| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
tupence_hapeny
Hazard to Others
Posts: 131
Registered: 25-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: continuing respiration (touch wood)
|
|
Only one way to that wonderful day, however, it requires the balance of power to shift to the gangs. The simple truth is that no advanced, nominally
democratic nation (such as the United Fascist States of Amerika, or even Ustralia) can win a war against it's own citizens. The simple reason for this
is that they cannot use their overwhelming might to crush any such action, because the remainder of the country (and the UN) would crucify them, while
those they are engaged against are outside the law, and the sanction of the UN (in particular, they are NOT bound by Chem warfare treaties).
The other point is that governments have proven notoriously inept at protecting their supporters from the predatory nature of their opponents. The
only way the current system can end, unless someone has the guts to stop it before hand, is through fear, if not out and out terror.
This point, is where democracy falls down, where the laws are enforced against half the population - putting them outside the protection of the law
and supposedly within the sanction of it - is where civilization ends.
I direct the reader to read s.155, as contained in John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (2nd Treatise), Ch.XIII, where it is said:
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=282...
| Quote: | Sec. 155. It may be demanded here, What if the executive power, being
possessed of the force of the common-wealth, shall make use of that force
to hinder the meeting and acting of the legislative, when the original
constitution, or the public exigencies require it? I say, using force
upon the people without authority, and contrary to the trust put in him
that does so, is a state of war with the people, who have a right to
reinstate their legislative in the exercise of their power: for having
erected a legislative, with an intent they should exercise the power of
making laws, either at certain set times, or when there is need of it,
when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to the
society, and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists,
the people have a right to remove it by force. In all states and
conditions, the true remedy of force without authority, is to oppose
force to it. The use of force without authority, always puts him that
uses it into a state of war, as the aggressor, and renders him liable to
be treated accordingly. |
The state of war is broadly speaking precisely the state described by Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathon, Ch.XIII
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=348...
| Quote: | The Incommodites Of Such A War
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every
man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time,
wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength,
and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition,
there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain;
and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use
of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious
Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things
as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth;
no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is
worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death;
And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short. |
Interestingly both of these authors wrote during the most disturbed passage in English history, where the power of the people was usurped and used
against the people. The person doing so on that occasion was the King, he lost his head (figuratively) then he lost it again (both literally &
permanently).
There are extremely dark days ahead boys and girls, and the unfortunate truth is that the Roman Empire fell for similar reasons, corruption and
discriminatory law enforcement weakened it sufficiently that the superpower of that time fell to the terrorists of the age... Ain't history grand
tup
We are all the sum of our experiences, and our reactions to the same
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It's precisely that that I too will fear will happen. It's because of this that I am such a large proponent of pharmacological education. It may take
a generation, but properly executed, it should (in part anyway), avoid a large conflict like that.
It would be as simple as implementing a program in school that teaches pharmacology - then the people would be educated, and less prone to be being
herded by the mass media and politicians. Of course, this is probably being a bit optimistic, but pharmacology is interesting to everyone that I know,
be it drug user or not, so I can see such a program going over well with the students.
The other problem is implementing it, which involves somewhat of the same hurdles to jump over - that is: politicians, parents, generally ignorant
people. Still, if taken from a strictly education standpoint, I don't see any reason as to why this program wouldn't be largely successful. There is
also the problem of money, but with the huge amounts being wasted (imho) on the War on Drugs, education could easily be revamped to include such a
program.
[Edited on 8-4-2007 by PainKilla]
|
|
|
seb
Unregistered
Posts: N/A
Registered: N/A
Member Is Offline
|
|
May I put some sunglasses on? thank you. I have a chemistry degree and two manufacturing convictions. I waste time, and I do time. I believe I
should have a say in these matters.
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
Scuttlebutt has it though that the MDA/MMDA precursors are mostly Dutch exports, FWIIW. And I am talking worldwide. |
Well, precursors are not the final product, are they? My main point is that there doesn't seem to be such a vast stimulant abuse/production in the EU
as in the US. Certainly not to such an extent that it is the topic of the day. I'm just wondering why. Is it different perception, different media
coverage or is it something societal?
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
uncompromisedfreedom
Harmless
Posts: 8
Registered: 24-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I want to reiterate what I posted earlier in this thread: forgot the "social" consequences, forget it if every single fucking person would start using
drugs, IT'S WRONG TO LOCK SOMEONE AWAY IN A CAGE FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT HARMS NO ONE ELSE!!! Does this strike a chord with anyone? Simple moral
proposition, for me...does it do it for anyone else, or no? Always discussions about how society is worse or better off because off the laws -- forget
that. Society is a group of individuals -- and society's laws are meant to protect other individuals from themselves, not from himself.
Also, not to antagonize Sauron who I can see from my brief stay here contributes much knowledge, but in one of your posts you said that you'd tried
alcohol and cocaine (inarguably both hard drugs) and knew people who were 'addicted' to morphine prescribed medically -- (if you mean they were
physically dependent that was an unavoidable consequence of daily opiate use, medical or not -- people act like, oops, he got addicted, how'd that
happen? drop the word addicted too much baggage, anyhow. physically depended -- yep, physically dependent on water, too. And if you're honest about
the average opiate user's side effects, you see water and opiates are not too far apart in a daily user's body. Look at what opiate users have done in
the past -- founded major hospitals, led great armies, written enlightened books, enjoyed themselves, etc.) -- since you yourself have this experience
with drugs, do you support the drug laws?
Do you think that users and distribution and logistics people should be locked away?
Then, why not alcohol users?
And if you think that at least the drug users, and maybe the alcohol users too, should be locked away, then why don't you present to do your time?
(This is not antagonism, or not meant as such, at least -- I just want to understand your view.)
Another thing: you mentioned that those making drugs with chemistry are pimping out chemistry like a $2 whore, or something like that. What about
those who make drugs at Merck or Bayer? What about when they knew the heroin they manufactured was going to go to addicts? Was it OK from the 20's to
the 60's, and starting now again, in the UK, when heroin was prescribed to those physically dependent on them? (Addicts, as they're so kindly
marginalized and boxed up in a word by assholes and idiots worldwide.)
So, then, why is manufacturing clandestine drugs in a way that is clean and competent, doesn't put users at more risk than if big pharma had done the
job, and doesn't poison the neighbors with vapors -- how is that any different than big pharma on a moral level?
Also: don't make any mistake -- the government would crack down on these chemicals if these drug labs didn't exist -- they like to take all such
powers out of people's hands! You may have read the interesting Wired article 'Don't Try This At Home' which detailed the visit a Fed group paid to
United Nuclear, just because they were selling chemicals that could be used for firecrackers and crap, not for drugs.
Are you anti-firecracker?
Believe me, the governments of the world -- because they've decided to cease guarding the individuals who entered into the pact which creates a
society in the first place rather than their so-called image of the 'group's' best interest -- would be after your beakers and chemicals anyhow. It's
just too much power in the hands of a person.
Again, IT'S NOT THE DRUG LABS THAT ARE F'ING YOU -- the government could turn around right now, legalize drugs, let you buy your labware, and only
prosecute drug users and chemists that inflict direct harm on others and their property (i.e. hitting them with a car while high, poisoning neighbors
with chemical fumes, etc.) -- and only prosecute them for causing harm to others or their property, not for being on drugs or being chemists.
I was hoping for a dramatic uprising to be caused by my previous screed, it was much better writing. Let me know what you guys think about my fervent
belief that it is simply wrong to lock people in a fucking cage for doing something that harms no one else.
\"We get one shot at life. Give us our freedoms.\"
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
I have thought along similar lines and been very Libertarian in my thinking in terms of the drug issues and similar social problems. Weather to view
them as law enforcement issues or public health issues.....
You know that I am very close to thinking in that vein....however; drug-cooking is never as simple as one would want it to be. Neither is using drug
& etoh, etc. There are always issues inherent in the discussion that are important factors unless we are simply talking about the general,
theoretical "big-picture" context of if we could start over and build a utopia, etc, etc. but we are talking about real life, correct?
Real-life issues are pretty grim. If a drug cook gets sloppy he/she can poison people quite well and fast. Remember the Fentenyl that was giving
people Parkinson's? Or the green meth that had several heavy metals in it to a toxic level?
You make the shit; you take responsibility for it. but then people say: "My shit is pure, I take great care in it's manufacture." Well, not everyone
does. And the facts are that meth cooks do so for money. Look what a fine mess we get ourselves into in a "bottom-line" driven society already?
|
|
|
tupence_hapeny
Hazard to Others
Posts: 131
Registered: 25-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: continuing respiration (touch wood)
|
|
The point behind my reference to the lack of authority, is that the present day version of democracy appears to believe that where enough people don't
have any opinion one way or the other, then they are counted as being supportive of the status quo, rather than ambivalent to it.
The difficulty with this approach is that where the status quo authorises the use of strong violence and paramilitary tactics against rather a large
part of the population - those who have been subjected to that violence, in addition to those who have good reason to fear that such violence may be
visited upon them, are hardly ambivalent toward the likelihood of that violence.
On this basis a whole lot more people strongly disagree with the 'War on Drugs' than strongly agree with the same (indifference is not something from
which strong agreement could or should be validly inferred). As violence begets violence, when the ambivalent sections of our society begin to realise
that their family, livelihood and safety are endangered by the status quo, the status quo will change.
I have said it before, and I will say it again, the strongest agent of change is fear, as fear will overcome inertia - it is about the only emotion
that will.
tup
We are all the sum of our experiences, and our reactions to the same
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
Looks like drugs used to be a huge problem...
This is hilarious...
[Edited on 9-4-2007 by The_Davster]
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by uncompromisedfreedom
IT'S WRONG TO LOCK SOMEONE AWAY IN A CAGE FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT HARMS NO ONE ELSE!!! Does this strike a chord with anyone? |
Curious; how do you view suicide?
Tim
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Stop! You'll make the poor fellow's head hurt, placing him in a quandry like that.
Would he not intervene in the attempted suicide of a loved one, or a friend? I am speaking as one who has done just that.
Yet to apply his aparently absolute standard, suicide hurts no one (else) does it? Or doesn't it?
I'll be interested in his answer. I'm waiting to PM him with Jack Kavorkian's cell phone number.
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
Yet to apply his aparently absolute standard, suicide hurts no one (else) does it? Or doesn't it? |
That's a pretty nasty quagmire you're getting into here. Breaking someone's heart could be considered as hurting someone else too, as this can be a
crippling loss. So should people who break other people's hearts (don't we all at some point?) be locked away?
Why would you want to lock someone up who tried to commit suicide anyway? That also takes their life away.
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
But it gives them more life than they would (presumably) have on their own (proof being, they tried taking their life).
If breaking someone's heart can be considered hurt, then would a true nobody, whom nobody knows, commiting suicide be any crime? What's wrong with
this statement?
Tim
|
|
|
uncompromisedfreedom
Harmless
Posts: 8
Registered: 24-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
Stop! You'll make the poor fellow's head hurt, placing him in a quandry like that.
Would he not intervene in the attempted suicide of a loved one, or a friend? I am speaking as one who has done just that.
Yet to apply his aparently absolute standard, suicide hurts no one (else) does it? Or doesn't it?
I'll be interested in his answer. I'm waiting to PM him with Jack Kavorkian's cell phone number. |
Your ridiculous Sauron -- my first post was respectful, I don't know why you're getting this way. No, my head does not hurt: I'm at least in the top
.01% in terms of IQ, so the answer to this question is well within my reach, though apparently not within yours.
Would I intervene to prevent the suicide of a loved one -- who had hope of finding some happiness? Yes, I would intervene.
BUT NO, I would not lock them in a cage to punish them for trying to commit suicide!!!
Did you miss what I said totally? I didn't say it was wrong to discourage someone from doing drugs -- just that it's wrong to cage them for doing
drugs!!!!
And all your poison drugs -- the fentanyl MPTP bit, etc. -- are very sad situations and I believe that the cooks of those drugs are guilty of a crime.
BUT, the point is that they would not be cooking drugs up if drugs were legal and could be produced by large pharmas for users!!!
AND, just because people cook drugs does not mean amateur chemistry needs to be restricted -- that's down on the gov't. Did the drug cooks hold a gun
to their head? This is more or less moot, though, because my whole point is that there won't be any of these amateur-ish producers if the drugs were
legal!!! (Actually, there probably would be, but they would only do it out of an interest in chemistry -- it would be cheaper to simply buy their
drugs from the pharmas so the market would dry up.)
And, you got one thing right Sauron -- I'm surprised with you, despite the years of memorization that allow you to regurgitate knowledge, you are
incapable of a very simple logical process that follows from the one of the things we good humans hold most dear: freedom -- the drug cooks aren't
amateur chemists if they selling them and making money, obviously.
They just have a lot in common with amateur chemists in terms of equipment and reagent acquisition.
Again, I never said you can't try to intervene in the lives of a loved one to stop them from a victimless action which you think is not beneficial to
them, I just said that you couldn't lock said person in a cage while maintaining your status as a moral being.
So, are you gonna lock your suicidal buddy in a cage?
If so, what a friend you are. 
Bet this one'll hurt his head, eh? Idiot. Go turn yourself in for the crimes you committed involving cocaine or accept the fact that they are not
crimes.
\"We get one shot at life. Give us our freedoms.\"
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
But it gives them more life than they would (presumably) have on their own (proof being, they tried taking their life). |
I'd rather take the fast train out instead of being locked in a cage, but that's just me. Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
| Quote: |
If breaking someone's heart can be considered hurt, then would a true nobody, whom nobody knows, commiting suicide be any crime? What's wrong with
this statement? |
I don't get your point, but I object to the point that suicide is a crime. It never is. You can't protect people from themselves, let's not promote a
nanny state. Let natural selection do its job.
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
I think this subject may be headed to the topic of "is there such thing as a victim-less crime?" For many years I had thought so. I really did. I
thought that if some poor sod sat in front of his TV and got pissed that he did no harm to anyone and no one should in any manner interfere with his
freedom to do so. - It seemed logical at the time. And in certain respects it seems so today. But most folks don't live in isolation. They have
families, children, loved ones. They live in a society where there are others about them.
* A man who is drunk and laying about on his couch cannot give aid to the old lady who just broke her hip on the stairs.
* A woman who is passed out on pills cannot care for her child.
* A young person who is passively high on weed cannot further the education his parent's paid for.
- Do we not have a greater responsibility to society to be something other than self indulgent, slothful children who want entertainment at all costs?
To the extent that we ignore our social-familial responsibilities we may ignore our humanity.
Is it our right to withdraw from helping & contributing in the lives of our loved ones and society in general?
Perhaps. but what sort of freedom is that? I am beginning to perceive a difference between liberty and freedom.
One comes with a certain amount of responsibility and another can be a hermit's challenge. The subject has far ranging implications....
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
* A man who is drunk and laying about on his couch cannot give aid to the old lady who just broke her hip on the stairs. |
This is just ridiculous. What if you happen to take a nap (being sober) and don't notice it either? Then you've commited a crime? You've gotta be
kidding me. So everyone who looks the other way when there's somekind of trouble (and that are MANY people) are criminals?
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
If no one moves, it is a crime of sorts.
Consider if the risk is more serious: an old lady being robbed, or a neighbor's house breaking in. Sometimes, this even happens because all the
neighbors assume another has called the police, say.
Tim
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
Sometimes, this even happens because all the neighbors assume another has called the police, say. |
Exactly, so you want to put the whole neighbourhood behind bars because they could have done something?
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
You'll notice I just said "it is a crime of sorts."
Regardless of whether or not it is sufficient to earn, say, jail time (which is a legal sentence, while we're talking about social norms), doesn't it
make your human part feel just a little sad that someone wouldn't be responsible?
Tim
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
I fail to see how 'accepting responsibility' involves being caged and being raped by real criminals.
If I did not help someone I could see was in need of help, I know I would feel horrible for quite some time, and that would be enough punishment.
Up here there is mentality of not helping people who are actively being victimized in violent crime, the 'just call 911 and stay out of it'. I
personally consider this completly immoral and dishonourable. It is illegal to intervene with a weapon, and there have been many cases up here where
the 'good samaritin with a gun' gets more jail time than a rapist.
Anyone know the article 'praising suicide' or something along those lines? By Clarissa or Clarence someone. It is the most politically incorrect
darwinistic viewpoint I have ever read. I liked it. The author was also suicidal at one point, making the viewpoint admirable, it was quite the
read.
[Edited on 11-4-2007 by The_Davster]
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by vulture
This is just ridiculous. What if you happen to take a nap (being sober) and don't notice it either? Then you've commited a crime? You've gotta be
kidding me. So everyone who looks the other way when there's somekind of trouble (and that are MANY people) are criminals? |
No, the point here is that should he want to give aid he would be in no position to do so. Should he try to he would be incapable of helping.
By it's very nature intoxication creates a climate that inhibits the functionality of man. Should that in an of itself be a crime? NO IMO however what
it does is lessen what we are capable of as a society & individually.
I am NOT saying that such a person should be held criminally accountable in every sense....but there are limits. When one becomes a trusted public
servant for instance; they hold a responsibility that should not be shirked just because they wanted to get high. Parenthood may be another example
when the child is in infancy, etc.
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
they hold a responsibility that should not be shirked just because they wanted to get high. Parenthood may be another example when the child is in
infancy, etc. |
That's when they start hurting other people...not a victimless action anymore..get it?
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by vulture
| Quote: |
they hold a responsibility that should not be shirked just because they wanted to get high. Parenthood may be another example when the child is in
infancy, etc. |
That's when they start hurting other people...not a victimless action anymore..get it? |
That was his point. How many people do you know of who would, by taking such an action, never hurt anyone, in any way, at any point in time?
Humans are rarely alone, and even more rarely completely forgotten. Think about it.
Tim
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
How are you to say your actions as a amateur chemist would never hurt anyone?
Or would you say that since the state can never completly be sure you won't do something stupid with your chems that noone can be trusted to own them?
What gives you the right to force your beliefs of what is right or wrong for another person upon them?
As a group of people who are the victims of 'tyranny of the majority' some of us seem quite content to join up with the majority on other issues and
demonize behaviors of others.
|
|
|
leu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 368
Registered: 13-10-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Cost-Harm Analysis of Drug Use
Opinions are easily obtained, but scientific data and analysis are somewhat more difficult  The attached study, published in The Lancet, Volume 369, Number 9566, 24 March 2007 pp 1047-1053 verifies what some members have always
thought about drug use  Undoubtedly other members will disagree with the
findings of this study, but the methodology seems rigorous
Attachment: nutt.zip (219kB)
This file has been downloaded 592 times
Chemistry is our Covalent Bond
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
