'El Loco' Arrested After 49 Beheaded Bodies Found

[blownragtop]

Oh, like you can already do with alcohol? There are a lot of ruined lives due to alcohol abuse and every single point you make can be also be attributed to it. The fact is in any society there will always be hardworking, industrous types and there will always be worthless shitheads. Legalizing drugs will not change that.

Roughly 70% of Americans drink alcohol. Approximately 10-15% of drinkers will become alcoholics at some point in their life. Many of those will be functional alcoholics, capable of holding jobs and being somewhat responsible in other aspects of their life. I’ll let you do the statistical analysis for meth, coke, heroin... etc. But I’m willing to bet the addiction rates are considerably higher and the percentage of functional addicts is considerably less.

Legalizing is the first step in legitimizing a destructive lifestyle – explain to me again why that’s a good idea?

[46Tbird]

By your numbers, ~7-10% of Americans are alcoholics unable to function. I'll go with that.

What I'm saying is that regardless of "vice", there is about 10-15% of any given population that is never going to amount to shit. That percentage of people will not increase just because drugs are legalized.

The other 85-90% of people aren't going to turn to shit just because an imaginary veil is lifted. Those same people can score drugs today just like the junkies can, but they choose not to.

[War Machine]

if it were "49 armless bodies found" Steve = El Loco



all of that wouldn't fit in a tag, so I had to post it

[jluv]

Roughly 70% of Americans drink alcohol. Approximately 10-15% of drinkers will become alcoholics at some point in their life. Many of those will be functional alcoholics, capable of holding jobs and being somewhat responsible in other aspects of their life. I’ll let you do the statistical analysis for meth, coke, heroin... etc. But I’m willing to bet the addiction rates are considerably higher and the percentage of functional addicts is considerably less.

What is you point? What your saying may all be true, but what does that have to do with legalizing it? It won't make people use. They use either way. If anything, use will likely go down. That's what has happened in other places where drugs were decriminalized/legalized.

Legalizing is the first step in legitimizing a destructive lifestyle – explain to me again why that’s a good idea?

No one needs it legitimized in order to do it anyway. Pretending like something can be done, making and attempting to enforce drug laws - it's backfiring. It fails. It does way more harm than good.

The current system is badly broken. The money and resources need to be redirected towards treatment and education. Even that will never solve the "problem" completely, but it will make the drug problem smaller, and it will eradicate or lessen a ton of the other awful side effects that this ridiculous war on drugs has caused.

If there were a vaccine for cancer that didn't even work, but taking it gave you AIDS, would you take it?

[blownragtop]

It's really Anthropology 101 when you get down to it. Restraining ourselves is only stunting our evolution.

I’ll take issue with this statement because evolution implies selection for desirable traits. The welfare state encourages de-evolution; the proliferation of the least fit. Heart surgeons and rocket scientists aren’t squirting out kids left and right. They’re too busy working. Check out the birth rates in this country and tell me how Americans are evolving.

[Strychnine]

FWIW, I just spent the day on a farm outside Uvalde, TX (~40mi from the border) off of hwy 90, which is said to be one of the most heavily drug trafficked hwys in the country.


And I quote:
"My fathers ranch is on the border and his house is 4 miles inside TX. He has personally stopped drug runners on his land at gunpoint. He says, 'if i dont stop these motherfuckers then they'll think I'm ok with it.' Oh, and those 49 decapitated bodies from last week... Nah, try 79 or 80."


Oh, and I saw a shitload of border patrol on this trip.

[talisman]

I’ll take issue with this statement because evolution implies selection for desirable traits. The welfare state encourages de-evolution; the proliferation of the least fit. Heart surgeons and rocket scientists aren’t squirting out kids left and right. They’re too busy working. Check out the birth rates in this country and tell me how Americans are evolving.

Dude, right above what you quoted I said we need to reduce welfare.

[blownragtop]

What is you point? What your saying may all be true, but what does that have to do with legalizing it? It won't make people use. They use either way.

Cigarettes are legal. I smoke a pack a day for 30 years and develop emphysema. I can no longer work. I am termed disabled and sponge off the government for the rest of my life. Explain to me, in today’s pussified climate of ‘everyone’s a victim’, how drug users are going to be denied similar treatment given legalization.

I don’t give a fuck if people use drugs or not. What I’m concerned about is the prospects of adding ever more leaches to the government host.

If anything, use will likely go down. That's what has happened in other places where drugs were decriminalized/legalized.

Really… But Danny just told me that drug users will be drug users regardless of legality. Now you’re trying to argue that users will be so off put by their drug of choice becoming legal that they’ll quit.

[blownragtop]

Dude, right above what you quoted I said we need to reduce welfare.

I agree… but we both know that’s not a political reality.

[jluv]

Cigarettes are legal. I smoke a pack a day for 30 years and develop emphysema. I can no longer work. I am termed disabled and sponge off the government for the rest of my life. Explain to me, in today’s pussified climate of ‘everyone’s a victim’, how drug users are going to be denied similar treatment given legalization.

I don’t give a fuck if people use drugs are not. What I’m concerned about is the prospects of adding ever more leaches to the government host.

What does that I've to do with legalization? People aren't granted disability and given medical care for emphysema because cigarettes are legal. Their legality has nothing to do with it. Nobody likes a leach, but legalizing drugs won't make more leaches. You're not making a lick of sense.

Really… But Danny just told me that drug users will be drug users regardless of legality. Now you’re trying to argue that users will be so off put by their drug of choice becoming legal that they’ll quit.

Is that really what you got from what I wrote? Lol! That's not what I said at all. In fact, I've said repeatedly that users are going to use - that's the whole point! You are so random.

[blownragtop]

If anything, use will likely go down. That's what has happened in other places where drugs were decriminalized/legalized.

Is that really what you got from what I wrote? Lol! That's not what I said at all. In fact, I've said repeatedly that users are going to use - that's the whole point! You are so random.

I’m sure it’s just me, but the first quoted statement seems to imply that legalization will likely cause drug use to “go down”. Please explain the mechanics of that.

Signed,

Mr. Random

[jluv]

I’m sure it’s just me, but the first quoted statement seems to imply that legalization will likely cause drug use to “go down”. Please explain the mechanics of that.

Signed,

Mr. Random

It's plain as day. Now you suddenly seem to grasp what I said. You should; it's in plain text.

Your previous post was an awful attempt to put words in my mouth.

Nowhere did I say or imply that anyone will be put off by their drug of choice becoming legal and that will make them quit. Thats absurd. You really have to stretch to even try to twist my words into that.

It's been explained in this thread already what would likely cause use to decrease. The shift of money and resources to education and treatment programs, the fact that pot smokers will be less likely to have harder drugs pushed on them, etc. Study up on Portugal. They did this 10 years ago and a lot of the problems have gotten better. Overall use, use by teens, violent and nonviolent crimes, and New HIV cases have all decreased, and it's no coincidence. This has all been said already in here. You just keep making points that have zero relation to the topic.

[blownragtop]

Let’s see if I can tie all these non-related points together for you…

I’ve repeated the same thing 3 times and you still have troubling following the logic. (I even resorted to using short stammering sentences. lol ) No problem. There’s nothing I enjoy more than beating someone upside the head with the same point over and over and over…

The following is an excerpt from the Americans With Disabilities Act page.

Q. Are alcoholics covered by the ADA?

A. Yes. While a current illegal user of drugs is not protected by the ADA if an employer acts on the basis of such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection. An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.

http://www.ada.gov/qandaeng.htm


What you should be able to glean from this is that people who are addicted to alcohol are protected by the ADA. Addiction is a disease. Therefore they are disabled. The logical extension (if you’re sufficiently capable of connecting the dots) is that should illegal drugs become legalized those addicts will then become protected too. Then it’s just a hop, skip and a jump from legal protection to monthly checks. Addiction was a legitimate reason for disability payments until the Republican Congress of the mid-90s changed the law. I imagine that the political climate that would decriminalize drugs would have no problem once again ‘legitimizing’ addicts' disability.

I could fault your Portugal example by pointing out the fallacy of trying to draw parallels between a tiny country (slightly more than 10 million people – about the size of the greater Dallas/Fort Worth/Denton area) with a homogenous population with a huge multicultural country with a rapidly shifting demographic – but I don’t really need to. Portugal isn’t quite the success you’ve made it out to be. What are the results of their new uber-cool permissive attitude toward drugs?

Survey says…

Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1% It has been proposed that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use. However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe.

link

How do you say "Just say no" in Portuguese?

[Taylor]

Roughly 70% of Americans drink alcohol. Approximately 10-15% of drinkers will become alcoholics at some point in their life. Many of those will be functional alcoholics, capable of holding jobs and being somewhat responsible in other aspects of their life. I’ll let you do the statistical analysis for meth, coke, heroin... etc. But I’m willing to bet the addiction rates are considerably higher and the percentage of functional addicts is considerably less.

Legalizing is the first step in legitimizing a destructive lifestyle – explain to me again why that’s a good idea?

The problem is you're comparing alcohol, meth and heroin to weed. That and your statistics are ridiculous.

[jluv]

Let’s see if I can tie all these non-related points together for you…

I’ve repeated the same thing 3 times and you still have troubling following the logic. (I even resorted to using short stammering sentences. lol ) No problem. There’s nothing I enjoy more than beating someone upside the head with the same point over and over and over…

The following is an excerpt from the Americans With Disabilities Act page.

Q. Are alcoholics covered by the ADA?

A. Yes. While a current illegal user of drugs is not protected by the ADA if an employer acts on the basis of such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection. An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.

http://www.ada.gov/qandaeng.htm


What you should be able to glean from this is that people who are addicted to alcohol are protected by the ADA. Addiction is a disease. Therefore they are disabled. The logical extension (if you’re sufficiently capable of connecting the dots) is that should illegal drugs become legalized those addicts will then become protected too. Then it’s just a hop, skip and a jump from legal protection to monthly checks. Addiction was a legitimate reason for disability payments until the Republican Congress of the mid-90s changed the law. I imagine that the political climate that would decriminalize drugs would have no problem once again ‘legitimizing’ addicts' disability.

So people whose usage affects their work performance aren't granted any protection. If their work performance is fine, how are they a leech? And did you miss the part about employers being able to make their own rules prohibiting usage? And I noticed how you "imagine" certain things and especially how YOU made the "hop, skip, and jump" from addiction treatment protection to monthly checks. And what, you don't think addiction is a disease? You don't think people should have easy access to treatment? If that's what you think, then:
A. That's pretty fucked up. Making it tougher to get treatment certainly isn't going to help the drug problem.
B. You've missed the whole point. A huge part of legalization is shifting funds and resources to treatment programs, which, while not hugely effective, has a much higher rehabilitation success rate than incarceration.

People who are going to leech on society are already doing it. People who stay high all day and leech on society are already doing it. Sure, that's a problem that needs to be addressed, which is a different subject. The idea that legalizing drugs is going to make more leeches or make it easier to leech is just naive. You really think current laws are curbing it in any way?

I could fault your Portugal example by pointing out the fallacy of trying to draw parallels between a tiny country (slightly more than 10 million people – about the size of the greater Dallas/Fort Worth/Denton area) with a homogenous population with a huge multicultural country with a rapidly shifting demographic – but I don’t really need to. Portugal isn’t quite the success you’ve made it out to be. What are the results of their new uber-cool permissive attitude toward drugs?

Survey says…

Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1% It has been proposed that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use. However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe.

link

How do you say "Just say no" in Portuguese?

Man, I love that you posted that link. I hope people actually click on it and read it, because everything before and after the part you copied and pasted talks about the successes Portugal has had since legalizing drugs. In fact, even the last part of your copy/paste works against your point. Makes sense, too. How many people are going to be honest about taking illegal drugs? Once legalized, wouldn't you expect a huge increase in people who would admit it?
That's not my suggestion - it's suggested right there in your copy/paste. Again, I hope others actually click the link and read for themselves. I get a kick out of picturing you digging through there, telling yourself "damn, this dude is right", until you finally find something that you think might back up your point. But then it really doesn't, does it?

So, did you dig beyond Wikipedia at all? If you didn't, shame on you. If you did, you probAbly saw these articles, but hoped I wouldn't. Again, shame on you. To make it easy for others, I'll post a few. Some good reading here!

http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies

http://www.therightperspective.org/2011/07/09/portugal-drug-laws-a-success/

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

I could post these all day. Maybe I'd copy and paste, but there's just SO much proving my point, that it would take forever.

Your points are weak man, and you attempts to strengthen them aren't working. I don't mind keeping this going for a while as I get time throughout the day between shooting heroin and collecting my welfare checks.