HR1528, otherwise known as "you goin to jail!"

[Liquid Blue]

Says the guy bitching about weasels? My my, you sure choose your freedoms carefully don't you?

[Tone]

Says the guy bitching about weasels? My my, you sure choose your freedoms carefully don't you?

You are against my lancaster with 1550 energy, damn nazi

[Sarien]

Some glimmer of a chance that theres still a human being trapped in that brainwashed big brother orwellian fascist nazi police state advocate who shits an the ideals of freedom

It doesn't matter that Fit is wrong in what he's saying. It doesn't matter that you are somehow approaching the right side of this issue. You're still a fucking tool. I want you to know, and appreciate that. If you'd take off your tin foil hat, stop your proselytizing for LTs in the game, stop your pseudo intellectual chop and paste sci-fi author predictions about the future, stop your own spouting wackjob ideas about philosophy and states of being in virtually every thread you get a chance to use it, settle the fuck down, talk halfway rationally with people that want to converse with you, then you might not be so bad. But until that day comes, just remember that even the people that halfway agreed with you saw you as a fucking tool. The moment I get a picture of you I'm gonna photoshop something filthy happening between you and a Keebler Elf. Why? Because it's about as equally relavent as you are, half the time.


This post paid for by Fit might be wrong, but he's less annoying than you.®© 2005

[Tone]

pseudo intellectual chop and paste sci-fi author predictions about the future

ABout Ray Kurzweil
Ray Kurzweil was the principal developer of the first omni-font optical character recognition, the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind, the first CCD flat-bed scanner, the first text-to-speech synthesizer, the first music synthesizer capable of recreating the grand piano and other orchestral instruments, and the first commercially marketed large-vocabulary speech recognition. Ray has successfully founded and developed nine businesses in OCR, music synthesis, speech recognition, reading technology, virtual reality, financial investment, cybernetic art, and other areas of artificial intelligence . All of these technologies continue today as market leaders. Ray's Web site, KurzweilAI.net, is a leading resource on artificial intelligence.

Ray Kurzweil was inducted in 2002 into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, established by the U.S. Patent Office. He received the $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize (view the video), the nation's largest award in invention and innovation. He also received the 1999 National Medal of Technology, the nation's highest honor in technology, from President Clinton in a White House ceremony. He has also received scores of other national and international awards, including the 1994 Dickson Prize (Carnegie Mellon University's top science prize), Engineer of the Year from Design News, Inventor of the Year from MIT, and the Grace Murray Hopper Award from the Association for Computing Machinery. He has received twelve honorary Doctorates and honors from three U.S. presidents. He has received seven national and international film awards. His book, The Age of Intelligent Machines, was named Best Computer Science Book of 1990. His best-selling book, The Age of Spiritual Machines, When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence, has been published in nine languages and achieved the #1 best selling book on Amazon.com in the categories of "Science" and "Artificial Intelligence." Ray's upcoming book, coauthored with Terry Grossman, M.D. is "Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever," published by Rodale.

If you'd take off your tin foil hat

If you'd go research for yourself

stop your own spouting wackjob ideas about philosophy and states of being

if i respond that way to someone else's philosophical posting, sue me

[Fit of Rage]

This post paid for by Fit might be wrong, but he's less annoying than you.®© 2005

That's funny--somehow I don't perceive drug control as an invasion of my privacy nor do I see it as an derision of my liberty.

You keep telling me I need to OPEN MY MIND yet you're the one that can't see that a difference of opinion doesn't make one of us definitively right and the other definitively wrong. Okay, so whatever I say is automatically wrong because it's not in perfect agreement with what you have to say. That's bullshit.

[Richard Creager]

I would like to point out that
http://forums.trenchwars.org/showpos...6&postcount=29
Is funny when you're not focused on "hr pointless bill that wont ever pass" and the moral qualms you have with it.

[Superted]

lol @ the people complaing about their loss of "freedom", don't you know there's no such thing. Freedom is impossible when you live with or around others. (It should rather be referred to as "level of restriction")

Secondly, the effects of drugs are unpredictable, the laws aren't there just to protect you, but also to protect those around you. Furthermore, what if you have children, would you want them going around doing LSD and heroine? after all, it's their body and they're 12 so they know what's best for them, right?

[Subjugation]

It's not people---it's just the one village idiot that is equating drug legalization with freedom. It's one of those "consider the source" situations.

[Tone]

This talk of our options and its relation to ethics and suffering might sound simple but i feel:

it comes down to which option will lead to the least suffering and most good. suffering is bad and in essence we are supposed to legislate based on what is the greatest good for the greatest number. we dont like rapists and batterers and murders, its evil and suffering and we throw them in jail. Another thing that causes a lot of pain and suffering is the massive crime and violence caused by the illegalization of drugs. if you like that sort of pain and suffering that causes many times more pain and suffering than the slight increase of drug use that would occur if it were legal, then be for the continued illegalization.

Option 1: Legalize Drugs and there may be a slight increase in drug use, any pain and suffering from this option is by the drug users own free will and over all drug related pain and suffering has gone far down compared to illegalization

Option 2: Keep drugs legal and continue to have people die over it and continue to let the drug dealers make their dirty wealth. many the victims of drug related crimes dont choose to be, whereas in option 1 if there is suffering, its by the drug users own responsibility, plus the over all suffering is less.

............

I kid you not, but if you follow the news closely, several times per year you will see news stories about some police chief advocating the legalization of drugs.

Police chief says legalise heroin
North Wales Police Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom says he is prepared to see drugs such as heroin openly on sale because current drug laws are doing "more harm than good".
Speaking on BBC Wales' Dragon's Eye political programme, Mr Brunstrom described drugs as a menace and said that current policy was creating crime around massive illegal profits and putting vulnerable people in danger.

"Heroin is a very, very addictive substance, extremely addictive, far more so than nicotine, but it's not very, very dangerous. It's perfectly possible to lead a normal life for a full life span and hold down a job while being addicted to heroin.

"I don't advocate anybody abusing their body with drugs but clearly some want to. What would be wrong with making heroin available on the state for people who wanted to abuse their bodies. What is wrong with that?"

Mr Brunstrom believes that legalising drugs would wipe out a multi-million pound criminal trade and says he has been amazed to receive "massive" public support for his views.


I've had overwhelming support for a no-holds barred, all-options considered, total review of the drugs laws

Richard Brunstrom


"The question is actually not 'am I prepared to see the government selling heroin on the street corner or through the pharmacy?' But why would we not want to do that? What is wrong with that?" he said.
"It's a very challenging question. I don't know what society's answer is but my answer is that is what we should be doing because our current policy is causing more harm than good."

In reference to the public backing he says he has received, he went on: "I've had overwhelming support at the very least for a no-holds barred, all-options considered, total review of the drugs laws.

"There is an enormous number of people of all age groups and all sections of our society who are ready to see a root and branch change to our drugs laws."

The chief constable - who has been heavily criticised over his crackdown on speeding motorists - insisted he is not supporting the drug trade - cannabis, he said, was not a safe drug and heroin was "extremely addictive".

But, he said drugs should be legalised adding that there was nothing wrong with the idea that the government could take over responsibility for their sale.

The police chief's unconventional view on drugs emerged in 2001 when he told his police authority that it was the only way to win the war against drugs.

He said that, despite billions of pounds and thousands of officer hours, the number of addicts and "recreational users" of illegal drugs in the UK has multiplied at an alarming rate.

Mr Brunstrom compared the current situation with alcohol prohibition in the USA in the 1920s, which was an "unmitigated disaster".


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/wales/3460485.stm

[Sarien]

That's funny--somehow I don't perceive drug control as an invasion of my privacy nor do I see it as an derision of my liberty.

You keep telling me I need to OPEN MY MIND yet you're the one that can't see that a difference of opinion doesn't make one of us definitively right and the other definitively wrong. Okay, so whatever I say is automatically wrong because it's not in perfect agreement with what you have to say. That's bullshit.

It doesn't matter if you perceive it as an invasion of your privacy or a derision of your liberties, because it is. And I'm trying to get you to broaden your perspective just an inch beyond what you see right in front of you, so you can take into account people that differ from you.

Why am I right an you are wrong? That's easy. Not because you're not in perfect agreement with me, but because with my way of thinking we are both free, enjoy our freedoms, live with the responsibilities that come with it, and hopefully have pretty good notion that as long as it isn't causing other people injury then it pretty much should be legal. But most importantly we both get to live this way with our differing opinions. However, with your way of thinking, you get to live in the country that thinks exactly like you, but the rest of us that don't agree with you, well, we're pretty much screwed. We don't get to make the choices that live outside Fit's "realm of being ok."

Secondly, the effects of drugs are unpredictable, the laws aren't there just to protect you, but also to protect those around you. Furthermore, what if you have children, would you want them going around doing LSD and heroine? after all, it's their body and they're 12 so they know what's best for them, right?

With a black market, where it's already illegal as long as the 12 year old has the money, do you think for one moment the drug dealer is going to card? With legalization dosages and purity could be controlled, for less risk of contamination overdose.

Here's a little something extra for the both of you. I feel this way, and I can't stand alcohol. I might have a sip if I'm at a function or something, to be polite, but on the whole, I hate it. My father was an alcoholic, and sometimes even the smell can make me want to vomit. Why am I telling you this? Because as much as it isn't for me, I respect that other people like to drink. Alcohol is also addictive. It is also the number one cause of death when you look at recreational drugs. But the freedom to get puking stumbling sloppy drunk remains yours, provided you're old enough, and don't hurt anybody else, because that's the way it should be.

[Liquid Blue]

Sorry it took me so long to reply in full, I only had time for that quick jab at Toney-loney yesterday.

You're yelling at me for bringing guns into it when the two are "very very different." Drugs are just as lethal as guns, so the vibe I'm getting from you [Face, Sarien, LB] is that it's okay for the more harmful substances I mentioned above to be trafficed because the drug law being put into action to combat them would also take away your precious "weed."

Whoa whoa, when was I yelling at you? I was merely disagreeing with you on some things, not trying to be hostile. Weed isn't precious to me ( I don't smoke anything), I just think that it is a less harmful drug than LSD, heorin, crack etc. IMO a good portion of those laws seem built to target pot-smokers, since other drugs aren't nearly as available or passed around where kids live as pot is. It's not that I don't want them to take way weed, I just don't want to see someone go to jail for 2 years just because he saw someone smoke, or 5 years just because they got weed from someone in a house. The length of prison time is far too strict for those crimes, at least in my eyes they are.

So T0NE, in essence you support the legalization of all drugs because banning any of them would be an infringement on your right to... what? Your body? Privacy? Then by that same logic it should be permissible to traffic such substances as cocaine, heroin, LSD, and meth to children and addicts because, after all, they are mentally capable of making smart choices and they can decide for themselves what they want to do with their bodies, nevermind the fact that each of the drugs I just listed has been proven to be addictive.

I just don't see the big deal with legalizing weed, other than it upsetting the paper/tobacco/drug companies. I don't follow the children reference, since you can't drive or drink under a certain age- why would taking drugs be any different if it was legalized? Children can't smoke ciggarettes so I'm sure the companies would find an age limit for weed (and if you want to go that route, all those other drugs as well).

It doesn't matter that Fit is wrong in what he's saying. It doesn't matter that you are somehow approaching the right side of this issue. You're still a fucking tool. I want you to know, and appreciate that. If you'd take off your tin foil hat, stop your proselytizing for LTs in the game, stop your pseudo intellectual chop and paste sci-fi author predictions about the future, stop your own spouting wackjob ideas about philosophy and states of being in virtually every thread you get a chance to use it, settle the fuck down, talk halfway rationally with people that want to converse with you, then you might not be so bad. But until that day comes, just remember that even the people that halfway agreed with you saw you as a fucking tool. The moment I get a picture of you I'm gonna photoshop something filthy happening between you and a Keebler Elf. Why? Because it's about as equally relavent as you are, half the time.

:wub:

that's funny--somehow I don't perceive drug control as an invasion of my privacy nor do I see it as an derision of my liberty.

You keep telling me I need to OPEN MY MIND yet you're the one that can't see that a difference of opinion doesn't make one of us definitively right and the other definitively wrong. Okay, so whatever I say is automatically wrong because it's not in perfect agreement with what you have to say. That's bullshit.

Well it's not so much as an invasion of your privacy, I see this as constricting and bending your rights to fit the governments own needs and wants. I'd call it an invasion of privacy if they did random drug checks in every house, or something of that nature- but this is really just making loopholes and broad-scope laws with long sentences that won't do anything (IMO) besides fill up prisons even more than they are now.

lol @ the people complaing about their loss of "freedom", don't you know there's no such thing. Freedom is impossible when you live with or around others. (It should rather be referred to as "level of restriction")

Secondly, the effects of drugs are unpredictable, the laws aren't there just to protect you, but also to protect those around you. Furthermore, what if you have children, would you want them going around doing LSD and heroine? after all, it's their body and they're 12 so they know what's best for them, right?

Freedom is possible to a degree, just not complete freedom in doing whatever you want. This is to help protect us from ourselves, in case someone felt the urge to push a baby off cliff or rape a nun. A good number of laws are here for our safety, but then again some are needlessly complicated, unfair and downright silly. Just lemme know if you need examples for those, because I was thinking of this list alone when I described the bad laws.

Using the children thing again, doesn't make sense. 12 year olds can't drive, can't smoke, can't drink- so why would you think the government would allow them to smoke weed or snort crack? Yes it's their body, but they aren't mature enough yet to know what's best for them- that's why 12 year olds can't do jack shit in this day and age.

[Tone]

I know i already mentioned this but Im going to try to do a real short response here on what it all comes down to and is most important:

so, outside of issue of freedom, which option do you think will lead to the least crime, death and suffering: The Legalization of Drugs or the Prohibition of Drugs?

remember, we didnt have a problem with all this drug related crime when heroin and cocaine could be bought over the counter by a 9 year old child

[K2Grey]

Alcohol is pretty safe when used in moderation. I don't think the same thing applies to cocaine.

[Subjugation]

If that was the case, they wouldn't give it to people to treat pain, and Peruvians wouldn't sell coca leaves by the bagful to alleviate altitude sickness.

Speaking only from personal experience and not medical fact, I think cocaine is way more addictive than alcohol, however.

[Liquid Blue]

Cocaine is one hell of a drug.