Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:27:47 PM
713351 Posts in 53056 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 162
Author Topic: You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?  (Read 624366 times)
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #225 on: August 04, 2010, 09:56:28 AM »

Okay, I hate to be so sinister, but the points brought up on the last two posts almost confirm in my mind the legalization of drugs across the board. We've got too much of a culture of wanting to treat addicts and intervene and put them on a lifetime of co-dependency on AA. I'm not an addict, but I've witnessed AA meetings and it's like a religious cult. Like I've said before, whatever happened to accountability? Let the addicts weed themselves out and suffer the consequences. I know it causes a great deal of pain for the families of an addict, but aren't we better off without them? I actually agree to some extent with Skull's claim about advocates of drug legalization just being selfish and wanting to get high. I'm not quite so black-and-white about it, but I agree that this is somewhat true, and you advocates need to examine yourselves about your motives. I favor legalization and I have absolutely no desire to partake. Maybe a little weed on New Year's Eve, maybe, but probably not even that. This is a simple question of letting humanity be responsible for their own actions. Skull has indicated that he has seen people close to him whose lives were destroyed by drugs, and, because of his experience, he will probably tell you that those people were pretty selfish. So I respect Skull's experience, I just disagree with him on the solution. I say, all the more reason to let them weed themselves out of society. Don't help them, no interventions, if they really want help and really want to get out of their hole, they will do so of their own accord, and they will claw themselves out on their own.

My wife is from Ireland, and I always am a little fascinated by their approach to alcohol whenever I go there. There are stereotypes of the Irish and drinking for a reason. As a culture, by and large, they enjoy the drink. That's actually the common euphemism for alcohol, "the drink." When a person is drinking heavily, you'll hear their friends say "he's on the drink." It's common for people to go on drinking phases, where they may drink a bit heavily, then go off of it for a good amount of time. There are also plenty of teatotallers there as well, who never or rarely drink. But their approach to someone who is drinking heavily is not "oh, he's an alcoholic," or "oh, he needs help, we need to intervene." They let the man either destroy his life if he chooses or pull himself out. Sometimes, the man is simply enjoying drinking, then gets bored with it, and goes dry for a few months because he realizes he's neglecting his family a bit by spending too much time at the pub. The average American would probably say, "oh, well, they're just a nation of functional alcoholics, that's all." That would be very typical, because only a culture like ours could come up with a phrase like "functional alcoholic." No, the person can't just be someone who enjoys drinking and does just fine with it, he has to have a disease.

Let's just stop the hypocrisy. How about a little social Darwinism? I personally believe we have so much damn dysfunction in society because we try to help self-destructive people too much. People who, in the old days, would have removed themselves from society through their foolish actions sooner or later. Let them go gracefully, and let people make up their minds for themselves. I mean, are we really better off in the current culture of people being addicted to prescription drugs instead? You could argue that this is actually worse because of the amount of synthetic garbage the American populace is getting prescribed to them daily.

Sorry for the rant, I just don't understand the stances people take on this issue, on both sides. There is a bigger picture here, people. The bigger picture is a free society where we let people make their own decisions, and we also let them pay the price for their mistakes, and if they want help, they have to prove it and get it themselves. Am I insane, or isn't that the basic premise that this country once operated on?

Sigh, I could go on for days. I'll stop here. Is there anyone here who understands what I'm saying?
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 10:05:24 AM by Flick James » Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
The Gravekeeper
addicted to the macabre
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 85
Posts: 759



« Reply #226 on: August 04, 2010, 11:39:51 AM »

I disagree in the case of mental illness simply because it's difficult if not downright impossible to think the least bit rationally when your brain isn't quite working properly. For some people with a mental illness, all they need to stabilize themselves are prescription drugs because the problem is a chemical imbalance (take someone with bi-polar disorder or schizophrenia off their drugs and you'll see what I mean). For others, therapy and counselling work wonders for helping them figure out how to cope with their illness and any underlying issues related to it. In many cases, a combination of both works well since the drugs help to get them balanced until they're ready to handle things on their own.

And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that so many people these days are being misdiagnosed with a mental illness. I think there are at least two underlying problems with that: 1. People want a quick fix for everything. Taking a pill is much less effort than actually confronting a serious issue, after all, even if refusing to tackle the problem means that you keep taking those pills in order to cope with it. 2. Drug companies are infamous for bribing doctors. I'm not saying that all doctors fall for it, because there are still many who genuinely care about their patients' health and will work with them to try to find something that works. However, there are too many who'll just give them patients X drug because the company will give them a nice new condo in Miami if they do, regardless of whether or not the drug actually works for the patient or if it actually harms the patient. Someone who's just really sad doesn't need anti-depressants; more often than not they just need someone who'll lend them an ear and a shoulder to cry on.

I do agree that people who choose to be self-destructive should be more or less left to discover the consequences of their actions on their own since they won't learn from other people's experiences and wisdom. However, a mental illness is not something anyone chooses to have and if a person can be treated for it, then I say do it. Help them out and they can be productive members of society, too.
Logged
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #227 on: August 04, 2010, 11:56:37 AM »

I disagree in the case of mental illness simply because it's difficult if not downright impossible to think the least bit rationally when your brain isn't quite working properly. For some people with a mental illness, all they need to stabilize themselves are prescription drugs because the problem is a chemical imbalance (take someone with bi-polar disorder or schizophrenia off their drugs and you'll see what I mean). For others, therapy and counselling work wonders for helping them figure out how to cope with their illness and any underlying issues related to it. In many cases, a combination of both works well since the drugs help to get them balanced until they're ready to handle things on their own.

And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that so many people these days are being misdiagnosed with a mental illness. I think there are at least two underlying problems with that: 1. People want a quick fix for everything. Taking a pill is much less effort than actually confronting a serious issue, after all, even if refusing to tackle the problem means that you keep taking those pills in order to cope with it. 2. Drug companies are infamous for bribing doctors. I'm not saying that all doctors fall for it, because there are still many who genuinely care about their patients' health and will work with them to try to find something that works. However, there are too many who'll just give them patients X drug because the company will give them a nice new condo in Miami if they do, regardless of whether or not the drug actually works for the patient or if it actually harms the patient. Someone who's just really sad doesn't need anti-depressants; more often than not they just need someone who'll lend them an ear and a shoulder to cry on.

I do agree that people who choose to be self-destructive should be more or less left to discover the consequences of their actions on their own since they won't learn from other people's experiences and wisdom. However, a mental illness is not something anyone chooses to have and if a person can be treated for it, then I say do it. Help them out and they can be productive members of society, too.

In no way was I suggesting that mental illness not be treated with the appropriate pharmaceutical. That's not what I'm talking about. However, you do seem to understand my point about Overprescribed America. I mean, doctors are very quick to diagnose kids with some kind of disorder and start putting them on drugs. This p**ses me off to no end. Putting kids on anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, it's like we're trying to create a nation of dependency. Little Johnny is having a little trouble learning? Let's prescribe something. Yay, we have more people on drugs with prohibition that we ever had before prohibition.

Is this thing on?
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
3mnkids
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 230
Posts: 1649



« Reply #228 on: August 04, 2010, 12:05:07 PM »

Okay, I hate to be so sinister, but the points brought up on the last two posts almost confirm in my mind the legalization of drugs across the board. We've got too much of a culture of wanting to treat addicts and intervene and put them on a lifetime of co-dependency on AA. I'm not an addict, but I've witnessed AA meetings and it's like a religious cult. Like I've said before, whatever happened to accountability? Let the addicts weed themselves out and suffer the consequences. I know it causes a great deal of pain for the families of an addict, but aren't we better off without them? I actually agree to some extent with Skull's claim about advocates of drug legalization just being selfish and wanting to get high. I'm not quite so black-and-white about it, but I agree that this is somewhat true, and you advocates need to examine yourselves about your motives.


Wow.  AA is not like a religious cult. Let the addicts weed themselves out? What does that even mean? Just say Eff them? Nice attitude.  Lookingup  I'm glad when at the age of 14 and an addict the people in my life didn't say go eff yourself Tracey! We are done dealing with you. Go die in a gutter. unbelievable.
For the record, I am for the legalization of marijuana and no, I don't smoke it.

Logged

There's no worse feeling than that millisecond you're sure you are going to die after leaning your chair back a little too far~ ruminations
Skull
Guest
« Reply #229 on: August 04, 2010, 12:17:01 PM »


Sorry for the rant, I just don't understand the stances people take on this issue, on both sides. There is a bigger picture here, people. The bigger picture is a free society where we let people make their own decisions, and we also let them pay the price for their mistakes, and if they want help, they have to prove it and get it themselves. Am I insane, or isn't that the basic premise that this country once operated on?

Sigh, I could go on for days. I'll stop here. Is there anyone here who understands what I'm saying?

lol... isnt the whole topic "You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?" is about rants [no need to be sorry]

I think the mistake is that too many people think that a free society in terms that freedom gives you the right to do whatever we want to yourself; I call it personal selfishness because you are placing your own personal freedom above everybody else. But for a free society to function it requires respect and boundaries. Therefore you are not placing your own personal freedom above the others.

Example: A “red” stoplight in the intersection, you are required by law to stop although you can choose to go right through it. A real free society would stop whenever the person likes to, although it’s not productive since that person is likely to crash into another car.

Quote
Isn't that the basic premise that this country once operated on?

The intent of the US constitution is to guarantee the citizens the freedom from government; as the first 10 Amendments are clarifications for the freedom/rights for the citizens and the guarantee that government has limited powers.

:)
Logged
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #230 on: August 04, 2010, 12:20:48 PM »

Okay, I hate to be so sinister, but the points brought up on the last two posts almost confirm in my mind the legalization of drugs across the board. We've got too much of a culture of wanting to treat addicts and intervene and put them on a lifetime of co-dependency on AA. I'm not an addict, but I've witnessed AA meetings and it's like a religious cult. Like I've said before, whatever happened to accountability? Let the addicts weed themselves out and suffer the consequences. I know it causes a great deal of pain for the families of an addict, but aren't we better off without them? I actually agree to some extent with Skull's claim about advocates of drug legalization just being selfish and wanting to get high. I'm not quite so black-and-white about it, but I agree that this is somewhat true, and you advocates need to examine yourselves about your motives.


Wow.  AA is not like a religious cult. Let the addicts weed themselves out? What does that even mean? Just say Eff them? Nice attitude.  Lookingup  I'm glad when at the age of 14 and an addict the people in my life didn't say go eff yourself Tracey! We are done dealing with you. Go die in a gutter. unbelievable.
For the record, I am for the legalization of marijuana and no, I don't smoke it.



Thank you. I think it's a fine attitude. I never said the addicts should go eff themselves, but I totally understand it being taken that way. Families should be supportive of their kids if they have a problem with drugs. It's natural, isn't it? It's family, for crying out loud. What I'm talking about is the assumption that intervention is a mandate. You may not have been one of them, but there are people who don't want to be helped, and to them, yes, I'm sorry, but I say eff 'em. Give people the means to get help, but let them make their own decision. So, yes, I am not an advocate of intervention. This does not make me an evil person. My sister had serious drug problems as a teenager, and we tried to help her, but in the end, she had to make the decision to help herself, and she did. She never went to AA, and she still parties a bit and didn't have to go on a 12-step program and get totally clean. She worked it out herself. I applaud and encourage that.

There are some dangerous drugs out there that I don't think anyone should do. But, you know, the world is a big scary place, and we Americans have been sheltered from it, while the rest of the world has gotten stronger. I understand that these statements make me appear like an extremist and unsympathetic. I understand that this is hard stuff to take. But I am not unsympathetic to anyone who has a problem, but when you extend a hand once and it gets slapped away, maybe you try once more, and if it gets slapped away again, how far do you go? If the person is family, I imagine you go further than you would for a random person. This is understandable. However, the government should NOT be mandating people to AA and making it a government issue to clean up America. I don't trust the government in that regard. Afterall, they're somewhat controlled by pharmaceutical companies and would probably put us all on prescription meds to deal with our problems.

Look, I have become a part of this online community and value everyone here. I also understand that I come out with some views that are very unpopular sometimes. This is not a matter of pride for me or anything, but at the same time I don't apologize for it. We've become a coddling nation and, in my own personal opinion, it's gone way too far. Think what you want about my views. I haven't seen anything yet that gives me any reason to adjust them.  
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #231 on: August 04, 2010, 12:30:28 PM »


Sorry for the rant, I just don't understand the stances people take on this issue, on both sides. There is a bigger picture here, people. The bigger picture is a free society where we let people make their own decisions, and we also let them pay the price for their mistakes, and if they want help, they have to prove it and get it themselves. Am I insane, or isn't that the basic premise that this country once operated on?

Sigh, I could go on for days. I'll stop here. Is there anyone here who understands what I'm saying?

lol... isnt the whole topic "You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?" is about rants [no need to be sorry]

I think the mistake is that too many people think that a free society in terms that freedom gives you the right to do whatever we want to yourself; I call it personal selfishness because you are placing your own personal freedom above everybody else. But for a free society to function it requires respect and boundaries. Therefore you are not placing your own personal freedom above the others.

Example: A “red” stoplight in the intersection, you are required by law to stop although you can choose to go right through it. A real free society would stop whenever the person likes to, although it’s not productive since that person is likely to crash into another car.

Quote
Isn't that the basic premise that this country once operated on?

The intent of the US constitution is to guarantee the citizens the freedom from government; as the first 10 Amendments are clarifications for the freedom/rights for the citizens and the guarantee that government has limited powers.

:)


 BounceGiggle BounceGiggle BounceGiggle

I never said there shouldn't be boundaries, did I? I don't remember saying that. The boundaries are the law. If laws say you can't do this because it violates someone else's rights, well, then there's you boundary. The red light example is irrelevant, because you're talking about operating a vehicle on public roads. Driving is not a right, therefore it is no surprise that it must be heavily regulated. For example, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, on drugs, etc. should not only be illegal but extensively consequenced for violation. Why? Because this has nothing to do with rights. You're operating a vehicle on a public road that you had to get a license to operate and had to agree to the laws that regulate the open road in order to have the privilege to drive on them. What I'm talking about is quite different. I was wondering when someone would call me an anarchist.  BounceGiggle BounceGiggle BounceGiggle
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Newt
Mostly Harmless. Mostly.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 856
Posts: 3715


I want to be Ripley when I grow up.


« Reply #232 on: August 04, 2010, 12:37:04 PM »

Even if we were all of us comfortable with the idea of allowing a human being to go to waste, there is always the issue of collateral damage.  Some of the people connected to addicts (of every kind) are innocent victims of the choices the addicts have made (seemingly) 'for themselves'.  Babies born addicted.  Fetal alcohol syndrome.  Families destroyed emotionally and financially.  Children neglected or even abused.   Society at large does not accept that.  

We don't even have assisted suicide yet; we're not likely to get something else condoned that is perceived to be in many ways so costly to society.

I was wondering when someone would call me an anarchist.  BounceGiggle BounceGiggle BounceGiggle

Isn't anarchism *supposed to be* based on the belief that humans by nature will behave well and therefore do not need laws?  That they will 'do the right thing' and get along simply because they know that is what is best and so do not need Big Brother standing there with a big stick?  I may have lost track somewhere in all that has been posted...but this sounds consistent with what *somebody* said.  Who was that?
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 12:39:27 PM by Newt » Logged

"May I offer you a Peek Frean?" - Walter Bishop
"Thank you for appreciating my descent into deviant behavior, Mr. Reese." - Harold Finch
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #233 on: August 04, 2010, 12:52:11 PM »

Even if we were all of us comfortable with the idea of allowing a human being to go to waste, there is always the issue of collateral damage.  Some of the people connected to addicts (of every kind) are innocent victims of the choices the addicts have made (seemingly) 'for themselves'.  Babies born addicted.  Fetal alcohol syndrome.  Families destroyed emotionally and financially.  Children neglected or even abused.   Society at large does not accept that.  

We don't even have assisted suicide yet; we're not likely to get something else condoned that is perceived to be in many ways so costly to society.

I was wondering when someone would call me an anarchist.  BounceGiggle BounceGiggle BounceGiggle

Isn't anarchism *supposed to be* based on the belief that humans by nature will behave well and therefore do not need laws?  That they will 'do the right thing' and get along simply because they know that is what is best and so do not need Big Brother standing there with a big stick?  I may have lost track somewhere in all that has been posted...but this sounds consistent with what *somebody* said.  It wasn't you?

Your like your response the best, Newt. I made the anarchist comment because people sometimes call me that, because I have a laissez-faire attitude about how law should work. My modus operandi is almost purely ideological. I don't trust when people start talking about statistics, which are largely manipulated anyway, or applying their own personal experiences into their socio-political opinions. Personal experience is sometimes relevant, but I often find that most people rely on their own experience almost solely as what determines their views. I am sometimes guilty of interjecting personal experience into a debate, but I try to keep it to a minimum. I guess you could say I am a pure libertarian. Most libertarians lean to the right or the left a little, whereas I do not. I don't recognize the difference between a personal freedom and an economic freedom, as most do. This makes me appear to be an anarchist. No, I do not feel that humanity is naturally going to behave well and therefore do not need laws. I believe in laws. I just believe they need to limit the governments influence over our lives, and only intervene when someone who, through their actions, have victimized another's rights. I'm not naive. I know there is collateral damage to the use of drugs. There is collateral damage in just about every decision one can make.

The issue you bring up of babies being born addicted is a valid one, and one that forces me to look at my views. You're the first person in this thread to have done that. I hope you take that as a compliment. That's a tough issue, and issues like that definately challenge my hardline stance in the matter. I have two kids of my own, and I love them dearly and would protect them ferociously. I guess it still comes down to accountability. A mother doing drugs while pregnant, well, that has consequences that affect another, doesn't it? How to deal with that in the paradigm I've been advocating? That is a tough one. Give me some time on that one.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Skull
Guest
« Reply #234 on: August 04, 2010, 12:56:43 PM »

No intent in placing words in your mouth... I'm just saying that a free society cannot function without respect and boundaries. (yep, boundaries can mean laws.)

The example is to show how personal selfishness doesnt work. We dont have to limited it to driving...

Another example: You going to McDonald for lunch and standing in line to place your order. Somebody walks in front of you and places his order.
Logged
Skull
Guest
« Reply #235 on: August 04, 2010, 01:03:11 PM »

Even if we were all of us comfortable with the idea of allowing a human being to go to waste, there is always the issue of collateral damage.  Some of the people connected to addicts (of every kind) are innocent victims of the choices the addicts have made (seemingly) 'for themselves'.  Babies born addicted.  Fetal alcohol syndrome.  Families destroyed emotionally and financially.  Children neglected or even abused.   Society at large does not accept that.  

We don't even have assisted suicide yet; we're not likely to get something else condoned that is perceived to be in many ways so costly to society.

I was wondering when someone would call me an anarchist.  BounceGiggle BounceGiggle BounceGiggle

Isn't anarchism *supposed to be* based on the belief that humans by nature will behave well and therefore do not need laws?  That they will 'do the right thing' and get along simply because they know that is what is best and so do not need Big Brother standing there with a big stick?  I may have lost track somewhere in all that has been posted...but this sounds consistent with what *somebody* said.  It wasn't you?

Your like your response the best, Newt. I made the anarchist comment because people sometimes call me that, because I have a laissez-faire attitude about how law should work. My modus operandi is almost purely ideological. I don't trust when people start talking about statistics, which are largely manipulated anyway, or applying their own personal experiences into their socio-political opinions. Personal experience is sometimes relevant, but I often find that most people rely on their own experience almost solely as what determines their views. I am sometimes guilty of interjecting personal experience into a debate, but I try to keep it to a minimum. I guess you could say I am a pure libertarian. Most libertarians lean to the right or the left a little, whereas I do not. I don't recognize the difference between a personal freedom and an economic freedom, as most do. This makes me appear to be an anarchist. No, I do not feel that humanity is naturally going to behave well and therefore do not need laws. I believe in laws. I just believe they need to limit the governments influence over our lives, and only intervene when someone who, through their actions, have victimized another's rights. I'm not naive. I know there is collateral damage to the use of drugs. There is collateral damage in just about every decision one can make.

The issue you bring up of babies being born addicted is a valid one, and one that forces me to look at my views. You're the first person in this thread to have done that. I hope you take that as a compliment. That's a tough issue, and issues like that definately challenge my hardline stance in the matter. I have two kids of my own, and I love them dearly and would protect them ferociously. I guess it still comes down to accountability. A mother doing drugs while pregnant, well, that has consequences that affect another, doesn't it? How to deal with that in the paradigm I've been advocating? That is a tough one. Give me some time on that one.

I'm guess your getting nightmare on the new Healthcare Law...  Buggedout
Logged
Doggett
Bustin' makes me feel good !
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 979
Posts: 8413


I've seen things you people couldn't imagine...


WWW
« Reply #236 on: August 04, 2010, 01:04:47 PM »

Hot weather grinds my gears.  hot
Logged

                                             

If God exists, why did he make me an atheist? Thats His first mistake.
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #237 on: August 04, 2010, 01:44:32 PM »

No intent in placing words in your mouth... I'm just saying that a free society cannot function without respect and boundaries. (yep, boundaries can mean laws.)

The example is to show how personal selfishness doesnt work. We dont have to limited it to driving...

Another example: You going to McDonald for lunch and standing in line to place your order. Somebody walks in front of you and places his order.

Actually, Skull, I must retract my statement that Newt was the only one to make me step back and re-examine my views. You have done that as well. I still don't agree with you. TeddyR

Actually, I disagree about personal selfishness not working. In many cases, it is what has created our standard of living. Let's take a famous actor, for example. That actor may not like a script he is being offered and sees it as a big pain in the ass, but sees it as an opportunity to buy that house in Bel Air and that new Ducati he's been eyeing. So, he accepts the project. The movie gets released and makes the studio money, employs hundreds of thousands of people across the nation in making the movie, distributing it, and selling the tickets and refreshments at the theatres, and entertains millions. At no point in this entire endeavor was a "greater good" motive involved, just pure selfish desire, but look at how many people it benefitted. If it turns out to be a bad movie, then it benefits us here, doesn't it?

McDonalds? If the guy looks like he has the physical prowess and inclination to pound me into oblivion, I guess I'm unlikely to say anthing. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 01:47:31 PM by Flick James » Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
JaseSF
Super Space Age Freaky Geek
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 719
Posts: 13871


Soon, your brain will turn to jelly.


« Reply #238 on: August 04, 2010, 02:24:28 PM »

It's interesting that the crime rate here is going up as is drug addiction and abuse with much more seriously deadly and dangerous drugs now known to be here in places they never were before. Personally I don't think legalizing drugs and allowing widespread drug abuse is going to solve these problems. In fact, I suspect it would cause far more. With regards to Marijuana, I understand people under the influence are basically still intoxicated. I've known people who liked to abuse this drug every now and then when I went to college. They normally missed lots of time from class and only a minority passed and not a one of them seemed to really care about anything really as they were always too laid back. As with any drug abuse, there's going to be consequences especially if feeding a drug addiction becomes more important than family or loved ones. I don't agree with taking pain medication for every little ailment or seeking a doctor's prescription for every perceived wrong either.



Logged

"This above all: To thine own self be true!"
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #239 on: August 04, 2010, 05:40:39 PM »

It's interesting that the crime rate here is going up as is drug addiction and abuse with much more seriously deadly and dangerous drugs now known to be here in places they never were before. Personally I don't think legalizing drugs and allowing widespread drug abuse is going to solve these problems. In fact, I suspect it would cause far more. With regards to Marijuana, I understand people under the influence are basically still intoxicated. I've known people who liked to abuse this drug every now and then when I went to college. They normally missed lots of time from class and only a minority passed and not a one of them seemed to really care about anything really as they were always too laid back. As with any drug abuse, there's going to be consequences especially if feeding a drug addiction becomes more important than family or loved ones. I don't agree with taking pain medication for every little ailment or seeking a doctor's prescription for every perceived wrong either.





Well, you say that crime is going up as drugs are making their way into your area, right? Why is that? Drugs are illegal. Therefore, in order for drugs to come into an area, criminals need to bring them, so naturally there would be an increase in crime. You bring criminals into an area, they're naturally going to bring with them other crimes. I hope nobody is seriously going to debate that correlation, it's a pretty solid one. So, if you remove the criminality of drugs, doesn't it logically follow that there would be a decrease in crime, not an increase?

I can go on all day with these, folks. Keep 'em coming.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 162
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.