Posted on 08/25/2016 10:47:18 PM PDT by Morgana
I’m not in favor of methamphetamine use beyond prescribed or military
Nor the amphetamines used for controlling hyperactive boys
It’s all the same thing except meth has one more carbon atom and two more hydrogen atoms
I did amphetamine pills a few times in early 70s.....dexamyl and bi methedrine...pink hearts and yellow jackets
Tried preludin once too ...same thing
Got one gram of meth my whole life in 1975...from some guys from Cambridge who were at Millsaps dealing....pure pure white crystalline....snorted it between about 5 of us over several rails each
Frankly...it was a very nice feeling.....far more euphoric than simple amphetamine pills which felt like uber coffee
But after about 20 hours and no sleep and teeth gritting I’d had enough
And that was it for me.....not much danger in being a meth addict for me but that first 4-6!hours felt great....like coke but smoother and sustained
I can see why it’s liked but that was early good precursor product
Today’s stuff ain’t Blue Sky I imagine
So if somebody drives drunk, they aren’t responsible since the alcohol lowered their inhibitions? Should we ban alcohol too?
If it is so obvious that drugs cause this behavior, then people are responsible for deciding to take the drugs when they were sober. It is an argument for drug possession being a death sentence, more than it is an argument for the drug war.
The bottom line is junkies should be allowed to screw up, and all the crimes they commit should have ten to twenty times the penalty to take them out of circulation.
Instead, we have a surveillance state that is listening inside innocent people’s homes, illegally, in entire neighborhoods, through the ultra-sensitive triangulating mic arrays on the pole surveillance they install when a high end surveillance outfit moves in (and they rarely move out once established in an area where drugs are within 50 miles). We have government just seizing people’s cash, on a whim, because they want a bigger budget. We have a Fed police state of unimaginable intrusiveness and power, and it all may be for hire by anybody connected behind the scenes because they operate so outside the envelope of legality that they privatize much of it to hide it from view and create deniability, and for what? I think Michael Hastings bumped into them, and when he tried to get away to do a story on it they killed him. Literally, that is what you are supporting.
And we are wasting billions, if not trillions we don’t have, when if we just pulled it back and legalized hard drugs, probably 90% of the junkie population would overdose in the first year, and the rest would get themselves imprisoned.
I’m tired of losing freedoms for junkies. They want Meth? Let them have it. If they do something stupid, lock them up forever, let them OD and die, or let a homeowner kill them.
Obviously we have never spent more on the Drug war than now, and this case is what you got with your method. It’s nothing but failure, and now people have the government and the junkies to deal with. And you want to use this case as an example of why we need your method - which produced this case in the first place.
Sorry, but I actually prefer having to deal with junkies in a free society to having to deal with the all powerful oppressive privatized domestic government force of spooks and potential government empowered thieves you want to maintain.
And it is not even close.
I am intrigued by your book.
Where did you study evolutionary psychology?
Last summer my wife surprised us on the day before leaving from the vacation with a two day extension. This time I just surprised her with a one day extension the day before going.
She said she'll extend it another two days. I told her the hotel is fully booked I was lucky to get the day. She said there is another hotel 15 minutes away.
Look at it this way. Let's use inner city blacks as an example to make a point. In the black population, especially in inner cities of our country, drug abuse is very very high. You do realize that children in these homes are witnessing a very high abuse of drugs by the adults around them? They also see guns, violence and ‘thug’ life right? They are inundated with it from a very early age. Don't get me wrong, not all young black children but a large enough amount of them to be concerned, right? But the drugs, the guns and the inherent violence of that lifestyle is there for the little kids to learn by. Those kids in drug abusing and violent homes, whether white or black or whatever by and large end up doing what they witnessed their parents and other adults in their young lives do. In this case many many will turn to the ‘thug’ life style of drugs and violence. Statistics support this.
I'm against drugs because of the little kids who will be influenced by drug addled adults and then turn into those same drug addicted, mentally addled adults themselves. Less drugs, less crazies. I've seen it up close, you haven't. Take my word.
Drug abuse by adults leads to all kinds of very bad circumstances for children. I don't get why libertarians always want to argue that drugs aren't that harmful. Because they are to kids. they are very harmful to kids and another joins the addict list every single day. And I don't even want to hear the stupid argument always trotted out " But alcohol" is just as blah blah blah. It's not nearly as descructive as quickly as drugs.
Here's what you said- "The argument you are making is that guns can “cause” certain people to commit crime just because they have access?
You even quoted the word "cause", which I never used. You used it, then you ascribed it to me by quoting it as if I used it. Nor did I say "certain people". I do believe that I simply said "person".
And then you said- "I don't even want to argue that stupid point."
So you don't want to argue your own stupid point? Fine let's not, because it certainly is stupid.
I said that meth can influence a person's thought process in such a way that a crime is committed as result of that thought process, and I said that a gun can influence a person's thought process in such a way that a crime is committed as result of that thought process, both of which are true statements.
Now, if you want to argue either of those correct and true points that I made, instead of the stupid point that you made and then quoted and ascribed to me, be my guest.
"I'm against drugs because of the little kids who will be influenced by drug addled adults and then turn into those same drug addicted, mentally addled adults themselves. Less drugs, less crazies. I've seen it up close, you haven't. Take my word."
I am a former drug addict. I've used marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, cocaine, alcohol, opiates, muscle relaxers, valium and xanax. I was physically addicted to Xanax, until I quit. I have not used drugs for 9 years. Nothing except a single patron margarita on my birthday each year.
I've seen it up close. From the ages of 16-36. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.
"Drug abuse by adults leads to all kinds of very bad circumstances for children. I don't get why libertarians always want to argue that drugs aren't that harmful."
I never argued that drugs aren't harmful. In fact, I argued that "Meth use can cause hallucinations, paranoia and psychosis. It is obviously a very dangerous drug." It's right there in my post, which I can only assume, at this point, that you didn't read.
"Because they are to kids. they are very harmful to kids and another joins the addict list every single day.
And that, very sadly, is going to continue to happen regardless of what the law is or is not.
"And I don't even want to hear the stupid argument always trotted out " But alcohol" is just as blah blah blah. It's not nearly as descructive as quickly as drugs"
Oh yes, it most certainly is, and you may be shocked to learn that alcohol, like other drugs, is also a drug.
Let's Learn About The Destructive Nature and Terrifying Speed of the Drug Known As Alcohol Together
I would like to know what you think of this young man's story in this video. Please let me know what you think.
Wow, idiotic. Been here and argued this stupid shit before with people like you making these exact same stupid arguments. Quite a few times here, in fact. Always the same broken record, in fact, I already predicted what your dumb ass argument would be. Not interested at all in your video either, sorry.
This time I’m just going to have a laugh at your expense and let this go. Waste of time to try and impart experience on to those that have little and think they already know it all.
Well, Bullish, at this point I am quite certain that I know more than you.
Why don’t you do yourself a favor, watch it and educate yourself.
I frankly don’t believe that you read either of my posts, and I am starting to wonder if you can read.
What is going on is you are only looking at the drugs, and not your solution. TO you the solution is, “Make drugs go away.” It is very liberal-esque, pie in the sky.
The solution we see is the machine you need to construct to make drugs go away, and the powers you need to give it.
I know what is out there now, and it is failing miserably. As it is failing, we still have a level of government intrusiveness which, if you knew about it, would probably have you ready to take up arms.
As an innocent person, if you came to me today, and said, “Government agents are listening to the conversations in my home, and I am not even a criminal.” I would not be surprised. Surveillance isn’t just done on criminals. Even in a legal investigation, they let it “accidently” bleed over to everyone around the person in question, and they monitor it, just so nothing can surprise them.
Is there a pot dealer living five houses down on your street? They will listen to every sound in your house, using tech not on your property, and monitor you, to see if you have any involvement. They won’t keep official records, they’d deny it if you asked, but nevertheless, they are recording every sound in your house.
And because it is so illegal, they will privatize the units doing it and contract it to eliminate records. I assume those privatized entities are not totally averse to hiring out if the money is right. I would bet when Soros wants intel for his hedge fund, the people he hires are back and forth between private gigs and government spook jobs. So the machine you want to create is then for hire.
Asset forfeiture, SWAT doing raids for everything, criminal informant networks that would blow people’s minds.
You are supporting the creation of a STASI state, because you can’t cope with junkies in a free society.
Basically we see things from the other side, and view freedom as more important than safety, or protecting every loser who can’t stay away from the crack pipe.
First prayers that that child did not suffer for a prolonged period of time. I’m sickened.
Why are these “alleged” monsters dressed in white? Why, oh, why, did no on see something horribly wrong with the “mom”? The nice person who was giving this child a birthday party, did she not know something? Not blaming her for what happened to that poor child, but no one noticed anything amiss at all?
50 years ago my mom noticed something distressing about another neighborhood mom. My mom called the police non-emergency line to tell them something was wrong with this woman. The police did investigate without causing the media to swarm out. The poor neighborhood mom had just flipped out. She was not on drugs, just overwhelmed with having six children under the age of ten. I babysat those kids.
What is wrong with our society today? Why was nothing seen before this child was drugged, raped, mutilated, then burned? What is wrong with us?
I am not talking about just about everyone’s child getting a cut on their chin, a bruise here and there, but all of this did not happen overnight to this particular child.
I most definitely àm not for a “nanny state,” but my God in Heaven, what happened?
May she find some sunshine and rainbows, and the God who loves her.
You got me, I didn’t read your replies Chris.
It’s amazing how you Libertarian simpletons come out of the woodworks here when the subject is drugs. This time it’s in a thread about a little girl who was raped and killed by drug using maniacs. You’ve turned it into something else now. Something I’m not going to argue about because frankly, I’m tired of arguing that drugs kill people only to have others come out and say crap like “Well, other things kill people too, should we make that illegal too?” Blah Blah blah. The empirical evidence is on my side in every way possible.
You’re right though, I didn’t read your replies because I’m not interested in your replies. Simple as that... That and I don’t know how to read, right?
My wife added another two days.
(prayers up)
Two nights (three days including the leave day).
Gonna this Pro next year.
This is so demonic I can’t even read it
A vat of sulphuric acid will do the trick!
Was thinking the same thing.
Seriously Screwed up people. One scary thought is this obviously wasn’t their first.
There is nothing in the story implicating any kind of religion in this crime.
Well, undoubtedly that's correct, but THIS crime should mandate that the perps be burned alive in a steel cage in the public square.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.