Thread: Drug Abuse Poll
View Single Post
Old March 13th, 2014, 04:36 PM  
phuckphace
VT Lover
 
Join Date: February 24, 2013
Gender: Undisclosed
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: Drug Abuse Poll

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayce_xt View Post
If you'd read the scientific journals on the effects of these substances, you would realize quickly that the DEA's "findings" are bullshit. Remember that newscast a while back that showed a picture of MDMA "eating holes" in a person's brain?

Yeah. That was actually a SPECT scan measuring brain activity. The "holes" were simply areas of the brain that weren't active. No actual damage to the brain occurred. In fact, many reported dangers simply aren't true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misconceptions_about_drugs (yes, sources are cited)
I've lost count of the number of times I've heard a druggie use the debunked "MDMA causes swiss cheese brain" and "pot causes reefer madness" example to illustrate the supposed need for full bore legalization of all drugs. it's laughable. marijuana is one thing, but substances like meth and heroin are a different matter. the high-functioning meth user is ficitional. there is no "safe" or "victimless" hard drug use period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayce_xt View Post
As for why the government would outlaw drugs, it's quite simple: social control. Authoritarians love being able to tell people what to do. No need to be full-blown Buzz Killingtons, so long as they get to tell people what kind of fun they are and aren't allowed to have.
this is a textbook example of flawed libertarian thinking. according to that thinking, social control exists only because the people in charge are power hungry and get off on bossing other people around. in the real world, social control is desired because it grants stability, and the benefits of stability are self-evident. I know it really sticks in your craw to hear this, but people are not naturally wise or logical, and deference to authority is one way that humans have learned to compensate for that.

it's also funny that you missed the tongue-in-cheek tone of the "Buzz Killington" bit and in typical libertarian fashion, went on to insist that that is in fact the sole reason why drugs are illegal. well guess what! drugs are not illegal because of some authoritarian politician's desire to spoil your fun, and any anyone who actually believes that is beyond ignorant. Capslock for emphasis: MANY DRUGS ARE HARMFUL. THE HARM ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR USE CAUSES SOCIAL DYSFUNCTION. THIS DYSFUNCTION HAS FAR REACHING EFFECTS. THE GOVERNMENT RESTRICTS THEIR USE BECAUSE OF PUBLIC PRESSURE. why is that so hard for you to understand? okay so they banned marijuana too, boo fucking hoo get over it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayce_xt View Post
At this point, this meant opium
the Chinese-British opium trade and eventual war in the 19th century is actually a perfect example of the social decay and response to the same that occurs with widespread hard drug use. opium is a highly addictive substance that caused such widespread dysfunction in China that the Emperor moved to ban its use. this is the way it has always been - a substance is introduced, it begins to destroy lives, forcing the state to take action against it. the Emperor didn't take a look at all the opium dens and think, "dammit, all those people in there having fun. I DECREE NO FUN ALLOWED," but rather, he was seeing the stability and social order of his nation eroded by an addictive substance that caused infinitely more harm than benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayce_xt View Post
Every other site I've looked at cites "moral degeneration" as the reason behind the prohibition without any sort of proof to back it up.
because it's self-evident to everyone except people like you

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayce_xt View Post
Sounds really familiar to the alcohol ban, doesn't it? "We can solve all of our problems if we just ban this one evil substance!"
nice strawman. none of the people advocating Prohibition in the 1920s were ever under the impression that a ban on alcohol would "solve all our problems," that's a gross and dishonest misrepresentation of the facts. what actually happened was that there was a period of social change where behavior became more liberated, and many people resented this change because they saw it as the cause of increased social dysfunction. because alcohol is probably the most highly visible and prevalent recreational drug (and alcoholism the most well-known negative consequence of its use) it became an easy target for legislation that sought to reduce said dysfunction by restricting it. absolutely nobody thought "hey after Prohibition passes everything will be peachy again," but rather that the restriction would lessen the prevalence of alcoholism and keep it at a manageable level. Prohibition failed largely because alcohol is an odd outlier among drugs, in that moderate use without addiction is readily possible and has been part of most human cultures for thousands of years. the same cannot be said for, say, meth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayce_xt View Post
Completely illogical and unfounded beliefs that, nevertheless, had a strong following.
BEEP BOOP, INPUT NOT LOGICAL, DOES NOT COMPUTE. SYNTAX ERROR! SYNTAX ERROR! BOOP BEEP

yes indeed it had a strong following for some mystifying reason that you have yet to discover. five bucks says you'll never figure out what that is

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayce_xt View Post
Thing is, politicians weren't terribly interested in issues of morality before.
and I bet you actually believe that too!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayce_xt View Post
Are you trying to imply that they aren't true
no not at all, I was wrong and it turns out that meth addicts frequently make groundbreaking innovations in the sciences and devise new life saving surgery techniques and a laundry list of other contributions to society

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayce_xt View Post
You still haven't shown conclusively that drugs have caused this.

*some wild-ass non sequitur about black people*
are you fucking kidding me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayce_xt View Post
Actually, drugs are illegal because of the combination of moral crusading and racism.
LMFAO!

there are numerous examples available to you that illustrate that the first, second and third-person harm caused by hard drugs is very real, including here on VT from members who have experienced it firsthand. but I'm sure your answer to that will be some goofy tinfoil hat bullshit that xandyx and anyone else making those claims are really DEA agents in disguise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayce_xt View Post
And if "people in this day and age have almost no personal responsibility or grasp of the concept of moderation or restraint," why aren't our crime rates more similar to those in civil war-ridden Africa, where warlords kill, rape, and pillage as they see fit? Your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
the US has the highest per-capita violent crime rate of all Western nations, does that count?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayce_xt View Post
Actually, violent gangs who sell drugs would be run out of business and forced to find a new line of work. They'd more than likely actually work in legitimate drug-related industry, seeing as they have so much experience in the field, and violent drug-related crimes would see a massive drop. The reason they sell drugs, after all, is because it's so lucrative. And it's lucrative only because of the price on the black market. Take away the black market, and suddenly, they no longer need to resort to illegitimate means. Violence isn't a necessity any longer to safeguard their profits. There are no more profits to be made on a non-existent black market. What are they going to do, beat people up and force them to buy drugs at a higher price than what industrialized manufacturing can sell it for?
yes I'm sure this would be a boon for a small handful of morally-bankrupt capitalists rushing to cash in on the opportunity to sell addictive poison to the masses for profit, for the two short weeks that the country would manage to hold together. if you can honestly read what you just wrote and not feel a single inkling of "that would probably be a bad idea for a multitude of reasons" then you're probably beyond help. the situation we're in now is bad enough, I don't even want to imagine what shape we'd be in with a legally legitimate "Philip-Morris of heroin".

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayce_xt View Post
And just what are the facts of life, phuckphace?
why do you care?

~ not posting anymore cru ~
phuckphace is offline   Reply With Quote