Izzy

Haha, sucks. Technically, you *can* escape it, but a totally anarchic state would lead to some crazy turmoil. ..Which is why you vote libertarian, kids! ...For the sake of debate let's pretend some soul-nomming mythical creatures exist and discuss how ebil they are? ...Let's.. not Though, if Gawd wanted more souls, he'd just admit everyone through the pearly gates. Clearly doesn't. What a twat <- the most appropriate word I could think of to describe the dude. ...Couldv'e quoted Dawkins.. hmm..

Hitcherhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series and the Ender's Game series. Also thoroughly enjoyed Cirque Du Freak when I was younger. I'm science book fan in general, but won't go on naming a bunch of things.

Let's party. 1. Izzy 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

No, highest number is out. So, if you're picking two for sure, someone else will think "Well, he's scared everyone else away, so no one else will pick two, so I will, and we'll be safe because other numbers will have at least two or more." And possibly, several people will have that logic, and you are all out. ..Though, I was relying on people realizing that and then NOT picking two, so.. Slick picked two.. and.. you did. Brb, changing numbers.

Now the question: how many people will also be picking 2 because they think only unreality will?

Here's my view, in short (because House is on ). I'm strongly against censorship, btw. People can request WHATEVER information they want, ie the lyrics to songs with crazy cursing, the CIA's secret plans, and naked pictures of a Mr. Gregory House. Likewise, people can refuse to give you any information they want. So, unfortunately, nekkid pics of a hot TV doctor. However, when media exists, such as a song or film, and it is censored by a corporation, that corporation is altering something that does not belong to them and broadcasting a version that the author didn't intend. This alteration should violate some law, honestly. When you watch TV or listen to the radio, you are fully aware of what you're tuning into. I'm sorry, but if you're afraid of your four year old hearing the f word or seeing some boobahs, it means you're incapable of explaining the harmlessness human inventions and anatomy, and suck. Sorry. In places like China and New Zealand, internet censorship is being put in place. Imagine not having access to.. everything. Censorship sucks.

Host: Peace 1. Framm 2. kody 3. misskitten 4. starfreak 5. harvey45 6. phillip1882 7. Glycereine 8. actressgirl 9. Abhisk 10. plainglazed 11. unreality 12. DudleyDude 13. Tralala! 14. Slick 15. EDM 16. Izzy

*nevermind* Haha.

I don't "like" languages. I mean, language as a form of human communication is an awesome thing, but I think if what we're trying to do with portray a thought with complete clarity, the more languages involved, the more the original thought is mangled. I mean, there's even already quite a bit of ambiguity when people are using the same language. Shakesphere comes to mind, but from a poetic standpoint, what he did was brilliant. However, I speak German and English fluently. I'm taking French and will continue with it until I've finished high school. I took a year of Latin online, but meh. Also a bit of HTTP, Java, and math. Math is my favorite language. No. Common interests, cultural or otherwise, bring people together, language is how they communicate. I'll occasionally get dragged to these boring German fests to meet new people that speak German, and they bore me to death. There's no point to sharing a language if you're doing so with people you have nothing to talk about. Conversely, every summer or so, I'll actually go to Germany (where I was born) and hang out with my cousin and his friends, go out to concerts and stuff. That's where the fun begins, but it has nothing to do with the language we're speaking. It's what's being spoken. How can language override hatred when it is one of the primary ways for hatred to be voiced? I mean, you can negotiate.. Look, if people speak the same language, but they're mad at each other over an arbitrary thing like race (..which, doesn't exist, tbh), something needs to be fixed, sharing a common language won't bring them together. Of course it's okay. ;P The witter the remark, the more cool points. A respectable manipulation of language requires a great deal of dexterity, and an awesome diss is just as awesome as a compliment. It adds character to someone, whether or not you like that supplement is up to you. Personally, if it's been well said, the more kudos to you.

Izzy is occasionally shortened to "Iz(z)", or I'll get teased with my real name (Andro ), but.. yeah.

...We are on topic? Drugs have been shown to have a significant effect on the artistic ability of artists, which can be a pro whilst discussing them, and we're discussing that.

Yeah, I definitely agree. I suck as an artist, but one time a few friends and I decided to get in tune with our masked artistic abilities and screwed around with some finger paints. The end result was an awesome mess. Another time I used a friend as my finger-paint canvas. Again, really f**king awesome result (she wouldn't let me take pics, lmao). Today I just had the strange urge to do it again. Gotta go buy some finger paints and stuff, haha. Weirdly enough, I'd consider myself a pretty good musician under normal circumstances, but when not sober, I totally suck. I'll *think* I sound good, then hear a recording of it, and be really embarrassed. >_>

If you're comparing numbers and drowning's number is lower, then yeah, it's better. What do you guys think of drugs as creative stimulants? Do you consider the artwork as "real" as something created by a sober person?

You're thinking about it in the wrong terms. The outcome of drowning and dying in the army are the same: death. They're essentially indistinguishable because you can't say that "death is worse than death". Now, if we're comparing how many people die as a result of drowning vs. in the army, yes, being in the army has a higher fatality rate, so drowning is "better".

Hahah dude, when you're on drugs, you don't think about getting more drugs. The same laws apply. Just like you can't be drunk in public (excluding bars, concert venues, etc.) or drive home drunk, doing it whilst high will ALSO be illegal. In fact, with quite a lot of drugs, your motor control is so impaired, you'd have a pretty rough time even standing up and finding a car. With amphetamines it's different, you're actually much more alert and can function a car better. Driving after smoking pot is dangerous and stupid. I'm sure it's contributing to the ZERO pot related deaths out there. No topic necessary, let's just discuss it here. Uh, yes. If guns kill more than trampolines, are guns worse? Yes. If methamphetamine has worse effects for you than amphetamine, does that make it worse? Again, YES. We typically judge how bad something is by the amount of negative effects it has on someone, death definitely part of this. Now, if trampolines kill 999,999 people a year, and guns kill 1,000,000, the difference is negligible. If they kill ZERO, and guns kill 443,600, guns are DEFINITELY worse. Or they wrote "zero" because they meant zero. Copied and pasted from the website: "The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death? Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response." Yep, by all means, go pig out. However, I can argue than an obese person is in fact more of a strain on society than a high person. They leave an enormous carbon footprint; they eat more so are responsible for more animal deaths; they make us burn more coal to create fuel so airplanes can support them; assuming they have kids, their bad habits will perpetuate into the next generation, they have a general lack of physical ability, which can cause deaths when put in certain situations; they have some of the worst overall health so will eat up medical supplies, hospital space, etc.; they need to use more water to clean themselves; their premature deaths put financial hardships onto their family; depression from low self-esteem and being bullied can lead to situations endangering other people, and so on.. That said, I don't actually care if you're fat. I just don't think it's fair to say druggies are worse for the entire when there's piles of literature to support the contrary.

Here are some statistics I've found and compiled. Each year about 443,600 people in the United States die from illnesses related to tobacco use. Smoking cigarettes kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined. Secondhand smoke causes at least 35,000 deaths and as many as 62,000 deaths from heart disease. I'm going to provide this link, but I now a lot of people don't click links (not necessarily you guys, just in general), so Ima copy and paste the table. Annual Causes of Death in the United States Tobacco 435,000 Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000 Alcohol 85,000 Microbial Agents 75,000 Toxic Agents 55,000 Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,3471 Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000 Suicide 30,622 Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000 Homicide 20,308 Sexual Behaviors 20,000 All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000 Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600 Marijuana 0 That's illicit drug use, direct and INDIRECT. Second hand smoke kills more people a year than drugs kill people that aren't using them. Now, according to the latest surveys, cited by the DEA themselves, there are about 12.7 million people who have used some illegal drug in the last month and perhaps 30 to 40 million who have used some illegal drug within the last year. Of the 12.7 million who used illegal drugs in the last month, about 10 million are presumed to be casual drug users, and about 2.7 million are addicts. So, 307,006,550 live in the United States. That means 4% of people currently use drugs. In Amsterdam, pot is legal and only 4.1% people smoke. I think, right now, most of the people that want drugs, are doing them. However, even if there's a 1000% increase in drug use in the US (that's absurd, btw) if we make them legal, and now 40% of Americans are using drugs, it *might* account for 170,000 deaths a year, which is still less than half of those dying from lack of physical inactivity. Obese people also hold the world back, rely on government money, waste up our resources, etc. They also do it to themselves. So, unless you're going to make it a law that people need to get off of their a$$es, legalize drugs.

^Dude, Home Owners' Association. Unless you live in one of these neighborhoods, keep your yard as you will, and your neighbors can stop selfishly expecting things of you.

If drugs are legalized, no one will have to KILL for them anymore. Steal at most, but that probably won't be that easy. Do you see how legalization makes problems go away? If someone decides to go into a drug store with a gun, and it's all like "Gimme yo drugzz, foo'", he can have them, and the police will track him down in a matter of days, just like when people rob pharmacies/stores/whatevs. Also, I think if they're legal, addiction will go down. It will no longer be "Oh maaaan, I have to do <drug> whenever I can get it, because what if I can't get it anymore?!" Sort of like alcohol, you can just buy it whenever.

Yes, without limitation. I know you disagree, but I just don't think the government has any right to tell us what we put into OUR bodies. Death is the most extreme negative side effect (well, that's subjective, but it's definitely one you can't recover from), and the government can't force us to live any more than they can make us conform to their stupid drug policies. If someone commits a crime under the influence of drugs, that's a different matter entirely, and s/he should be punished accordingly. Certain "harder" drugs should be harder to get, but still legal or AT LEAST decriminalized.

For some perspective, they've been $200 million since I posted this less than 24 hours ago. Does this blow up the financial argument? Drug rehab costs ~$7000 a month, according to various sources Google brought up. I have.. no idea how many people will need to go to rehab, but let's say maybe .5% of the population, at any given time? (I'm sure that's way over estimated, given that maybe 10% of teenagers do drugs, and almost none to go rehab.) So, .5% of 307,006,550 is 1,535,032. Now, most people pay for their own rehab, and we can assume there will requirements for financial aid. Maybe 500,000 will need to, and differing levels of covery. So, 500,000*7000 = 3,500,000,000. Now, if the government LEGALIZES drugs and TAXES them, this can be easily covered.

I found this hilarious... Go here: http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/, click on reference, go to Drug War Cost Clock. I'm pretty sure this covers the amount we'd be paying to help people. Updated every second, $20,086,206,234 as of right now.

Hmm.. Out of my 8th grade class (100 people), 10-12 did drugs, maybe 1/3 drank socially, and only one was hooked. He had problems beforehand though, and I think that contributed to his addiction. He's 15 now, and.. still pretty messed up. So.. not a lot, to answer your question.

Sometimes "bad for you" doesn't correlate with "should be illegal". Like, McDonalds, pretty bad for you, not illegal/restricted. I think if the US is defining us as adults by age 18, they better give us the rights that come along with us. It's sort of insulting, to be considered "adult" but not capable of handling our booze. The point is, alcohol is just as bad for you when you're 18 as it is when you're 21, so making people hold out that long is pointless. Alcohol is (still bad for you, but) okay when you're just having a drink (or 10..) out with friends. The sooner you can learn that lesson, the sooner you can grow up.

Dude, are you kidding? The drinking age is INSANE. I was born in, and spent a great deal of my childhood, in Germany, so I sort of feel like I have a pretty good idea of what the deal with this is. In Germany, you can start legally drinking beer at 16, the harder liquor at 18. Here, 21 for all. In Germany, kids typically start sipping their parents' drinks around 12, and it's not uncommon for a 14 year old to be able to go out and order a beer. (My dad and I actually did a little experiment. It was New Years' eve two years ago, so I was hardly 14, and we were in a pub in the middle of nowhere (small, but beautiful village, where my great-grandma lives), and the waitress totally brought me one, without so much as an ask for my age. People there drink beer sort of like they drink coke (unless it's like Oktoberfest or something), maybe 1-2, no huge problem. By the time kids are 18-20, they're able to handle their alcohol, sort of like a 25 year old here. The partying phase isn't totally gone yet, but they're not getting smashed s**tless every weekend. Which is good, because at this point, they're either in university or have a job, where a bit of maturity and seriousness is required. Compare that to Americans. I don't deny that kids start drinking around 16 anyway, but it's a great deal harder and more frustrating. By the time someone is 21, I sort of feel like they've been waiting so long to drink, they just get totally smashed (...or maybe MTV is exaggerating, I dunno ). My uncle was an American soldier and was stationed in (I think) the 90s. He keeps telling us how often he and his friends (he was there from 18-22) would get kicked out of pubs. So yeah, meh. Just my two cents.

There has been little study done to show a correlation between drugs and violence. It's highly exaggerated, thanks to our DARE buddies. (I find it really ironic that I won a medal for best anti-drug essay in 5th grade, lmao.) The ruining people's lives.. can happen. I won't deny that it does, because I can think of a few people.. but.. it was their choice, and I don't think they regret drug use, they just regret letting it get out of hand. =/