Thread: The Extreme Dangers of Water

* This is a shitty thread

Originally Posted by Marvo

* This is a shitty thread

* You have a shitty personality.

Now make a point about the war on drugs or go play with your cute little pony figures.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

* You have a shitty personality.

Now make a point about the war on drugs or go play with your cute little pony figures.

He's got you there, Marvo.

UM, what's your opinion on drug prohibition?

Originally Posted by cmind

UM, what's your opinion on drug prohibition?

I think drug prohibition is a horrendous injustice that has good people locked up by the millions and is resulting in an extreme amount of theft, death, and gang violence. It even makes the drugs themselves much more dangerous because they get to skip FDA approval or the approval of whichever country's approval administration. While generating mass tragedy, it is rooted in fallacious propaganda which uses reasoning parallel to what is in the water danger image. I know that some drugs are deadly, but drug prohibition is far deadlier, and many of the drugs that are illegal are not deadly. They are not even dangerous if used with a little bit of common sense. I especially have a problem with marijuana prohibition in the U.S. because it came into being as a means of attempting to intice Mexicans to leave the country and it stays illegal because so many huge businesses want it illegal since it would kick their asses in the competition. That applies to every country where pot is illegal. I know Hitler analogies have been used so much in political debate that they have lost a lot of their effectiveness, but I really do consider the war on drugs to be a holocaust. It even involves absurd mass propaganda.

Drug gangs are infesting North America. The reason the gangster factor has gotten so outrageous in the United States is that gangs are abundant and powerful because of the war on drugs. Gangs are dangerous to others, and they are screwing up the lives of the kids who join them. It has even rubbed off on American culture at large in a major way. In Mexico, drug cartels are killing people like flies. Drug prohibition has to end. It has to.

Ok, good. I hoped that you would be against prohibition after posting your hilarious water poster. That's all I have to say.

Relocated to the lounge.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

... it stays illegal because so many huge businesses want it illegal since it would kick their asses in the competition. That applies to every country where pot is illegal. I know Hitler analogies have been used so much in political debate that they have lost a lot of their effectiveness, but I really do consider the war on drugs to be a holocaust. It even involves absurd mass propaganda.

Drug gangs are infesting North America. The reason the gangster factor has gotten so outrageous in the United States is that gangs are abundant and powerful because of the war on drugs. Gangs are dangerous to others, and they are screwing up the lives of the kids who join them. It has even rubbed off on American culture at large in a major way. In Mexico, drug cartels are killing people like flies. Drug prohibition has to end. It has to.

I also wonder (as in, I seriously wonder, I don't know and am not exactly trying to make a point) just how much money the government brings in directly from the crime you refer to. I've realized, as I've grown up, that the Court System is adept at raking in money due to retarded fines and tickets, and I would assume they make a pretty penny off the criminals via court cases-- money which they get because they make drugs illegal, opening more opportunities to bust and then fine drug-related criminals.

England and Ireland spend a combined 500,000 euro on prosecuting drug related issue, yet if they were to legalize drugs and sell them responsibly they would earn over double of what they spend.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

England and Ireland spend a combined 500,000 euro on prosecuting drug related issue, yet if they were to legalize drugs and sell them responsibly they would earn over double of what they spend.

Well that's the big question. What would be the cost to society of legalizing drugs, and what is the benefit? Is the benefit to society greater than the cost? In the USA, we have an enormous number of people in jail for drug use. Sure, just making these people "free" would (at first glance) seem to be a good accounting move -- save money on jails and police.

But what would happen -- we have the economic cost of drug users in a fully industrialized society driving cars, using heavy machinery on jobs in industrial jobs, piloting planes... the damage to our economic system is tremendous. *If* you're going to legalize drugs, you have to have it not interfere with your infrastructure. And how would you do that?

And... not to mention the number of criminals who are now on the street free to... do *different* crimes. Just take a look at New Orleans, when Hurricane Katrina blew through. They just let the prisoners out on the street. Chaos erupted. People raiding stores, shop owner shooting rifles from on top of their roofs. That wasn't a good solution.

OK, maybe we shouldn't have made the drugs illegal in the first place, but we can't just say "Whoops! My bad... y'all free to go now... Crack and heroin? 's all good now."

It's one thing when they banned alcohol with prohibition and made it legal again (which was ONE thing... and people could pretty much brew alcohol in their homes, still.) But illegal drugs are far more powerful, far more expensive, far more addictive, and there are a lot more of them.

Originally Posted by Mindraker

Well that's the big question. What would be the cost to society of legalizing drugs, and what is the benefit? Is the benefit to society greater than the cost? In the USA, we have an enormous number of people in jail for drug use. Sure, just making these people "free" would (at first glance) seem to be a good accounting move -- save money on jails and police.

But what would happen -- we have the economic cost of drug users in a fully industrialized society driving cars, using heavy machinery on jobs in industrial jobs, piloting planes... the damage to our economic system is tremendous. *If* you're going to legalize drugs, you have to have it not interfere with your infrastructure. And how would you do that?

And... not to mention the number of criminals who are now on the street free to... do *different* crimes. Just take a look at New Orleans, when Hurricane Katrina blew through. They just let the prisoners out on the street. Chaos erupted. People raiding stores, shop owner shooting rifles from on top of their roofs. That wasn't a good solution.

OK, maybe we shouldn't have made the drugs illegal in the first place, but we can't just say "Whoops! My bad... y'all free to go now... Crack and heroin? 's all good now."

It's one thing when they banned alcohol with prohibition and made it legal again (which was ONE thing... and people could pretty much brew alcohol in their homes, still.) But illegal drugs are far more powerful, far more expensive, far more addictive, and there are a lot more of them.

You are making the assumption that the governments will let everyone free, that drugs like meth and heroin will be legalized but I never stated this. I actually believe that only some drugs should be legalized i.e marihuana, shrooms. Definitely no addictive or over dangerous drugs like crystal meth etc.

Here is a system that could actually work (in contrast to your let everyone do their own thing system).
The legalized drugs will be sold through coffee shops (Not coffee, drugs) which must obtain the drug from a verified source, the shop will be strictly monitored and made sure not to sell to minors.
A regular tax will be put on the drugs. The drugs may only be taken inside the shop if allowed, or in your own home. The drug rating system will be changed because it is currently a mess, afterwards anyone caught with prohibited drugs or more than one joint of marihuana will be prosecuted.
The fact that it is legally sold through a retail will mean that,
1) All drugs will be of high quality and will not be dangerous to the public.
2) Drug users will use less frequently (as seen in the Netherlands)
3) If children manage to get their hands on some (Which will be harder) at least they will have a sample without the chemicals sprayed on it if they were to obtain some from a street seller.
4) Drug users will more likely stick to legal drugs because of the risk involved.

The fact that this system probably wouldn't work in a country like the USA is because of the huge economic inequality, the poor will certainly not be able to afford certified drugs and still by off the street.

I doubt that, the poor still seem to afford cigarettes quite fine.

And yeah, about that: tobacco? It's dangerous and addictive. So... ban?

Originally Posted by Xei

I doubt that, the poor still seem to afford cigarettes quite fine.

And yeah, about that: tobacco? It's dangerous and addictive. So... ban?

There's quite a difference between buying something non addictive and very expensive (Drugs) to buying something moderately expensive and very addictive (cigarettes).

I believe tobacco should be banned unless you grow and use it in your own home. I think that it's way to addictive and its popularity should be brought down.

I don't see any reason that marijuana would be any more expensive than tobacco if they both had the same legal status.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't see any reason that marijuana would be any more expensive than tobacco if they both had the same legal status.

Marijuana is more expensive because it takes longer to grow and gives a more intense result per joint than cigarettes do. If cigarettes went through the same product line and were considered a drug they would be more expensive too. But it just so happens to be that cigarettes ARE openly available. Anyways what exactly does tobacco have to do with marijuana that you are trying to get at?

Here I will compare the two countries in how they both their laws on marijuana and how the usage in both countries.
Laws
(The Netherlands - coffeeshops) "Coffeeshops are tolerated with a view to protecting public health. The purpose here is to create a distinction between the markets for soft and hard drugs so that people who wish to use cannabis do not gradually slip into contact with hard drugs. The regulations governing coffeeshops are very rigorous. No alcohol or hard drugs may be sold or consumed there, and they are not allowed to advertise. Cannabis may only be sold to people who are aged 18 or over."

"The coffeeshops must adhere to what are known as the AHOJ-G criteria: no advertising, no sale of hard drugs, no public nuisance, no entry to young people under 18 years of age, and no sale of large quantities (more than five grams per transaction). The maximum level of stock for selling is set at 500 grams, although local authorities are entitled to impose lower limits."

"The most important provisions regarding drugs are laid down in the Opium Act. Since 1976, the Act has made a distinction between hard drugs (drugs with an unacceptable risk to public health, including heroin, cocaine, LSD and ecstasy) and drugs that entail a less significant risk (hash and marijuana). Fresh magic mushrooms were added, along with dry magic mushrooms, to the provisions of the Opium Act, List II, on 1 December 2008. As a result, the sale of fresh magic mushrooms is now prohibited.

"Possessing, dealing in, selling and producing drugs are criminal offences. Use is not.

"• Offences are punished more severely if hard drugs (drugs with unacceptable risks) are a factor.

"• The possession of drugs for the purpose of dealing is also more severely penalized that possession for one’s own personal use (see level of punishment).

"• The police and the judiciary give priority to tackling the large-scale drug trade and the production of drugs, which means that small-scale dealers and users are not systematically pursued (see the principle of expediency).

"• The sale of small quantities of soft drugs in coffeeshops is an offence, but in practice prosecutions are only generally made if the coffeeshop in question does not adhere to what are known as the AHOJ-G criteria (see AHOJ-G criteria).

"• The aim of allowing controlled sales outlets for cannabis is to separate the markets so that cannabis users do not come into contact with hard drugs and a criminal subculture when making their purchase."

Now for the simple laws of the USA

(a) Unlawful acts; penalties
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while cting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter."

"Any person who violates this subsection may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year ....."

"if he commits such offense after a prior conviction under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or a prior conviction for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, has become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 15 days but not more than 2 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $2,500 ...."

"if he commits such offense after two or more prior convictions under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or two or more prior convictions for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, or a combination of two or more such offenses have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 90 days but not more than 3 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $5,000."

So now we see that the netherlands tolerates marijuana to a certain degree and the USA sees it as a highly illicit drug. What effect does this have.

Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) USA: 36.9% Netherlands:17%
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+) USA: 1.4% Netherlands: 0.4%
Per capita spending on criminal justice system USA:379 euro Netherlands: 223 euro

I'll also add that in America of all people who try out drugs 90% try marijuana, unlike crystal meth with is 3% and heroin which is 30% (I believe).

Illegal drugs are so expensive because they are illegal. A lot more danger is involved in selling them when the selling institution or person has to risk prison and fight other gangs for turf. What costs more, hiring somebody to paint a house or to paint an equal area part of the top end of a skyscraper? Nobody ever mugs, burglarizes, or car jacks to get money for tobacco or alcohol, and no gangs ever kill each other over those... any more. That is because those drugs are legal. There was such a bad blood bath over illegal alcohol at one time in the U.S. that a Constitutional amendment had to be repealed to end alcohol prohibition. Why would the other drugs be any different?

Mindraker, I don't understand your point about how alcohol is different. All of the drugs that are currently illegal were legal at one time. Why would legalizing them be any different from legalizing alcohol? Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs there is, to the user and to bystanders. I have been amazed for decades about how it gets such special treatment, including all American yee haw advertisements during the Super Bowl. It gets such special treatment because politicians love it and the money they get from the mega rich alcohol lobby, which wants their competition illegal.

The people you are concerned about getting out of prison would only be out of prison if they are serving just drug sentences. I don't want murder, rape, child molestation, burglary, or car jacking charges dropped. Interestingly though, a lot of thieves are in prison because all they wanted was a fix. If they had been able to get their drugs without victimizing anybody, they would have. People who are in prison just for drug charges are mostly good people who did not deserve to have their lives tragically thrown away over an intrusion on their freedom. There are stories of people getting 10 year prison sentences for growing two marijuana plants or having a very small amount of cocaine for personal use. That is every bit as sick as putting a Jew in a concentration camp for not leaving Europe.

Alucinor, that is another factor. Police departments get lots of money for drug busts. They also get paid off by drug dealers. Cops want drugs illegal for selfish reasons just like politicians and alcohol and tobacco lobbyists. Marijuana has more competition than any other drug. Legalizing it would be a big issue for lots of pharmaceutical dealers. The sleeping pill industry, the nausea pill industry, and the tranquilizer industry very much want marijuana to be illegal, even if that means zillions of good people rot in prison while their families are crushed over it. I think the best way to understand the war on drugs is to follow the money.

And oh yeah, the illegal drug dealers also want drugs to be illegal. They are making fortunes off the fact that certain drugs are illegal.

I think it was Bill Maher who said that the war on drugs should be called the war on certain drugs. Salvia divinorum and psilocybin mushrooms are illegal while alcohol and tobacco are used in front of kids at outdoor concerts. The law never ceases to amaze me with the double standards it has even when mass tragedy is involved.

Dutchraptor, you made a lot of good points, but the U.S. law you posted does not apply to every state. We have both federal and state drug laws, and it looks like you must have posted a state law. In some states, you can get way more than a year for first time possession. In Mississippi, where I live, my brother (a defense attorney) saw a judge give a mother of two children a ten year sentence for possession of two crack rocks. You can (or could) get 20 years for growing more than an ounce of marijuana, but fortunately the court system isn't taking marijuana so seriously here any more.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

You are making the assumption that the governments will let everyone free, that drugs like meth and heroin will be legalized but I never stated this. I actually believe that only some drugs should be legalized i.e marihuana, shrooms. Definitely no addictive or over dangerous drugs like crystal meth etc.

Here is a system that could actually work (in contrast to your let everyone do their own thing system).
The legalized drugs will be sold through coffee shops (Not coffee, drugs) which must obtain the drug from a verified source, the shop will be strictly monitored and made sure not to sell to minors.
A regular tax will be put on the drugs. The drugs may only be taken inside the shop if allowed, or in your own home. The drug rating system will be changed because it is currently a mess, afterwards anyone caught with prohibited drugs or more than one joint of marihuana will be prosecuted.
The fact that it is legally sold through a retail will mean that,
1) All drugs will be of high quality and will not be dangerous to the public.
2) Drug users will use less frequently (as seen in the Netherlands)
3) If children manage to get their hands on some (Which will be harder) at least they will have a sample without the chemicals sprayed on it if they were to obtain some from a street seller.
4) Drug users will more likely stick to legal drugs because of the risk involved.

The fact that this system probably wouldn't work in a country like the USA is because of the huge economic inequality, the poor will certainly not be able to afford certified drugs and still by off the street.

Part of the economic inequality is because of drug users getting thrown in jail, and then not being able to get a job because they have criminal drug records. Or because of better financial returns on selling drugs than flipping burgers.

I think you guys are right, once a drug like marijuana is _legal_, the supply in the market will increase, lowering the price. This will make the profit of working as a drug dealer for marijuana less appealing. But that doesn't eliminate all illegal drugs -- there will always be something illegal to make money off of.

Originally Posted by Mindraker

Well that's the big question. What would be the cost to society of legalizing drugs, and what is the benefit? Is the benefit to society greater than the cost? In the USA, we have an enormous number of people in jail for drug use. Sure, just making these people "free" would (at first glance) seem to be a good accounting move -- save money on jails and police.

But what would happen -- we have the economic cost of drug users in a fully industrialized society driving cars, using heavy machinery on jobs in industrial jobs, piloting planes... the damage to our economic system is tremendous. *If* you're going to legalize drugs, you have to have it not interfere with your infrastructure. And how would you do that?

We already have laws for all of that. You can't fly a plane or drive a car while on any drugs (including alcohol). And in a job using heavy machinery, they do drug tests.

Originally Posted by Mindraker

And... not to mention the number of criminals who are now on the street free to... do *different* crimes. Just take a look at New Orleans, when Hurricane Katrina blew through. They just let the prisoners out on the street. Chaos erupted. People raiding stores, shop owner shooting rifles from on top of their roofs. That wasn't a good solution.

Most people are not in their for violent crimes. Their only "crime" is drug use/possession/selling.
They will not automatically become violent, actual criminal because they're in jail. And even if they do, when they get out, they'll have a clean record and can re-integrate in to society more easily.

Originally Posted by Mindraker

It's one thing when they banned alcohol with prohibition and made it legal again (which was ONE thing... and people could pretty much brew alcohol in their homes, still.) But illegal drugs are far more powerful, far more expensive, far more addictive, and there are a lot more of them.

There's more, but less users of each. Alcohol is more addictive than a lot of illegal drugs (the only exception are probably heroin and meth).

Originally Posted by Mindraker

I think you guys are right, once a drug like marijuana is _legal_, the supply in the market will increase, lowering the price. This will make the profit of working as a drug dealer for marijuana less appealing. But that doesn't eliminate all illegal drugs -- there will always be something illegal to make money off of.

IMO all drugs should be legal. Most are unnecessary though. All these new drugs would just be useless to manufacture because there are safer, and more enjoyable alternatives.
You also have to remember that many of the most powerful drugs like and meth and crack are a result of drug prohibition. Because they're cheaper and smaller doses (less to transport).
They're only going to get worse if we continue prohibition.

My list of legal substances would be Cannabis, MDMA, Amphetamine, Heroin, LSD, Mushrooms, Peyote and DMT.

The only addictive ones are amphetamine, but it's a safer alternative to meth, so that's the only reason I would legalise it.
And heroin, but people are already addicted, and it's not easy to get off, and with maintained doses it isn't really harmful.
So I see no problem with it since people can function basically normally if they have controlled doses.

Originally Posted by tommo

My list of legal substances would be Cannabis, MDMA, Amphetamine, Heroin, LSD, Mushrooms, Peyote and DMT.

The only addictive ones are amphetamine, but it's a safer alternative to meth, so that's the only reason I would legalise it.
And heroin, but people are already addicted, and it's not easy to get off, and with maintained doses it isn't really harmful.
So I see no problem with it since people can function basically normally if they have controlled doses.

LSD can be extremely dangerous, some people don't know how to use it responsibly and end up having a bad trip potentially harming themselves and others. Although there is also a solution, I've seen some places where people are actually allowed to take shrooms and lsd, in some sspecial contained rooms where they couldn't hurt themselves or something like that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Dutchraptor, you made a lot of good points, but the U.S. law you posted does not apply to every state. We have both federal and state drug laws, and it looks like you must have posted a state law. In some states, you can get way more than a year for first time possession. In Mississippi, where I live, my brother (a defense attorney) saw a judge give a mother of two children a ten year sentence for possession of two crack rocks. You can (or could) get 20 years for growing more than an ounce of marijuana, but fortunately the court system isn't taking marijuana so seriously here any more.

Yes I probably have but I think it still carries a point. It seems to me also that in the states that have legalized marijuana pharmaceutical companies have capture the trade and only sell for ridiculous prices, which in a way should also still lead to street selling.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

LSD can be extremely dangerous, some people don't know how to use it responsibly and end up having a bad trip potentially harming themselves and others.

Can you name specific examples of this? I know bad trips can be terrorizing for the user, but when has that resulted in harming others? How common is it? I've never heard of it, and I was in my teens to early 20's in the early 1990's, when LSD was enormously popular in Mississippi.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Yes I probably have but I think it still carries a point. It seems to me also that in the states that have legalized marijuana pharmaceutical companies have capture the trade and only sell for ridiculous prices, which in a way should also still lead to street selling.

Only medicinal marijuana is legal to sell in certain states, and there is a red tape clusterfuck factor that makes it expensive. Are there multiple companies selling it? Competition has a way of bringing down prices.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

LSD can be extremely dangerous, some people don't know how to use it responsibly and end up having a bad trip potentially harming themselves and others. Although there is also a solution, I've seen some places where people are actually allowed to take shrooms and lsd, in some sspecial contained rooms where they couldn't hurt themselves or something like that.

It should be used under psychologist supervision if the person has any form of mental illness, or if they even think they may have a bad trip.
But people can harm themselves all the time, on any kind of drug or no drugs at all.
We can't protect everyone from everything, but we can educate people.
Education is key in keeping harm from drugs down.

Psst hey - anybody want to buy some nice rock?



It's totally primo - pure as can be. I got cubed or crushed, whatever you want. Just don't tell nobody where you got it...

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Marijuana is more expensive because it takes longer to grow and gives a more intense result per joint than cigarettes do. If cigarettes went through the same product line and were considered a drug they would be more expensive too. But it just so happens to be that cigarettes ARE openly available. Anyways what exactly does tobacco have to do with marijuana that you are trying to get at?

Marijuana is dirt cheap (at least around here). If it were legalized, the prices would plummet. It only takes a few months to grow and it's as easy as tossing a few seeds into a pot. ._.

Originally Posted by Mindraker

Well that's the big question. What would be the cost to society of legalizing drugs, and what is the benefit? Is the benefit to society greater than the cost?

Portugal decriminalized all drugs - crack sherm, heroin, etc. Instead of tossing addicts in prison, they were instead offered treatment. Ever since they decriminalized, drug use rates have dropped dramatically. So yes, it'd definitely be worth it if we legalized.

Water is obviously hazardous to human society. Civilians can not be trusted to ingest only the necessary amount of water. Over ingestion of water leads to water shortages and increased strain on sewer systems. In addition, many people choose to urinate in the outdoors, which is considered "sexual harassment" in many US states. So due to water's unparalleled side effect of urination, more sexual harassment will occur. We should limit civilian's ingestion of water, or at least require a minors to take a class which educates the importance of consuming one's allotted amount of water in order to better society as a whole.