At this point, my advice is fuck the system. Screw it. Do you WANT to continue being involved in a school that's acting like shit. Skip as many classes as you can get away with. Don't attend the prom or graduation even if they offer. Find something else to do on those dates. Make it absolutely clear that since they have treated you like shit, you're simply returning the favour. Make it clear that their persecution of drug users does far more damage than the drug users themselves.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Legalization of Cannabis
- Thread starter Wretch
- Start date
Legalization all the way. Over 80% of narcotics used these days would be useless if it was legalized. So many medicines doing more harm than good. Its also good for the earth since it filters nutrients in and out of the earth.
It's sad, all the misconceptions about marijuana and all.
It's sad, all the misconceptions about marijuana and all.
This is why you do not debate with someone who has propaganda on IV. All you get is a rush of anger and a huge headache.
EDIT: I'm still trying to figure out how this guy is A:Allowed to speak on anything, ever, and B:How he could POSSIBLY call someone ELSE an idiot.
Fuck yeah :naughty:
Legalize all drugs.
The Government should not tell me what to do or not to do with my own body.
The Government should not tell me what to do or not to do with my own body.
That's pretty fucking stupid. Drugs don't just affect you; would you like to legalize drugs that make you more likely to behave violently (not just ones like weed)? After all, it's your body you're putting the drugs in... it just might not be your body that you put bullets or a blade in.
So you support a legal system which punishes you on something they predetermine you to do?
By that logic, black people should be in jail because they're that much more likely to commit crime than everyone else.
I don't think that is what he said.
Doing certain drugs (Wiki: PCP) makes you more likely to harm other people. It's the same reason while driving blindfolded/drunk/high should not/is not legal. You greatly increase the chances of you hurting someone else.
Though in that case, I'd prefer legalizing the drug and then making certain laws that minimize the chances of the drug user hurting others (no driving while high, etc...).
They way I see it, weed gets put on a bad level because it gets thrown in to the larger term "illegal drug." See, there's a huge difference between chronic and meth, for example. Weed is totally fine, provided you keep ethics about it. I smoke weed, but what's nice since it isn't addictive is that you can set boundaries.
Anyway, I'm strayed from the point.
Legalize that shit, ASAP.
Anyway, I'm strayed from the point.
Legalize that shit, ASAP.
Cannabis is far from being safe; it slowly degrades your health. However, I think human being is free and should be able to decide whether or not he wants to take it and accept the risks. Adding to that the fact that drugs (Cannabis in this case) caused many criminal acts from stealing to murder. Therefore I think it should be legalized but regulated by the state to ensure that the person taking it does not get to much addicted to it nor does he get sick because of it. This is my opinion on the subject.
Chronic use of marijuana is unhealthy, but then again most recreational marijuana enthusiasts smoke once a week.
Everything is addictive by the logic you're implying.
Mentally, you can get addicted to anything: pain, reading, writing, etc.
As long as there's no chemical addiction to a substance or activity you can't use the hooked excuse.
What I say, is that the state should regulate the use of drugs that aren't chemical to one dose for a week and a half or something in those lines to allow the people to consume it but not to abuse it. I agree with you on the fact everything is addictive, but some things are more addictive and to a bigger portion of the population such as drugs.
The state should keep it's fucking distance from my body and my property.
I don't care what people like you want "the State" to do, the fact is people with dumbass ideas like this create a loophole in which the Government can undermine the individual's God-given liberty to do anything one wants as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
The State that we have right now is not the ideal State, I agree. However, if the human was granted the gift to do what he oh so desires to do, some will abuse, some will destroy the liberty of others etc. The State is too make sure Justice is served (it does its job very badly, but still) and too allow every humans to accomplish themselves. Therefore, it should be allowed to regulate the drugs to prevent someone from auto-destroying himself by abusing the drug in question. You may be a good consumer and aware of the danger and all that stuff, but not every is like you. Some people cannot stop themselves to consume a thing that they like (drugs in that case). This is why the State should regulate the drugs. It is for the people's own safety. Although it's unfair too penalize everyone for something that only a couple of people do, we do not have any better and any more effective solution than this one.
See: How people act when there is a barrier of internet between them and whomever they should be communicating with. People pretty much do and say what they want over the internet. Some abuse this, we call them trolls. Some destroy the liberty of others. We call that censorship. This applies to pretty much anything, because anytime you get a mass group of people, there's always some douchenozzle ready to fuck it up for everybody. Will more government control stop this? No.
This is the type of propoganda they feed you to make you think that the "war on drugs" is accomplishing anything at all, other than filling prison space, and lining the pockets of the few with the tax dollars of the many.
See: Prohibition. The "state" took control over allowing people to have alcohol. They said we can't have it. This looked like a lucrative business opportunity for organizations like the Mafia. Speakeasys were everywhere, meaning people didn't give a damn what the law said, they wanted their booze. After trying it this way for just over a decade, the 21st amendment came along, repealed the 18th amendment, and let us have our booze back. Yes, this is the readers digest version of the story of prohibition, but the point I'm trying to make here is that the "solution" really is NOT effective at all.
It's an impressive testament to the power of zealous anti-drug organizations, that people still continue to believe that Marijuana is anywhere near dangerous enough to be illegal. The drug is legal in other parts of the world, and none of the horrid arguments concerning the consequences of said legalization have come to pass; rather, as common sense would indicate, relinquishing the ban on marijuana seems to have only positive consequences.Law enforcement doesn't need to be distracted by enforcing such a garbage infringement on individual freedom, which itself is the source of an immense amount of the money used by street gangs, which further strains the under-funded policing force. Money doesn't need to be wasted locking away decent people for using a relatively harmless substance, and the drug is a legitimate business opportunity and source of revenue for both the private and public sectors, while being less dangerous than either alchohol or nicotine. Marijuana not being legal is one of the most egregious examples of just plain bad legislating which isn't entirely routed in some kind of natural prejudice based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.
Regulation does not prevent drug abuse, at all. In fact, it simply gives criminals a way to become much more powerful than they would be without such an easy way to access money.
Who would actually buy drugs when the State simply gives them to you or sell them for a very low price? Powerful? Not really. Because they would need to interact with the government more than before, therefore increase there chances of getting caught. This would actually reduce their power; less people will actually get their drugs illegally via criminal association and more would get them via the State. For this reason it would be beneficial for everybody. Everyone above a certain age could access drugs without being in illegality and the criminals would get less and less power.
I'm a bit confused, as I think we are agreeing unless I mistyped or you/I misread.
Well we are agreeing on the fact drugs should be legalized, but we are not agreeing on whether or not the State should have the power to regulate them.
I basically said that if the State could control drugs, then the criminal associations would have less power and more people would buy/get their drugs from the State legally.
I completely agree with that statement.