Conquer Club

Anarchist wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:Giving money to dope pleadlers is the same to me as walking up to same 14-year old and shooting them in the head. Or smothering them in their sleep with their own pillow. Those who would argue the reverse are sick in the head.

They sure are Jenos, they sure are.....

Anybody who didn't agree with that would have to lack all powers of logical reasoning and analysis, and would probably be a reactionary sensationalist conservative who wasn't thinking about what he was typing.

This episode reminds me of "Reefer madness"
Instead of the kid being so high he shoots himself, hes running around killing 14 year olds after smoking pot Thank god we have the government to save us from this "Mexican killer weed" Can we bring out the quote comparing Cannabis to Frankenstein?

My point is: buying drugs pays for criminals to finance, well, crime. And getting others hooked. And addicts tend to become dealers and even makers. Drug-related crimes also has the freakishly high tendicy to take the lives of not only the criminals and police involved, but also any bystanders. To me, it would be the same as murdering them all without bothering with all the stuff leading up to it. That's all.

HAVE FUN!


...duh

Jenos, its a two way street
there can be no chase, without someone running and without someone chasing. Cause and effect. Its Circular Violence, both sides are responsible for holding the torch.

Now im sure that in many cases you have chosen a side, Why?
When both sides cannot remember the cause, simply remember the retribution why choose a side at all?

The only difference between the criminal and the legal is the side that supports them. We have seen many times that laws can become abused, whether something is legal or not is relative to society.

Bore am you!
For fleece and fleece be true!
Bore am you!

Jenos Ridan wrote:My point is: buying drugs pays for criminals to finance, well, crime. And getting others hooked. And addicts tend to become dealers and even makers. Drug-related crimes also has the freakishly high tendicy to take the lives of not only the criminals and police involved, but also any bystanders. To me, it would be the same as murdering them all without bothering with all the stuff leading up to it. That's all.

I sort of get what you're saying, but I think it's quite misguided.

First, I know people who manufacture, deal and use marijuana. Every step of the chain. Believe me, none of them are criminals (other than the crime of growing/selling cannabis, of course) and none of the money goes to fund big gangs.

*Most* drugs aren't physically addictive, and to suggest that someone, say, dropping some acid or taking a couple of Es at the weekend is EVER going to become addicted to them is just plain wrong. Physically at least. Mentally it's possible to get addicted to tomato soup.

Personally, I think it's my moral obligation to break laws that aren't justified. If it wasn't for people breaking the law nobody in Britain (or the US for that matter) would have the vote ....

AlgyTaylor wrote: *Most* drugs aren't physically addictive, and to suggest that someone, say, dropping some acid or taking a couple of Es at the weekend is EVER going to become addicted to them is just plain wrong. Physically at least. Mentally it's possible to get addicted to tomato soup.

???????


You can't be serious!

It is possible to become physically addicted to crack-cocaine by just taking one "hit".

The notion that "most drugs are not physically addictive" goes against all the drug research known to man! The opposite is in fact, is true.

jay_a2j wrote:The notion that "most drugs are not physically addictive" goes against all the drug research known to man! The opposite is in fact, is true.

Oh fffs.

check erowid

Your statement just isn't true. Most drugs aren't physically addictive, and most drug users are not a danger to anyone. I'm not suggesting that there are no "bad" drugs by any stretch of the imagination, but the majority of drugs do not harm society.

AlgyTaylor wrote:First, I know people who manufacture, deal and use marijuana. Every step of the chain. Believe me, none of them are criminals (other than the crime of growing/selling cannabis, of course) and none of the money goes to fund big gangs.

Firstly, I smoke cannabis recreationally on occasion (more so in the past) and I have used other drugs on occasion (most of em really...), so don't take me for a moral-crusade type...

But... WHAT THE f*ck? Please don't kid yourself! The global cannabis trade is controlled mostly by criminals and gangsters. You might be in a situation in which you can buy from a friend who grows it, and that is brilliant, but the vast vast majority of those who control the cannabis trade worldwide are organised criminal gangs. prices are controlled, the quality is regulated... Would the 'decent' people who you think supply us all with our drugs cut it on such a regular basis? Would you still find bits of plastic on your resin? Believe me, because, like you, I know a lot of people involved. It is not a pretty scene. I know a guy who had his arm broken recently by Moroccan gangsters for not paying up his debts on resin they'd smuggled into the country, and they'd not just smuggled his little bit in. He reckoned they'd got thousands of pounds worth. Pretty much ALL the money goes to fund big gangs. Furthermore, gangs start off selling weed and pretty quickly they realise that it is much more profitable to shot pills or coke... And thats a whole other story.

Your average cannabis dealer may not be a 'criminsl' in that sense, but don't kid yourself lad. All the more reason for legalisation - it certainly needs to be taken out of the hands of gangs and criminals - but to say that its an innocent drug is entirely and totally naive!

MR. Nate wrote:That's pretty broad. A lot of things that "Don't hurt others" have negative results that end up hurting others. For instance, smoking pot in your basement by yourself may not hurt others, except the money you spent to buy it went to support a dealer somewhere, and it allowed him to give crack to a 14 for free (to get them hooked) and you contributed to the man who ruined their life.

Geez, talk about being broad. Can I play?

A church builds a new home for a family in need. The owner a single father, now no longer needing to make mortgage payments buys a jug of wine to celebrate. The celebration makes everyone feel good so he buys a case of wine every week with his extra money. The man is drunk continuously with his extra cash & wine, never recieving any financial counseling from the church do-gooders. The man is fired from his job for not coming to work. He becomes depressed and buys more wine, until late one night he puts a gun to his head and kills himself. The children must now be handed from foster home to foster home, deprived of family. So by your logic, the church contributed to the man who ruined their lives.

See how that works? If the marijuana you demonize in your story was legal, there would be no crack dealer.

Guiscard wrote:Firstly, I smoke cannabis recreationally on occasion (more so in the past) and I have used other drugs on occasion (most of em really...), so don't take me for a moral-crusade type...

But... WHAT THE f*ck? Please don't kid yourself!

....

Well, perhaps. I can only speak from my experience, having acquaintances who are in to ... um ... horticulture

jnd94 wrote:Probably the hardest question ever to answer. Please, I hope we can have an educated discussion, and not a bunch of ppl sayin "sex", "gettin high", and "potatoes". What do ppl think?

You're already off to a bad start, you're asking a game forum? Get out....

I would like to think it's like that Albert Brooks movie "Defending Your Life".

Never seen it

Anarchist wrote:Never seen it

The plot basically is about when you die you go to court and defend your life. If you are found worthy enough you stay. I f you are not they send you back to earth to try again. Pretty funny movie with Meryl Streep.

Guiscard wrote:Your average cannabis dealer may not be a 'criminsl' in that sense, but don't kid yourself lad. All the more reason for legalisation - it certainly needs to be taken out of the hands of gangs and criminals - but to say that its an innocent drug is entirely and totally naive!

Are you suggesting there's a difference between politicians and gangs of criminals?

I wont defend that Jolly Roger

AlgyTaylor wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:My point is: buying drugs pays for criminals to finance, well, crime. And getting others hooked. And addicts tend to become dealers and even makers. Drug-related crimes also has the freakishly high tendicy to take the lives of not only the criminals and police involved, but also any bystanders. To me, it would be the same as murdering them all without bothering with all the stuff leading up to it. That's all.

I sort of get what you're saying, but I think it's quite misguided.

First, I know people who manufacture, deal and use marijuana. Every step of the chain. Believe me, none of them are criminals (other than the crime of growing/selling cannabis, of course) and none of the money goes to fund big gangs.

*Most* drugs aren't physically addictive, and to suggest that someone, say, dropping some acid or taking a couple of Es at the weekend is EVER going to become addicted to them is just plain wrong. Physically at least. Mentally it's possible to get addicted to tomato soup.

Personally, I think it's my moral obligation to break laws that aren't justified. If it wasn't for people breaking the law nobody in Britain (or the US for that matter) would have the vote ....

I understand your reasoning too. That does not mean I agree with it. The body is what becomes addicted, not the mind. I have no doubt that most weed farmers aren't out to cause trouble, but the same guy who buys 20 pounds of the stuff from them is also buying 10 pounds of heroin and cocaine. If weed is harmless, the money generated by it is far from harmless.

Jolly Roger wrote:

Guiscard wrote:Your average cannabis dealer may not be a 'criminsl' in that sense, but don't kid yourself lad. All the more reason for legalisation - it certainly needs to be taken out of the hands of gangs and criminals - but to say that its an innocent drug is entirely and totally naive!

Are you suggesting there's a difference between politicians and gangs of criminals?

And thus is the problem with moral relativism, it cannot be used to maintain any sort of social order. Jolly, there is a difference. Gangs are by nature a detrimint to their fellows, while politicians are by intent supposed to help guide the society in question through important issues.

sorry Jenos,

intent just isnt a good enough reason to put them in seperate categories
Hitlers intent after all was to bring Deutchland to its rightfull place on top of the world, does his intent make him better then a Mafia?

Sorry for using the extreme example

Its all excuses, If we get rid of one we get rid of the other.

your arguement about money being bad just prooves the point against property
The arguement about illegal drugs promoting illegal drugs just supports the arguement for legalising them, Its a dark day when prescription drugs kill as many people as the illegal ones

Lol Potatoes.


But on a serious note it is in my opinion that the point of life is whatever you want it to be. Those who say sex or death is the point of life misunderstand. Dying and procreation are merely results of life. The point of life is much less concrete. It can only be decided by the individual. If a person's main goal is to make money then that would be the point of his or her life. Even from a Christian standpoint, individual decisions are the point of life. If you want to say this whole thing is a test proctored by God then the point of this "test" would be to decide what to do with the life that God gave you. Anyway just my 2 cents. Sorry if these arguments have been made before but I came in kinda late. Rebuttals? Support?

42...42 the number 42 (this is what my very geeky friends told me) if you think i am crazy, 42[/quote]

I'm gonna have to agree with Splash here.
42 IS the answer to Life, The Universe and Everything.

Anarchist wrote:sorry Jenos,

intent just isnt a good enough reason to put them in seperate categories
Hitlers intent after all was to bring Deutchland to its rightfull place on top of the world, does his intent make him better then a Mafia?

Sorry for using the extreme example

Its all excuses, If we get rid of one we get rid of the other.

your arguement about money being bad just prooves the point against property
The arguement about illegal drugs promoting illegal drugs just supports the arguement for legalising them, Its a dark day when prescription drugs kill as many people as the illegal ones

True, intent is never enough. Hence the need for action based on stated intent.

Anarchy will not last. If their were not government, there would be nothing to stop a crazy, sick freak from murdering you (likely, in your sleep cause that is how he gets his rock off). And ownership of property is not evil by intent, it is evil by misuse.

I think this might eventually be the thread for a bit of rambling im trying to tie into some coherent idea...keep your eyes peeled.

got tonkaed wrote:I think this might eventually be the thread for a bit of rambling im trying to tie into some coherent idea...keep your eyes peeled.

The point of your life, GT should be to get your degree and get a good-paying job so you can pay an incredible amount of taxes to subsidize my years in a government nursing home. You better work really hard because I really like jello!

Jenos Ridan wrote:

Anarchist wrote:sorry Jenos,

intent just isnt a good enough reason to put them in seperate categories
Hitlers intent after all was to bring Deutchland to its rightfull place on top of the world, does his intent make him better then a Mafia?

Sorry for using the extreme example

Its all excuses, If we get rid of one we get rid of the other.

your arguement about money being bad just prooves the point against property
The arguement about illegal drugs promoting illegal drugs just supports the arguement for legalising them, Its a dark day when prescription drugs kill as many people as the illegal ones

True, intent is never enough. Hence the need for action based on stated intent.

Anarchy will not last. If their were not government, there would be nothing to stop a crazy, sick freak from murdering you (likely, in your sleep cause that is how he gets his rock off). And ownership of property is not evil by intent, it is evil by misuse.

The nuclear bomb isnt bad, its evil by missuse.
Not a great incentive to have one since it will most likely be missused.
Anarchy may not last, but atleast more of us will follow older codes then these highly dissagreeable newer ones.

To be honest im more afraid of the morality police then a sociapath.

luns101 wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:I think this might eventually be the thread for a bit of rambling im trying to tie into some coherent idea...keep your eyes peeled.

The point of your life, GT should be to get your degree and get a good-paying job so you can pay an incredible amount of taxes to subsidize my years in a government nursing home. You better work really hard because I really like jello!

its hard to argue against that logic really....who doesnt like jello?