LinuxQuestions.org
Page 9 of 12 « First 78 9 1011 Last »
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   General (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)
-   -   Marijuana (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/marijuana-920216/)

catkin 02-22-2013 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knightron (Post 4895718)
I heard Ecstasy is less harmful than alcohol. I am a person that has always had a 'cynical' point of view towards illegal amphetamines, but have begun to become interested because of this 'supposed' fact. I know this thread is on marijuana, but could someone with experience please share their views on Ecstasy?
There's a lot of information available via this erowid page. One of the downsides of making substances illegal is that it hinders free information exchange; erowid aims to correct that.

frieza 02-22-2013 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by catkin (Post 4897440)
There's a lot of information available via this erowid page. One of the downsides of making substances illegal is that it hinders free information exchange; erowid aims to correct that.
that is indeed true
not to mention stirs more falsehoods as propaganda against said substance
I for one wouldn't be caught dead snorting cocaine for instance, but it does have it's uses as a topical anesthetic (a use for which a license can be obtained), but if someone else wants to risk their lives snorting coke, let them i say, just make sure they don't take out others with them

again haven't people learned the lesson taught us by prohibition? it didn't work, prohibition caused MORE violence than it was intended to solve.

when the ignorant turn to the law to settle issues that they should be solving themselves, the response is to take away rights/privileges from law abiding citizens, and that's wrong.

Soderlund 03-04-2013 10:53 AM
In my opinion it should be illegal, along with tobacco and alcohol.

The goal of any animal species, including humans, is to survive. Therefore it's morally sound to put the common good above individual freedom. Therefore we should ban it and everything else that has a negative impact on public health or is of a decadent nature, and then crack down on it with draconian penalties.

Society should be safe, neat and clean, without graffiti, litter or drugs. People should be healthy and have good character, without depraved impulses or addictions.

jamison20000e 03-04-2013 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soderlund (Post 4904448)
***
I want to agree Alcohol and Tobacco should be illegal, with others, but only because weed is (and safer than some). Without hypocrisy and irony how could I prove my point? That in a uneducated sea of almost seven billion ("law keepers" too) what you speak is fundamentally impossible and will make things worse (unle$$ your a warden++)! The (changing) goal (for many still) is to "survive"(\kill) but that is also not possible, nothing lasts forever...


Reread or read the thread please (as if I'm one who should say that lol)

Knightron 03-04-2013 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soderlund (Post 4904448)
In my opinion it should be illegal, along with tobacco and alcohol.

The goal of any animal species, including humans, is to survive. Therefore it's morally sound to put the common good above individual freedom. Therefore we should ban it and everything else that has a negative impact on public health or is of a decadent nature, and then crack down on it with draconian penalties.

Society should be safe, neat and clean, without graffiti, litter or drugs. People should be healthy and have good character, without depraved impulses or addictions.
What you say is true, but if you look at the trends of evolution a species also must improve over time by removing it's weaker species and leaving only its stronger species to breed. If you bring this into the equation; the only members of the human species that will be drawn to addiction or harmful habits will kill them selves and actually be doing man kind a favor by making way for the stronger members to reproduce.
Then again, maybe the substances won't affect our survival at all, we're not the only species that enjoys an altered state of consciousness.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17032...han-we-do.html

jamison20000e 03-04-2013 07:36 PM
No drugs* no evolution. And, no education no guts!
Moderation (of some thoughts too) and educate "common sense"@k1!!!!!!!!

jamison20000e 03-04-2013 10:32 PM
I just realized that in the TV show (I'm catching up on S3+) Misfits the so called "criminals" become super heroes and the sheep villains.

linuxpokernut 03-05-2013 03:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soderlund (Post 4904448)
In my opinion it should be illegal, along with tobacco and alcohol.

The goal of any animal species, including humans, is to survive. Therefore it's morally sound to put the common good above individual freedom. Therefore we should ban it and everything else that has a negative impact on public health or is of a decadent nature, and then crack down on it with draconian penalties.

Society should be safe, neat and clean, without graffiti, litter or drugs. People should be healthy and have good character, without depraved impulses or addictions.
1. Imposing draconian penalties on people committing non violent acts is amongst the worst ideas ever conceived.
2. The implication that marijuana can end the human race would make good turn of the 20th century propaganda film.

Soderlund 03-05-2013 11:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e (Post 4904586)
I want to agree Alcohol and Tobacco should be illegal, with others, but only because weed is (and safer than some). Without hypocrisy and irony how could I prove my point? That in a uneducated sea of almost seven billion ("law keepers" too) what you speak is fundamentally impossible and will make things worse (unle$$ your a warden++)! The (changing) goal (for many still) is to "survive"(\kill) but that is also not possible, nothing lasts forever...

Reread or read the thread please (as if I'm one who should say that lol)
Should we not strive for perfection even though it is unattainable?

Prohibition and the war on drugs failed because we weren't heavy-handed enough. People are so concerned about their civil liberties that they'd rather have pedophiles and drug dealers running around. When it is widely known that some people are into bad things but society can't do anything about it because their "rights" may be violated, then it's just pathetic. Look at the state of Mexico for example. Cleaning up in society should take precedence.

Quote:
What you say is true, but if you look at the trends of evolution a species also must improve over time by removing it's weaker species and leaving only its stronger species to breed. If you bring this into the equation; the only members of the human species that will be drawn to addiction or harmful habits will kill them selves and actually be doing man kind a favor by making way for the stronger members to reproduce. Then again, maybe the substances won't affect our survival at all, we're not the only species that enjoys an altered state of consciousness.
Ah, social darwinism. That's true.

It's not just the addicts, though: the drug trade finances organized crime. That would no longer be a problem if we legalized it of course (because then the drug dealer would be superfluous), but that would be to give in to it rather than to win over it.

Quote:
2. The implication that marijuana can end the human race would make good turn of the 20th century propaganda film.
Cannabis alone will hardly cause our extinction, but what possible good can come out of it? (Disregarding medical marijuana, which should obviously be legal but require a prescription.) The best argument is that it doesn't have drawbacks if used responsibly, but people do use it irresponsibly.

linuxpokernut 03-05-2013 12:33 PM
The PC was innovated by potheads. You wouldn't even be able to spread your rhetoric without us.

Myk267 03-05-2013 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soderlund (Post 4905242)
Should we not strive for perfection even though it is unattainable?

Prohibition and the war on drugs failed because we weren't heavy-handed enough. People are so concerned about their civil liberties that they'd rather have pedophiles and drug dealers running around. When it is widely known that some people are into bad things but society can't do anything about it because their "rights" may be violated, then it's just pathetic. Look at the state of Mexico for example. Cleaning up in society should take precedence.


Ah, social darwinism. That's true.

It's not just the addicts, though: the drug trade finances organized crime. That would no longer be a problem if we legalized it of course (because then the drug dealer would be superfluous), but that would be to give in to it rather than to win over it.


Cannabis alone will hardly cause our extinction, but what possible good can come out of it? (Disregarding medical marijuana, which should obviously be legal but require a prescription.) The best argument is that it doesn't have drawbacks if used responsibly, but people do use it irresponsibly.
If the only reason to allow people to use drugs is to avoid what you describe here, 'perfect fascism', then that's reason enough.

Soderlund 03-05-2013 03:11 PM
Quote:
The PC was innovated by potheads. You wouldn't even be able to spread your rhetoric without us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myk267 (Post 4905293)
If the only reason to allow people to use drugs is to avoid what you describe here, 'perfect fascism', then that's reason enough.
Animal packs are hierarchical, so why shouldn't societies be authoritarian? Fascism works out very well in practice, because it's not just intellectual nonsense or empty rhetoric. Its ideas do not have to be sugar-coated to appeal to the majority, because fascism doesn't ask for the population's opinion. Why should they? Most people don't know enough about politics to be given such power. It's not popular to say so, but it is the truth. Thereby the dishonest and manipulative nature of democracies is avoided. And unlike in monarchies, we are given some guarantee of the leaders' competence through the meritocratic system. A prerequisite is that people obey authority.

Regarding the knee-jerk aversion to fascism, this observation is relevant:
Quote:
The name-calling technique was first identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) in 1938. According to the IPA, we should ask ourselves the following questions when we spot an example of name-calling.
* What does the name mean?
* Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the name?
* Is an idea that serves my best interests being dismissed through giving it a name I don't like?
* Leaving the name out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself?
Technological development is desirable -- you mention that potheads innovated the PC. Their drug use did not contribute to innovating it, so the argument is an association fallacy. I ask again: what possible good can come out of it?

jamison20000e 03-05-2013 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soderlund (Post 4905391)
... Its ideas do not have to be sugar-coated to appeal to the majority, because fascism doesn't ask for the population's opinion. ... Most people don't know enough about politics to be given such power. ...
Many $ystems of jargon and hate++* to keep power, and, cuts to education? Some laws only make money, others can't be enforced and should be cut for a better way. I don’t have a problem with authority, we have problems with them being HUMAN.
If you teach kids they can't have something they don't care! Smart kids won’t be taught how to be the demons drug laws\fascism* produce. It's called evolution.
No education no guts.

linuxpokernut 03-05-2013 04:29 PM
People have opinions and free will, and this should be taken into considertion when comparing them to other animals.

What helps one ecosystem may harm another.

They say that it contributed. Your hearsay is in line with your logic, for the record.

jamison20000e 03-05-2013 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soderlund (Post 4905391)
what possible good can come out of it?
Smarts instead of bars or behind them because of the "majority"~human opinions (many proven wrong and dropped* throughout history of which the majority* learns nothing).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:17 AM.
Page 9 of 12 « First 78 9 1011 Last »
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page