Support NeoGAF

[sangreal]

Reminds me of the clone army the way they're lining up

 

[Jenga]

How does it help them to have it illegal?

Personally, part I dislike the most about the whole thing are the drug dealers. Legalization would get rid of them, and a lot of dangers stemming from them would evaporate. It would no longer be a completely unregulated industry that exists outside the law, as it is now.

There are, of course, other dangers. But as a non-user, those are the ones I'm most concerned about.

how does it help them to have it legal?

oh boy now instead of ruining their lives from a gangbanger they can now ruin their lives straight from the government

 

[Terrell]

There's a lot in this post, but I'd just like to point out that as far as I can tell, in the US this is much harder said than done. At least at the federal level. The two party system isn't just entrenched in tradition, it's practically entrenched in law through the primary system and national voter registration by party. And the Democrat and Republican parties are guaranteed a slot on every ballot across the country, but afaik third parties have to individually campaign to be on the ballot for each state individually.

The barrier to entry for a third party is so massive that anyone who can afford to, or is charismatic enough to, do it is probably better off just trying to buy their way into influencing or dominating one of the existing parties, but that means they have to deal with the party's entrenched ideologies and bureaucracy so real change is unlikely (cf. Obama).

What this amounts to is not a lot of actual democracy at the federal level in the US, and I think that's one of the things Occupy is aimed at changing. Unfortunately, because of the above, trying to push in a third party is almost certainly the least effective method possible of doing this.

As I said... that entire problem exists because it's perpetuated. Things can't change overnight, but giving into the status quo is never going to amount to any change happening either. Supporting the way things are now isn't going to get anybody ANYWHERE.
Screaming "you're doing it wrong" doesn't mean shit to politicians when they're still getting votes based on how the system currently operates. You only have ONE option to change that, so start bloody taking it. Saying a 3rd-party vote amounts to nothing is a perpetuation of a cycle. YOU are responsible for your own place in the world. Do what's right for you and let the chips fall as they must.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Simply disgusting that they actually arrest people. This is really not worth the paperwork....

 

[jorma]

how does it help them to have it legal?

oh boy now instead of ruining their lives from a gangbanger they can now ruin their lives straight from the government

so how DOES it help having it illegal?

 

[maharg]

Saying a 3rd-party vote amounts to nothing is a perpetuation of a cycle.

I didn't actually say that. At all.

What I said is that it's almost impossible for a third party to have any hope in a federal election in the US because of legal and regulatory barriers, and that any movement that tries to change things by creating a third party in the US is pretty much doomed to failure.

 

[Jenga]

so how DOES it help having it illegal?

arrests those who sell it and keep it on the market and make it available?

while I agree that in general prosecution of users is highly questionable and should be re-examined in this country, prosecution of pushers is a-okay

sometimes i swear people live in a fantasy world where rehab magically fixes everything for addicts and that in general people are actually responsible enough to handle hard narcotics

 

[sangreal]

http://www.ustream.tv/occupysf

Frontlines of the ongoing confrontation with the police in the streets

Interesting watching this while listening to the police radio discuss the same crowd and their efforts to move it

 

[Terrell]

I didn't actually say that. At all.

What I said is that it's almost impossible for a third party to have any hope in a federal election in the US because of legal and regulatory barriers, and that any movement that tries to change things by creating a third party in the US is pretty much doomed to failure.

Ummm... are you SURE that you're not saying that a 3rd-party vote amounts to nothing? Because saying that something's "doomed to failure" can't really be interpreted any other way that I know of. Please feel free to explain further so that I can understand the distinction that currently doesn't appear to exist.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

What kind of magic bullet is a third party? it's a really poor talking point

again, these issues are for more structural than having some cute third party for show. the corporate media monopolies would make that moot, first of all, and the plethora of other issues we have again are systematic and are irrelevant to the dickheads in office.

 

[Princess Carl]

There's a lot in this post, but I'd just like to point out that as far as I can tell, in the US this is much harder said than done. At least at the federal level. The two party system isn't just entrenched in tradition, it's practically entrenched in law through the primary system and national voter registration by party. And the Democrat and Republican parties are guaranteed a slot on every ballot across the country, but afaik third parties have to individually campaign to be on the ballot for each state individually.

The barrier to entry for a third party is so massive that anyone who can afford to, or is charismatic enough to, do it is probably better off just trying to buy their way into influencing or dominating one of the existing parties, but that means they have to deal with the party's entrenched ideologies and bureaucracy so real change is unlikely (cf. Obama).

What this amounts to is not a lot of actual democracy at the federal level in the US, and I think that's one of the things Occupy is aimed at changing. Unfortunately, because of the above, trying to push in a third party is almost certainly the least effective method possible of doing this.

It is really fucking scary.

And yes two party politics in the USA are essentially the big show that keeps the elite in power. It's a very good system and combined with total media control paints a really shitty picture; they are essentially socializing every generation from the start and continuously throughout their life.

 

[alstein]

I didn't actually say that. At all.

What I said is that it's almost impossible for a third party to have any hope in a federal election in the US because of legal and regulatory barriers, and that any movement that tries to change things by creating a third party in the US is pretty much doomed to failure.

Then everything is doomed to failure possibly. I can't accept that answer.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

There's never going to be a third party as long as we don't take Washington's play money away. The amount of money poured into the elections and bribery of Democratic and Republican candidates is insane. At the end of the day, by far most of the candidates we get to vote on are candidates who have enough money to bombard us with their ugly faces and convince us they are worth voting for. This is why this movement right now is more effective than voting third party at this point in time. When money is no longer the main force behind elections and propaganda, and when politicians are forced to engage more deeply with their constituencies, only then will third parties be a viable possibility. Right now we need to focus on getting the money out of Washington, repealing the insane corporations are people shit, making it illegal for senators or people in office to trade on non-public information, making their financial activities more transparant (if you are in office you are serving the people, not your own bottom line) and take other necessary steps to minimize the influence of money on our politicians.

Yes, third parties are necessary to move towards a better functioning government. Now is the time to take other steps that will make third parties viable though.

 

[jorma]

arrests those who sell it and keep it on the market and make it available?

while I agree that in general prosecution of users is highly questionable and should be re-examined in this country, prosecution of pushers is a-okay

sometimes i swear people live in a fantasy world where rehab magically fixes everything for addicts and that in general people are actually responsible enough to handle hard narcotics

you are the one in fantasy world if you think drugs are being kept off the market currently.

 

[maharg]

Ummm... are you SURE that you're not saying that a 3rd-party vote amounts to nothing? Because saying that something's "doomed to failure" can't really be interpreted any other way that I know of. Please feel free to explain further so that I can understand the distinction that currently doesn't appear to exist.

If I say it's useless to try to sell ice cubes to eskimos it doesn't mean it's useless for an eskimo to buy an ice cube, it's just a really poor business model.

Third party votes, whether for protest or for intent to change, matter. They're important. But in a system that is deliberately and systematically designed to marginalize third parties at every level (and I mean above and beyond the usual Westminster problem of first past the post marginalizing people's votes at a local level), resting your attempt to change on the election of or even protest votes for a third party is just boneheaded. To put this into perspective, Ross Perot spent tens of millions or more on his bids for president in the 90s and never won a single electoral college vote despite winning in the tens of percentage points of the popular vote. Occupy has no hope of even mounting a bid at this level that could even achieve that, so their energy is best spent elsewhere.

You keep saying that the problem is people promoting the system through their participation in it, but in this case participation in the system includes attempts to wrest power from the established and very old power base through the virtually impossible election of a third party.

I think from your posts that you are Canadian, and that's great, because so am I and that means I can use a comparison with the US to demonstrate how your experience with the Canadian system is not useful to this discussion:

In Canada, there has not been a single federal election in the last 50 years in which a third party has not won at least a decent margin of seats in the federal legislature (which, in American terms, is like if they voted for both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives at the same time). In the last 50 years only a handful of presidential elections have produced even a small minority of third party electoral votes (again, Ross Perot got none in his). In the ones where they managed to, it was either because of the two states where college votes are allocated proportionately to vote count or to extremely regional candidates.

I don't have data for the House or the Senate on hand, but it's a pretty similarly bleak picture for third parties as far as I know. Independents stand a better chance, and even have an easier time getting on the ballot than third parties, but even so a lot of independents are formerly of one of the other parties and have simply drifted from the core base of their party (something that can't happen as easily in Canada because of party discipline).

 

[sans_pants]

arrests those who sell it and keep it on the market and make it available?

while I agree that in general prosecution of users is highly questionable and should be re-examined in this country, prosecution of pushers is a-okay

sometimes i swear people live in a fantasy world where rehab magically fixes everything for addicts and that in general people are actually responsible enough to handle hard narcotics

the problem is that people still want their drugs. we are the most heavily drugged society in the world and its not because dealers aren't being arrested left and right. we build up this huge black market with our desires and because it's illegal it also leads to a ton of violence and huge gang and cartel infrastructures. letting the government handle it isn't a perfect solution but you will never eradicate drug use without educating people on how dangerous some of them are and demystifying them.

i dont pretend to know your family members story but most people don't pick up heroin or coke and immediately slip into addiction. there's a process to it that can be worked on better from the beginning with better education. and there is a human cost but hard drug use is still not that widespread and it's unlikely people will start picking up the needle just because it's legal

 

[alstein]

There's never going to be a third party as long as we don't take Washington's play money away. The amount of money poured into the elections and bribery of Democratic and Republican candidates is insane. At the end of the day, by far most of the candidates we get to vote on are candidates who have enough money to bombard us with their ugly faces and convince us they are worth voting for. This is why this movement right now is more effective than voting third party at this point in time. When money is no longer the main force behind elections and propaganda, and when politicians are forced to engage more deeply with their constituencies, only then will third parties be a viable possibility. Right now we need to focus on getting the money out of Washington, repealing the insane corporations are people shit, making it illegal for senators or people in office to trade on non-public information, making their financial activities more transparant (if you are in office you are serving the people, not your own bottom line) and take other necessary steps to minimize the influence of money on our politicians.

Yes, third parties are necessary to move towards a better functioning government. Now is the time to take other steps that will make third parties viable though.

Without being able to transfer that power into winning elections, which I think will require primarying folks, it can just be ignored.

Ultimately OWS has to move to the ballot box, with candidates supporting their views, to have anything happen.

The first goal needs to be getting the money out to lower the barrier, the problem is once you're in power you begin to like the system.

 

[TangMeng]

Mayor and police chief about to speak: http://www.ustream.tv/occupyoakland

 

[IrishNinja]

There are some things that just aren't healthy. A government explicitly legalizing (Giving its endorsement) to those things is not in the best interest of its people.

never understand this notion - why is it up to the state to regulate the behavior of a cognitive and autonomous being? there's all kind'sve shit you're not stopped from doing, but are horrible ideas nonetheless.

 

[sans_pants]

dunno if you guys saw this or not

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJgHV-HcfHg&feature=player_embedded

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Without being able to transfer that power into winning elections, which I think will require primarying folks, it can just be ignored.

I'm sorry but this is just really, really, incredibly tiring. I agree with your notion that we need change to happen at the ballot, but this attitude of ''it's not changing things at the ballot right now so it's useless'' is very tiring. This belief that all this that has happened has had no effect on people or future ballots is simple minded. I've accepted that some people just don't see that this movement is a necessary step towards something that will have an impact come election day. But saying that it's useless is so wrong on so many levels though. This movement is necessary, we might not agree with the effectiveness or legality of it's actions, but it is a necessary step in creating an atmosphere where true change has the opportunity to manifest itself.

 

[alstein]

I'm sorry but this is just really, really, incredibly tiring. I agree with your notion that we need change to happen at the ballot, but this attitude of ''it's not changing things at the ballot right now so it's useless'' is very tiring. This belief that all this that has happened has had no effect on people or future ballots is simple minded. I've accepted that some people just don't see that this movement is a necessary step towards something that will have an impact come election day. But saying that it's useless is so wrong on so many levels though. This movement is necessary, we might not agree with the effectiveness or legality of it's actions, but it is a necessary step in creating an atmosphere where true change has the opportunity to manifest itself.

I didn't say what was going on was useless. It's been damn useful already. The thing is, for it to stay useful, it is going to have to generate fear. Social change only works when it causes fear. It's causing fear now, look at the reaction by the oligarchs.

I'm not saying pack up, but I'm saying that people have to vote as well (though I suspect the next step will be to try disenfranchising protestors)

Serious question: Should we consider starting a push to disarm most American police?

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I didn't say what was going on was useless. It's been damn useful already. The thing is, for it to stay useful, it is going to have to generate fear.

I'm happy to say we don't disagree at all then =)

uld we consider starting a push to disarm most American police?

The police are looking more and more like the military. I think the problem isn't that they have all this fancy equipment though, the error lies in the way it is used. If it's used against terrorism, gang violence, drug violence, then sure, go ahead. What they're doing here is using military grade tactics, equipment and mindset to squash people's first amendment rights. It's sad. In general though, I guess you could say that there needs to be a rethinking of what the police is and what it is not. That would lead to a better re-assessment of what equipment/armament is necessary.

dunno if you guys saw this or not

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJgHV-HcfHg&feature=player_embedded

Very, very good stuff. Can't help but nod and get pumped up when hearing him speak. Yes, he hits the conspiracy nerve, but not too much. Most people would agree completely with what he said, it's not the out there stuff. Thanks for the video man. Posted it on Facebook already.

 

[Jenga]

you are the one in fantasy world if you think drugs are being kept off the market currently.

i'm not sure what part of my argument you're addressing

in fact you're not addressing any of it, just because drugs can't be completely kept off the market shouldn't mean the government should try to profit off human misery nor stop trying to keep it off the market

but hey we're so used to that might as well make money of off that huh

there's a process to it that can be worked on better from the beginning with better education.

drug education on hard narcotics usually do one thing. make people not want to do hard narcotics

 

[empty vessel]

If you don't like the way things are, don't rabble about it in angry finger-pointing protests while openly supporting what you hate... change yourself to reflect your beliefs.

Think banks are greedy motherfuckers? Don't use one. Credit unions are a good in-between solution, but I'm actually going back to a money-under-mattress solution. Money in banks and credit unions is money in the investment ecosystem which fuels the banks. Even credit unions invest your money into businesses that benefit the big banks. If I don't like how banks do business, instead of hating them, just stop giving them what they want - nay, what they NEED - to survive: MONEY.

Think corporations are ruining the world with pollution and wasteful behavior and a callous disregard for workers and the society they provide to? Re-think what you spend your money on recreationally and for necessity. I've stopped buying clothes, I have enough already. My toiletries (shampoo, toothpaste, etc) are all produced naturally and without by-products. No more cigarettes and booze, because they support the idea that business can separate itself from moral responsibility to society. I'm not buying games that don't offer full digital distribution (why the hell do we still need discs other than to placate retailers with better sales margins than console sales offer?)... so the next run of consoles better give me that option in lieu of a disc... if I even BUY any of the new consoles that are sure to come out in the next few years. No more new gadgets until something breaks completely. I don't need the newest and greatest thing, and when I bought my most recent computer, I bought it with longevity in mind, not just what I need right now at the cheapest price only to be rid of it later. Very simple things. And as many have pointed out, people in the Occupy movement sometimes fall into supporting these "evil" corporations that they lambast. Because we're indoctrinated into that type of culture. If you don't like what they're doing, don't give in to conspicuous consumption. Simple. Don't rant about it to Wall Street men who don't care what you say... they only care what you buy. And what you don't.

While I think these are good personal ideals to strive for, this kind of discrete, individual action can never affect any kind of fundamental change. The problems that we have require political solutions. That means people acting in coordination to affect fundamental policy changes in government--the place that lays down and enforces the rules for all to follow--that will benefit the society as a whole.

If I want to end corporate pollution or to end the practice of corporate sweatshops, I cannot do it by merely changing my buying habits and advocating that others do the same. It will not work, ever. And any other corporation to which you turn to try to secure your needs and wants will be exceedingly unlikely to be complying with all of your ethical requirements, even if that company has a "green" image. Nor can changes in my personal consumer behavior alter the gross imbalance of power between the laboring class and investor class that has resulted in huge shifts in the distribution of income in American society over the last three decades. These problems require systemic solutions using the very tool society created for the purpose: government.

It may make you personally feel good to alter your consuming behavior, and I certainly don't discourage trying as best you can to align your moral convictions with your economic activity (as impossible as I think that is in reality), but don't mistake what you are doing for a means of effecting social change.

 

[jorma]

i'm not sure what part of my argument you're addressing

i have not really identified an argument until now.

in fact you're not addressing any of it, just because drugs can't be completely kept off the market shouldn't mean the government should try to profit off human misery nor stop trying to keep it off the market

yes, it fucking well should. this repressive anti drug war is killing people. the drug trade is being given over to evil men who dont give two shits about the people who use their products, and - in the case of drugs like heroin - inflates the price to insanity levels where addicts are forced into a life of crime just to support the habit. crimes that affect everyone.

and why? because of some fucked up notion that 'government should not endorse drug use' we've sent the entire world into a war on drugs that cant be won and only causes misery for everyone, for the people on drugs, and for everyone who is a victim of the crimes they are committing to support the habit.

so what happens to hard drug use in environments where it's legal? NOTHING - it stays on the same level. So there are zero scientific reasons to keep it banned, they are all ideological. It really fucks me up that someone with close relatives on hard drugs wants to keep them criminals :X

but hey we're so used to that might as well make money of off that huh

quite frankly yes. tax it hard and use it to finance detox for those who want to get off the habit.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

quite frankly yes. tax it hard and use it to finance detox for those who want to get off the habit.

Why if we have to legalize hard users must we care about what happens to them? Why not use that money to fund education, health care, etc?

 

[Jenga]

i have not really identified an argument until now.



yes, it fucking well should. this repressive anti drug war is killing people. the drug trade is being given over to evil men who dont give two shits about the people who use their products, and - in the case of drugs like heroin - inflates the price to insanity levels where addicts are forced into a life of crime just to support the habit. crimes that affect everyone.

and why? because of some fucked up notion that 'government should not endorse drug use' we've sent the entire world into a war on drugs that cant be won and only causes misery for everyone, for the people on drugs, and for everyone who is a victim of the crimes they are committing to support the habit.

so what happens to hard drug use in environments where it's legal? NOTHING - it stays on the same level. So there are zero scientific reasons to keep it banned, they are all ideological. It really fucks me up that someone with close relatives on hard drugs wants to keep them criminals :X



quite frankly yes. tax it hard and use it to finance detox for those who want to get off the habit.

ah, so you're an extremist on the issue.

let me clarify what I believe on the drugwar issue:

- The drug war should still be kept around

- The drug war needs to be heavily reformed to ease up on users while also providing rehabilitation rather than imprisonment

- The drug war needs to be heavily focused on the providers and sellers

- Weed should be legalized


I'm sorry, but no, heavy narcotics should not EVER be legalized. And I'll stand by it. The current drug war in this country is a very, very ugly thing. But like most things it can be reformed into a much more effective policy.

as for taxation...again, I don't support the government profiting off of human misery. They already do, adding money from meth or crack etc would just be more evil cherries on the top.

 

[jorma]

Why if we have to legalize hard users must we care about what happens to them? Why not use that money to fund education, health care, etc?

we dont have to care.

 

[Jenga]

we dont have to care.

pretty evil dude

 

[empty vessel]

A couple days old, but interesting:

Ex-Seattle chief: 'Occupy' police use 'failed' tactics

"There's a lack of patience, there's a lack of imagination and there are clear over-reactions to the challenges the police perceive. It is all so disheartening."

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

A couple days old, but interesting:

Ex-Seattle chief: 'Occupy' police use 'failed' tactics

"There's a lack of patience, there's a lack of imagination and there are clear over-reactions to the challenges the police perceive. It is all so disheartening."

Rich coming from that schmuck. Pretty worthless.

we dont have to care.

Why waste the money?

Oh Occupy Philly got cleaned out finally.

Oh the statement from them is hilarious. LOL
http://occupyphillymedia.org/

People's Plaza now under police occupation

At around 12:30AM Occupy Philly has been driven out of Dilworth Plaza by a veritable army of police. After three warnings were issued by police, roughly four or five dozen Occupiers got up and took to the streets spontaneously in an especially spirited march through center city to Rittenhouse Park. Bike cops started blocking us at different intersections, but after a cat and mouse game, we managed to regroup at Rittenhouse park to hold a sit in and read a letter to the police suggesting they take the right side of the struggle and if necessary disobey orders.

A pallet castle constructed to as an inner defense was dismantled but it's inhabitant was able to elude arrest.

Following Rittenhouse, the crowd started to swell and wind its way spontaneously through center city, mostly orbiting the former Commune.

Police have been generally somewhat hands off throughout the night, though several efforts at undoing of police barricades turned into scuffles were cop aggression quickly escalated. Twice police pulled a knife on a protester and in other instances a woman from our media team was injured by police horses charging into a crowd and was taken to the hospital possibly with a broken leg. Others have been hit by batons or bicycles.

Good to see the Philly PD clean up the squatters and loons who have been crapping all over Dilworth Plaza!

Philly Liberated!

 

[jorma]

ah, so you're an extremist on the issue.
.

no, you are the extremist, and the ideologist. you are causing the death of people that does not have to die, because of your moral stance on drugs. There is no science to support that repressing drug users by criminalising them is helping anyone, or keeping anyone off those drugs.

And 90% of the burglaries in my city are made by heroinists, because they have to make 100 euro every day to support the habit, when the actual cost of the drug is 1 euro. And the drugs they do get is so tainted they get sick and die a lot sooner than they should have to.

if we don't want the drug market in the hands of the scum that currently runs it, the government has to do it. no other options.

Personally i favour a government monopoly on the sales of all drugs, including alcohol. that is enough to ensure that the black market is kept small enough to be insignificant.

pretty evil dude

Manos is a pretty evil dude, in case you didnt already know.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Manos is a pretty evil dude, in case you didnt already know.

LOL

That would be a great tag!

 

[onadesertedisland]

The disconnect between the everyday person and the world around them (the American idea of individualism, iyw) has caused our society to not care about problems until they affect them.

I call it, importance isolation. The media profits from it, our culture perpetuates it.

Societies function only when altruism and empathy are championed. A fundamental "truth" to America eschews both.

 

[empty vessel]

Why waste the money?

Why waste money on treating a fellow human's health?

You really do not see the benefits of having healthy, rather than sick, humans around you?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Why waste money on treating a fellow human's health?

Maybe they shouldn't smoke meth or crack or shoot heroin.

You really do not see the benefits of having healthy, rather than sick, humans around you?

Then why legalize hard drugs if you only want to keep trying to treat them. If you're making money off people's drug use it somewhere that it benefits most people (or those who have to deal with the junkies)

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Dealing with addicts eventually helps everyone around them too. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, we still try to treat people with addictions to those because it benefits everyone in the end.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Dealing with addicts eventually helps everyone around them too. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, we still try to treat people with addictions to those because it benefits everyone in the end.

What about people who have no interest in being clean?

 

[empty vessel]

Maybe they shouldn't smoke meth or crack or shoot heroin.

That's all well and good, but we know that people do use them (and we know more so in inequitable, unstable societies than in equitable, stable ones). If you are only interested in casting moral blame, then blame away. If you are interested in solving problems, then this point is irrelevant.

Then why legalize hard drugs if you only want to keep trying to treat them. If you're making money off people's drug use it somewhere that it benefits most people (or those who have to deal with the junkies)

I don't personally advocate making money off people's drug use. Regardless of whether people's diseases are taxed, I nevertheless advocate treating people because I prefer to live in a society with healthy people than with sick people. It's better for me (and everybody else) in the long run across a range of spheres, including economic and physical safety.

 

[Azih]

What about people who have no interest in being clean?

They wouldn't come in for help anyway? And why should those people create a situation where people who DO want help don't get any?

 

[dave is ok]

LOL

That would be a great tag!

Know what else would be a great tag? 'Banned'

 

[Jenga]

no, you are the extremist, and the ideologist. you are causing the death of people that does not have to die, because of your moral stance on drugs.

woah woah woah back the fuck up

are my eyes playing tricks on me or is the guy championing the government making money off of addicts calling me the extremist

I'm not sure how offering actual rehabilitation (read: rehab) rather than imprisoning is murdering ANYBODY but you're already far far gone my friend

also, even if drugs were all de-criminalized addicts would still have a tough time

why?

don't know many companies that would employ a hard narcotics addict over someone who isn't. it's not just a legal thing, but a nationwide attitude.

EDIT: okay not even a nation-wide attitude. more like the corporate attitude of the western world.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

They wouldn't come in for help anyway? And why should those people create a situation where people who DO want help don't get any?

Why does it have to be legalized then?

Know what else would be a great tag? 'Banned'

I think akira28 has that one at the moment.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Why does it have to be legalized then?

Everybody is responding to the hypothetical situation created in the last page. Your shtick of continuing to ask questions that move farther and farther away from the actual point in order for you to dodge giving real answers was not missed at all.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I think akira28 has that one at the moment.

I still kinda want him to have "prosaic" as a tag.

Edit: or "platitudinous".

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Everybody is responding to the hypothetical situation created in the last page. Your shtick of continuing to ask questions that move farther and farther away from the actual point in order for you to dodge giving real answers was not missed at all.

Quit dodging the question and trying to blame me for your own shortcomings in constructing an argument. Why does it have to be legalized?

 

[Azih]

Why does it have to be legalized then?

That's a separate issue that has no relation to your original question or my answer to it.

My point remains that it's crazy to not help people AT ALL just because there are some people who have no interest in being helped.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Quit dodging the question and trying to blame me for your own shortcomings in constructing an argument. Why does it have to be legalized?

Quit asking questions to hide the fact that you don't read threads. I am against making hard drugs illegal. I am also against not using the money raised through taxes, on hypothetical legal drugs, for rehab and programs that help people get off drugs.

I like you Azih.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

. I am against making hard drugs illegal.

So you're fine with a crackhead or meth freak next door?

I am also against not using the money raised through taxes, on hypothetical legal drugs, for rehab and programs that help people get off drugs.

So it's just a circular flow of money that helps no one but junkies?

That's a separate issue that has no relation to your original question or my answer to it.

No it isn't, but it's nice for you to try and help Rocket out.