- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Since you guys are so far removed from reality on this subject I‘m not going to argue it with you.
If you intend to debate people on the subject, and want to be understood, and not just dismissed as uninformed, here is some simple terminology.
"Junk" = Heroin. A derivative of opium which is manufactured from poppies. It is extremely addictive.
Junkie = someone who is addicted to heroin. If used to describe anything else, junkie is being used incorrectly, or as slang to encompass all drug users (but still incorrect). To correctly pigeon hole all drug users, you would say "druggie".
"Crack" = a (cooked) form of cocaine, usually of poor quality and in rock form, which is smoked, normally through a glass pipe. It is extremely addictive.
A "crackhead" is someone who is addicted to using crack. This is the only relevant use for the term "crackhead".
Because thats what happens when you shoot someone in Canada. The laws of Canada still apply in your house. Even in self defence cases (*self defence means you must be in imminent danger) ((ie a gun at your face, death threats, physical contact of a violent nature)) you still face manslaughter charges. Don‘t believe me? Look it up. I had a lengthy talk with an RCMP officer about it one night after someone broke into my house, and we (me and my friends) kept him cornered with a baseball bat until the cops arrived.
Plus its not a joke to shoot somebody, ever. Maybe you just don‘t have any concept of the gravity and seriousness of such a situation.
If you intend to debate people on the subject, and want to be understood, and not just dismissed as uninformed, here is some simple terminology.
"Junk" = Heroin. A derivative of opium which is manufactured from poppies. It is extremely addictive.
Junkie = someone who is addicted to heroin. If used to describe anything else, junkie is being used incorrectly, or as slang to encompass all drug users (but still incorrect). To correctly pigeon hole all drug users, you would say "druggie".
"Crack" = a (cooked) form of cocaine, usually of poor quality and in rock form, which is smoked, normally through a glass pipe. It is extremely addictive.
A "crackhead" is someone who is addicted to using crack. This is the only relevant use for the term "crackhead".
This is the statement you would make to the police when they charged you with second degree murder?
Because thats what happens when you shoot someone in Canada. The laws of Canada still apply in your house. Even in self defence cases (*self defence means you must be in imminent danger) ((ie a gun at your face, death threats, physical contact of a violent nature)) you still face manslaughter charges. Don‘t believe me? Look it up. I had a lengthy talk with an RCMP officer about it one night after someone broke into my house, and we (me and my friends) kept him cornered with a baseball bat until the cops arrived.
Plus its not a joke to shoot somebody, ever. Maybe you just don‘t have any concept of the gravity and seriousness of such a situation.
- Reaction score
- 9,675
- Points
- 1,260
That‘s right Graham, none of us take our job seriously and we all think it is just a fun game of dress-up.
So far removed, what the h*ll does that mean? Please, what makes you an expert?
Go smoke another doobie with your trafficking biker buddies.
P
Pte Lickers
Guest
Wow nothing like a debate one drugs and natural right of human beings to get people coming out of the wood work.
The standard arguement for the ban of drugs and narcotics is "their bad they harm your body and yadda yadda they cause crime yammer yammer"
Well a couple of interesting reports are this
1) marijuana is not an addictive drug and is less harmful then alcohol and possibly tobacco in many instances. The legend that an average marijuana joint has more tar then a cigarette is a falsehood. The truth is that tobacco is an addictive highly harmful drug in its form used now. Marijuana in its pure and well grown forms is a medical and social stability. Medically eveyrone should already know the positive sides.
Socially marijuana provides several subcultres with their identity and means of political and religious expression. Now thats some of the good now for the bad.
Oh yeah and the crime that exists due to drugs exists to an uinregulated and uncontrolled market, if all drugs were regulated there would be aspike but then a leveling off as small time thugs and brigands get eliminated by large corporations rushing to grab a peice of money.
However none of this utopian literature has anything to do with my opnion or that in the CF. In short if drugs are illegal in the CF then they should not be used by any of the members regardless if it becomes legal to rail crack of a your girlfriends thigh in a civilain setting.
I eagerlly await your replies, insults, comments and slang terms about my political affiliations and beliefs.
The standard arguement for the ban of drugs and narcotics is "their bad they harm your body and yadda yadda they cause crime yammer yammer"
Well a couple of interesting reports are this
1) marijuana is not an addictive drug and is less harmful then alcohol and possibly tobacco in many instances. The legend that an average marijuana joint has more tar then a cigarette is a falsehood. The truth is that tobacco is an addictive highly harmful drug in its form used now. Marijuana in its pure and well grown forms is a medical and social stability. Medically eveyrone should already know the positive sides.
Socially marijuana provides several subcultres with their identity and means of political and religious expression. Now thats some of the good now for the bad.
Oh yeah and the crime that exists due to drugs exists to an uinregulated and uncontrolled market, if all drugs were regulated there would be aspike but then a leveling off as small time thugs and brigands get eliminated by large corporations rushing to grab a peice of money.
However none of this utopian literature has anything to do with my opnion or that in the CF. In short if drugs are illegal in the CF then they should not be used by any of the members regardless if it becomes legal to rail crack of a your girlfriends thigh in a civilain setting.
I eagerlly await your replies, insults, comments and slang terms about my political affiliations and beliefs.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
That is a direct stab at a comment made in the quote I left from Garry . It had nothing to do with you. However, if you think its a joke to shoot somebody multiple times, then I guess maybe the comment was geared at you too, and I wouldn‘t care much what you say because that would make you an idiot.
It means just what I said. You have people talking about marijuana "junkies" breaking into your house, costing the tax payers money in health care, People eluding to the fact that if you legalize marijuana, then hard drugs will surely follow.
It doesn‘t reflect valid points on an issue that has already been debated to death, on the political and medical fronts. It‘s just some rigid opinions, and some minor justifications for holding them.
Go smoke a doobie with my biker buddies?
How about you go pull your head out of your *** you condescending @sshole.
I don‘t drink, I don‘t do drugs, I don‘t hang out with bikers. Way to jump to a conclusion though. I can see you‘re a real cool customer. You obviously must think things through before you talk or act. Why would you assume that I do drugs? Or have biker buddies?
Is it because you‘re a redneck prick? because thats the assumption I‘m going to jump to. You see the difference in the way we operate? I have evidence that you are just out to make a personal attack on me, with no justification other than the fact that you are a self described "inconsiderate as*hole".
You on the other hand had to fabricate a scenario that made me out to be a drug using loser with questionable friends. You can‘t even begin to imagine how far from the mark you landed on that one.
Asking me if I‘m an expert is about the only thing you said that is valid at all, even if a little childish.
Are you an expert? Are you not allowed to have strong opinions on a matter, if you are not an expert? Becasue I assure you that no one in this thread is an expert on the subject, yet other people have strong opinions about it. It seems you only singled me out on the "expert" issue.
Maybe you‘re mad that I voiced my opinion that I was disinterested in arguing an issue because I felt that the opinions given were not realistic portrayals of the legalization of marijuana "against" side. I stand by it. To understand why a substance shouldn‘t be used, one needs to uderstand how it is used, what happens when it is used, and the broader ramifications of what could or will happen if the law is passed to allow widespread use. I‘m educated on the matter, and im objective. I have no care one way or another, no personal interest. My opinion is, ban it, that and alcohol and tobacco. But thats not realistic and I accept that. But if alcohol and tobacco are legal, then marijuana should be too. Its far less imparing that drinking, and it cost infinately less money on the health care system than smoking cigarettes does.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Holy Smoke I did not think this would get so heated!
Michael this may effect our Code of Service Discipline because over the last 10yrs or so Civie Life has invaded the once closed world of the Military and thing‘s that were not allowed in the Military but are in Civie street are now allowed in the Military to day!
Michael this may effect our Code of Service Discipline because over the last 10yrs or so Civie Life has invaded the once closed world of the Military and thing‘s that were not allowed in the Military but are in Civie street are now allowed in the Military to day!
So much for the "disagree politely"!
Emotions are fine, but are a tool- not sure if this was the correct tool for this job.
Firstoff, the "joke" was in reference to an existing law in South Carolina, not the existing laws in Canada...though I advocate a similiar law.
My fault for trying the humour angle- not everyone shares my sense of humour.
As for an "expert" - well, I have smoked marijuana, sold it, and rode bikes...often in the company of other big tattooed guys. (recruiter- when did you last take drugs? me: what time is it?)
I have matured somewhat.
What does this tell you? NOTHING, as it‘s not germaine to the point I was trying to make, and that is there is WAY too many people getting too involved with other peoples lives. How dare you tell me what I can and cannot do with my body- it‘s mine!
The Military can, however, choose to not employ me if I do drugs- that premise is already there for any other deblitating actions- be it drinking, medical problems, etc- anything that affects my performance at work should be suspect.
I still live in the forlorn hope that the service is NOT a social experiment, but a means of defending our country...and that we suborn our rights and freedoms to the cause of the greater good....hence no drugs.
Final thought on emotions: those who do carry guns from time to time see and hear things they don‘t like. They learn to keep their emotions in check, and release the rage at an oportune time in support of a goal- but NEVER to make them "feel better". Good thing, too, or we‘d have bodies with holes in them. (kind of a cool segue eh?)...LOL
Enjoy.
Garry
Emotions are fine, but are a tool- not sure if this was the correct tool for this job.
Firstoff, the "joke" was in reference to an existing law in South Carolina, not the existing laws in Canada...though I advocate a similiar law.
My fault for trying the humour angle- not everyone shares my sense of humour.
As for an "expert" - well, I have smoked marijuana, sold it, and rode bikes...often in the company of other big tattooed guys. (recruiter- when did you last take drugs? me: what time is it?)
I have matured somewhat.
What does this tell you? NOTHING, as it‘s not germaine to the point I was trying to make, and that is there is WAY too many people getting too involved with other peoples lives. How dare you tell me what I can and cannot do with my body- it‘s mine!
The Military can, however, choose to not employ me if I do drugs- that premise is already there for any other deblitating actions- be it drinking, medical problems, etc- anything that affects my performance at work should be suspect.
I still live in the forlorn hope that the service is NOT a social experiment, but a means of defending our country...and that we suborn our rights and freedoms to the cause of the greater good....hence no drugs.
Final thought on emotions: those who do carry guns from time to time see and hear things they don‘t like. They learn to keep their emotions in check, and release the rage at an oportune time in support of a goal- but NEVER to make them "feel better". Good thing, too, or we‘d have bodies with holes in them. (kind of a cool segue eh?)...LOL
Enjoy.
Garry
- Reaction score
- 9,675
- Points
- 1,260
Hey Graham, read my tag, its inconsiderate as*hole, not condescending as*hole. But I can change it if it makes you feel better.
Good assumption, infact I am a redneck prick. Do I care. Not really. Boohoo if you don‘t like it. I felt compelled to return fire when you basically dismissed (with an air of superiority) a civil debate between Jungle, Garry, and myself as out of touch with reality with no explanation as to why we are clueless.
Notice how I had no reason to attack Garry, despite the fact that his views are more radical than yours. By coming off as an arrogant priss, you got the redneck prick reply.
I don‘t really care about your personal habits. The biker remark was a jib on the fact that support of lax drug laws lends tacit support to drug trafficking, of which biker gangs have a heavy hand in.
So we decriminalize marijuana and give people tickets for dope. There are still organized crime figures that traffic this sh*t. So we legalize marijuana, and everyone can enjoy a toke and some free love in the city streets. Does this get rid of the criminal problem? By the stance our neighbour to the south takes on drugs, nope.
I don‘t like drugs because it is in the realm of these criminals, no matter what the legislation says. These are criminals who don‘t hesitate to put a bullet into a cop or blow some kid up with a car bomb. A lot of my fellow soldiers are involved in justice system, so maybe I‘m biased.
So, whos side are you taking?
I‘d rather keep fighting the battle than just give up and surrender all togeather....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
You two are starting to sound like Americans. =P
but infanteer, that‘s exactly the point. those who would shoot a cop, or blow up someone with a car bomb are the ones who will now be targeted. instead of hunting down the users, who more often than not are just people out looking for a good time, police resources can be directed towards hunting down the real threat, the traffickers, the dangerous ones.
instead of letting off the users, they are ticketed. make some money for the queen, perhaps scare the users into flying straight, and have police resources better able to target the real threat. isn‘t that a good idea? one only has to look at how futile the american drug strategy is to realize they are not doing it right.
instead of letting off the users, they are ticketed. make some money for the queen, perhaps scare the users into flying straight, and have police resources better able to target the real threat. isn‘t that a good idea? one only has to look at how futile the american drug strategy is to realize they are not doing it right.
Redneck, inconsiderate, condescending...hmmmm.
Now lets say the Godless Communist Horde had landed in Alaska and was advancing at a high rate of knots south. Who would I send north.
Let me see, I‘ve got those wonderful young men, poets, flower arrangers, and stock traders...totally in touch with their feelings, and quite happy to work extra hours to allow their fellow socialists to choose not to work....
or should I send those redneck *******s with their callused hands, rig pigs, construction workers, people who hunt and fish, men who will do what they have to to feed their family...conservative outlooks, and outlandish beliefs in God and country...
Tough call, eh?
Sorry Bud, but you can keep your socialist fairy‘s and poets and "deep thinker‘s" ... I‘ll take the "redneck *******s" anytime.
I feel a rant coming, so I‘ll end it here.
Cheers-Garry
Now lets say the Godless Communist Horde had landed in Alaska and was advancing at a high rate of knots south. Who would I send north.
Let me see, I‘ve got those wonderful young men, poets, flower arrangers, and stock traders...totally in touch with their feelings, and quite happy to work extra hours to allow their fellow socialists to choose not to work....
or should I send those redneck *******s with their callused hands, rig pigs, construction workers, people who hunt and fish, men who will do what they have to to feed their family...conservative outlooks, and outlandish beliefs in God and country...
Tough call, eh?
Sorry Bud, but you can keep your socialist fairy‘s and poets and "deep thinker‘s" ... I‘ll take the "redneck *******s" anytime.
I feel a rant coming, so I‘ll end it here.
Cheers-Garry
- Reaction score
- 9,675
- Points
- 1,260
Null, good point, but I don‘t think I can fully buy that line of thinking. It sort of frames the very end of the chain, the drug-users, as victims (lets not concentrate on the victim, lets concentrate on the predators).
I fully believe that someone buying a bag of weed off the street is an active participant in organized crime, and I am not willing to overlook them as a key ingrediant in the chain of drugs that extends from producer to abuser.
However, I acknowledge the fact that different "chains" in the link require different strategies of attack. Maybe we should focus on a different stratagy for combatting drug abuse, but I don‘t believe this half-as*ed decriminalization measure is the proper approach.
I fully believe that someone buying a bag of weed off the street is an active participant in organized crime, and I am not willing to overlook them as a key ingrediant in the chain of drugs that extends from producer to abuser.
However, I acknowledge the fact that different "chains" in the link require different strategies of attack. Maybe we should focus on a different stratagy for combatting drug abuse, but I don‘t believe this half-as*ed decriminalization measure is the proper approach.
oh, i agree completely infanteer. the end users are NOT victims. the problem is, they‘re not exactly "dangerous to society" either, and the main job of the police and the court is to PROTECT society. in my way of thinking, the most serious crime that a group of teenagers lighting up in a basement are committing is funneling money to a dealer. that is the precise reason why police resources should go towards finding THEM...few recreational users would risk having REAL action taken towards them by setting up their own lab.
i‘ve smoked marijuana once in my life...2 drags at a party once, over 8 months ago. it wouldn‘t take a criminal conviction (that would REALLY screw up my life), court resources (which cost society MONEY) or jail time to get me to fly straight, nor would that apply to most people. the experience of getting a hefty fine, and the loss of freedoms that would accompany it (i was 17 at the time...god knows my mother would have taken a dish rag and cracked my a$$ were she to have found out) should suffice.
i can see what you are talking about, but let‘s be honest, drugs aren‘t going to go away. could you honestly see the police expending the resources to arrest and process a 17 year old guy who has a joint on him? i doubt it.
it would however be alot easier, and therefore more likely, that the good constable would ticket the offender.
still, if there were a clear-cut and easy solution, they‘d have found it already.
i‘ve smoked marijuana once in my life...2 drags at a party once, over 8 months ago. it wouldn‘t take a criminal conviction (that would REALLY screw up my life), court resources (which cost society MONEY) or jail time to get me to fly straight, nor would that apply to most people. the experience of getting a hefty fine, and the loss of freedoms that would accompany it (i was 17 at the time...god knows my mother would have taken a dish rag and cracked my a$$ were she to have found out) should suffice.
i can see what you are talking about, but let‘s be honest, drugs aren‘t going to go away. could you honestly see the police expending the resources to arrest and process a 17 year old guy who has a joint on him? i doubt it.
it would however be alot easier, and therefore more likely, that the good constable would ticket the offender.
still, if there were a clear-cut and easy solution, they‘d have found it already.
- Reaction score
- 9,675
- Points
- 1,260
Your right, drugs aren‘t going away, but so what. No crime will ever go away, but it doesn‘t mean that society should ever lose its vigilance. This is a tough topic because it is based largly on moral values. However, unlike other tough topics (like abortion) where the "line-in-the-sand" tends to be skewed across the entire spectrum of society, this one tends to fall into a an arguement of people who use drugs vs. people who don‘t.
I am not so concerned about a 17 year old getting busted with a joint, because under the young offenders act he SHOULD (I am not to sure on the specifics, so I could be off) be handled as what he is, a stupid kid in need of a lesson. But, a 25 year old caught with drugs is nothing but an idiot with no sense of social responsibility and obviously needs a lesson, and I don‘t think a 100 dollar fine is suitable enough.
yeah, but remember the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old is pretty small indeed. one is a young offender, the other is not. problem is, there is no way to distinguish between someone experimenting out of stupid curiosity, and a little-use-to-society druggie. given the large number of youth who HAVE experimented with such things, would it really be wise to give them all a criminal record?
i hope the law does pass. it‘s not like anything will change; people will still experiment with drugs, 25 year old losers will still be losers, and the only difference is that with any luck, supply will decline, which would drive up prices for those who still have money left after they‘ve been ticketed.
still, i‘ve always been an advocate against direct democracy; there are just too many ignorant people in the world for the masses to get involved with politics. how about leaving this to the politicians hmm?
i hope the law does pass. it‘s not like anything will change; people will still experiment with drugs, 25 year old losers will still be losers, and the only difference is that with any luck, supply will decline, which would drive up prices for those who still have money left after they‘ve been ticketed.
still, i‘ve always been an advocate against direct democracy; there are just too many ignorant people in the world for the masses to get involved with politics. how about leaving this to the politicians hmm?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Explain "fairy‘s" please. It blows my mind that people (like you) are so insecure that they feel the need to belittle someone else to try and elevate their own status. When someone starts making slurs about other people based on such superficial stuff as, sexual orientation, race, or religion, then its like a huge red flag that says "HEY EVERYONE I‘M AN IDIOT" . Biggotry stems from lack of understanding, and a certain lack of intelligence. It‘s insecurities ugly cousin.
Many people who hate gays for example, have never met anyone who is gay. How could they possibly hate them? Well, they bought into propeganda, thats how. Someone else taught them how to think, and rather than assimilate the information they learned, and combine it with information from other sources, to formulate their own opinion, they just accept it as truth. How smart is that? Hey I‘ve got a bridge I‘d like to sell you.....
Anyway, before anyone gets carried away trying to pigeonhole me becasue of my beliefs, know that I‘ve put my time in, in the land of the redneck. I worked for years setting chokers behind a skidder with some of the roughest, macho rednecks you‘ll ever meet, and in you‘re typical redneck / native racially charged town. I can hold my own. Those years I had to fight twice a month at least, not because I was a fairy, but because I dated girls who weren‘t white sometimes (both natives and white guys). I can sniff a racist a mile away, and I‘ll never let one talk @#$% to me.
Rednecks are fine, if you are talking about good hearted, hard working, and honest guys. I‘ve met lots of them. I‘ve also met lots who beat their wives and kids, are racially and sexually biggoted, are practicing alcoholics, and are mean spirited jerks who try to control people through fear. When someone throws a stereotype on me from way out in space somewhere, and tries to make me out to be something that I‘m not, then I‘m inclined to belive he falls into the latter category.
You think socialists are affraid to stand up for what they belive in? Look around buddy, we live in a socialist country. The socialists are running things here. You say you want people who stand up for their country, but it seems you would prefer it to ba a different country first. One with no "fairys" or "deep thinkers". I know just the type of place for you, think Waco Texas, ya with you at the helm of your own little compound you could start a whole movement where people just work hard and fight to repell "invading hordes". No "deep thinking" or stock trading, or anything else that makes a free country great, allowed.
Thats one of the most absurd arguments I‘ve seen yet. I guess those guys who spent all those years in university to make sure that their familiy is better provided for than someone who chose to be a construction worker, aren‘t willing to do whatever it takes to support their familiy right?
I had a friend growing up, who wrote poetry all the time, and he had my back for every single fight I ever had that he was witness to, even the ones where I was in the wrong. But he won‘t stand up and fight for his beliefs if required right?
Go look up some stats and find out who is more involved in crime, particularly drugs and violence, between those who take primary industry jobs, constuction jobs, or other uneducated macho type jobs, and the stock trader/ flower arranger types. I‘m not going to bother because the answer is obvious. If you can‘t hire a drug user in the military, then how are you going to muster up an army of rednecks?
Maybe in your perfect world there would be no socialist values, we could shoot people who become a burden, like old people, handicapped people, people grievously injured on the job. That way no one would personally offend you by working overtime to support something other than themselves and their family. Really you would have to shoot them, or else your country would look like India, or Mexico, or hundreds of other countries where there are little or no social programs, and people beg, steal, and kill for survival.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Wrong. I know a lot of people who don‘t do drugs who agree with decriminalization. Plus, I‘ve seen many on T.V. in news stories and so forth.
What about a 25 year old who is caught with alcohol in public? Or has had enough alcohol to be declared too drunk to drive (more than 1 drink per 1.5 hours) who is walking out of the bar? Because that is a crime. It‘s not legal to be intoxicated in public. So whatever stiff sentence you want to hand out to the guy with a joint, you‘d better be prepared to give to anyone found in public who has consumed more that 2-3 drinks over the entire evening. It would be nearly everyone who walks out of a bar.
People don‘t like to look at it that way, but breaking a law is breaking a law. The laws surrounding alcohol are very strict, yet as a society we aren‘t "vigilent" in enforcing them. Is it becasue alcohol is safe, and doesnt cause liver and brain damage, and people don‘t get so impared that they make fatal decisions? No, obviously not.
There‘s a lot of reasons why its overlooked, but none of them justify it.
Think about that the next time you go drinking (if you do), that if some fraction of the population had a rigid attitude about drinking and wanted it enforced, you could never again go to Denny‘s at 3:30am with your buddies for breakfast after a night of drinking, because you would be arrested.
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
e
Graham,
You bit on the word Fairy", and let my "rant coming" send you on one.
Emotions, Bud.
First things first- on the Fairy thing:
I never mentioned homosexuals- (see Webster‘s for the definition of Fairy)- and going back to my original post, you‘ll find that I personally don‘t think it‘s any of my business what someone‘s sexual orientation is... or their lifestyle choices. (ie drug use) Nor is it any of your‘s, to be honest.
We shouldn‘t much care what other people do, unless their "choices" infringe on yours.
On the redneck thing:
I‘ve seen a lot of folk in stressful situations, and in all honesty I was surprised at their reactions. Some of the "tough" guys fell apart when it got scary: whereas some of the weaker guys stepped up to the plate and did fine.
I‘ve also seen a lot of talkers, and generally they have let me down.
If I have to be in a scary situation (and remember I abhor violence) I‘d much rather have someone who has the moral courage to stand tall, and the physical strength to stand long.
Your call, but I choose those who have worked for a living.
On the Socialist thing:
I have seen my tax dollars wasted for years on people who choose not to work. I believe that we, as a country, have plenty of resources to help the truly needy- but must we support those who cannot find a job they like, or pays them the 35$ an hour they had before...I could go on, but hopefull you get my drift. Too many people choose not to accept the responsibility to care for themselves. If they won‘t, why should I?
Sorry you were exposed to racism- that sucks. That‘s also life- deal with it.
The original topic:
Nothing you‘ve said detracts me from my original idea- and that is that druggies can do what they want, none of my business what you choose to do to yourself.
Bottom Line:
I‘ll raise my kids according to my personal moral beliefs, and you do the same.
I‘ll live my life based on my own moral beliefs, you do the same.
The problem:
We interact socially based on a combination of our moral beliefs and the social mores of our collective ancestors- and that‘s where the problems arise. The social mores that our ancestors bled to establish are changing. Change is good, but the pace of change is staggering- and not understood, nor shared by all... and that is causing social unrest.
Yanking your chain:
Churchill: (quote) "A man who, at age 20, isn‘t a Liberal has no heart. A man who, at age 40, isn‘t a Conservative has no brain".
Be happy.
Garry
You bit on the word Fairy", and let my "rant coming" send you on one.
Emotions, Bud.
First things first- on the Fairy thing:
I never mentioned homosexuals- (see Webster‘s for the definition of Fairy)- and going back to my original post, you‘ll find that I personally don‘t think it‘s any of my business what someone‘s sexual orientation is... or their lifestyle choices. (ie drug use) Nor is it any of your‘s, to be honest.
We shouldn‘t much care what other people do, unless their "choices" infringe on yours.
On the redneck thing:
I‘ve seen a lot of folk in stressful situations, and in all honesty I was surprised at their reactions. Some of the "tough" guys fell apart when it got scary: whereas some of the weaker guys stepped up to the plate and did fine.
I‘ve also seen a lot of talkers, and generally they have let me down.
If I have to be in a scary situation (and remember I abhor violence) I‘d much rather have someone who has the moral courage to stand tall, and the physical strength to stand long.
Your call, but I choose those who have worked for a living.
On the Socialist thing:
I have seen my tax dollars wasted for years on people who choose not to work. I believe that we, as a country, have plenty of resources to help the truly needy- but must we support those who cannot find a job they like, or pays them the 35$ an hour they had before...I could go on, but hopefull you get my drift. Too many people choose not to accept the responsibility to care for themselves. If they won‘t, why should I?
Sorry you were exposed to racism- that sucks. That‘s also life- deal with it.
The original topic:
Nothing you‘ve said detracts me from my original idea- and that is that druggies can do what they want, none of my business what you choose to do to yourself.
Bottom Line:
I‘ll raise my kids according to my personal moral beliefs, and you do the same.
I‘ll live my life based on my own moral beliefs, you do the same.
The problem:
We interact socially based on a combination of our moral beliefs and the social mores of our collective ancestors- and that‘s where the problems arise. The social mores that our ancestors bled to establish are changing. Change is good, but the pace of change is staggering- and not understood, nor shared by all... and that is causing social unrest.
Yanking your chain:
Churchill: (quote) "A man who, at age 20, isn‘t a Liberal has no heart. A man who, at age 40, isn‘t a Conservative has no brain".
Be happy.
Garry
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
"different stratagy for combatting drug abuse, but I don‘t believe this half-as*ed decriminalization measure is the proper approach. "
yeah the war on drugs is work so well!!! If want a different stratagy lets look at effects, for the amount of danage it does to society; we should really be going after alcohol. Alcohol has caused more Deaths, more Family Break ups, More Beating.... well the list could go on and on. On terms of evils to society... alcohol way out ranks pot, is more of a gateway drug than pot.
"But, a 25 year old caught with drugs is nothing but an idiot with no sense of social responsibility and obviously needs a lesson, and I don‘t think a 100 dollar fine is suitable enough."
Social responsibility.... I think if did a study of the reason why people end up on the street, again alcohol use would be farer up the list than pot.
If you really want to save us from the evils of drug use, then save us from alcohol, and tobacco, and yeah caffine too. But wait most people who are addicted to tobacco think its okay to smoke it in people‘s faces and use it pretty anywhere.... again which is the greater evil. Pot where one person might smoke one joint a day... or tobacco; where the aveage user smokes over a 25 a day... and in some cases never stops smoking them.
If you really cared about making society a better place you would be for all stopping these evils as well. But Think your more interested in keeping society the way it is. Which of course is a failed course of action. At leats with discrimaliastion you turn the drug into a product, to be marketed and sold and like coffee, tobacco, beer, etc and take it out of hands of a biker...
yeah the war on drugs is work so well!!! If want a different stratagy lets look at effects, for the amount of danage it does to society; we should really be going after alcohol. Alcohol has caused more Deaths, more Family Break ups, More Beating.... well the list could go on and on. On terms of evils to society... alcohol way out ranks pot, is more of a gateway drug than pot.
"But, a 25 year old caught with drugs is nothing but an idiot with no sense of social responsibility and obviously needs a lesson, and I don‘t think a 100 dollar fine is suitable enough."
Social responsibility.... I think if did a study of the reason why people end up on the street, again alcohol use would be farer up the list than pot.
If you really want to save us from the evils of drug use, then save us from alcohol, and tobacco, and yeah caffine too. But wait most people who are addicted to tobacco think its okay to smoke it in people‘s faces and use it pretty anywhere.... again which is the greater evil. Pot where one person might smoke one joint a day... or tobacco; where the aveage user smokes over a 25 a day... and in some cases never stops smoking them.
If you really cared about making society a better place you would be for all stopping these evils as well. But Think your more interested in keeping society the way it is. Which of course is a failed course of action. At leats with discrimaliastion you turn the drug into a product, to be marketed and sold and like coffee, tobacco, beer, etc and take it out of hands of a biker...
Similar threads
