The General Chit Chat Thread 2

[elvikun]

(click to show/hide)

So basically you're telling everyone that they ought to go ahead and do illegal drugs before they can say negative things about them?

Your brain is lacking some cells, my friend. A large amount of them.

And you are agressive about the topic like a former junkie, thank you very much sir.

And while your misinterpretation is cute, all I'm saying is that you need to have a some degree of knowledge to judge things in such a vocal manner. Applies for calling otaku's 'fags' just as much as going on rampage about drugs in this case.

This is a very good point. Ignorance is great and yelling about how strongly you believe in a cause is also great, and if you hold that belief until the day that you die I hope you end up happy.

But it's like Mormons knocking on your door at 8AM Saturday morning trying to convince you that you should convert and have your soul saved. Holding your belief and sharing it is great, forcing it is not.

Also thought you said you were a former junkie Elvi.

I'm not saying "Go do drugs, kid, it's gooood." as someone suggested, I'm saying don't talk dirt about things you don't have any knowlegde and/or experience with, in this case and in any other. That is pure ignorance and that's even worse than stupidity.

And if I were a junkie, I definitely wouldn't be a former one, where's the fun in that.

[AceHigh]

So basically you're telling everyone that they ought to go ahead and do illegal drugs before they can say negative things about them?

Your brain is lacking some cells, my friend. A large amount of them.

The mere idea that government can outlaw what you put inside your own body is preposterous. Respecting those laws for any reason other than being afraid of being caught is ludicrous as well.

Everything is edible, it's just that some things are edible only once.

[shabutie]

So basically you're telling everyone that they ought to go ahead and do illegal drugs before they can say negative things about them?

Your brain is lacking some cells, my friend. A large amount of them.

The mere idea that government can outlaw what you put inside your own body is preposterous. Respecting those laws for any reason other than being afraid of being caught is ludicrous as well.

Everything is edible, it's just that some things are edible only once.

As Bill Hicks once said "Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit...unnatural?"

[pingryanime]

It can also causes addiction, and in turn a plethora of short and long term damages, financial problems, and other things like violence and job loss.(or trouble finding one)

Note how I say "it _can_ also" instead of "it also." I acknowledge that some might be able to do it without going through the listed issues. Either way, it's a stupid risk that, to me, just is not worth it.

[elvikun]

Still way too generalized to be trully well formed opinion, but you did it without personal attack this time! Progress! Good job!

[metro.]

Pingry I understand where you're coming from, but I've changed my outlook. Mainly a University experience has helped with this, also my drug addict high school mates might have as well. I mean like....I know at least 4 of them are coke heads now.

And I'm all for legalizing everything, and then proceeding to tax the hell out of it and make it clean so that A people don't get bad batches and B people stop dying from drug wars and shit.

If you've made the choice to do drugs, fill your boots mate, I mean really, go hard. But it's still an opinion, telling someone else to live your life this way, or that way, seriously fuck right off.

I'm not yeah man....fight the power, I just that people should make choices, and live with them.

Still way too generalized to be trully well formed opinion, but you did it without personal attack this time! Progress! Good job!

Your way with words is mesmerizing, next think you'll be fast casting empathy on me.

[pingryanime]

And I attacked someone personally when? And do I even need specifics against the detriments of prolonged drug use? Just fucking google it. It's not some bullshit I'm making up on the spot. Honest.

edit:
in my haste to get back to playing BF3, I forgot to mention. I never dictated how anyone should live their life. I've only stated my opinion and I don't think they're anyhting more than that. Opinions.

[metro.]

Who said drugs were good for you?

[pingryanime]

Answering a question with a question is not only lame, but also probably means that you're in a bad position for replying back.

Also you made me die on BF3. I hope you're fucking happy. :<

[metro.]

Your brain is lacking some cells, my friend. A large amount of them.

That was your personal assault.

No one is saying drugs are good for you, still. Everyone here has said they have serious side effects.
I thought that was clear.
Oh yeah, and I don't promote BF3 death <3

Everything is edible, it's just that some things are edible only once.

I mean to say something about this, but Ace that was fucking hilarious.

[elvikun]

@metro
Empathy is unavoidable, when one's cause is just!

@Pingry
There are many drugs which cause no damage to body or mind, drugs which are not addictive, drugs which leave no traces in the body and frankly, only reason they are dangerous is the law.
And mind you "It can also" is dangerous too. Taking aspirin 'can also' cause severe liver and kidney damage or fatal bloodflow problems.
For answer to your question, try scrolling up. It works. And yes, I really belive your knowledge on the subject is "googled it just now".


I also believe countries shouldn't try (and fail terribly at) regulating majority of drugs, starting with weed, ending with crystal meth. For one it would be fatal blow to organized crime (probably leading to overall crime and murder rates decrease), enormous tax income, controlled quality, less addicted people (as currently many addicts actually never seek help, thanks to the fact it means ending up in jail in majority of cases).
From the moral  standpoint, state has no busyness telling what you can and cannot do with your life. If someone wants to eat a brick, they can do so, why stop people from consuming drugs? Not to mention, they are consumed at large regardless of laws.

[pingryanime]

Why do you even bring aspirin into the picture? I'm talking about narcotics, and even specifically mention narcotics in an earlier post. Also, what use do I have for google? I havne't even started pulling out numbers and statistics yet. Only crap you learn as part of common knowledge.


Also don't start giving me crap like, "if you take 5 gallons of xyz, you can get high!" I'm talking about crap that people actually user like meth, weed, ecstasy, etc.

[elvikun]

"Just fucking google it" ... And I'm merely stating that it seems like you did. Aspirin was supposed to be an obvious comparisation of statements. Not obvious enough it seems.

I'm not giving you "that" crap. You are giving the crap to yourself, actually. I'm talking about "illegal" drugs, which I also though was obvious. Again, not enough I see.

[1000mAh]

good morning!

[metro.]

Fuck you all,
I hate this place,
Your Mom's a whore.

I wanted to say that to you mah, but I decided that was too mean.

[1000mAh]

^ I've heard worse

[Saras]

There are many drugs which cause no damage to body or mind, drugs which are not addictive, drugs which leave no traces in the body and frankly, only reason they are dangerous is the law.
And mind you "It can also" is dangerous too. Taking aspirin 'can also' cause severe liver and kidney damage or fatal bloodflow problems.
For answer to your question, try scrolling up. It works. And yes, I really belive your knowledge on the subject is "googled it just now".

I also believe countries shouldn't try (and fail terribly at) regulating majority of drugs, starting with weed, ending with crystal meth. For one it would be fatal blow to organized crime (probably leading to overall crime and murder rates decrease), enormous tax income, controlled quality, less addicted people (as currently many addicts actually never seek help, thanks to the fact it means ending up in jail in majority of cases).
From the moral  standpoint, state has no busyness telling what you can and cannot do with your life. If someone wants to eat a brick, they can do so, why stop people from consuming drugs? Not to mention, they are consumed at large regardless of laws.

They're banned not because they give you a good high, but because the people that "liked to chop on bricks" did a lot of shit that interfered with the lives of other people.

The UN list of drugs isn't a list of substances that make you high. It's a list of substances found in problems. Which is also the reason why there are still a lot of "legal" drugs. All it means is that the people taking them haven't gotten the people who don't serious problems.

I doubt that a joint is going to do more damage to your body than a light punch to the gut. But junkies are a major problem to the people living around them and that is why drugs are illegal.

[froody1911]

^ I was wondering why no one had mentioned this yet. Didn't want to participate directly in the discussion. And there you have the crux of it all.

[EmptyMemory]

Damnit, I learned something today. I'm on summer vacation for a reason, Saras.

[elvikun]

(click to show/hide)

There are many drugs which cause no damage to body or mind, drugs which are not addictive, drugs which leave no traces in the body and frankly, only reason they are dangerous is the law.
And mind you "It can also" is dangerous too. Taking aspirin 'can also' cause severe liver and kidney damage or fatal bloodflow problems.
For answer to your question, try scrolling up. It works. And yes, I really belive your knowledge on the subject is "googled it just now".

I also believe countries shouldn't try (and fail terribly at) regulating majority of drugs, starting with weed, ending with crystal meth. For one it would be fatal blow to organized crime (probably leading to overall crime and murder rates decrease), enormous tax income, controlled quality, less addicted people (as currently many addicts actually never seek help, thanks to the fact it means ending up in jail in majority of cases).
From the moral  standpoint, state has no busyness telling what you can and cannot do with your life. If someone wants to eat a brick, they can do so, why stop people from consuming drugs? Not to mention, they are consumed at large regardless of laws.

They're banned not because they give you a good high, but because the people that "liked to chop on bricks" did a lot of shit that interfered with the lives of other people.

The UN list of drugs isn't a list of substances that make you high. It's a list of substances found in problems. Which is also the reason why there are still a lot of "legal" drugs. All it means is that the people taking them haven't gotten the people who don't serious problems.

I doubt that a joint is going to do more damage to your body than a light punch to the gut. But junkies are a major problem to the people living around them and that is why drugs are illegal.

I didn't say they are banned because they make you high. But some are "listed" because of the direct harm or even seemingly on principe.
I say the ban doesn't work and feeds money to the wrong organisation. The junkies living at the bus stop are still there. They really vile stuff is more widely avaliable than the relatively harmless ones. If states had actuall controll over the drugs a lot of problems would be solved. Of course, that is never going to happen. It's more likely that tobacco and alcohol will be banned too, at this point.