Next Step in Evolution of our Civilisation

[MisterBeale]

Take all the drugs you want, but if you are on drugs you get $0.00 welfare none we are not going to financially support a bunch of drug brained losers.

Could you please read information presented to you on those links I provided or at least watch the videos?

This has NOTHING to do with 'taking as many drugs as you want...'

You are totally missing the point.

There is nothing your links can tell me that I don't already know. Recreational drugs are bad for people, that indisputable fact will not change. If you can get high and still pull your own weight in society fine but I'm not going to work overtime to pay the bills of people who choose to sit around on their fat lard asses getting high.

They may, try them. I swear it won't be a waste of your time.

Reading/watching something that you might feel you may disagree with from time to time is healthy, it broadens horizons, educates you and allows you to reflect. Just give it a try and see.

These are former DEA agents/police officers speaking and it has nothing to do with justifying people 'sitting around and taking drugs' nor about supporting such a habit.

And yet, I'm willing to bet you didn't watch the videos I posted.

 

[SwimExpert]

Oh, excuse me if I'm actually trying to start a little intelligent and civilised discussion around here!

Nothing wrong with trying to do so. Problem is, you're failing. I've already explained this. None of your arguments lend any support to the position you are taking. All you are doing is making non sequitor arguments.

 

[Neser Boha]

Oh, excuse me if I'm actually trying to start a little intelligent and civilised discussion around here!

Nothing wrong with trying to do so. Problem is, you're failing. I've already explained this. None of your arguments lend any support to the position you are taking. All you are doing is making non sequitor arguments.

Make better ones then! Go right ahead!

Plus I really doubt you know what a non sequitur argument is ... if you do, then explain why are 'my' arguments non sequitur.

PS: Plus you keep misspelling the term ...

 

[Neser Boha]

And yet, I'm willing to bet you didn't watch the videos I posted.

I watched them. It's interesting, but it's going a little too far into the eternal conspiracy land ...

 

[Avatar4321]

How does drug use benefit civilization or evolution?

 

[Neser Boha]

How does drug use benefit civilization or evolution?

Ok, let me ask you this - how do you get rid of drugs if it hasn't been accomplished yet after billions upon billions of dollars spent on 40+ years of intense 'drug war'. As a matter of fact, drug use has only gotten more common/worse.

How can we keep these substances out of our society if we can't even keep them out of prisons?

Riddle me that, I beg of you.

 

[Papageorgio]

How does drug use benefit civilization or evolution?

It doesn't benefit civilization whatsoever, however the problem is getting worse. How does putting drug abusers in prison benefit civilization? The problem isn't getting better, it is getting worse. I think it is time to find solutions instead of trying to mask the symptoms.

 

[The Rabbi]

Better idea: round up drug dealers and shoot them after a fair trial.

 

[Neser Boha]

Better idea: round up drug dealers and shoot them after a fair trial.

That's what they do in Saudi Arabia ... every year ... what does that tell you?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Also, by regulating, controlling and taxing these substances, we could make sure that children don't have an access to them ...

ROFLMNAO!

Fuckin' Euro-peons... So you feel that removing the prohibition and stark penalties... which have had zero means to prevent access by children... and instituting government guidelines which suggest that children (under 18, meaning that 17 is OK... and 16 is still ok but frowned upon... and 15 will be acceptable, as long as they're in the company of a 14 and have the name of a 13 yr old who recommends 'em) should not be allowed to possess such, will "make sure that children don't have an access to them"?

LMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

 

[Neser Boha]

Also, by regulating, controlling and taxing these substances, we could make sure that children don't have an access to them ...

ROFLMNAO!

Fuckin' Euro-peons... So you feel that removing the prohibition and stark penalties... which have had zero means to prevent access by children... and instituting government guidelines which suggest that children (under 18, meaning that 17 is OK... and 16 is still ok but frowned upon... and 15 will be acceptable, as long as they're in the company of a 14 and have the name of a 13 yr old who recommends 'em) should not be allowed to possess such, will "make sure that children don't have an access to them"?

LMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

Huh? Can you please learn to write first?

Yes, governmental control and regulation of the substances would GREATLY DIMINISH the availability of the substances to children.

I don't know what the fuck you were blabbin' about the 14 and 13 year olds ...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Also, by regulating, controlling and taxing these substances, we could make sure that children don't have an access to them ...

ROFLMNAO!

Fuckin' Euro-peons... So you feel that removing the prohibition and stark penalties... which have had zero means to prevent access by children... and instituting government guidelines which suggest that children (under 18, meaning that 17 is OK... and 16 is still ok but frowned upon... and 15 will be acceptable, as long as they're in the company of a 14 and have the name of a 13 yr old who recommends 'em) should not be allowed to possess such, will "make sure that children don't have an access to them"?

LMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

Huh? Can you please learn to write first?

Your envy of my prose is noted... (envy is a sin, so you should probably work on that... )

Yes, governmental control and regulation of the substances would GREATLY DIMINISH the availability of the substances to children.

But... dumbass... you're here protesting "governmental control and regulation of the substances"... advocating for a reduction or softening of such, which can only promote the availability of such, to anyone who wants them. Which of course, demonstrates that you are an imbecile.

I don't know what the fuck you were blabbin' about the 14 and 13 year olds ...

Of course you don't. And in fairness to you, no one would reasonably expect that an imbecile would.

If it helps, such wasn't written for you, but as a means of belittling you... and imbeciles like you.

 

[Papageorgio]

Better idea: round up drug dealers and shoot them after a fair trial.

I'm all for that, they are the lowest of the low.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Better idea: round up drug dealers and shoot them after a fair trial.

That's what they do in Saudi Arabia ... every year ... what does that tell you?

It tells us that "The Problem" is not the Supplier... but THE DEMAND.

Now... Reader, take a guess at what element our in-house promoter of Foreign Ideas Hostile To American Principle, represents?

Granted, it is entirely probable that it is a drug dealer; likely small time, peddling small quantities of high grade pot, a little coke here and there... probably a nice assortment of stolen prescription meds.

But she's a drug addict, and this despite her protestations to the contrary. (Yes... they're always the last to know...).

So, as she points out, attempts to crush the supply of a highly demanded product is a waste of time.

The solution is to dry up demand. And to do that, takes discipline and patience and a long game strategy, wherein the current crop of infants are taught sound principle... as set forth in God's law.

Over time, a virtuous society produces little to no demand for illicit substances.

I will now allow the problem to present itself:

 

[Neser Boha]

Also, by regulating, controlling and taxing these substances, we could make sure that children don't have an access to them ...

ROFLMNAO!

Fuckin' Euro-peons... So you feel that removing the prohibition and stark penalties... which have had zero means to prevent access by children... and instituting government guidelines which suggest that children (under 18, meaning that 17 is OK... and 16 is still ok but frowned upon... and 15 will be acceptable, as long as they're in the company of a 14 and have the name of a 13 yr old who recommends 'em) should not be allowed to possess such, will "make sure that children don't have an access to them"?

LMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

Huh? Can you please learn to write first?

Your envy of my prose is noted... (envy is a sin, so you should probably work on that... )

Yes, governmental control and regulation of the substances would GREATLY DIMINISH the availability of the substances to children.

But... dumbass... you're here protesting "governmental control and regulation of the substances"... advocating for a reduction or softening of such, which can only promote the availability of such, to anyone who wants them. Which of course, demonstrates that you are an imbecile.

I don't know what the fuck you were blabbin' about the 14 and 13 year olds ...

Of course you don't. And in fairness to you, no one would reasonably that an imbecile would. If it helps, such wasn't written for you, but as a means of belittling you... and imbeciles like you.

There is no governmental control in place, only prohibition, peabrain.

What I am arguing for is legalisation and regulation. None of that would promote usage as was proven in the case of Portugal that has already decriminalised drugs. Look it up. Drug use went down 20+ % in every age group and drug related deaths literally plummeted.

 

[Neser Boha]

The solution is to dry up demand. And to do that, takes discipline and patience and a long game strategy, wherein the current crop of infants are taught sound principle... as set forth in God's law.

Over time, a virtuous society produces little to no demand for illicit substances.

Yeah, that would work, just like abstinence works to prevent teen pregnancies ... oh the naiveté.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Also, by regulating, controlling and taxing these substances, we could make sure that children don't have an access to them ...

ROFLMNAO!

Fuckin' Euro-peons... So you feel that removing the prohibition and stark penalties... which have had zero means to prevent access by children... and instituting government guidelines which suggest that children (under 18, meaning that 17 is OK... and 16 is still ok but frowned upon... and 15 will be acceptable, as long as they're in the company of a 14 and have the name of a 13 yr old who recommends 'em) should not be allowed to possess such, will "make sure that children don't have an access to them"?

LMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

Huh? Can you please learn to write first?

Your envy of my prose is noted... (envy is a sin, so you should probably work on that... )

Yes, governmental control and regulation of the substances would GREATLY DIMINISH the availability of the substances to children.

But... dumbass... you're here protesting "governmental control and regulation of the substances"... advocating for a reduction or softening of such, which can only promote the availability of such, to anyone who wants them. Which of course, demonstrates that you are an imbecile.

I don't know what the fuck you were blabbin' about the 14 and 13 year olds ...

Of course you don't. And in fairness to you, no one would reasonably that an imbecile would. If it helps, such wasn't written for you, but as a means of belittling you... and imbeciles like you.

There is no governmental control in place, only prohibition, peabrain.

Reader, allow me to translate:

"There is no governmental control in place, only the highest possible form of government controls..."

Again... it's a drug addict. Who are people not typically associated with a strong sense of reason. (They're imbeciles)

 

[Neser Boha]

Better idea: round up drug dealers and shoot them after a fair trial.

That's what they do in Saudi Arabia ... every year ... what does that tell you?

It tells us that "The Problem" is not the Supplier... but THE DEMAND.

Now... Reader, take a guess at what element our in-house promoter of Foreign Ideas Hostile To American Principle, represents?

Granted, it is entirely probable that it is a drug dealer; likely small time, peddling small quantities of high grade pot, a little coke here and there... probably a nice assortment of stolen prescription meds.

But she's a drug addict, and this despite her protestations to the contrary. (Yes... they're always the last to know...).

So, as she points out, attempts to crush the supply of a highly demanded product is a waste of time.

The solution is to dry up demand. And to do that, takes discipline and patience and a long game strategy, wherein the current crop of infants are taught sound principle... as set forth in God's law.

Over time, a virtuous society produces little to no demand for illicit substances.

I will now allow the problem to present itself:

Oh god, this is like talking to a wall ...

If the government decriminalised drugs and started regulating them, there would be no business for any dealers, it would be the government that'd be the 'dealer.'

I am arguing for the drug business to be taken out of the hands of criminals (drug cartels, dealers) and have it under strict government control.

If I were a dealer, as you believe, would I be arguing for government control of these substances?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I will now allow the problem to present itself:

Yeah, that would work, just like abstinence works to prevent teen pregnancies ... oh the naiveté.

ROFLMNAO!

I say it HERE... and it comes out ^ THERE ^.

.

.

.

.


Again Reader, remember that the Key to defeating the Ideological Left in debate rests in two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to SPEAK!

 

[Neser Boha]

Also, by regulating, controlling and taxing these substances, we could make sure that children don't have an access to them ...

ROFLMNAO!

Fuckin' Euro-peons... So you feel that removing the prohibition and stark penalties... which have had zero means to prevent access by children... and instituting government guidelines which suggest that children (under 18, meaning that 17 is OK... and 16 is still ok but frowned upon... and 15 will be acceptable, as long as they're in the company of a 14 and have the name of a 13 yr old who recommends 'em) should not be allowed to possess such, will "make sure that children don't have an access to them"?

LMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

Huh? Can you please learn to write first?

Your envy of my prose is noted... (envy is a sin, so you should probably work on that... )

Yes, governmental control and regulation of the substances would GREATLY DIMINISH the availability of the substances to children.

But... dumbass... you're here protesting "governmental control and regulation of the substances"... advocating for a reduction or softening of such, which can only promote the availability of such, to anyone who wants them. Which of course, demonstrates that you are an imbecile.

I don't know what the fuck you were blabbin' about the 14 and 13 year olds ...

Of course you don't. And in fairness to you, no one would reasonably that an imbecile would. If it helps, such wasn't written for you, but as a means of belittling you... and imbeciles like you.

There is no governmental control in place, only prohibition, peabrain.

Reader, allow me to translate:

"There is no governmental control in place, only the highest possible form of government controls..."

Again... it's a drug addict. Who are people not typically associated with a strong sense of reason. (They're imbeciles)

I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to say ... Review the links I posted and watch the videos. You may then understand that you're way beside the point. I won't respond to your personal attacks.