Yes I do.Pug wrote:
Well, good. I hope that when you explain this, then the kids understand getting caught = permanently closed doors.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes.Pug wrote:
Do you think drugs should be legal?
However they are not, and so part of a balanced unbiased drugs education must be about the illegality.
Do you use drugs?
Poll
Should Drug Addicts Go to Jail?
| Yes, they are breaking the law | 27% | 27% - 37 | ||||
| Only after being to rehab and being caught again | 27% | 27% - 37 | ||||
| No, they are sick and jail would make things even worse | 33% | 33% - 45 | ||||
| Other | 11% | 11% - 16 | ||||
| Total: 135 | ||||||
I did think of making the above reply "Can you not see my avatar?"lowing wrote:
Yer kiddin' right?Pug wrote:
Well, good. I hope that when you explain this, then the kids understand getting caught = permanently closed doors.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes.
However they are not, and so part of a balanced unbiased drugs education must be about the illegality.
Do you use drugs?
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-03-01 20:17:29)
Bud, you have not seen anything compared to how I feel about you and your notion that drug abuse can be fun if done correctly...Scorpion0x17 wrote:
You believe it is coherent.lowing wrote:
My argument is completely coherent. Legalize drugs rape the users on taxes and do not let you turn to society for a bail out when AND IF you have fucked yourself up. Pretty coherent I thinkScorpion0x17 wrote:
That is a logical impossibility.
I suggest you read Why People Believe Weird Things - it may help you formulate a coherent argument.
Yet by resorting to logical impossibilities and ad hominem attacks you show that it is not.
Go ahead. As I said, your ad hominem attacks only go to show how incapable of arguing your case you really are. If your argument was unbiased and coherent you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics.lowing wrote:
Bud, you have not seen anything compared to how I feel about you and your notion that drug abuse can be fun if done correctly...Scorpion0x17 wrote:
You believe it is coherent.lowing wrote:
My argument is completely coherent. Legalize drugs rape the users on taxes and do not let you turn to society for a bail out when AND IF you have fucked yourself up. Pretty coherent I think
Yet by resorting to logical impossibilities and ad hominem attacks you show that it is not.
lol lowingScorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes I do.Pug wrote:
Well, good. I hope that when you explain this, then the kids understand getting caught = permanently closed doors.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes.
However they are not, and so part of a balanced unbiased drugs education must be about the illegality.
Do you use drugs?
Scorp, that's a difficult situation then. If Lowing isn't able to teach your kids because he's biased, then so are you.
"Drugs can fuck up your life...hold a sec...ffffffffftttttt...cough cough....but look at me. I'm doing great!"
If there's a stat out there, I would bet that using parents have more legal problems with their kids than non-using parents.
Education is key whether you are for or against legalization. Whether you are a user or not, the quality of the education isn't better or worse. Unfortunately your opinon doesn't make it legal. You're just helping them break the law by setting an example.
An example of poor education:
I got caught by my Pop drinking in high school. He had me drink a six pack. I felt fine. He bought another twelve pack. I drank that. I felt good. He then drove around the countryside at Mach 3 hoping I'd puke. Nothing happened. Then I got a long lecture. So the only thing I learned that night is I could drink six more beers than I thought I could.
His intentions were good...and I'm sure yours are too...but kids don't think that way. Hell, I was bulletproof until I turned 28 (ps. if you ski, there are cliffs that are just too high).
Are you completely open about your habit with everyone? Or is it a secret? Do you like having to keep it a secret? Or do you like people thinking something's wrong with you because you use drugs?
Unfortunately, there are existing stereotypes & discrimination.
Actually, it is very hard to speak rationally with some that is irrational. I personally can not make sense out of the absurd. You are saying NOW, that drug education is a good thing. I agree. But I am set back with what you did say in previous posts , and that is,Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Go ahead. As I said, your ad hominem attacks only go to show how incapable of arguing your case you really are. If your argument was unbiased and coherent you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics.lowing wrote:
Bud, you have not seen anything compared to how I feel about you and your notion that drug abuse can be fun if done correctly...Scorpion0x17 wrote:
You believe it is coherent.
Yet by resorting to logical impossibilities and ad hominem attacks you show that it is not.
1. drug use can be fun if done correctly, we just gotta teach our children how to do drugs correctly.
2.A drug addiction is the SAME THING as driving a car and getting into an accident.
Both of these comments are totally irrational and absurd, and I find it quite impossible to speak rationally on such non-sense.
I guess I gotta be stoned to understand your bullshit. I dunno
Last edited by lowing (2008-03-02 03:50:16)
1-I saw first hand from my friends that drugs can be fun indeed. Nevertheless I never tried even pot and I don't think it's correct to teach kids that drugs can be fun.lowing wrote:
Actually, it is very hard to speak rationally with some that is irrational. I personally can not make sense out of the absurd. You are saying NOW, that drug education is a good thing. I agree. But I am set back with what you did say in previous posts , and that is,Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Go ahead. As I said, your ad hominem attacks only go to show how incapable of arguing your case you really are. If your argument was unbiased and coherent you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics.lowing wrote:
Bud, you have not seen anything compared to how I feel about you and your notion that drug abuse can be fun if done correctly...
1. drug use can be fun if done correctly, we just gotta teach our children how to do drugs correctly.
2.A drug addiction is the SAME THING as driving a car and getting into an accident.
Both of these comments are totally irrational and absurd, and I find it quite impossible to speak rationally on such non-sense.
I guess I gotta stoned to understand your bullshit. I dunno
2-Absurd comment Scorp. Unless you care to explain.
Both arguments make sense I don't know why you have to constantly wind each other up after every other post.
Ok well may you can do a better job in bringing me around.jord wrote:
Both arguments make sense I don't know why you have to constantly wind each other up after every other post.
Please expain how it is a good and proper to teach kids the right and safe way to shoot crystal meth into your arm, or snort cocain or shoot heroin.
Then please explain how shooting heroin, crystal meth, snorting coke etc.........Is the exact same thing as loading the family up on a Sunday drive to grandmas house and getting into an accident, morally and legally.
Last edited by lowing (2008-03-02 04:00:54)
The second point wasn't one of the best he made, the one about the driving.lowing wrote:
Ok well may you can do a better job in bringing me around.jord wrote:
Both arguments make sense I don't know why you have to constantly wind each other up after every other post.
Please expain how it is a good and proper to teach kids the right and safe way to shoot crystal meth into your arm, or snort cocain or shoot heroin.
Then please explain how shooting heroin, crystal meth, snorting coke etc.........Is the exact same thing as loading the family up on a Sunday drive to grandmas house and getting into an accident.
I think if you teach your kids about the negative and the positive just don't glorify it. There is certain positives for a user that make the drug worth using... Obviously or nobody would use it. What he's trying to say(stay with me because I hate talking for people and may be wrong) is tell kids about drugs through the medium of conversation. You don't need to sit there and demonstrate how to make the perfect canpipe. Educate them with the facts.
Example.
Parents usually tell their kids to stay away from Weed. Which inevitably means they're going to do the opposite if available. They might say how it causes Cancer and severe paranoia and maybe that it will kill them. This is all bullshit.
If they told them that yes, there's a chance that if you take a lot of the shit you may become paranoid. Also tell them that going to Drug dealers can land them in hospital or worse then the kid can make his own opinion. Hopefully he'll weigh the 2 sides up and stay away from it...
Drug education is essential, I agree. But he is talking as if he is promoting its use because it isn't as bad as we are led to believe. He has insinuated it is ok to teach your kids proper drug use and how to have fun getting high.jord wrote:
The second point wasn't one of the best he made, the one about the driving.lowing wrote:
Ok well may you can do a better job in bringing me around.jord wrote:
Both arguments make sense I don't know why you have to constantly wind each other up after every other post.
Please explain how it is a good and proper to teach kids the right and safe way to shoot crystal meth into your arm, or snort cocaine or shoot heroin.
Then please explain how shooting heroin, crystal meth, snorting coke etc.........Is the exact same thing as loading the family up on a Sunday drive to grandmas house and getting into an accident.
I think if you teach your kids about the negative and the positive just don't glorify it. There is certain positives for a user that make the drug worth using... Obviously or nobody would use it. What he's trying to say(stay with me because I hate talking for people and may be wrong) is tell kids about drugs through the medium of conversation. You don't need to sit there and demonstrate how to make the perfect canpipe. Educate them with the facts.
Example.
Parents usually tell their kids to stay away from Weed. Which inevitably means they're going to do the opposite if available. They might say how it causes Cancer and severe paranoia and maybe that it will kill them. This is all bullshit.
If they told them that yes, there's a chance that if you take a lot of the shit you may become paranoid. Also tell them that going to Drug dealers can land them in hospital or worse then the kid can make his own opinion. Hopefully he'll weigh the 2 sides up and stay away from it...
Basically what he is saying is, it is OK towalk through a minefield as long as you don't step on any mines, and this is bullshit.
It is better to show the kids where the minefields are, then show them what can happen to them if they walk in there, and teach them how to stay out of them all together.
It is what you THINK that makes you biased or not, not what you do.Pug wrote:
lol lowingScorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes I do.Pug wrote:
Well, good. I hope that when you explain this, then the kids understand getting caught = permanently closed doors.
Do you use drugs?
Scorp, that's a difficult situation then. If Lowing isn't able to teach your kids because he's biased, then so are you.
I drink tea, but rarely coffee.
I smoke nicotine and marijuana, but rarely drink alchohol.
I walk or cycle, and can not drive.
I often sleep during the day, rather than at night.
Do all these actions make me biased towards those things I do do, but away from the others?
No.
Why?
Because I can seperate out what I do from what I think.
There are many situations where an adult will tell a child to do one thing whilst the adult routinely does the opposite - the adult is educated and is making an informed choice - he may well know what he his is dangerous - that's why he tells the child not to - but he still does it himself.
Yes. No. It isn't a secret. I couldn't care less if people think that.Pug wrote:
Are you completely open about your habit with everyone? Or is it a secret? Do you like having to keep it a secret? Or do you like people thinking something's wrong with you because you use drugs?
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-03-02 06:03:39)
1 - Indeed it can. That's why people do it!sergeriver wrote:
1-I saw first hand from my friends that drugs can be fun indeed. Nevertheless I never tried even pot and I don't think it's correct to teach kids that drugs can be fun.lowing wrote:
Actually, it is very hard to speak rationally with some that is irrational. I personally can not make sense out of the absurd. You are saying NOW, that drug education is a good thing. I agree. But I am set back with what you did say in previous posts , and that is,Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Go ahead. As I said, your ad hominem attacks only go to show how incapable of arguing your case you really are. If your argument was unbiased and coherent you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics.
1. drug use can be fun if done correctly, we just gotta teach our children how to do drugs correctly.
2.A drug addiction is the SAME THING as driving a car and getting into an accident.
Both of these comments are totally irrational and absurd, and I find it quite impossible to speak rationally on such non-sense.
I guess I gotta stoned to understand your bullshit. I dunno
2-Absurd comment Scorp. Unless you care to explain.
2 - actually it's not as absurd as lowing is making out - if you go back in thread and read what I actually wrote, you'll see that I was saying that both drug use and driving a car have both pros and cons - both get you somewhere you otherwise wouldn't be able to get to and both can kill - whether we choose to drive a car or to use drugs we should do so in informed manner - that means understanding both the pros and the cons.
It's the same as any situation in life - if you go into something knowing only half the story, then it's bound to go wrong. Education provides us with a method of understanding all aspects of all situations and thereby a way of safely approaching those situations as they arise.
EXACTLY!jord wrote:
The second point wasn't one of the best he made, the one about the driving.lowing wrote:
Ok well may you can do a better job in bringing me around.jord wrote:
Both arguments make sense I don't know why you have to constantly wind each other up after every other post.
Please expain how it is a good and proper to teach kids the right and safe way to shoot crystal meth into your arm, or snort cocain or shoot heroin.
Then please explain how shooting heroin, crystal meth, snorting coke etc.........Is the exact same thing as loading the family up on a Sunday drive to grandmas house and getting into an accident.
I think if you teach your kids about the negative and the positive just don't glorify it. There is certain positives for a user that make the drug worth using... Obviously or nobody would use it. What he's trying to say(stay with me because I hate talking for people and may be wrong) is tell kids about drugs through the medium of conversation. You don't need to sit there and demonstrate how to make the perfect canpipe. Educate them with the facts.
Example.
Parents usually tell their kids to stay away from Weed. Which inevitably means they're going to do the opposite if available. They might say how it causes Cancer and severe paranoia and maybe that it will kill them. This is all bullshit.
If they told them that yes, there's a chance that if you take a lot of the shit you may become paranoid. Also tell them that going to Drug dealers can land them in hospital or worse then the kid can make his own opinion. Hopefully he'll weigh the 2 sides up and stay away from it...
Neither for me, it doesn't come up in conversations. I wouldn't just blurt it out to make some sort of one man stand for Drugs users to whoever I'm talking to. If they did start talking about it and they asked, I wouldn't hesitate to tell them the truth, if I trusted them.Pug wrote:
Are you completely open about your habit with everyone? Or is it a secret? Do you like having to keep it a secret? Or do you like people thinking something's wrong with you because you use drugs?
No lowing, that's what you think I'm saying. Try actually reading the full post and fully comprehending it before replying - it may help.lowing wrote:
Drug education is essential, I agree. But he is talking as if he is promoting its use because it isn't as bad as we are led to believe. He has insinuated it is ok to teach your kids proper drug use and how to have fun getting high.jord wrote:
The second point wasn't one of the best he made, the one about the driving.lowing wrote:
Ok well may you can do a better job in bringing me around.
Please explain how it is a good and proper to teach kids the right and safe way to shoot crystal meth into your arm, or snort cocaine or shoot heroin.
Then please explain how shooting heroin, crystal meth, snorting coke etc.........Is the exact same thing as loading the family up on a Sunday drive to grandmas house and getting into an accident.
I think if you teach your kids about the negative and the positive just don't glorify it. There is certain positives for a user that make the drug worth using... Obviously or nobody would use it. What he's trying to say(stay with me because I hate talking for people and may be wrong) is tell kids about drugs through the medium of conversation. You don't need to sit there and demonstrate how to make the perfect canpipe. Educate them with the facts.
Example.
Parents usually tell their kids to stay away from Weed. Which inevitably means they're going to do the opposite if available. They might say how it causes Cancer and severe paranoia and maybe that it will kill them. This is all bullshit.
If they told them that yes, there's a chance that if you take a lot of the shit you may become paranoid. Also tell them that going to Drug dealers can land them in hospital or worse then the kid can make his own opinion. Hopefully he'll weigh the 2 sides up and stay away from it...
Basically what he is saying is, it is OK towalk through a minefield as long as you don't step on any mines, and this is bullshit.
It is better to show the kids where the minefields are, then show them what can happen to them if they walk in there, and teach them how to stay out of them all together.
Likewise. I don't go around showing drugs down peoples throats, but, in conversation, I don't hide the truth.jord wrote:
Neither for me, it doesn't come up in conversations. I wouldn't just blurt it out to make some sort of one man stand for Drugs users to whoever I'm talking to. If they did start talking about it and they asked, I wouldn't hesitate to tell them the truth, if I trusted them.Pug wrote:
Are you completely open about your habit with everyone? Or is it a secret? Do you like having to keep it a secret? Or do you like people thinking something's wrong with you because you use drugs?
Ok, now it makes more sense, although both things are not comparable IMO.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
1 - Indeed it can. That's why people do it!sergeriver wrote:
1-I saw first hand from my friends that drugs can be fun indeed. Nevertheless I never tried even pot and I don't think it's correct to teach kids that drugs can be fun.lowing wrote:
Actually, it is very hard to speak rationally with some that is irrational. I personally can not make sense out of the absurd. You are saying NOW, that drug education is a good thing. I agree. But I am set back with what you did say in previous posts , and that is,
1. drug use can be fun if done correctly, we just gotta teach our children how to do drugs correctly.
2.A drug addiction is the SAME THING as driving a car and getting into an accident.
Both of these comments are totally irrational and absurd, and I find it quite impossible to speak rationally on such non-sense.
I guess I gotta stoned to understand your bullshit. I dunno
2-Absurd comment Scorp. Unless you care to explain.
2 - actually it's not as absurd as lowing is making out - if you go back in thread and read what I actually wrote, you'll see that I was saying that both drug use and driving a car have both pros and cons - both get you somewhere you otherwise wouldn't be able to get to and both can kill - whether we choose to drive a car or to use drugs we should do so in informed manner - that means understanding both the pros and the cons.
It's the same as any situation in life - if you go into something knowing only half the story, then it's bound to go wrong. Education provides us with a method of understanding all aspects of all situations and thereby a way of safely approaching those situations as they arise.
There is the conversation that sparked all of this.............IT is exactly what you said. I asked if you thought drug use and its destructive addictions is the same thing as getting a car and drivng to grandmas house and getting in an accident, you replied yes... I read and re-read your post and it is still the same kinda bullshit as it was the first time.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Quite simply, Yes.lowing wrote:
Ok, is this the analogy that you really really wanna hang your argument on?? Do you honestly believe drug use and its destructive addictions is the same thing as getting in your car to drive to Grandmas house and getting in a car accident?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
OK, so we shouldn't care for people injured in car accidents either - after all, they chose to get in the car.
Everything we do has inherent risks.
We can neither remove those risks nor wash our hands the consequences.
That's life.
exactly, the way he says it here I agree with, but his comparision to shooting up crystal meth and its dangers, to driving a car and its risks are not the same thing.sergeriver wrote:
Ok, now it makes more sense, although both things are not comparable IMO.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
1 - Indeed it can. That's why people do it!sergeriver wrote:
1-I saw first hand from my friends that drugs can be fun indeed. Nevertheless I never tried even pot and I don't think it's correct to teach kids that drugs can be fun.
2-Absurd comment Scorp. Unless you care to explain.
2 - actually it's not as absurd as lowing is making out - if you go back in thread and read what I actually wrote, you'll see that I was saying that both drug use and driving a car have both pros and cons - both get you somewhere you otherwise wouldn't be able to get to and both can kill - whether we choose to drive a car or to use drugs we should do so in informed manner - that means understanding both the pros and the cons.
It's the same as any situation in life - if you go into something knowing only half the story, then it's bound to go wrong. Education provides us with a method of understanding all aspects of all situations and thereby a way of safely approaching those situations as they arise.
Here are some of the relevent quotes. Not your edited version. There are more, but I don't want to end up requoting the whole thread - start with what we have here, then I leave it as an exercise for the reader to continue my 'clues'...
Some clues:
1. You make the statement "drug abusers start as social users"
2. I show that this statement is moot - we may as well say "drug abusers start as the children of women"
3. You state that what matters is whether it is a burdon on society.
4. I show that this is not a black and white issue.
5. You state that we should do nothing because we have freedom of choice.
6. I show that this is a false argument - we all freely choose to do things that, in the long run, cause us to place a burdon on society.
7. You state that the tax payer shouldn't foot the bill for burdons caused by freedom of choice.
8. I illustrate that it is morally right for society as a whole to carry the burdon of freedom of choice.
9. You enquire whether the two given examples (drug use and driving a car) are morally equivalent.
10. I state that they are.
lowing wrote:
Would be a good point if drinking coffee was either illegal or self destructive..................or a burdon on the rest of us.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Aren't most addicts just people who started off drinking coffee??lowing wrote:
Aren't most addicts just people who started off as social drug users??
lowing wrote:
I am not talking about crack babies here and you know it.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
My point is that, like everything, it isn't as simple as just "all addicts were once social users" - some are addicts from the start.lowing wrote:
Would be a good point if drinking coffee was either illegal or self destructive.
There is a time in an addicts life where they were not addicted to their drug of choice and they made a conscience decision to use the drug. It is as simple as that.
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
OK, so we shouldn't care for people injured in car accidents either - after all, they chose to get in the car.lowing wrote:
NopeScorpion0x17 wrote:
True, but there are also many drug users that never become addicted and never become a burdon on society.
Should we stop everyone from doing something because some poeple can't handle it?
Should we make alcohol illegal because some people become alcoholics?
Should we make washing your hands illegal because some people develop OCD?
Need I go on?
Nope
and Nope............I couldn't care less who is addicted, or who gets addicted. I say legalize it all, and let people live or die with their choices, as I posted before. I simply do not think that the burdon for their choices should fall on the tax payers.
Again, re-read it. And this time, try some comprehension aswell.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Quite simply, Yes.lowing wrote:
Ok, is this the analogy that you really really wanna hang your argument on?? Do you honestly believe drug use and its destructive addictions is the same thing as getting in your car to drive to Grandmas house and getting in a car accident?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
OK, so we shouldn't care for people injured in car accidents either - after all, they chose to get in the car.
Everything we do has inherent risks.
We can neither remove those risks nor wash our hands the consequences.
That's life.
Some clues:
1. You make the statement "drug abusers start as social users"
2. I show that this statement is moot - we may as well say "drug abusers start as the children of women"
3. You state that what matters is whether it is a burdon on society.
4. I show that this is not a black and white issue.
5. You state that we should do nothing because we have freedom of choice.
6. I show that this is a false argument - we all freely choose to do things that, in the long run, cause us to place a burdon on society.
7. You state that the tax payer shouldn't foot the bill for burdons caused by freedom of choice.
8. I illustrate that it is morally right for society as a whole to carry the burdon of freedom of choice.
9. You enquire whether the two given examples (drug use and driving a car) are morally equivalent.
10. I state that they are.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-03-02 08:22:22)
Wow, how is the third poll option doing so well? The only "sickness" they have is breaking the psychological and phsyiological dependence they have on drugs because they broke the law so many times in the past and didn't get caught.
Once you become addicted you are sick. Jail won't help you.DesertFox- wrote:
Wow, how is the third poll option doing so well? The only "sickness" they have is breaking the psychological and phsyiological dependence they have on drugs because they broke the law so many times in the past and didn't get caught.
Yet another reason not to do drugs, because in the current state of correctional facilities...sergeriver wrote:
Once you become addicted you are sick. Jail won't help you.DesertFox- wrote:
Wow, how is the third poll option doing so well? The only "sickness" they have is breaking the psychological and phsyiological dependence they have on drugs because they broke the law so many times in the past and didn't get caught.
You and me can realize that, but what about addicts who are sick people and dependant on drugs. They can't.DesertFox- wrote:
Yet another reason not to do drugs, because in the current state of correctional facilities...sergeriver wrote:
Once you become addicted you are sick. Jail won't help you.DesertFox- wrote:
Wow, how is the third poll option doing so well? The only "sickness" they have is breaking the psychological and phsyiological dependence they have on drugs because they broke the law so many times in the past and didn't get caught.