Crossfire

Pages

AuthorTopic: Crossfire
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #50
Oops. I meant X. That was just a Freudian slip after all the plotting... I mean... Never mind!

?Alorael, who will go off into his corner and sullenly drink skribbane. This is opposed to the cheerful skribbane-drinking that would otherwise have taken place.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
Profile #51
Whoawhoawhoa. I only read a couple posts, but I don't think the subject should be changed that quickly. Maybe it didn't. If not, forget this first part.

Now, back to pot (just say pot, it's the same thing but less of a mouthful [figuratively, not literally]). Why are you against legalization, Moc, if you know that it would screw high schools up so bad? The only reason I can think of is that you think we should be able to choose on our own whether we want to smoke it or not, and have no interferance. Well, if that's what you think, I think that's crap. If it's not what you think, forget this part too. But if it is, then I think you are wrong because sometimes, the government knows what is good for you when you do not, and why have a government if they don't do what's good for us? Letting us smoke pot is not good for us. Now, I know this could be used against me and might make you people think I like dictatorships, but that is not the case. All I'm saying is, sometimes we have to give up our liberties for our own sake. It's like drug rehab (bad analogy, if Scorp is still here, but I'll use it anyway); you tell people to keep you away from something, no matter what they have to do, and they do just that. You may be angry during the process, but it's good for you anyway, and you will be glad afterwards. I have not met a single old or middle aged person who smoked pot when they were young, and now wants it legalized.

--------------------
And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it.
-The Last Pendragon

TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL

In case of emergency, break glass.
Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #52
quote:
Originally posted by iDavid:
I have not met a single old or middle aged person who smoked pot when they were young, and now wants it legalized.
Full disclosure, please. How many old or middle-aged people do you know who smoked pot when young and do not want it legalised? What's their reasoning?

I, for one, can think of several middle-aged people who smoked pot while young and now want it legalised. Djur probably knows even more such people.

--------------------
I'd be tender, I'd be gentle
And awful sentimental
Regarding love and art
I'd be friends with the sparrows
And the boy who shoots the arrows,
If I only had a heart.
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Shaper
Member # 496
Profile #53
Oh, Khoth - I know what you do with sock puppets. No thanks!

As to middle aged people that don't want pot legalised - of course. They'd go out of business or, worse, have to open a government-licensed cafe / head shop if they did.
Posts: 2333 | Registered: Monday, January 7 2002 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 1823
Profile Homepage #54
quote:
Originally posted by iDavid:
Whoawhoawhoa. I only read a couple posts, but I don't think the subject should be changed that quickly. Maybe it didn't. If not, forget this first part.

Now, back to pot (just say pot, it's the same thing but less of a mouthful [figuratively, not literally]). Why are you against legalization, Moc, if you know that it would screw high schools up so bad?


Well, mainly as a reply to OtM, obviously people who go into school stoned are gonna get kicked out - same as if someone went to school drunk. Legalising cannabis doesn't mean that you can do whatever you like with it whenever you like (eg. driving laws as well)

The only reason I can think of is that you think we should be able to choose on our own whether we want to smoke it or not, and have no interferance. Well, if that's what you think, I think that's crap. If it's not what you think, forget this part too. But if it is, then I think you are wrong because sometimes, the government knows what is good for you when you do not, and why have a government if they don't do what's good for us?

Um, to collect taxes, enforce laws that stop people harming others and protect liberties. Either that or just have anarchism (which isn't necessarily a bad thing)

Letting us smoke pot is not good for us.

Says who?

Now, I know this could be used against me and might make you people think I like dictatorships, but that is not the case. All I'm saying is, sometimes we have to give up our liberties for our own sake.

I think we should be allowed to choose when we give up our liberties, otherwise it is, as you say, a dictatorship.

It's like drug rehab (bad analogy, if Scorp is still here, but I'll use it anyway); you tell people to keep you away from something, no matter what they have to do, and they do just that. You may be angry during the process, but it's good for you anyway, and you will be glad afterwards.

Yes, maybe if people asked the government to keep pot away from them, but their not. It's more like forced drug rehab

[qb I have not met a single old or middle aged person who smoked pot when they were young, and now wants it legalized.[/qb]

See comments by those above. I will ask Thuryl's question again, to keep it fresh : How many middle aged people have you met who smoked pot when they were younger and don't wqant it legalised? or even: How many middle aged people have you met who smoked pot when they were younger?



--------------------
Riot Shields
Voodoo Economics
It's just business
Cattle prods
And the IMF

I trust I can rely on your vote
Posts: 530 | Registered: Sunday, September 1 2002 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 2669
Profile Homepage #55
quote:
Originally posted by iDavid:
Now, back to pot (just say pot, it's the same thing but less of a mouthful [figuratively, not literally]). Why are you against legalization, Moc, if you know that it would screw high schools up so bad?
I'm FOR legalization. I don't think it would screw high schools up much more than it already does. But I do think that more kids (not a huge amount, but definitely more) will dull their developing intellectual skills enough to suddenly find themselves at age 25, with two kids, working at McDonalds or the local gas station. They might feel cheated. Legalization should go hand-in-hand with a giant education and outreach campaign. Scrap the DEA and use that money to offer drug treatment, better education opportunities for drug abuse victims, etc.

The only reason I can think of is that you think we should be able to choose on our own whether we want to smoke it or not, and have no interferance. Well, if that's what you think, I think that's crap. If it's not what you think, forget this part too. But if it is, then I think you are wrong because sometimes, the government knows what is good for you when you do not, and why have a government if they don't do what's good for us?
Pot is no more harmful than alcohol or nicotine. All of them will kill you if abused prodigiously. So will donuts and bacon.
As for the government: ha. HA! Did you know that almost two-thirds of the people in Congress have had prior legal troubles? Everything from drunk driving to influence peddling, spousal abuse to mail fraud. You trust those people to know what's right for you? This is not a meritocracy, it's a democracy. Gov't makes mistakes. It's up to the people to correct them.
Letting us smoke pot is not good for us.
Neither is eating cheese or breathing, for that matter. See above.
Now, I know this could be used against me and might make you people think I like dictatorships, but that is not the case. All I'm saying is, sometimes we have to give up our liberties for our own sake. It's like drug rehab (bad analogy, if Scorp is still here, but I'll use it anyway); you tell people to keep you away from something, no matter what they have to do, and they do just that. You may be angry during the process, but it's good for you anyway, and you will be glad afterwards.
You should always ALWAYS protect all of your liberties as fiercely as possible. I won't question your right to start a whacko religious cult or drink yourself to death. If you don't like pot, don't touch the stuff. If it got legalized tomorrow, I honestly doubt i'd make any use of it, but I'm still all for it.
I have not met a single old or middle aged person who smoked pot when they were young, and now wants it legalized.
As stated by various other persons, just to how many middle-aged people have you talked about pot and legalization?
I just think what you do with your life should be up to you, entirely (after reaching full sentience, anyways).

Rebuttal, or back to morality?

[ Saturday, April 26, 2003 06:13: Message edited by: Ooklah the Moc ]

--------------------
...
Posts: 647 | Registered: Wednesday, February 19 2003 08:00
Triad Mage
Member # 7
Profile Homepage #56
I doubt it would screw up high schools any more than it already does, since the kids that want it can get it, and the kids that don't want it stay away from it.

--------------------
"At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander
====
Drakefyre's Demesne - Vahnatai Did Do It
desperance.net - We're Everywhere
The Arena - God Will Sort The Dead
====
You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse!
Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00
Cartographer
Member # 2264
Profile Homepage #57
Possibly it has something to do with where I grew up, but I know a lot of successful middle-aged people who smoked pot when they were younger and are all for legalization. By successful I'm talking about a real-estate agent, a bank manager, three teachers and the owner of a local restaurant. Personally, I don't like pot, I think it does have negative effects, but so does alcohol, and that's legal. Things such as pot, alcohol, tobacco, all of them should be a persons personal decision, but it should be regulated. A 12 year old should not be able to go out and buy some pot, just as a 12 year old can't go out and buy a mickey of vodka or a pack of cigarettes.

One final thing, whoever said they should shut down the DEA and just legalize pot, that makes no sense. The DEA also deals with things such as heroin, cocaine, PCP and other drugs that should most definitely not be legalized.

--------------------
And the Glory of the Light did shine upon him.
And the Peace of the Light did he give men.
Binding nations to him. Making one of many.
Yet the shards of hearts did give wounds.
And what was once did come again
-in fire and in storm
splitting all in twain.
For his peace...
-for his peace...
... was the peace...
... was the peace...
... of the sword.
And the Glory of the Light did shine upon him.

Meane sol Ahelle

Check out my Avernum 3 site. This one is incomplete, but better than the one here which is complete, sort of.
Posts: 926 | Registered: Tuesday, November 19 2002 08:00
Triad Mage
Member # 7
Profile Homepage #58
He (a 12-year-old) may not be able to buy it, but he can certainly get it ...

--------------------
"At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander
====
Drakefyre's Demesne - Vahnatai Did Do It
desperance.net - We're Everywhere
The Arena - God Will Sort The Dead
====
You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse!
Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 2669
Profile Homepage #59
Jeebus. I said I doubt that it would affect high schools much more than it already does, but if it does get legalized, it will obviously be more accessible, and kids who previously didn't have access to it at all might then be able to nick some from Uncle Steve the Stoner when he comes over for Thanksgiving.
As for the DEA, it is a giant Republican pork barrell project. Nixon invented it. There is nothing, i mean NOTHING, the DEA does that the FBI or CIA couldn't do. Same with Homeland Security, another giant waste of taxpayer dollars. The DEA has had absolutely no effect on the international drug trade. But it makes the tough-guy republicans feel like they're doing something to keep their kids safe rather than trying to talk to them, or offer education or treatment. Throw those evil drug monkeys into Jail!
And now, with mandatory sentencing, Joe Stoner with a brick of hash will sit in jail for 20 years while a rapist gets out in three to five. Fair? Who'd you rather have for a roommate, a rapist or a stoner?

--------------------
...
Posts: 647 | Registered: Wednesday, February 19 2003 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 87
Profile Homepage #60
completely off topic, but has anyone heard a song with the chorus "everyone must get stoned". it sounded like a cheech and chong, but I don't know.

edit: Morality: the roman empire fell b/c of immorality.

[ Saturday, April 26, 2003 11:56: Message edited by: Permutonominus Rex ]

--------------------
Tip of the Day: #13 Stand clear the closing door.

That's treason.
(THNIK)(Peculiar James, FP productions co, inc)
Posts: 816 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00
Triad Mage
Member # 7
Profile Homepage #61
That's a Bob Dylan song, Rainy Day Women #12 & 35

--------------------
"At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander
====
Drakefyre's Demesne - Vahnatai Did Do It
desperance.net - We're Everywhere
The Arena - God Will Sort The Dead
====
You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse!
Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00
Guardian
Member # 2476
Profile #62
Legalizing small amounts has not increased the intake in my country, but it has decriminalized (is that a word?) those who use it. And that's a good thing. I don't know about your country, in mine the kids always knew how to get it, legal or not. Pot and the good old Mary Jane are not big problems. Crack, ecstasy and such, they are.

--------------------
Polaris
Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
Profile #63
Ugh. I only have time to respond to Jigga. After clarifying that I meant for, not against, in that first part, of course.

OK, so you're saying that collecting taxes and enforcing laws to stop people from harming others isn't doing what's good for us? How does that make sense? Do you think they should legalize suicide, too, because the person is killing themself, not someone else?

Says who? Well, just every study conducted on the effects of pot... so I guess that's just an argument about whether pot is bad or not, not whether it should be legal or not.

Of course we're allowed to choose what to give up; why do you think we have voting? And if you mean that everyone should only be allowed to decide the law for their own self, than that's anarchy. Which I've already said is impossible, and it's stupid, anyway.

Most people do want to keep pot away from them. So, again, do you want us to determine the law only for our own selves? And, again, that's anarchy.

I've met plenty of middle aged people who smoked pot when they were young and want it to be illegal now. I guess maybe this all just depends on who you talk to, but I have heard many middle aged people, speaking from experience, say that they want to keep pot illegal, while I have never heard one say they want it to be legal. I think that even if I have biased sources or something like that, I would at least hear one or two support legalization. Maybe not, I don't know.

--------------------
And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it.
-The Last Pendragon

TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL

In case of emergency, break glass.
Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
Cartographer
Member # 2264
Profile Homepage #64
quote:
Originally posted by iDavid:
I think that even if I have biased sources or something like that, I would at least hear one or two support legalization. Maybe not, I don't know.
You probably do have a biased source, as no one you seem to know or talk to has any opinion other than the ones you hold yourself. Either you're incredibly blind to the opinions of others or you live on some alternate plane of existence where everyone thinks exactly the same thing.

--------------------
And the Glory of the Light did shine upon him.
And the Peace of the Light did he give men.
Binding nations to him. Making one of many.
Yet the shards of hearts did give wounds.
And what was once did come again
-in fire and in storm
splitting all in twain.
For his peace...
-for his peace...
... was the peace...
... was the peace...
... of the sword.
And the Glory of the Light did shine upon him.

Meane sol Ahelle

Check out my Avernum 3 site. This one is incomplete, but better than the one here which is complete, sort of.
Posts: 926 | Registered: Tuesday, November 19 2002 08:00
Babelicious
Member # 39
Profile Homepage #65
quote:
Originally posted by iDavid:

OK, so you're saying that collecting taxes and enforcing laws to stop people from harming others isn't doing what's good for us? How does that make sense? Do you think they should legalize suicide, too, because the person is killing themself, not someone else?

The government primarily exists to prevent the initiation of force -- to prevent violent acts or the theft of someone's possessions. It also has a mandate to enact positive policies for public health, etc. Public drug rehab programs are positive; banning drugs is negative.
The argument that marijuana should be illegal because it's mildly unhealthy can be easily (not slippery slope here) extended to more dangerous activities such as drinking, smoking tobacco, sunbathing, not using sunscreen, eating Big Macs, etc. Should the Big Mac be banned because it's loaded with fat, sodium, and cholesterol, which cause cardiovascular illness?
Says who? Well, just every study conducted on the effects of pot... so I guess that's just an argument about whether pot is bad or not, not whether it should be legal or not.
Few studies have been conducted on the effects of cannabis. Most show a definite ability for marijuana smoking to cause respiratory problems and short-term memory loss; other than the tar, most of marijuana's negative effects vanish within a week or so of stopping smoking. The amount of tar, CO, etc. you inhale from smoking a bowl or two every week is statistically similar to the difference between Portland, OR air and New York, NY air. Worse, if you spend a lot of time outside breathing exhaust.

Of course we're allowed to choose what to give up; why do you think we have voting? And if you mean that everyone should only be allowed to decide the law for their own self, than that's anarchy. Which I've already said is impossible, and it's stupid, anyway.
Wow! The famous international geopolitical expert Sir David weighs in on the possibility and intelligence of anarchy! Bakunin would violate you with a trifurcated obelisk.
The government should not dictate a person's behavior more than is necessary to guarantee "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I don't know about you, but I'm willing to take the personal choice to sacrifice a bit of the first to gain a good deal of the latter.

Most people do want to keep pot away from them. So, again, do you want us to determine the law only for our own selves? And, again, that's anarchy.
And what you're promoting is paternalism bordering on fascism. Does that necessarily invalidate your argument? Please learn the basics of informal logic before continuing this discussion. Also, learn the difference between a victimless crime and a crime against another person. Why should it be illegal for me to harm myself? Lots of things harm me. It's not illegal to practice autoerotic asphyxiation, and I'd wager more people die from that every year than pot smoking. How about self-mutilation? Cutting? Not illegal.

I've met plenty of middle aged people who smoked pot when they were young and want it to be illegal now. I guess maybe this all just depends on who you talk to, but I have heard many middle aged people, speaking from experience, say that they want to keep pot illegal, while I have never heard one say they want it to be legal. I think that even if I have biased sources or something like that, I would at least hear one or two support legalization. Maybe not, I don't know.
Anecdotal evidence, for one, so it's mostly useful. I know a dozen or more middle-aged or older individuals who support legalizing marijuana, whether they've smoked it or not (why must they have smoked it?)
The AMA originally opposed the bill that banned marijuana, and it has never changed its stance. Since then, the AMA has been purposely neutral on the issues of legalized and medical marijuana, although it supports further studies on medical use. http://www.pdxnorml.org/AMA_opposes_1937.html
3/4 of surveyed pediatricians by the AAP favored reducing restrictions on cannabis, with 1 out of 5 supporting full legalization. http://www.aap.org/research/ps31.htm

Here's the big question.

Why should I not be able to grow a plant in my own home, pick it, dry it, stuff it in a pipe and smoke it, all in my own home with my own property?

You could do this with hemlock; you'd probably die. But you can't do it with cannabis.

(By the way, regarding what Rache said: I support full legalization and regulation of all drugs.)

--------------------
desperance.net - honestly, no biting.
Posts: 1074 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Triad Mage Banned Veteran
Member # 165
Profile Homepage #66
quote:
Originally posted by iDavid:
Ugh. I only have time to respond to Jigga. After clarifying that I meant for, not against, in that first part, of course.

OK, so you're saying that collecting taxes and enforcing laws to stop people from harming others isn't doing what's good for us? How does that make sense? Do you think they should legalize suicide, too, because the person is killing themself, not someone else?

It is the business of the state to save man from itself, not one man from himself.

Says who? Well, just every study conducted on the effects of pot... so I guess that's just an argument about whether pot is bad or not, not whether it should be legal or not.

Um, "just every study conducted on the effects of pot" have been conducted under uniformly ridiculous circumstances -- rats under the influence of the mass-equivalent of several pounds taken in in one sitting by a human being, simians being administered THC in inordinate amounts at a constant rate, etc. The only vaguely accurate data on marijuana that has not been taken from a completely nonscientific experiment, latched onto by the government drug-enforcement propaganda machine, and turned into common knowledge are ones associating certain behaviors with smoking of marijuana, but those are statistics, and often mistake cause for effect, or group all marijuana users with certain marijuana users. ["X percent of automobile accidents are caused by at least one driver under the influence of marijuana" is an invalid statistic, for example: it wouldn't matter if 75% of such accidents were, as there's no accurate statistic of how many drivers under the influence of marijuana get into accidents -- which would be MUCH more factual.]

Of course we're allowed to choose what to give up; why do you think we have voting? And if you mean that everyone should only be allowed to decide the law for their own self, than that's anarchy. Which I've already said is impossible, and it's stupid, anyway.

Dismissing an entire system of government without even addressing it as a valid possibility? You go, girl!
Everyone should be allowed to decide certain aspects of the law for themselves. Perhaps it's an issue of anarchy; Soviet citizens would have looked at the right to vote, to free speech, and to due process "anarchy". Does that make them such?

Most people do want to keep pot away from them. So, again, do you want us to determine the law only for our own selves? And, again, that's anarchy.

Avoid non sequiturs. If you want to avoid something, you are free to do so, but the state doesn't exist to shield YOU from everything bad in the world. In addition, restricting drug use to private or reserved areas would make it so that neither you nor I would be exposed to marijuana smoke -- which I would personally appreciate, being an asthmatic who has severe difficulties with smoke of any kind.

I've met plenty of middle aged people who smoked pot when they were young and want it to be illegal now. I guess maybe this all just depends on who you talk to, but I have heard many middle aged people, speaking from experience, say that they want to keep pot illegal, while I have never heard one say they want it to be legal. I think that even if I have biased sources or something like that, I would at least hear one or two support legalization. Maybe not, I don't know.

Suppose you know 50 middle-aged people. Statistically, one to five of them should be gay. Does that hold true in real life?
No. So you cannot dismiss the chances of your sources being biased out of hand.



--------------------
desperance -- je me souviens
arena -- et je me souviens de vous
Posts: 2449 | Registered: Monday, October 15 2001 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 1823
Profile Homepage #67
quote:
Of course we're allowed to choose what to give up; why do you think we have voting? And if you mean that everyone should only be allowed to decide the law for their own self, than that's anarchy. Which I've already said is impossible, and it's stupid, anyway.
Yes, of course!! Because in voting we all decide on individual laws (ie. what "we're allowed to give up"), don't we! And we always get who we vote for, because the current voting systems are based on such a proportional system, aren't they. [/sarcasm]

Surely you should, from what you are saying, not be supporting illegalisation of cannabis, but rather a referendum of whether it should be decriminalised. Am I right in saying this? Would you support such a referendum?

And, just for your knowledge, and I'm not saying it will change your mind, but it may make you think of anarchists differently:
The Anarchist FAQ

--------------------
Riot Shields
Voodoo Economics
It's just business
Cattle prods
And the IMF

I trust I can rely on your vote
Posts: 530 | Registered: Sunday, September 1 2002 07:00
Guardian
Member # 2476
Profile #68
Why do you advocate so much control, David? I mean, noone can turn me into someone I'm not. What can be forced on me is mere surface adaptation. The more pressure is put on that, the more people will become estranged from what they essentially are. They will need even more tranquilizers, anti depressives, sleeping pills and kick ups than they do already. Don't make me rant on the toxic side effects of those.

--------------------
Polaris
Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00
Shaper
Member # 496
Profile #69
Does David think suicide is still illegal, or did I miss something here?

In terms of the ongoing illegality of intoxicants, one of the ironies is that cannabis--as one of the least harmful--will be last to be legalised. If I want to score heroin or coke in this town--for free, I might add--I just go to the local clinic and present some BS history of addiction to get myself registered as an addict. Those drugs are legal, at least under (pretty damn loose) medical supervision, already even if dealing them isn't.
Posts: 2333 | Registered: Monday, January 7 2002 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 2669
Profile Homepage #70
Go Britain.

quote:
Originally posted by X:
Does David think suicide is still illegal, or did I miss something here?
I think he meant euthanasia, which would be another great debate. I'm all for that, too.

Djur: legalizing ALL drugs? Wow. I hope you like paying taxes. Oh, and have you ever seen someone on PCP? Not pretty.

[ Sunday, April 27, 2003 06:17: Message edited by: Ooklah the Moc ]

--------------------
...
Posts: 647 | Registered: Wednesday, February 19 2003 08:00
Triad Mage Banned Veteran
Member # 165
Profile Homepage #71
PCP is actually one I'd consider keeping illegal.

And I'm sure Sir David doesn't believe in euthanasia, for the same reason he doesn't believe in abortion, contraceptives, and so on. You know, because we really need every human life more we have.

--------------------
desperance -- je me souviens
arena -- et je me souviens de vous
Posts: 2449 | Registered: Monday, October 15 2001 07:00
Babelicious
Member # 39
Profile Homepage #72
There's no solid evidence showing that drugs being "illegal" and "underground" and "counterculture" has either a negative or positive impact on consumption over the long term.

I would agree that hallucinogens need to be heavily regulated for safety's sake, but things like methamphetamine are only more dangerous for being illegal.

--------------------
desperance.net - honestly, no biting.
Posts: 1074 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #73
The advantage of legalizing everything is control. The quality and purity of drugs could be regulated if they were produced by companies answerable to all the same authorities that protect consumers. The disadvantage is that legalization is at least tacit acceptance of drugs like PCP, which I'd really rather not have anyone use. But for marijuana and other "light" drugs, the problems with use are far outweighed by the advantages of control.

?Alorael, who does think that the sale of drugs should be very carefully monitored. Even cigarettes and alcohol are treated far too lightly. And all drugs should be limited to certain areas, since they can pose a danger either by affecting the judgement of the user or, if the drug is smoked, the lungs of others.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 2669
Profile Homepage #74
Well, for PCP you could put the users naked into a padded cell and they'd still find a way to strip the flesh from their arms and legs in order to get at the bugs under their skin. Some things just weren't meant to be consumed by humans.

--------------------
...
Posts: 647 | Registered: Wednesday, February 19 2003 08:00

Pages