The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

PulpExposure wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Completely ignoring that FAR more inocent (non-using) people are killed by alcohol than by all other drugs combined... You cannot pretend those victims don't exist.

CT, I'm not ignoring it at all. We know the data on alcohol related crashes. However, do you know the data related to drug related crashes, and then a per-user comparison? If so, I'd love to see it. If you don't have it, then you're purely speculating, and incorrectly conflating your opinion with fact.

There is only partial data relating to highway deaths and injury as it relates to other drugs... I do not have that data. What is collected varies from state to state. A glance at the percentage of highway fatalities related to Alcohol versus those not related to Alcohol suggests that the difference between Alcohol and Drug related highway deaths is massive. None the less, it is unrelated to my real point...

Ulimately, my arguement remains that the Federal government has no right to "protect" people from their own stupidity. On the other hand, the Constitution does not restrict an individual's right to be stupid. If you want to be a Nazi, that is certainly your right. It's stupid as hell, but no one has the ability to say you cannot be a Nazi. It's supid as hell to use heroin, or to fry your brain on Meth... but I can't see where the Constitution tells you or the Feds that you can tell them they can't do it.

My caveat would be, be as stupid as you'd like... but keep in mind, your rights end where they touch mine.

Countertrey wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Completely ignoring that FAR more inocent (non-using) people are killed by alcohol than by all other drugs combined... You cannot pretend those victims don't exist.

CT, I'm not ignoring it at all. We know the data on alcohol related crashes. However, do you know the data related to drug related crashes, and then a per-user comparison? If so, I'd love to see it. If you don't have it, then you're purely speculating, and incorrectly conflating your opinion with fact.

There is only partial data relating to highway deaths and injury as it relates to other drugs... I do not have that data. What is collected varies from state to state. A glance at the percentage of highway fatalities related to Alcohol versus those not related to Alcohol suggests that the difference between Alcohol and Drug related highway deaths is massive. None the less, it is unrelated to my real point...

Ulimately, my arguement remains that the Federal government has no right to "protect" people from their own stupidity. On the other hand, the Constitution does not restrict an individual's right to be stupid. If you want to be a Nazi, that is certainly your right. It's stupid as hell, but no one has the ability to say you cannot be a Nazi. It's supid as hell to use heroin, or to fry your brain on Meth... but I can't see where the Constitution tells you or the Feds that you can tell them they can't do it.

My caveat would be, be as stupid as you'd like... but keep in mind, your rights end where they touch mine.

I get that. However, I cannot see a world in which someone using heroin or another hard drug wouldn't be impacting someone else's life. You well know what a drug with physiological addiction (such as heroin) can compel someone to do. Just as people have impaired reactions under the influence of alcohol, people have impaired judgment under the influence of heroin; or in the grips of heroin addiction.

Hell, I spent 7 years in downtown baltimore going to school there. You got used to hearing about murders committed by heroin junkies, just for a few dollars obtained (basically, deadly muggings). People in a state like that don't care about consequences...they just want to fulfill their cravings. And I can't imagine that having heroin or crack, etc., be more readily available would mean you would have less people with such cravings.

The trade off would be in the reduction of the gang violence, by eliminating the profitablitiy of being in a gang in the first place.

There's a reason dealers are called "pushers." If you eliminate the profitability of the pushers, then you eliminate the largest means of promotional advertising for the drug.

If anybody can go down and get it from the corner store, then there is no need for anyone to talk you into trying it in the first place.

Drugs like heroin and crack are both given out as "test" samples to prospective new customers to get them hooked, and then the profitability comes from the fact that the addict can't live without it.

Yes, they will lie, cheat, steal, and even resort to violence to pay the dealer his exorbitant selling price.

Eliminate the profitability of the drug, socially ostricise the drug as dangerous, and you will see a reduction in users, and a reduction in overall crime.

You'll certainly see far fewer people with a felony record for a crime of consent.

Wouldn't you agree?

I get that. However, I cannot see a world in which someone using heroin or another hard drug wouldn't be impacting someone else's life.

I get that. However, I cannot see a world in which someone eating too much wouldn't be impacting someone else's life.

I get that. However, I cannot see a world in which someone spending money on gambling wouldn't be impacting someone else's life.

I get that. However, I cannot see a world in which someone skydiving wouldn't be impacting someone else's life.

I get that. However, I cannot see a world in which someone driving a SUV wouldn't be impacting someone else's life.

I get that. However, I cannot see a world in which someone having consensual sex wouldn't be impacting someone else's life.

I get that. However, I cannot see a world in which someone refusing to donate to charity wouldn't be impacting someone else's life.

I don't especially approve of any of the above behaviors. They are either dangerous, or wasteful, or foolish, or selfish. However, I would not propose to tell any of the involved individuals that, because I don't like it, they can't do it.

I don't know how deeply you wish to explore the "Butterfly Effect", but just because someone takes some action, it does not follow that they are impinging upon my rights.

Cute.

Now let's discuss the cost of such testing, and cases of false positives. Would there be jail time for those that tested positive? Goody, we can add in that expense both in dollars and in incarcerating otherwise lawful citizens with violent offenders. And still no one has addressed the most addictive and lethal, yet totally legal drug of nicotine.

Strictly speaking, is nicotine really a lethal drug? If someone is really addicted to it but really wants to avoid the health effects of cigarette smoke, there are other delivery methods, no? I'm not too familiar with the inner workings of cigarettes, but I was under the impression that it was the tar and other toxins in the leaf that were bad, not so much the nicotine.

Irn-Bru wrote:Strictly speaking, is nicotine really a lethal drug? If someone is really addicted to it but really wants to avoid the health effects of cigarette smoke, there are other delivery methods, no? I'm not too familiar with the inner workings of cigarettes, but I was under the impression that it was the tar and other toxins in the leaf that were bad, not so much the nicotine.

You are correct, sir. The nicotine does little more than raise pulse rate and blood pressure. However, it is also highly addictive, and is the reason people continue to expose themselves to the tar and innumerable carcinogens, oxidants, and outright poisons present in cigarette smoke and tobacco residue.

Nicotine probably is the trigger for the occasional heart attack and stroke, but it's likely that those were set up by years of exposure to other substances...

If the dose is high enough, it is totally lethal. One drop of pure nicotine on the tounge would kill you. But you are correct it is everything else in cigarettes that makes them so lethal. But nicotine is also the most addictive of drugs.

Well, anything in a high enough dose is lethal. Water, for example. Or oxygen. (They also fit common definitions of the word 'drug', but maybe that's another issue. )

My point is that if it was really about nicotine then people could do other delivery methods. Patches, gums, fake cigarettes, etc. I know cigarettes are the convenient method—maybe there's something about getting nicotine through the smoke that's preferable to the gum etc.—but it's important to make the distinction. Many people who smoke cigarettes do so because they enjoy smoking a cigarette, not necessarily because they need a nicotine fix.

So talking about "that lethal drug, nicotine" seems deceptive to me on those two fronts.

Irn-Bru wrote:Well, anything in a high enough dose is lethal. Water, for example. Or oxygen.

Ban dihydrogen monoxide?

PulpExposure wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Well, anything in a high enough dose is lethal. Water, for example. Or oxygen.

Ban dihydrogen minoxide?

I'd sign that petition! Sounds dangerous!

Irn-Bru wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Well, anything in a high enough dose is lethal. Water, for example. Or oxygen.

Ban dihydrogen minoxide?

I'd sign that petition! Sounds dangerous!

very dangerous... especially spelled that way...

Countertrey wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Well, anything in a high enough dose is lethal. Water, for example. Or oxygen.

Ban dihydrogen minoxide?

I'd sign that petition! Sounds dangerous!

very dangerous... especially spelled that way...

There's always BEER!!!

Countertrey wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Well, anything in a high enough dose is lethal. Water, for example. Or oxygen.

Ban dihydrogen minoxide?

I'd sign that petition! Sounds dangerous!

very dangerous... especially spelled that way...

Why are you and Irn-Bru specifically misspelling my quote?

PulpExposure wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Well, anything in a high enough dose is lethal. Water, for example. Or oxygen.

Ban dihydrogen minoxide?

I'd sign that petition! Sounds dangerous!

very dangerous... especially spelled that way...

Why are you and Irn-Bru specifically misspelling my quote?

Muwahahahahahahaaaaaaa!

Far better than "dihydrogen minoxidil", which is well known to encourage palmar and plantar hair growth, I think...

I voted YES from te start. But it aint gonna happen. Democracy notwithstanding in this board.

Some people appear to suggest that it would not be POLITICALLY CORRECT to test some "worthy" recipients of aid.

Too bad. Just like legalising drugs suggested previously in this thread, it is just too smart to be adopted in many legislations around the world.

I'm enjoying the comments by you guys being that some are doctors, lawyers, etc.. I'm just a regular dude who's actually in the process of quitting cigarettes. Yesterday I had one, today I had one but I'll tell ya what, its harder to say no to smoking those as opposed to drinking that's for sure (in my case). I decided that I'm just not buying them anymore and those that I did smoke I bummed off people outside (loser..lol). I like to smoke the ganja occasionally which for me is alot better than years ago when I had to smoke like 3 or 4 joints a day just to achieve some kind of high. Ultimately as a smoker and a drinker I believe the "gubment" would make a huge profit considering anyone who ever used anything will always be trying to achieve that very first high (alcohol excluded).

What if scenario:

If weed was legal and sold at the 7-11, I'd spend alot more money on it because of availability and also the fact I'm still trying to get that good high. (Profit)

I'm not sure how it would be done though, would it be like cigs with different strengths and flavors?

Lights- Bush Weed (usually sold at discount or packaged better because it isn't that strong)
Mediums- Regular Weed (sold for face value, frequent buyers may get a good deal)
Hards- Chronic/Hydro/Haze (top of the line ganja, usually grown in different environments to achieve better THC levels but sometimes chemically laced)

Just for the record, what really ticks me off is alcohol. They say you can drink it all you want as long as you don't show it in public (public intoxication) and drive. The don't drink & drive thing is common sense, if you drink and drive your putting other people at risk and that's not cool. BUT!!!, if I'm walking from my local bar to my home and I'm sooo drunk that I'm stumbling on the way there and an officer notices it and comes to check me out, he can do all the tests to see I'm legally drunk. I've never been in that situation but I think I'd say something like, "yea, i'm drunk, that's why i'm walking home... go catch a real bad guy or something"

Anyways, just

Sorry, I swayed from the topic

Wow. A new definition for the phrase "High taxes".

Man if they approved this talk about cutting down welfare costs!!!

Most working americans are subject to drug tests and then why use there tax money to support junkies?

*OFF TOPIC*

I know this is another topic but I just read this as it relates to "welfare" help and I'm thinking damn, she got $490/month to take care of 6 kids from welfare/ss and she STILL had more children after that. We were talking about drug testing for welfare people but what about people like this lady??? Here's the story and you come up with your own conclusions. I think its sad that taxpayers have to dish out the money for it though.

http://news.aol.com/article/octuplets-mom-web-site/334503

Yes