(VIDEO) "For every line of cocaine snorted, an innocent life is taken"

[paranoid android]

Let's have no laws about seatbelts, helmets, DUI, speeding, or texting while driving then either.

Well since i believe that both the US government as well as my own Canadian government are illegitimate then I'm going to say yes. Also when did laws against these things ever stop anyone from doing anything? If i get in a car i don't stop and go hold on i could get a ticket if i don't put on my seatbelt. Instead i think about the possibility of going through the windshield in a car accident. And if i want to drive my bike without a helmet i fucking will and there are few things more awesome then seeing lights come on behind you which means shift up another gear :D .

Laws don't stop anybody from doing anything simple as that.

 

[youdontknow]

The Gov. makes $ off of the illegal drug trade. That's all it is and ever will be about. Money.

 

[RobotRipping]

And who is going to pay for the health issues that these people will eventually suffer? So you're saying we could use the money we saved to help addicts recover from the drugs that we made legal? You're a genius. That just takes us back to square one. This sort of plan looks good on paper but it would never work. Nowadays people are too soft to simply say "No, it's your own damn fault your septum is collapsing and we won't help you." The last thing we need are more people living off welfare and public housing, practically snorting and smoking away our hard earned money. Junkies who leave prison won't contribute to society, they will most likely end up using even more of the drugs since they would be widely available and practically condoned. Often times, prison is the only thing stopping someone from continuing an addiction, even if there's drugs in there too. When it comes to hard drugs like coke and heroin, they really shouldn't be allowed. For every person that uses them "responsibly", there are another 10 who are robbing and murdering to get their next fix. Cartels would just move on to even more lucrative and illegal business and nothing would really change. This is obvious.

what is obvious is your fallacious reasoning. Where are your stats that for every responsible user there will be 10 users who are robbing and murdering people? Look at Portugal as a model of decriminalization. You can ignore the evidence, the logic and reasoning all you want but more lives will be lost, more taxes will be wasted and drugs will become a bigger problem. The three things that you are probably against in the first place. See how you aren't making any sense?

You have no evidence that addicts in jail would contribute nothing to society if they were released. You have no evidence for any of your claims. They aren't logical either.

 

[Bardeaux]

this is why you should purchase only certified fair trade cocaine.

 

[scureto1]

Cool, a bunch of terms you took out from your logic textbook.

I'm just saying that legalizing all forms of drugs across the board is a bad idea.

Logic might do you a lot of good, especially vs. a bunch of terms/stats/facts that you pulled out of your ass. Or, more accurately, out of talk radio's ass.

 

[Voxide]

Well since i believe that both the US government as well as my own Canadian government are illegitimate then I'm going to say yes. Also when did laws against these things ever stop anyone from doing anything? If i get in a car i don't stop and go hold on i could get a ticket if i don't put on my seatbelt. Instead i think about the possibility of going through the windshield in a car accident. And if i want to drive my bike without a helmet i fucking will and there are few things more awesome then seeing lights come on behind you which means shift up another gear :D .

Laws don't stop anybody from doing anything simple as that.

I would only be ok with drug legalization if the people suffering negative consequences from drugs were denied all forms of medical treatment (emergency, prescription, etc). You want your freedom? There you go. Total freedom.

what is obvious is your fallacious reasoning. Where are your stats that for every responsible user there will be 10 users who are robbing and murdering people? Look at Portugal as a model of decriminalization. You can ignore the evidence, the logic and reasoning all you want but more lives will be lost, more taxes will be wasted and drugs will become a bigger problem. The three things that you are probably against in the first place. See how you aren't making any sense?

You have no evidence that addicts in jail would contribute nothing to society if they were released. You have no evidence for any of your claims. They aren't logical either.

No, the problem is that people want freedoms, yet they aren't responsible enough to accept the consequences of those freedoms. Portugal isn't the US. Show me just one instance of a junkie doing something positive to help the common man and society as a whole. You won't.

If you want to see what legalizing drugs will do to this country, just look at inner cities as a little sneak preview. One could argue that hard drugs are technically already legal there since the police doesn't even care. Look how great they're doing.

Logic might do you a lot of good, especially vs. a bunch of terms/stats/facts that you pulled out of your ass. Or, more accurately, out of talk radio's ass.

Sick burn bro. You sure showed me.

 

[qwe]

I would only be ok with drug legalization if the people suffering negative consequences from drugs were denied all forms of medical treatment (emergency, prescription, etc). You want your freedom? There you go. Total freedom.

this is a pretty odd belief. please defend it.

 

[Voxide]

this is a pretty odd belief. please defend it.

Freedom does not automatically mean a life without consequences. You can say "I'm not hurting anyone but myself" all you want, but the fact of the matter is, when cocaine gives you a heart attack and you go to hospital, other people are forced to pay for it.

Freedom's a 2-way road. If I was an ER doctor I'd much sooner treat a 2 year old with a fever-whose mother is worried sick- instead of some cracked out junkie.

 

[THC2LSD]

I would only be ok with drug legalization if the people suffering negative consequences from drugs were denied all forms of medical treatment (emergency, prescription, etc). You want your freedom? There you go. Total freedom.

That's not freedom, that's social darwinism. Heard of the Fascist Party? You'd love them!

No, the problem is that people want freedoms, yet they aren't responsible enough to accept the consequences of those freedoms.

I actually agree, for some people. Freedom sometimes comes with a price.

Show me just one instance of a junkie doing something positive to help the common man and society as a whole.

James Young Smith discovered chloroforms anesthetic properties while getting fucked up on various substances. Sigmund Freud used cocaine. His friend, accomplished physiologist Ernst von Fleischl-Marxow, was addicted to morphine and cocaine; he probably invented the speedball too:D. Mathematician Paul Erdős was addicted to amphetamine, as was John Kennedy. John C. Lilly was addicted to PCP and ketamine, although someone with an authoritarian personality wouldn't know how to value his work. The list goes on and on. Many probably use in secret. Some research shows that people with above average intelligence or artistic skills use more drugs.

If you want to see what legalizing drugs will do to this country, just look at inner cities as a little sneak preview. One could argue that hard drugs are technically already legal there since the police doesn't even care. Look how great they're doing.

You'd find even more alcoholics in those places. Clearly they're an ideal example of what responsible substance use is8). And hundreds of thousand locked up would disagree that it's de facto legal there.

Freedom does not automatically mean a life without consequences.

True.

Freedom's a 2-way road.

That parts also true.

If I was an ER doctor I'd much sooner treat a 2 year old with a fever-whose mother is worried sick- instead of some cracked out junkie.

Good thing you're not a doctor, you'd suck. A fever may go down with Tylenol, an overdose will likely lead to death if not promptly treated. Why not treat both?

 

[Voxide]

That's not freedom, that's social darwinism. Heard of the Fascist Party? You'd love them!I actually agree, for some people. Freedom sometimes comes with a price. James Young Smith discovered chloroforms anesthetic properties while getting fucked up on various substances. Sigmund Freud used cocaine. His friend, accomplished physiologist Ernst von Fleischl-Marxow, was addicted to morphine and cocaine; he probably invented the speedball too:D. Mathematician Paul Erdős was addicted to amphetamine, as was John Kennedy. John C. Lilly was addicted to PCP and ketamine, although someone with an authoritarian personality wouldn't know how to value his work. The list goes on and on. Many probably use in secret. Some research shows that people with above average intelligence or artistic skills use more drugs.You'd find even more alcoholics in those places. Clearly they're an ideal example of what responsible substance use is8). And hundreds of thousand locked up would disagree that it's de facto legal there.True.That parts also true.Good thing you're not a doctor, you'd suck. A fever may go down with Tylenol, an overdose will likely lead to death if not promptly treated. Why not treat both?

You can't be a fascist and be in favor of a constitutional republic. The two philosophies completely contradict.

Those weren't junkies, those were doctors and scientists who happened to have drug problems. I'm talking about your average street drug addict. Go ahead and search for any news story you can. A meth addict won't be helping you find your lost wallet any time soon.

Next, art is irrelevant. The creation of a bunch of degenerate art resulting from drug intoxication means nothing. The least respectable type of person is some dipshit hipster who gets an art or philosophy degree and then moan about how they can't find a job. But hey, at least they're "enlightened", right?

 

[trance in fraance]

this is why you should purchase only certified fair trade cocaine.

^^^^

 

[Mob Rules]

You can't be a fascist and be in favor of a constitutional republic. The two philosophies completely contradict.

Those weren't junkies, those were doctors and scientists who happened to have drug problems. I'm talking about your average street drug addict. Go ahead and search for any news story you can. A meth addict won't be helping you find your lost wallet any time soon.

Next, art is irrelevant. The creation of a bunch of degenerate art resulting from drug intoxication means nothing. The least respectable type of person is some dipshit hipster who gets an art or philosophy degree and then moan about how they can't find a job. But hey, at least they're "enlightened", right?

Your average "street drug addict" is just a person who happens to be addicted to drugs, like all the people named.

It's funny how people criticize drug taking users for all the terrible, ungodly things that we do. Like, stealing and killing people, but wait, dont other people do the same thing for money? Don't people steal money from others? dont people kill other people for money? I could take a leap and say its because of greed for money that the third world doesnt have adequate water or food. I could also say that most of the violence that arises from drugs stems from.... MONEY! i.e Cartels fighting over shipping routes. I guess money should be made illeagal...8( Oh, and your average "street drug" addict are, like most people, good people despite their problems. If you ever actually talked to one you'd find that out.

As far as your second point about a bunch of "degenerate art" not meaning anything. I could go on and on about how much art like books, movies, music etc means to people but that clearly doesnt matter to you. So, how about all money pumped into the economy (or does that too mean nothing?) by these "dipshits" in these industries which are infamous for their drug using-like to party-work class?

 

[wayab]

And who is going to pay for the health issues that these people will eventually suffer?

now when drugs are illegal people still get health issues so...?
but if drugs were legal research in to better and safer recreational drugs would be possible resulting in less health problems.

 

[23536]

I think a lot of people would discontinue seeking health care if they had reliable retail access to certain substances. It's not for nothing that big pharma suppresses, for instance, marijuana policy reform.

 

[paranoid android]

I would only be ok with drug legalization if the people suffering negative consequences from drugs were denied all forms of medical treatment (emergency, prescription, etc). You want your freedom? There you go. Total freedom.

I take it your a libertarian then as that sounds much like their typical mantra. Freedom is "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs". End fucking of. What your lot wants is freedom for the elitist bourgeois and nothing more. The drug trade as it stands takes advantage of the worst off in society. As for junkies contributing to society i know lot's that hold down a regular job or contribute in other less tangible ways to their communities.

I will never understand you law and order types and i don't know how anyone over the age of 20 could possibly fall for that bullshit.