Guest rttocs77 Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Besides from MDMA the others ones I mentioned were made illegal because people abused them not just because of being harmful. Chemo therapy is harmful, it kills LOTS of healthy cells whilst trying to kill cancerous cells. Why don't they just go ahead and make chemo illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjaza Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 You're jumping from the abuse of a drug to the idea of something having drawbacks as well as benefits. Something that is basically going to kill these people anyway. Cocaine was mainly prescribed as an anesthetic for stuff like toothaches. It's barely comparable to chemo. [i]Any[/i] drug can be harmful in excessive amounts, so that's not even the issue. Cocaine was banned not only because of its abusive qualities, but because of the damage it caused. The main issue was arisen when people started snorting, which became the most popular method of use (now maybe we wouldn't have the same laws on the drug if people never snorted it, but I'm not interested in being hypothetical lol). People were reporting nasal damage, among other problems. Thousands of people were dying from it a year and this was in like 1915. The US was nowhere the size it is now. It wasn't simply that it was being abused by a select group of people. What had become the everyday method of using something, sold in every drugstore in the country mind you, was killing people. This isn't comparable to chemotherapy. I can't just go to the drugstore and have them do that to me. LSD is illegal because of panic attacks and psychotic reactions. It takes over the part of the brain that controls emotions and consciousness. These problems can reappear for weeks after you even taken any acid and are not remotely dependent on abuse. You could argue that there are other hallucinogens that are probably legal, but the difference between those and LSD is that the person who takes it can't differentiate between reality and illusion whatsoever. This is useful compared to the one benefit you've listed? It's not some conspiracy to deny people a good, fun time. Most countries have the idea that any drug that makes people deviate from the norm like this is not worth having around. It doesn't always have to do with abuse, as I've said here. The analogies and such being drawn so far aren't really working for me lol... although I do agree with some of your points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i] [B]Newsflash: people use drugs prescribed by a doctor as recreational drugs. Also a lot of drugs that are illegal nowadays used to be prescribed by doctors, until people started abusing them way too much or they were replaced by safer ones. Did you not read my tidbit on cocaine or did you just selectively read my brilliant post? Another example is that in the 1960's LSD was used in therapy as well as in the 1980's MDMA (E) was used in marriage counseling. So shut the f**k up. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]I agree with Semjaza in terms of talking about drugs and how their roles have changed over time. As he said, we simply learn more about these substances as time goes on. I would say that it's pretty difficult to defend illegal drugs. Not only do most of these drugs have very little in the way of physical health benefits, but most of them are incredibly dangerous to the body. That's just simple fact, really. Also, we [i]know[/i] that illegal drugs are a big problem all around the world. We know that the combination of drugs being physically dangerous and the addictive behavior of drug-users as a deadly combination. I don't really see how there can be any argument. Sure, you could say that many drugs in moderation are fine. To some extent I think that's probably true. I mean, you can drink a glass of wine a day and you'll notice health benefits, rather than health deterioration. But I think we know that in many cases, you're talking about irresponsible use of drugs...and you're also talking about substances that are incredibly dangerous in and of themselves, regardless of whether or not they're being taken in moderation. I'm sure that the addictive nature of many drugs is also a major factor there. You can say that "it's not the drug, it's the person", but I think that's really very dismissive. It [i]is[/i] the drug to a large extent. Anyway, I certainly don't mind a civil discussion about this topic...but rttocs77, you've broken a couple of rules in this thread alone. I don't tolerate that kind of rudeness. So, you can consider this your very last warning.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wondershot Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Well, let's see: In Canada the concept of decriminalization of marijuana is becoming more and more likely everyday, not necessarily meaning that you can buy pot as you would cigarettes, just decriminalization. That just means that people can smoke pot as they would smoke a cigarette (only outdoors or in a bar somewhere where they are allowed) only that people can't sell it on the street. Available by prescription only, and you are not charged for possesison of pot. Essentially, I would just have to say that, in moderation, marijuana can be treated just like cigarettes or caffeine or stuff ike that, annoying and somewhat harmful, but at least not illegal. So it's either one extreme or the other, make more drugs legal and more easily avalable to the general public, or reduce their use. Personally, I think things seem to be going well the way they are, decriminalizing substance possession and use with certain restrictions. Should people decide to use it or not is completely up to them, and they are responsible for whatever consequences may come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrikeGundam Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 My opinion isn't as clear cut as anyone else?s, but I am generally against it. Although there are valid medicinal reasons for using "recreational" drugs, such as the use of marijuana for blindness, or religious reasons, such as the Rastafarians, there just aren't enough positives to justify its use. Most of what I'll say has already been said, but I fell that I should add my opinion. I'm going to use rttocs77's arguments to justify my own, since rttocs77 seems to be the only person advocating use that has presented anything that could be construed as a valid and thought out argument(which I can pick apart). [quote] [b]And what about Cocaine, it still has medicinal value. It's still used as an anesthetic. In the early 1900's is used to be put in EVERYTHING including Coca-Cola. If you are going to say that you might as well not do anything, that includes drinking anything with caffeine in it.[/b][/quote] Cocaine is, quite possibly, one of the most addictive substances in existence. Although it may have made cured toothaches and headaches, and made you feel great while it did so, it also caused irreparable damage to the person (physically, socially and psychologically). Once a prescription had been used, people destroyed their lives while trying to get more of their "miracle cure". [quote] [b]when airplanes crash, they cause deaths. People die all the time in the OR (operating room) because of complications with anesthesia or other things. Does that mean we just assume that all airplanes and all drugs used for anesthesia are bad?[/b][/quote] When airplanes crash, hundreds of thousands of dollars go into seeing why the plane crashed and how to stop it from ever happening again. When there are complications from anesthesia, there is a through review of why it happened, and if anyone is at fault, they have to answer for it. To make such a half-a**ed generalization like that is pure idiocy, and no intelligent human being would do so. If a plane ride was as harmful as some "recreational" drugs are, everyone would take a boat. [quote] [b]You can't go around flippantly blaming drugs on everything bad that happens. Citing specific examples that on the surface make it falsely seem like drugs are the sole thing to blame is just a cheap tactic that the government and irresponsible parents (IE Tipper Gore) try to use to blame drugs and not themselves or their children for things they might do.[/b][/quote] I agree with you to a degree. I think that it is incredibly cheap when some vote hungry beauracrat goes around beating their one example to death, hoping that no one will notice that it they don't have any other facts; or if a completely rational person takes a puff of anything, and tries to use it as a justification for going on a killing spree. But with the millions of cases of people dying from drug abuse, it can't be just a fluke. [quote] [b]In a way, people should be thankful for drug addicts (I know this is a stretch). If people in China weren't getting high (I know they used it previously and at the time for valid medical purposes) then we probably wouldn't have discovered the opiate which lead to the creation of one of the greatest medicinal advancements of all time, morphine.[/b][/quote] Morphine was first separated from opium by European chemists in the early 1800s, nice try though. (Source: [url]http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/gen003.htm[/url]) [quote] [b]Newsflash: people use drugs prescribed by a doctor as recreational drugs. Also a lot of drugs that are illegal nowadays used to be prescribed by doctors, until people started abusing them way too much or they were replaced by safer ones. Another example is that in the 1960's LSD was used in therapy as well as in the 1980's MDMA (E) was used in marriage counseling.[/b][/quote] Newsflash: They're not supposed to. A lot of the drugs that are illegal now were first prescribed by doctors because they were seen for their short term effects, not their long term ones. They didn't know what they, were messing with, they were just playing with their new toys. Remember mercury, ephedra, and fen-phen? Same deal. [quote] [b]Another thing is saying that speed is a horrible thing is stupid. Speed refers to amphetamines which is the ingredient in the legal drugs Dexedrine and Adderall, the latter of which I take 6 days a week during the school year. Aside from legalities, what is the difference between me taking it because I was prescribed it by a shrink or someone (like lots of people at my school) take it without a prescription? Drugs, when used properly, are a good thing. I will continue to 'use' drugs.[/b][/quote] The difference is that you were [b][u]prescribed[/b][/u] the correct amount of a drug that was made [u][b]professionally[/b][/u] in a lab. Speed can be made by some kid in his barn who tells you to take six of them because they're weaker than other speed. You were prescribed a controlled dosage of a medicine. When you get better (if you can, I?m not sure what Adderall is for), you will discontinue use of your medicine. [quote] [b]Chemo therapy is harmful, it kills LOTS of healthy cells whilst trying to kill cancerous cells. Why don't they just go ahead and make chemo illegal?[/b][/quote] Chemo is legal because its pros outweigh its cons. Alcohol is legal because alcoholism is a hereditary disease which makes you more susceptible to becoming addicted to it. There are alternatives to chemo, and medicines that make it far less detrimental. There is tons of help for people who have alcoholism, and many people can give it up completely. When an adequate substitute for chemo is found, it will replace it. The addiction caused by what is referred to as "recreational" drugs is almost always permanent. It never goes away. That's why it is illegal, and chemo isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I have to agree with rttocs77 on his point about wiccansamurai uncle; sure it's nice to think back and say "the drugs drove him to his death" but that would just be lying to yourself and others. Some thing forced him into that end, that some thing could have forced him onto any thing like si, insanity, alcoholism and a list of alternative escapism methods. So sure the drugs might have physically killed him but it was the thing that drove him to choose that as his escape that killed him because he could have died by anything else he went into. (I know that sounds blunt but it is probably the truth.) [quote]I am inclined to say that you are the moron here--and a very uneducated moron, at that.[/quote]My English teacher says stooping to this level in a debate is a sign of not understanding the topic and/or not having an opinion strong enough to stand up to that of whom they are rebutting. [quote]It just means more people are going to do it openly, such in the case of legalization. Do we really want more people taking a hit off of a severe narcotic?[/quote]Just because it's legal to own a nuclear weapon in a [url=http://www.dumblaws.com/states/states.php?State=Utah]state[/url] of America does that mean the people there do it? Really that argument is silly because people will still have the same response (with education of its effects) than they would have before when it was illegal, in fact the only thing that would change would be that it wasn't a rebellious thing to do. For example E's are a really big problem in the gaming community in Australia; they wouldn't be there if they didn't have the following two effects, it being illegal and prolongs how long you can stay awake. If it was legal gamers never would have started taking it and just stuck to extreme doses of caffeine. (It's much cheaper than E's and LSD too...) Another example is legal personal use of weed in some states of Australia; marijuana is a problem in all the states except the ones where its legal. Several posts have also championed education as the complete fix, but if you think in the way of all current methods that are used you are just joking. Being 17 and seeing all the drug education it does nothing and probably only a few people would take notice so its effects are minimal; that doesn't mean that every one ignoring it is a smackhead it just means that the current education doesn't have the effect that's wanted. I know in my example of nuclear weapons I stated that education was probably the reason behind people not owning them but remember people know the full effects of what they can do and have seen the damage they did during testing and used as a weapon instead of just being told like we are about drugs. Personally the only education I think works in this case is demonstration of real world effects, like graphics and interviews with people in the safe injecting room in Sydney or in the gutter in Melbourne. [quote]The problem lies at the root. And that root is diseased.[/quote]The root is social problems; would some one seriously take drugs they knew would have a bad effect with excessive use if their life wasn't that bad any way? (Escapism.) And if we allow people to become like that then isn't society to blame for not doing enough? [quote]hell LSD has been blamed for the fits those girls suffered in Salem that caused the witch trials[/quote]No it was ergot poisoning which comes from diseased wheat that has been blamed for Salem on top of the fact that LSD was only discovered by ?the drug man? in the 70's. (What a job; testing substances for hallucinogenic properties.) [quote]what is the difference between me taking it because I was prescribed it by a shrink or someone[/quote]Because when a shrink prescribes it the tablets have a very specific mixture of other drugs and dose's of each, or at least the ones I was put on, where as on the street stuff is normally mixed badly and has stronger and more dangerous effects.[quote]Drugs, when used properly, are a good thing.[/quote]They most defiantly are, and that can include recreational use. (But after reading what James has posted I'll note that I mean for only lower class and not so effective drugs.) [quote]were made illegal because people abused them not just because of being harmful[/quote]This is entirely true, LSD was banned because of ?youth? abusing it. It could have had very beneficial uses in psychology and was having good effects in testing but they never got past that thanks to the bans; just like a lot of other hallucinogenic's around. I don't see any real problem in people taking drugs as long as it's controlled, if they can't control it and know they wont be able to they should not take it and drugs we know people cannot handle should also be banned for "every day use". A system like this isn't currently happening because of shock reactions by people to new drugs that happen in a lot of countries. [edit] Just to support that last bit since it's a touch open. How can the current system be working in the above way if weed is illegal and tobacco is legal, in most of Australia and I believe America, when it is known that in the same doses that tobacco has worse effects on your body than weed. (And in cases of other drugs imposing a legal limit like in the case of alcohol.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiccansamurai Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 [QUOTE]So sure the drugs might have physically killed him but it was the thing that drove him to choose that as his escape that killed him because he could have died by anything else he went into. [/QUOTE] Actually, it wasn't him taking the drugs. It was the women and that one guy (Who is, thank goddess, back in jail.) who killed him. Its kinda gruesome and sad and bloody how they killed him.... I understood there are thousands of other ways to get killed, but I've never seen anything good come out of abusing drugs. I'm sure there are some people on drugs able to go about life relativally normal, but most drop out of school, get kicked out, end up hurting everyone around them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasil Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] My English teacher says stooping to this level in a debate is a sign of not understanding the topic and/or not having an opinion strong enough to stand up to that of whom they are rebutting.[/quote] Cloricus, do you read? Do you read with any comprehension or attention to detail? I notice you [i]only[/i] quoted [i]one[/i] sentence there. Perhaps you did not read the entire paragraph? Here, I shall quote it in its entirety. [quote][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue[/i] [b]rttocs77, shut your mouth. You have no right at all to speak to anyone in that tone, and wiccansamurai certainly did not deserve that level of arrogance. I think you should take some time for self re-evaluation. You have never demonstrated any positive quality in attitude or in post, as well. I am inclined to say that you are the moron here--and a very uneducated moron, at that. Perhaps it would suit you to get banned, so that you can politely excuse yourself from OB. In fact, once I am able to speak to Charles, this issue will be raised again. Yes, again. Think about that. Let it sink in.[/b][/quote] Cloricus, why did you misquote me? Obviously, there is intelligent motive and basis of fact to what I was saying. But you conveniently left all that out, just in some vain attempt to make yourself look superior. Let me ask you, are you holding some grudge? Are you getting pissy that I made you look bad on numerous occasions? Also, I do believe you have absolutely no room to talk and criticize others for supposed immature behavior, when you yourself are the king of immature arguments. Think about that before you open your mouth or set your fingers down on that Lindows keyboard. [quote]Just because it's legal to own a nuclear weapon in a [url=http://www.dumblaws.com/states/states.php?State=Utah]state[/url] of America does that mean the people there do it? Really that argument is silly because people will still have the same response (with education of its effects) than they would have before when it was illegal, in fact the only thing that would change would be that it wasn't a rebellious thing to do. For example E's are a really big problem in the gaming community in Australia; they wouldn't be there if they didn't have the following two effects, it being illegal and prolongs how long you can stay awake. If it was legal gamers never would have started taking it and just stuck to extreme doses of caffeine. (It's much cheaper than E's and LSD too...) Another example is legal personal use of weed in some states of Australia; marijuana is a problem in all the states except the ones where its legal.[/quote] Cloricus, I'll make this simple for you. When you can purchase nuclear weapons at a convenience store, or in a slum of Camden, NJ, your comparison will be valid. For now, however, thanks for playing. "http://www.dumblaws.com/states/states.php?State=Utah" Something strikes me as odd here. You have very rarely demonstrated competent and informed opinion about anything other than computers, and even then about computers, you come off as condescending and rude. In fact, you come off as condescending and rude in the majority of your posts, regardless of subject. Do you actually expect us to take you more seriously when you post that link? You have an extremely Anti-American stance. If not Anti-American, then Naive Anti-Bush. Your values and ideas border on conspiracy theory, as well. Frankly, I cannot take you seriously at all, and this "support" of yours only further proves your immaturity in that you include such inane material, thinking it boosts your strength of argument. Get real. [quote]Several posts have also championed education as the complete fix, but if you think in the way of all current methods that are used you are just joking. Being 17 and seeing all the drug education it does nothing and probably only a few people would take notice so its effects are minimal; that doesn't mean that every one ignoring it is a smackhead it just means that the current education doesn't have the effect that's wanted. I know in my example of nuclear weapons I stated that education was probably the reason behind people not owning them but remember people know the full effects of what they can do and have seen the damage they did during testing and used as a weapon instead of just being told like we are about drugs. Personally the only education I think works in this case is demonstration of real world effects, like graphics and interviews with people in the safe injecting room in Sydney or in the gutter in Melbourne.[/quote] Do clarify, as I cannot effectively distinguish purposed speech from unfocused rambling here. Are you implying that the only "Education" I suggest are the corny class assemblies you seem to refer to? [quote]Being 17 and seeing all the drug education it does nothing and probably only a few people would take notice so its effects are minimal[/quote] Seems like it. [quote]The root is social problems; would some one seriously take drugs they knew would have a bad effect with excessive use if their life wasn't that bad any way? (Escapism.) And if we allow people to become like that then isn't society to blame for not doing enough?[/quote] Are you disagreeing with my point? You seem like you wanted to, but... [quote][i]PoisonTongue[/i] The problem lies at the root. And that root is diseased. Awareness and education, and most importantly, support, are going to treat the root. The bandaid application is merely cutting off limbs...stripping the tree bare. Not a very worthwhile solution, if you ask me.[/quote] What do you think that "root" is? "Social problems," you say. What are social problems? They are very closely correlated with social decay, and decay is closely correlated with disease. You tried to argue here, I think--but you only further developed my point. Thanks, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 [quote]Cloricus, why did you misquote me? Obviously, there is intelligent motive and basis of fact to what I was saying. But you conveniently left all that out, just in some vain attempt to make yourself look superior. Let me ask you, are you holding some grudge? Are you getting pissy that I made you look bad on numerous occasions? [/quote]If you would like I can quote your whole paragraph. Though I normally just quote snippets because I except people to read pervious posts so I can keep the size and layout of my post within reason. Also if you wish to believe I have a conspiracy against you that is your right, a weird one though. The same applies to similar accusations further down the page in relation to America and Bush; and to clarify I only dislike actions taken by the above people in some cases; some of which I am extremely against but apart from the odd joke I have no grudge against the people or places themselves. [quote]Think about that before you open your mouth or set your fingers down on that Lindows keyboard.[/quote]I do not use Lindows; I use debian 3.0r1 (2.6.0, 4.2.16), mandrake 9.0 (4.2.16) and slackware 9.1 (2.6.1), windows 2k, xp pro, 98(se), freebsd and mac. I also personally use a smart office XP keyboard for future reference. Now I believe you need to think up a more logical and factual argument instead of lashing out in the way you have, it keeps everything on topic and more civilized. [quote]Cloricus, I'll make this simple for you. When you can purchase nuclear weapons at a convenience store, or in a slum of Camden, NJ, your comparison will be valid. For now, however, thanks for playing.[/quote]For extra credit I'd like to note that you can get the instructions off the internet with relative easy and mostly off the shelf parts which I'm sure would be much cheaper than buying a kit from your local store and in states where it is legal to own one you wouldn't have a problem getting the harder components as you could argue that it was your right to own them. Also I don?t think purchasing crack cocaine is possible at your convince stores either. [quote]In fact, you come off as condescending and rude in the majority of your posts, regardless of subject.[/quote]I direct you to another [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=4905]user[/url] that has the same tendencies but does not seem to be trying to change them. I am sorry to people if I seem like that though I do try to make sure everything is/was supported and "nice." [quote][In relation in dumb laws link] Get real.[/quote]The law is there for you to see, I was merely linking to a place that backs up that that situation exists and shows you where to look to see it so people would not dismiss my argument which has happened before. It was an example nothing more so it?s linking was just to hold it up in relation to the real topic. [quote]Do clarify, as I cannot effectively distinguish purposed speech from unfocused rambling here[/quote]Education under current methods doesn?t work was the out line of that part in my last post. Too go into detail: Personally I have noticed that education methods used on myself and friends to do with drugs (though not exclusively; same applies to cancer, stds and personal health) are very ineffective as they do not show the effects of some ones actions in stead point to statistics and lists of bad things that ?may? happen. This is the basic outlay off all education attempts on these subjects that I have ever seen and being in high school and this age we basically get a new one every week. All I am saying is that these methods don?t work and a suggestion on how they might work if at all. [quote]Are you disagreeing with my point?[/quote]Defining, and expanding. Or arguing. Not to sure to be honest as your original comment wasn't too focused or I missed it completely, so either way I added my opinion to it. Maybe I should have taken you up on ?If you want me to clarify further, I will.? [quote]And decay is closely correlated with disease.[/quote]Disease has nothing to do with how society acts unless you have a different meaning too [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Disease%20]Dictonary.com[/url]? Society?s practices are at fault; anything else is really just excuses. (I'm not pointing to any particular societies as it happens all over the world.) PT also asked for an example, one of the top of my head is lack of work for every one, lack of support if there is not work and by support I don?t mean cash I mean means to live and help learning to change their trade to some thing in demand. If you don?t have work you don?t have money so you are already fulling into depression. Of course I don?t say I could change society and I can?t put up a better model than the one I know in Australia and some northern EU countries but until some one does these problems will happen. [spoiler]If you wish to argue more please do so in PM as we have both put forward our arguments and further posts on (off) the subject would just be spam, thank you.[/spoiler] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasil Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] If you would like I can quote your whole paragraph. Though I normally just quote snippets because I except people to read pervious posts so I can keep the size and layout of my post within reason. [/quote] Ah...quoting snippets...I advise against that. It doesn't serve to strengthen your argument. It serves to make people wonder why you didn't quote an entire passage. For example, one cannot base a thesis on a singular line of Shakespeare's Othello, and if one can, then it demands skill which you do not seem to possess. No offence. Basically, it's a rule of literary interpretation. Here comes Teacher Alex. It looks extremely questionable in literary essays when someone isolates a specific sentence and bases a long and involved point on it. Snippet quotes lead to a greater possibility of interpretive malpractice. Surely you will admit that. Even close readings of passages no longer than 10 lines will not survive if the writer only concentrates his focus on one line. It will simply not do. You are understanding this basic literary convention, correct? I trust I am explaining it sufficiently? [quote]Also if you wish to believe I have a conspiracy against you that is your right, a weird one though. The same applies to similar accusations further down the page in relation to America and Bush; and to clarify I only dislike actions taken by the above people in some cases; some of which I am extremely against but apart from the odd joke I have no grudge against the people or places themselves.[/quote] So..."Terrorist In Chief" has no deeper meaning? C'mon. And Cloricus, do explain why all of a sudden were you disagreeing with me in so many places after a few particular threads? Nintendo DS, perhaps? Communication, perhaps? Surely you admit the suspicion has a logical and reasonable basis here. Also considering, that you are the reigning king of conspiracy theories, always setting an accusing eye on others before examining yourself--quite arrogant--you should be more aware before you say things. "I have no grudge against the people or places themselves." [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=547535#post547535]Here?[/url] [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=546868]What about this?[/url] [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=530629]This?[/url] Do I really have to continue this? I found those posts only in the first 4 pages of your post history, and judging by your track record, that post attitude doesn't end with just those I listed, either. [quote]I do not use Lindows; I use debian 3.0r1 (2.6.0, 4.2.16), mandrake 9.0 (4.2.16) and slackware 9.1 (2.6.1), windows 2k, xp pro, 98(se), freebsd and mac. I also personally use a smart office XP keyboard for future reference. Now I believe you need to think up a more logical and factual argument instead of lashing out in the way you have, it keeps everything on topic and more civilized. [/quote] Hmm...I don't really have anything to say to this because you really let me have it. How about this. Similar to just spouting off film history (which I can do quite extensively), you just spouted off techie knowledge that is quite irrelevant here. My point with the "Lindows" comment was not an invitation so you could attempt to belittle me with your "superior" computer knowledge, Cloricus. If anything, you further demonstrate immaturity. Think about it. You have essentially gone off on a tangent here. You were the one who posted an entire point that was entirely off-topic, and then you criticize me and play Mod? Something does not make sense. Forgive me for enlightening you, but I'm closer to a Mod than you are. I'm talking to a very nice selection of them right now, in fact. I go to school with the Site Admin. Does it make any sense for you to attempt to assume a mantle of authority here? [quote]For extra credit I'd like to note that you can get the instructions off the internet with relative easy and mostly off the shelf parts which I'm sure would be much cheaper than buying a kit from your local store and in states where it is legal to own one you wouldn't have a problem getting the harder components as you could argue that it was your right to own them. Also I don?t think purchasing crack cocaine is possible at your convince stores either.[/quote] Again, I request that you read with comprehension. I will quote my previous post. [quote][i]PoisonTongue[/i] Cloricus, I'll make this simple for you. When you can purchase nuclear weapons at a convenience store, or in a slum of Camden, NJ, your comparison will be valid. For now, however, thanks for playing.[/quote] Do note where I said, "at a convenience store, or in a slum of Camden," and remember what the subject matter was: cigarettes and coke. Now, examine how I phrased my sentence. The convenience store referenced the cigarettes, and the slums referenced the coke. It's elementary grammar and structure, really. And your point about the hardware store again bears no relevance on the topic at hand if you are trying to weaken my argument. If you don't recall, you brought up nuclear weapons first and I debunked it. Shall we have a look? [quote][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue[/i] Meaning, making something legal/illegal is not going to help the problem. It just means more people are going to do it openly, such in the case of legalization. Do we really want more people taking a hit off of a severe narcotic?[/quote] Your reply, [quote][i]Originally posted by Cloricus[/i] Just because it's legal to own a nuclear weapon in a state of America does that mean the people there do it? Really that argument is silly because people will still have the same response (with education of its effects) than they would have before when it was illegal, in fact the only thing that would change would be that it wasn't a rebellious thing to do.[/quote] Again, do realize that you made mention of nuclear weapons before I did. Here was my reply, just to make things clear. [quote][i]PT[/i] Cloricus, I'll make this simple for you. When you can purchase nuclear weapons at a convenience store, or in a slum of Camden, NJ, your comparison will be valid. For now, however, thanks for playing.[/quote] Satisfied? I thoroughly debunked your ill-advised comparison to nuclear weapons, and yet you continue to ignore that. I would strongly advise you to re-think your course of action here, Cloricus. [quote]I direct you to another [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=4905]user[/url] that has the same tendencies but does not seem to be trying to change them. I am sorry to people if I seem like that though I do try to make sure everything is/was supported and "nice."[/quote] I can link to, as I have done previously in my reply. Take a look at it. You have presented yourself in a much more negative light than I have. [quote]The law is there for you to see, I was merely linking to a place that backs up that that situation exists and shows you where to look to see it so people would not dismiss my argument which has happened before. It was an example nothing more so it?s linking was just to hold it up in relation to the real topic. Education under current methods doesn?t work was the out line of that part in my last post. Too go into detail: Personally I have noticed that education methods used on myself and friends to do with drugs (though not exclusively; same applies to cancer, stds and personal health) are very ineffective as they do not show the effects of some ones actions in stead point to statistics and lists of bad things that ?may? happen. This is the basic outlay off all education attempts on these subjects that I have ever seen and being in high school and this age we basically get a new one every week. All I am saying is that these methods don?t work and a suggestion on how they might work if at all.[/quote] People do not dismiss your argument solely on lack of evidence; they dismiss your argument due to unfounded logic, ill-advised and naive statements, arrogance, and generally a hypercritical attitude towards others when there is clearly improvement needed on your part. That is why they dismiss your arguments. As I have mentioned to DeathBug, who very well grasps the concept now, you are not representational of the whole, Cloricus. Do keep that in mind. Your opinions have no standing anywhere but your Unix...Linux...Mac...whatever system. And for you to take this insolent tone with OBers who present a differing opinion is very misinformed and is something you need to work on. [quote]Defining, and expanding. Or arguing. Not to sure to be honest as your original comment wasn't too focused or I missed it completely, so either way I added my opinion to it. Maybe I should have taken you up on ?If you want me to clarify further, I will.?[/quote] Considering how I have established that you read with very little comprehension, I think it is safe to say that my points were very clear, and you either did not see and/or understand them, or chose not to. [quote]Disease has nothing to do with how society acts unless you have a different meaning too [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Disease%20]Dictonary.com[/url]? Society?s practices are at fault; anything else is really just excuses. (I'm not pointing to any particular societies as it happens all over the world.) PT also asked for an example, one of the top of my head is lack of work for every one, lack of support if there is not work and by support I don?t mean cash I mean means to live and help learning to change their trade to some thing in demand. If you don?t have work you don?t have money so you are already fulling into depression. [/quote] Since you so graciously provided the definition, which I assume you intend to use to debunk my argument that decay and disease are closely correlated, let's examine the definition, shall we? I find the second entry most intriguing. [quote]A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful. [/quote] Ahem. This says that "disease" can be defined as a state of degeneration of society, and a state of degeneration is decay. Thank you again for proving me correct. [quote]Of course I don?t say I could change society and I can?t put up a better model than the one I know in Australia and some northern EU countries but until some one does these problems will happen.[/quote] I could have sworn I posted a link to just that. Yes, in fact I did. Please see above links for further details. [quote][spoiler]If you wish to argue more please do so in PM as we have both put forward our arguments and further posts on (off) the subject would just be spam, thank you.[/spoiler][/QUOTE] Playing Mod, eh? I refer to my above statements, but I'll copy and paste right down here in case you don't feel like reading again. [quote]You were the one who posted an entire point that was entirely off-topic, and then you criticize me and play Mod? Something does not make sense. Forgive me for enlightening you, but I'm closer to a Mod than you are. I'm talking to a very nice selection of them right now, in fact. I go to school with the Site Admin. Does it make any sense for you to attempt to assume a mantle of authority here?[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B] Other than that I feel the rest of your post should have been conducted in PM. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]Even though you were doing the same thing as PT, within the thread?[/color] [quote][i]Originally posted by cloricus[/i] [b]If you would like I can quote your whole paragraph. Though I normally just quote snippets because I except people to read pervious posts so I can keep the size and layout of my post within reason. Also if you wish to believe I have a conspiracy against you that is your right, a weird one though. The same applies to similar accusations further down the page in relation to America and Bush; and to clarify I only dislike actions taken by the above people in some cases; some of which I am extremely against but apart from the odd joke I have no grudge against the people or places themselves.[/b][/quote] [color=#707875]If PT's post should have been in a PM...then so should most of your post. Remember, you can't just be dismissive like that when people start to question your logic or the thought process behind your arguments. Afterall, we're talking about a fluid debate here. It's unfair to do one thing and then tell everyone else to do something different. Anyway, by all means, let the discussion about recreational drugs continue. Let's get that back on track.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rttocs77 Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 I'm not sure if this is where I would do it, but I suppose here is better than nowhere... I would like to apologize to everyone for snapping at ya'll. I was just on edge because this and some political subjects are things I feel strongly about it. I know it was inappropriate to say some of the things I said and I apologize if I hurt anyones feelings. In the future I will try harder to improve my post quality and will stop myself before I make any personal attacks. --Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasil Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i] [B]I'm not sure if this is where I would do it, but I suppose here is better than nowhere... I would like to apologize to everyone for snapping at ya'll. I was just on edge because this and some political subjects are things I feel strongly about it. I know it was inappropriate to say some of the things I said and I apologize if I hurt anyones feelings. In the future I will try harder to improve my post quality and will stop myself before I make any personal attacks. --Scott [/B][/QUOTE] Apology accepted for the most part. But, keep this in mind. Strong personal convictions or not, foul language is not condoned, nor is it accepted. You let your emotions cloud your judgement. Your emotions blinded you. Something to think about. I hope you make a conscious effort to improve your attitude, personal devotions or not, because rttocs77, you have been wholly arrogant and indignant for as long as I've been following your posts...and I've been following them for quite some time. So, since you say you are going to change for the better, I am expecting a radical change of attitude, an almost 180. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Fett Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i] [B]You let your emotions cloud your judgement. Your emotions blinded you. Something to think about.[/B][/QUOTE] [color=green]*Hand's PT a pair of pointy ears and a Starfleet uniform* You sounded very much like T'Pol or Spock there. In any case, I'd just like to mention how shocked I am at the amount of people here who are either A) Advocating drug use B) Aren?t opposed to it The use of ?recreational drugs? is not only self destructive, it?s downright stupid. There are plenty of other ways to feel good. Go make some friends, play a video game, get something tasty to eat, etc. Drugs are not a good way to fit in either. I can?t understand why anyone would want to fit into a group where drugs are accepted. Are these the kind of people you want to be associated with? Another thing, how can you possibly responsibly use a mind-altering substance? Those two terms are incompatible. Some of you people are really scaring me right now?[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artemis Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Whoa, I'm going to try to avoid the intense argument going on in here... My cousin, Thomas, got busted for drugs. The problem with them is that they hurt more than just the person who uses/sells/buys them. He belongs to a mixed family. (His dad remarried a woman with two little girls of her own.) Because of Thomas, his stepmom could have lost custody of her children simply because he was living at home at the time of his arrest. On top of that, he was a bad role model to these young girls (they're in 1st grade and preschool if I remember correctly.) It also reflected badly on our grandfather (Thomas' employer). From what I've seen, drugs are just far too harmful. They're not worth the risk. Too many people have made dire mistakes under the influence of drugs and alcohol. They're not an excuse. Most of us have been told enough to avoid them that we should know better. For example: I went through the DARE program in 5th grade. (Drug & Alcohol Resistence Education) If I've insulted someone who uses drugs, I guess that's just too bad. I've never seen a good excuse for using them. Even if you want to claim that you can do whatever you want to your own body, as I stated before, you hurt others as well. People look up to you, rather you realize it or not. Alright, *steps off soapbox* I think I'm done here... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagan Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Artemis [/i] [B]Whoa, I'm going to try to avoid the intense argument going on in here...[/B][/QUOTE] Actually avoiding arguments now? I myself have no problem with the use of recreatonal drugs. Sometimes people just need a reality break; to get away from the day to day dullness of life. For each his own if they want to take one of these drugs and go out of control, good for them I'm not going to get in their way. I've tried a few of them but they just weren't for me. I'll just stick with getting my high from alcohol. Some dude at school took Ya Ba(a really pure methamphetamine) and died instantly on the spot. He was foaming at the mouth and his body couldn't stop shaking. I can't become a candy flipper(X head) because I do have a football career and don't want to mess it up by being hooked on some funky drug. Girl around town get really messed up and then end up having babies and stuff, but it was their choice. Most of these drugs are made out of household stuff. Christmas Tree Meth is made out of drano and quite easy to make, but if you read on the drano bottle what does it say "for external not internal use". If people really want to get high there is nothing you can do to stop them and so I choose to let them live their lives the way they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Fett Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Hells Fire [/i] [B] I myself have no problem with the use of recreatonal drugs. Sometimes people just need a reality break; to get away from the day to day dullness of life.[/B][/QUOTE] [color=green]How is day-to-day life dull? Sure, some things are repetitive, but overall life should be interesting. If yours isn?t, there are plenty of other escapes that are far less dangerous and destructive than drugs.[/color] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Hells Fire [/i] [B]For each his own if they want to take one of these drugs and go out of control, good for them I'm not going to get in their way.[/B][/QUOTE] [color=green]Excuse me? If someone is high, you don?t have a problem with them getting out of control? If they get behind the wheel, you wont have a choice about whether or not you get in their way.[/color] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Hells Fire [/i] [B]Some dude at school took Ya Ba(a really pure methamphetamine) and died instantly on the spot. He was foaming at the mouth and his body couldn't stop shaking. Girl around town get really messed up and then end up having babies and stuff, but it was their choice.[/B][/QUOTE] [color=green]These are prime examples of what happens when someone uses ?recreational drugs?. These drugs, at the very least, rob the user of their health and can lead to bad decisions. In other cases, they can kill. These drugs have exponentially more cons than pros. Why any person in their right mind would use them is beyond me.[/color] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Hells Fire [/i] [B]If people really want to get high there is nothing you can do to stop them and so I choose to let them live their lives the way they want. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=green]Actually, you can stop them. You can report users of illegal drugs to the local authorities, who will take appropriate action. This will usually result, for teenagers, in a slap on the wrist and rehab. Hopefully, this will be the end of the person?s drug use. I personally have very little compassion for anyone who uses drugs. Most teenagers, who use drugs in the United States, have been bombarded since fifth grade with anti-drug messages. If, after over five years of constantly being told why drugs are harmful, these people do drugs? Using drugs is a stupid decision. It?s as simple as that.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pixie_rich Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I love taking drugs, especially ecstasy, ket, coke, speed and magic monkey juice :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syrius Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 In the words Mackey: Drugs are bad MMKAY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 [quote name='Pixie_rich']I love taking drugs, especially ecstasy, ket, coke, speed and magic monkey juice :D[/quote]..... If it's true, that explains a lot. I kid! (Or do I?) Seriously, though, please don't revive old topics. Thanks in advance. Thread closed. ~Dagger~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts