|
Mirthless posted:Err.. We were talking about resources which are, by nature, limited. I hate to be exceedingly reductive but breast cancer awareness charities suck all the air out of the room when it comes to cancer research. As far as civil rights issues go, gay rights has been the pink ribbon. You'd not only be reductive, you'd be wrong as gently caress, since there has been actual progress w/r/t LGBTQ rights whereas the Susan G Komen poo poo is a money sink that enriches the owners and spends almost nothing on research. What a profoundly insulting comparison to make.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
Mirthless posted:Err.. We were talking about resources which are, by nature, limited. I hate to be exceedingly reductive but breast cancer awareness charities suck all the air out of the room when it comes to cancer research. As far as civil rights issues go, gay rights has been the pink ribbon. It's high profile, it makes people feel good, and it brings in the donations that fund the fight. I don't want to sound like I'm against this or anything, it's just... not an entirely invalid point It is an entirely invalid point though, because most gay rights advances have come in through the courts system based on parts of the constitution and laws in general that can be clearly ruled to also protect gay rights. There's also a hefty dose of executive actions. Meanwhile most weed law relaxation and removal has had to come through plain old legislation and referendums, because there's no constitutional leg to stand on to make existing anti-weed laws illegal. Because of this, they use almost entirely disjunct resources. The gays aren't preventing weed from becoming legal! The government can't only do one thing at a time!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:You'd not only be reductive, you'd be wrong as gently caress, since there has been actual progress w/r/t LGBTQ rights whereas the Susan G Komen poo poo is a money sink that enriches the owners and spends almost nothing on research. What a profoundly insulting comparison to make. You're really missing the point. I said breast cancer research, first of all - not the Susan G Komen foundation. There are hundreds of legitimate breast cancer research charities that spend a great deal of money on breast cancer research. The problem is that for every 1 dollar that other types of cancer get research for, 9 other dollars go to breast cancer research. Because breast cancer research has been marketed, it makes people feel good, and it gets people to open their wallets. This is not an indictment of breast cancer research, but it is fair to say that the focus on it has drawn attention away from other things. Gay rights aren't the only civil rights issues, and criminal justice reform has been simmering for a while without much attention until the last couple of years. Again: I am not trying to make a statement against gay rights activism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Consuming all of these posts is making me ill. Mods???
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Antibiotics are a VERY SPECIFIC exception due to their nature of being less effective globally the more they are used. Smoking crack isn't going to make other people's crack less effective. If you don't see how this is a unique and specific thing that doesn't contradict my belief that you should be able to consume anything as long as it doesn't directly harm others (which antibiotics would), then you're an idiot. I understand that you do not share this belief. For me, it is both a moral (because you don't get to say what I do with my body) and a practical (the drug war doesn't work. The only bans that are effective are bans on things nobody wants - who the gently caress wants to get cancer from drinking radium? Good job successfully banning something nobody wants, I guess) one. You don't get to argue the first point, because that's how moral beliefs work, but feel free to challenge me on the latter. Name something you can consume that is in high demand but prohibition is successful in eliminating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The reason banning weed is bad isn't because banning things in general is bad. It's because weed is not harmful. You're a loving nut job. Cannabis prohibtion is morally wrong for a ton of reasons. Here, learn something: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=ilj KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:You're really missing the point. You may not be trying, but you sure as gently caress are ending up doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
LuciferMorningstar posted:Consuming all of these posts is making me ill. Mods??? Why do you hate LGBT People? We are literally dying in the streets thanks to you potheads.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
KingEup posted:You're a loving nut job. So you believe weed is harmful? Man you're weird. KillHour posted:Antibiotics are a VERY SPECIFIC exception due to their nature of being less effective globally the more they are used. Smoking crack isn't going to make other people's crack less effective. If you don't see how this is a unique and specific thing that doesn't contradict my belief that you should be able to consume anything as long as it doesn't directly harm others (which antibiotics would), then you're an idiot. I understand that you do not share this belief. For me, it is both a moral (because you don't get to say what I do with my body) and a practical (the drug war doesn't work. The only bans that are effective are bans on things nobody wants - who the gently caress wants to get cancer from drinking radium? Good job successfully banning something nobody wants, I guess) one. You don't get to argue the first point, because that's how moral beliefs work, but feel free to challenge me on the latter. Allowing people to use lead household paint hurts the planet. Allowing people to sell all sorts of medicines that not only don't work, but actively hurts people, hurts us all. It's pretty funny that you are so ignorant that you assume that because people don't want something now, they didn't want it in the past when it was legal! KillHour posted:Name something you can consume that is in high demand but prohibition is successful in eliminating. Leaded paint? Various patent medicines? All those radium devices and medicines of the early 20th century? Leaded gasoline for standard cars? Thalidomide for pregnant women? There's tons of stuff that used to be in high demand, but no longer is anymore after long time prohibition. Just because some things can't effectively be banned doesn't mean nothing can!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:You may not be trying, but you sure as gently caress are ending up doing so. Look, your issues are obviously more important than the stoner who just wants to get high legally or kid who is mad because he has to buy MDMA illegally and can't get quality control on it, but they're honestly not more important than people doing 99 to life in prison right now because they ran afoul of a series of laws specifically designed to imprison blacks, immigrants and minorities. I am not suggesting that civil rights for LGBT people should have taken a back seat to anyone or been forced to slow down, but there has probably been more than a few fundraisers and petition drives that would have been better spent trying to get people out of prison.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Look, your issues are obviously more important than the stoner who just wants to get high legally or kid who is mad because he has to buy MDMA illegally and can't get quality control on it, but they're honestly not more important than people doing 99 to life in prison right now because they ran afoul of a series of laws specifically designed to imprison blacks, immigrants and minorities. I am not suggesting that civil rights for LGBT people should have taken a back seat to anyone or been forced to slow down, but there has probably been more than a few fundraisers and petition drives that would have been better spent trying to get people out of prison. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those people wouldn't have contributed money to things like that even if there wasn't LGBTQ rights fundraisers going on. It's not just a matter of limited space, a disgusting amount people legitimately don't give a poo poo about our awful prison situation. What you are effectively doing is blaming LGBTQ advocates for people being lovely and uncaring, which is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Look, your issues are obviously more important than the stoner who just wants to get high legally or kid who is mad because he has to buy MDMA illegally and can't get quality control on it, but they're honestly not more important than people doing 99 to life in prison right now because they ran afoul of a series of laws specifically designed to imprison blacks, immigrants and minorities. I am not suggesting that civil rights for LGBT people should have taken a back seat to anyone or been forced to slow down, but there has probably been more than a few fundraisers and petition drives that would have been better spent trying to get people out of prison. They wouldn't have been better spent that way, because the nature of the drug war is that it drives people to commit other crimes - and those other crimes mean they end up in prison for a long time even if your weed legalizing law grants complete amnesty for any weed crime. Look at how Colorado only freed a few thousand people early, total! Small Frozen Thing posted:I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those people wouldn't have contributed money to things like that even if there wasn't LGBTQ rights fundraisers going on. It's not just a matter of limited space, a disgusting amount people legitimately don't give a poo poo about our awful prison situation. What you are effectively doing is blaming LGBTQ advocates for people being lovely and uncaring, which is ridiculous. There's that too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So you believe weed is harmful? Man you're weird. You keep saying lead paint even though one: I specifically called out things that hurt the environment, and two: nobody purposefully EATS lead paint! Secondly, people used radium because they thought it was good for you, not because it was fun. Even the FDA of today wouldn't ban something nobody knew was harmful if it's not SPECIFICALLY marketed as a drug. Thirdly, you're in the drug thread. We're talking about drugs. Stop arguing about raw milk and lead paint and radium, and argue about cocaine and crack and heroin. Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Part of engaging with the ethics of banning things vs regulating sale/consumption is going to involve other compounds for which that decision has been resolved. Raw milk, leaded gasoline, and other such things are extremely relevant to the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those people wouldn't have contributed money to things like that even if there wasn't LGBTQ rights fundraisers going on. It's not just a matter of limited space, a disgusting amount people legitimately don't give a poo poo about our awful prison situation. What you are effectively doing is blaming LGBTQ advocates for people being lovely and uncaring, which is ridiculous. I'm really not blaming them for anything. I am simply saying resources spent on one were not spent on the other*. I was only playing devil's advocate and I thought this was clear. edit: By this I mean, that could have been better spent on the other, because there really is a point of diminishing returns, which is what i was trying to get at with the breast cancer thing Mirthless fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So you believe weed is harmful? Man you're weird. Arguing weed should be legal because it's harmless is idiotic and isn't why some things are legal or illegal in the first place. Repealing skateboard prohibtion (in Norway) wasn't right because skateboarding was harmless. It was right because the arguments used to justify ongoing prohibtion were literally retarded, just like arguments used to justify ongoing cannabis prohibtion are retarded. KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
KillHour posted:You keep saying lead paint even though one: I specifically called out things that hurt the environment, and two: nobody purposefully EATS lead paint! When you paint with lead paint you are consuming the product dude. A lot of people still think radiation would be good for you. It doesn't matter how many labels you put on things, if you let it be legal to sell in the mass market, a sizable amount of people would be buying it and being harmed. That's why it's banned from stores. And there's tons of drugs and medicines that are rightfully banned. Along with other things that are rightfully banned: Again you are the one who decided to make the bonehead argument that "I should be able to consume anything I want" which necessarily means everything else is relevant! KingEup posted:Arguing weed should be legal because it's harmless is idiotic No it really isn't. It's the single biggest reason that it shouldn't be illegal, because things should in general only be illegal if they're harmful in some way. Weed is harmful in no ways. Like if weed, say, caused your legs to fall off if you ever smoked it, then it would actually make sense to make it illegal. Or something else similarly very harmful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Part of engaging with the ethics of banning things vs regulating sale/consumption is going to involve other compounds for which that decision has been resolved. Raw milk, leaded gasoline, and other such things are extremely relevant to the discussion. These things were banned for different reasons, though. How is "Leaded gasoline destroys the environment so we need to replace it with something else" or "Milk would be safer if we forced everyone to process it in a specific way" relevant to "Should crack be legal?" except in the most shallow and trivial ways like "Does the government have the jurisdiction to ban something?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Who defines what harmful is, though? Should we also legalize magic mushrooms? (yes) What about psychedelics in general, since most of them can only cause harm through long term abuse. How about opiates, are we banning all opiates, or just the heavy ones like heroin? Where do you draw the line? Who sets the standard? Who decides what's acceptable and what isn't? Mirthless fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
fishmech posted:When you paint with lead paint you are consuming the product dude. "Consume" has multiple definitions. You are arguing a different one than I am. In the context of drugs, it generally means to introduce into your body. Lead paint is not consumed in that sense of the word. fishmech posted:A lot of people still think radiation would be good for you. It doesn't matter how many labels you put on things, if you let it be legal to sell in the mass market, a sizable amount of people would be buying it and being harmed. That's why it's banned from stores. And those people should be able to harm themselves. I don't see a problem with this. AT ALL. Stop arguing that people harming themselves is per se bad, because I reject that argument whole cloth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Look, your issues are obviously more important than the stoner who just wants to get high legally or kid who is mad because he has to buy MDMA illegally and can't get quality control on it, but they're honestly not more important than people doing 99 to life in prison right now because they ran afoul of a series of laws specifically designed to imprison blacks, immigrants and minorities. I am not suggesting that civil rights for LGBT people should have taken a back seat to anyone or been forced to slow down, but there has probably been more than a few fundraisers and petition drives that would have been better spent trying to get people out of prison. You absolutely are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Who defines what harmful is, though? This is my problem with the government banning drugs. Any definition of harm is necessarily incomplete and not applicable in every situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:But you're not answering fire with fire. No one is an obligate smoker of weed. Gay people are gay all the time, and even if they never engage in "gay acts" they can still be legally oppressed in much of the country. I could have an urgent desire to smoke weed, much like a gay man could have an urgent desire for some dick. Come on, man. Liberty is liberty. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:I could have an urgent desire to smoke weed, much like a gay man could have an urgent desire for some dick. Come on, man. Liberty is liberty. Go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Go gently caress yourself. Both are issues of bodily autonomy and liberty. You go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
KillHour posted:These things were banned for different reasons, though. How is "Leaded gasoline destroys the environment so we need to replace it with something else" or "Milk would be safer if we forced everyone to process it in a specific way" relevant to "Should crack be legal?" except in the most shallow and trivial ways like "Does the government have the jurisdiction to ban something?" Remember: you're the one who insisted on making the argument that "nothing should be banned for consumption". That's why it's relevant that there's lots of reason that lots of other things have banned. is this really so hard for you to understand? KillHour posted:"Consume" has multiple definitions. You are arguing a different one than I am. In the context of drugs, it generally means to introduce into your body. Lead paint is not consumed in that sense of the word. That's completely irrelevant. However, children did literally eat lead paint - it's in fact one of the big reasons lead use was banned from household paint! Actually no, society holds a duty to prevent unnecessary harm. We get it, you're a heartless dude, other people aren't. People harming themselves IS bad per se, and it usually happens because other things are already harming them, which we should be working to reduce or end as much as possible! KillHour posted:This is my problem with the government banning drugs. Any definition of harm is necessarily incomplete and not applicable in every situation. Your problem is that you don't understand logic? Sorry brah, krokodil really has no justifiable reason to be available for use. I'm down with getting people on related sorts of drugs that aren't as actively damaging, but it needs to stay not allowed itself. Similarly, all those lovely fake weed products need to be banned from sale, and people who want to use them need to be directed to other products, usually just regular weed, which is safe. Risk assessment is not an impossible task.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:things should in general only be illegal if they're harmful in some way. No, things should not in general be illegal if they're harmful in some way. The decision to ciminalise something requires more than just evidence of harm. KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:You absolutely are. If you hold five fundraisers and only needed three, is it really holding your movement back to devote the other two to another cause? LGBT causes are extraordinarily well funded and very numerous. There's a point where spending more money and time and people on a task stops being helpful. It is likely that some of the money and time spent on LGBT issues could have been better allocated on criminal justice reform. It is not a great argument, but I never said it was. KillHour posted:This is my problem with the government banning drugs. Any definition of harm is necessarily incomplete and not applicable in every situation. Yeah, and they aren't really the best gauges of acceptable risk to begin with. Allowing acetaminophen to be paired with loving anything is dangerously irresponsible, where's the ban on that? It's certainly killed more people than MDMA has. Most of our current bans largely exist to support law enforcement initiatives or to prop up a particular industry, the rest are all leftovers from Nancy Reagan's moral outrage Mirthless fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Both are issues of bodily autonomy and liberty. You go gently caress yourself. I would tell you to go die as well but it seems like you've already ceased brain function, you enormous rear end in a top hat. You probably don't actually believe what you're posting but if you're going to concern troll about gay rights on today of all the goddamn days to do it, shut the gently caress up. Mirthless posted:If you hold five fundraisers and only needed three, is it really holding your movement back to devote the other two to another cause? LGBT causes are extraordinarily well funded and very numerous. There's a point where spending more money and time and people on a task stops being helpful. It is likely that some of the money and time spent on LGBT issues could have been better allocated on criminal justice reform. It is not a great argument, but I never said it was. The point at where it stops being helpful is the point at where it gets done. Are the fundraisers supposed to budget out the money they think they might need to protect the fundamental rights of disadvantaged and hated minorities so that internet posters can smoke weed in front of cops, or should they get as much as they can to protect those rights until the fight is won?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:I'm really not blaming them for anything. I am simply saying resources spent on one were not spent on the other*. I was only playing devil's advocate and I thought this was clear. You completely ignored the point I was making to double down on the "fundraisers!" thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I would tell you to go die as well but it seems like you've already ceased brain function, you enormous rear end in a top hat. You probably don't actually believe what you're posting but if you're going to concern troll about gay rights on today of all the goddamn days to do it, shut the gently caress up. Stop privileging some matters of personal liberty over others you douche. Your desire for dick is as valid as my desire for weed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:The point at where it stops being helpful is the point at where it gets done. Are the fundraisers supposed to budget out the money they think they might need to protect the fundamental rights of disadvantaged and hated minorities so that internet posters can smoke weed in front of cops, or should they get as much as they can to protect those rights until the fight is won? Again. I never said anything of the sort. You're taking this point to an ideological conclusion when I am stopping way short of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
KingEup posted:No, things should not in general be illegal if they're harmful in some way. You've got things backwards. That "things that aren't harmful should pretty much never be illegal" doesn't mean "all things that are harmful in any way should be illegal". Please learn to think instead of kneejerk thinking everything's a plot to keep you from having a drug. Mirthless posted:Allowing acetaminophen to be paired with loving anything is dangerously irresponsible, where's the ban on that? Acetaminophen is also one of the few painkillers/fever reducers that people with a wide range of other conditions can take - ibuprofen, aspirin, and most other OTC level pain medications can have disastrous consequences. If it didn't have that aspect, we probably would have banned acetaminophen from mass market sales! Mirthless posted:If you hold five fundraisers and only needed three, is it really holding your movement back to devote the other two to another cause? LGBT causes are extraordinarily well funded and very numerous. They are not really extremely well funded, and a lot of LGBT fundraising is for direct aid to members of the community. Often for things like homeless shelters and other services where it's still legal for governments and other organizations to not serve people who need help just because they're gay. We would be lucky if the nation's LGBT organizations actually were very well funded. Frankly, for a lot of time NORML and other drug legalization efforts were likely to have access to more funding than the LGBT orgs were. objects in mirror posted:Stop privileging some matters of personal liberty over others you douche. Your desire for dick is as valid as my desire for weed. LGBT people's rights to live are in fact more important than your "right" to smoke weed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Stop privileging some matters of personal liberty over others you douche. Your desire for dick is as valid as my desire for weed. Eat a bullet. Shoutout to the mods, I hope you enjoyed this easy probation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
I also like to state faulty arguments and defend them while pretending as if actually, I don't believe in that position at all.objects in mirror posted:Stop privileging some matters of personal liberty over others you douche. Your desire for dick is as valid as my desire for weed. You are reprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Stop privileging some matters of personal liberty over others you douche. Your desire for dick is as valid as my desire for weed. Your desire for weed is brought on by your innate inferiority, and a desire to dull the misery of your meaningless existence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:
Again, the desire to partake of marijuana can be as passionate and encompassing as the desire for a same sex relationship, I'm not sure why you keep belittling this stance and it strikes me as prejudiced and intolerant as distaste for homosexuals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:Your desire for weed is brought on by your innate inferiority, and a desire to dull the misery of your meaningless existence. This is just as ugly a statement as telling a gay man that he's gay because women won't touch him. Shame on you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
KillHour posted:"Consume" has multiple definitions. You are arguing a different one than I am. In the context of drugs, it generally means to introduce into your body. Lead paint is not consumed in that sense of the word. Do you think house painters wear gas masks?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
objects in mirror posted:This is just as ugly a statement as telling a gay man that he's gay because women won't touch him. Shame on you. Our society is best served by rendering subhumans like yourself into a nutrient-rich slurry, which can then be shipped abroad to help reduce world hunger. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 03:12
|
|