|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:31 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:17 pm
 |
|
|
|
KillerLee I think the man-rape would be torture enough.
Welll....not all men are raped when they do things with men in prison. xd
KillerLee It depends on the prison. At some prisons and some places, it's a breeze. At others, it's like a living hell (or the ghettos of LA) with gangs, rape, beatings, and the constant fear you'll be ********, stabbed to death, beaten half to death, or tortured unless you align yourself with a gang for protection (and give the gangleader your s**t and blowjobs to be in the gang, ect).
I believe that's the difference between low security "harvard" prisons where the super rich and many white collar criminals versus the high security ones. ...I've heard that the prisons for the white collar criminals can be very nice and almost like a hotel or retreat, but I can't confirm that. sweatdrop
Shaviv legalize where possible, decriminalize where possible. (Smoking marijuana or dropping acid
Is acid really that safe? ...Also, is acid LSD? I don't know the lingo but "acid" sounds dangerous to me. It sounds like you're injecting battery acid inside you or something. gonk |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:28 am
|
|
|
 |
I'm not sure I like the idea of decriminalizing drugs, as most illegal drugs ******** you up big time, and very easily. Not to mention the drug trade causes a lot of violence, just look at Mexico.
But I'll agree that the drug war is basically a failure and there's more drug users/sellers in prison than other crimes.
I think there's an easy solution, if not easy to implement. End povery, end the ghettos. The people who do the most drugs are people who's lives are s**t and they use the drugs to cope with their pain and depression. The people who sell drugs, at least at the bottom of the chain, are people who are poor and can't get good jobs, so they go for the easy money in the drug chain.
Get rid of the poverty of the inner urban areas, and give them good jobs, and it will reduce the drug problem significantly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:28 pm
|
|
|
|
KillerLee I'm not sure I like the idea of decriminalizing drugs, as most illegal drugs ******** you up big time, and very easily. Not to mention the drug trade causes a lot of violence, just look at Mexico.
Well, if you want to remove the violence the fastest solution is to legalize the drugs. Then large corporations will start up subsidiaries not associated directly with them and while the money would flow to the large corporation who started it, most people wouldn't know that this business that's popping up all over the place is owned and by a very very large parent corporation. This isn't very new, though I think most corporation buy ownership over others. If you want one great example of this, here's an excerpt from Wikipedia on Time Warner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner Among its subsidiaries are AOL, New Line Cinema, Time Inc., HBO, Turner Broadcasting System, The CW Television Network, TheWB.com, UBU Productions, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Kids' WB, The CW4Kids, Cartoon Network, CNN, DC Comics, and Mohawk Productions.
With a corporation running things, you wouldn't easily have those violent shootings. Instead, it would be a very controlled and almost bank-like setting... Well, what some banks are set up as. Very high security and such....but an almost medical looking set up. People would still get messed up and drugged out of their minds, but it would be in a safe environment.
Of course, there would be those less safe seedy area places, but they'd get driven out of business because they wouldn't be able to compete with the larger companies with a better reputation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:21 pm
|
|
|
|
Shaviv Pixeliciousness You could make alot of money with it! And no, it would be terrible. However those people have sort of....I don't know. Drug dealers and murderers and thieves and wife beaters... I think prison should be a punishment. Something you fear. Something you -never- want to return to. I feel like right now, its a vacation with a chance of rape, apparently. Most of the people in jail are in jail because of drug-related offenses or, in a growing number of cases, because they owe the government money but don't have the money to pay it back. Typically this is the state gov't, because the Federal gov't has payment plans and stuff, they're ready to work with you. So to reduce our growing number of prisoners (which I heard recently was over 10% of the population!) we might want to radically overhaul our drug laws - legalize where possible, decriminalize where possible. (Smoking marijuana or dropping acid can endanger your health or your life. So can smoking tobacco or drinking more than a handful of drinks a week. Are they really so bad as cocaine or heroin?)
Doing a hit of lsd is certinally harmful, as well as being dangerous to your surroundings.
I don't care about tobacco. It kinda makes me angry being its a huge goverment tax income yet they cave to people screaming boo. I don't care about pot either.
Alcohol I'd perfer moderated.
But halucingens and other things which impare a persons cognitive abilities in dramatic ways are dangerous.
That said, yes, alot of people in jail are there because of drug related causes. But there's alot there because of violence too. That alone shows the person has difficulty fitting into a society in which its generally frowned of to shoot a dude for looking at your babys mama. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:45 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 5:52 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:33 pm
|
|
|
|
Pixeliciousness The welfare state of america and..well, most of the world, is rather appaling to me. Charity is incredibly important. Belief your entitled to charity is another matter.
In a personal sense, someone who cannot support himself can and should expect that someone else should help. It would be unjust and cruel of us to discard such people into the street for the sin of being too sick or injured or deformed or whatever to fend for themselves.
Quote: Education in prison would be -marvelous-. Especially if mandatory. I want to educate the everloving ******** out of everything and everyone. Anytime I hear someone say their 'x' illterate drives me -mad-. However, I also loath our School systems. Especially colleges, whom I see as effectivly greedy money eating monuments of inefficency. Educate prisoners? Sign me up. Make their sentance based on their grade. Then we're open up for prison school fan fics.
My mother's a University professor; she also does online classes on the side, one of which is a psychology class with inmates at a local juvie center. Most of the students, while they tend to lack technical skills in terms of studying etc., are pretty bright.
Pixeliciousness Doing a hit of lsd is certinally harmful, as well as being dangerous to your surroundings.
Ah? LSD may, under extreme circumstances, make a person a danger to himself. I have yet to hear of anyone engaging in explosive violence while under the influence. I have heard of suicides while under the influence, including accidental suicides (tripping over the edge of a rooftop), and while these could conceivably endanger others, they don't really count as most suicidal people who jump are not intoxicated.
FWIW, I have never seriously considered suicide while intoxicated - only while stone-cold sober.
Quote: But halucingens and other things which impare a persons cognitive abilities in dramatic ways are dangerous.
There are different hallucinogens. Phencyclidine may be very likely to cause a person to behave in a psychotic danger-to-others way, but I have never heard of the same being said of ayahuesca, peyote, LSD, ketamine, whatever else, you know?
Granted, these drugs may be a danger to the user's soul - not in the supernatural sense, just that if he is vulnerable to serious mental illness, they may be trigger factors. If he is already struggling with a serious mental illness, they may induce a worsening of the detachment from reality. But the same is true of most legal ways of poisoning yourself, as with drink, smoke or homebrew antifreeze liquor (okay, that one just kills you outright, never mind) - and many prescription drugs, including ones which are considered "not psychoactive". Some antibiotics can induce psychotic rage or suicidal depression, yet they are considered therapeutically very useful, and one of these dangerous ones - ciproflaxin - was handed out like candy, not too long ago. Without warnings.
Basically, the moral panic over hallucinogens is... well, silly. You shouldn't poison your body, either your liver or your brain, but since people are going to anyway, you might as well have the laws accurately reflect the risks to one's self or others.
Quote: That said, yes, alot of people in jail are there because of drug related causes. But there's alot there because of violence too. That alone shows the person has difficulty fitting into a society in which its generally frowned of to shoot a dude for looking at your babys mama.
Umm...
You may be referring to gang culture.
One of the things that turned gang members from the rough-but-not-usually-lethal neighborhood gangs earlier in the century into the machine-gun-toting nasties they can be now is, well... prohibition, you know? Prohibition gives an incentive to engage in violence and other such intrinsically unacceptable behavior, because the reward for getting a shipment of contraband through is (or at least seems) so much greater than the cost of killing people along the way. So we as a society have to weigh the cost of prohibition against the cost of letting people choose, without any government penalty, whether or not to use the poison of their choice. I think it's safe to say that refined and powerful opiates (morphine, diacetylmorphine, etc.) are sufficiently dangerous to make their possession illegal without a prescription. Still, there's more to the drug trade than heroin, or even heroin and coke.
Or you may be referring to an apparent tendency for people who live in a certain sort of unstable social environment to commit violent acts more frequently than those who live in a more ordered environment.
On this, I would say: refer back to the notes on prohibition (and why is it a gram of cocaine is so much worse than a gram of cocaine hydrochloride?), and also would point out that the policies of the past fifty or even hundred years, designed to treat non-white people as second-class citizens, are still bearing their poisoned fruit. I could start in about redlining, urban blight and redevelopment, and all that, but I think you know about those by now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:32 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: In a personal sense, someone who cannot support himself can and should expect that someone else should help. It would be unjust and cruel of us to discard such people into the street for the sin of being too sick or injured or deformed or whatever to fend for themselves.
I'm fine with charity. But I think it -should be- charity. Not forcing people to pay for others illness.
Quote: My mother's a University professor; she also does online classes on the side, one of which is a psychology class with inmates at a local juvie center. Most of the students, while they tend to lack technical skills in terms of studying etc., are pretty bright.
I wish there was more of your mother. If you take a bright person and give them the skills to survive, they'll just..do better. I know it doesn't make re-offense fool proof, but I think its better then locking them in a box then shoving them back out on the street.
Quote: Ah? LSD may, under extreme circumstances, make a person a danger to himself. I have yet to hear of anyone engaging in explosive violence while under the influence. I have heard of suicides while under the influence, including accidental suicides (tripping over the edge of a rooftop), and while these could conceivably endanger others, they don't really count as most suicidal people who jump are not intoxicated.
You should never consider suicide=(
LSD can cause enhanced states of paranoia and occasionally delusions, some of which can persist even off the trip, and lsd can remain active for I belive up to 18 hours or so? There are dangerous and unstable people out there to begin with. Some people whom are allready paranoid could potentially become destructive. But yes, I know theres plenty of 'horror stories' about LSD, such as the guy who thinks he's an orange, but none the same I would not like to think about someone whom is allready borderline dangerous having their sense of reality damaged.
Not to mention the increased heart rate could kill some people on its own.
Quote: There are different hallucinogens. Phencyclidine may be very likely to cause a person to behave in a psychotic danger-to-others way, but I have never heard of the same being said of ayahuesca, peyote, LSD, ketamine, whatever else, you know?
http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=55099 Best example I can find of paranoia online, but he was consuming other drugs as well. I don't belive alot of clinical tests have been done on peyote. I'm more afraid of someone seeing pulsing lights and shifting floors getting into the seat of a car.
Quote: Granted, these drugs may be a danger to the user's soul - not in the supernatural sense, just that if he is vulnerable to serious mental illness, they may be trigger factors. If he is already struggling with a serious mental illness, they may induce a worsening of the detachment from reality. But the same is true of most legal ways of poisoning yourself, as with drink, smoke or homebrew antifreeze liquor (okay, that one just kills you outright, never mind) - and many prescription drugs, including ones which are considered "not psychoactive". Some antibiotics can induce psychotic rage or suicidal depression, yet they are considered therapeutically very useful, and one of these dangerous ones - ciproflaxin - was handed out like candy, not too long ago. Without warnings.
Alot of that I blame on the piss more medical community. I truely feel many doctors do not care about wellfare. My thing with halucinigens again, if for no other reason, relates to cars, operating machinery, etc. Pot doesn't make someones see things. People reacting to non present stimuli can be dangerous simply by what they could do to their surroundings. If it was made a 'stay out of the car, stay at home' drug, I'd be fine.
Quote: Basically, the moral panic over hallucinogens is... well, silly. You shouldn't poison your body, either your liver or your brain, but since people are going to anyway, you might as well have the laws accurately reflect the risks to one's self or others.
I might have sounded off there. I'm only morally objected to cocaine and heroine, just because of where it comes from. Well, and meth.
Quote: Umm... You may be referring to gang culture. One of the things that turned gang members from the rough-but-not-usually-lethal neighborhood gangs earlier in the century into the machine-gun-toting nasties they can be now is, well... prohibition, you know? Prohibition gives an incentive to engage in violence and other such intrinsically unacceptable behavior, because the reward for getting a shipment of contraband through is (or at least seems) so much greater than the cost of killing people along the way. So we as a society have to weigh the cost of prohibition against the cost of letting people choose, without any government penalty, whether or not to use the poison of their choice. I think it's safe to say that refined and powerful opiates (morphine, diacetylmorphine, etc.) are sufficiently dangerous to make their possession illegal without a prescription. Still, there's more to the drug trade than heroin, or even heroin and coke.
Or you may be referring to an apparent tendency for people who live in a certain sort of unstable social environment to commit violent acts more frequently than those who live in a more ordered environment.
On this, I would say: refer back to the notes on prohibition (and why is it a gram of cocaine is so much worse than a gram of cocaine hydrochloride?), and also would point out that the policies of the past fifty or even hundred years, designed to treat non-white people as second-class citizens, are still bearing their poisoned fruit. I could start in about redlining, urban blight and redevelopment, and all that, but I think you know about those by now.
I was primarily refering to urban and social enviroment problems. I understand prohibtion. Its my hope that simply increasing education in every facet would assist with ending some of the worse parts of gang culture. Or heck, just have schools give parents 100 bucks for every A their kid gets. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:05 pm
|
|
|
|
I find it a bit insane with all the people who say they want to legalize drugs.
The only exception, and I will mention this because people will use it as an example, is weed. I don't care about weed and a part of me thinks it should be legalized. So don't use it as an argument.
But can anyone seriously say that cocane, crack, meth, LSD, heroin, and other hardcore drugs like these that ******** up your body bad, are highly addictive, and cause all sorts of violence and stuff with the transportation and delivery of such drugs, should be legalized, is just nuts.
I will agree that the current "war" on drugs is not working but I've already stated root causes for the popularity of drugs and the way of fixing those.
As long as there's a wealth gap, as long as minorities are kept in crappy neighborhoods (something that's been happening for over 100 years in this country), as long as those minorities are poor and have no future, as long as they have little education, they will do drugs to make themselves feel better or to rebel against the system or because their friends say it's cool. They will also get into the drug trade because it's very easy money and will make them rich quick.
Fix these problems and the drug problem will be a lot less of a problem, and then we can deal with it from there. But to deny that poverty and lack of opportunity or education is not a factor is to deny the largest factor in drug trade and drug abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:31 pm
|
|
|
|
Pixeliciousness I'm fine with charity. But I think it -should be- charity. Not forcing people to pay for others illness.
You know, it used to be that you were forced to pay for an education to get it. If someone helped you get an education, it was charity. Nowadays, it's socialized and required. For a while back in the earlier 20th century, it was very helpful. How much so? Well, being able to do basic math in an age without calculators would come in handy when doing things like paying taxes and buying goods and services. (Imagine a world where virtually everyone was audited because their forms were full of mistakes, or where only the educated and wealthy controlled -your- money and livelihood. Big difference there.) Now, obviously a lot has changed since then. Schooling isn't quite working well and there's a lot of strains on the system from many different directions. [I personally believe it's from mismanaged funds combined with people not wanting to pay higher taxes to support the institutions they use, along with a lot of other problems that are not entirely the school system's fault, though they do share the blame.]
Anyway, the point is that at one time schooling was only available to the wealthy. Why should good health be only available to the wealthy as well? The poor will always be stereotyped as diseased if they never get access to proper care. They also put at risk the entire population.
Lets just take for example the swine flu thing. It's very over-hyped and sensationalized as the new SARS or bird flu. However, there -is- a potential for it to become very deadly and problematic. If it supposedly mutated as it moved north from Mexico, then that's probably more dangerous than it was before because it means that the virus can mutate very quickly. With no drugs to immunize you from it, it could spread out of control. Now, do you want "patient zero" to be untreated because they can't afford healthcare so they just go around sick all the time? Even working while sick? The government will probably trace it to them and get involved, but that's -the government- and not corporations. Besides, corporations would benefit from more sick people anyway. They'll just manufacture more tamiflu and hand it out like candy. (Though that's pretty dumb that they're using tamiflu to begin with, because if the virus quickly builds a resistance to it then we literally have no way to stop it.)
Now, this isn't to say socialized medicine would prevent a pandemic. However, there wouldn't be an excuse for not going in to the doctor. It becomes far less likely that a person will go untreated because they can't afford it.
There are other reasons for supporting socialized medicine, but I think one of the best arguments is the safe guard for all rather than just the rich.
I should also mention than law enforcement is another very good example that stretches back even further. It's pretty recent to have police and such to enforce laws and protect people. Long ago, only the wealthy could afford it. Do we really want only the wealthy to have protection? (This is protection in general, not just with safety with law and order.)
Pixeliciousness You should never consider suicide=(
Easier to say than do. I used to be very suicidal. ...Then I got this intense fear of death and now I'm stuck just being depressed often. I'm just stuck now.
Pixeliciousness Not to mention the increased heart rate could kill some people on its own.
I like the idea of banning stress and very salty food. razz Everyone can be on tranquilizers! ...Sorry, just had to do it. x3
Pixeliciousness I'm more afraid of someone seeing pulsing lights and shifting floors getting into the seat of a car.
People do that anyway even though it's illegal. <.<
Pixeliciousness My thing with halucinigens again, if for no other reason, relates to cars, operating machinery, etc. Pot doesn't make someones see things. People reacting to non present stimuli can be dangerous simply by what they could do to their surroundings. If it was made a 'stay out of the car, stay at home' drug, I'd be fine.
Do not operate heavy machine while using this medication.
Seems like a common label you find on a lot of drugs that are legal these days. <.<
Pixeliciousness Or heck, just have schools give parents 100 bucks for every A their kid gets.
We need those education camps like in China where if the kid doesn't do well in their classes they are a disgrace to the entire family! ...and We need more octo-moms! (More kids = More profit!) ...But in the natural way, because no one objects when it's done the old fashion way. 3nodding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:27 pm
|
|
|
|
KillerLee I find it a bit insane with all the people who say they want to legalize drugs. The only exception, and I will mention this because people will use it as an example, is weed. I don't care about weed and a part of me thinks it should be legalized. So don't use it as an argument. But can anyone seriously say that cocane, crack, meth, LSD, heroin, and other hardcore drugs like these that ******** up your body bad, are highly addictive, and cause all sorts of violence and stuff with the transportation and delivery of such drugs, should be legalized, is just nuts. I will agree that the current "war" on drugs is not working but I've already stated root causes for the popularity of drugs and the way of fixing those. As long as there's a wealth gap, as long as minorities are kept in crappy neighborhoods (something that's been happening for over 100 years in this country), as long as those minorities are poor and have no future, as long as they have little education, they will do drugs to make themselves feel better or to rebel against the system or because their friends say it's cool. They will also get into the drug trade because it's very easy money and will make them rich quick. Fix these problems and the drug problem will be a lot less of a problem, and then we can deal with it from there. But to deny that poverty and lack of opportunity or education is not a factor is to deny the largest factor in drug trade and drug abuse.
I don't see the harmfulness of LSD or MDMA in the context of a society in which people are free to abuse ethanol or DM.
If you remove the prohibition, and instead have shows that sell authorized, regularly inspected preparations of the stuff, the way we sell other OTC drugs or vices, the incentive to engage in criminal violence in order to get a hit or transport it for someone else goes way down. The incentives are shifted, right? - nobody smuggles booze anymore, at least not on a large scale, because it's not prohibited. Nobody gets into gunfights or slaughters his business rivals over rights to transport booze because you can just phone up a manufacturer and get tons, literally, tons of wine and strong drink delivered to your door, where you can sell it or drink it, or both, as you please.
Cocaine is pretty hardcore. (Pure cocaine is so hardcore, and so rare, chronic cocaine addicts will misidentify IV shots of caffeine and the like as cocaine - if they get an IV shot of actual cocaine, they deny it's cocaine until they're blue in the face, saying that coke never was that good.) Heroin is similar. They both carry a significant risk of self-injury, and as heroin is often administered IV it carries a risk of transmitting viruses etc. (because educating people on how to sterilize their needles between uses is so controversial?). Methamphetamine is similar to cocaine. PCP is just a whole other thing in that it seems to create psychosis - not just hallucinations or illusions - and at the same time dissociates the user from bodily pain. Not a good combination.
But weed, MDMA, the hallucinogens that are less likely to either kill you outright or make you dangerous to yourself or others, etc., etc.... Given that we're allowed to poison ourselves with stimulants and depressants already (something I do enthusiastically with caffeine), which is apparently not a sufficiently bad thing to lead to a ban...
I guess I would like consistency.
Also, I would like to see drug enforcement policy demilitarized. I don't see a need for SWAT teams in most arrests of drug dealers who sell coke. But I do see the cost of the SWAT teams - both in monetary terms and in the trauma they inflict when, as happens all too often, they break into the wrong house, shout at the residents, and then shoot at them for shouting back. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:49 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 1:08 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 5:29 pm
|
|
|
|
KillerLee There's a furry guy I know who I met at a gathering. He's an artist and a pretty good one at that. He runs art booths at anime and furry conventions. He's also hardcore conservative and a Republican, a fact I didn't know about until much later. He blames liberals and democrats for everything, and seems to use every post in his blog to make fun of Obama and talk about Obama screwing up the country. It makes me wonder if you're capable of being a furry, and being, say, a Republican, or conservative. It seems that a lot of what the Republican party stands for, especially being against gay rights and gay marriage, would go against the furry fandom which has a LOT of gay and bi members. In any case, I do happen to know several nerds who are conservative as well, including one anime and comic nerd who's very fundamentally christian, which makes no sense. Boggles my mind it does. I myself am moderate liberal. Although I vote more democrat than anything else, I do not register as such as I want the freedom to vote for the candidate I like, not the party. As this is about politics let's keep this civil and not resort to childish name calling or bashing....
That guy reminds me of someone... Hmmm, I think his fursona was a Skunk... Hmmm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
