Quag
-
Posts
1701 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Everything posted by Quag
-
fish
-
I am against decriminalizing. It is legal or it isn’t. Problem with decriminalizing is it leads to an increase in use. No biggie you say? Well problem is the supply chain stays illegal. more customers means more profits means more gang activity means more violence etc. Make it legal and kill the criminal element by cutting off their monopoly. Don’t hand them a smorgasbord. Or keep it illegal and prosecute all to reduce it as much as possible the middle always leads to a worse situation than you have now. Vancouver is a great example of how people can go to the other side and make it even worse. they claim crime has gone down in areas with safe injection sites but fact is they are using police stats. police stats due show a decrease but that is because they have been told not to arrest anyone within several blocks of a safe injection site. according to police on the ground it is way worse. but since they are not allowed to do anything the stats make it look better. FYI i am 100% against safe injection sites. under any circumstances ya wanna go pump yourself with heroin i could care less. you want me to pay for you to have a safe place to kill yourself (an oxymoron in itself) than no way! yes throwing people in jail for 5g with hardened criminals is dumb but giving them a 25$ fine is also dumb. keep thinking find a better way. The breathalyzers i was thinking more of police spot checks but yeah no system is 100% but ATM there is NO system at all. That’s what bothers me. Private vs public use. problem with that is if you do the drugs privately than leave your home you are still affected by the drugs. Some last longer than others and well unless it is regulated ie big govt bureaucracy you will have no way to judge how long before the effects wear off.
-
wise
-
LIE
-
Well I’m bored so ill chime in. Ok start with legality of drugs. I have only 1 problem with it. How do we test people for them easily? Why test you ask. Well same reason we test people for alcohol. Driving cars! There are also planes/doctors/air traffic controllers and a host of other professions/situations where it should absolutely be 100% illegal to be under the influence of drugs. For alcohol we have quick non invasive breathalyser tests. If we could have something similar for drugs I would be soo much happier about it. I don’t understand why McDonalds should be illegal? Alcohol and cigarettes can harm others. I.e. second hand smoke/drinking and driving. If you binge out at Mcdo’s everyday you only harm yourself, your problem no one else’s. The govt. has recognized the dangers of drinking and driving and it is illegal (as well as a host of other things you cannot do while intoxicated). They have begun to accept the dangers of second hand smoke and are limiting the places where people can smoke. Again this is consistent. It is illegal to drive while impaired by drugs. The only problem is we don’t have a method of testing for them in someone’s system aside from blood tests. This is the only reason I can think of to continue to keep them illegal. I know I know it isn’t a strong argument but lacking anything else it is the only reason I can see to keep drugs illegal. Ok cynical me will also say that there is so much money involved in the war on drugs that the vested interests wish to keep it going for their own personal profit. Ok about the drinking of mead instead of water bit, actually not true. Alcohol was around before there was large scale civilizations that create the non sanitary conditions you speak of. The water in general was very safe to drink as long as it came from running water and wasn’t stagnant. I strongly suggest you read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. Doesn’t specifically speak to this topic but lays out a great logical argument for why the world geopolitically speaking is as it is today. (Love the bit about the Chatham Islands, but ya gotta have a black sense of humour)
-
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you like someone you cannot find them repugnant. That is like in a general sense. To be more specific to the topic, if you love someone regardless of what they look like you will find them beautiful. Having said that sleeping with someone does not imply love and despite what some think it doesn’t even imply lust. So my reply to you young scientist is that if you get married, it should be to the most beautiful woman in the world. The beauty will not be from the shape of her body or the perfection of her hair etc., but from the brilliance of her soul. So don’t think you are shallow for saying you want your wife to be beautiful. If she isn’t than she isn’t the one you should be marrying. I know I married the most beautiful woman in the world and if others can’t see that it really isn’t my problem if they are blind. (But really she is beautiful)
-
