Obama

[grawk]

I guess iffy or not, they seem pretty important to me. You take them out of the loop, and I'm willing to bet you'd see a drop in drug smuggling via cars from Mexico.

This is all well above my pay grade, but it seems like you can't just go in and make sweeping changes without severe consequences. I really dont want to present myself as 'clued in', because I'm not, but thats just my overall impression. I guess I'll just say that most of what I've heard him say gives me great pause.

It's not like there's any shortage of drugs in this country. But drugs would be legal if RP had his way.

[aardvark baguette]

wow.

That right there is all I need to know.

[grawk]

wow.

That right there is all I need to know.

Yah, because we've done sucha good job banning them and stopping all importing.

[aardvark baguette]

Well we haven't cured cancer or Alzheimer's yet. Lets send those GSK scientists home.

[grawk]

Well we haven't cured cancer or Alzheimer's yet. Lets send those GSK scientists home.

Good comparison. We've locked up people for doing something that only harms themselves. The flow of drugs hasn't stopped, and criminals get money and power. Just like with prohibition was successful in the 20s. I see how that's comparable to medical research. Ass.

[aardvark baguette]

lol

I think the 'its not going well' mentality is just a cop out for responsibility. But it sure would be easier to make everything legal. As far as 'only harming themselves'...tell that to the parents of children who have overdosed. Tell that to the people who die from fire and asphyxiation from the tenant below them who had a meth lab explosion.

[grawk]

lol

I think the 'its not going well' mentality is just a cop out for responsibility. But it sure would be easier to make everything legal.

Are drugs worse than the drug smugglers and drug gangs? I don't think so. But more than that, I don't think it's the job of the government to decide if people do drugs, have sex, or do anything else that doesn't impact anyone else.

[aardvark baguette]

The violence of drug gangs is far worse, I'll agree. The problem, as I see it, with simply giving up, is that it sets precedent. If drugs are legal, gangs are out of a job. So they will inevitably turn to the next illegal activity and specialize in that. Then we'll make that legal. Where does it stop?

[grawk]

You realize that meth labs are a symptom of the war on drugs, right?

[grawk]

Yah, next we'll have to legalize prostitution and gambling and stick to crimes where people aren't just hurting themselves. And if our cops and courts aren't overwhelmed with drug criminals, they'll be able to go after murderers, rapists, and thieves.

[aardvark baguette]

Partially. But even if drugs were made legal, people would still cook at home, though in smaller numbers, no doubt.

[grawk]

Partially. But even if drugs were made legal, people would still cook at home, though in smaller numbers, no doubt.

And they'd cook for themselves, not to resell. Since people who were buying could just go to the drug store.

[aardvark baguette]

why would they? cooking meth is not the same thing as brewing a few gallons of beer or running a still out in the woods.

I dont know why they would, I just know it would happen. People do stupid things.

I really dont see how we can turn a blind eye to the whole thing, but I guess I'm just brainwashed.

[aardvark baguette]

I think at some point you have to balance lack of moralizing with adequate protection, even if that means the addition of moralization. A society with no rules is a society in chaos, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see making drugs illegal as radical. There are far more radical things in life. I think its a reasonable compromise.

If the government isn't here to protect, than what the hell are they good for?

[grawk]

Making drugs illegal wasn't radical. It was racist. Because it was the blacks doing drugs when drugs were first made illegal. It was also to protect domestic synthetic rope makers against the external hemp rope makers. And the paper industry. It became a fund raising opportunity for police departments and prisons. And protected intoxicants as being the realm of big tobacco and the alcohol industry, while protecting the medical pharmas from self medication. So yah, not radical.

The result is immoral. The result of the drug war is a police state, rampant drug gangs, "gateway drugs", meth lab toxic impacts, etc. The war on drugs doesn't benefit the people.

[mirumu]

i think you are hysterically moralizing, even if you don't realize you are doing it. a truly free society can not allow its government to regulate the bodies and minds of the citizens. the citizens should rule the government, not the other way around. i thought we had a pursuit of happiness thing, here?

I think those are points too many governments worldwide miss. I'm not pro-drugs by any means, but moralizing on such matters doesn't really seem any different to me than religious laws of the past or modern copyright/patent law.

[Thelonious Monk]

Functional government is impossible when all of your citizens are goddamn stupid. They'll either vote stupid people into office that make stupid decisions or be stupid and overthrow a good government for stupid reasons, because they're stupid and have no foresight, or ability to think about the whole instead of themselves. On average we're "more intelligent" than the average person from a few centuries ago, but all of that raw material is wasted, it seems. I'd expand on this but I'm stupid and need to think about it more.

So, yeah. Which candidates support eugenics, retard holocaust, isolationism, self-sufficient economy, birthing licenses, drastically reducing carbon footprint, and demoting Oregon to occupied territory?

[grawk]

Functional government is impossible when all of your citizens are goddamn stupid. They'll either vote stupid people into office that make stupid decisions or be stupid and overthrow a good government for stupid reasons, because they're stupid and have no foresight, or ability to think about the whole instead of themselves. On average we're "more intelligent" than the average person from a few centuries ago, but all of that raw material is wasted, it seems. I'd expand on this but I'm stupid and need to think about it more.

So, yeah. Which candidates support eugenics, retard holocaust, isolationism, self-sufficient economy, birthing licenses, drastically reducing carbon footprint, and demoting Oregon to occupied territory?

Lead by example, end yourself.

[Thelonious Monk]

have something against Oregon?

You're actually the first person to ever point the Oregon thing out. It's an alternate version of the "6 million Jews, 1 clown" joke. Beautiful state, it is.

Lead by example, end yourself.

I don't really see how that'd help things at all. I'd get a lot more done as a serial killer. Neither option is all that appealing, however.

[JBLoudG20]

Lead by example, end yourself.

I was thinking the same thing.

[grawk]

I don't really see how that'd help things at all. I'd get a lot more done as a serial killer. Neither option is all that appealing, however.

That's easy, your judgement is suspect. You'll do much more good by providing an example to the other 15 yr old elitists.

[Thelonious Monk]

That's easy, your judgement is suspect. You'll do much more good by providing an example to the other 15 yr old elitists.

Would you rather me be obsessed with boobies and Soulja Boy? I see nothing wrong with trying to understand the fucked up world around me... and striving not to be a drone, whose greatest accomplishments at age 30 are a job, a cat, and a wide-screen TV.

[hungrych]

YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

[Dusty Chalk]

[Knuckledragger]

Crap in a hat. Rush Limbaugh called Barack Obama a "spade" no less than four times in this "parody." I am uh, fairly jaded when it comes to Rush's utterings, but this one shocked even me. Unfuckingbelievable.