IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Ecstasy, An Inconvenient Truth
gingergenius
post Apr 22 2008, 10:09 PM
Post #21


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 21-January 06
From: London, UK
Member No.: 27,536



QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America, and it quotes numerous scientific reports. It's like their equivalent to Panorama.

In the global warming debate, the only scientists who deny it are those employed by large corporations. The entire anti-Ecstasy lobby bases its science on a US government sponsored study. A number of other studies have said the contrary.

Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post Apr 22 2008, 10:14 PM
Post #22


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.

This post has been edited by psychÝ: Apr 22 2008, 10:43 PM


--------------------

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ctlfreak
post Apr 23 2008, 03:43 AM
Post #23


Nobody Special
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 5-August 04
From: A shithole
Member No.: 671



its not legal because its fun.


actually x can cause problem with the brain if you over do it. but thats the key dont over do it. any substance can be bad in large doses, even asprin. I personally think that its bullshit that drugs are illegal. if you look at it from a free society POV then its nothing more than the government trying to be controlling. marijuana was made illegal as a way to curb blacks and mexicans. google around and you will find info on how the white people in the day claimed it gave mexicans superhuman powers, and blacks turned into murderous and sexual deviants when smoking pot. its crazy. alcohol and tobacco kill so many people every day its not even funny but something as harmless as pot is bad for you because someone back in the day said so. its insane.

i think they should legalize everything. if your stupid enough to od then you deserve to die. but my body is just that my body, if i chose to fuck it up i should have that right.

ive done almost every drug there is, my life is not ruined. I havent been in any trouble, i dont drive on anything and I dont do shit everyday. these days its pot and pills, dont even drink anymore. The thing that gets me about any drug is its always people that have never done drugs telling you its so bad and horrible, yet the responsible users tend to live well adjusted lives. Like i said earlier if you over do anything its bad, that is especially true for drugs, to much can kill you but just enough and you can have a hella good time.

oddly enough alot of times when the government commissions an independent study, the people come back with no real negatives so the gov discounts it and manipulates the facts. there was a study a while back in the 70s i think about pot causing death in monkeys, turns out the guy didnt want to take the time to do the study right and basically pumped so much pot smoke into the monkeys at once that he suffocated them. then claimed that they died from a weed overdose. you cant trust alot of what the media says. you need to look at how the study was carried out and the conditions of it. science seems to go out the window when talking about drugs. mainly because the gov wants to say its wrong.

x, pot, and many other drugs are illegal because the gov thinks they cant tax it plain and simple. they know that there is the knowledge and abilty to make it at home so its easier to just banish it. if they thought they could make money it would likely be legalized agian.

truth be told we spend so much on the war on drugs that its not even worth it. that money could go towards so many better things like, schools, free health care, aid programs for the poor, ect. instead we use it to burn crops, raid houses, take peoples belongings, incarcerate and house criminals, and tons of other things. look into it the numbers are staggering. just another reason i have a disliking for the land of the supposedly free.

ps if you havent done it, E,X whatever you call it. its fun as hell. just be careful drink lots of water, and go get some vicks inhalers (have people blow it in your eyes and mouth, or the vapor rub and a dr mask, rub the vicks in there and put the mask on, its heaven. god i miss those days. shits to expensive now.


--------------------

Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gingergenius
post Apr 23 2008, 11:51 AM
Post #24


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 21-January 06
From: London, UK
Member No.: 27,536



QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1418672[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.


key point is where I said the documentary discusses numerous scientific studies. If you don't want to watch the documentary then fine, but it does rather undermine the argument you make just to dismiss it out of hand.

ctlfreak has it about right.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post Apr 23 2008, 12:15 PM
Post #25


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 12:51 PM) [snapback]1419284[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1418672[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.


key point is where I said the documentary discusses numerous scientific studies. If you don't want to watch the documentary then fine, but it does rather undermine the argument you make just to dismiss it out of hand.

ctlfreak has it about right.

No, it doesn't discusses multiple scientific studies, it takes the studies that agree with it and then gets so guys who agree with them and then spins there interview to agree with their point even more.


--------------------

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gingergenius
post Apr 23 2008, 02:37 PM
Post #26


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 21-January 06
From: London, UK
Member No.: 27,536



QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 23 2008, 01:15 PM) [snapback]1419304[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 12:51 PM) [snapback]1419284[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1418672[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.


key point is where I said the documentary discusses numerous scientific studies. If you don't want to watch the documentary then fine, but it does rather undermine the argument you make just to dismiss it out of hand.

ctlfreak has it about right.

No, it doesn't discusses multiple scientific studies, it takes the studies that agree with it and then gets so guys who agree with them and then spins there interview to agree with their point even more.


It discusses the study that said one dose of ecstasy could fuck you up for life. It discusses the recent German study which said they weren't that damaging at all. It discusses the New Scientist study which says that conclusions still have to be made. It talks to experts on Ecstasy, it speaks to users who aren't fucked up and it speaks to users who've clearly done too much and are fucked up. I fail to see how it could be more balanced.

And anyway freak got it spot on when he said that it's always the people who've never done drugs who try to ban them.

Fact is, Meth, Cocaine and Heroin and all the drugs that derive from them have been proven, beyond doubt, to be highly addictive and to have a hugely detrimental effect on both mental and physical health. Which is why they are Class A illegal. Ecstasy has not been proven to be addictive, has not been proven to have a hugely detrimental effect on mental and physical health, yet is also a Class A.

To me, Ecstasy is, at most, on the same level as cannabis, nicotine and alcohol. Which I think should all be legal because they are nowhere near as dangerous as the above. What's more I've yet to see a single reason why Ecstasy is considered a class A.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ulster_Niko
post Apr 23 2008, 03:35 PM
Post #27


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 20-March 08
From: Northern Ireland
Member No.: 38,823



QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 03:37 PM) [snapback]1419406[/snapback]
To me, Ecstasy is, at most, on the same level as cannabis, nicotine and alcohol. Which I think should all be legal because they are nowhere near as dangerous as the above. What's more I've yet to see a single reason why Ecstasy is considered a class A.


The thing is, people can go out and have a couple of pints and a few cigarettes without getting totally fucked.

One ecstasy tablet fucks you up, it can't be taken in moderation.


--------------------
You'll Never Walk Alone

Liverpool FC
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post Apr 23 2008, 03:39 PM
Post #28


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 03:37 PM) [snapback]1419406[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 23 2008, 01:15 PM) [snapback]1419304[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 12:51 PM) [snapback]1419284[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1418672[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.


key point is where I said the documentary discusses numerous scientific studies. If you don't want to watch the documentary then fine, but it does rather undermine the argument you make just to dismiss it out of hand.

ctlfreak has it about right.

No, it doesn't discusses multiple scientific studies, it takes the studies that agree with it and then gets so guys who agree with them and then spins there interview to agree with their point even more.


It discusses the study that said one dose of ecstasy could fuck you up for life. It discusses the recent German study which said they weren't that damaging at all. It discusses the New Scientist study which says that conclusions still have to be made. It talks to experts on Ecstasy, it speaks to users who aren't fucked up and it speaks to users who've clearly done too much and are fucked up. I fail to see how it could be more balanced.

Where are the links to these so called studies, why would I want someone's bias view on a study when I can read them for myself?


--------------------

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gingergenius
post Apr 23 2008, 04:10 PM
Post #29


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 21-January 06
From: London, UK
Member No.: 27,536



QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 23 2008, 04:39 PM) [snapback]1419493[/snapback]
Where are the links to these so called studies, why would I want someone's bias view on a study when I can read them for myself?


jesus fucking christ i can't imagine you'd actually want to read these through Ricaurte study, the basis for Ecstasy's perception as a dangerous drug. It was retracted
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post Apr 23 2008, 04:30 PM
Post #30


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



If the paper was retracted then why are you showing it to me, that just means it obviously had discrepancies in it.

How can you say it is an unbiased documentary if the only study saying that E is dangerous was retracted.

This post has been edited by psychÝ: Apr 23 2008, 04:31 PM


--------------------

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny†
post Apr 23 2008, 04:32 PM
Post #31



**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Kryton @ Apr 22 2008, 09:00 PM) [snapback]1418150[/snapback]
Saw an Oprah special ages ago about people who take loads of E's every week and they had a scan of a chicks brain who had been doing like 20-40 E's a week for a year. She had holes in her brain the size of golf balls. ohmy.gif
Stopped me from takin E's right then.

...anyone can tell you you're not meant to do 20-40 pills a week for a year of anything. Even somthing like panadol could cause serious negative effects on your brain if you took 20-40 tablets of it a week for a year. It's just common sense.



--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hardcore Ottoman
post Apr 23 2008, 08:48 PM
Post #32


Goon
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 469
Joined: 2-August 04
Member No.: 41
PSN Name: punxtr



QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 23 2008, 08:15 AM) [snapback]1419304[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 12:51 PM) [snapback]1419284[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1418672[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.


key point is where I said the documentary discusses numerous scientific studies. If you don't want to watch the documentary then fine, but it does rather undermine the argument you make just to dismiss it out of hand.

ctlfreak has it about right.

No, it doesn't discusses multiple scientific studies, it takes the studies that agree with it and then gets so guys who agree with them and then spins there interview to agree with their point even more.

That is what anyone does when they formulate an argument. You still have to actually read and listen to it. Simply dismissing it is weak form in counter-argument.


--------------------
"BAKING A LASAGNA IN YOUR PUNANI MIKE PARADINAS IN YOUR PUNANI INTELLVISION BASKETBALL IN YOUR PUNANI HE-MAN AND SKELETOR IN YOUR PUNANI UNDERGOING PLASTIC SURGERY IN YOUR PUNANI WEARING LEATHER JACKETS IN YOUR PUNANI DRIVING MY CAR IN YOUR PUNANI WELFARE WEDNESDAY IN YOUR PUNANI I WANT TO PUT ORANGE JUICE IN YOUR PUNANI EGG SALAD SANDWICHES IN YOUR PUNANI HOT-DOGS AND FRENCH FRIES IN YOUR PUNANI CHEF BOYARDEE IN YOUR PUNANI"
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post Apr 24 2008, 04:56 PM
Post #33


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE(Leng Tch @ Apr 23 2008, 09:48 PM) [snapback]1419802[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 23 2008, 08:15 AM) [snapback]1419304[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 12:51 PM) [snapback]1419284[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1418672[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.


key point is where I said the documentary discusses numerous scientific studies. If you don't want to watch the documentary then fine, but it does rather undermine the argument you make just to dismiss it out of hand.

ctlfreak has it about right.

No, it doesn't discusses multiple scientific studies, it takes the studies that agree with it and then gets so guys who agree with them and then spins there interview to agree with their point even more.

That is what anyone does when they formulate an argument. You still have to actually read and listen to it. Simply dismissing it is weak form in counter-argument.

People make scientific papers for a reason, I don't want some bias journalist view, who doesn't really know what the fuck he is talking about.


--------------------

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Naphthyloxy
post Apr 24 2008, 05:53 PM
Post #34


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 18-April 08
Member No.: 39,578



QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 24 2008, 12:56 PM) [snapback]1420477[/snapback]
QUOTE(Leng Tch @ Apr 23 2008, 09:48 PM) [snapback]1419802[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 23 2008, 08:15 AM) [snapback]1419304[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 12:51 PM) [snapback]1419284[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1418672[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.


key point is where I said the documentary discusses numerous scientific studies. If you don't want to watch the documentary then fine, but it does rather undermine the argument you make just to dismiss it out of hand.

ctlfreak has it about right.

No, it doesn't discusses multiple scientific studies, it takes the studies that agree with it and then gets so guys who agree with them and then spins there interview to agree with their point even more.

That is what anyone does when they formulate an argument. You still have to actually read and listen to it. Simply dismissing it is weak form in counter-argument.

People make scientific papers for a reason, I don't want some bias journalist view, who doesn't really know what the fuck he is talking about.



People make scientific papers for a reason and that reason is theory, belief, and wanting to reveal the unknown to feel better about chaos (harmonious-discord). Just because they are doing it for a reason does not mean it still is not a theory, or they are right for that matter. If logic is the mentality you are using for this discussion, than it would make more sense to question what your own logic is instead of fighting Ginger once his proposition is presented to you. Listen to Leng Tch'e as well(short and sweet and to the point far better than what I am doing now). As for someone not knowing what the fuck they are talking about I think it safe to say that no one honestly knows what they are really talking about, unless I feel that internet forum fun approaching me in the next ocuple of posts. Actions are obviously viewed higher in the world than speaking about them. Try the drug if you have not already and come back once you are down to finalize your thought.


--------------------
[spoiler]Signatures relate to an ever concerning growth in individuality.[/spoiler]
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrPMonkey
post Apr 24 2008, 06:33 PM
Post #35


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 31-March 08
From: Fife, Scotland
Member No.: 38,939



I recently watched a documentary on 'Britains 20 most dangerous drugs' (I think that was the name of the documentary if you want to check it up). The documentary was screened on the BBC and the test on individual drugs were carried out by independant scientists. There was an outcry among the scientists - all of them, yes all of them, involved in the making of the documentary couldn't understand why Ecstasy was a Class A drug. Some called for it to be legalised and most called for it to be downgraded to a Class C.

I myself, although not a regular taker, have experimented with many drugs including ecstasy and have to agree that it should be reclassified. Clasifications are put in place 'supposadly' to determine how dangerous the drug is to the body, how harmful the drug is on society and how addictive a drug is. As long as you're not consuming an excessive amount of ecstasy I dont see any harm in it for yourself and others.

Another reason why maybe it is illegal is because governments can't think of a way to tax it and governments are often naive and too stubborn to re-think laws.


Everything in moderation! wink.gif


P.S. I think ecstasy was about in 17th place, with nicotine 9th and alcohol 7th most dangerous drug in Britain.


--------------------
"All governments are liars and murderers"- Bill Hicks
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny†
post Apr 25 2008, 02:29 PM
Post #36



**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(MrPMonkey @ Apr 25 2008, 04:33 AM) [snapback]1420549[/snapback]
Class A drug. Some called for it to be legalised and most called for it to be downgraded to a Class C.

I wouldn't let the classification of a drug change my opinion on it simply because the only drugs that come to mind that really belong there are heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetimine (ice). Yet (not crack) cocaine and ecstacy seem to be included.

Fun fact: Crack cocaine and cocaine are not the same thing. Crack is a more cheaply made version of coke wich can usualy only be found in the most run down areas.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Not a Stain On M...
post Apr 25 2008, 07:19 PM
Post #37


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 9-April 08
Member No.: 39,083



To be honest, skittles are my favorite. 1st time I took one was 4 yrs ago, and that day was the 2nd best day I've had my whole life (1st is my son being born). I work 40 hrs/wk and I roll maybe every couple of months. Never had a bad trip and never gotten sick. I drink orange juice while rollin, and usually a pack of gum to combat my teeth clentching. I don't even have a "come down". I'm usually rollin at 1/4 intensity the day after. I wouldn't recommend legalizing X, cuz theres always a dumb ass out there that will eventually fuck it up for everyone else anyways, and it'll become illegal again.


--------------------
Why don't you have a seat over there...
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Caliguy
post Apr 26 2008, 07:09 AM
Post #38


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 132



Who the hell really cares that ecstasy be legalized? "It's harmless in small doses" Big deal. I could eat a teeny bit of rat poison and probably be ok. Whatever, that's not the point I'm trying to make.

What would the point or motive be if tomorrow things like pot and ecstasy were legalized? A bunch of even more kids start smoking even more weed... how is that beneficial to society?

Sure.. smoke, that's fine; most of us do it already. But why would the government promote it? I think things are fine the way they are now. "The government makes weed illegal to keep alcohol sales up!" Bullshit. It's illegal because it's shady and it isn't something you would casually do at a family reunion. Uhh, that was corny, but there's a lot of truth in that. Do the illegal things you want to do in your own private time. I do it and I'm not asking to be allowed to do it anywhere I want to.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gingergenius
post Apr 26 2008, 09:04 AM
Post #39


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 21-January 06
From: London, UK
Member No.: 27,536



QUOTE(Caliguy @ Apr 26 2008, 08:09 AM) [snapback]1422205[/snapback]
Who the hell really cares that ecstasy be legalized? "It's harmless in small doses" Big deal. I could eat a teeny bit of rat poison and probably be ok. Whatever, that's not the point I'm trying to make.

What would the point or motive be if tomorrow things like pot and ecstasy were legalized? A bunch of even more kids start smoking even more weed... how is that beneficial to society?

Sure.. smoke, that's fine; most of us do it already. But why would the government promote it? I think things are fine the way they are now. "The government makes weed illegal to keep alcohol sales up!" Bullshit. It's illegal because it's shady and it isn't something you would casually do at a family reunion. Uhh, that was corny, but there's a lot of truth in that. Do the illegal things you want to do in your own private time. I do it and I'm not asking to be allowed to do it anywhere I want to.


That works all good until you're on your way to a club ready do have a good time and your night gets ruined because there's sniffer dogs waiting at the tube station. Making something unreasonably illegal means that people doing it will get in trouble for it. And don't tell me that they should have known better, I think the law should be an agreement between the state and the people over what's acceptable.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny†
post Apr 26 2008, 03:01 PM
Post #40



**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Caliguy @ Apr 26 2008, 05:09 PM) [snapback]1422205[/snapback]
Who the hell really cares that ecstasy be legalized? "It's harmless in small doses" Big deal. I could eat a teeny bit of rat poison and probably be ok. Whatever, that's not the point I'm trying to make.


You could, a rat couldn't.

QUOTE(Caliguy @ Apr 26 2008, 05:09 PM) [snapback]1422205[/snapback]
What would the point or motive be if tomorrow things like pot and ecstasy were legalized? A bunch of even more kids start smoking even more weed... how is that beneficial to society?


It's not. Neither is the smount people drink now.

QUOTE(Caliguy @ Apr 26 2008, 05:09 PM) [snapback]1422205[/snapback]
Sure.. smoke, that's fine; most of us do it already. But why would the government promote it? I think things are fine the way they are now.


Well, if it was legal it would be cheaper and I wouldn't get arrested for possesion.

QUOTE(Caliguy @ Apr 26 2008, 05:09 PM) [snapback]1422205[/snapback]
"The government makes weed illegal to keep alcohol sales up!" Bullshit. It's illegal because it's shady and it isn't something you would casually do at a family reunion.


Can you say 'MKULTRA', Caliguy?


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st November 2014 - 01:27 PM

GTA 5 | GTA San Andreas | Red Dead Redemption | GTA 4