Re: my most recent post about addicction- you guys are missing the point and are
future POTUS and Senator in training
Retired Queen Troll of TUSCL...who will succeed my reign?
- I think we can all.agree that one of the most annoying things occurs when one's discussion about a particular topic (societal stereotypes regarding addiction ) is used as a platform for alternative , if not unrelated issue(drug legalization )
-SMH: the point of the post was CLEARLY meant to reduce some ,but not all of the stigma regarding addiction , as opposed to legalizing drugs. Although the latter issue may be related to the former, the relationship is merely tangential.
Thx
-SMH: the point of the post was CLEARLY meant to reduce some ,but not all of the stigma regarding addiction , as opposed to legalizing drugs. Although the latter issue may be related to the former, the relationship is merely tangential.
Thx
64 comments
Both mind-altering substances are legal, but you think it's insane for mind altering substances to be legalized. So by your own logic, either alcohol and caffeine should be banned, or all mind-altering substances should be legalized and regulated (or decriminalized at the very least).
You're missing the point, and that is likely because your world is about the size of a needle point.
There is a huge difference between legalizing something and allowing something to remain legal.
"There is a huge difference between legalizing something and allowing something to remain legal."
^^^Please explain the difference, then. Alcohol was ILLEGAL for 13 years in the US. Then once they realized prohibition does more harm than good, they LEGALIZED alcohol. Yes, alcohol had to be legalized because it was just as illegal as any hardcore street drug. It is now legal and regulated and is still one of the most dangerous mind-altering substances. A lot of illegal drugs used to be illegal --- kinda like how alcohol was --- so please tell me the huge difference between alcohol and other mind-altering substances, and why you are OK with the US legalizing alcohol but nothing else. I'd love to know where you are coming from because I have absolutely no idea where you are coming from.
I'd love to hear Flagooner's response to what I said though.
I made a sound, logical argument on why it should be illegal. Your retort is nothing but useless ad hominem, because you cannot refute was I say. You say these drugs shouldn't be legalized, apparently forgetting that alcohol was illegal for over a decade and had to be legalized, too. It is one of the most dangerous "mind altering substances."
And, if you look at countries in Europe who legalized in the last one or two decades, their crime rate dropped substantially, as did their HIV and Hep C infection rate and their OD rate.
If you actually study the subject matter before running your cocksucker, instead of trying to throw out pathetic insults, you would know what you are talking about. I specifically asked you to elaborate because I have no idea where you're coming from and you could not even do that.
Anyway Flagooner, I'm still waiting for an actual response instead of nonsense, to explain your nonsense. I'll wait...
I was going to not respond because it is so much fun toying with you. I know it would just eat at you if I ignored you and didn't satisfy your attention whore needs.
This will be my last post on the subject.
I never made any claims about what drugs should be legal or illegal (and ass kissing jsully I never even alluded to my opinion being based on if a drug is addictive). I said mind altering drugs should not be LEGALIZED. As shown with alcohol, once that has been done it can't be reeled back in.
While it is not an argument that I use for my opinion, you are classic example of how regular use of these substances lower one's intelligence. You can't even keep track of what you are arguing. Twice you confused illegal with legal. Do you even know which side you are supporting?
I don't know why you are so obsessed with what I write. You seem to think everything I write is aimed at you. My first post on this subject was "You folks for drug legalization must be high." Since then I have just responded to your personal attacks. I have not stooped to making comments about your gaping twat or neuroses because they are traits that you can't control. Giving 50 cent BJs on the other hand is a choice.
I know my opinion is a minority one, but the reasons that influence it are:
1. I'm all about protecting kids. Not just from pedophiles like VM (may he RIP) but from bad parents. The types of mind altering drugs that are illegal contribute to abuse and neglect. You may see nothing wrong with that, but maybe if you were a bit less selfish you would.
2. I just don't agree with the message it sends. Legalization sends a message that the drugs are harmless and they aren't.
3. This is the weakest of my reasons, but where does it stop? If reefer, why not coke. If coke, why not heroine. If heroine, why not meth. If meth, why not Nina's stinky pussy. Where does it end?
Flagooner out.
See, I'm one of the nicest guys on here.
But I'll be smoking still when I'm 90 years old in my rocking chair. It's very therapeutic, and I find it sad that such therapeutic qualities are undermined because so many people are simply ignorant to the benefits as well as the low risk of harm.
---This has nothing to do with the topic, whatsoever. If you really cared about protecting children, you'd have an issue with parents being criminalized for using an "illegal" drug, and getting incarcerated and becoming a felon for simple possession, while the kids get shipped off to foster care and get subjected to physical abuse. My mom lost custody of my sister and I. Want to know what mind altering substance it was? Was it heroin? No. Was it crack? No. It was ALCOHOL, which is legal. Therefore, your argument falls flat. People are going use and/or abuse substances whether they are legal or not.
Furthermore, there are drugs just as dangerous as any illegal street drugs which carry felonies if caught with them without a prescription (i.e opiates, benzodiazepines, etc), yet with a prescription they are perfectly legal. I suppose you want those dangerous drugs to be illegal even though pharmaceutical companies are pushing the hell out of them. And again, by your logic, alcohol and tobacco should also be outlawed. This is your logic.
"2. I just don't agree with the message it sends. ---Legalization sends a message that the drugs are harmless and they aren't."
It does not in any way send the message that drugs are harmless. It simply ensures a general better quality of life for those who use drugs and their loved ones who see it happening. By your logic that legalization sends a message that drugs are harmless, then alcohol and cigarettes would have to be made illegal as well because they are both extremely harmful, up there with the "hardcore" drugs. Another instance where your arguments falls flat.
"3. This is the weakest of my reasons, but where does it stop? If reefer, why not coke. If coke, why not heroine. If heroine, why not meth. If meth, why not Nina's stinky pussy. Where does it end?"
---First of all, it's "heroin," not "heroine." A "heroine" is a female hero. And like I said already, when countries in Europe legalized drugs, including heroin, their crime rate, OD rate, and HIV & Hep C infection rate all dropped substantially. You seem very ignorant on this subject matter, so I doubt you know how widespread HIV and especially Hep C is with intravenous drug users (typically heroin). Legalization gives addcits access to clean needles and a more pure quality so that they're not dying from shit cut with fentanyl.
And if my "stinky pussy" (wtf?) is such a drug that you put it up there with coke, heroin, and meth, then damn. I must have one addictively good pussy. Thank you.
I know you are infatuated by me or you wouldn't be so impacted by my feeling different on this subject than you. When I wrote that people who favor legalization must be high you supported my point. You are the only one who took offense and you are always high.
If I hadn't said that my last comment was my my last I would probably have responded with something like this:
1. "you'd have an issue with parents being criminalized for using an "illegal" drug, and getting incarcerated and becoming a felon for simple possession, while the kids get shipped off to foster care..."
I don't think users should be incarcerated. That was an assumption by you. I believe in stiff fines and community service.
But to counter your point, parents risking going to jail and having their kids put in foster care just to use drugs is extremely selfish behavior. The kids may be in a better situation being in foster care.
"My mom lost custody of my sister and I. Want to know what mind altering substance it was? Was it heroin? No. Was it crack? No. It was ALCOHOL, which is legal."
I don't know what your mom did, but it generally takes a lot to have custody taken away. It sounds like she made some decisions that put her needs/wants above those of you and your sister. I feel sorry that you had a childhood in which your mom cared so little for you.
2. Very astute of you recognizing that I spelled heroin wrong. If my arguments were so weak I'd probably resort to something equally as irrelevant.
3. I made the comment about your pussy implying that it is just as toxic as those other drugs.
4. I have no problem with true medicinal use of controlled substances if their efficacy has been proven. It is the recreational use and abuse that I am against. My bad for not making that clear from the outset.
5. You cherry pick stats to support your position, but there are just as many that show that recreational drug usage is a drain on society.
But since I said my last post on this subject would be my last I won't bring any of that up.
I also find it funny how people who claim to worship for freedom and bitch about any government intrusion in their lives change their tune as soon as the government is preventing something they don't like.
I think drugs in general should be viewed as a public health problem. Sending people to jail costs money. The current situation is costing taxpayer money and taking away people's freedom. I have no issue with locking up people who drive while high (or drunk) but if somebody is just smoking marijuana in their home (or smoking and then using a taxi/Uber/Lyft) I see less of an issue.
But unless either of you are sociologists that specialize in drug policy I'm going to take the position that neither of you know any more than any random weirdo bitching on a web site. I do know that I don't know.
In fact, I don't think the Attorney General knows shit about this either. But it seems like the thing to do is have the DOJ put together a commission of experts put together a panel. Have relevant professional societies put forward experts. Put everything from what we have now to full legalization on the table and try to project costs and benefits. Then allow states to chart their own policies based on the report. Give it five to ten years of different states trying different things and guess what: we'll actually have a better idea of what maximizes freedom while minimizing societal costs.
And that's the brilliant way! ;)
^ I agree with much of that. I don't advocate for incarceration of drug users. I specifically said that.
I suppose you are referring to me when you wrote, " ... people who claim to worship for freedom and bitch about any government intrusion in their lives change their tune as soon as the government is preventing something they don't like."
Wow, if I expressed that belief I must have been high. I believe in small centralized government to be sure, but also recognize that government is necessary to protect our safety and freedoms. There are instances in which we need to make compromises and cede in one area to maintain another. I'm not one of these wackjob libertarians who espouse the concept of "just stay the fuck out of my life so long as I'm not harming anyone."
The reality is that all of us (with the possible exception of BurlingtonHoFactory) are at least a little guilty of the "I worship freedom and the government needs to stay out of my life but the government should really deal with of those assholes doing thing X that I don't like". Myself included.
After all, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds ;)
Like I said, I'm personally not comfortable with complete legalization. But I also like decriminalization LESS because you still need a supply chain and if that supply is illegal then it puts money in the hands of shady folk who commit other crimes (I think that is a problem for the Dutch). But prohibition really doesn't seem to work, so I come down more toward "mostly legalize" as the least bad option.
I'm honestly not sure what the best policy. However, I think freedom should trump societal costs unless those costs are high. Of course, what "high societal costs" are is the million dollar question. That's where the hobgoblin of consistency makes it easier: the people who believe all drugs should be legal and the people who say drugs are evil and should be illegal and damn the other costs have an easy answer. A non-brilliant answer in my opinion, but it's still an answer!
That one reason why I say the Federal Government should produce a report and largely get out of the drug enforcement business. Let each state decide based on the data in a report that is objective as possible. Different states will probably pick different policies. Then we'll have better data. Some states may go further one way than the other even after the data are better, but that is their choice.
The only place where the Feds should get involved is when a state is being a bad actor, like facilitating production in their state aimed at selling in another state. Americans are litigious as fuck, so I'm sure that we'll have state Attorneys General fighting. But that's fine. It's the American way! ;)
He slam dunked that Faggit NinoBambino.
I gave you plenty of insight on the benefits of legalizing, as well as examples of what has happened when other countries have legalized recreational drug use, and the facts are that legalizing drugs is safer than prohibition. Those are the facts. Now let's get to this little quote of yours:
"I don't know what your mom did, but it generally takes a lot to have custody taken away. It sounds like she made some decisions that put her needs/wants above those of you and your sister. I feel sorry that you had a childhood in which your mom cared so little for you."
You're right, you don't know what she did. Her second husband got into a car accident which put him in a coma for several months that the doctor even told her to pull the plug because he'd probably never wake up. She's such a terrible person that instead of pulling the plug and collecting over $1 million (as he was insured very well), she sat by his side every single day for months, praying, until he woke up. He came home, and she realized he was not the same person. He raised his fist at my sister and I as if he going to hit us, she shielded us, the three of us stayed at a hotel that night, and swiftly divorced him without letting him be around us at all.
This led to her becoming depressed and eventually drinking heavily. Because she knew she had a problem, she talked to my father and they agreed that we would live with him for 30 days while she went to rehab to get better. While she was in rehab, my dad (still bitter that she left him almost a decade prior to that) petitioned the court for custody, and a long nasty custody battle ensued as my dad played dirty, told the Friend of the Court lies, and lied about the emotional and verbal abuse me, my twin, AND my older sister who is in a wheelchair with cerebral palsy were all subjected to at the hands of our evil STEPmom. MY mom ended up getting custody back, dumbass, an even better job than her old one, and we were able to leave our dad's house and go back to live with mom. After losing the custody battle, my dad even apologized to my mom for it. It never should've happened.
Same mom who went to Michigan State, graduated magna cum laude, never missed a day of class, and sent my sister and I to private school. All as a single mom.
My mom is a great mom. She is the best mom. When we were poor she still made sure we had everything we needed and good meals, with no government assistance except her scholarship money to MSU. When we were rich we enjoyed trips to the Caribbean which she paid for without help. We also enjoyed flying regularly by private jet. Till this day I know that she will take a bullet for me, or shoot someone for me if I was in danger. If I am in trouble, she is putting the clip in her gun. We are thick as thieves.
Your post kind of shows how ignorant and judgemental you actually are. I wish your dumbass wasn't too broke to travel to the next Detroit Meetup, because I would bring my mom and have you say all that shit to her face and see how well it goes over for you; newsflash: NOT WELL, YOU BITCHMADE MOTHERFUCKER. I would dare you. I want to say I'd pay you, but you ain't worth a damn.
And I hope reads every single word I typed out to him in that last post and I hope everyone else reads it, too.
Lololol at you who has graduated high school yet still picks on the type of clothing a women wears..u must be a very substantive woman.
Lololol is "lsat for dummies " the only lsat book u have ? Probz
;)
- not only did u assume i worse that dress for more than a few days straight, u additionally failed to realize a frequent occurrence- that women taken multiple pics in the same dress on the same.day b4 going out
-u also assumed i.have hygenie problems bc of a bug spray. This.is.dumb bc my apartments had ants before I even moved in? Lol.dumbass
I talked it over with Pigpen and we agreed that it would be OK for me to risk addiction to get to the bottom of this matter. For the good of TUSCL, of course.
> You cherry pick stats to support your position, but there are just as many that show that recreational drug usage is a drain on society.
GDP is up 4.1% after weed legalization has been going around... If it's a drain, it sounds like more of an overflow drain than a leak. Sex, Drugs and Democracy is an interesting documentary about the situation in the Netherlands and how drug use rates were lower there compared to the US during complete prohibition.
Not sure why you would even need to rely on statistics, though, when it's pretty obvious that funneling billions to cartels is not exactly helpful to North American society and that black market prices lead to increased crime by addicts in pursuit of drug money.
Bc she assumed I wore it 4 days straight and that the ant problem in my apartment occurred after i got there ...lololol
Nina is so.stupid it is funny. Not only does she make assumptions , she mocks people based on her inaccurate assumptions instead of saying something substantive , intelligent , or accurate..
Kinda like Donald j trump? Lololol
@NinaBambina - I think you are using the wrong tactic. This argument should be much simpler. They're talking about mind-altering drugs. Taking a mind-altering drug is merely an attempt to change one's mind. Does anybody really believe that changing your mind should be illegal? Having said that, I'm not sure that you should even waste your time talking to flagooner. As I said, he is a confused retard. I think he only wades into debates so that he can pretend to be bored with the debate. It's always the same stupid routine.
And he should be more careful when talking about what is and isn't a drain on society. flagooner is demonstrably a drain on society, himself. For one thing, he receives Social Security and Medicare. For another, his children went to public school. So surely the average drug user contributes more to society and costs less than he does. When we think of people merely in terms of how much they cost the rest of us, we inevitably end up throwing lots of people out of the boat. And we should start with flagooner and his family. I'm just sayin'.
...if you were contemplating putting me on ignore, u clearly didn't articulate that mere possibility out loud.
Lol.at ur comment claiming i make little.sense at best.
....um right. Bc my claim that one can possess few dresses and remain hygienic as such dresses may be worn once or.twice every two months as opposed to.every day was not such an obvious.fucking truth that nina failed to realize lmao?
Idk.who is dumber..u or nina, aka the wanna be attorney who thought that my pictures in the same dress were taken on different days throughout the year as.oppsoed to the same day at the same time..lol
Way better stuff than Nina’s
First let me apologize to everyone, especially Nina, for being too damned irresistible. It’s a curse that I just can’t help. Unfortunately, my appeal is so strong with Nina that she can’t cope with me disagreeing with her to such a point that she is obsessed with trying to sway my opinion.
In any event, I can’t do that with this topic. Maybe if she had an argument based on logic instead of relying on a strawman (am I using the term correctly) such as “Oh, well you must want to criminalize caffeine.” Instead, it is obvious that her insatiable appetite for polluting her mind with weed, pot, grass, reefer, ganja, herb, chronic, wacky tobacky, Mary Jane, … is “clouding” her judgement here.
I guess changing one’s story to garner the attention and empathy that she so covets amounts to pissing in my cornflakes. In an attempt to prove that she was right and I am wrong (in a topic that is completely opinion-based mind you) she attempted to show that alcohol is legal but leads to degenerates making bad decisions. The degenerate that she trots out there is her own mother; she stated that she had “lost” custody of her kids without any further details. Then she asks, “Was it heroin? No. Was it crack? No. It was ALCOHOL, which is legal.” And that is another strawman, but I digress.
When I call her on this she completely changes her tune and comes up with a story propping Ste. Bambimbo up on a pedestal. No longer did she lose custody, now the story is that she made the supreme sacrifice of temporarily ceding custody for her children’s best interests. This is just a blatant attempt to play the little girl card and flood the keyboard with crocodile tears. I’m not buying what you’re selling sweetheart. Don’t say you don’t care because we know you do. I’m irresistible to you, remember.
I will give you a bit of a compliment on your stooping to new lows to try to win an unwinnable argument. I think you went to the Gloria Allred School of Law. None of your post had anything to do with the topic: whether marijuana should be legal or not. Not your retired stripper Mom’s sacrifice of $1M for not pulling the plug on your step dad. Not the claim that your older sister has cerebral palsy. Not the claim that your Ste. Bambimbo graduate from a remedial college Gagging Cum Loudly. Not the brag about flying by private jet. But maybe it generates sympathy with the jury.
I’ll follow that with my second post about it.
Nina’s tagline used to say something to the affect that whatever gets dished out at her she would return double. I took that as a bit of a challenge. As it turns out, we play a different game. I was brought up trading barbs with friends back and forth all in good fun and for a good laugh. It wasn’t personal. I had assumed that this was the type of back and forth Nina referred to in her tagline.
You can’t play this game if you have thin skin and get riled at every insult hurled your way. I thought that was supposed to be the fun of it. And when your opponent gets the best of you acknowledge it and move on. There was one such debate we had and I gave you props when you trumped me.
Next time you think you can beat me at this game, instead of trying I suggest you just tuck your tail between your legs and sulk back to the corner to sell your 50 cent blow jobs.
@BHF, you are a fucking scrotum.
Well, your wife is a prostitute who married you for citizenship. And your son is a gay anchor-baby with HIV. Furthermore, you're a moron. Nicole communicates with barely readable sentences, and yet speaking with her is still more productive than speaking with you.
DC9428, Nicole1994 could be a court reporter. He style could just be some brilliant kind of shorthand! ;) ;)
flagooner, if you've been fucking girls with your scrotum you've been doing it wrong! ;) ;) ;)
Can you read? She did lose custody. I explained she and my dad agreed that we would live with him for a month while she went to rehab so she could get better, and my dad petitioned the court while she was in there. We lived with him for well over a year during their custody battle, so yes, she did lose custody.
My comments about my mom in my previous post were not meant to be on topic, they were meant for your miserable ass who tried to say my mom cared about me "so little." The topic is over, you were proven wrong on multiple accounts by multiple people.
And yes, she did choose to wait and see if my step dad would ever wake up instead of collecting her 7 figure payout. Yes, she did graduate from Michigan State magna cum laude as a single mom with rambunctious twins who she paid well into the 5-figures for private school, we did used to fly by jet on the regular, and I do have an older sister, on my dad's side, with cerebral palsy (who would lie about having a sister in a wheelchair?).
The "argument" about the legalization of drugs is a closed door, I won, you lost. That's why instead of staying on topic, you said my mom cared little about me when she is the best mom in the world. I'll say it again, I really hope we can organize a Detroit meet up, and perhaps a GoFundMe for you so you can afford to tag along, because then I will bring my mom and I will ask you to repeat your words to her. You clearly are begging to be put in your place and someone needs to do it in real life because every time I do it here you whine and bitch and moan and wait days to make two posts to me as if it really took you that long to think.
No one finds you irresistible, dude, it's all in your head.
even @ m y lowest here， i obtain nothing less than GPA which is considered 2 B cutoff for top 20-25% 。 thus even @ my lowest here， i obtain nothing less than GPA higher than most pre-law students。again， this is despite coming from A uniquely underprivileged family。 lol @ everyone who thought i could be stopped LMAO。
lololol..if i will take advice regarding preparing for legal field， it will be from myself， not from old people cannot understand difference between illiteracy versus typing on super horrible technology
see everyone later， when i become an associate @ fucking Skadden
。。。。。hopefully by then，N I N A will have become a parelegal @ reputbale law firm ， or will have gotten into schools i already attended for undergrad 。
Nicole out