Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Czar calls for the end of the War On DrugsFollow

#27 May 14 2009 at 1:20 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
Also, I suspect you rape children.


Well, me too. I wouldn't rape kiddies normally, but sometimes I wonder if I've done it after a good dose of alcohol and crack. But never mind, if I don't remember it, then it never happened.

Uncle Sam takes good care of his boys. Life as a druggie is great. I know a few of my old mates back in school who has chosen the path of professional druggie. I've wondered how joblessness and expensive drugs seem to mix very well, but it seems it's all thanks to Uncle Sam.

Free taxpayer money in the form of unemployment benefits etc really makes it worthwhile. A part time job of peddling supplies to rich high school kids tops it up very well. And when they run into health problems, there's always the reassurance of free healthcare to the rescue, well, free for them because the unemployed, do not pay taxes.

And now thanks to bad boy 'bama, the streets will soon be safer to peddle their wares, and even more healthcare dough promised. In the form of encrypted messages, funding for needle exchange programs = "Hey kids, it's safer than ever to do drugs. We're here to make sure you don't accidentally kill off your drug buddies with AIDS"

Well, I hope they legalise these things soon. It's ok if they just want to start off with marijuana. Once everyone and his granny have it, it won't be cool anymore, and the cool kids will start wanting some of the the real stuff!



#28 May 14 2009 at 1:26 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
****
4,042 posts
McGame wrote:
Well, I hope they legalise these things soon. It's ok if they just want to start off with marijuana. Once everyone and his granny have it, it won't be cool anymore, and the cool kids will start wanting some of the the real stuff!


This.

Once marijuana is more easily accessible, I'll just want the challenge and thrill of getting a real, illegal high. Then I can OD and you and your children's children can pay my medical bills as I'm in and out of rehab for the rest of my life. My 8 children won't have to pay for it though, because they'll follow their unemployed, druggie mother's footsteps and just live off of the hard work of other people. Exploiting the system sure is fun.
#29 May 14 2009 at 1:30 PM Rating: Good
mcgame,

Quote:
So the changes mean that drugs would be more available on the streets, and probably become cheaper too.


Do you even know the history behind why mj is illegal? Probably not, then again you're most likely a pre-teeny bopper whose mommy and daddy told him drugs are bad.


#30 May 14 2009 at 1:31 PM Rating: Excellent
McGame wrote:

Free taxpayer money in the form of unemployment benefits etc really makes it worthwhile. A part time job of peddling supplies to rich high school kids tops it up very well. And when they run into health problems, there's always the reassurance of free healthcare to the rescue, well, free for them because the unemployed, do not pay taxes.

And now thanks to bad boy 'bama, the streets will soon be safer to peddle their wares, and even more healthcare dough promised. In the form of encrypted messages, funding for needle exchange programs = "Hey kids, it's safer than ever to do drugs. We're here to make sure you don't accidentally kill off your drug buddies with AIDS"


Again, painfully fUcking ignorant. In fact, so much so that I retract my previous comment about you being a child rapist.

No, you sir are in fact too incompetent to subdue and rape a child. I suspect that perhaps it works the other way around in your special case, and that retarded children routinely rape you. That's right, I'd reckon that little Todd down the road, adorned in safety-helmet and perched in his motorized wheelchair, is capable of bending you over the safety rails of his custom tub. He gets his tiny 'tard **** in your begging *** and just lets the palsy do the rest of the work while his drool puddles between your shoulder-blades and runs in little rivulets down your back before finding the contour of your ***-crack and finally becoming lube. Lube for a retarded child to fUck your ignorant ***.

And that's all I've got to say about that, I think.
#31 May 14 2009 at 1:32 PM Rating: Decent
Guenny,

Quote:
My 8 children won't have to pay for it though, because they'll follow their unemployed, druggie mother's footsteps and just live off of the hard work of other people. Exploiting the system sure is fun.


That's the spirit. You can do it!
#32REDACTED, Posted: May 14 2009 at 2:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Holy mother of God, you're really good at it, aren't you? I humbly bow before your vast experience. Please teach me more.
#33 May 14 2009 at 2:16 PM Rating: Excellent
publiusvarus wrote:
Sounds like Obama's got something right. Good for him.
Hang on, who made a sock to pass off as Varus?
#34 May 14 2009 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
What do you expect? He believes in freedom.

It's uh.. an alien concept of freedom that I only partially understand, but I can see how he wouldn't need to condemn drug use.
#35 May 14 2009 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
MDenham wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Sounds like Obama's got something right. Good for him.
Hang on, who made a sock to pass off as Varus?


I know, I've agreed with him twice in this thread. It's really disturbing. It feels slightly unreal. Though maybe that's just the LSD.

Anyway, cannabis is legal in the Netherlands, and consumption of cannabis has decreased since it was legalised. However, most European countries also saw a slight decline in cannabis use during the same period, eventhough they didn't legalise it. Most of the experiments on drug legalisation (even those with heroin in Switzerland) have shown that consumption either decreases or stay the same when a drug is legalised. Legality has very little effect on consumption. It has an effect on quality, on prices, on mark-up, on who makes the money, on lots of things, but not on consumption.


Edited, May 15th 2009 12:14am by RedPhoenixxx
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#36 May 14 2009 at 4:27 PM Rating: Good
Yeah, my dad (who would have been a Paultard had he been alive this last election cycle) was cut from the same Republican cloth as Varrus et al.

Legalize drugs ("population needs to be thinned out anyway") fair tax/flat tax (nevermind that daddy was retired military and only made $3000 a year in taxable income since the rest was pensions), yadda yadda. His whole side of the family is like that, which is why I cut them off. They can keep their Republo-fundy values out of my life, and I'll stay out of theirs with my socialistic tendencies.

#37 May 14 2009 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
****
7,732 posts
Quote:
Do you even know the history behind why mj is illegal? Probably not, then again you're most likely a pre-teeny bopper whose mommy and daddy told him drugs are bad.


Most drugs are illegal in the USA because of colored people, commies and other scary people being the groups that used them.
____________________________
Hellbanned

idiggory wrote:
Drinking at home. But I could probably stand to get laid.
#38 May 14 2009 at 9:13 PM Rating: Excellent
McGame wrote:
Holy mother of God, you're really good at it, aren't you? I humbly bow before your vast experience. Please teach me more.


That sounds like a job for...

Screenshot


SUPER ******!

Better get the loob out, son, as I hear he's hung like those African fellas that keep you up at night.

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#39 May 14 2009 at 9:40 PM Rating: Good
****
7,732 posts
Quote:
SUPER ******!

Better get the loob out, son, as I hear he's hung like those African fellas that keep you up at night.


One should always fer the awesome power of ****** strength . Especially considering the inevitable donkey punch.
____________________________
Hellbanned

idiggory wrote:
Drinking at home. But I could probably stand to get laid.
#40 May 14 2009 at 10:59 PM Rating: Decent
I don't use any sort of drug, I had been diagnosed with ADD as a child and had had to take all manner of nasty drugs as efforts to curb what was really more anti-socialism than ADD, and that turned me very off to all manner of recreational drugs, including Alcohol. While I don't abstain from it, I've never been more than slightly buzzed. Most of the time I find the users in my life to range from insufferably annoying while high to blithering idiots in the case of the more hard users. Most of that is reactive to being forced to take drugs in childhood, but another part of that is that I'm really not understanding why people want to alter their minds and perceptions anyway.

That said, I'm just fine with the legalization and taxation of pretty much whatever your vice is, and I'm glad the government is moving away from wasting vast amounts of money fighting drugs. However, if you interact with me while under the influence, especially in public, I reserve the right to treat you with contempt. While I'm not inclined to discriminate against users at work, I don't generally treat them with much more than curtness. I could possibly be called vindictive when it comes to this, but really, usage and the time that comes after it belongs at home or with your close friends in a private environment, not in public and especially not while at work.

My 2 cents.
#41 May 15 2009 at 5:24 AM Rating: Good
AldousCayo wrote:
I don't use any sort of drug, I had been diagnosed with ADD as a child and had had to take all manner of nasty drugs as efforts to curb what was really more anti-socialism than ADD, and that turned me very off to all manner of recreational drugs, including Alcohol. While I don't abstain from it, I've never been more than slightly buzzed. Most of the time I find the users in my life to range from insufferably annoying while high to blithering idiots in the case of the more hard users. Most of that is reactive to being forced to take drugs in childhood, but another part of that is that I'm really not understanding why people want to alter their minds and perceptions anyway.

That said, I'm just fine with the legalization and taxation of pretty much whatever your vice is, and I'm glad the government is moving away from wasting vast amounts of money fighting drugs. However, if you interact with me while under the influence, especially in public, I reserve the right to treat you with contempt. While I'm not inclined to discriminate against users at work, I don't generally treat them with much more than curtness. I could possibly be called vindictive when it comes to this, but really, usage and the time that comes after it belongs at home or with your close friends in a private environment, not in public and especially not while at work.

My 2 cents.


First off, ASPD is a far more serious disorder than ADD, so I hope you're still receiving treatment.

Second, I can guarantee you deal with folks who are under the influence far more than you know, so you might as well start acting contemptuous to everyone you meet, just to be safe. Oh wait, that's going to be counter-productive to your ASPD treatment.

Hahaha, you confused, sanctimonious geek.
#42 May 15 2009 at 5:34 AM Rating: Good
Aldous,

Quote:
I don't generally treat them with much more than curtness


So I take you don't care much for that "golden rule" nonsense?

I know quite a few construction workers and let me tell you after working all day in the hot sun totting around sheetrock, thinset, grout, and the numerous other things they do a joint after work does wonders for their achs and pains. These are people who have wives and children and pay their taxes, well some of them anyway. There's a vast difference between a meth-head, crack-head, pill junkie and someone who smokes pot.
#43 May 15 2009 at 5:51 AM Rating: Decent
I was "diagnosed" ASPD while in high school, prior to turning 18. I very clear met criteria 1,2, and 3. I was receiving therapy in high school, then quit when it was becoming clear that 1 was something that was more of a phase.

As far as being under the influence more than I know, you are damned right. I try to keep my contempt for the most blatantly stoned people internal.

Quote:
Hahaha, you confused, sanctimonious geek.

Right on the money.
#44 May 15 2009 at 6:06 AM Rating: Default
Quote:
I know quite a few construction workers and let me tell you after working all day in the hot sun totting around sheetrock, thinset, grout, and the numerous other things they do a joint after work does wonders for their achs and pains. These are people who have wives and children and pay their taxes, well some of them anyway. There's a vast difference between a meth-head, crack-head, pill junkie and someone who smokes pot


Working hard is not a justification, nor is being married, nor is paying taxes. All that is is a fallacy.

Like I said before I really don't have any moral incompatibilities with use, in fact feel free to, I just don't like it and choose to express my dislike.
#45 May 15 2009 at 6:09 AM Rating: Decent
Aldous,

Quote:
I just don't like it and choose to express my dislike.


You're a virgin aren't you?

#46 May 15 2009 at 6:13 AM Rating: Default
No, I've been seeing your mother for the past few weeks, she says she might leave your father, but I don't really want to commit, she's just a piece of ***.

Now, did you actually have something to say?
#47 May 15 2009 at 6:14 AM Rating: Decent
aldous,

Quote:
No, I've been seeing your mother for the past few weeks


So you're a necrophiliac? Ewww. I knew there was something wrong with you.


#48 May 15 2009 at 6:16 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
aldous,

Quote:
No, I've been seeing your mother for the past few weeks


So you're a necrophiliac? Ewww. I knew there was something wrong with you.


Stiffs need a stiff one once in a while too, amirite?
#49 May 15 2009 at 6:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Aldous wrote:
Working hard is not a justification, nor is being married, nor is paying taxes. All that is is a fallacy.


While it's not being used as justification for use, it's a very simple description of how common it can be to average, normal people. The bottom line is, more people than you can imagine use it. You say:

Aldous wrote:
Most of the time I find the users in my life to range from insufferably annoying while high to blithering idiots in the case of the more hard users.


The people that go out, do it, and broadcast it to the world is such a small minority of users and frankly, deserve to be labeled as "insufferably annoying" not because of their use of the substance, but because of their character as a person. An asshole is an asshole, and if you don't like them...don't hang around with them.

Aldous wrote:
Like I said before I really don't have any moral incompatibilities with use, in fact feel free to, I just don't like it and choose to express my dislike.


I always find it interesting how people can say things like "having no moral incompatibilities with use" and then talk about how they don't like it. If you have no moral reason to dislike it, why do you dislike it? How do you come to judge to dislike it if you have no objection to it's use? And that's in regards to anything, not just marijuana.

Edited, May 15th 2009 10:20am by Ryneguy
#50 May 15 2009 at 6:39 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
The people that go out, do it, and broadcast it to the world is such a small minority of users and frankly, deserve to be labeled as "insufferably annoying" not because of their use of the substance, but because of their character as a person. An @#%^ is an @#%^, and if you don't like them...don't hang around with them.


People that broadcast it are quite common in my life, I guess.

Quote:
I always find it interesting how people can say things like "having no moral incompatibilities with use" and then talk about how they don't like it. If you have no moral reason to dislike it, why do you dislike it? How do you come to judge to dislike it if you have no objection to it's use? And that's in regards to anything, not just marijuana.


Well, specifically to marijuana and drugs, I don't like what they do to people, but people should be able to put whatever they see fit into their bodies. In regards to the less specific I think it's quite possible to have that sort of opinion about anything so long as you have a broad absolute opinion "people should be able to do what they will with their bodies" and a narrower opinion that's a bit more mutable. "Drugs are bad" becomes "drugs aren't really good for you" and with some rationalization fits within the first absolute.

Edit: grammar

Edited, May 15th 2009 9:51am by AldousCayo
#51 May 15 2009 at 6:54 AM Rating: Decent
Aldous,

Quote:
"Drugs are bad" becomes "drugs aren't really good for you" and with some rationalization fits within the first absolute.


Tell that to Phelps, Michael Jordan, and numerous other top shelf athletes that partake. It's obvious you have no idea about the real effects of mj use. Then again you're a brainwashed teeny bopper so that's to be expected.



Edited, May 15th 2009 10:55am by publiusvarus
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 251 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (251)