The case for legalizing drugs

Post Reply New Topic

That's a rather racist statement, methinks.


M.

racists statements? how? youve been itching to ban me so heres your chance i guess. because of the alcohol? well its the truth. its even illegal on the reservation, because all they wanna do is drink. they cant handle it for some reason i heard it was some genetic thing with there gallbladder or something. and claire ive seena documentry on it, its the truth.

rb, I'm really not sure where you think I'm itching to ban you, much less anyone. When you make a generalization based on another person's ethnicity that has a negative connotation, is it surprising that it will be seen as having a racist slant? Having grown up in Alaska and Arizona, I'm familiar the stereotype... as well as the fact there are high rates of alcoholism in many of the sub-populations. That doesn't make it that one cannot handle alcohol, or can handle psychedelics or other drugs, anymore than wearing black means you are going to funeral... it's false logic.


M.

oh believe me you are. why im shure im constinely under the microscope with just about everything i say. reguardless i'll drop it,
and i live next to the largest indian reservation in america. the navajo reservation, i can attest with my own eyes that ive never seen one sober navajo intown. they all hitchhike off the reservation to a the edge of town to get there drink on. if you dont believe me you can make the trip up here yourself and see. that isnt being racist, thats stating facts.

Sorry you feel that way, rb - you're entitled to your opinion and feelings, but that does not make that the case. Merely made an observation and comment.

What you are claiming as fact is only your observation; it does not make those instances truth for everyone. I've spent the past twenty years in Arizona, right where you describe... and what I've seen does not match what I've seen.


M.

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's a reference to my own earlier post, I was asking him if he was the one who's getting clubbed like a baby seal, or was he soup cracker that's being sandblasted. I was talking about the argumentative overkill going on here, where one of the two people vocally supporting prohibition trots out yet another half baked logical fallacy, invalid comparison, poor analogy, or irrelevant straw man, only to be overwhelmed by a tidal wave of refuting fisking, supporting documentation, etc. It reminded me of some of my earlier battles with a certain slow Canadian who doesn't seem to post here any more, where I would post a multi-page researched rebuttal of his sniping posts with footnotes and links to supporting statistics, only to have him respond with a single sentence to the effect of "whatever man, you're just some crazy gun nut anyway". Ahh, memories...

[Edited by sinsboldly at the OP's request.

you deleted your reply and said i watched too much dances with wolves thats why the documentry part is in there. and furthermore alls i gotta say is move out here where i am and your opinion will rapidly change

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why would I even waste my brain cells "considering" a viewpoint that is wrong? I've seen all the evidence I need to about how well the war on drugs is working, both up close and personal and statistically, and all the evidence points to the same conclusion, prohibition is one big scam with an incaluable cost in destroyed or lost lives and money flushed down the toilet. How you feel about it doesn't change the facts one iota, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time worrying about your "viewpoint".

Translating again, I have to assume that by "run-around" you mean "rigorous argumentation" and by "paper math" you meant to say "documenting evidence or statistics". These, as opposed to what you've "provided", emotional rhetoric and appeals to a false authority? (but the rest of the world does it, it must be right!).




Need I say more about the appeals to authority and invalid comparisons? Wikipedia has an excellent list of common logical fallacies. I'd suggest spending some quality time perusing it, and hey, you could download an inline spellchecker in the background while you're at it, it's win/win!

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

other quote deleted by request

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dox, so far all I heard out of your side is the following
We are right and anyone who disagrees are idiots/spewing proganda. If I flip your words around, you side is clearly wrong and I rebut myself with evidence. And as I have said, if this is such a EXCELLENT idea, then how come not a single goverement in the world has passed laws allwoing the legal sale of, say, heroin? The reason is clear, because drugs are bad! Not only do they screw up the users life, their actions affect others. So if drugs are not so bad, go out and take a hit of crack for me, and then tell me its alright. I am sick and f*****g tired of your inablitly to try and see my point. Its people like you in the NRA that is allowing assault weapons to be sold over the counter to anyone with a picture ID and cash.

"Governments" are to be translated into "politicians". Those politicians are not for a penny better than their voters (and if they make a big effort not to appear better than their voters).

As referred above experts came up with this idea (RSA-Report). Those know more about this issue than the political class does dear to say.

---

I may also remind that this experiment regarding a prohibition on drugs is quite young. You do not find such legislation prior the 1st World War. It is just wrong to give the impression that this was always the case.

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.