CDZ Why using narcotics should be as free as being religious

[grbb]

Actually there is a reason why I am saying this.

Recently Jakarta pick a new governor.

So for years the people have bitch about high corruption in Indonesia. One day we have a governor that clean up corruption. We saw results. People don't park anywhere. Government officials do not demand bribes anymore.

Yet, religious leaders are condemning this guy because he is kafr (non muslims).

Ahok was charged with blasphemy due to some rubber laws. After months of negative campaign, finally Jakarta pick another candidate as governor. Mainly because the other candidates are muslim.

To me, that is a stupid decision. Why reject a guy that works well over guys that can only promise bullshit.

Many people think, and I agree, that people do not like Ahok because he is "too good" at eliminating corruption. Of course, all of the politicians wants to get rid Ahok.

So?

Many Indonesians hate chinese and christians. Now they have a christian chinese governor that governed well. Ahok approval rating is 70%. They still didn't pick him.

After the elections, some muslims say in forum that it shows that chinese are still not accepted in Indonesia. So they better beware and kowtow to muslims. Well, to be honest, Ahok only lost by 10% margin actually.

Another muslims say that they are obligated by their religions to pick a muslim leader. I don't know whether muslim religions really encourage people to pick muslim leaders. The ulamas are in disagreements. But in any case, those people pick the wrong candidates because of their religions. We will soon see far more corruptions.

Another muslims says that it is their "humans right" to pick candidates based on religions.

And I sort of agree. After all, it's democracy. We can't tell people not to vote because of this or not. Basically we can encourage people to be more meritocratic but this is just another sample of "persuasion" that may or may not work.

My question is, if someone, because of religions, have humans right, to pick whatever governor they choose, and those choices affect so many people.

Why can't the same be applied to drugs?

Most drugs user hurt no one and most hurt at most themselves. Not because someone smoke ganja means you get high too. Yes, drug usage may, or may not, increase crime and that may affect others. However, it's another story. The same things also apply to religions. Being religious can make someone terrorists.

So like narcotics, religions make people think differently, in ways that's not normally realistic. They're not counting on what we normally see. They're counting on some imagination and stories of others. Those stories and imagination may actually be real or have some real aspects. But so are those imagination that drug users see.

So how come it's humans' right to be religious and yet it's not human's right to use drugs?

Why is it humans' right to vote, an act where we can force others to do things they don't like. Yet it's not humans' right to simply use most safe drugs?

And I think the answer is majority/minority. There are too many religious people and too few drug users.

So here it is. I am advocating people to try some safe drugs. At least the legal ones. Fucking try. Now see what happens when drug users are majority.

Oh ya, there is another benefit of using drugs instead of being religious. In religions you have faith on what prophets supposedly "see". Why believe in what others see? Why not see things yourself? At least the latter is less likely to lie.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually there is a reason why I am saying this.

Recently Jakarta pick a new governor.

So for years the people have bitch about high corruption in Indonesia. One day we have a governor that clean up corruption. We saw results. People don't park anywhere. Government officials do not demand bribes anymore.

Yet, religious leaders are condemning this guy because he is kafr (non muslims).

Ahok was charged with blasphemy due to some rubber laws. After months of negative campaign, finally Jakarta pick another candidate as governor. Mainly because the other candidates are muslim.

To me, that is a stupid decision. Why reject a guy that works well over guys that can only promise bullshit.

Many people think, and I agree, that people do not like Ahok because he is "too good" at eliminating corruption. Of course, all of the politicians wants to get rid Ahok.

So?

Many Indonesians hate chinese and christians. Now they have a christian chinese governor that governed well. Ahok approval rating is 70%. They still didn't pick him.

After the elections, some muslims say in forum that it shows that chinese are still not accepted in Indonesia. So they better beware and kowtow to muslims. Well, to be honest, Ahok only lost by 10% margin actually.

Another muslims say that they are obligated by their religions to pick a muslim leader. I don't know whether muslim religions really encourage people to pick muslim leaders. The ulamas are in disagreements. But in any case, those people pick the wrong candidates because of their religions. We will soon see far more corruptions.

Another muslims says that it is their "humans right" to pick candidates based on religions.

And I sort of agree. After all, it's democracy. We can't tell people not to vote because of this or not. Basically we can encourage people to be more meritocratic but this is just another sample of "persuasion" that may or may not work.

My question is, if someone, because of religions, have humans right, to pick whatever governor they choose, and those choices affect so many people.

Why can't the same be applied to drugs?

Most drugs user hurt no one and most hurt at most themselves. Not because someone smoke ganja means you get high too. Yes, drug usage may, or may not, increase crime and that may affect others. However, it's another story. The same things also apply to religions. Being religious can make someone terrorists.

So like narcotics, religions make people think differently, in ways that's not normally realistic. They're not counting on what we normally see. They're counting on some imagination and stories of others. Those stories and imagination may actually be real or have some real aspects. But so are those imagination that drug users see.

So how come it's humans' right to be religious and yet it's not human's right to use drugs?

Why is it humans' right to vote, an act where we can force others to do things they don't like. Yet it's not humans' right to simply use most safe drugs?

And I think the answer is majority/minority. There are too many religious people and too few drug users.

So here it is. I am advocating people to try some safe drugs. At least the legal ones. Fucking try. Now see what happens when drug users are majority.

Oh ya, there is another benefit of using drugs instead of being religious. In religions you have faith on what prophets supposedly "see". Why believe in what others see? Why not see things yourself? At least the latter is less likely to lie.

It's pretty sad when people vote against what makes sense, and for religion no matter the choice. The US isn't that much different, though they don't always stick to religion, as Trump has shown, as he's totally not religious.

 

[cnelsen]

Yes, drug usage may, or may not, increase crime and that may affect others.

If it were legal, there would be as much crime associated with drugs as there is now associated with aspirin.

 

[grbb]

While I understand that heroin and others are dangerous, and even that should be legal and taxed. Most narcotics that most government ban are harmless.

Think about it.

What most narcotics do is simply to change the amount of certain neurotransmitter in your brain.

The neurotransmitters are already there. Dopamine, serotonin. So by using narcotics, you tend to see the world in totally different view. It's still the real world.

I bet that's what happened to "prophets" in ancient time. Except that the prophets may just be liars.

All these so called holy books are people seeing things that normally people don't. Somehow what "prophets" see 2000 years ago, regurgitated by professional liars and politicians are more credible than what people can see now?

Also we talk about "try for one self" to "commit the whole society to follow". Obviously the former should be more legal than the others.

If someone try something for himself, even if he's wrong, only he is the one that's screwed. But if the whole world have to commit to a certain ideology, and it's wrong, then the damage is huge

 

[Disir]

Most drugs user hurt no one and most hurt at most themselves. Not because someone smoke ganja means you get high too. Yes, drug usage may, or may not, increase crime and that may affect others. However, it's another story.

It's not another story. It's the same story.

Not every user is a single frat boy or a single guy working in a comic book store smoking a blunt on the stoop.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Actually there is a reason why I am saying this.

Recently Jakarta pick a new governor.

So for years the people have bitch about high corruption in Indonesia. One day we have a governor that clean up corruption. We saw results. People don't park anywhere. Government officials do not demand bribes anymore.

Yet, religious leaders are condemning this guy because he is kafr (non muslims).

Ahok was charged with blasphemy due to some rubber laws. After months of negative campaign, finally Jakarta pick another candidate as governor. Mainly because the other candidates are muslim.

To me, that is a stupid decision. Why reject a guy that works well over guys that can only promise bullshit.

Many people think, and I agree, that people do not like Ahok because he is "too good" at eliminating corruption. Of course, all of the politicians wants to get rid Ahok.

So?

Many Indonesians hate chinese and christians. Now they have a christian chinese governor that governed well. Ahok approval rating is 70%. They still didn't pick him.

After the elections, some muslims say in forum that it shows that chinese are still not accepted in Indonesia. So they better beware and kowtow to muslims. Well, to be honest, Ahok only lost by 10% margin actually.

Another muslims say that they are obligated by their religions to pick a muslim leader. I don't know whether muslim religions really encourage people to pick muslim leaders. The ulamas are in disagreements. But in any case, those people pick the wrong candidates because of their religions. We will soon see far more corruptions.

Another muslims says that it is their "humans right" to pick candidates based on religions.

And I sort of agree. After all, it's democracy. We can't tell people not to vote because of this or not. Basically we can encourage people to be more meritocratic but this is just another sample of "persuasion" that may or may not work.

My question is, if someone, because of religions, have humans right, to pick whatever governor they choose, and those choices affect so many people.

Why can't the same be applied to drugs?

Most drugs user hurt no one and most hurt at most themselves. Not because someone smoke ganja means you get high too. Yes, drug usage may, or may not, increase crime and that may affect others. However, it's another story. The same things also apply to religions. Being religious can make someone terrorists.

So like narcotics, religions make people think differently, in ways that's not normally realistic. They're not counting on what we normally see. They're counting on some imagination and stories of others. Those stories and imagination may actually be real or have some real aspects. But so are those imagination that drug users see.

So how come it's humans' right to be religious and yet it's not human's right to use drugs?

Why is it humans' right to vote, an act where we can force others to do things they don't like. Yet it's not humans' right to simply use most safe drugs?

And I think the answer is majority/minority. There are too many religious people and too few drug users.

So here it is. I am advocating people to try some safe drugs. At least the legal ones. Fucking try. Now see what happens when drug users are majority.

Oh ya, there is another benefit of using drugs instead of being religious. In religions you have faith on what prophets supposedly "see". Why believe in what others see? Why not see things yourself? At least the latter is less likely to lie.

I agree with you , if someone wants to frick themselves up with drugs, so be it. Where I draw the line though, in my libertarian/Conservative way, is that when you are so fricked up and need some help, don't come groveling to me, begging for me to help you. I didn't push the drugs on you, so you can take care of yourself or fricking die, for all I care, as you took the RISK, now you take the RESPONSIBILITY for your actions. You start stealing from others to support your habit, then you can be hung for that also. Time to stop the brushshit liberal compassion, for it kills people.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

While I understand that heroin and others are dangerous, and even that should be legal and taxed. Most narcotics that most government ban are harmless.

Think about it.

What most narcotics do is simply to change the amount of certain neurotransmitter in your brain.

The neurotransmitters are already there. Dopamine, serotonin. So by using narcotics, you tend to see the world in totally different view. It's still the real world.

I bet that's what happened to "prophets" in ancient time. Except that the prophets may just be liars.

All these so called holy books are people seeing things that normally people don't. Somehow what "prophets" see 2000 years ago, regurgitated by professional liars and politicians are more credible than what people can see now?

Also we talk about "try for one self" to "commit the whole society to follow". Obviously the former should be more legal than the others.

If someone try something for himself, even if he's wrong, only he is the one that's screwed. But if the whole world have to commit to a certain ideology, and it's wrong, then the damage is huge

What is a shame is that some people (liberals) cant find their own pursuit of happiness, just by living and having peace with God. So they are miserable wretches, even when they have all the money in the world, then go out and have doctors give them cocktails of drugs to the point their hearts fail them. When this happens, I used to feel sorry for them, but then for the past 20 years, I understood that when you turn from God, and follow Lucifer, once the deal is done, Lucifer takes his, at his time, not yours.
Elvis Presley

 

[kellyd]

While I understand that heroin and others are dangerous, and even that should be legal and taxed. Most narcotics that most government ban are harmless.

Think about it.

What most narcotics do is simply to change the amount of certain neurotransmitter in your brain.

The neurotransmitters are already there. Dopamine, serotonin. So by using narcotics, you tend to see the world in totally different view. It's still the real world.

I bet that's what happened to "prophets" in ancient time. Except that the prophets may just be liars.

All these so called holy books are people seeing things that normally people don't. Somehow what "prophets" see 2000 years ago, regurgitated by professional liars and politicians are more credible than what people can see now?

Also we talk about "try for one self" to "commit the whole society to follow". Obviously the former should be more legal than the others.

If someone try something for himself, even if he's wrong, only he is the one that's screwed. But if the whole world have to commit to a certain ideology, and it's wrong, then the damage is huge

What is a shame is that some people (liberals) cant find their own pursuit of happiness, just by living and having peace with God. So they are miserable wretches, even when they have all the money in the world, then go out and have doctors give them cocktails of drugs to the point their hearts fail them. When this happens, I used to feel sorry for them, but then for the past 20 years, I understood that when you turn from God, and follow Lucifer, once the deal is done, Lucifer takes his, at his time, not yours.
Elvis Presley

Are you saying that conservatives don't abuse alcohol or pot?!?! Are you saying all liberals do?!?! Way to generalise, man

 

[grbb]

Actually there is a reason why I am saying this.

Recently Jakarta pick a new governor.

So for years the people have bitch about high corruption in Indonesia. One day we have a governor that clean up corruption. We saw results. People don't park anywhere. Government officials do not demand bribes anymore.

Yet, religious leaders are condemning this guy because he is kafr (non muslims).

Ahok was charged with blasphemy due to some rubber laws. After months of negative campaign, finally Jakarta pick another candidate as governor. Mainly because the other candidates are muslim.

To me, that is a stupid decision. Why reject a guy that works well over guys that can only promise bullshit.

Many people think, and I agree, that people do not like Ahok because he is "too good" at eliminating corruption. Of course, all of the politicians wants to get rid Ahok.

So?

Many Indonesians hate chinese and christians. Now they have a christian chinese governor that governed well. Ahok approval rating is 70%. They still didn't pick him.

After the elections, some muslims say in forum that it shows that chinese are still not accepted in Indonesia. So they better beware and kowtow to muslims. Well, to be honest, Ahok only lost by 10% margin actually.

Another muslims say that they are obligated by their religions to pick a muslim leader. I don't know whether muslim religions really encourage people to pick muslim leaders. The ulamas are in disagreements. But in any case, those people pick the wrong candidates because of their religions. We will soon see far more corruptions.

Another muslims says that it is their "humans right" to pick candidates based on religions.

And I sort of agree. After all, it's democracy. We can't tell people not to vote because of this or not. Basically we can encourage people to be more meritocratic but this is just another sample of "persuasion" that may or may not work.

My question is, if someone, because of religions, have humans right, to pick whatever governor they choose, and those choices affect so many people.

Why can't the same be applied to drugs?

Most drugs user hurt no one and most hurt at most themselves. Not because someone smoke ganja means you get high too. Yes, drug usage may, or may not, increase crime and that may affect others. However, it's another story. The same things also apply to religions. Being religious can make someone terrorists.

So like narcotics, religions make people think differently, in ways that's not normally realistic. They're not counting on what we normally see. They're counting on some imagination and stories of others. Those stories and imagination may actually be real or have some real aspects. But so are those imagination that drug users see.

So how come it's humans' right to be religious and yet it's not human's right to use drugs?

Why is it humans' right to vote, an act where we can force others to do things they don't like. Yet it's not humans' right to simply use most safe drugs?

And I think the answer is majority/minority. There are too many religious people and too few drug users.

So here it is. I am advocating people to try some safe drugs. At least the legal ones. Fucking try. Now see what happens when drug users are majority.

Oh ya, there is another benefit of using drugs instead of being religious. In religions you have faith on what prophets supposedly "see". Why believe in what others see? Why not see things yourself? At least the latter is less likely to lie.

I agree with you , if someone wants to frick themselves up with drugs, so be it. Where I draw the line though, in my libertarian/Conservative way, is that when you are so fricked up and need some help, don't come groveling to me, begging for me to help you. I didn't push the drugs on you, so you can take care of yourself or fricking die, for all I care, as you took the RISK, now you take the RESPONSIBILITY for your actions. You start stealing from others to support your habit, then you can be hung for that also. Time to stop the brushshit liberal compassion, for it kills people.

In general, I disagree with welfare. I prefer citizen dividend where the rich and the poor get paid equally, especially if they don't have children. The poor can have the money to start their own biz.

I also do not see how drug users should get more or less than normal people. People are responsible to be productive, irrelevant of whether they can or not. I do not see how a tax paying ganja users that's out of jobs deserve more welfare than someone that's not good at math.

Yes, not being good at math is not one's choice. It's their genes' choice. So what?