Why the drug war is a legitimate war against terrorism

Post Reply New Topic

It's not moral damage literally as morals are not matter, its only the addiction speaking for you. You smoke yourself, want to smoke due to past addiction or personally see a profit in it for yourself.

Allowing a medicine like this to be legalized without doctors prescription would result in the deteriation of society, like cigarettes and alcohol. No matter how much the high of your possible abusive addition makes you feel. Go to the doctors, get it then put it in your gas tank. IT won't work in your gas tank!

I am not against alternative uses of the substance for non-consumptive reasons if regulated. But it should not contain any THC, kids might get a hold of it.

I see that your spelling and syntax are back again. There are some good zingers in my mind, you know. Even your joining of sentences that should be separated is consistent with a use of English far superior to that which you displayed when you were trying to bait people into criticizing your spelling and other writing problems.

Bah, freedom to smoke whatever you want is not a freedom given nor is it a freedom needed and the freedom to use the drugs you want sounds like a recipe for disaster when drugs such as crack hit the market. Drug use is not a human right but rather a sad reflection on human weakness. The freedom to use whatever drug you want is not protected by the constitution, it is not a human right, happiness can be achieved without it, it has damaging health effects, it has damaging effects on society. Without your marijuana you will still be alive, you will still have a great amount of freedom and you will still be able to pursue happiness. If marijuana is required for your life, your liberty, or your happiness then you need a psychotherapist or something.

Besides, there is also industrial hemp that is not useful for drugs but very useful for non-drug products? Couldn't that variety of hemp be used for all products that need the plant? At least for things other than medicinal marijuana maybe. I have no problem with industrial hemp besides hemp grown for biomass makes very poor grade marijuana anyway, so we can have hemp, hemp products, hemp fuel and all of that without marijuana.

Oh, now I get it; drug dependance is a metaphor for our country's collective addiction to oil and the terrorism rooted in the socioeconomic disparity associated with the consuption of both. Thus, in either case, crime is brought about by exceeding moderate consumption. After all the bible says "...and God gave every seed bearing herb to the service of man.", so I guess any moral dilema associated with vegitation must be contrived and misapplied.

To enforce a ban on marijuana smoking, you have to violate a person's right to privacy and his right to freedom of association. Since the ban is not reasonable, you also have to violate the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, which are reasonable only in support of a reasonable law.

That he gave all plants to serve us does not mean he gave all of them for us to abuse in whatever manner we want. I am certain that there are plants that would give you all sorts of crazy fantasies but that doesn't mean that they should be used. Also, tobacco is a plant that should not be used at all, I have never heard of tobacco having any virtue to it other than how addictive it is. I do realize that our country was founded on tobacco to some extent but we should not continue to let the poison continue to be grown simply for our own profits.

Also, by the way, Remnant, sc has started other threads and in those threads he did use english that led others to say this to him "your writing gives the impression that English is not your native language so it's a bit confusing to read". This could be a massive hoax or something or it could be that he was lucky the 1st time he posted. Why would he start other non-related threads with the same flaws and weaknesses? It just sounds too large of a conspiracy. But posting just to mock the guy's English does seem rather "bastardish"; maybe you are right on him but if that is the case then he is going to a rather large extreme by posting other threads with bad english just to prove this one correct. Maybe benefit of the doubt is something that should be given in this situation. He could have been sort of mistaken when he went off on that person.

No, SC has proven repeatedly that he is at least as good a writer as I am. He deliberately went into that bad spelling and syntax to get on people's nerves and see what kind of reaction he could get. It really did look like he came back from lunch drunk.

Im beginning to suspect that the people here banging on about how MJ is immoral & unhealthy have never actually used it themselves, rather they have built up some sort of stereotypical profile from the available propaganda & misconceptions and so havent got a clue what they're actually talking about!

They have also never checked out the information for themselves or thought for themselves.

Well, searches have to be given to officers to search and to seize marijuana. They even will let marijuana go simply because it is against the law for them to seize it. Technically none of those rights are being violated because of the legal procedures that officers have to go through simply to take marijuana and such.

I have not heard of anyone's right to privacy being violated by the marijuana laws and the basis on which you claim that this is a violation of privacy seem to be very narrow, because they are only based on you having the right to privately smoke marijuana not anything else. Considering that you do not have the right to have the plant and that you do not have the right to smoke it either. If ownership is found out in a legal manner then you can be subject to the punishment and it has to be found out in a legal manner too.

The freedom of association is not actually stated in the bill of rights and there is no implicitly stated right to general association but I don't know what the right to associate with people has anything to do with this situation.

The 4th Amendment to the constitution states that warrants will be issued on probable cause, proof that you own marijuana is probable cause. Considering that there is a law legalizing marijuana that means that the law is reasonable, if you simply owned daisies and there was proof of that then they could not do a search and if there was no proof then there could be no search.

Considering that we actually did illegalize alcohol in our constitution at one time that means that allowing laws to illegalize drugs is fine.

Keep believing the lies. Try to have a life. I wish you would let me have one.

How to best settle this dispute yet continue a discussion...

The discussion you two are having is a good way to bring out as much information for the topic as we need. Yet there are a few things we could do with less of:

Remnent, will you please stop insulting SC based on his grammar or spelling?
SC don't assume people are addicted.

If we stick to the issues, then this is what I would say in retort to SC's comment:

There is a possibility that less children will get their hands on THC if it were legalized. No matter how often a teacher tells a student that something is bad, there is a certain time where free will comes into play. By attempting to prevent youth from getting their hands on Marijuanna we may actually entice some of them to actually use it. Its a "bad bad thing"

The real problem coming up is Crystal Meth. Now that stuff sounds scary.

He's using the bad grammar and spelling to bait me. It's nerve wracking to try to read his rhetoric and decipher the new code when I know he can do better. It also looks like taunting.

Meh, it is a form of taunting just being in a discussion.
When someone says something that you can not agree with on a personal level then you may feel the need to dispute the argument in anyway possible.
After a while insults, scapegoats and excuses may seem like a good idea.
I just want you to stop using the same ones

Anyway, I don't think SC is taunting you, lets ask SC.

Paranoid behavior (or is it just hateful and spiteful against me purposely due to differences) which was said to me I was from another member for something that did not even apply would do well here. However if the person is not paranoid saying I am doing things on purpose just to create problems while he instigates it first and I offer peace mutually then I do not know. I can only be patient so long...

I will not think like him and change myself because I am who I am. I have wasted or perhaps not wasted several hours of my time. It just depends if my conversations resulted in an intellectual process in another person.

Some posts are better then others and that is because I have more time to individually work them out. I will think one thing in my mind and it makes sense internally but words do not always make visual thought sense. Some thoughts do not have words.

I am not another person’s brain to know how they understand, so I am not patient of those who do not have patients.

I've been called worse then a troll before, yet I do not conduct trolling acts. I am accused of it and it is my understanding any trolling policy is socialistic. However that is an intended insult and people use trolling to control a conversation.

Trolling to me would be something like this:

1.

Someone starts a topic and says:

This website sucks, everyone here is a bunch of pricks.

2.

Someone replies to a topic and says:

(someone’s name here) is a stupid freak that will never get anywhere in life.


3.

Personal and direct insults that are of origination not a response to another:

A. Indirect insults which are blatant and purposely inciting conflict and disruptive to the communication process.

B. However intellectual thought that cannot be tolerated because of belief is protected by civil liberties, anyone can speak against religion freely, however I believe there is a certain respectful way of expressing those thoughts, which I do try to be aware of.
-

If you use this definition of trolling, then you are yourself guilty of trolling, sc. Don't you see that? This was your response to a politely worded post that was about the topic you started.



What has happened to you? You did not always personally insult people who disagreed with your opinions like this, or at least if you did I never saw it until shortly before you got yourself banned from those two places. I had hoped you would not insult and attack people who disagree with your opinions on WrongPlanet the way you did on those two places before they each banned you. Sometimes you do say interesting things even if it is very difficult for people to understand what you are saying. Insulting everyone who points out this very obvious fact is not a good thing. Before you resort to insulting people, you might want to think about what they are telling you. If several people tell you the same thing, there is almost certainly some truth to it. Please think about it.