The Wall

[OngBonga]

This ignores geography. Maybe when you zoom out and look at an entire country per-capita, things don't look so bad. But there are pockets of populations where meth is a vicious scourge.

Fair enough. The same is true of alcohol.

[BananaStand]

Fair enough. The same is true of alcohol.

No it isn't. It's only "true" if you embrace statistics that can be manipulated like play-dough

I'm completely over this game where we compare booze and cigarettes to hard drugs. They are not on the same level. If you wanna go on believing that a painted dog is the same as a duck, enjoy yourself.

[JKDS]

It's a lot harder to OD on alcohol than it is to OD on heroin, meth, or cocaine. Is there any dispute on this point?

Many deaths from alcohol are from drunk driving, due to the impairing effects of alcohol. I don't see why "heroin driving", "meth driving", etc would be less dangerous than drunk driving.

As far as cigarettes and cancer go, a lot of the dangers of cigarettes was learned precisely because they are legal. It was quite a battle to learn all this info as well, considering the alternate facts presented by big tabacco for decades. Illegal drugs are harder to determine the health effects. First, illegality makes it hard to find people who would admit to use, and also to testing. Second, there's ethical concerns with administering a poison to people so as to test it's poisonous effects. That was a problem with cigarettes as well btw.

I don't think we'd be surprised to learn, conclusively, that meth has adverse health effects. Before and after pics of a meth head after just a few year should be enough.

Clearly, heroin is dangerous. You arnt going to smoke a single cigarette or drink a single beer and suddenly die. Heroin, on the ither hand, carries such a risk. Granted, it's small. But it's still substantially greater than that of cigs or alcohol.

Tbh, my jurisdiction doesn't have too much cocaine, so I can't provide an informed opinion.

[JKDS]

Also, there is no doubt that the dangers of these drugs wold be lessened somewhat by legalization .

Is there any dispute that the dangers of an OD on something like heroin would still be substantial though?

[Savy]

Is there any dispute that the dangers of an OD on something like heroin would still be substantial though?

I'd dispute that. It isn't like people would be shooting up doing unknown doses of drugs with god knows what inside them. I imagine the dangers would be comparable to over dosing on any dangerous prescription drug.

Also you do realise your view of this whole thing is pretty bias seen as though you get that view from the court system. Which is a bias sample in itself. So it'd be pretty hard to say your opinion is all that informed anyway. Just you know in case you thought you were an authority on the subject which you seem to.

[OngBonga]

No it isn't. It's only "true" if you embrace statistics that can be manipulated like play-dough

I'm completely over this game where we compare booze and cigarettes to hard drugs.

How many families do you suppose are negatively influenced by alcohol?

Many deaths from alcohol are from drunk driving, due to the impairing effects of alcohol. I don't see why "heroin driving", "meth driving", etc would be less dangerous than drunk driving.

Many more deaths are from liver failure, stroke, heart failure and other related diseases that occur as a consequence of alcoholism.

Clearly, heroin is dangerous. You arnt going to smoke a single cigarette or drink a single beer and suddenly die. Heroin, on the ither hand, carries such a risk.

This is not quite true. Smoking heroin carries very little risk of OD. Injecting it, that's different. That's where the real risk of OD is. Of course, if it were legal, then we would should expect people to be educated honestly about this seemingly trivial matter. But it's not trivial, because there's a huge difference between smoking and injecting heroin. Not all heroin addicts actually cross that line, it would be impossible to give an actual figure but I am aware of plenty of addicts who only smoke the shit. It's rife in my town, but OD's are rare.

Another factor to consider is that most people who are addicted to heroin also drink alcohol in excess, so it's very difficult to know what's actually doing the most damage to them on a long term basis.

People assume heroin is more dangerous because the effects are more profound and people inject the stuff. Well of course it's more dangerous where you're injecting it. But where you're smoking it, no, it's not more dangerous than alcohol. What is more dangerous is the willingness to do it in the first place, knowing the addictive nature of the drug.

[CoccoBill]

Many deaths from alcohol are from drunk driving, due to the impairing effects of alcohol. I don't see why "heroin driving", "meth driving", etc would be less dangerous than drunk driving.

This depends completely on the substance in question. Alcohol makes you more likely to take risks, slows reaction time, reduces concentration etc. Amphetamines are banned substances in many sports because they increase your ability to concentrate, make you more alert. Cannabis makes you drive slower and more risk-averse. These are all unique substances with unique effects, lumping them together and treating them like they're the same is not very helpful. I don't think any substance, legal or not, that impairs one's ability to drive safely should be allowed, but there should be actual proof that it does indeed do that to a meaningful degree.

Before and after pics of a meth head after just a few year should be enough.

Many of them are staged and all of them are propaganda.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/w...ser-looks-like

Clearly, heroin is dangerous. You arnt going to smoke a single cigarette or drink a single beer and suddenly die. Heroin, on the ither hand, carries such a risk. Granted, it's small. But it's still substantially greater than that of cigs or alcohol.

I agree, or at least that whether a dosage that you can conceivably ingest in one go can be lethal or not. With alcohol for a big guy that's somewhere around 2 bottles of hard spirits, for a small person or a kid it can be half of that or less. There's not such a massive difference, but there is a difference, sort of difficult to drink a bottle of vodka by accident.

Still, the substance exists and has the same properties whether it's legal or not. You can find just as or even more dangerous legal substances in most bathroom cabinets, kitchens and garages. "I quit drugs because there were no drugs available", said no addict ever.

[BananaStand]

How many families do you suppose are negatively influenced by alcohol?

Why does this even matter? How is it even relevant. How many families would be positively influenced if meth is legal?

[OngBonga]

It's relevant because of the volume of familes that are affected negatively by alcohol. It's a fucking lot. An imperial fuckton.

But there are pockets of populations where meth is a vicious scourge.

My argument is that the same is true of alcohol, a point you dismiss. I argue that it is indeed a viscious scourge to some because it destroys families. Hard core drugs do this too, but alcohol is not immune due to its legality. The problems you associate with drugs... addiction, social problems, health risks... all of these are applicable to alcohol too. The only one that alcohol isn't associated with is organised crime... that's because of its legality. If it were illegal, you can be sure that all that juicy tax that the government gets from beer and wine would be going into the pockets of gangsters.

[OngBonga]

How many families would be positively influenced if meth is legal?

Many. There would be less people going to jail. There would be more people reaching out for help because they no longer have to fear repurcussions. So yeah, it would positively impact on at least some families. Meanwhile, making it illegal doesn't positively impact on any families, because legality is proven to be an innefective means of stopping junkies getting wasted.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's a lot harder to OD on alcohol than it is to OD on heroin, meth, or cocaine. Is there any dispute on this point?

Many deaths from alcohol are from drunk driving, due to the impairing effects of alcohol. I don't see why "heroin driving", "meth driving", etc would be less dangerous than drunk driving.

As far as cigarettes and cancer go, a lot of the dangers of cigarettes was learned precisely because they are legal. It was quite a battle to learn all this info as well, considering the alternate facts presented by big tabacco for decades. Illegal drugs are harder to determine the health effects. First, illegality makes it hard to find people who would admit to use, and also to testing. Second, there's ethical concerns with administering a poison to people so as to test it's poisonous effects. That was a problem with cigarettes as well btw.

I don't think we'd be surprised to learn, conclusively, that meth has adverse health effects. Before and after pics of a meth head after just a few year should be enough.

Clearly, heroin is dangerous. You arnt going to smoke a single cigarette or drink a single beer and suddenly die. Heroin, on the ither hand, carries such a risk. Granted, it's small. But it's still substantially greater than that of cigs or alcohol.

Tbh, my jurisdiction doesn't have too much cocaine, so I can't provide an informed opinion.

Whether a task is easy or hard is determined by the person doing it, and not by someone else's assertion, right?
... but I assume you mean to add, "on accident," which is a very different statement.

If anyone can't pass an impairment test, then they're unfit to drive. The source of the impairment can be drugs, emotions, lack of sleep, etc. The criminal act is reckless (wreckfull?) driving. The cause of recklessness is irrelevant; the threat to public safety is relevant.

If the threat of cancer from cigarettes is justification for making them illegal, then why is the threat of heart disease from high-cholesterol not a reason to outlaw whole milk or cheese?
If the fact that tobacco contains nicotine is the reason, then why are tomatoes and potatoes legal?
My point is that these are obvious red herrings, which play to an appeal to emotions, but not to any scrutiny of reason.

Literally everything has adverse health effects if dosage is off. Oxygen poisoning is a thing.
I can understand this kind of argument from someone who isn't working in the legal system, but I don't get it coming from you.

If I drink gasoline, even a capful, that's poison, but it's legal for me to buy gasoline by the gallon.
I've met a few space cadets who huffed gas fumes, too. Clearly there are drug-like properties to gasoline.

If your arguments for why drugs should be illegal don't mesh with the legality of other legal goods, then what's up with that?


Is the liklihood that a person ingests the poison a factor? I mean, is that argument present in the legal language which is in or immediately motivated the bill which addresses the legality of a substance? I imagine this could vary from bill to bill. Is it a commonly cited factor? What metric is cited as the standard for "too prevalent to ignore?"

[BananaStand]

Many. There would be less people going to jail.

A minuscule number of people go to jail as it is.

If you're referring to people going to jail for crimes more serious than mere possession, then the number is less minuscule. But I would argue that the criminals, will still commit crimes.

Drug traffickers will just exploit the legal status of drugs in the US in order to use it as base for manufacturing and distribution to other places where it's not legal. That's whats happening in Colorado right now. Pot is legal, so people grow it (legally), and then ship it off to the black market
http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/01/2...-states/47334/

Furthermore, the black market in Colorado doesn't seem to be hurting. In fact, with so much legal production locally, street prices have gone DOWN, making the black market even more attractive. Who's going to pay $400 an ounce from a legal dispensary when the old fashioned drug dealers are selling zips for $240?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarre...83#.rxGlBEZ0oR

Burdensome taxes (the supposed 'benefit' of legalizing drugs) seems to be motivating more black market activity than it stops.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...arket/7292263/

"Those barriers to entry already create the potential for the black market, and then you add these taxes on top of it, and it makes it impossible to get rid of," said Denver attorney Robert Corry

There would be more people reaching out for help because they no longer have to fear repurcussions. .

Huh? What repercussions? There is no consequence to admitting you have a problem and are seeking help. Also, I don't know about other places, but my state has laws that protect 'good samaritans' when it comes to complications from drug use. In other words, if you're worried your friend took too much, you can take them to an emergency room or call the cops for help, without fear of arrest or charges, even if you yourself are high as fuck, and have full syringes just lying around in plain sight. Immunity.

So yeah, it would positively impact on at least some families.

And nothing else bad would happen? Really?

Meanwhile, making it illegal doesn't positively impact on any families,

False. You already cited the numerous households suffering from alcohol abuse. How many of those might suffer more if the user graduated to a stronger substance? How likely is that to happen if the substance is widely available?

because legality is proven to be an innefective means of stopping junkies getting wasted.

Proven? How? Say there are 1 million frequent heroin users in the US. That's a hypothetical number. Can you prove to me that number would not go up, at all, if heroin became legal?

[JKDS]

Also you do realise your view of this whole thing is pretty bias seen as though you get that view from the court system. Which is a bias sample in itself. So it'd be pretty hard to say your opinion is all that informed anyway. Just you know in case you thought you were an authority on the subject which you seem to.

I consider myself to be knowledgeable in the area. You can put as much weight into that as you'd like. But bias doesnt have anything to do with whether or not im informed, and im not biased anyway.

[JKDS]

Many more deaths are from liver failure, stroke, heart failure and other related diseases that occur as a consequence of alcoholism.

Are you suggesting that overusing meth, heroin, or cocaine doesnt have similar effects?

It seems that the argument is now this

A) Provided that we know what the drug is, and we control the dose appropriately, the dangers are minimal.

Im not sure I agree with "minimal". But I'll give you that one of the reasons for high OD rates is the unknown strength of the drug as well as the random chance that its laced with something like fentanyl.

[JKDS]

This depends completely on the substance in question. Alcohol makes you more likely to take risks, slows reaction time, reduces concentration etc. Amphetamines are banned substances in many sports because they increase your ability to concentrate, make you more alert. Cannabis makes you drive slower and more risk-averse. These are all unique substances with unique effects, lumping them together and treating them like they're the same is not very helpful. I don't think any substance, legal or not, that impairs one's ability to drive safely should be allowed, but there should be actual proof that it does indeed do that to a meaningful degree.

i agree

Many of them are staged and all of them are propaganda.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/w...ser-looks-like

Well, if vice says so.

I agree, or at least that whether a dosage that you can conceivably ingest in one go can be lethal or not. With alcohol for a big guy that's somewhere around 2 bottles of hard spirits, for a small person or a kid it can be half of that or less. There's not such a massive difference, but there is a difference, sort of difficult to drink a bottle of vodka by accident.

Still, the substance exists and has the same properties whether it's legal or not. You can find just as or even more dangerous legal substances in most bathroom cabinets, kitchens and garages. "I quit drugs because there were no drugs available", said no addict ever.

i agree.

[OngBonga]

Are you suggesting that overusing meth, heroin, or cocaine doesnt have similar effects?

I think you'll struggle to find an honest study on the matter.

Certainly, people who inject heroin will die younger, on average, compared to those who don't. People with a coke habit, they don't tend to live long and healthy lives either. Meth, it's not something I have any experience with other than watching Breaking Bad, but obviously that has long term effects too, again, especially if injecting it.

Obviously, taking hard drugs regularly negatively impacts upon your health. I'm not suggesting it doesn't. I'm suggesting that the long term effects of alcohol are on a par, perhaps worse, perhaps not quite so bad, as hard drugs, but alcohol is more dangerous because it is so widespread and culturally ingrained in our everyday lives.

[OngBonga]

Proven? How?

Proven by all those junkies who get watsed, regardless of law.

[BananaStand]

I really never get tired of being right.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...port-says.html

the early results show that enforcement matters, deterrence matters, and that comprehensive immigration enforcement can make an impact.

This has been my point all along. We don't need a wall. We just need to enforce the law so that it becomes exceedingly difficult for someone to cross over here, and stay here, prosperously. If there is nothing for them here, they will stop coming. No wall necessary.

[BananaStand]

alcohol is more dangerous because it is so widespread and culturally ingrained in our everyday lives.

So how would legalizing drugs make anything better? If cocaine becomes widespread and culturally ingrained in our everyday lives....how does that help anybody? It seems to me that the crux of your argument is that ALL drugs should be illegal, including alcohol.

Proven by all those junkies who get watsed, regardless of law.

Try again. Of all the non-junkies, can you prove that none of them are deterred by illegality?

[Poopadoop]

I really never get tired of being right.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...port-says.html


This has been my point all along. We don't need a wall. We just need to enforce the law so that it becomes exceedingly difficult for someone to cross over here, and stay here, prosperously. If there is nothing for them here, they will stop coming. No wall necessary.

Lol, those are some pretty exact numbers. How do they count illegal border crossings anyways, is it just the ones they manage to catch?

It is nice that Fox News always agrees with you though. That must feel very good.

[Poopadoop]

Of all the non-junkies, can you prove that none of them are deterred by illegality?

Can you prove any of them are?

Seriously, if your best argument is to ask someone to prove the unprovable, then you got nothing.

[BananaStand]

Lol, those are some pretty exact numbers. How do they count illegal border crossings anyways, is it just the ones they manage to catch? .

Clearly you didn't read it. Right after those exact numbers, it refers to "apprehensions". So yes, it's just the ones they catch.

I guess when the stats say that alcohol is worse than meth....they're irrefutable facts. But if the stats say that immigration enforcement works....it's "lolz, how are those numbers so exact??!!"

It is nice that Fox News always agrees with you though. That must feel very good.

Seriously, fuck off with this.

[BananaStand]

Seriously, if your best argument is to ask someone to prove the unprovable, then you got nothing.

Bullshit

Ong's point was that junkies still getting high proves that illegality is not a deterrent. That's only provable within the junkie community. Outside of it, you can't say that illegality isn't stopping anyone from using drugs. So his point is also unprovable. Go crawl up his ass with your sniping nonsense.

[Poopadoop]

Clearly you didn't read it. Right after those exact numbers, it refers to "apprehensions". So yes, it's just the ones they catch.

I guess when the stats say that alcohol is worse than meth....they're irrefutable facts. But if the stats say that immigration enforcement works....it's "lolz, how are those numbers so exact??!!"

Hey good point. So they caught less people trying to immigrate illegally. Well done I guess.

Seriously, fuck off with this.

Ok, Fox News never agrees with you. Is that better?

[BananaStand]

Ok, Fox News never agrees with you. Is that better?

God damn it you're an ass hole

[Poopadoop]

Bullshit

Ong's point was that junkies still getting high proves that illegality is not a deterrent. That's only provable within the junkie community. Outside of it, you can't say that illegality isn't stopping anyone from using drugs. So his point is also unprovable. Go crawl up his ass with your sniping nonsense.

I wasn't talking about his point, I was talking about yours. You have nothing to say but 'prove it', which you know damn well is impossible. So therefore you have nothing.

[Poopadoop]

God damn it you're an ass hole

Want some fries with that salt?

If you keep quoting Fox News like it's some respected source of information, you can expect to be called out on it. This isn't r_thedonald you're on here.

[BananaStand]

Want some fries with that salt?

If you keep quoting Fox News like it's some respected source of information, you can expect to be called out on it. This isn't r_thedonald you're on here.

How do I "keep quoting" Fox? What % of links that I provide come from Fox News? Go do the math.

Because I read it and you don't that makes it an invalid source of information?

BTW, it IS a respected source of information, that's why their television ratings far exceed those of any other news source. And it's not even close.

Seriously go fuck yourself if you're gonna keep playing this game where everything that comes from Fox is declared invalid. Either post why you disagree with the article, or shut the fuck up.

You're hopeless and unmovable bias is causing you to see only what you want to see.

And this isn't an opinion piece, or an editorial. It's a reporting of facts released by Border Patrol. No spin, no bias, nothing but the news. If CNN doesn't report it because it doesn't fit with their narrative, THAT's the news source you should avoid.

[Poopadoop]

What % of links that I provide come from Fox News? Go do the math.

Seriously go fuck yourself if you're gonna keep playing this game where everything that comes from Fox is declared invalid. Either post why you disagree with the article, or shut the fuck up.

You're hopeless and unmovable bias is causing you to see only what you want to see.

And this isn't an opinion piece, or an editorial. It's a reporting of facts released by Border Patrol. No spin, no bias, nothing but the news. If CNN doesn't report it because it doesn't fit with their narrative, THAT's the news source you should avoid.

So if they occasionally report something that's an objective fact then they're a good source for all news?

If CNN doesn't report it because it doesn't fit with their narrative, THAT's the news source you should avoid.

Lol, like Fox News ever reports things that don't fit their narrative, unless it's to bash them. Come on.

You might not like to hear it, but Fox is the right's version of CNN. I wouldn't watch either if I wanted to actually find out facts about anything.

[Poopadoop]

BTW, it IS a respected source of information, that's why their television ratings far exceed those of any other news source. And it's not even close.

Omg.

Since when do high ratings = respect?

You realise they have a monopoly on the MSM right wing propaganda don't you? It's not like they're CNN and they have to compete with NBC, ABC, and CBS for the liberal market.

[BananaStand]

You realise they have a monopoly on the MSM right wing propaganda don't you? It's not like they're CNN and they have to compete with NBC, ABC, and CBS for the liberal market.

This is the convenient argument rolled out by the liberal media apologists...

There is no such thing as a "liberal market". People are in the market for news, not propaganda.

[Poopadoop]

There is no such thing as a "liberal market". People are in the market for news, not propaganda.

If that were true, there would be no MSM as we have it today.

Everyone and their dog knows Fox is the right's news, and the others are the left's news.

You may believe Fox is the truth and the others are the propaganda but it only seems like the truth to you because it conforms to your views.

[BananaStand]

You might not like to hear it, but Fox is the right's version of CNN. I wouldn't watch either if I wanted to actually find out facts about anything.

False.

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it. I challenge all of you to watch O'Reilly for a week and tell me he doesn't present both sides of an issue. Tell me he doesn't bring on guests who can competently argue the liberal side. Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper only bring on people they agree with. THAT's propaganda. And it's boring.

[BananaStand]

You may believe Fox is the truth and the others are the propaganda but it only seems like the truth to you because it conforms to your views.

So if Fox reports that Border Patrol reports a 40% decrease in apprehensions....that's not "truth" to you?

That's 'right wing propaganda'?

That's what you claimed. That's how we got on this irrelevant de-rail. It's this petty-shit game you wanna play where you claim license to categorically shit all over anything fox says, and then paint me as some kind of propaganda machine that only ever quotes one source (which is overwhelmingly false btw).

I call that being an ass-hole. Stop it.

[Poopadoop]

False.

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it. I challenge all of you to watch O'Reilly for a week and tell me he doesn't present both sides of an issue. Tell me he doesn't bring on guests who can competently argue the liberal side. Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper only bring on people they agree with. THAT's propaganda. And it's boring.

Well, false yourself.

O'Reilly only brings on people to disagree with him so he can shout them down (or is that the Tucker guy who does that, i forget).

All the other networks do the same thing.

Watching MSM is for people who already know what they believe and are looking for 'news' that confirms it.

[Poopadoop]

So if Fox reports that Border Patrol reports a 40% decrease in apprehensions....that's not "truth" to you?

That's 'right wing propaganda'?

That's what you claimed. That's how we got on this irrelevant de-rail. It's this petty-shit game you wanna play where you claim license to categorically shit all over anything fox says, and then paint me as some kind of propaganda machine that only ever quotes one source (which is overwhelmingly false btw).

I call that being an ass-hole. Stop it.

Nice try. I said that just because they report some objective facts doesn't make them objective all the time about everything.

You can call me all the names you want, no intelligent person is going to deny that Fox is biased reporting.

[BananaStand]

Nice try. I said that just because they report some objective facts doesn't make them objective all the time about everything.

We weren't talking about what they do 'all the time' or 'about everything'. It was one article that I linked, and it reported an objective fact, cited from an official government source.

You took that as an opportunity to slam it as right-wing propaganda without even reading it. And you also used the opportunity to shame me for only getting my news from one source, which is not only erroneous, it's just a real dick-head way to be.

[Poopadoop]

So if Fox reports that Border Patrol reports a 40% decrease in apprehensions....that's not "truth" to you?

That's 'right wing propaganda'?

That's what you claimed.

This is one of your favourite moves. You put together two different things a person says and make it into them saying something completely different altogether. It doesn't work, we're too smart for that here.

If you want to be taken seriously, try making a reasoned argument and give up on twisting people's words into bullshit.

[Poopadoop]

We weren't talking about what they do 'all the time' or 'about everything'. It was one article that I linked, and it reported an objective fact, cited from an official government source.

You took that as an opportunity to slam it as right-wing propaganda without even reading it.

Who's biased here?

No, I saw the link from Fox News, and commented on how you repeatedly cite them. I never said anything about that specific report being false or propaganda.

[Poopadoop]

you also used the opportunity to shame me for only getting my news from one source.

Show me where I said that.

[BananaStand]

Show me where I said that.

How about right here:

No, I saw the link from Fox News, and commented on how you repeatedly cite them.

Again, do the math, and tell me what % of links I post are from fox news?

Why is fox persona non-grata in this forum? Why do you get to cry foul whenever fox is mentioned. This isn't he first time.

Why don't you post the list of poop-approved news sources? What am I allowed to cite without you being a complete dickwad about it?

[BananaStand]

I never said anything about that specific report being false or propaganda.

The first word you typed was "lol". Then you made a sarcastic comment suggesting that the numbers were too exact to be believed.

[Poopadoop]

How about right here:

Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No, I saw the link from Fox News, and commented on how you repeatedly cite them.

Let's stop here for a minute.

Do you acknowledge that 'repeatedly citing' is not the same as saying 'this is the only news you ever watch?'

And if you do acknowledge that, then why do you try to equate saying one with saying the other?

[Poopadoop]

The first word you typed was "lol". Then you made a sarcastic comment suggesting that the numbers were too exact to be believed.

I typed lol because you rely on Fox News so much. You defend them as unbiased news, and cite their ratings as proof. I also typed it because the report can't possibly know how many people got in that weren't caught.

None of which equates to saying that specific report is false or propaganda.

[OngBonga]

Go crawl up his ass with your sniping nonsense.

hahaha someone's getting butthurt.

So how would legalizing drugs make anything better? If cocaine becomes widespread and culturally ingrained in our everyday lives....how does that help anybody? It seems to me that the crux of your argument is that ALL drugs should be illegal, including alcohol.

I'm not suggesting cocaine becomes widespread. Alcohol isn't widespread purely because it's legal, part of the reason is advertising and culture. Drink beer, watch football. I don't think anyone is suggesting cocaine sponsored sporting events, and coke bars where they sell it by the line at the bar.

The crux of my argument is that all drugs should be LEGAL. Just because alcohol is dangerous, doesn't mean I think anyone has the right to say other people should not consume it. Legalising drugs would make things better because legitimate companies would take over the market, instead of criminals, resulting in much better regulation of a dangerous economy. If that isn't obvious, well I don't know what to say. Would you buy vodka from a Russian who made it in his cellar? Like fuck would you, you might die. You'll buy a bottle off the shelf, and know that what you're buying is vodka, with a strength of x, which can be found on the side of the bottle. Clearly, legalisation is a good thing for alcohol, because otherwise it would be a lot more dangerous.

[BananaStand]

Let's stop here for a minute.

Do you acknowledge that 'repeatedly citing' is not the same as saying 'this is the only news you ever watch?'

And if you do acknowledge that, then why do you try to equate saying one with saying the other?

OMG fuck off with this hair-splitting nonsense. You know what you said. You know why you said it. You know it was a de-rail. You know it was just you jumping on an opportunity to make a personal attack at me.

What's wrong with 'repeatedly citing' a news outlet anyway? If that was all I ever cited, you might have a point. But I don't. I'm going to ask you again, where is the list of poop-approved sources? What is the limit on Fox News? What % of citations I've used belong to Fox News anyway? What is the limit? Have I exceeded it?

You're obviously keeping score....So....what's the score???

The article reported a statistical fact, without bias, spin, or partisanship. That's all. Rather than address the content of the article you chose to make posts ridiculing the source. And when you're called out on it, you spent the next several posts playing stupid hair-splitting semantics.

How about you just keep your shit on topic and nevermind where I get my news. If I post something you don't agree with, say why. But ridiculing evertything from Fox, just because it's Fox, demonstrates your own echo-chamber ignorance. It also demonstrates that you're an ass hole.

[Poopadoop]

OMG fuck off with this hair-splitting nonsense. You know what you said. You know why you said it. You know it was a de-rail. You know it was just you jumping on an opportunity to make a personal attack at me.

What's wrong with 'repeatedly citing' a news outlet anyway? If that was all I ever cited, you might have a point. But I don't. I'm going to ask you again, where is the list of poop-approved sources? What is the limit on Fox News? What % of citations I've used belong to Fox News anyway? What is the limit? Have I exceeded it?

You're obviously keeping score....So....what's the score???

The article reported a statistical fact, without bias, spin, or partisanship. That's all. Rather than address the content of the article you chose to make posts ridiculing the source. And when you're called out on it, you spent the next several posts playing stupid hair-splitting semantics.

How about you just keep your shit on topic and nevermind where I get my news. If I post something you don't agree with, say way. But ridiculing evertything from Fox just demonstrates your own echo-chamber ignorance. It also demonstrates that you're an ass hole.

Is that a 'yes' to my first question that you misrepresented my comment?

[BananaStand]

Is that a 'yes' to my first question that you misrepresented my comment?

No, I got your meaning loud and clear. Ass hole.

It was obvious that you are butt-hurt by the amount of citations from Fox news that I post. I'll ask you again, for a third time now. What is the limit? What % of my citations are allowed to be from Fox? What % have I actually achieved?

Why does it matter anyway? The article reported a fact. Pointing out where I get my news, or how often I get it from that source, doesn't really affect the facts reported in the article. Its' a petty, ass-hole-ish, ad-hominem attack directed at me, for no reason.

it doesn't matter how you worded it, or what you want to claim you meant after the fact. Any fair minded person can see you're just being a hard-headed troll. We never should have got on this tangent, and we never would have if you could consume information with an open and objective mind. Instead, you didn't even read the content before you took a big steaming dump in this thread, laughing at me for reading Fox.

[OngBonga]

OMG fuck off with this hair-splitting nonsense.

Haha this is like me when I first started posting here. Fighting the tide, getting butthurt when everyone else is laughing...

It only took me about three years to stop getting trolled by everyone who knew what buttons to press.

[Poopadoop]

No, I got your meaning loud and clear. Ass hole.

It was obvious that you are butt-hurt by the amount of citations from Fox news that I post. I'll ask you again, for a third time now. What is the limit? What % of my citations are allowed to be from Fox? What % have I actually achieved?

Why does it matter anyway? The article reported a fact. Pointing out where I get my news, or how often I get it from that source, doesn't really affect the facts reported in the article. Its' a petty, ass-hole-ish, ad-hominem attack directed at me, for no reason.

Sorry I'm not clear on whether that is a 'yes' or a 'no' from you. Did you or did you not misrepresent what I said?

[OngBonga]

Well, keith still tries to press my buttons, but he fails miserably.

[BananaStand]

Sorry I'm not clear on whether that is a 'yes' or a 'no' from you. Did you or did you not misrepresent what I said?

How are you not clear? the first word of my post was "NO"

Your intentions were clear, and I made no misrepresentation.

[Poopadoop]

Haha this is like me when I first started posting here. Fighting the tide, getting butthurt when everyone else is laughing...

It only took me about three years to stop getting trolled by everyone who knew what buttons to press.

The funny thing is I'm not even trying to troll him. I'm just trying to get him to acknowledge how he keeps making up shit that others supposedly said.

Tho I agree it's funny he's having such a massive freakout over Fox News being called propaganda.

[Poopadoop]

How are you not clear? the first word of my post was "NO"

Your intentions were clear, and I made no misrepresentation.

So when someone says something, rather than answer what they actually say, you feel it's within your rights to ascribe some other meaning to their words, and reply to that instead. Is that it?

[BananaStand]

If you keep quoting Fox News like it's some respected source of information, you can expect to be called out on it.

^This is pure, unadulterated, ass-hole-ery right here. This is you concocting a justification for ridiculing me.

How often do I quote Fox News?

Why should I expect to get 'called out' (which, apparently, is a nice way of saying 'shit on') whenever I cite them?

Seriously, tell me what the rules are? Where is the list of poop-approved sources that are allowed in this thread?

[BananaStand]

So when someone says something, rather than answer what they actually say, you feel it's within your rights to ascribe some other meaning to their words, and reply to that instead. Is that it?

You can't possibly suggest that your comments were not directed personally at me, solely for the purpose of ridicule, just because I get *some* of my news from a different source than you.

But I guess, I'll play along. So fine, what did you actually say?

If you keep quoting Fox News like it's some respected source of information, you can expect to be called out on it.

You said that ^

Now explain to me how citing a fact, released by an official government agency, and reported accurately, without spin, bias, or partisanship, should result in me 'being called out'. Tell me why posting that link today, was SOOO deserving of your mean-spirited dismissal?

[Poopadoop]

Now explain to me how citing a fact, released by an official government agency, and reported accurately, without spin, bias, or partisanship, should result in me 'being called out'

Dude, take a time out.

I wasn't calling you out for quoting that specific piece of admittedly factual reporting by Fox. I was laughing that you got it from Fox, and that you seem to rely so heavily (note I didn't say exclusively) on Fox for your news, and that you seem to think it's unbiased (if I understand you correctly inasmuch as you argue that having high ratings makes a source respected and trustworthy). That whole conglomeration of things to me is funny.

And if you don't like that I don't respect Fox, well all I can say is you're just going to have to deal with it, sorry.

[BananaStand]

Tho I agree it's funny he's having such a massive freakout over Fox News being called propaganda.

I really don't care if you think Fox is biased or not. It's not relevant.

This "freakout" as you call it, spawned from YOUR ridiculous reaction to me linking a factual article with verifiable statistics. there was no reason for that other than to be an argumentative douche bag. Nothing you said addressed the information in the article, or the analysis of it in my post.

You just played this shithead game where anytime Fox gets mentioned, you somehow believe you're justified in being a total dick.

[BananaStand]

And if you don't like that I don't respect Fox, well all I can say is you're just going to have to deal with it, sorry.

So anytime I quote Fox, you're allowed to de-rail a thread with petty attacks directed at me?? Fuck off!

If you disagree with Fox's information or opinion, there's a way to respond to that.

What you did today, was NOT it.

[Poopadoop]

You can't possibly suggest that your comments were not directed personally at me, solely for the purpose of ridicule, just because I get *some* of my news from a different source than you.

If you identify so strongly with Fox News that if someone criticises them, you take it as a personal attack on yourself, then that's something you need to get a grip on.

Do you have the same reaction every time someone has a go at Fox News? Jesus.

[BananaStand]

I was laughing that you got it from Fox, and that you seem to rely so heavily (note I didn't say exclusively) on Fox for your news,

What's "heavily"? Again, have you kept score enough to tell me what % of links I post are Fox's?

What's the limit?

I'm begging you now....tell me what the rules are? Where is the list of poop-approved sources, and what's the cap on the number of times each can be used?

Why does it matter to you where I get my news? Why even bother making a post to "laugh at me". You admit to posting just to 'laugh at me'. You admit that you made a post for no reason other than to ridicule me. Out of nowhere, for no reason other than the fact htat i get my news from a different place than you.

You really think that's ok?

[Poopadoop]

So anytime I quote Fox, you're allowed to de-rail a thread with petty attacks directed at me?? Fuck off!

If you disagree with Fox's information or opinion, there's a way to respond to that.

What you did today, was NOT it.

Well it generally takes at least two to derail a thread, so I guess my advice is that if you want to stay on topic then just don't respond to the criticism of your precious Fox News.

[BananaStand]

Do you have the same reaction every time someone has a go at Fox News? Jesus.

No. Only when they do it to "laugh" at me specifically.

There was no reason, to 'have a go' at Fox news in this case. You did it only as a personal attack on me. Which is complete dick-headedness.

You should expect to be called out for it.

[Poopadoop]

What's "heavily"? Again, have you kept score enough to tell me what % of links I post are Fox's?

What's the limit?

I'm begging you now....tell me what the rules are? Where is the list of poop-approved sources, and what's the cap on the number of times each can be used?

Why does it matter to you where I get my news? Why even bother making a post to "laugh at me". You admit to posting just to 'laugh at me'. You admit that you made a post for no reason other than to ridicule me. Out of nowhere, for no reason other than the fact htat i get my news from a different place than you.

You really think that's ok?

Yes, yes I do.

[BananaStand]

Well it generally takes at least two to derail a thread, so I guess my advice is that if you want to stay on topic then just don't respond to the criticism of your precious Fox News.

You really weren't criticizing fox news. You were attacking ME

I was laughing that you got it from Fox,

[BananaStand]

Yes, yes I do.

Then you're an ass hole

[Poopadoop]

Then you're an ass hole

Yes, yes I am.

[Poopadoop]

Though to be fair I'm not the one who loses his shit every time someone states an opinion contrary to his own.

[BananaStand]

Though to be fair I'm not the one who loses his shit every time someone states an opinion contrary to his own.

Now it's my turn to play semantics. Robust debate is not the same as 'losing your shit'.

[BananaStand]

Anyway, back on topic. It does seem that there is at least anecdotal evidence to suggest that rigorous law enforcement is successful at deterring criminal behavior.

I wonder if that applies to drug use as well? Hmmm

[Poopadoop]

Now it's my turn to play semantics. Robust debate is not the same as 'losing your shit'.

That would have a lot more credence if it were coming from someone who hadn't just finished losing their shit.

I could quote every time you lost your shit but its' too much like work.

[BananaStand]

I could quote every time you lost your shit but its' too much like work.

Kind of like it's too much work to figure out how often I actually do cite Fox news. (I'll bet it's below 20%)

And I'll also bet that the number of times I've lost my shit coincides pretty closely with the number of times I've been "called out" personally for merely expressing opposing political views.

[OngBonga]

I wonder if that applies to drug use as well? Hmmm

Can't I ever heard someone say "no thanks, that's illegal" when I passed them a joint.

[OngBonga]

I've heard people say "no thanks, don't smoke it", but they don't then harp on about law and health and all that bollocks, they carry on with whatever they were talking about before.

[Poopadoop]

Kind of like it's too much work to figure out how often I actually do cite Fox news. (I'll bet it's below 20%)

It's often enough that we've noticed it, let's leave it at that.

And I'll also bet that the number of times I've lost my shit coincides pretty closely with the number of times I've been "called out" personally for merely expressing opposing political views.

I would wager it correlates more closely with the number of topics you've posted on than it does with that.