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, 02:16:20 PM
713356 Posts in 53058 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 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 162
Author Topic: You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?  (Read 624454 times)
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 #240 on: August 04, 2010, 06:56:48 PM »

People who join this forum only to make 4 or 5 posts.
Why ?
You can do that as a guest.
Logged

                                             

If God exists, why did he make me an atheist? Thats His first mistake.
JaseSF
Super Space Age Freaky Geek
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 719
Posts: 13871


Soon, your brain will turn to jelly.


« Reply #241 on: August 04, 2010, 09:22:13 PM »

Sorry for bringing up the drug topic again, but this is something that really interests me. First I am for the legalization of Marijuana, not because of any supposed medical use, but because of all the illegal drugs it is the least problematic, even compared to legal drugs like alcohol.
But I don't think that legalizing all drugs is a good thing and could have very sever consequences. America is not like most of the smaller european countries that have decriminalized drugs. We are a very large country, with a larger population, with big appetites for recreation. We have a capitalist economy, where if there is a profit to be made off of something, somebody will find a way. If all drugs were de-criminalized here I think we could see wide spread marketing of very dangerous drugs.
And also most drugs are illegal for a good reason. Coke, while not the worst of the hard drugs, can become very addictive and I've seen friends who have become serious coke heads and spend all their money on that stuff, as their bodies waste away.
Opium is a drug so bad even the Chinese began prohibiting its use in 1729. Heroin is one of the most destructive drugs on the planet, think of how many great musicians have died because of that drug.
Meth is another drug that is insanely dangerous. While it might not kill you the effects it has on your body and mind stay with you long after you quit, just ask my ex girlfriend. She started using meth and it has screwed her mind up so much now she has to take anti-psychotic medications, just to keep sane.


Personally I pretty much agree with a lot of what's being said here except I don't agree with legalizing marijuana because I don't believe it's truly for the greater good of the community to do so. I don't see how allowing more widespread drug use, abuse and addiction is of any real benefit to a community...
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 #242 on: August 05, 2010, 09:41:39 AM »

Sorry for bringing up the drug topic again, but this is something that really interests me. First I am for the legalization of Marijuana, not because of any supposed medical use, but because of all the illegal drugs it is the least problematic, even compared to legal drugs like alcohol.
But I don't think that legalizing all drugs is a good thing and could have very sever consequences. America is not like most of the smaller european countries that have decriminalized drugs. We are a very large country, with a larger population, with big appetites for recreation. We have a capitalist economy, where if there is a profit to be made off of something, somebody will find a way. If all drugs were de-criminalized here I think we could see wide spread marketing of very dangerous drugs.
And also most drugs are illegal for a good reason. Coke, while not the worst of the hard drugs, can become very addictive and I've seen friends who have become serious coke heads and spend all their money on that stuff, as their bodies waste away.
Opium is a drug so bad even the Chinese began prohibiting its use in 1729. Heroin is one of the most destructive drugs on the planet, think of how many great musicians have died because of that drug.
Meth is another drug that is insanely dangerous. While it might not kill you the effects it has on your body and mind stay with you long after you quit, just ask my ex girlfriend. She started using meth and it has screwed her mind up so much now she has to take anti-psychotic medications, just to keep sane.


Personally I pretty much agree with a lot of what's being said here except I don't agree with legalizing marijuana because I don't believe it's truly for the greater good of the community to do so. I don't see how allowing more widespread drug use, abuse and addiction is of any real benefit to a community...

Alright, I think think many of the arguments leveled against the decriminalizing of drugs seem to be operating on the assumption that drugs would be legalized with no regulation whatsoever. Yes, that would be chaos, and extremely dangerous. Legalizing drugs with a similar kind of regulation as exists with alcohol and tobacco, on the other hand would actually make drugs less dangerous, not more. It is far easier to regulate the safety of what is sold by a licensed establishment than what one would buy from an illegal dealer.

Does this remove the potential damage that one can do to one's own life by drug consumption? It does not. Again, there's that personal accountability thing again. That thing that a free society cannot do without. A least with decriminalization and regulation we can protect public health to some extent and allow the U.S. to profit from that industry, something our economy could really use. Other countries don't want us to decriminalize drugs, because they profit off of it through the illegal drug trade. Like I said in an earlier argument, is it a coincidence that poppy production in Afghanistan has increased exponentially since 2003? Do you think Afghanistan wants us to legalize and regulate drugs in this country? That would remove a lucrative power base from them.

We were talking about a greater good, were we not?
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Skull
Guest
« Reply #243 on: August 05, 2010, 10:20:10 AM »

Flick James ~ It'll be safe to assume that government can/could/would place strict regulations on such drugs and even attempt to places stiff restrictions and tought penalities.

But... It doent work.

For example that government regulations dont work and check-mate on the argument is Teen Alcoholism... We have Teen Alcoholism when the law clearly states that nobody under the age of 21 is allowed to drink alcohol.

More examples of non-working government regulations... Guns [the restrictions/bans dont stop the criminals] and Drugs [Yep, Drugs this very argument... So tell me how can we trust the government placing restrictions to Drugs when the current restrictions doesnt work?... So how can we trust the government to ban legalize marijuana (or other such drugs) from the hands of children and teenagers when they cannot stop them from drinking alcohol.]

wow you got me stepping into this topic again... :)
« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 10:29:26 AM by Skull » Logged
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #244 on: August 05, 2010, 10:47:13 AM »

Flick James ~ It'll be safe to assume that government can/could/would place strict regulations on such drugs and even attempt to places stiff restrictions and tought penalities.

But... It doent work.

For example that government regulations dont work and check-mate on the argument is Teen Alcoholism... We have Teen Alcoholism when the law clearly states that nobody under the age of 21 is allowed to drink alcohol.

More examples of non-working government regulations... Guns [the restrictions/bans dont stop the criminals] and Drugs [Yep, Drugs this very argument... So tell me how can we trust the government placing restrictions to Drugs when the current restrictions doesnt work?... So how can we trust the government to ban legalize marijuana (or other such drugs) from the hands of children and teenagers when they cannot stop them from drinking alcohol.]

wow you got me stepping into this topic again... :)

It's all good, Skull, this has been one of the most exhilirating threads I've been a part of for some time. I know I'm bagging on alot of arguments, don't anyone take it as as a personal insult.

So, okay, Skull, we're not playing chess here, and if we were, that's far from a check-mate. You are using the words regulation and restriction interchangeably. What I'm talking about are regulations on the quality and safety of the drugs being sold. You can't tell me that legalization and regulation would not improve that. Also, your gun analogy doesn't make much sense. Yes, restrictions and bans on guns certainly do not work, so doesn't that support my argument? Yes, teens get ahold of alcohol despite establishments being banned from selling to them, because they get someone to "score" for them, or you have an establishment breaking the law. But to say that those regulations do not lower the numbers of teens accessing alcohol is ridiculous. Besides, if drugs were legal that would be an easy fix. Instead of law enforcement being spread too thin going after drug cartels and dealers and so on, they can be channeled into enforcing the laws that make sense, namely the sale of these substances to minors who shouldn't have them. I'm sure you would be the first to agree that the punishments for anyone who provides substances prohibited to minors are not nearly severe enough or enforced enough. Why is that? Because law enforcement is too damn busy chasing after illegal drug cartels and distributors and dealers.

I'm not opposed to tough laws, but they should be tough against people who are victimizing other people. Providing alcohol or drugs or tobacco to minors is something that cannot be allowed. So, you really only have two options that are going to actually work:

A) decriminalize drugs and regulate them toward the safety of the populace and to the protection of minors

or

B) completely ban all potentially dangerous substances, including alcohol, tobacco, all drugs, everything, and become something akin to some middle eastern countries.

Anything between these two solutions does not work. I vote for option A.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Skull
Guest
« Reply #245 on: August 05, 2010, 12:07:39 PM »


So, okay, Skull, we're not playing chess here, and if we were, that's far from a check-mate. You are using the words regulation and restriction interchangeably. What I'm talking about are regulations on the quality and safety of the drugs being sold.


So was I...

Again.

We have Teen Alcoholism when the law clearly states that nobody under the age of 21 is allowed to drink alcohol. There is tons of regulations and safety that is placed upon the government to prohibit the sales of Alcohol to anybody under the age of 21... yet we have Teen Alcoholism.

Quote
You can't tell me that legalization and regulation would not improve that.


So far there is no proof that government can effectly regulate anything.

Quote
Also, your gun analogy doesn't make much sense.


Yes it does... it proves that government cannot regulate anything. The point of gun bans it to prevent gun violence (the intent) but still criminals will get guns in their hands and still cause gun violence. Actually, Chicago has a stiff gun ban and we had 21 shootins over the weekend.

Quote
Yes, restrictions and bans on guns certainly do not work, so doesn't that support my argument?


If your trying to tell me that the government can regulate drugs effectively, then no.

Quote
Yes, teens get ahold of alcohol despite establishments being banned from selling to them, because they get someone to "score" for them, or you have an establishment breaking the law.


lol... [try again]

Quote
But to say that those regulations do not lower the numbers of teens accessing alcohol is ridiculous.


So you are saying that Teen Alcoholism isnt as problem today?

•Number of teens in grades 9-12 that used alcohol in the past month has grown by 11 percent, (from 35 percent in 2008 to 39 percent in 2009) [http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/teen-drinking-on-rise-again-parents-wake-up-1229390/]

Quote
Besides, if drugs were legal that would be an easy fix.


Talk about sliding on a slippery slope...

Quote
Instead of law enforcement being spread too thin going after drug cartels and dealers and so on, they can be channeled into enforcing the laws that make sense, namely the sale of these substances to minors who shouldn't have them.


Assuming on what that all drug dealers are going to stop selling drugs if one drug is legal or (all)? Really?

Quote
I'm sure you would be the first to agree that the punishments for anyone who provides substances prohibited to minors are not nearly severe enough or enforced enough. Why is that? Because law enforcement is too damn busy chasing after illegal drug cartels and distributors and dealers.


I think your argument is supporting my issue that we cannot trust government regulations. The excuess that cops are too buisy chasing drug dealers is a strawman.

Quote
I'm not opposed to tough laws, but they should be tough against people who are victimizing other people.


Oh I believe no demand = no supply. I really think some of these "victims" are equally responsable for their own actions (accountablity) so the users should serve some time in jail, maybe if they realize that they can go to jail they'll think twice.


Quote
Providing alcohol or drugs or tobacco to minors is something that cannot be allowed. So, you really only have two options that are going to actually work:

A) decriminalize drugs and regulate them toward the safety of the populace and to the protection of minors

or

B) completely ban all potentially dangerous substances, including alcohol, tobacco, all drugs, everything, and become something akin to some middle eastern countries.

Anything between these two solutions does not work. I vote for option A.


How about c...

C) Obey the law.
Logged
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #246 on: August 05, 2010, 12:26:24 PM »

Skull, we're going in circles here. About the only thing we agree on is that the system is broken. I understand your argument. You want to get tougher on drug prohibition, and your motive is for the greater good of the country and the community. I say that drug prohibition doesn't work, so let's do away with it and regulate, my motive also being for the greater good of the country and the community. So, we're both advocating regulation and restriction, just different kinds, yet, here we both are saying that the government can't regulate anything, so doesn't that make both of our solutions invalid?

I guess we keep the broken system in place then.
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 #247 on: August 05, 2010, 02:52:29 PM »

I'm not good at manipulating the quotes so I'll do my best.

"So far there is no proof that government can effectly regulate anything."

Yes there is. Just because the government can't perfectly regulate something against violation doesn't mean it doesn't do anything. This argument says that the government can't do ANYTHING right so keep the broken system in place. Is that what you're saying? Doesn't that mean the government can't effectively regulate drugs as prohibited. Haven't you just invalidated your own argument in the process? You have effectively dropped a nuclear bomb on the debate, making it virtually impossible to progress.

"Yes it does... it proves that government cannot regulate anything. The point of gun bans it to prevent gun violence (the intent) but still criminals will get guns in their hands and still cause gun violence. Actually, Chicago has a stiff gun ban and we had 21 shootins over the weekend."

You have completely lost me here. I don't know what your position on the right to bear arms is, but I support it fully. I also don't support gun bans because you basically disarm the law-abiding citizens and put the guns into the arms of the criminals only. This is exactly why I don't agree with drug prohibition, because you make profiteers out of criminals, and these criminals bring drugs into areas and increase the crime rates, BECAUSE drugs are illegal.

"Assuming on what that all drug dealers are going to stop selling drugs if one drug is legal or (all)? Really?"

Yes, really. Why would people risk going to drug dealers when they can walk into a licensed establishment with no risk at all? Perhaps a small percentage would still go to dealers, kind of like a ticket scalper concept, but wouldn't most buy legally? Is it a perfect system? No. I never claimed it was. I don't think I ever said anything like "all drug dealers would go away", did I? If I suggested it, I didn't mean to.

"I think your argument is supporting my issue that we cannot trust government regulations. The excuess that cops are too buisy chasing drug dealers is a strawman."

That's not a straw man. A straw is when you take the opponents argument and exaggerate it to make the argument look preposterous. I was talking about a law enforcement system that cannot compete with the crimes being committed. They are spread too thin because we have too many laws to enforce. I'm talking about a sensible reallocation of resources. It is far easier for law enforcement to enforce regulations on licensed establishments than it is to track down advanced and armed criminal cartels. This is not a straw man argument.

"Oh I believe no demand = no supply. I really think some of these "victims" are equally responsable for their own actions (accountablity) so the users should serve some time in jail, maybe if they realize that they can go to jail they'll think twice."

Yeah, I believe that no demand = no supply as well. I'm not sure what that means. The law of supply and demand says that the scarcer and more difficult an item becomes to acquire, the more valuable it becomes, accompanied by an increase in demand. This is basic tried and true business academia here. When you make the item more available and easy to acquire, the price goes down, the demand eventually goes down, until the market meets equilibrium, but the demand will NEVER go away. I hope you weren't suggesting that by prohibiting drugs you eliminate demand. I believe wholeheartedly, based on basic supply and demand principles, that just the opposite would occur. This is conjecture on my part, and I can't guarantee such a thing, but what I can do is point out that prohibition has done nothing to decrease demand, and may actually increase it.

"C) Obey the law."

Okay. How do you propose we make that happen?




 


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 #248 on: August 05, 2010, 11:45:13 PM »

With regulations or not, legalizing drugs means easier access and more acceptability within society leading to more drug addicts and a less effective work force IMO. I personally think drug abuse, including prescription and legal drug abuse, should never be seen as acceptable within society or anywhere else. At least with many drugs being illegal it's shows that overall society frowns upon the action of taking and selling said drugs.
Logged

"This above all: To thine own self be true!"
Newt
Mostly Harmless. Mostly.
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 856
Posts: 3715


I want to be Ripley when I grow up.


« Reply #249 on: August 06, 2010, 06:37:07 AM »

With regulations or not, legalizing drugs means easier access and more acceptability within society leading to more drug addicts and a less effective work force IMO. I personally think drug abuse, including prescription and legal drug abuse, should never be seen as acceptable within society or anywhere else. At least with many drugs being illegal it's shows that overall society frowns upon the action of taking and selling said drugs.

Logged

"May I offer you a Peek Frean?" - Walter Bishop
"Thank you for appreciating my descent into deviant behavior, Mr. Reese." - Harold Finch
Jack
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1141
Posts: 10327



« Reply #250 on: August 06, 2010, 06:50:41 AM »

I check in here every morning to see if you guys are still going at it  TeddyR
Logged

The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion.

- Paulo Coelho
Skull
Guest
« Reply #251 on: August 06, 2010, 06:52:09 AM »

Yes there is. Just because the government can't perfectly regulate something against violation doesn't mean it doesn't do anything. This argument says that the government can't do ANYTHING right so keep the broken system in place. Is that what you're saying? Doesn't that mean the government can't effectively regulate drugs as prohibited. Haven't you just invalidated your own argument in the process? You have effectively dropped a nuclear bomb on the debate, making it virtually impossible to progress.

First Perfectection is the point. Government by making recreational drugs legal is in fact telling society that its ok and safe to get high. Dont you actually see what I'm saying. If people believe its ok then people will start at a younger age, either being introduced by family or standing in front of seven-eleven and asking a stranger to buy a joint. Therefore its going to become a bigger problem.

Currently its really hard to tell children that drugs is bad since our culture (TV, Internet, even the law) defends the addicts.

Yes I'd droped the nuclear bomb on the debate... I've also won the argument... Teen Alcoholism.

Quote
You have completely lost me here. I don't know what your position on the right to bear arms is, but I support it fully. I also don't support gun bans because you basically disarm the law-abiding citizens and put the guns into the arms of the criminals only. This is exactly why I don't agree with drug prohibition, because you make profiteers out of criminals, and these criminals bring drugs into areas and increase the crime rates, BECAUSE drugs are illegal.

I dont see how you are lost... I'm only pointing out the fact... Government laws are not guarantee to work, criminals will always disobey the law.

Quote
Yes, really. Why would people risk going to drug dealers when they can walk into a licensed establishment with no risk at all? Perhaps a small percentage would still go to dealers, kind of like a ticket scalper concept, but wouldn't most buy legally? Is it a perfect system? No. I never claimed it was. I don't think I ever said anything like "all drug dealers would go away", did I? If I suggested it, I didn't mean to.

Its really best to assume that government will not legalize-every-piece-of-crap-a-drug-dealer-sells. It's also safe to assume that the price of government controlled drugs will be more expansive.

The most common argument is legalzie drugs will get remove the drug dealers. I disagree because I believe the legalize drugs will open a new market for the drug dealers to undersell the government cost and introduce new drugs into the system. Unless you actually believe that drugs like Crack is going to be legal?

Quote
That's not a straw man. A straw is when you take the opponents argument and exaggerate it to make the argument look preposterous. I was talking about a law enforcement system that cannot compete with the crimes being committed. They are spread too thin because we have too many laws to enforce. I'm talking about a sensible reallocation of resources. It is far easier for law enforcement to enforce regulations on licensed establishments than it is to track down advanced and armed criminal cartels. This is not a straw man argument.

The police is spreaded thin because there are more people here and the government isnt hiring enough based upon the population. It's not based upon the crime. crime happens, that why we have the police. saying the police is spreaded thin because they are all focus on drug dealers is preposterous and a straw man.

Quote
Yeah, I believe that no demand = no supply as well. I'm not sure what that means. The law of supply and demand says that the scarcer and more difficult an item becomes to acquire, the more valuable it becomes, accompanied by an increase in demand. This is basic tried and true business academia here. When you make the item more available and easy to acquire, the price goes down, the demand eventually goes down, until the market meets equilibrium, but the demand will NEVER go away. I hope you weren't suggesting that by prohibiting drugs you eliminate demand. I believe wholeheartedly, based on basic supply and demand principles, that just the opposite would occur. This is conjecture on my part, and I can't guarantee such a thing, but what I can do is point out that prohibition has done nothing to decrease demand, and may actually increase it.

To control the demand you put the drug users into jail as well as the drug dealers.

Quote
Okay. How do you propose we make that happen?

By inforcing the penality.


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 #252 on: August 06, 2010, 06:52:26 AM »

I check in here every morning to see if you guys are still going at it  TeddyR

Same here.  BounceGiggle
In fact, this is the most entertaining part of my day!  Cheers
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 #253 on: August 06, 2010, 09:55:46 AM »

Yes there is. Just because the government can't perfectly regulate something against violation doesn't mean it doesn't do anything. This argument says that the government can't do ANYTHING right so keep the broken system in place. Is that what you're saying? Doesn't that mean the government can't effectively regulate drugs as prohibited. Haven't you just invalidated your own argument in the process? You have effectively dropped a nuclear bomb on the debate, making it virtually impossible to progress.

First Perfectection is the point. Government by making recreational drugs legal is in fact telling society that its ok and safe to get high. Dont you actually see what I'm saying. If people believe its ok then people will start at a younger age, either being introduced by family or standing in front of seven-eleven and asking a stranger to buy a joint. Therefore its going to become a bigger problem.

Currently its really hard to tell children that drugs is bad since our culture (TV, Internet, even the law) defends the addicts.

Yes I'd droped the nuclear bomb on the debate... I've also won the argument... Teen Alcoholism.

Quote
You have completely lost me here. I don't know what your position on the right to bear arms is, but I support it fully. I also don't support gun bans because you basically disarm the law-abiding citizens and put the guns into the arms of the criminals only. This is exactly why I don't agree with drug prohibition, because you make profiteers out of criminals, and these criminals bring drugs into areas and increase the crime rates, BECAUSE drugs are illegal.

I dont see how you are lost... I'm only pointing out the fact... Government laws are not guarantee to work, criminals will always disobey the law.

Quote
Yes, really. Why would people risk going to drug dealers when they can walk into a licensed establishment with no risk at all? Perhaps a small percentage would still go to dealers, kind of like a ticket scalper concept, but wouldn't most buy legally? Is it a perfect system? No. I never claimed it was. I don't think I ever said anything like "all drug dealers would go away", did I? If I suggested it, I didn't mean to.

Its really best to assume that government will not legalize-every-piece-of-crap-a-drug-dealer-sells. It's also safe to assume that the price of government controlled drugs will be more expansive.

The most common argument is legalzie drugs will get remove the drug dealers. I disagree because I believe the legalize drugs will open a new market for the drug dealers to undersell the government cost and introduce new drugs into the system. Unless you actually believe that drugs like Crack is going to be legal?

Quote
That's not a straw man. A straw is when you take the opponents argument and exaggerate it to make the argument look preposterous. I was talking about a law enforcement system that cannot compete with the crimes being committed. They are spread too thin because we have too many laws to enforce. I'm talking about a sensible reallocation of resources. It is far easier for law enforcement to enforce regulations on licensed establishments than it is to track down advanced and armed criminal cartels. This is not a straw man argument.

The police is spreaded thin because there are more people here and the government isnt hiring enough based upon the population. It's not based upon the crime. crime happens, that why we have the police. saying the police is spreaded thin because they are all focus on drug dealers is preposterous and a straw man.

Quote
Yeah, I believe that no demand = no supply as well. I'm not sure what that means. The law of supply and demand says that the scarcer and more difficult an item becomes to acquire, the more valuable it becomes, accompanied by an increase in demand. This is basic tried and true business academia here. When you make the item more available and easy to acquire, the price goes down, the demand eventually goes down, until the market meets equilibrium, but the demand will NEVER go away. I hope you weren't suggesting that by prohibiting drugs you eliminate demand. I believe wholeheartedly, based on basic supply and demand principles, that just the opposite would occur. This is conjecture on my part, and I can't guarantee such a thing, but what I can do is point out that prohibition has done nothing to decrease demand, and may actually increase it.

To control the demand you put the drug users into jail as well as the drug dealers.

Quote
Okay. How do you propose we make that happen?

By inforcing the penality.




Teen Alcoholism doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that, regardless of restriction or regulation, people are going to break the law. You've won nothing, and society has lost because of this stubborn insistance that the war on drugs and prohibition is winnable, or even reasonably containable. Police corruption, political corruption flourish in a prohibitive environment, especially where addictive substances are concerned. This has been demonstrated over and over. Do I really need to keep bringing up Iran-Contra, the Afghani poppy industry, the Vietnam heroin connection? Prohibition cannot work because drugs are responsible for too much corruption. The vast majority of police scandals involve drugs. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons. How can we contain drug abuse in society if we can't even keep them out of our prisons? Will you please, please, for the good of society, wake up? Tobacco is among the most addictive of substances, yet, by treating it as a public health issue rather than a legal issue, less people are using tobacco than they were 20 years ago, and those number continue to go down.

In no way am I advocating drug use, and in no way does lifting prohibition mean that the government is condoning drug use. That is absurd. That's like saying the government condones tobacco and alcohol use. They do not. They treat them as personal choices, yet also treat them a potential health risks, and because of that, our society is far more educated on the affects of both of those substances than we are about any illegal substance. Think about it. Almost everyone knows exacty what alcohol and tobacco do to you. How many Americans really know what marijuana, or meth, or heroin do to you? They know a little, but far from what they know about alcohol and tobacco, because of this horrid prohibiton system.

So, okay Skull, you can continue to keep bringing up Teen Alcoholism over and over again. You seem to perceive that as some sort of trump card or check-mate. I don't question your motives, I know you are after a greater good. So am I. But you seem fixated on this notion that those who advocate the lift of drug prohibition are acting out a desire to get high. Some are. But if you look at my motives, and if you look at the other thread I posted on this issue, there are advocates who are opposed to drug use, but have come to their senses that drug prohibition does not work. You can keep saying that drug abuse would grow by removing prohibition, but you are operating on an assumption that you cannot prove. Proof that drug abuse flourishes despite prohibition is already proven. I would go one step further that it flourishes BECAUSE of prohibition, but I won't fault anyone if they disagree with that statement, as it's a little more open to debate.

In any case, I am tired of trying to convince people that because I advocate the decriminalization of drugs I am in favor of drug abuse. I also don't wish for this thread to be hijacked by this debate any more. That was why I created the other thread. I welcome you to join the debate there, as I don't think it's fair for us to continue here. This will be my last post on this issue in this thread.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Skull
Guest
« Reply #254 on: August 06, 2010, 10:02:08 AM »


Teen Alcoholism doesn't prove anything.

 Drink

Quote
All it proves is that, regardless of restriction or regulation, people are going to break the law.


VERY TRUE!!!! And I win!!! Have a nice day.  Cheers

Sorry no need for me talk about this issue anymore!
« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 10:04:22 AM by Skull » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 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.