78 réponses à ce sujet

[xkg]

Oh, cmon. Stop with that "ZOMG OP is a TROL!!!!!! OMG Don't feed him".
Dont like the thread then ... well, keep moving. Let me decide if i want to answer or not.

[Volus Warlord]

When you lose a friend of yours to a blight like narcotics, your best option is to simply look forward and occasionally look back to use them as a cautionary tale.

[Chromie]

Celrath wrote...

Turnip Root wrote...

I agree with your conclusion ForumPortal. Drugs, cigarettes to me are like population control. They help clean up the less desirable segments of humanity.  I would not have felt even a sliver of remorse under such circumstances.

Well its not working very well is it?  You're still here.

Ha. 

[lobi]

@ Turnip root, you can borrow this.

Modifié par lobi, 21 juin 2011 - 03:05 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

@lobi, Did you read my post at all? I mean kill the dealers not consumers, also the big mafia dealers. They've ruined already the lives of millions in the world.
And for opium/cocaine farmers, burn their farms and give them money and resources to cultivate foods (grain/corn/fruits etc) rather things which can be transformed into drugs. Humankind needs food not drugs. Unless you're an addict yourself and cant release it.

[lobi]

Garbage Master wrote...

@lobi, Did you read my post at all? I mean kill the dealers not consumers, also the big mafia dealers. They've ruined already the lives of millions in the world.
And for opium/cocaine farmers, burn their farms and give them money and resources to cultivate foods (grain/corn/fruits etc) rather things which can be transformed into drugs. Humankind needs food not drugs. Unless you're an addict yourself and cant release it.

Your war on them even if you could find out who they really are, would take countles lives of innocent people.
Especially those forced to work in the fields. People are forced to sell and carry out of fear and desperation.
Your war would cost billions that comes out of health and services.
The Growers get next to nothing. burn their farms and they get nothing for months.
Cartel will just kill them and put someone else on the land if they refuse to grow drugs again. 
Is it affordable to leave a Battalion of soldiers in each faming district?
That has been tried and it is where the next crop of drug lords came from.
You offer no real solution and are thoughtlessly violent.
Save your pointless innuendos and diengenuous assertions you are wearing out the internet.

*edit All that needs to happen is for selfish people to stop buying the crap. Without a market the problem will go away.

Modifié par lobi, 21 juin 2011 - 05:57 .

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

lobi wrote...

Garbage Master wrote...

@lobi, Did you read my post at all? I mean kill the dealers not consumers, also the big mafia dealers. They've ruined already the lives of millions in the world.
And for opium/cocaine farmers, burn their farms and give them money and resources to cultivate foods (grain/corn/fruits etc) rather things which can be transformed into drugs. Humankind needs food not drugs. Unless you're an addict yourself and cant release it.

Your war on them even if you could find out who they really are, would take countles lives of innocent people.
Especially those forced to work in the fields. People are forced to sell and carry out of fear and desperation.
Your war would cost billions that comes out of health and services.
The Growers get next to nothing. burn their farms and they get nothing for months.
Cartel will just kill them and put someone else on the land if they refuse to grow drugs again. 
Is it affordable to leave a Battalion of soldiers in each faming district?
That has been tried and it is where the next crop of drug lords came from.
You offer no real solution and are thoughtlessly violent.
Save your pointless innuendos and diengenuous assertions you are wearing out the internet.

I think the solution is to eradicate the plants that are used as drugs from the face of the earth.

[Chromie]

Meh drugs should be legal and just taxed. Help bring down the number of drug related crimes and probably stop or at least really hurt drug cartels.

[lobi]

Blood-Lord Thanatos wrote...
I think the solution is to eradicate the plants that are used as drugs from the face of the earth.

Not really possible or even desirable ecologically. Stop farming certainly but that will not happen while a market exists.

Most Drug addiction is a self created problem.
Someone chooses to take the drug on a regular basis for a period of time and makes the choice to continue their addiction rather than stop.
The resulting chemical changes increase the difficulty of being able to stop increase proprortionally to the amounts used and the length of time addicted.
They become selfish and uncaring toward how their addiction impacts on others.

Even those that use recreationally without becomeing addicted are selfish.

They say that because they do not steal or use all of the time they are entitled to some pleasure in the form of drugs because they enjoy it and their use is minimal and self funded.

You cannot legislate selfishness away.

Without a market there would no drug cartels.

[lobi]

Ringo12 wrote...

Meh drugs should be legal and just taxed. Help bring down the number of drug related crimes and probably stop or at least really hurt drug cartels.

Legislating drugs does not remove their addictive propertys or the danger from taking them. 
Hence prescriptions and Doctor only injections for dangerous drugs.
 
Legal things still cost money diminishing returns from drug use mean a bad addict will still need to steal or obtain more from non controlled source eventually. Like doctor shopping or black market. 

The cost of addiction is much higher than the cost from drug related crime.

Health problems and social problems that have become systemic in society is where most cost to the community comes from.

Everyone needs to take responsability.

Talk your friends out of trying it and call their parents or the cops if they decide to do it anyway.
Even if you dont care about them. Grow a backbone and don't just give lip service to the issue.

Most importantly do not buy them or try them, ever.

Modifié par lobi, 21 juin 2011 - 07:09 .

[Chromie]

lobi wrote...

Most importantly do not buy them or try them, ever.

Lolol right. Telling someone not to do something will just make them wanna do it.  I have no problem with smoking say marijuana I do it regulary but I know how destructive drugs like cocaine can be, like it was to my uncle, it's up to the parents to teach their kids. Hiding it and saying don't do it isn't effective. Surely telling a teen not to have sex is going to make them want it more. 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Kill em all the dealers and mafias is the best solution plus change of plans for farmers. The farmers will be protected by the government. If the governments cant do that we need a single country in a world which can accomplish that, having more than 200 countries (mostly weak) is like a insult to the earth.
People die, in 20 years the world will become overpopulated (8 billion population) and World Health and Security won't be achieved by Pacifism.

[Slurms McKenzie]

@Garbage Master

Unless, we legalise all drugs (hear me out), then that should bring all the dealers and producers out into the open as legitimate businessmen. Then you tax the drugs, and the government makes a lot of money from those taxes as the product is sold. Then, once you have amassed billions of Pounds, Euros, dollars and whatnot, you turn on all the businessmen who have all identified themselves believing the market is now legitimate and have nothing to fear! Stab them in the back and kill them all in one go, destroying the drugs infrastructure then banning it again!

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Good Luck and Stay Safe

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Para-Medic wrote...

Just another troll thread. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Another intelligent post by categorizers.
@Slurms McKenzie
That is why this policy doesn't work. If you put tax on the drugs they return to Trafficking. Other funny things as you said and I conclude is they won't risk themselves to put their names on legalized market. They simply don't do this or perhaps the government they may do this in it is weaker than Western Roman Empire in 5th century AD.

[Swordfishtrombone]

[quote]
Now, pure math proves the existence of something greater that can be called God or whatever name we wish to give it, according to a few friends I have that have degree in Maths. I had a very skeptical Chemistry professor that could create a organic cell with everything a cell needs to live but it wouldn't because it lacked something. It lacked a "breath of life" so to speak. I may not be able to translate it right but I'm sure you know what I mean.
[/quote]

Discussion of religion leads to instant lockdown here - politics and religion are off-limits in the off-topic forum. That, and only that, is keeping me from writing a rather lengthy reply to these claims.

[quote]
Can you carry a car alone on your back? You believe that with some help of, let's say 5 more people you all can carry and move that car from a place to another? Is it hard to admit powerlessness in that case?
[/quote]

Of course I'm completely powerless when it comes to many things in the world. I hate long heat waves, but I am completely powerless to change the weather. That doesn't mean that I therefore must think that there exists some being to who'm I could trust changing the weather for me.

Nor do I think that it is necessarily helpful to "admit" being powerless on things on which you haven't really been shown to be completely powerless over. As I mentioned, as many people who get over their addiction through a 12 step program, do so alone. Were they powerless over their addiction? No, apparently they weren't. This doesn't mean that I'm saying that any, say, alcoholic just needs to straighten up and exercise their willpower - that is a naive and dismissive view, not to mention unrealistic.

But with a support group, with a new environment that reduces temptations, it may be possible to give the addict that extra lift that gives them the power over their addiction. This isn't the addict being completely powerless over their situation - this is the addict being in a difficult situation to overcome, and receiving help to allow them to do the overcoming themselves.

As much as my uncle attributes his success in overcoming his alcohol addiction, I don't really think that the actual steps given in the 12 steps program had anything to do with the success. The community of people in a similar situation probably did, as did the rather head-strong and driven personality my uncle has.

The irrelevance of the actual content of the 12 step program is demonstrated by it's lack of success over what secular alternatives that don't use the 12 steps achieve, or what the people going at it alone achieve. If those 12 steps were actually the thing that helped, then programs lacking them, or lacking their essential parts would not succeed as well. There should be a statistically significant improvement over the likelyhood of success for 12 step programs over the alternatives, but there isn't.

I'm aware there are non-believers who manage to find a way to re-interpret the religious aspects of the 12 step program in a way that satisfies them, but for me, I know I would be very uncomfortable with such things, and would definitely opt for the secular alternatives.

And of course money isn't the driving factor in 12 step programs (at least the ones I'm aware of). I'm not calling them scams. I'm calling them religious communities with good intentions, a genuine desire to help people, but with no actual evidence for results better than any other alternative.

For your objection on therapy, it IS very expensive, for many people, in many parts of the world - however, in countries like Finland where I live, you can get government aid for therapy for any debilitating condition. If you are really poor, and have no income, the government may even pay for all of it.

The reason therapy is expensive is that evidence based medicine in general is expensive - because the development is expensive, because it needs to demonstrate efficacy and safety - something non-evidence based remedies don't need to do. All this means putting together large studies, and the cost of that is high.

There are thus overhead costs that volunteer organizations don't have to contend with. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be these volunteer organizations - anything that helps some people is good - but I don't see any real reason to advocate a 12-step program over a secular alternative, when the results are no better.

Is not that "The steps include "admitting that you are powerless" over your addiction", like you said. It is the very First step to admit it and that one's life has become uncontrollable. Those who cannot admit it or are indeed powerful  over their addiction will never have the program working for them and may not even have problem with their use. Who knows, perhaps they aren't addicts. Just social users who abbused a little bit.[/quote]

[Volus Warlord]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

*snip*

Wow man, that sounded alot like

RARARARA I HATE GOD RARARA:P

[Swordfishtrombone]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

*snip*

Wow man, that sounded alot like

RARARARA I HATE GOD RARARA:P

Just goes to show that no matter how carefully, politely an atheist expresses any view on religion, even when it's the mildest criticism you could imagine, it's perceived by some as shrill and militant. I suspect that tells a lot more about those someones than the atheist in question.

Second, I believe I purposefully avoided religion in the post you're referencing, and concentrated on efficacy.

Third, how could I hate something that I don't believe exists in the first place?

[Volus Warlord]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

*snip*

Wow man, that sounded alot like

RARARARA I HATE GOD RARARA:P

Just goes to show that no matter how carefully, politely an atheist expresses any view on religion, even when it's the mildest criticism you could imagine, it's perceived by some as shrill and militant. I suspect that tells a lot more about those someones than the atheist in question.

Second, I believe I purposefully avoided religion in the post you're referencing, and concentrated on efficacy.

Third, how could I hate something that I don't believe exists in the first place?

Just goes to show I was teasing, and that Atheists handle teasing regarding their atheism  as poorly as any religious person handles teasing regarding their religion. I know I probably shouldn't tease in such regards but I do anyway.

Second, a biased mind will see what they want to see, what their biases tell them they should see, as opposed to what is actually happening. This of course goes both ways.

Third, if you don't believe something, I believe that could be called indifference. Hate and indifference are sometimes interchangable for practical purposes. Still, hey, it's your own damn business.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Just goes to show I was teasing, and that Atheists handle teasing regarding their atheism  as poorly as any religious person handles teasing regarding their religion. I know I probably shouldn't tease in such regards but I do anyway.

That is probably because atheists often have to contend with a lot of stereotyping - stereotyping that is not meant jokingly. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference, when the joke actually matches exactly what many people seriously hold as a belief as to what all atheists are like.

Second, a biased mind will see what they want to see, what their biases tell them they should see, as opposed to what is actually happening. This of course goes both ways.

Yes, this is very true. And that is why you can't trust anecdotes, but have to look at the studies done, and statistics of results collected. Science is the tool by which you optimally eliminate or at least severly mitigate the role of the individual biases of researchers, and it's success pretty much shows that the method is working.

That was the point of my post - that when it's studied, the 12 step programs work no better than secular alternatives, or even people going at it alone. If the 12 step programs actually were effective, you'd expect results reflected in the proportion of people successfully quitting their addiction to be higher for those who went through the program. They don't tend to be that. Again, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have these programs, but rather that you shouldn't promote one such program over others that show similar results - while the 12 step program may be good for some, it isn't for others. For others, something like rational recovery would be more suitable. Thus if you want to promote these kinds of support groups, you might as well mention some secular alternatives along with the 12 step ones.

The fact that people often act as if the 12 step ones were the only ones, makes me suspect that there really is a component of wanting to spread a religious message, rather than JUST wanting to help people get over an addiction.

Third, if you don't believe something, I believe that could be called indifference. Hate and indifference are sometimes interchangable for practical purposes. Still, hey, it's your own damn business.

I don't agree with that. If you are indifferent about something, then you are still acknowledging that there is something there to be indifferent about. An atheist can be indifferent about religion, sure, and about the god BELIEF, sure, but not about god - if you do not believe a god exists, you can't feel anything (not even indifference) over god.

I also can't imagine a situation where hate and indiffence would be equivalent - I am indifferent about golf, but I don't hate it. Someone that hates golf, might actively rant against the sport, or at least have his blood pressure go up when they heard someone talking about it, but people can talk about golf all they want around me, and I really don't care one way or the other. That's not hate. That's indifference.

[DragonRageGT]

Ringo12 wrote...

Meh drugs should be legal and just taxed. Help bring down the number of drug related crimes and probably stop or at least really hurt drug cartels.

This!

[Swordfishtrombone]

RageGT wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Meh drugs should be legal and just taxed. Help bring down the number of drug related crimes and probably stop or at least really hurt drug cartels.

This!

I tend to agree as well. Set age limits, of course, like with alcohol and tobacco, add warning lables, educate the public on the dangers (truthful campaigns, describing real expected outcomes and good statistics), but allow for them to be legally sold, and tax them.

I don't think this would drastically increase the use of drugs, and with the end of the costly and inefective "War on drugs", this would bring tax revenue, as well as undermine criminal drug cartels better than anything done in the war on drugs.