Dumbfounding bigotry of the Progressives

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

What proportion of the population that is open to trying them, would be dissuaded by using being criminal? 

I'd bet quite a lot.

Finding dealers is not so easy for a newbie and thw stigma is high which helps dissuade.

This is why weed legalization leads to much higher addiction rates.

Edited Wednesday at 10:33 AM by Leo Gura

[Elliott]

I don't think you can make such sweeping conclusions off 4 years, of which drug overdoses declined in the last year. Everywhere saw drug use spike from covid as well. It was the worst timing for legalization. Not that I support legalizing heroin, I think other things need done first.

Edited Wednesday at 11:45 AM by Elliott

[zazen]

🔥 🔥 

Can’t have legalized drug use whilst glamorising it through media and music and now through biohacking spiritualists who want to expand their third eye and gain a edge over their competitors using nicotine lol

The foundational premise is that for every increase in “freedom” their surely needs to be a  commensurate increase in the maturity level of the culture those freedoms want to be exercised in.

This applies also to “freedom of speech” and “freedom to bear arms” which cancel each other out when juvenile minds use their so called freedom to speak bigotry then end up getting shot by another citizen mis-using their freedom to bear arms.

Edited Wednesday at 01:37 PM by zazen

[Elliott]

44 minutes ago, zazen said:

 

The foundational premise is that for every increase in “freedom” their just be a  commensurate increase in the maturity level of the culture those freedoms want to be exercised in.

This applies also to “freedom of speech” and “freedom to bear arms” which cancel each other out when juvenile minds use their so called freedom to speak bigotry then end up getting shot by another citizen mis-using their freedom to bear arms.

People have not gotten more mature for weed legalization, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Opium was legal and available until the 1900s, it became a larger problem when it was criminalized, same with marijuana. It's the 'nanny state' issue, not allowing people to think for themselves, you make people more Immature with 'nanny state' laws.

War on drugs starts 1971, Drug abuse act creating stiffer sentences starts 1990, both followed by steep upticks in drug use. Carter 77-81 pushed back on war on drugs, a steep decline followed.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 02:15 PM by Elliott

[Thought Art]

Marijuana is more dangerous for people, especially young people than people like Joe Rogan, all those old netflix documentaries, pop culture, etc have us believe. It's really a shame.

Edited Wednesday at 01:56 PM by Thought Art

[Schizophonia]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I'd bet quite a lot.

Finding dealers is not so easy for a newbie and thw stigma is high which helps dissuade.

No it's very easy if you have a minimum of friends/social circle.

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

This is why weed legalization leads to much higher addiction rates.

There's an increase in places where it's legal, like recently Canada or some American states, but it's not much higher, and European countries with lax legislation (the Netherlands, Spain, etc.) have a similar consumption rate to countries with stricter legislation (like France).
It's also difficult to make a comparison because you can't directly quantify the consumption of something illegal; you can only make estimates, which are often probably lower than the actual consumption.
There are also those who take advantage of consumption to use it as a substitute for antidepressants or painkillers.
Or even as a substitute for alcohol or cigarettes.

Because once again even if it's illegal, unless you're very antisocial it's still very easy to find narcotics.

[Schizophonia]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

This is the core problem with leftists. They are so utopian they need everything to be perfect for their plans to work out. And politics is never perfect. Which is what makes leftists stupid.

Leftist thinking; "But if only socialism was implemented perfectly, then it would have worked."

Yeah, well, nothing will ever be implemented perfectly and you are a fool for expecting otherwise. You should know that in America social and medical programs are not a thing and will not be our lifetime for complex political reasons.

Whenever socialism fails the leftist always says, "But it wasn't socialist enough and those damned capitalist ruined it."

You're right sociology is stupid.

We should employ death brigade who ride around in Oregon on Scooter with Uzi to kill on sight drugs consumers, way more simple.

Btw i'm too stupid to do philosophy studies; it requires to succeed a perfect plan to have good degrees and made connections, i should rather buy a gun and do carjacking; way more rational too. 

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You should be smart enough to understand that a capitalist will fuck up all your silly plans. A capitalist will rape and enslave your children. If you don't understand that, that's the problem.

That's why you want to put them in prison.

 

[Breakingthewall]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

(Impossible unquote sorry) 

Weed is harmful, but alcohol is more so. Those who become addicted to something do so because of their inner emptiness, unbalance, not because of the substance itself. Some substances, like methamphetamine, cocaine, or heroin, are very destructive and must be limited and prosecuted. Others, like alcohol and marijuana, are unavoidable.

Those who are addicted are addicts because they can't handle their anxious energy structure. The ideal would be to create harmonious individuals, but realistically, society's path is the opposite, so we must tolerate the lesser evil.

[Elliott]

14 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

(Impossible unquote sorry) 

Weed is harmful, but alcohol is more so. Those who become addicted to something do so because of their inner emptiness, unbalance, not because of the substance itself. Some substances, like methamphetamine, cocaine, or heroin, are very destructive and must be limited and prosecuted. Others, like alcohol and marijuana, are unavoidable.

Those who are addicted are addicts because they can't handle their anxious energy structure. The ideal would be to create harmonious individuals, but realistically, society's path is the opposite, so we must tolerate the lesser evil.

 

 

Most people aren't literally retarded, even kids. If your kid is considering heroin, your kid is not doing well. What kid in Portland sees the zombies everywhere and thinks "ahhhh yah!", It's the biggest equivalent to the anti-smoking campaign there is.

Edited Wednesday at 03:04 PM by Elliott

[Scholar]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

We have Oregon. Which shows you that leftist ideas are delusion. Oregon is the most leftist state in America. And they devolved into a drug den.

You can wax philosophical all you want but in Oregon your kid will end up a druggie.

Face the facts. Leftists done fucked it up. Stop blaming others and take responsibility for it.

This isn't true. Decriminalization did not lead to an increase of overdose deaths compared to other regions in the US, and overdose deaths have been declining before recriminalization occured, for various reasons like treatment, less supply and preventative measures.

You just got caught up by right wing propaganda. What happened is that drug problems became more visible to the public, and now they can continue not caring about the issues because all the homeless have to kill themselves with drug overdoses in secret.

 

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

They shout:

Capitalists! Liberals! American Empire!

We know that there are better models than criminalization of use. Oregon right now also does not harshly punish individuals for small possession or use.

 

 

Either way, I am not sure what any of this has to do with the bigotry of progressives. You can make a reasonable case that individuals must be restricted from taking substances that will literally alter their minds and kill them.

The irony here is that progressives will defend criminals and drug addicts (even when it might harm them), but treat benign low risk sexual deviancy as if it was the greatest moral horror the world has ever seen. Because functionally their minds are not that far apart from conservatives.

Edited Wednesday at 03:01 PM by Scholar

[BlueOak]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But if the demand exists, why wouldn't supply? Supply follows demand.

Also, it's quite hypocritical to demonize the dealers but not the consumers. Takes two to fuck.

Demand follows supply also. If it's cheap and available, it gets purchased. You'll never remove the flight or the avoidance aspects of the human psyche. There are too many things that bring it about.

You can suppress a substance or product from circulation.

Suppliers, Producers and Dealers do cost society a lot of money/energy. They literally cost you money, policing and treating all of this mess. That's a fact, not a characterisation.

The addicts do the same, sure, to a lesser extent, they'd just get their avoidance fix somewhere else if the dealers weren't around.

There is no reasonable or rational argument you can give me that trumps flipping users on the dealers and using them to bring down the chains of supply, as a universal rule. Everyone should know it as a law, and it should be standardised. Rinse Repeat. Until its so damned difficult to run these operations they are effectively suppressed. 

*Dealers also cost you safety, the natural harmony and balance of society, relations between cops and people etc etc. 

Edited Wednesday at 05:08 PM by BlueOak

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

What in the Alabama is this thread about

Actualized at it's finest, trully

[Yimpa]

Quote

Dumbfounding bigotry hypocrisy of the Progressives

I was in a subreddit that claoked themselves with the DEI label, only for them to act the opposite of that.

High ideals on paper does not equate to how they will actually behave. 

1% of them will actually be the real deal.

Edited 9 hours ago by Yimpa

[Elliott]

5 hours ago, Yimpa said:

I was in a subreddit that claoked themselves with the DEI label, only for them to act the opposite of that.

High ideals on paper does not equate to how they will actually behave. 

1% of them will actually be the real deal.

You agree with him about incest?