unclehobart
New Member
Can you trim that down to 2,000 words or less? Seesh!
Another war we're losing....
- Thread starter markjs
- Start date
markjs
Banned
Need some ritalin for your ADD? $ a hit.....
unclehobart
New Member
With all of that 'reign' shit... I figured that you were the one in need of a hit.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
Dr. Whackensack or whoever wrote the 7 pages of drivel above said:
Sure. No problem at all.
Tell ya what, Stumpy Joe...YOU drive around with a bunch of "altered reality" losers surrounding you in their cars. YOU risk your family's safety and/or life. YOU put up with it. Don't ask me to. And when one of your pet lab rats kills your children in a car wreck because their "altered reality" told them that a hippo is standing in their lane and they must swerve into your car to avoid hitting it, don't come crying to me...I wanted the sorry SOB locked up BEFORE he could do this, remember?
Mostly harmless. Yeah right. YOU eat from the restaurant kitchen they work in. YOU operate the lawnmower they helped build. YOU pay for their medical and rehab needs. YOU explain to your kids why the scruffy man with the oozing sores won't stop beating on your car windows while you wait for the light to change. YOU let 'em break into YOUR house to steal shit to buy more dope, which of course is harmless. YOU let YOUR daughter bring home some strung out loser and gaily announce they're getting married despite his lack of a job, a residence of his own, or even a bath within the last calendar month. YOU do it. I'm tired of it.
Amazing how the only people I ever see arguing to legalize drugs are..ADDICTS!!!! Rational people don't want to be anywhere near this crowd. Responsible adults have no desire to spend their time with some airhead dope addict who can't stop talking about the conspiracy to keep Cinderella subservient to Ren & Stimpy or whatever half-baked shit their overloaded brains concoct. Grown ups don't have time for it. But the stoners....THEY have nothing BUT time. And they all want their dope legal. Tough titty. Now go get a bath and find a job and make yourself useful. For a change.
Cerise
Well-Known Member
Do you support legalization of all Schedule 1 drugs?
Do you want to see drugs legalized because a person could save money on the purchase of them? Please outline how would that happen.
Since meth is such a highly addictive drug--- how much should a person be able to buy at the corner 7-11 in one purchase, or over a week's time---or is it a "victimless crime" and you should be able to score as much as you need, man?
Should there be a minimum age to start using these once-illegal drugs---or can any 12 year old take them?
Should there be specialized hospitals that only treat the physical and mental effects of drug dependancy---and should the treatment be free?
Who, exactly, would benefit from legalization?
One country is re-thinking their views:
http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl/221-magic-mushrooms
markjs
Banned
The incidence of use and abuse would be no more than they are now, so you are driving roads surrounded by them already! I bet you didn't even read most of the article, and I probably won't believe it til I see you attack it point by point with reasonable and studied arguments.
As for paying for rehab and treatment the tax dollars saved in the ending of the useless war on drugs and the tax dollars collected by drug taxes would more than cover it, and if you had in fact read the whole damn article you'd have seen that.
BTW, if you did read the whole article, it's clear to me, that you are so set in you opinion that no amount of data, facts and/or reason can break through your erroneous conclusions and eneducated misconceptions. Why don't you try and present me with anything, documented and backed up by an actual study and research, that backs your stance? ......Could it be possibly, um let's see here....because it doesn't exist?!?
markjs
Banned
I was thinking, what would make a republican see the sense in the legalization of drugs? To do this I had to attempt lower myself to that level. It was difficult and I am sure I wasn't fully able to sink to that insipid depth of simplistic and feebleminded thinking, [sarcastic joke]especially without some drugs to knock off a lot of those darn pesky IQ points[/sarcastic joke], but I did suddenly have a flash of inspiration!
Bearing in mind that the legalization of drugs would mean decriminaliztion of a lot (not all) of the crime surrounding the drug trade, and the fact that legalization, would allow for taxation of the drugs themselves, sufficient to more than fund education and treatment, it occured to me!
[attempt at thinking like a republican] If drugs were legal, we could have a tax cut well in excess of $33,000,000,000! That's 33 BILLION guys! And what's more is we could shrink the government by a considerable amount! Hell this is one more front where we can keep the government out of our personal business! The idea is reveloutionary!!! [/attempt at thinking like a republican]
So my conclusion is that republicans, either mostly don't think, or have a different kind of logic than normal thinking people do, or being the more highly evolved liberal type I simply am not able to sink to their level. Knowing how republicans incessantly whine about having to pay for the services their government provides, the government's meddling in our lives, and the government being oversized and over-regulated, I should think an idea like this would have been incorporated into their campaign platform years ago.
Naw, leave it to a liberal to devise a strategy that accomplishes all your goals to a great extent and then rail against the idea because it didn't come from your camp....Typical republicanism....
Bearing in mind that the legalization of drugs would mean decriminaliztion of a lot (not all) of the crime surrounding the drug trade, and the fact that legalization, would allow for taxation of the drugs themselves, sufficient to more than fund education and treatment, it occured to me!
[attempt at thinking like a republican] If drugs were legal, we could have a tax cut well in excess of $33,000,000,000! That's 33 BILLION guys! And what's more is we could shrink the government by a considerable amount! Hell this is one more front where we can keep the government out of our personal business! The idea is reveloutionary!!! [/attempt at thinking like a republican]
So my conclusion is that republicans, either mostly don't think, or have a different kind of logic than normal thinking people do, or being the more highly evolved liberal type I simply am not able to sink to their level. Knowing how republicans incessantly whine about having to pay for the services their government provides, the government's meddling in our lives, and the government being oversized and over-regulated, I should think an idea like this would have been incorporated into their campaign platform years ago.
Naw, leave it to a liberal to devise a strategy that accomplishes all your goals to a great extent and then rail against the idea because it didn't come from your camp....Typical republicanism....
Professur
Well-Known Member
Y'know Mark ... those numbers might be valid ... were republicans the ones to legalize. And enforce that no medical attention or gov't services be allocated to the now legal stoners. Under a dem gov't (the only ones actually likely to pass any such foolishness) you'd have massive handouts to help them with their self inflicted medical disasters. Insurance companies would be forced to help out too, jacking up rates for everyone.
You're also mistakenly assuming that the numbers of users won't skyrocket once getting stoned becomes a legal pastime. Somehow, I don't see that as accurate either.
You're also mistakenly assuming that the numbers of users won't skyrocket once getting stoned becomes a legal pastime. Somehow, I don't see that as accurate either.
markjs
Banned
The only actual evidence of what would happen if drugs were legalized that we have is what happened at the end of prohibition. Before prohibition drinking was at a certain level, after prohibiton was ended, drinking went up, albeit slightly, for a short while, and then returned to just about the same level as it was before prohibion. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that it would be much the same with drugs. The best studies they can do without actually trying the legalization policy suggest that there would be at worst only a mild increase in the amount of drug abuse.
What you seem to be suggesting is either, A, that most people have no sense at all, and many of them would immediately go out and get strung out, just because they can, or that B, addiction is such a serious disease that neraly everyone who tries drugs gets addicted. Both suppositions are utterly ridiculous.
What you seem to be suggesting is either, A, that most people have no sense at all, and many of them would immediately go out and get strung out, just because they can, or that B, addiction is such a serious disease that neraly everyone who tries drugs gets addicted. Both suppositions are utterly ridiculous.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
I'll not reply to your inane political drivel...
No, I didn't read the entire article. I plan to do something besides type on an internet message board today, something beyond idling my time away with 417 posts about reigning, doing something productive like keeping my job so I can pay for more drug rehab. Maybe you should consider it sometime, if your calendar allows enough free time for gainful employment that is. Wouldn't want it to eat into your quality time ya know. I mean, I am an evil republican who advocates working for a living rather than staying home rehabing all the time on the graces of the taxpayer. Even when I had my surgery I got back to work a month early. We evil republicans are like that. Another word for it is responsible. So no, I chose to devote that hour to productivity instead. I randomly stopped the scroll and found that statement and feel assured the rest of the drivel is equally as self serving and asinine. I've heard it more times than you've recited it already, so I'll just work from there.
Speaking of, time for me to get back to work. One of us has to, you know.
No, I didn't read the entire article. I plan to do something besides type on an internet message board today, something beyond idling my time away with 417 posts about reigning, doing something productive like keeping my job so I can pay for more drug rehab. Maybe you should consider it sometime, if your calendar allows enough free time for gainful employment that is. Wouldn't want it to eat into your quality time ya know. I mean, I am an evil republican who advocates working for a living rather than staying home rehabing all the time on the graces of the taxpayer. Even when I had my surgery I got back to work a month early. We evil republicans are like that. Another word for it is responsible. So no, I chose to devote that hour to productivity instead. I randomly stopped the scroll and found that statement and feel assured the rest of the drivel is equally as self serving and asinine. I've heard it more times than you've recited it already, so I'll just work from there.
Speaking of, time for me to get back to work. One of us has to, you know.
markjs
Banned
Most likely because I raise valid points that disturb you.
Refuse to do the work eh? You already know that the actual studies into the problem disagree with your stance on it eh? So in other words, you are in no way qualified to comment on it (the article), and I will not even read anymore of your unfounded, uneducated opinions about it. What's the matter scared it might open your mind a little?
So do I, but being as a lot of my work is done at home I have the luxury of being able to post more than some, even still I have a housecall I need to go make so I will give the keyboard a rest for a while, thanks for making even more baseless, uneductaed and unfounded assumptions, it only further damages your credibility.
Yesterday I had a day off and I enjoyed the hell out of my insane posting marathon, I am sorry it offended your sensibilities.
Professur
Well-Known Member
Funny. Not long ago someone was spouting off about how my knowledge of alcoholism was no useful point of reference with respect to hard drug use. I wonder who it was who said that.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
Not at all. It's exactly what I said it was. Some folk mean what they say; others raise taxes.
It is exactly as I said (again); I chose to devote the time to my job rather than try to argue with someone who makes no sense. I am as qualified to comment on it as anyone else, or as I am on anything else. It's called a choice.
My credibility is fine thank you. I haven't filled the board with inane lunacy.
My sensibilities are likewise fine. I only see what I wish to of yours anyway. I asure you 99% of your fun was wasted on me. Glad you enjoyed yourself though.
And out of pure curiosity, what line of work are you in? I have my hunch, but I'd like to see if I'm right.
spike
New Member
It's far easier to open a beer and just dismiss 40% of the population as addicts.
markjs
Banned
I never did any such thing. I was dismissing your knowlege about the subject of addiction as a whole. Never did you say anything to qualify yourself. You never said, 'Oh I have such and such experience with alcoholism'. You just kept telling me I didn't know what you know, which was true, and perhaps I should have asked. Still I hardly think some second hand experience (alcoholic members in the family?), would make you any authority on the matter. For that matter SnP, is merely a probation officer, but that gives him somewhat more knowlege than the average person.
Now for my qualifications. I've been to inpatient treatment three times, (no the government did not pay a dime of that, so shut up before you start), Outpatient 5 times, (3 in connection with the inpatient treatments, that makes a grand total of 5). I've battled it all my life. On one occasion I had 3 years sobriety on another 5, and yes it took a lot of going though all that to finally get it, so attack that all you want, I still have a LOT of up close personal experience. Wait I am not done.... I have two years of college and 2 years working as a CDC. I also have a vested interest in the subject so I have studied it extensively in my spare time. I have been to AA and NA and not worked it, and I have been to AA and NA and have worked it. I'd wager that nobody around, SnP included has anything close to as much knowlege or experience on this matter. If you want me to accept you as having some specific knowlege about the subject, please tell me what your experience is like chcr did.
So, with that cleared up, if I had any better example to extrapalate from I'd use it, but the fact is, that nobody does. There is very little evidence to suggest that addiction to drugs is in any way different than addiction to alcohol, and I never claimed that such was the case in the first place. So my example of what happened during prohibition and after it, is no less valid than it was before you tried to divert attention from the actual point I made.
markjs
Banned
Too pathetically true....
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
FTR, before this job I did addiction counselling as well as other forms of therapy. That's why I keep waiting for you to tell me something I ain't heard 500 times. So far, you haven't.
But thanks for the backhanded compliment just the same.
But thanks for the backhanded compliment just the same.
markjs
Banned
OK, how would you know if I'd told you something you'd never heard since you can't even bring yourself to read a short article by an expert in the field.....LAME!
So you were an addictions counselor, and from what I know of you from previous posts you were also not ever an addict yourself....correct? In my mind, and I know a number of professionals in the field that will back me on this, that's very much akin to a guy teaching a class on how to fly an airplane, never having flown an airplane for himself. It may look good on paper, but it's next to worthless in practice. I can see why you changed jobs. I'm sure the addictions treatment community is doing quite well in your absense.