jimpeel
Member
Took me about twenty seconds of repeated re-reading of that statement to figure out what you were saying.
Edit to "Their veins, my wallet."
Yet another country to totally ban firearms ....
- Thread starter Bruce in West Oz
- Start date
- Status
Edit to "Their veins, my wallet."
Will do Jim. Though I wonder why it took you so long to figure out my error and what I meant. You don't by chance.. nah..
telomerase, who's enslaving who? The druggies are the ones enslaving us, with high tax rates to pay for their sorry butts, millions in treatment (none of which has proven to work in the least), and tons of damaged children which we will be paying the toll for generations.
Please don't even go start with the "What about cancer patients". Big evil goverment's making everybody die horrible deaths because of the war on drugs nonsense. When my mother had cancer they gave her all the morphine she needed, and no there are no are secret government cures for cancer tucked away in any black helicopters funded by Eli Lily. Got proof of it I'll listen.
I well explained the current drugs=crime deal and you come up with some theory of what happened in the 1800's, well back before the social safety net was enforced on us.
Do some research of your own, actually deal with folks on this stuff and see how "their" blood streams start affect "your" rights. But hey if you want to march with a bunch of sored up, shaking, burned out, irresponsible losers, who rob, steal and live off charity fine, but for Gods sakes take your NRA cap off. Totally different issues as have been explained and you will likely eventually discover on your own thorugh experience regardless of what I say.
With rights come responsibilities, you can't be responsible on crack.
telomerase, who's enslaving who? The druggies are the ones enslaving us, with high tax rates to pay for their sorry butts, millions in treatment (none of which has proven to work in the least), and tons of damaged children which we will be paying the toll for generations.
Please don't even go start with the "What about cancer patients". Big evil goverment's making everybody die horrible deaths because of the war on drugs nonsense. When my mother had cancer they gave her all the morphine she needed, and no there are no are secret government cures for cancer tucked away in any black helicopters funded by Eli Lily. Got proof of it I'll listen.
I well explained the current drugs=crime deal and you come up with some theory of what happened in the 1800's, well back before the social safety net was enforced on us.
Do some research of your own, actually deal with folks on this stuff and see how "their" blood streams start affect "your" rights. But hey if you want to march with a bunch of sored up, shaking, burned out, irresponsible losers, who rob, steal and live off charity fine, but for Gods sakes take your NRA cap off. Totally different issues as have been explained and you will likely eventually discover on your own thorugh experience regardless of what I say.
With rights come responsibilities, you can't be responsible on crack.
telomerase
Member
>Oh lord please don't even go start with the "What about cancer patients". Big evil goverment's making everybody die horrible deaths because of the war on drugs nonsense. When my mother had cancer they gave her all the morphine she needed, and no there are secret government cures for cancer tucked away in any black helicopters funded by Eli Lily. Got proof of it I'll listen.
No one said anything about government cures for cancer. In fact I work in a telomere research lab, and we will be the first to tell you that a lot of money was wasted in government labs in the War on Cancer. (Mouse telomeres don't cause replicative senescence, so they are a bad research animal in many ways.)
However, cancer cures could be developed. But because we treat biotech differently from the computer industry, things go much more slowly:
http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/federal_data_proposal.htm
>I well explained the current drugs=crime deal and you come up with some theory of what happened in the 1800's, well back before the social safety net was enforced on us.
No, I did not come up with "some theory". I stated the historical fact that our ancestors had access to cocaine and opiates, and until 1918 this was not the huge problem that it is now... just as alcohol Prohibition caused problems analogous to the problems we have now with Drug Prohibition.
>Do some research of your own, actually deal with folks on this stuff and see how "their" blood streams start affect "your" rights. But hey if you want to march with a bunch of sored up, shaking, burned out, irresponsible losers, who rob, steal and live off charity fine,
Are you referring to alcoholics? TV addicts? Guys who spent all their rent money on CAS equipment? Not every irresponsible or criminal person uses controlled substances. And not every person who uses controlled substances is irresponsible.
>With rights come responsibilities, you can't be responsible on crack.
No one is advocating the use of crack (which is, as you know, a creation of Prohibition. Cocaine users when it was legal used more controllable delivery methods.. like Coca-cola, teas, etc.). I am advocating that people be held responsible for their actions, rather than for the firearms or chemicals that they own. As far as responsibility goes, you are only responsible for what you own. Do you own your own bloodstream, or not?
This is reminding me of the "oh those horrible immigrants" threads. Everyone wants to find poor, powerless scapegoats. But the poor and powerless aren't taking away your rights or taxing you to death. Our real opponents are those well-dressed, well-off, smiling people on TV. But they're not poor or powerless, so standing up to them takes a little more moxie.
(Although I admit that the thought of facing a CAS junkie in a back alley does fill me with apprehension...)
No one said anything about government cures for cancer. In fact I work in a telomere research lab, and we will be the first to tell you that a lot of money was wasted in government labs in the War on Cancer. (Mouse telomeres don't cause replicative senescence, so they are a bad research animal in many ways.)
However, cancer cures could be developed. But because we treat biotech differently from the computer industry, things go much more slowly:
http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/federal_data_proposal.htm
>I well explained the current drugs=crime deal and you come up with some theory of what happened in the 1800's, well back before the social safety net was enforced on us.
No, I did not come up with "some theory". I stated the historical fact that our ancestors had access to cocaine and opiates, and until 1918 this was not the huge problem that it is now... just as alcohol Prohibition caused problems analogous to the problems we have now with Drug Prohibition.
>Do some research of your own, actually deal with folks on this stuff and see how "their" blood streams start affect "your" rights. But hey if you want to march with a bunch of sored up, shaking, burned out, irresponsible losers, who rob, steal and live off charity fine,
Are you referring to alcoholics? TV addicts? Guys who spent all their rent money on CAS equipment? Not every irresponsible or criminal person uses controlled substances. And not every person who uses controlled substances is irresponsible.
>With rights come responsibilities, you can't be responsible on crack.
No one is advocating the use of crack (which is, as you know, a creation of Prohibition. Cocaine users when it was legal used more controllable delivery methods.. like Coca-cola, teas, etc.). I am advocating that people be held responsible for their actions, rather than for the firearms or chemicals that they own. As far as responsibility goes, you are only responsible for what you own. Do you own your own bloodstream, or not?
This is reminding me of the "oh those horrible immigrants" threads. Everyone wants to find poor, powerless scapegoats. But the poor and powerless aren't taking away your rights or taxing you to death. Our real opponents are those well-dressed, well-off, smiling people on TV. But they're not poor or powerless, so standing up to them takes a little more moxie.
(Although I admit that the thought of facing a CAS junkie in a back alley does fill me with apprehension...)
telomerase
Member
>The druggies are the ones enslaving us, with high tax rates to pay for their sorry butts, millions in treatment (none of which has proven to work in the least), and tons of damaged children which we will be paying the toll for generations.
Once again: no, neither the druggies, nor the alcoholics, nor the tobacco users, nor the welfare mothers are enslaving us. We are being enslaved by those nice smiling folks in the campaign ads.
But getting them under control is harder than just sneering at the poor.
Once again: no, neither the druggies, nor the alcoholics, nor the tobacco users, nor the welfare mothers are enslaving us. We are being enslaved by those nice smiling folks in the campaign ads.
But getting them under control is harder than just sneering at the poor.
telomerase
Member
telomerase
Member
At least the Taliban agreed with you...
... or pretended to:
http://cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-071es.html
... or pretended to:
http://cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-071es.html
Drug war/RKBA has nothing in common, other than a few news blips about dealers and "AK's" by inane TV anchors. There's your real "evil smiling men in suits."
I just could not let a few pass...
So you would let someone babysit your child as long as they are a *responsible* crack/meth/heroin addict? "C'mon
Times change. Assuming a lower crime rate was due solely to a lack of drug laws(the strongest of which were not even available then), then jumping all the way to the assumption that getting rid of our drug laws would reduce crime to near the same level is well...poor reasoning. The genies out of the bottle. Gotta deal with whats going on today, not 100 years ago.
Prohibition? get real. 90+% of people who drink have no real issues with it. 90+% of people who do crack are problems for society that we have to sweep up at our expense. Big difference between Bud and Heroin, whether you believe it or not.
If you recall thats what I said at the begining. You create me a perfect libertarian society where I don't have to pay for other peoples stupidity we'll *talk* legalization (still wanna know what to do with all those crack babies even then though). Till that comes to pass legalization in our current semi-socialist state would be an economic and personal rights nightmare for our country IMNSHO.
Doesn't really matter though, same tired arguements for legalization are trotted out and beaten around year after year after year. Common sense and experience win out over naive theories each and every time. Crack, Meth, Heroin are still illegal in all 50 states and that is not going to change. Better to spend your resources and typing skills fighting for something both beneficial to our rights and doable.
I just could not let a few pass...
So you would let someone babysit your child as long as they are a *responsible* crack/meth/heroin addict? "C'mon
Times change. Assuming a lower crime rate was due solely to a lack of drug laws(the strongest of which were not even available then), then jumping all the way to the assumption that getting rid of our drug laws would reduce crime to near the same level is well...poor reasoning. The genies out of the bottle. Gotta deal with whats going on today, not 100 years ago.
Prohibition? get real. 90+% of people who drink have no real issues with it. 90+% of people who do crack are problems for society that we have to sweep up at our expense. Big difference between Bud and Heroin, whether you believe it or not.
If you recall thats what I said at the begining. You create me a perfect libertarian society where I don't have to pay for other peoples stupidity we'll *talk* legalization (still wanna know what to do with all those crack babies even then though). Till that comes to pass legalization in our current semi-socialist state would be an economic and personal rights nightmare for our country IMNSHO.
Doesn't really matter though, same tired arguements for legalization are trotted out and beaten around year after year after year. Common sense and experience win out over naive theories each and every time. Crack, Meth, Heroin are still illegal in all 50 states and that is not going to change. Better to spend your resources and typing skills fighting for something both beneficial to our rights and doable.
telomerase
Member
Free me, not thee
>Doesn't really matter though, same tired arguements for legalization are trotted out
Just as the same "tired arguments" for gun rights are trotted out every year. But as long as people only care about THEIR pet freedom and are willing to vote against other people's (as is unfortunately just as true for the NORML people as it is for you), then no arguments for any freedom are likely to prevail.
You're obviously a good guy Blueduck. I certainly wish you the best. I just hope that when you're older you give up your "conspiracy theory" that there is a giant cabal of the rich and powerful to help the average person through Prohibition
BTW, you never did answer the question: who owns your bloodstream? (And if it's not you, then who, exactly? Ashcroft?)
>Doesn't really matter though, same tired arguements for legalization are trotted out
Just as the same "tired arguments" for gun rights are trotted out every year. But as long as people only care about THEIR pet freedom and are willing to vote against other people's (as is unfortunately just as true for the NORML people as it is for you), then no arguments for any freedom are likely to prevail.
You're obviously a good guy Blueduck. I certainly wish you the best. I just hope that when you're older you give up your "conspiracy theory" that there is a giant cabal of the rich and powerful to help the average person through Prohibition
BTW, you never did answer the question: who owns your bloodstream? (And if it's not you, then who, exactly? Ashcroft?)
jimpeel
Member
Blueduck
No, not loaded, just too literal. They are ..., They ... are ... Theyare ... they are ... what?!?! They are veins, my wallet ... They ... Ohhhhhhh! I get it! THEIR veins, my wallet!
No, not loaded, just too literal.
They are ..., They ... are ... Theyare ... they are ... what?!?! They are veins, my wallet ... They ... Ohhhhhhh! I get it! THEIR veins, my wallet! Thanks for saying I'm a good guy, I'd bet we would agree on a lot more than we would disagree on politically. Still I seriously doubt age is gonna change my mind on this one. I'm 34 and have spent the last 6 years working with drug addicted adults, and the previous 3 working with developmentally disabled children, nearly 80% of whom came from ehhhh... "freedom loving" parents
OK I'll do one you do one then we'll call it an end, or just let this thread get back on track: You own your own bloodstream of course, just like you own your fingers, but your right to do whatever you want with your fingers ends at the begining of my pocket. At least in this country by the choice of the people of this great nation. If you choose to take your fingers (or veins) to Holland or anywhere else to abide by thier system instead of ours we don't stand in your way.
Your turn quick and simple, no BS no changing subject: Who pays for the crack babies these legal addicts pour out? Junkies can't/won't, suppose we could leave them on the sidewalk to die while the parents made more of them but that seems like punishing the innocent and letting the guilty run free. What's your plan???
OK I'll do one you do one then we'll call it an end, or just let this thread get back on track: You own your own bloodstream of course, just like you own your fingers, but your right to do whatever you want with your fingers ends at the begining of my pocket. At least in this country by the choice of the people of this great nation. If you choose to take your fingers (or veins) to Holland or anywhere else to abide by thier system instead of ours we don't stand in your way.
Your turn quick and simple, no BS no changing subject: Who pays for the crack babies these legal addicts pour out? Junkies can't/won't, suppose we could leave them on the sidewalk to die while the parents made more of them but that seems like punishing the innocent and letting the guilty run free. What's your plan???
Last edited:
jimpeel
Member
Crack babies mostly come from those women who use their bodies to get the drug. Once the drug were legal, the "crack baby" numbers would diminish markedly.
Sorry Jim don't buy it (though your certainly a better proof reader than me ) Even if the drug is free, it still leaves you incapable of working a regular job, which means you either live off me through gov handouts, or sell yourself to someone to fill your other economic needs, such as food,clothes, housing, entertainment etc..
Majority of female users I've dealt with got pregnant not through prostitution, but rather poor judgment while under the influence. Though I'm sure a lot come from that side as well.
) Even if the drug is free, it still leaves you incapable of working a regular job, which means you either live off me through gov handouts, or sell yourself to someone to fill your other economic needs, such as food,clothes, housing, entertainment etc..Majority of female users I've dealt with got pregnant not through prostitution, but rather poor judgment while under the influence. Though I'm sure a lot come from that side as well.
WonderNine
member
Why aren't countries ever condemn for things like this? Instead we contemn Israel for throwing out a mass murderer. Makes me proud to be an American! Heil Bush!
telomerase
Member
>Your turn quick and simple, no BS no changing subject: Who pays for the crack babies these legal addicts pour out? Junkies can't/won't, suppose we could leave them on the sidewalk to die while the parents made more of them but that seems like punishing the innocent and letting the guilty run free. What's your plan???
You know my secret plan, Blueduck: end the welfare state. No taxes for "social programs" (i.e. subsidizing crime and irresponsibility). People may contribute to private charity if they want to (which they do; Americans gave around $150 billion to nonprofits last year, and could give hundreds of billions more if the tax burden was lifted). So my answer is the same as for most things: whoever wants to, not whoever is forced to at gunpoint.
I think we both agree that if you pay a parasitic class to reproduce at their maximum rate while working people can only afford two children each, the math isn't going to work out.
As far as addicts go: I've had the unpleasant experience of meeting a lot of politicians and their subsidized "businessman" hangers-on. A lot of these guys are cocaine users; that doesn't stop them from getting a lot richer than you and I, or looking down on us working folks as pathetic low-lifes. Drugs are just chemicals, not magic; the truth is that they're not really that important. Edison was a cocaine user all through his most productive period, ditto a lot of other famous people. Conversely, plenty of people are low-paid, overworked losers with no drugs involved (like me, for instance).
>I seriously doubt age is gonna change my mind on this one.
Well, we'll see. I'll bet you a silver dime to a paper dollar that within the next ten years you'll read a few history books and lose your faith in the good will of those who claim to be jailing people for their own good. Best of luck to you.
You know my secret plan, Blueduck: end the welfare state. No taxes for "social programs" (i.e. subsidizing crime and irresponsibility). People may contribute to private charity if they want to (which they do; Americans gave around $150 billion to nonprofits last year, and could give hundreds of billions more if the tax burden was lifted). So my answer is the same as for most things: whoever wants to, not whoever is forced to at gunpoint.
I think we both agree that if you pay a parasitic class to reproduce at their maximum rate while working people can only afford two children each, the math isn't going to work out.
As far as addicts go: I've had the unpleasant experience of meeting a lot of politicians and their subsidized "businessman" hangers-on. A lot of these guys are cocaine users; that doesn't stop them from getting a lot richer than you and I, or looking down on us working folks as pathetic low-lifes. Drugs are just chemicals, not magic; the truth is that they're not really that important. Edison was a cocaine user all through his most productive period, ditto a lot of other famous people. Conversely, plenty of people are low-paid, overworked losers with no drugs involved (like me, for instance).
>I seriously doubt age is gonna change my mind on this one.
Well, we'll see. I'll bet you a silver dime to a paper dollar that within the next ten years you'll read a few history books and lose your faith in the good will of those who claim to be jailing people for their own good. Best of luck to you.
I meet a LOT of drug users on a daily basis. I also meet a lot of just plain born users. The fact is that most of the drug users i meet fit into the latter category as well. What im trying to say is that for the most part the drug users i have met would be sucking on welfare REGARDLESS of their drug habit.
- Status
