War on Drugs a Success

pmoseman said:
Bit pattern. 3.1% of the population is 6.7 million people? Check your facts and step down from your high-horse.
Click to expand...

I neglected to include the word "adult" - 3.1% of the adult population - thanks for pointing out the error but had you bothered to follow the link you'd have realised where the discrepancy lay between what I wrote and what my source said. But, the difference is, I'm just some random stoner on the internet - the mistakes identified have been found in sources that are *supposed* to be eminently more reliable than my drug induced rambling, but they're not. Funny that, isn't it.
 
pmoseman said:
I would assume the whole thing was produced on a typewriter.
Ya. In Table 5 they add 699 + 125 = 624 ?
As far as overall accuracy, people are known to make mistakes; that doesn't change just because the year is 2014 and we have computers.
Some minor mistakes do not necessarily spell doom for the whole affair.
Click to expand...

Your parents made the biggest mistake of them all. You should have bean swallowed.
 
pmoseman said:
I would assume the whole thing was produced on a typewriter.
Ya. In Table 5 they add 699 + 125 = 624 ?
As far as overall accuracy, people are known to make mistakes; that doesn't change just because the year is 2014 and we have computers.
Some minor mistakes do not necessarily spell doom for the whole affair.
Click to expand...

LOL, your comments are very funny. I love it how you are making up excuse after excuse to try justify a "war".

Let me ask you something, do you see America going to WAR with Japan or Nazi Germany every once in a while? No. Why? Because the War is OVER. It is DONE. Do you think sometime in the future we will be able to take the word "heroin" and "ice" out of the dictionary and the general population would have no idea what it is or how to acquire it? No. Why? Because this is not a "War". It is not winnable. Drugs are always going to be here, who do you want controlling the massive BILLION dollar market, criminal gangs and terrorists or the government and the general populace?

Answer those questions.

Look, it is not about the drugs. It is about the CRIME, VIOLENCE and TERRORISM it supports via a tremendously large lucrative black market. If the figures in this article are correct (which I highly doubt, where are the references?) is it really worth it?

Is it worth the trillions of dollars of tax payer money, to ruin countless families and other people's lives both directly and indirectly by treating them as criminals, just to see a general "decrease in use" within society and then gloat about it (assuming it is true, with drug users being so secretive in nature I HIGHLY doubt it)?

Is it worth ruining entire nation states (think; CARTELS owning modified tanks and shooting golden bullets in Mexico), funding terrorist groups which undermine government authority in third world drug producing countries and basically presenting criminals power, giftwrapped with a nice fluffy pink ribbon by cornering the market exclusively just for them, so that you can reduce the percentage profile of the number of "Americans who have used drugs to get high in the last month"?

Is this worth it? You see, it is not about the DRUGS. It is about the violence PROHIBITION creates. We have managed to reduce the amount of tobacco smokers by not banning one cigarette. Effective simply by treating it as a healthcare and educational issue. Why can we not treat this as the same? Because powerful corporations and institutions stand to lose large swaths of money, that is why. So don't go off pretending that this is about reducing the numbers and helping people solve their drug problems. It is not. If it was, we would have decriminalized/legalized drugs a long time ago and treated it as a healthcare issue, instead we have kids peddling drugs on street corners and violent gangsters driving luxurious vehicles.

Drugs can be found anywhere, it is just a matter of wanting it. You can even buy drugs very efficiently and easily online now. How is that a reduction in availability, if my Grandma who can not even walk, has the ability to order some heroin or cocaine if she wanted to?

If drugs were legal, would you go out and snort a line of Cocaine? Would you inject some Meth? No, because you do not use drugs. This is for the health and well being of users and to lift the black market and take the funding away from violent groups. Then help the users once they are treated as patients, not jail inmates.

It is not about the DRUGS. It is about violent crime, corruption and terrorism a massive lucrative globalized black market such as this creates and helps prosper. It has no borders.

Al Capone would have loved ignorant prohibitionists like you. The DEA is understandable to be kicking and screaming the way they are, as they will be out of work if drugs are legal, but people who are prohibitionist due to being brainwashed and purely judgmental and ignorant but do not make or lose money, such as yourself, would obviously be a favorite kind of mass. You would make up the remaining bulk of the alcohol drinking, tobacco smoking, sober masses against drugs. You would help their business run along just fine and keep an eye out for competition :)

Here, I will leave you with a quote from Guzman, a major Mexican drug lord "“I couldn’t have gotten so stinking rich without George Bush, George Bush Jr, Ronald Reagan, even El Presidente Obama, none of them have the cajones to stand up to all the big money that wants to keep this stuff illegal..”
 
I give the "other side" credit for one thing, they pretty much beat LSD. Of course all they had do was find the only guy making it. Still though LSD much harder to get now than in 1978, far more expensive, and usage rates are way down among all demographics. But LSD was easier to get a grip on, the other drugs are all impossible to stop.
Even if 92 percent of Americans don't use drugs, how a society treats an 8 percent minority is a measure of their civility. POS third world nations persecute 8 percent minorities, not civilised nations.
 
pmoseman said:
Larry. Nobody is on the side of drug prohibition? Is that even the side I am on? Correcting errors on a drug message board does not make me a prohibitionist. Death toll of war? Tobacco doesn't cause cancer? What words are you reading?
Never sick anymore. Did I ever say the drug war worked?
Click to expand...

Yeah. No one responding to these threads except you. It certainly doesnt seem like youre on the legalize it side..

You are fucking unbelievable dude.. im not gonna take the time to copy and paste this shit, but i vividly remeber you posting something from the "tobacco studies journal" that claims tobacco has cancer-retardant properties. if you dont remeber that, you have no memory.
 
theWhiteLarryBird said:
Yeah. No one responding to these threads except you. It certainly doesnt seem like youre on the legalize it side..

You are fucking unbelievable dude.. im not gonna take the time to copy and paste this shit, but i vividly remeber you posting something from the "tobacco studies journal" that claims tobacco has cancer-retardant properties. if you dont remeber that, you have no memory.
Click to expand...
I said tobacco has certain chemicals with anticancer properties.
drug_mentor said:
Regardless, several of the chemicals in cannabis have been shown to help fight cancer, which clearly offsets at least some of the carcinogen consumption.
Click to expand...
You can say the same thing about tobacco; if you wanted to stretch the truth, misguide, and misinform.
 
pmoseman said:
I said tobacco has certain chemicals with anticancer properties.

You can say the same thing about tobacco; if you wanted to stretch the truth, misguide, and misinform.
Click to expand...


Lol! Yet people die of tobacco related cancers ALL THE TIME. Please cite a SINGLE case of marijuana induced cancer or GTFO 8)
 
"The cembranoids are found in the waxy substance on fresh tobacco leaves and show potential for controlling metastic breast and prostate cancers." link

Do we know that the chemicals which fight cancer in marijuana are negating the cancer causing compounds in marijuana smoke?
It seems like just saying it or reading it in an article is all it takes, but to doubt such requires some kind of ingenious research.
neversickanymore said:
what about the infinite lack of evidence provided by you to support your case?
Click to expand...
Adult.
 
Last edited:
lack of evidence neither suport nor refutes a case.

I do a good impression of an adult... but really im just acting.. children are far wiser.. as we get older and distracted by so much useless shit and misguided ideas we get so dumb.. "look to the children" as they know what right with out even thinking.

BlueHues said:
The Big and Dandy, Let's all argue with "pmoseman" thread!
Click to expand...
at least it her damn thread for a change!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top