(won't decrease harm) or cause laws to be obsolete. Of course neither will ever happen. . .". I've already been telling you it's impossible. Again, the whole "everyone should stop doing drugs and the war will end" statement is just a point that exposes drug users self-serving attitude. alcohol is a drug and so should be illegal by your definition. thinking that people are going to stop using drugs because another group of people (for racist reasons) say they can't is a denial of human reality. you might as well ask everyone to stop having sex - ain't gonna happen - ever.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #55 November 20, 2011 QuoteQuotethis guy should know... QuoteUnder Calderón, Mexican forces have made even more arrests, bigger seizures and record extraditions — winning praise and $1.4 billion in support from the U.S. But each kingpin who goes down only appears to provoke more bloodshed, as lieutenants war with one another to take over turfs. In total, there have been more than 30,000 drug-related killings in the four years since Calderón took office, compared with some 7,000 in the last four years of Fox's tenure. Such relentless murder, Fox argues, shows that the drug war cannot be won through strength of arms. "I believe that violence against violence doesn't work. It only unleashes more violence and a conflict of the size we have in Mexico," Fox says. "And it is not only in people's income, in investment, but also in the collective psychology. There is fear in the country. And when you have an environment where there is no harmony, no peace and tranquility, then no human being can make the best of themselves." http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2040882,00.html[/repl That's his opinion. Everyone has one of those. Chuck and some are worth more than others...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #56 November 20, 2011 QuoteYou know, I'm about tired of your twisting words just for the sake of arguing. Your arrogant, condescending attitude doesn't help your case, either. Chuck you take a good, long look in that mirror there cowboy...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #57 November 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't have a problem with the law. It just seems to bother the self-centered dope-heads who have to have their daily fix. They're the one's with the problem! Chuck There's another way to stop the "War on Drugs". The dopeheads actually stop using the stuff. Imagine how much that will decrease the violence, lower costs associated to fighting it and clean up some communities if there's a considerable drop in demand. . . Naah, the recreational users would never do that. Easier to push a "solution" that benefits them. and if only people would stop having sex outside of marriage - or getting drunk, or gambling, or taking up risky sports... We have a "War on infidelity, inebriation, poker and skydiving"? Although, just like recreational users, some of these activities can bring its drama onto other peoples' lives who don't want it. by your logic they should be illegal too. then we can start a 'war' on them... By your logic, drugs should be legal. Continue to cause hurt and discontent, even death to others so you can "express your liberties" (get high). Very selfish. Mexico is decriminalized. Their issues got worse. Didn't work there. that's because mexico has a long land border with a country that is a huge importer of illegal drugs. mexico will be better off when that country gets the balls to change their racist founded 'drug' laws and not whine about what others do... Now you are getting it. We are harming other people by being selfish. No one use drugs, no demand. No war on drugs. No drug violence. No addictions. We can change laws(won't decrease harm) or cause laws to be obsolete. Of course neither will ever happen. One's extrememly risky and the other, you can count on douchbags to be self-serving. This is evidence that "legalize" arguments are naive and/or self-serving. They have the gall to say it's the "laws" that cause it and completely ignore personal ongoing behaviors that continue to validate these laws in place, irrelevant of the racist origins. so we've all got to stop drinking because you say so. you'd have thought that you'd have learned from that failed experiment on turning back the tide of human nature. but obviously not. there are still 'absolutists' who believe that the future of people is forever and forever without drugs - dream on laddie. hundreds of thousands of years of human history tell us otherwise... ?? Drinking is legal. Certain behaviors associated with drinking is illegal. We're talking about War on Drugs here. Focus. . . You missing what I am trying to say here when i said: ". . .We can change laws(won't decrease harm) or cause laws to be obsolete. Of course neither will ever happen. . .". I've already been telling you it's impossible. Again, the whole "everyone should stop doing drugs and the war will end" statement is just a point that exposes drug users self-serving attitude. alcohol is a drug and so should be illegal by your definition. thinking that people are going to stop using drugs because another group of people (for racist reasons) say they can't is a denial of human reality. you might as well ask everyone to stop having sex - ain't gonna happen - ever. We've already had this commentary of human habit and reality. You are repeating both yourself and what I have already said._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #58 November 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteActually, for once he's got a point. A number of original drug laws were basically racist laws, just like a lot of the earliest gun laws. Marijuana, for those lazy Mexicans. Opium, for those no good Chinese. Saturday night specials, for the blacks. etc, etc. Marijuana, for Beatnicks and musicians! Cocaine, for wealthy whites. Saturday night specials, for white mobsters I see your point. No, you clearly don't see my point. There is clear evidence that many drug laws were racist. From wiki: QuoteThe first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug in the United States was a San Francisco ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875. The reason cited was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise." This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium. Though the laws affected the use and distribution of opium by Chinese immigrants, no action was taken against the producers of such products as laudanum, a tincture of opium and alcohol, commonly taken as a panacea by white Americans. The distinction between its use by white Americans and Chinese immigrants was thus based on the form in which it was ingested: Chinese immigrants tended to smoke it, while it was often included in various kinds of generally liquid medicines often (but not exclusively) used by people of European descent. The laws targeted opium smoking, but not other methods of ingestion.[8] As a result of this discrepancy, some modern commentators believe that these laws were possibly racist in origin and intent.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #59 November 21, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Actually, for once he's got a point. A number of original drug laws were basically racist laws, just like a lot of the earliest gun laws. Marijuana, for those lazy Mexicans. Opium, for those no good Chinese. Saturday night specials, for the blacks. etc, etc. Marijuana, for Beatnicks and musicians! Cocaine, for wealthy whites. Saturday night specials, for white mobsters I see your point. No, you clearly don't see my point. There is clear evidence that many drug laws were racist. From wiki: Quote The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug in the United States was a San Francisco ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875. The reason cited was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise." This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium. Though the laws affected the use and distribution of opium by Chinese immigrants, no action was taken against the producers of such products as laudanum, a tincture of opium and alcohol, commonly taken as a panacea by white Americans. The distinction between its use by white Americans and Chinese immigrants was thus based on the form in which it was ingested: Chinese immigrants tended to smoke it, while it was often included in various kinds of generally liquid medicines often (but not exclusively) used by people of European descent. The laws targeted opium smoking, but not other methods of ingestion.[8] As a result of this discrepancy, some modern commentators believe that these laws were possibly racist in origin and intent. O.K. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #60 November 21, 2011 QuoteMarijuana, for Beatnicks and musicians! Cocaine, for wealthy whites. Saturday night specials, for white mobsters I see your point. Chuck " . . . and only jazz musicians were smoking marijuana."" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
dreamdancer 0 #56 November 20, 2011 QuoteYou know, I'm about tired of your twisting words just for the sake of arguing. Your arrogant, condescending attitude doesn't help your case, either. Chuck you take a good, long look in that mirror there cowboy...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #57 November 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't have a problem with the law. It just seems to bother the self-centered dope-heads who have to have their daily fix. They're the one's with the problem! Chuck There's another way to stop the "War on Drugs". The dopeheads actually stop using the stuff. Imagine how much that will decrease the violence, lower costs associated to fighting it and clean up some communities if there's a considerable drop in demand. . . Naah, the recreational users would never do that. Easier to push a "solution" that benefits them. and if only people would stop having sex outside of marriage - or getting drunk, or gambling, or taking up risky sports... We have a "War on infidelity, inebriation, poker and skydiving"? Although, just like recreational users, some of these activities can bring its drama onto other peoples' lives who don't want it. by your logic they should be illegal too. then we can start a 'war' on them... By your logic, drugs should be legal. Continue to cause hurt and discontent, even death to others so you can "express your liberties" (get high). Very selfish. Mexico is decriminalized. Their issues got worse. Didn't work there. that's because mexico has a long land border with a country that is a huge importer of illegal drugs. mexico will be better off when that country gets the balls to change their racist founded 'drug' laws and not whine about what others do... Now you are getting it. We are harming other people by being selfish. No one use drugs, no demand. No war on drugs. No drug violence. No addictions. We can change laws(won't decrease harm) or cause laws to be obsolete. Of course neither will ever happen. One's extrememly risky and the other, you can count on douchbags to be self-serving. This is evidence that "legalize" arguments are naive and/or self-serving. They have the gall to say it's the "laws" that cause it and completely ignore personal ongoing behaviors that continue to validate these laws in place, irrelevant of the racist origins. so we've all got to stop drinking because you say so. you'd have thought that you'd have learned from that failed experiment on turning back the tide of human nature. but obviously not. there are still 'absolutists' who believe that the future of people is forever and forever without drugs - dream on laddie. hundreds of thousands of years of human history tell us otherwise... ?? Drinking is legal. Certain behaviors associated with drinking is illegal. We're talking about War on Drugs here. Focus. . . You missing what I am trying to say here when i said: ". . .We can change laws(won't decrease harm) or cause laws to be obsolete. Of course neither will ever happen. . .". I've already been telling you it's impossible. Again, the whole "everyone should stop doing drugs and the war will end" statement is just a point that exposes drug users self-serving attitude. alcohol is a drug and so should be illegal by your definition. thinking that people are going to stop using drugs because another group of people (for racist reasons) say they can't is a denial of human reality. you might as well ask everyone to stop having sex - ain't gonna happen - ever. We've already had this commentary of human habit and reality. You are repeating both yourself and what I have already said._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #58 November 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteActually, for once he's got a point. A number of original drug laws were basically racist laws, just like a lot of the earliest gun laws. Marijuana, for those lazy Mexicans. Opium, for those no good Chinese. Saturday night specials, for the blacks. etc, etc. Marijuana, for Beatnicks and musicians! Cocaine, for wealthy whites. Saturday night specials, for white mobsters I see your point. No, you clearly don't see my point. There is clear evidence that many drug laws were racist. From wiki: QuoteThe first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug in the United States was a San Francisco ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875. The reason cited was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise." This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium. Though the laws affected the use and distribution of opium by Chinese immigrants, no action was taken against the producers of such products as laudanum, a tincture of opium and alcohol, commonly taken as a panacea by white Americans. The distinction between its use by white Americans and Chinese immigrants was thus based on the form in which it was ingested: Chinese immigrants tended to smoke it, while it was often included in various kinds of generally liquid medicines often (but not exclusively) used by people of European descent. The laws targeted opium smoking, but not other methods of ingestion.[8] As a result of this discrepancy, some modern commentators believe that these laws were possibly racist in origin and intent.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #59 November 21, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Actually, for once he's got a point. A number of original drug laws were basically racist laws, just like a lot of the earliest gun laws. Marijuana, for those lazy Mexicans. Opium, for those no good Chinese. Saturday night specials, for the blacks. etc, etc. Marijuana, for Beatnicks and musicians! Cocaine, for wealthy whites. Saturday night specials, for white mobsters I see your point. No, you clearly don't see my point. There is clear evidence that many drug laws were racist. From wiki: Quote The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug in the United States was a San Francisco ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875. The reason cited was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise." This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium. Though the laws affected the use and distribution of opium by Chinese immigrants, no action was taken against the producers of such products as laudanum, a tincture of opium and alcohol, commonly taken as a panacea by white Americans. The distinction between its use by white Americans and Chinese immigrants was thus based on the form in which it was ingested: Chinese immigrants tended to smoke it, while it was often included in various kinds of generally liquid medicines often (but not exclusively) used by people of European descent. The laws targeted opium smoking, but not other methods of ingestion.[8] As a result of this discrepancy, some modern commentators believe that these laws were possibly racist in origin and intent. O.K. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #60 November 21, 2011 QuoteMarijuana, for Beatnicks and musicians! Cocaine, for wealthy whites. Saturday night specials, for white mobsters I see your point. Chuck " . . . and only jazz musicians were smoking marijuana."" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
