This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Drug use
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Calm down, its only a word.
That's intended to be blocked. That bypass is getting used a tone now, and it's getting irritating.
Post by
donnymurph
Donny, don't bypass the censor. God, why did I show you all how to do that?You didn't show me. And surely you can understand that I get a little frustrated when people continuously ask the same question, even though it has been answered mutiple times,
including in the OP
.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
donnymurph
Swearing has excellent cathartic properties.
Post by
Monday
Ok, so maybe Donny, try using "carnally indulging time" and maybe poor funden won't get so distressed. Wouldn't have that frustration releasing edge though, would it?
It's not that the word was used that bothered me, it's that I used that bypass once, and suddenly EVERYONE in L&RP was using it, then people in Randomness started using it to. It's just getting old.
Post by
asakawa
There are plenty of ways to bypass language filters but just don't do it. If catharsis is required then feel free to swear out-loud but keep a milder tone on the forum please.
Now, let's keep the discussion in this thread on the topic at hand.
Post by
Squishalot
Bumped to take on the current News Thread topic.
Post by
gamerunknown
I actually disagree with the right wing libertarian view that prohibition is a bad thing because it interferes with market forces*. I think prohibition is a bad thing because it interferes with an individual's liberty, assuming they're a consenting adult. The question is whether we can assume that an individual is capable of making an informed decision to take drugs, as much as whether they can make an informed decision to end their own lives.
I don't entirely agree with the notion that prohibition drives people to experiment and explore. While there is a correlation in cases such as
marijuana use
and
abortion
, the causative property is probably the tax and spend model. Besides, such an argument would be reprehensible for supporting
state sanctioned assassinations
or rape.
*Milton Friedman said that he quit smoking but doesn't want it banned, because that would be an unfair restriction on the markets: he just thinks people that smoke are stupid. Of course, there's the massive problem of the rational actor theory when people have to contend with a multi-billion dollar company that funds think tanks like uhm... the competitive enterprise institute or something? At any rate, those guys are awarded free air time and the people that have been the victims of market indoctrination that are watching the "expert analysis" from people that live on a 6 figure stipend from Phillip Morris and Exxon mobile are less capable of making informed decisions than the guys footing the CEI bills and paying the viewer's wages. I mean, there is a more
enlightened view
that harkens back to the original libertarianism (rather than the grotesque pro-corporate feudalism apologists) while still taking economic principles into consideration. That is, that the penultimate way in which the government can deprive one's liberty and pursuit of happiness is by removing the capacity for free association and movement. The ultimate way is depriving an individual of life and a more minor way is by impinging on the rights of property.
Anyway, as statute stands, the edicts prohibiting intoxication where an individual may be a threat to another (in the workplace or on the roads) are more than sufficient to cover any form of drug abuse in my view. That said, the concern is hardly about public health: if that were the case, ordinary nicotine cigarettes would be banned and very heavy restrictions placed on the fast food industries. The two biggest killers in the US are coronary disease and cancer.
Finally,
a word from the seer
.
P.S. I'd like to see some substantiation for the claims that government regulation increases poverty and harms the economy. It's difficult when approaching this unless one is familiar with the notion that the social contract takes precedent over a wage contract, which is an essentially Marxist view (the advanced form of capitalist production outcompete handlabour, meaning the peasant has the "option" of joining a manufacturing industry and providing their surplus-labour as a gift to the Capitalist or starving - in this view the capitalist is simultaneously the second and third man in a mixed economy, taking surplus-value without reciprocation in wages or products, then being taxed a fraction of that to provide for the pauper).
Edit: In response to the actual thread, I've had ibuprofen, paracetamol, caffeine, NO (at the dentist's) and alcohol (I also take sleeping pills, but I'm not sure which those would fall under). Only alcohol and caffeine are consumed for recreational purposes (caffeine very rarely, usually in the form of Jaeger bombs or getting a buzz from energy drinks when I was younger) - I suppose if I consumed or combined the above pills to excess it'd be more funerary than fun (and would not be my
ideal out
). I was convinced I wouldn't drink until I started university and found it really hard to socialise. I didn't realise you could go to a pub without drinking until I noticed that's exactly what two of my friends did.
/facepalm.
I stick mostly to water or cider though and sometimes drink to get intoxicated - I don't see why that should be a criminal offence any more than eating above the daily recommended guidelines should be, morbid obesity probably has similar ramifications to alcoholism in terms of costs to society.
There were a lot of parenthetical interjections there. Hrmm.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I momentarily forgot where or who I was, even that I was human and all I could perceive was a strange pattern looping weirdly for a minute or so before slowly becoming more aware of my surroundings. I'm quoted as saying "I just realised we were doing drugs", though I don't remember the events myself.
That's what I meant about being out of control. I don't think that any substance that can/will put you in a position whereby you are unable to control your body and/or substantially impair your awareness of your surroundings should be available for a) recreational use; and b) the average person (as opposed to a registered doctor / pharmacist / anaesthetist) to administer at free will.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pnkflffytutu
Econ teacher at my school said, "Legalize it and tax the crap out of it!"
Post by
MyTie
I doubt you'd argue that's a reason to ban alcohol (I
hope
?).
I think it's a bit naïve to think that there aren't people who can be normal and still do drugs in a controller manner. I happen to know a couple of millionaire business owners who have joined me and their daugter for a joint on many occasion without messing up their lives.
/rant
Alcohol != Marijuana != Meth
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Abusing them all has the same results.
Would you say that abusing caffeine has the same results as abusing crack cocaine?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
You can't take it while doing anything as it requires a bong or bucket* to get the effect I had so there's no possibility of it causing a car crash or anything like that.
Can't say it doesn't happen
(as in, bong usage while driving). Google "bong while driving" for more examples. You can, however, take it while operating heavy machinery (e.g. amusement park operator) and while you're in positions of authority (e.g. teacher?).
And furthermore if you think that's being out of control, I take it sleeping pills should be banned?
Not quite, I think they should be regulated. Just like I don't think anaesthetics should be banned either; there should be regulations in place so that they are used appropriately.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Idorts gonna idort. I should have said nobody sane would.
Depends - are you arguing that he's an idiot for smoking while driving, or an idiot for smoking? (Or an idiot from smoking?) That'll determine if I agree with you.
People can do all sorts of crazy ^&*!, that doesn't mean people will.
For sure, which is why we look at the likelihood that it will be used in an inappropriate way and the potential damage that can result, and regulate accordingly. If you can demonstrate a legitimate use for something with no inappropriate side effects, then lobby the FDA for its removal from the list of illegal drugs*.
*Note: I'm assuming that there is a government body which regulates what drugs are illegal and what isn't, rather than each and every illicit drug being defined in legislation. If that's not the case, then all you need to do is rename a drug to get around the issue :P
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.