Says who. Hey hey hey.

Maybe in Sweden. Not here in the desert. Most of these posts are from locales in cold climates.

I guess you boys never hung out with American Indians. Peyote is part of their religious experience.
Weed is also. I recognize some of the suggestions/opinions here from the cold countries.
My folks were camp survivors from WW2.

Sheesh.

Down South here we have more of a inclusive mindset instead of a exclusive mindset.
I guess gays and foreigners are next on the list "for the greater good".

yes i do, as i stated it's the PEOPLE that make a system bad, not the system that make the people bad
at least in a democratic society there is a way out, even if the people are kept too ignorant to know they have an option to exercise.


i disagree, it's not the media that corrupts society, it is the society that corrupts the media, or more perhaps a vicious cycle.


the solution to both situations, is education, better educated people are harder to manipulate, and would have higher expectations from the media, simply put they wouldn't stand for the corruption in government and would demand better quality media, the junk would disappear because it would cease to be profitable, which is the only reason such junk exists in the first place.

They are dangerous. Statistically you are more likely to die on a motorcycle than any other vehicle.

I am sorry, I should know better than try to use humor on the internet. Of course we shouldn't sterilize the people who watch it, but the argument was that excessively watching such crap is just as bad as cannabis, and I'm inclined to agree.

I heard a while ago that China imposes a limit on the time that you are allowed to play MMORPGs per day, because they are so socially destructive. I don't think that's such a bad idea.

Theodore Kaczynski has an interesting theory about that. A democracy, he thinks, is more flexible than a dictatorship because it can temporarily back off on disliked reforms and attempt to sneak them in later. This acts as a release valve for discontent, which dictatorships (that are more rigid and never compromise) lack. Therefore a revolution is more likely in a dictatorship, while a democracy will remain in power forever, even if they are equally oppressive and destructive.

Regardless if you agree with that, there is another problem: a democracy requires the population's consent, and will therefore always try to control people's political and religious opinions. A dictatorship doesn't care since the people do not have a say in anything, so they are free to think whatever they want and practice whatever religion they want. Christianity, for example, was fully tolerated in Nazi Germany, even though it's completely incompatible with national socialism. In contrast, the communists in China and North Korea demand that everyone agrees with the official state ideology, and that's also the case (but to a lesser extent) in most European democracies (for example you are in practice required to be positive to multiculturalism and there are certain ideologies that are de facto forbidden).

Finally, leaders in a democracy (who are given despotic powers once they are elected) are always appointed based on popularity. This ensures that we will always be ruled by the most charismatic liars. Isn't a meritocracy better then? Then you can influence politics by having the required competence. Those who don't have that competence shouldn't have any power. And it goes without saying that the slightest corruption should be punished by death.

Yes, I agree. Education is better than prohibition. Can we realistically educate everyone?

A lot easier, cheaper and less destructive than trying to prohibit everyone ... just sayin ...

realistically? no, but ideally we don't have to, just enough people to gain a voting majority, the rest would hopefully follow suit.

The greater good in my opinion is the freedom. When the government put an age limit on cigarettes; the cigarette companies weren't to upset; because they knew that the age limit was just one big, 'please don't touch. Wet paint.' sign. Drugs being illegal are similar, some people take them to see what the big deal is. If they're made legal, obviously people will still use them, but at least the education in schools about these substances won't be influenced by the government and kids will be able to trust the information that's being taught to them and then hopefully make wiser decisions up the road.

As you said:
Realistically we can't educate everyone, but if enough of the population is educated, the people educated in turn educate others when talking amongst each other. The affect is, that drugs that do harm people like methamphetamines, will be phased out because people have been educated for one, and other less/not harmful drugs are available easily.
This is a very positive point of view, but i have all confidence that if drugs were made legal in the way i say, it would be a slow process, but the outcome would be correct.

Stoners and Junkies are two very different things. You only get stoned off one drug (as far as i know), cannabis. Stoners are people who use weed on regular occasions, and may or may not have dabbled with a few other drugs but in the end only like doing weed.
Junkies are people who will take anything to get a high. You can get a high off of many things because the word high is a lot more broader than the word 'stoned'. In saying this though, some junkies are stoners too. Weed is their preferred drug, but they'll take anything else they can get their hands on too; especially at a 'dry' time.

For the record, i am not for democracies either. I do live in one though, and there is not much i can do about it. Maybe the grass is just greener on the other side of the fence, because i'm not extremely educated about this topic. But it's currently on the lower end of priorities at the moment as i need to bring in a profit to eat, (being unemployed).

What i don't understand is how you can say.
I assume you're a socialist with that comment, but you seem hypocritical with your point of view.
The current prohibition on cannabis under democratic rule turns millions into criminals, gives the police license to harass young people and extends state control over all our private lives. You're demanding stricter rule, but that seems anti-socialist to me.

p.s. thankyou for making this thread a lot more interesting Soderlund. Although i typically disagree with your point of view; you've brought up a number of interesting points.

more speicifically, fredom as such that doesn't infringe upon other people's liberties
note that doesn't mean not saying/doing things that others find offensive (if someone is offended by what i say i don't give a damn, i'm not gonna censor myself based on whether or not i might offend someone, unless that person is a friend, but then again if they are a true friend they wouldn't be offended since they would understand my true intent.
by interfering with others' freedoms i mean preventing other people from exercising their rights.

beh, age limits are for the greater good, thus i agree with them at least in principal, but again, who determines what is the grater good?
age limits are in part at least to do with physical maturity (not mental), and those who are physically immature (read, children) are more prone to being harmed developmentally by alcohol and nicotine than someone who has physiologically stopped developing (adults)

we have a huge precedent for this, known as prohibition, it didn't work.
exactly, education is the answer.. you don't have to educate everyone, just enough people to achieve 'critical mass', then the rest will follow suit

yep

Sigh, I've been doing this probably longer than you have been living. But I like living life to
it's fullest. To each their own I guess.

Theodore Kaczynski
has an interesting theory about that. Am I missing the joke again. You are kidding, right?

I guess us linux using bikers can't be good geeks/nerds/fascists. Plus. I guess we are a slow study also when it comes to humor.

Edit; Where are my southern manners

p.s. thankyou for making this thread a lot more interesting Soderlund. Although i typically disagree with your point of view; you've brought up a number of interesting points.

+1 on that.

Must believe we can k1\priorities!.edu (Now that’s lazy (cut\paste\*))

Love this by the way:
Capitalism (until we rename) still has it's revolutions... ✌

precisely, if we believe it's hopeless, we've lost before we started.

Joseph Goebbels had the same opinion regarding education. Even though Nazi Germany was the first country to establish the link between smoking and lung cancer, they preferred to educate people about the dangers of smoking rather than to outright ban it. The reasoning is sound, but an effective prohibition achieves a better end result (fewer people would smoke than if you had just educated them). I guess I just don't see a reason to why anyone should be allowed to smoke, drink alcohol or do drugs. Maybe I am wrong though.

Should we strive for freedom just for the sake of freedom? I think not. Freedom needs to be evaluated by the same criteria as any other idea, and then either be applied in practice or discarded. Otherwise it becomes a dead dogma, like democracy, multiculturalism and equality. The criterium needs to be its value for the survival of mankind [I've mentioned this before, but it also answers frieza's question about who should determine what the greater good is], and we would do better if people weren't allowed to smoke themselves to death, drink and drive (which will inevitably happen as long as alcohol is available) or use heroin. According to that logic, everyone in the world has a purpose and a responsibility for future generations, so we can't just sit around and do whatever we want.

If freedom is the thing you value the most, then you should want anarchy: no state, laws or organization -- noone telling anyone what to do. I don't want to use a strawman argument, but isn't that at least close to what you want? You say you don't like democracy and you seem to despise authoritarianism even more.

National socialist. That combines the meritocracy with socialism, self-sufficiency and nationalism, and of course a strong protection of animals and the environment. Before I read Mein Kampf my opinions were actually quite similar to yours, which prompts the question: have you read it?

It is mostly the totalitarian communist regimes that attempt to control every aspect of people's lives. Authoritarian fascist regimes give people more individual freedom (but no political freedom whatsoever) -- probably more than I would. For example Hitler did not prohibit alcohol or tobacco, and gun laws in the Third Reich were lax. At least the Swedish government does not trust its population with guns.

Noone would become a criminal if it would be impossible to get a hold of drugs. If we managed to eradicate them entirely, and have very strict border controls, then that would not be a problem.

rokytnji, I guess it's your choice! Even though we don't agree about anything I would still hate to see you in the hospital or morgue.

Regarding Theodory Kaczynski, I agree that "paranoid schizophrenia" can describe most of his writings (he is convinced that any technological development will lead to some sort of Brave New World-like society and therefore we should all live in caves -- read his manifesto), but he does have a few good points. He was a mathematician before he decided to blow things up -- he is very bright, but should clearly be locked up.

I enjoy discussing this with you too. Usually when I bring up any of this I get insulted, shouted at and/or threatened. I guess Linux nerds are very civil (no offense, I am a nerd too). I suspected that most of you would be anti-authoritarian and support drug legalization out of principle, but it surprises me that everyone appears to own a motorcycle! Suggesting to ban them must have been the most controversial statement in this thread.

Damned if we do damned we don't...Educate! Would like to point out that "statistically" the average Marijuana "junkie" (hehe) are hippies (against war and such) and teachers... so, to quote descendant_command ... just sayin ... and from Wisconsin i getas-well
A tighter grip has been tried... I would like to travel anywhere safely? (and yes on a motorcycle, sorry for that but no worries)

I'm glad that you are in the extreme minority, and that I live in a country that will die before embracing that shallow mentality.

As far as internet trolls are concerned, you are better than any I have ever seen. I am glad we all have our place in this world.

How is that shallow? It's completely logical and there is no greater purpose than that.

Everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't a troll.

By the way, if you live in southern Europe, you shouldn't be so sure about that. Societal changes are about to happen. These words were confidently uttered in the 1920s: