Why drug users should be executed (and the American justice system reformed)

[forward]

In order for a society to flourish, one must destroy what plagues it, namely criminals. Murderers take away a life and cause grief and misfortune to family members and friends. Any individual with a thread of humanity and decency would advocate the execution of such a monster. In addition, rapists would certainly deserve the death penalty. But what about drug users? Afterall they do no harm to anybody except themselvs, right? It is, afterall, simply a recreational activility and as such, it shouldn't warrant such meassures as death, right? WRONG! Drug users cause much harm to society as a whole. They have not the intelligence, when impaired (and one would argue, at all) to think rationally and thus a hindered ability, such as operating machierachy or driving a car, would victimize many undeserving individuals, simply because of the drug user's stupidity. In addition, this irrationality that is the inevitable result of taking drugs can increase violence and other destructive and anti-social behavior. If they cause harm to others, they deserve not to live in society. Six years manslaughter for an individual who, under the infleunce of a drug, caused the death of a young gentleman is not justified, and this seems to be the penalty for robbing another individual of their lives. No, it was not intentional, but taking the drugs was. In addition, the justice system in the United States needs reform. For one, the procedure of an individual warranting the death penalty should not involve excessive wait times and a painless death, but instead a quick trial and a more fiting death, namely execution by firing squad. Anybody who cares about humnaity would certainly support this punnishment.

[Lector Malibu]

Intresting, Well off for another handful of amphetamines !

[Bud Struggle]

Human life is sacred. NO ONE should be killed. People who do wrong should be kept away from society and if need be punished.

But Society should never willfully kill a human being.

[forward]

if human life is sacred, what about those who died from the drug users inhumane actions?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Do you smoke? Drink alcohol? Consume chocolate? Brew coffee? Add sugar?

I would rather a family member smoke marijuana than drink alcohol. I would rather a family member seek LSD than tobacco. The latter is more likely to cause chronic disorders.

[forward]

No I dont smoke nor drink alcohol and both should be illegal. Eating chocolate doesn't rob an individual of his rationality. Although smoking doesn't cause any neurological problems, it does harm people via second hand smoke and such.

[politics student]

*injects pure caffeine into veins*

Saying that I have no issues with killing if it was in self defense and not every revolution is bloodless its a sad fact but killing is sometimes part of change. Saying that under no circumstances be pushed as a good thing and should only ever take place in extreme events. (But lets not derail the thread it may make an interest thread in the philosophy section)

The death plenty is a joke

"You killed someone breaking the law of the state so now the state will kill you" :rolleyes:

[forward]

passmore, are you going for irony??? o.O seriously what's worse? killing someone for not being communist or killing someone for causing harm to others?clearly the death penalty exists to create security among the population.

[politics student]

passmore, are you going for irony??? o.O seriously what's worse? killing someone for not being communist or killing someone for causing harm to others?clearly the death penalty exists to create security among the population.

The death plenty can be used on the innocent, 1 innocent killed by mistake makes the death plenty an awful mistake.

You also do not need the death plenty to secure the population when we can lock up people for many years and rehabilitate (perhaps a series of education and anger management in some cases of passion)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

passmore, are you going for irony??? o.O seriously what's worse? killing someone for not being communist or killing someone for causing harm to others?clearly the death penalty exists to create security among the population.

Nobody wants to kill non-communists, so I don't get why you even beg the question...

[Kwisatz Haderach]

"Why drug users should be executed"

Because arbitrary rule is fun? :rolleyes:

[politics student]

Nobody wants to kill non-communists, so I don't get why you even beg the question...

It was my response that killing may be ok in some political situations (Anti colonial action for example)

[forward]

Rarely is a person wrongfully convicted. besides with surviellence cameras being prominent ideally, we hav a better change of catching the individual in the act. with DNA eviendce and the possibility of witnesses being present can create a position in favour of the state prosucetting and the individual if innocent. Locking drug users up is not as effecient because there is the possibility of parole and they would be in prison combined with the petty criminals. Besides those in prison have a decent quality of life, which criminals should not have.

[Chapter 24]

You, sir, have quite a pair to suggest that killing off drug users of any kind would benefit society in any way. You're not only naïve in thinking this would kill off any sort of crime permanently, but you're also under the unfortunate impression that the state should hold the power to execute anyone at all, nonetheless drug users. You're not only including those "evil heroin and coke addicts" in that phrase, you also include those who use cannabis, LSD, ecstasy, coffee, and many other substances that alter bodily function.
Are you going to make all drugs illegal or just the "bad" ones that are used for recreational purposes? If it's the latter, then who's going to decide what's appropriate to consume and what isn't?
As long as you hold such a ridiculous and barbaric stance you should back it up with arguments that go beyond the cliché "well drug users are bad for society cuz they dont do nothin except take drugs for no reesons and they harm others sometimes."

[Bud Struggle]

There is too much needless death in this world without Society consciously contributing to it.

I don't see the death penalty in any way consistant with the brotherhood of all people on earth. People commit crimes, make mistakes, and there should be a punishment--but death isn't an option for a civilized society.

[F9]

there are some topics transforming revleft to bogovich forum:glare:i am getting confused...
no you should be executed because you thing that MANY people should die.You are a MASS murderer.

Fuserg9:star:

[forward]

The drugs I am refering to are all the illegal ones and alcohol. Drugs used to cure or help with remedies are clearly not inclueded, as they posess some benefit. Recreational drugs posess no benefit. A functional society should not allow a population to walk around brainless and pathetic. In addition, they cause strain on the decent people needing healthcare (it should be private anyways) who have to endure long waiting lists for the sake of the community. There are absolutely no benefit of using drugs, and in the case where there are only negatives, the use of substances that case create harm to many, should clearly be denied and severe meassures enforced to make society safer. I know I would be safer.

[politics student]

There is too much needless death in this world without Society consciously contributing to it.

I don't see the death penalty in any way consistant with the brotherhood of all people on earth. People commit crimes, make mistakes, and there should be a punishment--but death isn't an option for a civilized society.

Its all about revenge than justice. :(

"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind." Mahatma Gandhi

[forward]

People make mistakes, eh? So, the person without feeling and emotion, the sociopath, should coexist with the humane and decent people? Explain how one would feel safer this way.

[Bright Banana Beard]

This is sad, killing weak people because they don't contribute.

[Demogorgon]

Threads like this cheer me up. Every time I get the feeling that too many Communists here have a misanthropic view of the world, a restricted user comes up with a corker like this and makes even the looniest regular members look normal.

The death penalty is to be opposed in general, to advocate its use for something like drug use is sheer lunacy.

[forward]

Fuserg9, No I have killed nobody and care about society, so do not lump me with any scum.Passmore its not about revenge, its about making society safer.Black Rifle, it's their fault for taking drugs.

[forward]

Demogorgon clearly you dont seem to care about society. Would your opinion change if a dumbass drug user killed someone you cared about while impaired, and, as a result of being impaired?

[Demogorgon]

Demogorgon clearly you dont seem to care about society. Would your opinion change if a dumbass drug user killed someone you cared about while impaired, and, as a result of being impaired?

Already happened, and no it didn't change my opinion. Killing a perpetrator does not bring the victim back to life.

I care deeply about society. Society should not resort to state-sanctioned murder.

[forward]

It is not about revenge, it is about preventing more deaths of innocents. if a person killed someone, clearly he cares nothing about human life and to avoid future deaths of innocent civilians, his death is justified.

[Lector Malibu]

People make mistakes, eh? So, the person without feeling and emotion, the sociopath, should coexist with the humane and decent people? Explain how one would feel safer this way.

If you've not done drugs yourself I'd politely suggest you can it as to they're affects on a person.

Truth is it can very and I know exactly what I'm talking about as a former junkie and an ex runner.

I've seen all kinds of people floating around the world of drugs. And maybe I was a bit sarcastic earlier in the thread but I really have a hard time with people making assumptions about stuff they have never really experienced.

Furthermore addiction is just that addiction. You think once a person is hooked they want to continue it?

And shooting someone because they are addicted when they can recover and rehabilitate is a reactionary truckload of monkey balls

I'm the real deal. Though I've not been strung in ages I've never done any of the shit you talked about nor did alot of my former contacts ect.

Of course I don't advocate use personally but it's because I know exactly what it is.

[forward]

It is their fault for taking a potentially addictive drug. I have no sympathy for those scum who take no responsibility for their actions. Those who take drugs do not care about society, so why should they be allowed to live when their existance causes much fear?

[politics student]

It is not about revenge, it is about preventing more deaths of innocents. if a person killed someone, clearly he cares nothing about human life and to avoid future deaths of innocent civilians, his death is justified.

No evidence that they will kill again unless some kind of serial killer which is unlikely.

Even then you can easily lock them away stopping them doing harm without killing them.

Also the state punishing murders then carrying out death plenties is quite a contradiction. Murder is wrong unless the state does it. :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Threads like this cheer me up. Every time I get the feeling that too many Communists here have a misanthropic view of the world, a restricted user comes up with a corker like this and makes even the looniest regular members look normal.


Kiss my ass. :lol: You can regulate the loonies in RevLeft--we can't do the same in OI. :lol::lol::lol:

Though to be honest forward may be only arguing an interesting "opinion" that is not something that he actually believes.
I do it on occasion myself.

[forward]

If someone lacks to ability to think rationally as a result of taking drugs, more people will likely be killed or at least harmed from such actions. Why lock them away for life when you can easily kill them? It would keep society at ease, as opposed to giving the drug user benefits. Murder is wrong to kill innocents. The state does not kill innocents, it kills those who kill innocents to prevent the death of more innocents. You commit a crime, you pay the price.

[Lector Malibu]

It is their fault for taking a potentially addictive drug. I have no sympathy for those scum who take no responsibility for their actions. Those who take drugs do not care about society, so why should they be allowed to live when their existance causes much fear?

You're the one I'm concerned about. You are advocating state capital punishment for drug addiction. There's a problem with that logic especially when it is also the fact addicts can recover.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

The drugs I am refering to are all the illegal ones and alcohol.

Alright your going to kill people for drinking alcohal. Revleft will be ever so empty.


Drugs used to cure or help with remedies are clearly not inclueded, as they posess some benefit.

What about the fact that taking pot benefits my life by making it better?


Recreational drugs posess no benefit.

Yes they do life for me is better with them. I may die a few years earlier but those would be the years i would spend wearing a adult nappy and going to the doctors weekly.




A functional society should not allow a population to walk around brainless and pathetic.

Pathetic under your eyes prehaps i see it as people having fun. Brainless? most drugs leave you acting like a tosser for abit then going tired and then going back to normal and continuing as if nothing had happened.



In addition, they cause strain on the decent people needing healthcare (it should be private anyways) who have to endure long waiting lists for the sake of the community.

Fucking hell do you have any idea how many medical staff you would kill? I know some doctors (my cousin is one) and they smoke like a chimney and drink like a thirsty man in desert coming across a lake.



There are absolutely no benefit of using drugs, and in the case where there are only negatives,

Apart from you know having fun. Which without life is fucking shite.



the use of substances that case create harm to many, should clearly be denied and severe meassures enforced to make society safer.

Or education to teach people to use drugs responsible. Alot of the drug related crime would be people trying to get money to feed an addiction. Why not use the money spent stopping the drugs trade to help people on addiction. (With all drugs allowed the prices would drop and the drug related crime rate would also)



I know I would be safer.

I doubt it for enforcing such a thing you might find a large amount of people will want to kick your head in.

[Bud Struggle]

Alright your going to kill people for drinking alcohal. Revleft will be ever so empty.


:lol:Sometimes Joe, you're a freakin' genius.:lol:

(Pilsner Urquell--at this very moment!)

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

If someone lacks to ability to think rationally as a result of taking drugs, more people will likely be killed or at least harmed from such actions.

Bullshit most drugs leave you tired or place you into slightly bonkers hippy mode.


Why lock them away for life when you can easily kill them?

Why lock them away? better idea to you know fuck off and stop telling people what to put in there bodies prehaps?


It would keep society at ease,

Big frosty bullshit the media would place more and more scare stories because scare stories sell in others words - they would still blame somone else for crime. Also really shooting a large part of society might put them at ease but its quite fucked up.



as opposed to giving the drug user benefits. Murder is wrong to kill innocents.

Then dont shoot people for enjoying themselfes. Sitting in a room smoking pot with your mates hurts no one.



The state does not kill innocents, it kills those who kill innocents to prevent the death of more innocents.

Prehaps your the one who has being smoking marry jane :lol:.



You commit a crime, you pay the price.

I declare by threatening to kill most of my friends and family and comrades you have committed a crime. I will now enforce this by beating you round the face with a bat. :lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No evidence that they will kill again unless some kind of serial killer which is unlikely.

No evidence? How about the fact that they have already shown the capability to kill another human being? Are you willing to risk letting such a person out into society... and having them kill someone else?


Even then you can easily lock them away stopping them doing harm without killing them. Prisons require prison gaurds... which are like cops, in that they have fascist tendencies and would be more trouble than they are worth in a communist society.


Also the state punishing murders then carrying out death plenties is quite a contradiction. Murder is wrong unless the state does it.It's not "murder" if a community (NOT the state!) decides that one of their number represents an intolerable threat to other members of that community.


It is their fault for taking a potentially addictive drug. I have no sympathy for those scum who take no responsibility for their actions. Those who take drugs do not care about society, so why should they be allowed to live when their existance causes much fear?

You've never met a single drug addict, have you? The only reason that addicts in current society present a danger to others is because their drug is expensive and difficult to acquire... requiring a life of crime in order to fund their habit.

But what if their drug came in a bottle from the local drugstore and was as cheap if not cheaper than aspirin?

In other words, let drugs be easily and legally available, affordable and the vast majority of drug-related crimes will disappear.

Conversely, if an addict wishes to quit, they should get all the help they require.

Society stigmatises junkies in a massive way, and not for any good reason either.


Already happened, and no it didn't change my opinion. Killing a perpetrator does not bring the victim back to life.

That's not (or rather, shouldn't be) the intent behind capital punishment. The intent behind capital punishment is to permanently remove the offender from society... something that it's very good at, as it turns out.


I care deeply about society. Society should not resort to state-sanctioned murder. The second sentence does not follow from the first. If you really care about society, why are you allowing people who proven themselves capable of irrationally killing another human being back into society?

Why are you putting the greater number of society at risk?

[forward]

Whait...so somebody makes a decision to cause harm to others and themselves by taking drugs and you're telling that person it's okay because they might recover from their drug addiction? I'd rather be helping people with illnesses and such that are not their fault, more resources should be put into that effort, as opposed to helping people who have caused their own misfortunate, and the longer we wait, hoping they will recouver, the more that are harmed from their actions. The justification of legalizing drugs should not come ith the standard "cuz its fun" crap to make up for the fact that it causes a tremendous amount of harm, far more than "having fun" would ever be considered justified. Besides I really dont see how acting like an idiot is fun....?

[danyboy27]

now foward, thewre is already several country that have death penality and goulag for drug user, iran, north korea, and china actually execute drung dealer on sight.

the chinese army storm drug factory with attack helicopter and light armored vehicules.

and guess what?

people still taking drug

YOU ARE OWNED!!!!!!

http://www.owned.com/Owned_Pictures/Champ_Owns_Yet_Another_Fighter_Owned.jpg

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

:lol:Sometimes Joe, you're a freakin' genius.:lol:

(Pilsner Urquell--at this very moment!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_Nigeria <- the good stuff

[shorelinetrance]

master troll at work

[politics student]

No evidence? How about the fact that they have already shown the capability to kill another human being? Are you willing to risk letting such a person out into society... and having them kill someone else?


we are all capable of killing. With rehabilitation and if the crime was a crime of passion I see no issues with releasing after 10-20 years locked up.


Prisons require prison gaurds... which are like cops, in that they have fascist tendencies and would be more trouble than they are worth in a communist society.

I would rather have prison guards than state sanctioned murder (Which requires executioners and prison guards)


It's not "murder" if a community (NOT the state!) decides that one of their number represents an intolerable threat to other members of that community.

hmmm..... But they are still taking life which can still be an innocent person.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Whait...so somebody makes a decision to cause harm to others and themselves by taking drugs

When i take drugs i make a decision to have a nice taste and then feel funny for a bit which i enjoy. I dont down my guinness and burst out onto the street hit old ladies with a scafolding poll.


and you're telling that person it's okay because they might recover from their drug addiction?

No im saying its ok because its fun and who i am i to stop them.



I'd rather be helping people with illnesses and such that are not their fault, more resources should be put into that effort, as opposed to helping people who have caused their own misfortunate, and the longer we wait, hoping they will recouver, the more that are harmed from their actions.

Yeah fuck road traffic victims little ****s should have stayed at home!





The justification of legalizing drugs should not come ith the standard "cuz its fun" crap to make up for the fact that it causes a tremendous amount of harm,

Yeah amount of harm while its ileagel.


far more than "having fun" would ever be considered justified.

Not really taking drugs just makes you act like a twat and then go to sleep.



Besides I really dont see how acting like an idiot is fun....?

Then dont take drugs i quite like forgetting the stress and worry in my life for a while.

[forward]

Increased drug-related crimes are the inevitable result of widespread avaliability because it would allow a wide variety of people access to the drug, which will cause more braindead pieces of shit wandering around town causing harm to others. This will get more people addicted, some people who follow the rules of society to the degree that they are the represensation of society will take drugs because it is socially acceptable. So advocating legalization is advocating a society of turmoil. </br>passmore Although we are capable of killing for the most part, those who take drugs have an increased response to kill nad generally cause harm to many.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Increased drug-related crimes are the inevitable result of widespread avaliability because it would allow a wide variety of people access to the drug,

Bull shit look at the drug related crimes in Brazil now look at the drug related crimes in a country in which drugs are legal.




which will cause more braindead pieces of shit wandering around town causing harm to others.

Not really it will cause a few more people to enjoy themselves. As i said before i am not likely to smack mrs smith round the face with a metal pole because i have smoked some pot.



This will get more people addicted,


This is drugs we are talking about not fucking Night of the living dead!



some people who follow the rules of society to the degree that they are the represensation of society will take drugs because it is socially acceptable.

THE HORROR!




So advocating legalization is advocating a society of turmoil. </br>passmore


No its not.



Although we are capable of killing for the most part, those who take drugs have an increased response to kill nad generally cause harm to many.

Yes trying to get money to buy drugs which are expensive when they are banned you dolt!

Legalize = cheaper drugs = no need to mug people for drugs money.

Oh and a culture in which those who take drugs and do need help are not looked down upon.

[Demogorgon]

It is not about revenge, it is about preventing more deaths of innocents. if a person killed someone, clearly he cares nothing about human life and to avoid future deaths of innocent civilians, his death is justified.
What then of people who are happy to have people executed in droves? They evidently don't care much for human life either.

[eyedrop]

we are all capable of killing. With rehabilitation and if the crime was a crime of passion I see no issues with releasing after 10-20 years locked up.

I'm abit unsure of the issue myself. But say that if we found the statistics that a person commiting a passion-related crime with a certain psycological profile has a 70% repeat rate after being let out again. Aren't society then killing 0.7 of a person every time we let such a person out again?

Or what about people who are already repeat offenders, they have already killed again after being rehabilitated. Is it then responisble to let the person out again?

I'm not that keen on just locking people up for the rest of their life either, lock people into imprisonment, which is a terrible way to live, with no control over your life.

[Demogorgon]

It's not "murder" if a community (NOT the state!) decides that one of their number represents an intolerable threat to other members of that community.
How does this differ from a lynch mob?


The second sentence does not follow from the first. If you really care about society, why are you allowing people who proven themselves capable of irrationally killing another human being back into society?

Why are you putting the greater number of society at risk?
I don't want you to be killed either and you are showing here a tendency to want to kill other human beings, or at least want other human beings killed.

Once again I care deeply about society and have no wish for it to be turned into a brutalised nightmare where people can be arbitrallly put to death.

[Demogorgon]

I'm abit unsure of the issue myself. But say that if we found the statistics that a person commiting a passion-related crime with a certain psycological profile has a 70% repeat rate after being let out again. Aren't society then killing 0.7 of a person every time we let such a person out again?

Or what about people who are already repeat offenders, they have already killed again after being rehabilitated. Is it then responisble to let the person out again?

I'm not that keen on just locking people up for the rest of their life either, lock people into imprisonment, which is a terrible way to live, with no control over your life.
You aren't going to find statistics like that though. It is incredibly unlikely that those who kill in a crime of passion are going to do it again.

I am not kidding here when I say I am more troubled by executioners than I am by most murderers. Only a minority of murders are done in cold blood, all executions are carried out in such.

[Killfacer]

fuck off and die you conservative reactionanry pig headed wittless fuck monkey.

on a more serious note; Im sure many people on this website have taken certain substances, alot. I dont want to try and make my self seem like i think i am cool by saying i have done alot but your an ignorant idiot.

[Socialist18]

I agree that any one that harms a woman through rape should be put to death as we need to respect women, not torture them. Rapists are scum of the earth and I feel nothing for them but hate. If rapists are allowed to be set free wheres the justice for the woman? I don't think jail time is justice. The same goes for pedophiles, they should be executed as they have forfeited their human rights to exist by committing such a horrific act of violence and torture against innocent children. Rapists and pedophiles have no rights to exist in my opinion. they have over stepped the mark of what is acceptable and what is not and deserve to die. I couldn't care less if people claim they have a mental problem which caused the act it self, thats just a cop out, fact is they still done it and need to pay with their life. If the punishment for rape of women and children was execution maybe people would think twice about committing such acts.

But killing drug users? You imbecile, its only under the capitalist system that drug users become criminals and hurt people. Under a socialist system drugs would be made legal and cheap so anyone can afford them without resorting to crime. Its not the states business telling people what they can and cannot put into their bodies and it is always up to the individual to choose what he or she does. I've been a hard drug user for over 12 years and I've also been in trouble with the law but that is because we live in a capitalist system, if it were a socialist one I would never have ran foul with the law.

[Glenn Beck]

Oh man, what a buzzkill. I think you need to be executed for society to flourish, dude.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

I could never understand the absurd idea of punishing murder with murder. Your ideas are dangerously right-wing.

If you would like to punish anyone then punish the drug dealers not the users. Interestingly enough the biggest drug dealer in the world is the CIA....

[Faction2008]

Human life is sacredWhere do people get these ideas?

Humans do things in their own interest along with causing suffering and destroying this planet and that to you is sacred?

[RHIZOMES]

Do you smoke? Drink alcohol? Consume chocolate? Brew coffee? Add sugar?

I would rather a family member smoke marijuana than drink alcohol. I would rather a family member seek LSD than tobacco. The latter is more likely to cause chronic disorders.


AGREED. Weed is a million times better than alcohol. I have tried both.

[eyedrop]

You aren't going to find statistics like that though. It is incredibly unlikely that those who kill in a crime of passion are going to do it again. Got any statistics? I never read any about it and tried to find some but were unable.


I am not kidding here when I say I am more troubled by executioners than I am by most murderers. Only a minority of murders are done in cold blood, all executions are carried out in such. Executioneers have always have a tendency to end up quite fucked in their head. One interesting thing to note is that practically all execution method to this way has been incredibly painful in mot cases due to trying to preserve the corpse.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

Where do people get these ideas?

Humans do things in their own interest along with causing suffering and destroying this planet and that to you is sacred?

He said that human life is sacred. You are referring to human actions

[Faction2008]

He said that human life is sacred. You are referring to human actions
Exactly. It's human actions that take away anything special that makes our life sacred.

[Trystan]

In order for a society to flourish, one must destroy what plagues it, namely criminals.

http://www.channel4.com/more4/media/images/documentaries/R/russia/gallery2/stalin_384x350.jpg

Yes comrade Stalin sir.

[communard resolution]

Drug users cause much harm to society as a whole. They have not the intelligence, when impaired (and one would argue, at all) to think rationally and thus a hindered ability, such as operating machierachy or driving a car, would victimize many undeserving individuals, simply because of the drug user's stupidity.

Does your euthanasia program extend to disabled and mentally impaired people? Just curious.

[communard resolution]

Increased drug-related crimes

The illegal status of addictive drugs is the sole reason for drug-related crimes. It doesn't take a genius to work that one out.

[Bud Struggle]

Exactly. It's human actions that take away anything special that makes our life sacred.

I didn't mean that human life was sacred in any religious sense (though I personally believe it is,) but in a egalitarian and utilitarian sense. I don't believe people should be killed because of x crime or y crime or any crime--because "crimes" change. Being a Jew used to be a "crime". There was a day where a rich man could kill a poor man with impunity--all legal. Rules change, laws change. Sometimes for the good, sometimes not.

It's best that society doesn't kill anyone--for any reason. Jail time is fine--lie in prison is fine to keep certain people away from the general populace. But killing is killing murder is murder--and I rather any society I am a part of not engage in such brutal behavior.

[Dean]

Human life is sacred. NO ONE should be killed. People who do wrong should be kept away from society and if need be punished.

But Society should never willfully kill a human being.
this.

[Faction2008]

I didn't mean that human life was sacred in any religious sense (though I personally believe it is,) but in a egalitarian and utilitarian sense. I don't believe people should be killed because of x crime or y crime or any crime--because "crimes" change. Being a Jew used to be a "crime". There was a day where a rich man could kill a poor man with impunity--all legal. Rules change, laws change. Sometimes for the good, sometimes not.

It's best that society doesn't kill anyone--for any reason. Jail time is fine--lie in prison is fine to keep certain people away from the general populace. But killing is killing murder is murder--and I rather any society I am a part of not engage in such brutal behavior.
I didn't mean it was okay to just kill someone. I just mean our lives aren't of value to be called sacred but I do condone killing. Sorry if I didn't make my self clear.

[Matty_UK]

It's virtually impossible to commit crimes on some drugs. On magic mushrooms or LSD everything's way too intense for you to do anything even remotely violent, and way too beautiful for you to want to. (unless it's a bad trip where you'd most likely go lie under a bush quivering in fright for a bit) And at the peak of the trip it's impossible to even make a sandwich or tie your laces, you're hardly a threat to anyone.
MDMA/Ecstasy makes you LOVE everyone you meet, and you care too much about everyone to ever hurt them. The worst thing to happen there is for your serotonin levels to burn out, where you might get a feeling of worthlessness and depression, and even then you'll feel too sensitive to be a threat to anyone. MDMA also has a pretty positive effect on mental health, from my experience I've become more confident, more understanding, kinder, less pretentious and less misanthropic since I started taking it.

Forward, you know fuck all about what you're talking about.

[Yardstick]

Let me put it this way.


If the state kills ONE innocent person. All it takes is one person who was not actually guilty to be killed by the state and then we ALL become murders.


And considering the number of pardons that have been given after a inmate has already been killed due to new DNA testing proving their innocence...

In other words, by the states own standards. EVERYONE should be killed.


Yeah, Capital Punishment is one of the stupid systems I've ever heard of. Not to mention the idiocy of trying to murder every drug user.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I would say under most circumstances in dealing with criminals the death pentality should not be used. Although if a prisoner does want to kill themselves i aint gonna stop im.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I smoke weed all the time (well, not lately. I have a UA coming up :crying:), and have never been in a car accident, assaulted someone who didn't assault me first, or commit any other crime while impaied (other than minor crimes I break anyway, like seeing a 'Double Feature' at the flicks).

I doubt anyone can find evidence of anybody who died or committed a felony because of canibis use.

Forward could benefit from some good acid.

unfortunately, it's almost impossible to obtain these days....

[Dr Mindbender]

Forward could benefit from some good acid.
.

The gung-ho approach of this thread leads me to believe he's already been snorting coke.

:laugh:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The gung-ho approach of this thread leads me to believe he's already been snorting coke.

:laugh:

Agreed. Coke-heads tend to display massive amounts of Fascistic traits (no joke).

Their prejudice against non-powder coke users is most despicable.

[communard resolution]

I smoke weed all the time (well, not lately. I have a UA coming up :crying:), and have never been in a car accident, assaulted someone who didn't assault me first, or commit any other crime while impaied (other than minor crimes I break anyway, like seeing a 'Double Feature' at the flicks).

I doubt anyone can find evidence of anybody who died or committed a felony because of canibis use.

Forward could benefit from some good acid.

unfortunately, it's almost impossible to obtain these days....

Forward is a bit of a psycho, if you ask me. First he tries to convince everyone of the murderousness of communism. Next up, he suggests all drug users should be executed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Whait...so somebody makes a decision to cause harm to others and themselves by taking drugs and you're telling that person it's okay because they might recover from their drug addiction?

No, I am saying that addiction itself is harmless except to the user - it's the social consequences of addiction that causes harm to others.

Remove those consequences and drug addiction is of no more consequence than a cold.


I'd rather be helping people with illnesses and such that are not their fault, more resources should be put into that effort, as opposed to helping people who have caused their own misfortunate, and the longer we wait, hoping they will recouver, the more that are harmed from their actions.Again, you fail to realise that it's not the drug or the addiction that hurts people other than the user... it's the social reactions to it.


The justification of legalizing drugs should not come ith the standard "cuz its fun" crap to make up for the fact that it causes a tremendous amount of harm, far more than "having fun" would ever be considered justified. Besides I really dont see how acting like an idiot is fun....?The justification for legalising drugs comes from the fact that more harm is caused by having them illegal than having them legal.


now foward, thewre is already several country that have death penality and goulag for drug user, iran, north korea, and china actually execute drung dealer on sight.

the chinese army storm drug factory with attack helicopter and light armored vehicules.

and guess what?

people still taking drug

YOU ARE OWNED!!!!!!

Thus demonstrating the impossibility of eliminating drug use. It is much more sensible and humane to have drugs legal.


we are all capable of killing. With rehabilitation and if the crime was a crime of passion I see no issues with releasing after 10-20 years locked up.

No, it's not proven that we are all capable of killing. This is down to the fact that most people go through their life without killing or permanently maiming someone else.

How is it any "better" if it is a crime of passion? All it shows is that under certain stimuli the individual concerned is capable of killing someone else. Just how the fuck is that an argument against executing the individual, especially in light of the fact that there is no known rehabilitation technique that is 100% effective?

Under the system you're talking about, a proven murderer is released back into society, with no garantuee that they will not murder again. This puts genuinely innocent people at risk. How in the fuck is even remotely acceptable?


I would rather have prison guards than state sanctioned murder (Which requires executioners and prison guards) It's not "murder". It's the permenant removal from society of someone who has proven themselves unable to respect others' right to life.

I don't think you fully understand the impact that prisons and "prison culture" have on society.

For starters, what sort of person does it take to actually cage human beings for years on end? Compare that with the brief moments that an execution takes. Also, unlike gaurding prisoners, execution can be automated.

Also, consider the impact of former prisoners on society - people currently enter prisons as green as you like, and come out hardened criminals.

Combine that with the fact that caging humans for years on end takes up considerable resources (it costs more to send someone to prison than to send them to university), it really is more humane and a better expenditure of resources to execute violent criminals than to support them for years on end at the expense of society, before releasing them back into society and potentially putting innocent people at risk.


hmmm..... But they are still taking life which can still be an innocent person.Wrongful convictions are still a risk even in communist society - but it can be mitigated greatly by not having people who "make a career" of gaining convictions "at any cost". Further, jury sizes should be greatly increased so that natural human biases have a greater chance of "cancelling out". Forensic evidence gathering techniques are likely to be far, far more reliable than human testimony.


Increased drug-related crimes are the inevitable result of widespread avaliability because it would allow a wide variety of people access to the drug, which will cause more braindead pieces of shit wandering around town causing harm to others.

Why do you think drug addicts in current society harm others? The primary reason they do so is for economic reasons - their drug is illegal, making it hard to find in the first place, as well as expensive, requiring a greater outlaw of already scarce monetary resources. Not having the skills or opportunity to gain a high-paying job, most of them turn to a life of crime to fund their habit. Now, if drugs were a lot cheaper and widely available, they would not have to turn to crime in order to fund their habit.

No more than coffee or nicotine addicts currently have to turn to crime.


This will get more people addicted, some people who follow the rules of society to the degree that they are the represensation of society will take drugs because it is socially acceptable. So advocating legalization is advocating a society of turmoil.But if addiction by itself is harmless (most addicts function completely normally as long as they get access to their drug) then what's the problem?

Alcohol is cheaply and widely available... and some people become drunks. Society does not seem to have collapsed as a result.


passmore Although we are capable of killing for the most part, those who take drugs have an increased response to kill nad generally cause harm to many.BULLSHIT!


What then of people who are happy to have people executed in droves? They evidently don't care much for human life either.

You're a dishonest piece of shit. Even if everyone accused of murder is executed notwithstanding any supporting evidence, the vast majority of people do not get into situations where they can be easily accused of murder.


How does this differ from a lynch mob?Because there'd be a trial where evidence would be presented and people allowed to present their case. Isn't that obvious?


I don't want you to be killed either and you are showing here a tendency to want to kill other human beings, or at least want other human beings killed.It's called self-defence. I don't want murderers on the streets because it makes them unsafe for people like me who have never murdered anyone.


Once again I care deeply about society and have no wish for it to be turned into a brutalised nightmare where people can be arbitrallly put to death.I'm proposing capital punishment for murder, rape and perhaps the deliberate and permanent maiming of someone else. That's not "arbitrary".

If you really care about society, you wouldn't allow murderers to roam the streets after being hardened for a few years in prison.


It is incredibly unlikely that those who kill in a crime of passion are going to do it again.How do you know that? Most people go through incredibly stressful situations without murdering other people.


I am not kidding here when I say I am more troubled by executioners than I am by most murderers. Only a minority of murders are done in cold blood, all executions are carried out in such.Then aren't you troubled by the anarchists in the Spanish civil war? They executed pretty much every member of the Catholic clergy they could get their hands on.


I could never understand the absurd idea of punishing murder with murder. Your ideas are dangerously right-wing.

So what's your alternative? A system of cages where the inmates are killed by centimetres and the screws turned into fascist monsters?


I didn't mean that human life was sacred in any religious sense (though I personally believe it is,) but in a egalitarian and utilitarian sense. I don't believe people should be killed because of x crime or y crime or any crime--because "crimes" change. Being a Jew used to be a "crime". There was a day where a rich man could kill a poor man with impunity--all legal. Rules change, laws change. Sometimes for the good, sometimes not.

So because what is defined as a crime changes, there should be any capital punishments for certain crimes? How does that follow?


It's best that society doesn't kill anyone--for any reason. Jail time is fine--lie in prison is fine to keep certain people away from the general populace. But killing is killing murder is murder--and I rather any society I am a part of not engage in such brutal behavior.But why is it wrong to permanently remove from society those who have proven that they cannot respect one of the most important rules of society - don't murder others - and therefore putting everyone else in society at risk?

Just saying "murder is murder" doesn't cut it. What about war? Self-defence? There are certain situations where it is considered perfectly acceptable to kill others.


Let me put it this way.


If the state kills ONE innocent person. All it takes is one person who was not actually guilty to be killed by the state and then we ALL become murders.

No, it was a mistake. We thought they were a murderer but it turned out they weren't. How is this any different from people being killed in industrial accidents? You can take all the safety precautions you want, but sooner or later a fatal accident will happen, killing innocent people. But nobody proposes banning mining, because the benefits outweigh the deaths considerably. Similarly, the benefits of not having proven murderers freely wandering about society and not having a prison system that generates hardened criminals and fascist prison gaurds far outweigh the occasional innocent being executed.


And considering the number of pardons that have been given after a inmate has already been killed due to new DNA testing proving their innocence...The performance of the bourgeouis "justice" system is of no account here.

Better forensic science means that false convictions of murder become less likely as time goes by, not more.

[Trystan]

They have not the intelligence, when impaired (and one would argue, at all) to think rationally and thus a hindered ability, such as operating machierachy or driving a car, would victimize many undeserving individuals, simply because of the drug user's stupidity. In addition, this irrationality that is the inevitable result of taking drugs can increase violence and other destructive and anti-social behavior. If they cause harm to others, they deserve not to live in society.

Would you like to see the mentally handicapped executed too? After all, they have a hindered ability.

[Demogorgon]

I don't think you fully understand the impact that prisons and "prison culture" have on society.Rich coming from somebody who supports the death penalty. The use of capitali punishment is well known to have a terribly brutalising effect on society. Indeed, it has been proven time and again that the use of the death penalty will substantially increase the murder rate in any given society.


You're a dishonest piece of shit. Even if everyone accused of murder is executed notwithstanding any supporting evidence, the vast majority of people do not get into situations where they can be easily accused of murder.And this means what? By backing the death penalty, you are showing utter contempt for human life.


Because there'd be a trial where evidence would be presented and people allowed to present their case. Isn't that obvious?Ah so we in fact would have a legal process, a court system, prosecutors, avenues of appeal, legal codes, police to investigate the crime to gain evidence for the conviction, prisons to hold the accused in before and during the trial as well as before execution and so forth. We tend to refer to such institutions collectively as "the state". So despite your denial, you in fact do wish for a state with power of life and death over its subjects.


It's called self-defence. I don't want murderers on the streets because it makes them unsafe for people like me who have never murdered anyone.
Not this stupid FOX news argument again. Execution is not self defence. Self defence is the use of reasonable force to protect yourself from an immediate threat. Execution is anything but.


I'm proposing capital punishment for murder, rape and perhaps the deliberate and permanent maiming of someone else. That's not "arbitrary".
Already you are calling for the death penalty for far more offences than even the most right-wing of bourgeoisie politicians.

That aside, you are going to have to explain how your system will not be arbitrary. You have told us that you don't want a state, but implied that in fact you do. Time to clear it up. How precisely will you stop arbitray decisions from being made during the "trials" you forsee?

If you really care about society, you wouldn't allow murderers to roam the streets after being hardened for a few years in prison.Given that use of the death penalty is known to greatly increase the murder rate, it is you that evidently supports the policy that will lead to more murder.

At any rate, I support complete penal reform obviously, and changing prisons so that they do not have the "hardening" effect they do currently. Of course I fully expect opposition from Conservatives such as yourself who will call me "soft on crime".


How do you know that? Most people go through incredibly stressful situations without murdering other people.Because it is almost unknown for those who kill during a crime of passion to do so again.


Then aren't you troubled by the anarchists in the Spanish civil war? They executed pretty much every member of the Catholic clergy they could get their hands on.I am incredibly troubled by it. A crime against humanity is a crime against humanity no matter who commits it.

[Decolonize The Left]

Would you like to see the mentally handicapped executed too? After all, they have a hindered ability.

Of course, he would argue that children should also be executed for they are not capable of rational decisions much of the time. Anyone who is angry also should be killed, for they have an potential for "increased violence and other destructive and anti-social behavior."

Hmm... who else can we kill by this logic? How about people who advocate the needless killing other people? They "have not the intelligence, when impaired (and one would argue, at all) to think rationally and thus a hindered ability. In addition, this irrationality can increase violence and other destructive and anti-social behavior. If they cause harm to others, they deserve not to live in society." :lol:

Ouch, burned. :blushing:

- August

[Yardstick]

State sanctioned murder is not comparable to industrial accidents. With execution you have someone deliberately killing other people. If one of those people is innocent then bam you just deliberately killed an innocent person, making you a MURDER.

No one is purposely killing people when they go and mine. The risk of death is not from other people attempting to kill you. Also, miners know the risks every time they go into the mine. An innocent person has no choice, they can't escape your method of 'justice.'

Also if your problem is with the prison system(which is truly fucked up) Than look at changing it. If your goal is to keep dangerous people off the street, then thats cool. They don't need to be kept in shitty conditions in order to do this.

Oh and guess what, the death penalty IS MORE EXPENSIVE than life in prison without parole.
Total cost of death penalty is 38% greater than total cost of life without parole sentences. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002)

I don't see how executioners are less fascist than prison guards. Create a system which respects human dignity and you won't see the problems we have now. In a socialist world we shouldn't see nearly as much crime anyway. So we would have less need to kill the few sociopaths that still end up coming into existence.

The death penalty is ridiculous in a capitalist world and will be even more ridiculous in a socialist one.

[Lost In Translation]

In order for a society to flourish, one must destroy what plagues it, namely criminals. Murderers take away a life and cause grief and misfortune to family members and friends. Any individual with a thread of humanity and decency would advocate the execution of such a monster. In addition, rapists would certainly deserve the death penalty. But what about drug users? Afterall they do no harm to anybody except themselvs, right? It is, afterall, simply a recreational activility and as such, it shouldn't warrant such meassures as death, right? WRONG! Drug users cause much harm to society as a whole. They have not the intelligence, when impaired (and one would argue, at all) to think rationally and thus a hindered ability, such as operating machierachy or driving a car, would victimize many undeserving individuals, simply because of the drug user's stupidity. In addition, this irrationality that is the inevitable result of taking drugs can increase violence and other destructive and anti-social behavior. If they cause harm to others, they deserve not to live in society. Six years manslaughter for an individual who, under the infleunce of a drug, caused the death of a young gentleman is not justified, and this seems to be the penalty for robbing another individual of their lives. No, it was not intentional, but taking the drugs was. In addition, the justice system in the United States needs reform. For one, the procedure of an individual warranting the death penalty should not involve excessive wait times and a painless death, but instead a quick trial and a more fiting death, namely execution by firing squad. Anybody who cares about humnaity would certainly support this punnishment.
I'll get into a huge post later, but I want to ask one question: why the hell aren't you banned yet?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I'll get into a huge post later, but I want to ask one question: why the hell aren't you banned yet?


You have to admit he his fucking funny. ("KILL THE DRUGEEES COZ THEY WILL INFECT YOU AND MAKE YOU DOOO CRACKK)" he gets drug usage confused with zombies!

[BurnTheOliveTree]

My personal feeling on the matter is that execution represents a very profound and depressing resignation. It's like we've just given up on that person, like we've decided they can't possibly function in society.

I dunno, I just don't think we should ever give up on people, you know? It's all about rehabilitation. Besides, imprisonment coupled with the fact that the 'criminal' has to live with the guilt and consequnces of their actions represents a far harsher and altogether more appropriate punishment over the course of time.

-Alex

[mykittyhasaboner]

forward, you are one deranged human being. i think you need a hit off the piece pipe, you need to calm down.

[bobroberts]

If you don't like drugs, don't use them. :cursing:

[forward]

i dont know why so many people seem to be attatched to their drugs so much. those who take drugs are weak. they cant handle reality, so in a way, we are doing them a favour. of course, that is secondary. our primary focus is to improve society. widespread avaliability to drugs will certainly cause widespread problems, crimes occur when people take drugs. why legalize something that will cause MORE criminal activity in the long run? capital punishment IS effective because it removes scum, with advances in technology (as i recall has been mentioned) the guilt has been more readily declared, rarely is an innocent killed. the odds are not in favour of that happening. the cost tends to be rather expensive, but the justice system in the US needs to be reformed as i have said before, no lethal injection, no costly and lengthy trials.

[Jazzratt]

i dont know why so many people seem to be attatched to their drugs so much.

Are you assuming all people that defend drug users must be drug users themselves. If so, how was special needs at school?


those who take drugs are weak.

Drugs, much like anything else done for relaxation, are a hobby. Value judgements about whether or not the drug user is "weak" are no basis for legislation, especially not of the extreme variety you are suggesting.


they cant handle reality, so in a way, we are doing them a favour.

I hope you die, you brainless little shit. Your claim that drug users cannot "handle reality" doesn't really fly when you consider that a lot of our understanding of reality has come from scientists who smoked, drank or even (horror of horrors) took drugs now considered illegal.


of course, that is secondary. our primary focus is to improve society.

Here is a suggestion for improving society: kill yourself and thereby stop us wasting our food and medical resources on keeping you alive you hateful little shit.


widespread avaliability to drugs will certainly cause widespread problems, crimes occur when people take drugs.

No. Crimes occur when people who take drugs cannot acquire them legally. This is why in prohibition era america a lot of organised crime was centred on booze whereas afterwards alcohol related crime figures nosedived dramatically.


why legalize something that will cause MORE criminal activity in the long run?

Because it won't.


capital punishment IS effective because it removes scum,

You are in no position to describe anyone as scum you useless little cockstain.


with advances in technology (as i recall has been mentioned) the guilt has been more readily declared,

Reword that, it makes no fucking sense.


rarely is an innocent killed.

Good. Let's keep it that way by not executing innocents.


the odds are not in favour of that happening.

They are when you kill people for no reason other than their hobbies, you sick fuck.


the cost tends to be rather expensive, but the justice system in the US needs to be reformed as i have said before, no lethal injection, no costly and lengthy trials.

Troll harder.

[Black Dagger]

i dont know why so many people seem to be attatched to their drugs so much. those who take drugs are weak. they cant handle reality, so in a way, we are doing them a favour.

Right...

Well, i take drugs because it's fun - you like having fun don't you? How does that make me 'weak'? What does that even mean?

[Lector Malibu]

i dont know why so many people seem to be attatched to their drugs so much. those who take drugs are weak. they cant handle reality, so in a way, we are doing them a favour. of course, that is secondary. our primary focus is to improve society. widespread avaliability to drugs will certainly cause widespread problems, crimes occur when people take drugs. why legalize something that will cause MORE criminal activity in the long run? capital punishment IS effective because it removes scum, with advances in technology (as i recall has been mentioned) the guilt has been more readily declared, rarely is an innocent killed. the odds are not in favour of that happening. the cost tends to be rather expensive, but the justice system in the US needs to be reformed as i have said before, no lethal injection, no costly and lengthy trials.

What happened when they enacted prohibition???? Please tell us. Never mind I will. It became one of the most bloody times to date concerning the Mafia. Chicago was a bloodbath as a result of naive moralistic crusaders such as yourself.

I be willing to wager 90% of the crap that occurs outta of drugs being illegal would subside.

What's weak is people like you that can't look at the bigger picture. Folks like yourself that just offer knee jerk reactionary armchair solutions.

[Lost In Translation]

i dont know why so many people seem to be attatched to their drugs so much. those who take drugs are weak.
Um...you try taking a shot of heroin. I like to see how well you try to resist it... Those who take drugs are not weak. It's what the drugs do to them that screws them over.

they cant handle reality, so in a way, we are doing them a favour.
Yes, because if anything, letting them rot in the alleys will help them immensely.

of course, that is secondary. our primary focus is to improve society. widespread avaliability to drugs will certainly cause widespread problems, crimes occur when people take drugs.
People don't commit crime because of drugs. Drug addicts commit crime to get funds for them to keep their habits. The two cannot be strung together as a compariosn.

why legalize something that will cause MORE criminal activity in the long run?
Again, drugs are not the direct cause. If you can find me statistics to prove otherwise, that would be much appreciated.

capital punishment IS effective because it removes scum, with advances in technology (as i recall has been mentioned)
the guilt has been more readily declared, rarely is an innocent killed. the odds are not in favour of that happening.
In the world of drug addicts and homeless people, once you're in, it's hard to get out. You think they want to continue living in the shithole they are in? Very little are hardened criminals.

the cost tends to be rather expensive, but the justice system in the US needs to be reformed as i have said before, no lethal injection, no costly and lengthy trials.
How are you going to go about with your genious plan without lethal injections and lengthy trials??? You've criticized, but you haven't presented anything onto the table...

[Sendo]

even if drug users are weak-willed, why kill them? do you advocate killing those who are weak or do you advocate helping them? If I were to apply your logic I should order a genocide on most humans, overwhelmingly women, the elderly, the fat, the diseased, the poor, and the mentally unstable. Or did you mean only the mentally weak? I could say you are too weak to restrain your vicious, intolerant, and homicidal tendencies.

[bobroberts]

i dont know why so many people seem to be attatched to their drugs so much. those who take drugs are weak. they cant handle reality, so in a way, we are doing them a favour. of course, that is secondary. our primary focus is to improve society. widespread avaliability to drugs will certainly cause widespread problems, crimes occur when people take drugs. why legalize something that will cause MORE criminal activity in the long run? capital punishment IS effective because it removes scum, with advances in technology (as i recall has been mentioned) the guilt has been more readily declared, rarely is an innocent killed. the odds are not in favour of that happening. the cost tends to be rather expensive, but the justice system in the US needs to be reformed as i have said before, no lethal injection, no costly and lengthy trials.

Banning drugs doesn't eliminate them. They are too easy to smuggle. All it does is create a black market in which the only way to resolve disputes is violence, encourages the dispersion of addictive drugs, lowers the quality and safety of those drugs, and forces people into poverty trying to afford them once addicted. Once that happens, the state must devote more and more resources trying to kill the beast it created. There are many ways to escape reality, like television, books, music, sports, games, internet forums. Most of which wouldn't exist if we had a policy of executing (recreational only, I assume) drug users. You've been brainwashed about the evils of (some) drug use, and the nature of drug users. Don't worry, it's nothing a couple bong hits won't cure.

[Demogorgon]

those who take drugs are weak. they cant handle reality, so in a way, we are doing them a favour
Escapism is a natural part of being human. Have you ever read fiction, watched a film, read poetry, entertained religious belief, fantasised about anything in your head, listened to music or done any number of other such things? If so, you have to a greater or lesser extent done the same thing as drug users do.

On another note, seeing as how you are talking so much about what America needs to do, why are you using British spelling?

[forward]

why would people sympathize with drug users then? clearly people who disagree with me do not care about society as a whole. drugs screw up the brain which causes people to make irrational decisions. what benefit do recreational drugs have to society? how many innocent people must die before you realize that recreational drugs ARE BAD???!!!! there have been tests done that showed the effects of drugs to ones brain and the significant loss of brain cells. as an example, meth causes increased paranoia which might trigger an attack on a relatively sane and decent person, something that would never have happened had this individual not be under the influence. perhaps someone might be angry with someone else and while impaired, violence will esculate. the emotions they feel will be more defined and magnified. to think totally escaping from reality will solve any problems is absurd (at least if i read a book etc i still know who i am, i know where i am, etc so i'm only temporarly escaping reality for slight convienince). this is not a hobbie anymore than murdering people is. my hobbies dont cause harm to anyone or potential harm as a result of the hobbie. if a person is weak, WHAT BENEFIT DO THEY HAVE TO SOCIETY? and thats what drug users are. weak, pathetic pieces of shit. AND THEY CAUSED THIS THEMSELVES, they caused their troubles, so why the hell should we help them by providing shelter, etc? PEOPLE COMMIT CRIMES AS A RESULT OF TAKING DRUGS, decreased mental function breeds criminal behavior. loads of crimes have occured by an impaired individual. if an activity has NO benefits but NEGATIVE results, why legalize it? like i have said before, globalcommie, in terms of an improved justice system, the trials would be more quicker and not drag on and on, and the execcution matter would be more in terms of military procedure,,,, or just having a firing squad execute them, much more efficient. escapism is okay sometimes if it causes no harm demogorgon. sorry if my messages seem cluttered and unorganized again

[Anashtih]

Drug users cause much harm to society as a whole. They have not the intelligence, when impaired (and one would argue, at all) to think rationally and thus a hindered ability, such as operating machierachy or driving a car, would victimize many undeserving individuals, simply because of the drug user's stupidity. In addition, this irrationality that is the inevitable result of taking drugs can increase violence and other destructive and anti-social behavior.

Aldous Huxley
Hunter S. Thompson
Timothy Leary
Albert Hoffman
Alexander Shulgin

There are so many more, but I'm tired.

In the future, please compensate for your complete lack of facts with a complete lack of grammatical error. At least that way it's only intellectually painful.

[communard resolution]

why would people sympathize with drug users then? clearly people who disagree with me do not care about society as a whole. drugs screw up the brain which causes people to make irrational decisions. what benefit do recreational drugs have to society? how many innocent people must die before you realize that recreational drugs ARE BAD???!!!! there have been tests done that showed the effects of drugs to ones brain and the significant loss of brain cells. as an example, meth causes increased paranoia which might trigger an attack on a relatively sane and decent person, something that would never have happened had this individual not be under the influence. perhaps someone might be angry with someone else and while impaired, violence will esculate. the emotions they feel will be more defined and magnified. to think totally escaping from reality will solve any problems is absurd (at least if i read a book etc i still know who i am, i know where i am, etc so i'm only temporarly escaping reality for slight convienince). this is not a hobbie anymore than murdering people is. my hobbies dont cause harm to anyone or potential harm as a result of the hobbie. if a person is weak, WHAT BENEFIT DO THEY HAVE TO SOCIETY? and thats what drug users are. weak, pathetic pieces of shit. AND THEY CAUSED THIS THEMSELVES, they caused their troubles, so why the hell should we help them by providing shelter, etc? PEOPLE COMMIT CRIMES AS A RESULT OF TAKING DRUGS, decreased mental function breeds criminal behavior. loads of crimes have occured by an impaired individual. if an activity has NO benefits but NEGATIVE results, why legalize it? like i have said before, globalcommie, in terms of an improved justice system, the trials would be more quicker and not drag on and on, and the execcution matter would be more in terms of military procedure,,,, or just having a firing squad execute them, much more efficient. escapism is okay sometimes if it causes no harm demogorgon. sorry if my messages seem cluttered and unorganized again

Actually, a former drink-driver and cokehead is currently president of the United States. I agree he should be executed, albeit for being a war criminal rather than a drug user.

Some drug addicts turn to crime. Others (e.g. politicians, rock stars, actors, supermodels, doctors, ...) do not. What does that tell you?

I can only think of one drug whose immediate narcotic effect can make people commit violent crimes. Guess which one it is? Hint: it's legal and widely available.

[Killfacer]

the point is that most recreational drug users are only that for a couple of years. During which they bare very little threat on society. the fact that you want Blanket massacre of drug users proves to the world that your a fucking moron.

[Lector Malibu]

why would people sympathize with drug users then? clearly people who disagree with me do not care about society as a whole. drugs screw up the brain which causes people to make irrational decisions. what benefit do recreational drugs have to society? how many innocent people must die before you realize that recreational drugs ARE BAD???!!!! there have been tests done that showed the effects of drugs to ones brain and the significant loss of brain cells. as an example, meth causes increased paranoia which might trigger an attack on a relatively sane and decent person, something that would never have happened had this individual not be under the influence. perhaps someone might be angry with someone else and while impaired, violence will esculate. the emotions they feel will be more defined and magnified. to think totally escaping from reality will solve any problems is absurd (at least if i read a book etc i still know who i am, i know where i am, etc so i'm only temporarly escaping reality for slight convienince). this is not a hobbie anymore than murdering people is. my hobbies dont cause harm to anyone or potential harm as a result of the hobbie. if a person is weak, WHAT BENEFIT DO THEY HAVE TO SOCIETY? and thats what drug users are. weak, pathetic pieces of shit. AND THEY CAUSED THIS THEMSELVES, they caused their troubles, so why the hell should we help them by providing shelter, etc? PEOPLE COMMIT CRIMES AS A RESULT OF TAKING DRUGS, decreased mental function breeds criminal behavior. loads of crimes have occured by an impaired individual. if an activity has NO benefits but NEGATIVE results, why legalize it? like i have said before, globalcommie, in terms of an improved justice system, the trials would be more quicker and not drag on and on, and the execcution matter would be more in terms of military procedure,,,, or just having a firing squad execute them, much more efficient. escapism is okay sometimes if it causes no harm demogorgon. sorry if my messages seem cluttered and unorganized again


You're not playing with a full deck. It's okay most of us are a few cans short of a six pack , myself included (pun intended) . Point is the above raving is lunacy. I also think you're stance is motivated by something that is probably personal to your life.

Which is fine. If that's the case that's you're business. Facts are as I pointed out earlier you have little if any experience at all with drugs or addiction. And you know I think that's great but I will say not even the most zealous 12 step fanaticals express views such as you have displayed here.

And it is exactly the case further that you're stance outside of being disturbing, is prejudiced to the core. You're presenting a weak strawman extrapolation of what the "A typical" drug addict is like and demanding all drug users execution based on that. There is no difference between you and a bigot.

I can understand that drugs are an area of concern. I can understand wanting to see that issue dealt with. However shooting someone who happens to be a drug addict is insanity flat out.

How about taking a look at some of the causes of advanced addiction. You're here flabing your jaws about how people are just "weak" and all, when fact is you've offered no insight on this whatsoever.

People don't wake up one day and say "Gee I'm gonna be a Junkie" and not everybody that's smokes a joint is a "Junkie" It's not black and white. And before you go off on you're higher than though law abiding citizen garbage. Why are you here on a leftest site pushing capitalist laws?

Tell you what you're beloved capitalist are not gonna let the drugs go away or become legal. Would you like to know why? They stand to make too much money off it. That's right , they are on the take. There's you're beloved capitalist for ya. The DEA is probably one of the most corrupt facets in the world of law enforcement. I'd advise you get to know this subject matter better and the players involved before making any more RIDICULOUS assertions on a subject you know apparently nothing about.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

why would people sympathize with drug users then?

Because there's nothing wrong with using drugs?


clearly people who disagree with me do not care about society as a whole.This is a stupid statement. by way of illustration, when did you stop raping children?


drugs screw up the brain which causes people to make irrational decisions.Only for as long as the drugs take effect, and this ignores the fact that not all irrational decisions are harmful.


what benefit do recreational drugs have to society?They provide recreation, that is why people take them after all.


how many innocent people must die before you realize that recreational drugs ARE BAD???!!!!How many innocent people must die before you realise that skiing, parachute jumping, and any number of risky but entertaining activities are bad?

Not to mention also the fact that as a result fo their illegal status, recreational drugs lack the appropriate pharmacuetical controls, especially with regard to additives and quality. Also, through ignorance, drug users may take a cocktail of drugs that taken on their own are relatively harmless, but when mixed together have lethal effects.

The way to solve this is through proper pharmaceutical controls and objective, widespread education, not through prohibition - as people will take drugs anyway, so it is better that they take proper quality drugs in addition to being educated about them.


there have been tests done that showed the effects of drugs to ones brain and the significant loss of brain cells.Notwithstanding the dodgy science of the anti-drug warriors, the hypocrisy of this statement is astonishing. Alcohol has a well-documented depressive effect on the human brain, but is cheaply and widely available.

Society hasn't collapsed as a result. I've seen no evidence that other drugs would be any different if they were as cheap and widely available.


as an example, meth causes increased paranoia which might trigger an attack on a relatively sane and decent person, something that would never have happened had this individual not be under the influence.If we had proper research into the development of recreartional drugs, this sort of thing would happen a whole lot less often. Suppose that an alternative to meth was invented, which produced similar effects but without the adverse effects on psychology and health?


perhaps someone might be angry with someone else and while impaired, violence will esculate. the emotions they feel will be more defined and magnified.Happens with alcohol too. Wanna try banning that? Here's a hint: it won't fucking work.


to think totally escaping from reality will solve any problems is absurd (at least if i read a book etc i still know who i am, i know where i am, etc so i'm only temporarly escaping reality for slight convienince).The effects of drugs are also temporary.


this is not a hobbie anymore than murdering people is. my hobbies dont cause harm to anyone or potential harm as a result of the hobbie.The potential harm to others must be weighed against the harm caused by prohibiting a given activity. So far you've given no reason whatsoever for us to believe that the harm in legalising drugs outweighs the harm in illegalising them. You've just flailed your arms and screeched.


if a person is weak, WHAT BENEFIT DO THEY HAVE TO SOCIETY?That's an entirely fascist position and you, sir, are a fascist piece of shit for holding it.


and thats what drug users are. weak, pathetic pieces of shit.Fuck off and die! http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/images/smiles/finger.gif Attitudes like yours add more to the sum of human misery than any drug.


AND THEY CAUSED THIS THEMSELVES, they caused their troubles, so why the hell should we help them by providing shelter, etc?They didn't cause any of that shit for themselves, it's fascist pigs like you that are the source of their troubles. Is it weed that fires you from your job, or your pigshit boss? Is it cocaine that puts people in jail, or the state-sponsered thugs that drag them there?


PEOPLE COMMIT CRIMES AS A RESULT OF TAKING DRUGS, decreased mental function breeds criminal behavior.Bullshit, and great steaming piles of it as well.


loads of crimes have occured by an impaired individual. if an activity has NO benefits but NEGATIVE results, why legalize it?It's pretty obvious by now that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Recreational drugs make their users feel good - people enjoy the sensations and experiences that their favourite drug gives them. That is the benefit.

[Sam_b]

in terms of an improved justice system, the trials would be more quicker and not drag on and on, and the execcution matter would be more in terms of military procedure,,,, or just having a firing squad execute them, much more efficient.

BAN....WANTED..........SO SO....MUCH!!!

I'm amazed that people are still trying to rationally debate with this guy.

[GPDP]

This thread is going places.

Why is this guy not banned yet?

[Lector Malibu]

This thread is going places.

Why is this guy not banned yet?

Oh I've brought the matter up:lol:

[CanadianCommunist]

In order for a society to flourish, one must destroy what plagues it, namely criminals. Murderers take away a life and cause grief and misfortune to family members and friends. Any individual with a thread of humanity and decency would advocate the execution of such a monster. In addition, rapists would certainly deserve the death penalty. But what about drug users? Afterall they do no harm to anybody except themselvs, right? It is, afterall, simply a recreational activility and as such, it shouldn't warrant such meassures as death, right? WRONG! Drug users cause much harm to society as a whole. They have not the intelligence, when impaired (and one would argue, at all) to think rationally and thus a hindered ability, such as operating machierachy or driving a car, would victimize many undeserving individuals, simply because of the drug user's stupidity. In addition, this irrationality that is the inevitable result of taking drugs can increase violence and other destructive and anti-social behavior. If they cause harm to others, they deserve not to live in society. Six years manslaughter for an individual who, under the infleunce of a drug, caused the death of a young gentleman is not justified, and this seems to be the penalty for robbing another individual of their lives. No, it was not intentional, but taking the drugs was. In addition, the justice system in the United States needs reform. For one, the procedure of an individual warranting the death penalty should not involve excessive wait times and a painless death, but instead a quick trial and a more fiting death, namely execution by firing squad. Anybody who cares about humnaity would certainly support this punnishment.


Your Sir !

Are fucked in the head ! Another dumbass american who has been brainwashed by the american propaganda machine maybe you should do some reasearch before you post this shit !

I've been a Marijuana Smoker, Shrooms eater for years and never have touched a drop of booze or smoked a cigerette. Im much better off

[Baconator]

why would people sympathize with drug users then?My guess would be because of the unjust violence inflicted upon them by the state. Do you remember when there was a prohibition on alcohol? What if you lived back in those times and saw the police arrest a guy peacefully brewing his own beer and throw him into a rape house we call state prison? Would you feel sympathy for the person being thrown in prison or the police?
A person gets brutalized with arrest and his dignity stripped from him by prison rape just for non-violently possessing a plant. It seems you would have to be a mentally disturbed or emotionally scared individual not to sympathize with a person getting brutalized like that.


clearly people who disagree with me do not care about society as a whole.So clearly you have it all figured out and every individual's best interest at heart. So this means anyone who does not agree with you is fundamentally unfeeling and heartless. How do you measure social utility objectively? Please let me know. How do you say this without sounding like a narcissistic megalomaniac?


drugs screw up the brain which causes people to make irrational decisions.Can you define what you mean by rationality? So does this mean all people who do not take drugs are incapable of making irrational decisions? Would all human beings be perfectly rational thinking if they did not use drugs?



what benefit do recreational drugs have to society?This is strange. I thought you were absolute in your assertion that those who disagree with you do not care about society. Which obviously means you have an objective methodology for determining social utility ( I'm interested in hearing what it is.) So why you're asking this baffles me. :confused:I would say ask the individuals in society which use drugs what utility they get and there are your answers.



how many innocent people must die before you realize that recreational drugs ARE BAD???!!!!Playing with the argument from morality I see. So you say drugs are bad ( immoral and evil). Well, compared to what? I am unaware that drugs themselves are moral agents. I was unaware that drugs have the capacity to choose morality.



there have been tests done that showed the effects of drugs to ones brain and the significant loss of brain cells.Ok , so? This doesn't say anything about morality concerning drug use. It just states a fact that probability of physiological damage is increased with drug use. A doctor doesn't explain whether something is good or bad , she explains the probable and likely effects of whatever she is diagnosing.
A doctor can tell a skydiver that his chances for long life are significantly decreased by engaging in risky activities but thats just a fact, that says nothing about whether its right or wrong to sky dive. Would you sit there and beg for the brutality of the state to be brought down upon skydivers just for skydiving?



as an example, meth causes increased paranoia which might trigger an attack on a relatively sane and decent person, something that would never have happened had this individual not be under the influence.This says nothing about morality ( right and wrong) so I don't know why thats the general point your trying to make in the entire post. So what you're saying is that only meth users are prone to increased paranoia attacks and seizures? You're saying that all non-meth users are sane and decent people? These are brave propositions, you need to back them up with a bit of evidence. I'd recommend looking at a medical journal and looking at all the causes for these ailments which are not only exclusive to meth and take a look at a lot of people around you and in the world that are not meth users and reconsider if they are sane and decent. ;)


perhaps someone might be angry with someone else and while impaired, violence will esculate. the emotions they feel will be more defined and magnified.If your issue is with violence, then why advocate the initiation of violence to stop it? Its like Problem=violence , Solution = violence. Are you for or against violence?:confused: The possession and use of drugs doesn't always guarantee a violent reaction but anything the state involves itself with ( even drug prevention) is always violent.



to think totally escaping from reality will solve any problems is absurd (at least if i read a book etc i still know who i am, i know where i am, etc so i'm only temporarly escaping reality for slight convienince).So, only individuals not reading and/or using drugs hold concepts that are totally grounded in reality? :lol:
Sorry to the religious types , but why do people still think god exists? Or to the Marxist types who believe these abstract collectives can have rights greater and contradictory to individuals that constitute the collective?:lol:


and thats what drug users are. weak, pathetic pieces of shit.Is this universal? And I'll stop there and be more than happy to debate further if you accept logic and empiricism as a basis for determining truth from falsehood. Or else you're just spraying off your opinions which is sort of bigoted right?

[MaverickChaos]

Rarely is a person wrongfully convicted. besides with surviellence cameras being prominent ideally, we hav a better change of catching the individual in the act. with DNA eviendce and the possibility of witnesses being present can create a position in favour of the state prosucetting and the individual if innocent. Locking drug users up is not as effecient because there is the possibility of parole and they would be in prison combined with the petty criminals. Besides those in prison have a decent quality of life, which criminals should not have.

So because of the risk of drugs, you're willing to massacre the thousands of people who use drugs daily and cause no harm whatsoever? Chances are that Criminals didn't have a decent quality of life anyway you fool, otherwise they wouldn't have resorted to lives of crime.

[MaverickChaos]

there have been tests done that showed the effects of drugs to ones brain and the significant loss of brain cells.

You must have been a junkie from birth then.

[N3p7uN3]

Aldous Huxley
Hunter S. Thompson
Timothy Leary
Albert Hoffman
Alexander Shulgin

There are so many more, but I'm tired.

In the future, please compensate for your complete lack of facts with a complete lack of grammatical error. At least that way it's only intellectually painful.

Not to mention Albert Einstein. :p

[Mindtoaster]

OP is a 13 year old who just got out of an anti-drug seminar at school. You'll understand why people enjoy them when you get your first blunt around age 16 little buddy

[Sharon den Adel]

I see no reason to kill drug users. It is the drug dealers we should be going after. If there are no drug dealers, where will the users get their drugs? Of course, we should not kill the drug dealers eithor, but we should make more of an effort to get them off the streets.

[Bud Struggle]

It amazing how such a silly thread could go on so long.

[Mindtoaster]

It amazing how such a silly thread could go on so long.

I'm not suprised. He's a bit of a social darwinist, and this thread is revoltingly offensive.

Trolling makes the internet go round

[Killfacer]

its just people ranting and calling him a prick. Which is fair enough.

[Bud Struggle]

Now, if this was a thread about killing people who drink their beer warm, it would all make sense.:lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Now, if this was a thread about killing people who drink their beer warm, it would all make sense.:lol:

Who the hell drinks their beer warm?

[forward]

although you say possessing drugs is not violent in itself, it is indeed when people become violent as a result of taking drugs. when somene takes recreational drugs, what they are doing is saying "i hate my life, i'm a dumbass, i want to take more so i can effectively harm more people", in such a way decreasing their ability to function rationally is advocating further turmoil. i know people are not 100% rational when not under the infleunce, but why INCREASE violence? do you know how many people's lives have been destroyed as a result of drugs. not the drug user himself (because nobody cares about his life), but howw much negative impact he has had on others. again i'm not saying all non drug users are sane and decent, but if probability of violence is increased and as such, to decrease the number of violent attacks, we must execute drug users BEFORE they have a chance to cause harm to others, thus doing society a favour. execution to remove violence is just in that taking away one life will prevent the deaths of other, law abiding citizens. if the death of one invididual can prevent the deaths of others, then it is worth it.

[forward]

tomk, this is not a silly thread. it is a suggestion to help society but ironically nobody is supportive of me.

[communard resolution]

tomk, this is not a silly thread. it is a suggestion to help society but ironically nobody is supportive of me.

Ironically, I think you should be shot before you can harm others. It would be doing society a favour.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

although you say possessing drugs is not violent in itself, it is indeed when people become violent as a result of taking drugs.

Thus your ignorance about recreational drugs is revealed.

Don't just take it from me - Educate Yourself (http://www.erowid.org/).


when somene takes recreational drugs, what they are doing is saying "i hate my life, i'm a dumbass, i want to take more so i can effectively harm more people", in such a way decreasing their ability to function rationally is advocating further turmoil.Bullshit. People take drugs because most of the time, they're fun. Sure, the crack addict or heroin addict suffers in the absence of their drug, but given a "maintenance dose" during weekdays and leaving recreational doses for the weekends, an addict can function perfectly normally.


i know people are not 100% rational when not under the infleunce, but why INCREASE violence?The mistake in your statement lies in the assertion that irrational behaviour caused by drug consumption is 100% violent.

Is it rational for me to lie in bed, smoking a huge bifter while listening to music and gorging myself on doughnuts and pizza? It sure ain't, but I ain't harming anyone but myself.


do you know how many people's lives have been destroyed as a result of drugs.Have you not read anyone's (let alone mine) posts on this very subject? When someone is fired from their job for failing a piss-test, and/or dragged off to prison by some fascist pig-thugs, was it the drug that did that or the system that illegalises drugs and stigmatises drug users?


not the drug user himself (because nobody cares about his life),I'm pretty sure the drug user's friends and relatives care about him. Speaking as a drug user, I damn well know my friends and relatives do.


but howw much negative impact he has had on others.Depends entirely on the individual drug user. Are you seriously trying to argue that my bi-weekly pot and junk food binge harms anyone but myself?


again i'm not saying all non drug users are sane and decent, but if probability of violence is increased and as such, to decrease the number of violent attacks, we must execute drug users BEFORE they have a chance to cause harm to others, thus doing society a favour.Have you considered the effects upon society of executing people for the "crime" of temporarily altering their body chemistry and state of mind?


execution to remove violence is just in that taking away one life will prevent the deaths of other, law abiding citizens. if the death of one invididual can prevent the deaths of others, then it is worth it.Again, you commit another fallacy - assuming that all drug users are violent and present a risk to the lives of others.

[Mindtoaster]

. execution to remove violence is just in that taking away one life will prevent the deaths of other, law abiding citizens. if the death of one invididual can prevent the deaths of others, then it is worth it.

Taking away one life?

Dude, at the very LEAST 37% of Americans have smoked pot at some point in their lives.

http://parentingteens.about.com/cs/marijuana/l/blmj3.htm

And thats just marijuana. You seem interested in killing everyone who drinks too.
You're going to need to get some nukes on your hands to pull off the amounts of executions you want to. Also as someone stated earlier, state departments such as the CIA are the largest drug dealers on Earth.

That said, you're a Social Darwinist shit-for-brains who needs to get the ban hammer.

[Bud Struggle]

Who the hell drinks their beer warm?

The British.

[edit] nothing against the British (except for burning the White House in the war of 1812.) Just a joke. Just like them burning the White House was a JOKE!!!

[Bud Struggle]

OK, let's discuss.


although you say possessing drugs is not violent in itself, It is violence--to oneself. a small violence in most cases--but a violence.


it is indeed when people become violent as a result of taking drugs. when somene takes recreational drugs, what they are doing is saying "i hate my life, i'm a dumbass, i want to take more so i can effectively harm more people", in such a way decreasing their ability to function rationally is advocating further turmoil.It depends on the drug. Crack--yea maybe, pot--maybe, not so much. Now to be fair drug use is a dependance, like liquor or cigarettes. I think a well balanced individual would stay away from all sorts of contaminants of the body. But the world is too much with us and we as humans often fail and drugs are one of our failings.


i know people are not 100% rational when not under the infleunce, but why INCREASE violence? do you know how many people's lives have been destroyed as a result of drugs. not the drug user himself (because nobody cares about his life), but howw much negative impact he has had on others. Lots of people's lives have been destroyed by drugs. And I'm not talking about the drug users. Vast segments of the African-American community have been affected by drugs sellers and the day to day crime and violence they bring to their neighborhoods. As of yet the African-American community has taken little action to curb the problem. They don't normally report drug sellers to the police nor do they tell the police about drug related murders and other crime. And that is THEIR business. If indeed they are happy living in such conditions--fine with me.

Further: there are more Blacks in American jails than in colleges. A great majority on drug related crimes. That's fine too. Each individual is responsible for their own actions.


again i'm not saying all non drug users are sane and decent, but if probability of violence is increased and as such, to decrease the number of violent attacks, we must execute drug users BEFORE they have a chance to cause harm to others, thus doing society a favour. execution to remove violence is just in that taking away one life will prevent the deaths of other, law abiding citizens. if the death of one invididual can prevent the deaths of others, then it is worth it. Nope. As long as drug related crime and drug usage (for the most part) stays in the communities that they are in and don't come in the area that I'm living in--I'm all for people doing as they want.

Besides, people on drugs or people that need drugs aren't planning any Revolutions, are they? They are too busy fufilling their own "needs." ;):)

[MaverickChaos]

Alcohol kills more people than any other drug in existence I believe, so are you in favour of trying to murder half the worlds population single handedly? Good luck.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The drugs I am refering to are all the illegal ones and alcohol. Drugs used to cure or help with remedies are clearly not inclueded, as they posess some benefit. Recreational drugs posess no benefit. A functional society should not allow a population to walk around brainless and pathetic. In addition, they cause strain on the decent people needing healthcare (it should be private anyways) who have to endure long waiting lists for the sake of the community. There are absolutely no benefit of using drugs, and in the case where there are only negatives, the use of substances that case create harm to many, should clearly be denied and severe meassures enforced to make society safer. I know I would be safer.
The benefit of recreational drugs is that they provide recreation. I would have thought that was obvious from the name.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The British.

[edit] nothing against the British (except for burning the White House in the war of 1812.) Just a joke. Just like them burning the White House was a JOKE!!!

This is a miconception based on not knowing the difference between ale and beer. Ale is best drunk at room temperature. Beer is obviously best drunk cold.

This has been your small lesson in British culture.

[Bud Struggle]

This is a miconception based on not knowing the difference between ale and beer. Ale is best drunk at room temperature. Beer is obviously best drunk cold.

This has been your small lesson in British culture.

Thank you. :)

[Killfacer]

stop answering hes a fucking moron. Plus hes gone now. yay.