Posted on 05/29/2012 7:16:04 AM PDT by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
This is the first look at the naked homeless man who ate another Man's face while high on a new potent form of LSD.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Sensationalist garbage: no blood-test results have been made public, and the very idea of a "new form of LSD" is chemically illiterate - you might as well talk about "a new form of H2O."
Still pushing drugs, eh Nanny.
You want ALL drugs to have NO restrictions at the federal level, but somehow you want communities (like yours, as you stated) to be able to overturn that federal de-regulation to make those same drugs you want legalized to be banned from your community.
In other words, you want the federal government to push the destruction of drug usage into everyone’s back yard but not in your backyard.
And it’s pretty funny how you say that the report of this heinous crime being caused by a new type of LSD is Sensationalist.
Can you hear yourself?
The guy gnawed the face off another human being, and this type of deranged violence is consistent with several other cases in the same area.
And you focus on people discussing the drug aspect of this as ‘sensationalist garbage.’
It seems you still have trouble understands linguistic usage. When someone says ‘a new form of LSD,’ they are not discussing chemistry. They are discussing a drug people take for a particular type of drug experience. You know, that sort of thing you want to be prevalent on every American street (except yours).
and here’s another...
I despise drugs but there’s no drug in the world that will make a decent human being do something like this. This guy was a sicko regardless of drug use or no drug use.
The homeless man was beaten unconscious and stripped naked by the cannibal. Then eaten. The cannibal had already discarded his own clothes, money, ID...as he walked away from the place where his illegally parked car was towed away. He lost his mind when he found his car had been towed away.
Yes, I have not been able to avoid this disgusting story all day.
I don’t know if a drug will cause someone to act like this. I don’t doubt that if we keep on the path with ‘designer’ drugs we will eventually get to the point where some recreational drugs can result in completely psychotic episodes.
Have you ever had to deal with someone on PCP? If not, let me tell you, when someone has a bad high on PCP, you are dealing with a temporary psychotic.
But that wasn’t the point of my argument. The point of my argument is that extreme ‘liberaltarians’ (those beyond libertarians who do believe in conserving our cultural mores) believe the government should not be restricting any drug usage, even something like ‘bath salts.’ I argue that as a culture and as a nation, we should do what we need to minimize the usage of hardcore substances that have such a destructive effect on its users that those users lose the ability or desire to provide for themselves and those they may have brought into this world and thus do very much impact others with their behavior by requiring others to pay to feed and house them.
Still pushing drugs, eh Nanny.
Never have, never will. Still telling falsehoods about those who disagree with you, eh?
You want ALL drugs to have NO restrictions at the federal level, but somehow you want communities (like yours, as you stated) to be able to overturn that federal de-regulation
No "overturning" required ... my community - and your too, I'm sure - has a plethora of statutes (residential speed limits, zoning, etc. etc.) that in no way depend on the feds.
to make those same drugs you want legalized to be banned from your community.
In other words, you want the federal government to push the destruction of drug usage into everyone’s back yard
To legalize is not to "push" - there are no federal laws against insulting one's spouse.
It seems you still have trouble understands linguistic usage. When someone says ‘a new form of LSD,’ they are not discussing chemistry. They are discussing a drug people take for a particular type of drug experience.
There's already a word for that: "hallucinogen." LSD is a specific chemical compound and only one of many hallucinogens.
You know, that sort of thing you want to be prevalent on every American street (except yours).
No, I want every community to make its own decision. Why don't you want that?
Government restrictions on other drugs are what create a market niche for ‘designer’ drugs and ‘bath salts.’ If legal adult Joe Stoner could buy a joint where others buy their Jack, he'd have zero interest in messing with new, little-understood chemicals.
They’ll all be legal if you have your way. And none of them will have to go through the FDA or any other type of safety review.
Silly, Nanny.
You keep using your copy-and-paste to appear logical, while proving the illogic of your position.
You have already stated, numerous times, that you want there to be NO restrictions on any type of drugs that people want to make, sell, and use.
Period.
That is your position. The hell that comes with such a position is your doing.
But you sure as hell can’t lift all restrictions at the federal level and then think small communities will be able to make their own decisions contrary to what is legal at the federal law.
And before you go on some addled illogical reaction, please point to the community in the US that has successfully outlawed abortion.
You see, Nanny, I call you Nanny, because you have been brainwashed into believing that if you lift any and all restrictions at the highest level of government, you somehow free the people to make their own choices. You are wrong. When you impose a Soviet-style mandate at that level, you are forcing a morality down the throats of every state, every county, every town, every neighborhood, every family, and every individual in the country.
You, sir, and your anarcho-Sovietism are the ultimate Nanny.
To legalize is not to push, eh.
So did abortion in the US increase or decrease after Roe v. Wade?
Seriously, do you not see, or do you really refuse to admit that when a society condones something by legalizing it will become more prevalent?
You can’t seriously pretend that it diminishes, can you?
They’ll all be legal if you have your way.
Legal substances that nobody wants are not a problem.
And none of them will have to go through the FDA or any other type of safety review.
No more than the drugs alcohol or tobacco do now - but I'm not opposed to government regulation of purity.
And before you go on some addled illogical reaction, please point to the community in the US that has successfully outlawed abortion.
Roe v Wade didn't "lift restrictions at the federal level" - it actively abolished restrictions at every level. Repeal of federal drug laws wouldn't do that - it would be just that, a repeal of federal laws.
You see, Nanny, I call you Nanny, because you have been brainwashed into believing that if you lift any and all restrictions at the highest level of government, you somehow free the people to make their own choices. You are wrong. When you impose a Soviet-style mandate at that level
No "mandate" - just a removal of federal law. For example, my community has a 25mph-unless-otherwise-posted speed limit despite no such federal law existing.
He’s taking the Heat losses pretty hard.
do you not see, or do you really refuse to admit that when a society condones something by legalizing it will become more prevalent?
To allow to become more prevalent is not to "push" - did the government "push" alcohol when Prohibition was repealed?
Your stance, as you have stated, is that you want no restrictions on anyone regarding the manufacture, sale, distribution, and consumption of drugs.
You want bath salts, LSD, heroin, crack, and meth to be for sale in everyone’s local liquor store.
You claim this will reduce the use of these destructive, life-ruining substances.
You claim the crimes associated with the use of these substances will decline.
You claim that the government that will be required to oversee the manufacture, sale, and rehab for the use of these substances will be smaller than the enforcement branches that prevent and punish the crime associated with these substances. This is nothing less than foolish.
You are wrong. It is the height of illogical, fallacious reasoning to argue that if something is legal and far more prevalent the use and ‘bad’ behavior associated with such substances will miraculously improve. It is the height of selfishness to want to push the utter destruction these drugs use onto families and neighborhoods (but not in YOUR neighborhood, of course, because you want your neighborhood to be able to ban these substances...in your neighborhood, after you have pushed the feds to legalize it nationally. Brilliant.)
But hey, you are a liberal at core, trolling a conservative site to push your liberal agenda.
Period.
Back in the 1970’s when the bleeding-heart, anti-American, anti-middle class liberals proposed allowing criminals out of jail early to easy the burden of our prisons, when conservatives pushed back for fear that it would put more violent criminals, rapists, and murderers on the streets, the liberals retorted with:
“That is Sensationalist Hysteria.”
This, just like the “-ist” ad hominem attack, has become part of the standard ammunition of liberals who are trying to inflict harm on America and the middle class.
Please note:
Beer distributors don't have turf wars.
Jack Daniels doesn't hire mules to sneak their product across our borders.
Philip Morris didn't create 40 types of newer and stronger cigarettes that get you hooked quicker.
No one is "pushing" anything. Some of us just feel VERY strongly about the express limits on Federal power as articulated in Article 1 Section 8. No clause of which gives the FedGov the power to run a "drug war", or a "salt war", or a "sugar war", or a "tobacco war"...
Deal with it.
Back in the 1970’s when the bleeding-heart, anti-American, anti-middle class liberals proposed allowing criminals out of jail early to easy the burden of our prisons, when conservatives pushed back for fear that it would put more violent criminals, rapists, and murderers on the streets, the liberals retorted with:
“That is Sensationalist Hysteria.”
This, just like the “-ist” ad hominem attack, has become part of the standard ammunition of liberals who are trying to inflict harm on America and the middle class.
I notice that not a single word of your reply actually addresses my argument. I'm confident that other readers notice that, too.
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.