The Wall

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-07-2017, 04:11 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

You're absolutely right......, not my brightest moment.

No worries, I had to look up what LD50 was. Found an interesting footnote:

Quote:

NOTE: Comparing substances (especially drugs) to each other by LD50 can be misleading in many cases due (in part) to differences in effective dose

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Also take note, the lethal dose (for 50% of the ones ingesting it) for cocaine or arsenic is a bit over 1 gram. The same for caffeine, which is completely unregulated, not considered a poison or even that harmful, that amount is a bit over 10 grams. Do you think the current legal status and attitude towards these substances is logical?

Umm, yes.

The drug that's lethal in the smaller quantity, should be considered more dangerous. That sounds totally logical to me.

In addition to that, 1 gram of cocaine is somewhat close to what a person might actually possess and use within a short time. Whereas 10 grams of caffeine is nearly impossible to ingest. There are only 63mg in a 20 oz bottle of soda. You'd have to drink almost 25 gallons of pepsi in order to overdose on caffeeine.
03-07-2017, 04:25 PM
MadMojoMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I really don't wanna beat this horse with you. Virtually every single paragraph written on the opioid epidemic in America cites the cheap price of drugs as a major reason for their prevalence. If you're still unconvinced, then it's a lost cause to try and convince you. Believe that only rich people can afford heroin if you like.

I believe the numbers in your other links better represent a factual value for a long-term heroine user. The number you quoted from your 4th link earlier bears no scientific backing, and even that link presents the number "as low as $5 for a dose that could last up to 5 hours." That is not language used to describe a typical or "representative case" amount of either presented quantity.

I stated my reasoning as to why I'm skeptical of this number over your other quoted numbers, so your pretending that I'm ignoring your data or claiming to absurd numbers is simply voluntary ignorance on your part.

You also ignored my question as to why this number, from all the numbers you quoted, is the one that you choose to be the "representative case?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Dude....it's not the junkies that are getting locked up. Only 297 of them in the entire federal prison system.

I agree with you that there are people whom pose a danger only to themselves imprisoned for non-violent crimes.

Note: It costs, on average, more than the median household income of an American family to imprison a single inmate.

Is it acceptable to you that, in the "land of the free," this cost is being spent on imprisoning non-violent criminals?
If so, then that is our only real disagreement, here. Everything else is a trivial consequence of that core belief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Yeah...it's called *physical* addiction. It's caused by the drug. You make it sound like these people are just depressed.

The physical addiction can't be the disease, since it is not present when a person uses drugs for the first time.
The physical addiction is a symptom of the disease.

I don't know who told you that there's anything "just" about depression.
If you are lucky enough to not know what depression is firsthand, then your lack of empathy over this disease is understandable, but your criticisms on it are moot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Right, so why would a doctor ever prescribe cocaine, heroin, or meth? What medical purpose could they serve that isn't already addressed by other drugs? Don't you think that doctors already have a consensus saying that is "the fullest and most accurate description" of illicit drugs? Why legalize these drugs if there is no way to get them legally?

Why? Because they believe it is the best practice in that situation.

What? IDK. I'm a physicist, not a doctor.

Don't I? No. I don't think broad consensus is binding on any individual doctor's actions, though, either. Do you know otherwise?
Not that what you or I think doctors understand is remotely relevant to anything aside from a statement of our own ignorance.

Why? That would be scandalously stupid, and is not what I am anticipating. If that became the reality, though, then I'd admit that I was wrong, that the data is in, and that my model was flawed.

These are great questions, which I am not qualified to answer beyond saying, "I don't know." I am not a doctor, nor do I consult with (medical) doctors. A doctor would be the one to answer these questions, not a physicist.

I wont jump from "I don't know" to "It must be..." without any steps in between... on purpose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Right, but those potentially dangerous side effects are outweighed by the medical benefit. How could you ever make that case for coke, heroin, or meth?

What data informs your position on your first sentence above. What grey areas are there which motivate you to make a call between a slight medical benefit and a side effect? What strikes a balance where you know that while a side effect is present, it is worth the risk to the patient?

How could I ever make the case? Well, as an experimentalist and physicist, I'd create a model and test it by collecting data and creating falsifiable statements from that data.
If I could show evidence of a single medical benefit to a single person and show that the expected complications with addiction were minor, then I'd consider that the foundation for a case.
I am not one to believe that if I don't know the answer to a question, that it has no answer.

The bigger question, here is:
Why do you think a physicist's opinion should weigh anything on this? I'm not an MD. Are you suggesting that these medical questions should be answered by a majority, whether or not that majority has any medical training?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I'm really not going to engage in any argument that equates cigarrettes and booze with heroin and meth. I really don't wanna see coke overdose numbers compared to drunk driving deaths, that's all false flag nonsense. Heroin, meth, and cocaine are incredibly more dangerous than the legal substances you're referring to. It's really not even close.

Then why bring it up?
Your argument is, in part, that a substance being addictive is enough reason for it to be illegal. I was pointing out that, while that is your opinion, it doesn't represent the greater jurisprudence of the USA.

"More dangerous?" I am under the impression that you lack the credentials to make that claim in a legitimate manner.
Am I wrong? Are you an MD? Have you spent the past decades establishing a body of work which qualifies you to make these claims?

"It's not even close?" Your words do not sway me to think anything other than that you are sharing your opinions, which are not motivated by medical studies or conclusions.

I am not convinced by your appeal to me to condemn or incarcerate broken people.
I am not persuaded to pretend that people I don't understand do not deserve my compassion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

So why do we need heroin?

Exactly.
...
Exactly.

You know the question. You just don't believe that it has a real, honest answer.
I do.

I believe that this answer speaks to a deeply human Truth about ourselves and our cultures.
I do not believe that treating this question is rhetorical will bring anyone a deeper understanding of anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Because it's cheaper with less obstacles!! Are you denying that this is happening? Four out of five heroin addicts start with prescription pain-killers. Those are legal drugs, that they can get from a doctor. Even you admit that addicts can be quite clever at convincing doctors to give them those drugs. And yet, despite that accessibility, they still turn to heroin.

My premise is, "if the drugs are legal options to discuss with their doctor."
I deny that illicit drugs are legal options to discuss with their doctor, yes. Do you not?

"They still turn to heroine"
Why is this a problem for you?

'Cause my question's premise is, "If there are no illegal drugs..." so turning to heroine wouldn't be turning to an illegal drug. It would be no different than if you told your doctor that your current pain meds weren't enough and that you need something more.
Whether or not a drug has medical benefits is between a doctor and patient on a case by case basis.
Neither of us is qualified to 2nd guess the professional opinion of an MD on healthcare.
03-07-2017, 04:41 PM
MadMojoMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You're all outside of your minds if you're going to latch on to whatever 'data' seems to suggest that hard drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. That's crazy.

Any fair minded person can look at the effects of one dose of alcohol compared to the effects of one dose of meth and easily see which drug is more dangerous. There are no 'casual' heroin users out there.

The idea that tobacco is more addictive than heroin is complete nonsense, I don't care how much 'data' you show me. All of that 'data' relies on the liberally expanded definition of the word 'addiction'. The Reagan-era anti-drug hysteria also sprouted a lesser hysteria dedicated to anti-smoking. Rather than rely on the term 'habit forming', they co-opted the word "addiction" so they could illustrate how bad smoking is, drinking too.

It's not fair to compare legal habit forming substances, to illicit addictive poisons. Don't fall for that garbage.

Is biting your nails an 'addiction'? Grinding your teeth? Chocolate? We're really gonna evaluate all that stuff on the same scale as crack? C'mon

This cements your position as a troll.

When you discount any data which belies the validity of your position, then you are merely a voluntarily ignorant chatterbox.
03-07-2017, 05:10 PM
CoccoBill

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Umm, yes.

The drug that's lethal in the smaller quantity, should be considered more dangerous. That sounds totally logical to me.

Exactly, and we can see proof of that here:

Substance LD50
Water 90g/kg
Alcohol 7060mg/kg
Cannabis 1000mg/kg
Methamphetamine 980mg/kg
Ibuprofen 636mg/kg
Caffeine 192mg/kg
Cocaine 96mg/kg
Vitamin D3 37mg/kg
Heroin 21mg/kg
Nicotine 6.5-13mg/kg
Sodium cyanide 6.4mg/kg

Yup, obvious to anyone that lethality is exactly why some substances are considered illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

In addition to that, 1 gram of cocaine is somewhat close to what a person might actually possess and use within a short time. Whereas 10 grams of caffeine is nearly impossible to ingest. There are only 63mg in a 20 oz bottle of soda. You'd have to drink almost 25 gallons of pepsi in order to overdose on caffeeine.

That's a good one. How much Coke do you need to drink to reach the LD50 of cocaine? You do know that you can buy over-the-counter caffeine pills?
03-07-2017, 05:12 PM
Savy

I also think we're missing the point that just because something is bad for you doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to do it.
03-07-2017, 05:16 PM
CoccoBill

Nah, we've established that banana is the proper authority to determine what substances people shouldn't ingest, which words they shouldn't use and which life decisions are inappropriate.
03-07-2017, 05:24 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

You also ignored my question as to why this number, from all the numbers you quoted, is the one that you choose to be the "representative case?"

I didn't ignore it. I deliberately chose not to respond. Heroin use is up, because, among other reasons, heroin is cheap. If you disagree with that conclusion, debate yourself. Beyond that, I have no interest in splitting hairs over whether is $5, or $10.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I agree with you that there are people whom pose a danger only to themselves imprisoned for non-violent crimes.

I think you misunderstood me. The number of these people, relative to the entire prison population, is microscopic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Note: It costs, on average, more than the median household income of an American family to imprison a single inmate.

Demonstrably false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Is it acceptable to you that, in the "land of the free," this cost is being spent on imprisoning non-violent criminals?

First of all, yes. Second of all, who said they are non-violent?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

The physical addiction can't be the disease, since it is not present when a person uses drugs for the first time.

False again. Many users migrate to heroin seeking a more satisfying high because they are already physically addicted to something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

The physical addiction is a symptom of the disease.

Not necessarily. It could also be a consequence. Possibly an unforseen or unintended consequence. The more physically addictive a substance is, the more likely that is to occur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I don't know who told you that there's anything "just" about depression.
If you are lucky enough to not know what depression is firsthand, then your lack of empathy over this disease is understandable, but your criticisms on it are moot..

Probably best if we don't go down this road. I'm not denying that depression is a real thing, but I do think it's way way way fucking overblown. It wasn't a 'thing' until we had drugs for it that we could sell. The criteria for diagnosis is extremely loose and subjective, and seems to hinge on whether or not the patient has insurance or cash to buy drugs. Psychiatrists are closer to drug dealers than they are scientists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Why? Because they believe it is the best practice in that situation.

Could you please speculate as to what situation might call for meth use as a 'best practice'? What affliction currently baffles medical science that might be solved by prescribing crack?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Why? That would be scandalously stupid, and is not what I am anticipating. If that became the reality, though, then I'd admit that I was wrong, that the data is in, and that my model was flawed.

What are you, a physicist, anticipating that doctors will do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I wont jump from "I don't know" to "It must be..." without any steps in between... on purpose.

I will. The idea that doctors would use already tested and proven drugs to treat medical afflictions, rather than prescribe recently legalized heroin, is a pretty safe conclusion to jump to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

What data informs your position on your first sentence above. .... What strikes a balance where you know that while a side effect is present, it is worth the risk to the patient?

The informed opinion of an educated medical professional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

How could I ever make the case? Well, as an experimentalist and physicist, I'd create a model and test it by collecting data and creating falsifiable statements from that data.

So you would experiment on human beings by prescribing them dangerous drugs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Your argument is, in part, that a substance being addictive is enough reason for it to be illegal.

False. My argument is that there is a distinction between a substance that is habit-forming, and one that causes life-altering addiction. If you're using the same definition of "addictive" to evaluate caffeine as you are using to evaluate cocaine, then your conclusions are not convincing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

"More dangerous?" I am under the impression that you lack the credentials to make that claim in a legitimate manner.
Am I wrong? Are you an MD? Have you spent the past decades establishing a body of work which qualifies you to make these claims?

Fair enough. I challenge you to ask 100 MD's whether they would prefer one of their patients indulge in a glass of wine every day, or a bump of cocaine every day. Let me know your results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

"It's not even close?" Your words do not sway me to think anything other than that you are sharing your opinions, which are not motivated by medical studies or conclusions.

Fine, I'll reserve judgement until you publish the results of your survey. What should we say is "close"? 55/45? 60/40? I'll bet you don't get 5 doctors to pick cocaine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I am not convinced by your appeal to me to condemn or incarcerate broken people.
I am not persuaded to pretend that people I don't understand do not deserve my compassion.

You're certainly free to feel that way. However, I choose to withhold my compassion from folks who exploit other people's addictions for profit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

You know the question. You just don't believe that it has a real, honest answer.
I do.

Ok professor, what's the answer. Why do we need heroin?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

My premise is, "if the drugs are legal options to discuss with their doctor."
I deny that illicit drugs are legal options to discuss with their doctor, yes. Do you not?

In your premise, who's paying these doctors??

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

"They still turn to heroine"
Why is this a problem for you?

Because it proves that all it takes is a better/cheaper high to convince a user to completely circumvent the legal market for drugs. Whatever benefit you glean from legalizing drugs goes out the window once something else is invented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

'Cause my question's premise is, "If there are no illegal drugs..." so turning to heroine wouldn't be turning to an illegal drug..

Your question's premise presumes that there wouldn't be a black market for heroin. If you're legalizing drugs, but at the same time creating costs and obstacles to getting them, you really aren't doing much to motivate the cartels to stop doing business their way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

It would be no different than if you told your doctor that your current pain meds weren't enough and that you need something more.

You're presuming that it's even possible that a doctor might then prescribe crack because vicodin isn't enough. The medical community already has a solution to this. There are pain-care clinics where people can go and get cortisone shots, morphine, or other IV drugs if it's determined that they are in extreme and chronic pain.

Does the American Medical Association already have an opinion on the risks/benefits of cocaine? Shouldn't that be a guide in determining whether or not we permit the drug to be legal? Legalizing them all and then seeing what happens is pretty fucking bad science Mr. Physicist.
03-07-2017, 05:26 PM
Savy

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Does the American Medical Association already have an opinion on the risks/benefits of cocaine? Shouldn't that be a guide in determining whether or not we permit the drug to be legal? Legalizing them all and then seeing what happens is pretty fucking bad science Mr. Physicist.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...id-nutt-sacked
03-07-2017, 05:31 PM
OngBonga

Quote:

Originally Posted by banana

Could it be that society has determined that people can ingest chocolate, enjoy it's affects, without losing control of themselves?

This isn't what determines legal status, otherwise alcohol would definitely be illegal, and weed would not be a problem.

Quote:

I think the danger of a substance is what determines its legal status.

If this were true, tobacco would be considered more serious than cannabis. Are you really going to pretend that you think cannabis is more dangerous than tobacco? Or are you going to concede that the danger of a substance does not determine its legal status?
03-07-2017, 07:47 PM
MadMojoMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

[...]

Troll.
03-07-2017, 08:02 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Troll.

So when all your data, and studies, and drug-dangerousness-rankings get called out as inconclusive because they don't differentiate between a habit that's hard to break, and a dangerous addiction, you resort to name-calling

That's a very convincing argument.
03-07-2017, 08:03 PM
Savy

Odds on bananastand being spoon?
03-07-2017, 08:29 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savy

Odds on bananastand being spoon?

Didn't we play this game once already
03-07-2017, 08:36 PM
Savy

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Didn't we play this game once already

Odds are constant?
03-07-2017, 09:37 PM
OngBonga

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savy

Odds on bananastand being spoon?

Nah. banana is not nearly condescending enough. Also, while banana's English is excellent, he's not touching spoon when it comes to grammar. That's not something that's easy to hide, people tend to make obvious typos when they're trying to post in a different style. The sentence structure is different. spoon really did have a near-perfect grasp of written English, certainly to the point I couldn't find fault.
03-07-2017, 09:39 PM
OngBonga

Also, spoon as a fake member would definitely go out of his way to troll me the most.
03-07-2017, 10:30 PM
MadMojoMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

So when all your data, and studies, and drug-dangerousness-rankings get called out as inconclusive because they don't differentiate between a habit that's hard to break, and a dangerous addiction, you resort to name-calling

That's a very convincing argument.

I haven't presented any data or any studies or rankings, so whatever you called out has nothing to do with me.

You haven't effectively offered any substantive information which has answered any of my questions about the actual comparative harm of imprisonment vs. any alternative. Your position is an un-nuanced "illegal drugs are bad and people who use them are bad." This is a disengagement from my line of questioning, and I don't feel I'm learning anything from you on this topic.

I'm not insulting your character or questioning your lineage, nor metaphorically comparing you to any body parts. I'm not discrediting you or your choice to troll this thread and forum. I'm merely citing that I've had enough of playing what it now perfectly clear to me is some game whose rules I don't understand.

I am saying that you renounce that any data could change your position. You attribute ideas and positions to me which I do not espouse. You ask questions which are non-sequitur requests for me to guess what people I've never met will do as though that can possibly be relevant. In short, you side-tracked a million times, and not once helped me to understand my questions.

So calling a troll a troll is not name-calling. It's disengaging from a fruitless conversation with more explanation than you deserve.

***
Oh. I came back to admit that you're right about the average cost to keep an inmate being less than median household income (~54k). It's not.
I went to post the links and saw that I confused the New York state cost per inmate (~$60k) with the national average (~35k).

'Cause when I'm wrong, and the data shows it, I admit it, and I change my position.
If you are unwilling to do the same, then you're a troll in this thread and on this forum.

And no, I'm not asking you to leave.
03-07-2017, 10:37 PM
MadMojoMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Nah. banana is not nearly condescending enough. Also, while banana's English is excellent, he's not touching spoon when it comes to grammar. That's not something that's easy to hide, people tend to make obvious typos when they're trying to post in a different style. The sentence structure is different. spoon really did have a near-perfect grasp of written English, certainly to the point I couldn't find fault.

First sentence is spot on. Although.. if this is spoony trolling me, then I have to give the man credit where it's due.
Epic.
Truly epic.
I'd have to admit that he baits me much better than I gave him credit for.
He'd truly be the master at baiting. I'd owe him a trophy.

You're probably right on the rest, too, though.
03-08-2017, 08:26 AM
OngBonga

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

So when all your data, and studies, and drug-dangerousness-rankings get called out as inconclusive because they don't differentiate between a habit that's hard to break, and a dangerous addiction, you resort to name-calling

That's a very convincing argument.

Note the missing full stop. No way does spoon make that typo. He writes for a living, so it's very unlikely he's making these kind of typos. It could be deliberate, but who's going to notice other than me? I didn't notice it at first.

It's definitely not spoon.

Also, how long do you think spoon can type words for without going on a rant about feminism?
03-08-2017, 08:29 AM
OngBonga

I reckon spoon could only fool me in this manner if he pretended to be an idiot. That's not as easy as it seems when you're so skilled in writing.
03-08-2017, 09:56 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I haven't presented any data or any studies or rankings, so whatever you called out has nothing to do with me.

I didn't know this was a private conversation between us. I thought this was a group discussion and a large portion of that group is waving stats in my face to prove totally nonsensical garbage like 'cigarettes are worse than meth'. If you're butt hurt about being caught in the crossfire, you have my deepest, most sincere, apologies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

You haven't effectively offered any substantive information which has answered any of my questions about the actual comparative harm of imprisonment vs. any alternative.

Yes I have. Not the least of which was to illustrate that if you released every imprisoned drug offender right now, it wouldn't do very much to curb the United State's world-leading incarceration rate. Again, I didn't realize you and I were having a private conversation. I assumed you read the back and forth I had with Jack explaining this very thing.

If your problem is 'too much imprisonment' in America, there are ways to possibly reduce that by addressing certain policies. For example, 'Truth in Sentencing' laws passed in 1994 (long after drugs were declared illegal), has a lot to do with the the world-leading incarceration rate. The illegality of drugs....not so much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Your position is an un-nuanced "illegal drugs are bad and people who use them are bad." This is a disengagement from my line of questioning, and I don't feel I'm learning anything from you on this topic.

If you're not learning, it's because you're not listening.

Correct me if I'm wrong but your 'line of questioning' goes like this: What if drugs were legal, but heavily controlled through the use of doctor's prescriptions?

Do I have that right?

It doesn't take a very nuanced position to refute that line of thinking. I believe I've done so, quite eloquently, but if you need a recap, here it is:
1) I think it's safe to say that the medical community already has a massive majority consensus on the dangers of illicit drugs. However, I have already committed to reserve judgement on this until you come back with the results of a survey where you ask 100 M.D.'s whether they would prefer their patients drink a glass of wine every day, or take a bump of cocaine every day. Let me know what you find out.

2) I don't believe there is any widespread affliction plaguing mankind that could be solved by prescribing crack. Again, if I'm wrong on this, please tell me exactly what disease can be treated ONLY by an illicit drug, and how many people the CDC claims suffer from this affliction in the United States.

3) Assuming that I'm correct on #1 and #2, the idea that a doctor would ever write a prescription for these drugs is an insane fantasy. What is the point of legalizing drugs, if you've provided no realistic legal method to access them? You haven't done anything to curb the black-market sales of these drugs, which is ruled by violent cartels and street gangs.

4) I'm further convinced that your suggestion is completely untenable by the reality that we live in today regarding prescription pain-killers. These are only accessible for legitimate medical needs and their distribution is controlled by a medical doctor. They exist under the exact set of conditions you propose for illegal drugs. Yet they are still abused. That abuse leads to addictions that leads to further destructive behavior, such as seeking out a better high from heroin. Adding more dangerous substances to that equation, can't possibly make things better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I am saying that you renounce that any data could change your position.

False. I am open minded and neutral. I espouse a position when data and convincing logic lead me there. But I thought you and I were having a private conversation where you cited no data. I don't want your feelings hurt again, so plug your ears while I explain to the group, yet again, why I renounce the 'data'.

The numbers are cooked. All the data cited in this thread illustrating the dangers of alcohol/nicotine vs other illicit drugs relies on a ridiculous, subjective, vague definition of "addiction". Psychologists have basically listed what they think the symptoms of addiction are, and it's a pretty long list that includes various withdrawal symptoms, development of a tolerance, or simply making bad decisions that you might believe are related to drug use. You only need a few things from the list to qualify for an "addiction". No two 'addictions' present with the same set of symptoms. It's just a nebulous affliction that can be molded like play-dough into whatever form best suits your purpose.

So there is no differentiation between a substance that is 'addictive' and one that is merely 'habit-forming'. I believe that seriously taints the numbers. I believe that smoking and drinking, in the extreme majority of cases, are merely habits that have minimal impact on people's lives.

I believe the idea that 'cigarettes are harder to quit than heroin' is a myth. The accessibility of cigarettes (you can buy em anywhere) and the social prevalence of them increases temptation. So it might *seem* like it's harder to quit, but physically, it's not. Quitting heroin is a totally different animal.

I don't see how it's troll-y to set aside data if you can explain, as I just have, why you think it's invalid.

If I asked you to describe a duck, and you listed all the characteristics of a duck that you could think of. It might be a long list, but if any animal met three criteria from the list, it would be classified as a "duck". What if I then painted a dog's fur white, it's feet orange, and taught it to quack? I could present that animal as a duck because it meets multiple criteria on your list of duck characteristics. It still doesn't have webbed feet, it still doesn't lay eggs, it definitely doesn't have duck DNA. It still barks, lifts it's leg to pee, and chases the mailman, but because of the pliability of the definition....this animal is a duck

That's all that's being done in this thread when people try to use these statistics to illustrate how illegal drugs really aren't that bad compared to booze or cigarettes. All you're doing is showing me a painted dog, and telling me it's a duck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

You attribute ideas and positions to me which I do not espouse.

Jesus man, whine some more, see if it helps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

You ask questions which are non-sequitur requests for me to guess what people I've never met will do as though that can possibly be relevant.

Your whole position revolves around doctors prescribing heroin. Is it non-sequitur to then follow up with questions about why you think the medical community might possibly entertain that idea?
03-08-2017, 10:13 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Nah. banana is not nearly condescending enough.

Really?
03-08-2017, 10:21 AM
OngBonga

Spoon really was a condescending motherfucker.

That's not the word I'd use to describe you. I think you're just misguided.
03-08-2017, 10:24 AM
OngBonga

Quote:

cigarettes are worse than meth

They are by one measure... deaths.

If there were as many meth users as there are smokers, then meth would be far worse. Fortunately, meth isn't quite as much a social problem as cigarettes are.
03-08-2017, 10:33 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Fortunately, meth isn't quite as much a social problem as cigarettes are.

This ignores geography. Maybe when you zoom out and look at an entire country per-capita, things don't look so bad. But there are pockets of populations where meth is a vicious scourge.
03-08-2017, 10:36 AM
OngBonga

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

This ignores geography. Maybe when you zoom out and look at an entire country per-capita, things don't look so bad. But there are pockets of populations where meth is a vicious scourge.

Fair enough. The same is true of alcohol.
03-08-2017, 10:48 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Fair enough. The same is true of alcohol.

No it isn't. It's only "true" if you embrace statistics that can be manipulated like play-dough

I'm completely over this game where we compare booze and cigarettes to hard drugs. They are not on the same level. If you wanna go on believing that a painted dog is the same as a duck, enjoy yourself.
03-08-2017, 11:37 AM
JKDS

It's a lot harder to OD on alcohol than it is to OD on heroin, meth, or cocaine. Is there any dispute on this point?

Many deaths from alcohol are from drunk driving, due to the impairing effects of alcohol. I don't see why "heroin driving", "meth driving", etc would be less dangerous than drunk driving.

As far as cigarettes and cancer go, a lot of the dangers of cigarettes was learned precisely because they are legal. It was quite a battle to learn all this info as well, considering the alternate facts presented by big tabacco for decades. Illegal drugs are harder to determine the health effects. First, illegality makes it hard to find people who would admit to use, and also to testing. Second, there's ethical concerns with administering a poison to people so as to test it's poisonous effects. That was a problem with cigarettes as well btw.

I don't think we'd be surprised to learn, conclusively, that meth has adverse health effects. Before and after pics of a meth head after just a few year should be enough.

Clearly, heroin is dangerous. You arnt going to smoke a single cigarette or drink a single beer and suddenly die. Heroin, on the ither hand, carries such a risk. Granted, it's small. But it's still substantially greater than that of cigs or alcohol.

Tbh, my jurisdiction doesn't have too much cocaine, so I can't provide an informed opinion.
03-08-2017, 11:43 AM
JKDS

Also, there is no doubt that the dangers of these drugs wold be lessened somewhat by legalization .

Is there any dispute that the dangers of an OD on something like heroin would still be substantial though?
03-08-2017, 11:56 AM
Savy

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKDS

Is there any dispute that the dangers of an OD on something like heroin would still be substantial though?

I'd dispute that. It isn't like people would be shooting up doing unknown doses of drugs with god knows what inside them. I imagine the dangers would be comparable to over dosing on any dangerous prescription drug.

Also you do realise your view of this whole thing is pretty bias seen as though you get that view from the court system. Which is a bias sample in itself. So it'd be pretty hard to say your opinion is all that informed anyway. Just you know in case you thought you were an authority on the subject which you seem to.
03-08-2017, 12:08 PM
OngBonga

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

No it isn't. It's only "true" if you embrace statistics that can be manipulated like play-dough

I'm completely over this game where we compare booze and cigarettes to hard drugs.

How many families do you suppose are negatively influenced by alcohol?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKDS

Many deaths from alcohol are from drunk driving, due to the impairing effects of alcohol. I don't see why "heroin driving", "meth driving", etc would be less dangerous than drunk driving.

Many more deaths are from liver failure, stroke, heart failure and other related diseases that occur as a consequence of alcoholism.

Quote:

Clearly, heroin is dangerous. You arnt going to smoke a single cigarette or drink a single beer and suddenly die. Heroin, on the ither hand, carries such a risk.

This is not quite true. Smoking heroin carries very little risk of OD. Injecting it, that's different. That's where the real risk of OD is. Of course, if it were legal, then we would should expect people to be educated honestly about this seemingly trivial matter. But it's not trivial, because there's a huge difference between smoking and injecting heroin. Not all heroin addicts actually cross that line, it would be impossible to give an actual figure but I am aware of plenty of addicts who only smoke the shit. It's rife in my town, but OD's are rare.

Another factor to consider is that most people who are addicted to heroin also drink alcohol in excess, so it's very difficult to know what's actually doing the most damage to them on a long term basis.

People assume heroin is more dangerous because the effects are more profound and people inject the stuff. Well of course it's more dangerous where you're injecting it. But where you're smoking it, no, it's not more dangerous than alcohol. What is more dangerous is the willingness to do it in the first place, knowing the addictive nature of the drug.
03-08-2017, 12:13 PM
CoccoBill

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKDS

Many deaths from alcohol are from drunk driving, due to the impairing effects of alcohol. I don't see why "heroin driving", "meth driving", etc would be less dangerous than drunk driving.

This depends completely on the substance in question. Alcohol makes you more likely to take risks, slows reaction time, reduces concentration etc. Amphetamines are banned substances in many sports because they increase your ability to concentrate, make you more alert. Cannabis makes you drive slower and more risk-averse. These are all unique substances with unique effects, lumping them together and treating them like they're the same is not very helpful. I don't think any substance, legal or not, that impairs one's ability to drive safely should be allowed, but there should be actual proof that it does indeed do that to a meaningful degree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKDS

Before and after pics of a meth head after just a few year should be enough.

Many of them are staged and all of them are propaganda.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/w...ser-looks-like

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKDS

Clearly, heroin is dangerous. You arnt going to smoke a single cigarette or drink a single beer and suddenly die. Heroin, on the ither hand, carries such a risk. Granted, it's small. But it's still substantially greater than that of cigs or alcohol.

I agree, or at least that whether a dosage that you can conceivably ingest in one go can be lethal or not. With alcohol for a big guy that's somewhere around 2 bottles of hard spirits, for a small person or a kid it can be half of that or less. There's not such a massive difference, but there is a difference, sort of difficult to drink a bottle of vodka by accident.

Still, the substance exists and has the same properties whether it's legal or not. You can find just as or even more dangerous legal substances in most bathroom cabinets, kitchens and garages. "I quit drugs because there were no drugs available", said no addict ever.
03-08-2017, 01:02 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga

How many families do you suppose are negatively influenced by alcohol?

Why does this even matter? How is it even relevant. How many families would be positively influenced if meth is legal?
03-08-2017, 02:15 PM
OngBonga

It's relevant because of the volume of familes that are affected negatively by alcohol. It's a fucking lot. An imperial fuckton.

Quote:

But there are pockets of populations where meth is a vicious scourge.

My argument is that the same is true of alcohol, a point you dismiss. I argue that it is indeed a viscious scourge to some because it destroys families. Hard core drugs do this too, but alcohol is not immune due to its legality. The problems you associate with drugs... addiction, social problems, health risks... all of these are applicable to alcohol too. The only one that alcohol isn't associated with is organised crime... that's because of its legality. If it were illegal, you can be sure that all that juicy tax that the government gets from beer and wine would be going into the pockets of gangsters.
03-08-2017, 02:19 PM
OngBonga

Quote:

How many families would be positively influenced if meth is legal?

Many. There would be less people going to jail. There would be more people reaching out for help because they no longer have to fear repurcussions. So yeah, it would positively impact on at least some families. Meanwhile, making it illegal doesn't positively impact on any families, because legality is proven to be an innefective means of stopping junkies getting wasted.
03-08-2017, 02:20 PM
MadMojoMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKDS

It's a lot harder to OD on alcohol than it is to OD on heroin, meth, or cocaine. Is there any dispute on this point?

Many deaths from alcohol are from drunk driving, due to the impairing effects of alcohol. I don't see why "heroin driving", "meth driving", etc would be less dangerous than drunk driving.

As far as cigarettes and cancer go, a lot of the dangers of cigarettes was learned precisely because they are legal. It was quite a battle to learn all this info as well, considering the alternate facts presented by big tabacco for decades. Illegal drugs are harder to determine the health effects. First, illegality makes it hard to find people who would admit to use, and also to testing. Second, there's ethical concerns with administering a poison to people so as to test it's poisonous effects. That was a problem with cigarettes as well btw.

I don't think we'd be surprised to learn, conclusively, that meth has adverse health effects. Before and after pics of a meth head after just a few year should be enough.

Clearly, heroin is dangerous. You arnt going to smoke a single cigarette or drink a single beer and suddenly die. Heroin, on the ither hand, carries such a risk. Granted, it's small. But it's still substantially greater than that of cigs or alcohol.

Tbh, my jurisdiction doesn't have too much cocaine, so I can't provide an informed opinion.

Whether a task is easy or hard is determined by the person doing it, and not by someone else's assertion, right?
... but I assume you mean to add, "on accident," which is a very different statement.

If anyone can't pass an impairment test, then they're unfit to drive. The source of the impairment can be drugs, emotions, lack of sleep, etc. The criminal act is reckless (wreckfull?) driving. The cause of recklessness is irrelevant; the threat to public safety is relevant.

If the threat of cancer from cigarettes is justification for making them illegal, then why is the threat of heart disease from high-cholesterol not a reason to outlaw whole milk or cheese?
If the fact that tobacco contains nicotine is the reason, then why are tomatoes and potatoes legal?
My point is that these are obvious red herrings, which play to an appeal to emotions, but not to any scrutiny of reason.

Literally everything has adverse health effects if dosage is off. Oxygen poisoning is a thing.
I can understand this kind of argument from someone who isn't working in the legal system, but I don't get it coming from you.

If I drink gasoline, even a capful, that's poison, but it's legal for me to buy gasoline by the gallon.
I've met a few space cadets who huffed gas fumes, too. Clearly there are drug-like properties to gasoline.

If your arguments for why drugs should be illegal don't mesh with the legality of other legal goods, then what's up with that?

Is the liklihood that a person ingests the poison a factor? I mean, is that argument present in the legal language which is in or immediately motivated the bill which addresses the legality of a substance? I imagine this could vary from bill to bill. Is it a commonly cited factor? What metric is cited as the standard for "too prevalent to ignore?"
03-08-2017, 03:10 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Many. There would be less people going to jail.

A minuscule number of people go to jail as it is.

If you're referring to people going to jail for crimes more serious than mere possession, then the number is less minuscule. But I would argue that the criminals, will still commit crimes.

Drug traffickers will just exploit the legal status of drugs in the US in order to use it as base for manufacturing and distribution to other places where it's not legal. That's whats happening in Colorado right now. Pot is legal, so people grow it (legally), and then ship it off to the black market
http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/01/2...-states/47334/

Furthermore, the black market in Colorado doesn't seem to be hurting. In fact, with so much legal production locally, street prices have gone DOWN, making the black market even more attractive. Who's going to pay $400 an ounce from a legal dispensary when the old fashioned drug dealers are selling zips for $240?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarre...83#.rxGlBEZ0oR

Burdensome taxes (the supposed 'benefit' of legalizing drugs) seems to be motivating more black market activity than it stops.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...arket/7292263/

Quote:

"Those barriers to entry already create the potential for the black market, and then you add these taxes on top of it, and it makes it impossible to get rid of," said Denver attorney Robert Corry

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga

There would be more people reaching out for help because they no longer have to fear repurcussions. .

Huh? What repercussions? There is no consequence to admitting you have a problem and are seeking help. Also, I don't know about other places, but my state has laws that protect 'good samaritans' when it comes to complications from drug use. In other words, if you're worried your friend took too much, you can take them to an emergency room or call the cops for help, without fear of arrest or charges, even if you yourself are high as fuck, and have full syringes just lying around in plain sight. Immunity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga

So yeah, it would positively impact on at least some families.

And nothing else bad would happen? Really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Meanwhile, making it illegal doesn't positively impact on any families,

False. You already cited the numerous households suffering from alcohol abuse. How many of those might suffer more if the user graduated to a stronger substance? How likely is that to happen if the substance is widely available?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga

because legality is proven to be an innefective means of stopping junkies getting wasted.

Proven? How? Say there are 1 million frequent heroin users in the US. That's a hypothetical number. Can you prove to me that number would not go up, at all, if heroin became legal?
03-08-2017, 09:55 PM
JKDS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savy

Also you do realise your view of this whole thing is pretty bias seen as though you get that view from the court system. Which is a bias sample in itself. So it'd be pretty hard to say your opinion is all that informed anyway. Just you know in case you thought you were an authority on the subject which you seem to.

I consider myself to be knowledgeable in the area. You can put as much weight into that as you'd like. But bias doesnt have anything to do with whether or not im informed, and im not biased anyway.
03-08-2017, 10:00 PM
JKDS

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Many more deaths are from liver failure, stroke, heart failure and other related diseases that occur as a consequence of alcoholism.

Are you suggesting that overusing meth, heroin, or cocaine doesnt have similar effects?

It seems that the argument is now this

A) Provided that we know what the drug is, and we control the dose appropriately, the dangers are minimal.

Im not sure I agree with "minimal". But I'll give you that one of the reasons for high OD rates is the unknown strength of the drug as well as the random chance that its laced with something like fentanyl.
03-08-2017, 10:06 PM
JKDS

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

This depends completely on the substance in question. Alcohol makes you more likely to take risks, slows reaction time, reduces concentration etc. Amphetamines are banned substances in many sports because they increase your ability to concentrate, make you more alert. Cannabis makes you drive slower and more risk-averse. These are all unique substances with unique effects, lumping them together and treating them like they're the same is not very helpful. I don't think any substance, legal or not, that impairs one's ability to drive safely should be allowed, but there should be actual proof that it does indeed do that to a meaningful degree.

i agree

Quote:

Many of them are staged and all of them are propaganda.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/w...ser-looks-like

Well, if vice says so.

Quote:

I agree, or at least that whether a dosage that you can conceivably ingest in one go can be lethal or not. With alcohol for a big guy that's somewhere around 2 bottles of hard spirits, for a small person or a kid it can be half of that or less. There's not such a massive difference, but there is a difference, sort of difficult to drink a bottle of vodka by accident.

Still, the substance exists and has the same properties whether it's legal or not. You can find just as or even more dangerous legal substances in most bathroom cabinets, kitchens and garages. "I quit drugs because there were no drugs available", said no addict ever.

i agree.
03-09-2017, 06:12 AM
OngBonga

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKDS

Are you suggesting that overusing meth, heroin, or cocaine doesnt have similar effects?

I think you'll struggle to find an honest study on the matter.

Certainly, people who inject heroin will die younger, on average, compared to those who don't. People with a coke habit, they don't tend to live long and healthy lives either. Meth, it's not something I have any experience with other than watching Breaking Bad, but obviously that has long term effects too, again, especially if injecting it.

Obviously, taking hard drugs regularly negatively impacts upon your health. I'm not suggesting it doesn't. I'm suggesting that the long term effects of alcohol are on a par, perhaps worse, perhaps not quite so bad, as hard drugs, but alcohol is more dangerous because it is so widespread and culturally ingrained in our everyday lives.
03-09-2017, 06:12 AM
OngBonga

Quote:

Originally Posted by banana

Proven? How?

Proven by all those junkies who get watsed, regardless of law.
03-09-2017, 08:48 AM
BananaStand

I really never get tired of being right.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...port-says.html

Quote:

the early results show that enforcement matters, deterrence matters, and that comprehensive immigration enforcement can make an impact.

This has been my point all along. We don't need a wall. We just need to enforce the law so that it becomes exceedingly difficult for someone to cross over here, and stay here, prosperously. If there is nothing for them here, they will stop coming. No wall necessary.
03-09-2017, 09:04 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga

alcohol is more dangerous because it is so widespread and culturally ingrained in our everyday lives.

So how would legalizing drugs make anything better? If cocaine becomes widespread and culturally ingrained in our everyday lives....how does that help anybody? It seems to me that the crux of your argument is that ALL drugs should be illegal, including alcohol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Proven by all those junkies who get watsed, regardless of law.

Try again. Of all the non-junkies, can you prove that none of them are deterred by illegality?
03-09-2017, 09:59 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I really never get tired of being right.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...port-says.html

This has been my point all along. We don't need a wall. We just need to enforce the law so that it becomes exceedingly difficult for someone to cross over here, and stay here, prosperously. If there is nothing for them here, they will stop coming. No wall necessary.

Lol, those are some pretty exact numbers. How do they count illegal border crossings anyways, is it just the ones they manage to catch?

It is nice that Fox News always agrees with you though. That must feel very good.
03-09-2017, 10:01 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Of all the non-junkies, can you prove that none of them are deterred by illegality?

Can you prove any of them are?

Seriously, if your best argument is to ask someone to prove the unprovable, then you got nothing.
03-09-2017, 10:15 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Lol, those are some pretty exact numbers. How do they count illegal border crossings anyways, is it just the ones they manage to catch? .

Clearly you didn't read it. Right after those exact numbers, it refers to "apprehensions". So yes, it's just the ones they catch.

I guess when the stats say that alcohol is worse than meth....they're irrefutable facts. But if the stats say that immigration enforcement works....it's "lolz, how are those numbers so exact??!!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

It is nice that Fox News always agrees with you though. That must feel very good.

Seriously, fuck off with this.
03-09-2017, 10:17 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Seriously, if your best argument is to ask someone to prove the unprovable, then you got nothing.

Bullshit

Ong's point was that junkies still getting high proves that illegality is not a deterrent. That's only provable within the junkie community. Outside of it, you can't say that illegality isn't stopping anyone from using drugs. So his point is also unprovable. Go crawl up his ass with your sniping nonsense.
03-09-2017, 10:19 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Clearly you didn't read it. Right after those exact numbers, it refers to "apprehensions". So yes, it's just the ones they catch.

I guess when the stats say that alcohol is worse than meth....they're irrefutable facts. But if the stats say that immigration enforcement works....it's "lolz, how are those numbers so exact??!!"

Hey good point. So they caught less people trying to immigrate illegally. Well done I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Seriously, fuck off with this.

Ok, Fox News never agrees with you. Is that better?
03-09-2017, 10:19 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Ok, Fox News never agrees with you. Is that better?

God damn it you're an ass hole
03-09-2017, 10:29 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Bullshit

Ong's point was that junkies still getting high proves that illegality is not a deterrent. That's only provable within the junkie community. Outside of it, you can't say that illegality isn't stopping anyone from using drugs. So his point is also unprovable. Go crawl up his ass with your sniping nonsense.

I wasn't talking about his point, I was talking about yours. You have nothing to say but 'prove it', which you know damn well is impossible. So therefore you have nothing.
03-09-2017, 10:31 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

God damn it you're an ass hole

Want some fries with that salt?

If you keep quoting Fox News like it's some respected source of information, you can expect to be called out on it. This isn't r_thedonald you're on here.
03-09-2017, 10:36 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Want some fries with that salt?

If you keep quoting Fox News like it's some respected source of information, you can expect to be called out on it. This isn't r_thedonald you're on here.

How do I "keep quoting" Fox? What % of links that I provide come from Fox News? Go do the math.

Because I read it and you don't that makes it an invalid source of information?

BTW, it IS a respected source of information, that's why their television ratings far exceed those of any other news source. And it's not even close.

Seriously go fuck yourself if you're gonna keep playing this game where everything that comes from Fox is declared invalid. Either post why you disagree with the article, or shut the fuck up.

You're hopeless and unmovable bias is causing you to see only what you want to see.

And this isn't an opinion piece, or an editorial. It's a reporting of facts released by Border Patrol. No spin, no bias, nothing but the news. If CNN doesn't report it because it doesn't fit with their narrative, THAT's the news source you should avoid.
03-09-2017, 10:40 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What % of links that I provide come from Fox News? Go do the math.

Seriously go fuck yourself if you're gonna keep playing this game where everything that comes from Fox is declared invalid. Either post why you disagree with the article, or shut the fuck up.

You're hopeless and unmovable bias is causing you to see only what you want to see.

And this isn't an opinion piece, or an editorial. It's a reporting of facts released by Border Patrol. No spin, no bias, nothing but the news. If CNN doesn't report it because it doesn't fit with their narrative, THAT's the news source you should avoid.

So if they occasionally report something that's an objective fact then they're a good source for all news?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

If CNN doesn't report it because it doesn't fit with their narrative, THAT's the news source you should avoid.

Lol, like Fox News ever reports things that don't fit their narrative, unless it's to bash them. Come on.

You might not like to hear it, but Fox is the right's version of CNN. I wouldn't watch either if I wanted to actually find out facts about anything.
03-09-2017, 10:42 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

BTW, it IS a respected source of information, that's why their television ratings far exceed those of any other news source. And it's not even close.

Omg.

Since when do high ratings = respect?

You realise they have a monopoly on the MSM right wing propaganda don't you? It's not like they're CNN and they have to compete with NBC, ABC, and CBS for the liberal market.
03-09-2017, 10:45 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You realise they have a monopoly on the MSM right wing propaganda don't you? It's not like they're CNN and they have to compete with NBC, ABC, and CBS for the liberal market.

This is the convenient argument rolled out by the liberal media apologists...

There is no such thing as a "liberal market". People are in the market for news, not propaganda.
03-09-2017, 10:47 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

There is no such thing as a "liberal market". People are in the market for news, not propaganda.

If that were true, there would be no MSM as we have it today.

Everyone and their dog knows Fox is the right's news, and the others are the left's news.

You may believe Fox is the truth and the others are the propaganda but it only seems like the truth to you because it conforms to your views.
03-09-2017, 10:50 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You might not like to hear it, but Fox is the right's version of CNN. I wouldn't watch either if I wanted to actually find out facts about anything.

False.

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it. I challenge all of you to watch O'Reilly for a week and tell me he doesn't present both sides of an issue. Tell me he doesn't bring on guests who can competently argue the liberal side. Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper only bring on people they agree with. THAT's propaganda. And it's boring.
03-09-2017, 10:52 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You may believe Fox is the truth and the others are the propaganda but it only seems like the truth to you because it conforms to your views.

So if Fox reports that Border Patrol reports a 40% decrease in apprehensions....that's not "truth" to you?

That's 'right wing propaganda'?

That's what you claimed. That's how we got on this irrelevant de-rail. It's this petty-shit game you wanna play where you claim license to categorically shit all over anything fox says, and then paint me as some kind of propaganda machine that only ever quotes one source (which is overwhelmingly false btw).

I call that being an ass-hole. Stop it.
03-09-2017, 11:26 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

False.

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it. I challenge all of you to watch O'Reilly for a week and tell me he doesn't present both sides of an issue. Tell me he doesn't bring on guests who can competently argue the liberal side. Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper only bring on people they agree with. THAT's propaganda. And it's boring.

Well, false yourself.

O'Reilly only brings on people to disagree with him so he can shout them down (or is that the Tucker guy who does that, i forget).

All the other networks do the same thing.

Watching MSM is for people who already know what they believe and are looking for 'news' that confirms it.
03-09-2017, 11:28 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

So if Fox reports that Border Patrol reports a 40% decrease in apprehensions....that's not "truth" to you?

That's 'right wing propaganda'?

That's what you claimed. That's how we got on this irrelevant de-rail. It's this petty-shit game you wanna play where you claim license to categorically shit all over anything fox says, and then paint me as some kind of propaganda machine that only ever quotes one source (which is overwhelmingly false btw).

I call that being an ass-hole. Stop it.

Nice try. I said that just because they report some objective facts doesn't make them objective all the time about everything.

You can call me all the names you want, no intelligent person is going to deny that Fox is biased reporting.
03-09-2017, 11:30 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Nice try. I said that just because they report some objective facts doesn't make them objective all the time about everything.

We weren't talking about what they do 'all the time' or 'about everything'. It was one article that I linked, and it reported an objective fact, cited from an official government source.

You took that as an opportunity to slam it as right-wing propaganda without even reading it. And you also used the opportunity to shame me for only getting my news from one source, which is not only erroneous, it's just a real dick-head way to be.
03-09-2017, 11:31 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

So if Fox reports that Border Patrol reports a 40% decrease in apprehensions....that's not "truth" to you?

That's 'right wing propaganda'?

That's what you claimed.

This is one of your favourite moves. You put together two different things a person says and make it into them saying something completely different altogether. It doesn't work, we're too smart for that here.

If you want to be taken seriously, try making a reasoned argument and give up on twisting people's words into bullshit.
03-09-2017, 11:33 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

We weren't talking about what they do 'all the time' or 'about everything'. It was one article that I linked, and it reported an objective fact, cited from an official government source.

You took that as an opportunity to slam it as right-wing propaganda without even reading it.

Who's biased here?

No, I saw the link from Fox News, and commented on how you repeatedly cite them. I never said anything about that specific report being false or propaganda.
03-09-2017, 11:35 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

you also used the opportunity to shame me for only getting my news from one source.

Show me where I said that.
03-09-2017, 11:38 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Show me where I said that.

How about right here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

No, I saw the link from Fox News, and commented on how you repeatedly cite them.

Again, do the math, and tell me what % of links I post are from fox news?

Why is fox persona non-grata in this forum? Why do you get to cry foul whenever fox is mentioned. This isn't he first time.

Why don't you post the list of poop-approved news sources? What am I allowed to cite without you being a complete dickwad about it?
03-09-2017, 11:40 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I never said anything about that specific report being false or propaganda.

The first word you typed was "lol". Then you made a sarcastic comment suggesting that the numbers were too exact to be believed.
03-09-2017, 11:44 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

How about right here:

Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No, I saw the link from Fox News, and commented on how you repeatedly cite them.

Let's stop here for a minute.

Do you acknowledge that 'repeatedly citing' is not the same as saying 'this is the only news you ever watch?'

And if you do acknowledge that, then why do you try to equate saying one with saying the other?
03-09-2017, 11:46 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The first word you typed was "lol". Then you made a sarcastic comment suggesting that the numbers were too exact to be believed.

I typed lol because you rely on Fox News so much. You defend them as unbiased news, and cite their ratings as proof. I also typed it because the report can't possibly know how many people got in that weren't caught.

None of which equates to saying that specific report is false or propaganda.
03-09-2017, 11:50 AM
OngBonga

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Go crawl up his ass with your sniping nonsense.

hahaha someone's getting butthurt.

Quote:

So how would legalizing drugs make anything better? If cocaine becomes widespread and culturally ingrained in our everyday lives....how does that help anybody? It seems to me that the crux of your argument is that ALL drugs should be illegal, including alcohol.

I'm not suggesting cocaine becomes widespread. Alcohol isn't widespread purely because it's legal, part of the reason is advertising and culture. Drink beer, watch football. I don't think anyone is suggesting cocaine sponsored sporting events, and coke bars where they sell it by the line at the bar.

The crux of my argument is that all drugs should be LEGAL. Just because alcohol is dangerous, doesn't mean I think anyone has the right to say other people should not consume it. Legalising drugs would make things better because legitimate companies would take over the market, instead of criminals, resulting in much better regulation of a dangerous economy. If that isn't obvious, well I don't know what to say. Would you buy vodka from a Russian who made it in his cellar? Like fuck would you, you might die. You'll buy a bottle off the shelf, and know that what you're buying is vodka, with a strength of x, which can be found on the side of the bottle. Clearly, legalisation is a good thing for alcohol, because otherwise it would be a lot more dangerous.
03-09-2017, 11:51 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Let's stop here for a minute.

Do you acknowledge that 'repeatedly citing' is not the same as saying 'this is the only news you ever watch?'

And if you do acknowledge that, then why do you try to equate saying one with saying the other?

OMG fuck off with this hair-splitting nonsense. You know what you said. You know why you said it. You know it was a de-rail. You know it was just you jumping on an opportunity to make a personal attack at me.

What's wrong with 'repeatedly citing' a news outlet anyway? If that was all I ever cited, you might have a point. But I don't. I'm going to ask you again, where is the list of poop-approved sources? What is the limit on Fox News? What % of citations I've used belong to Fox News anyway? What is the limit? Have I exceeded it?

You're obviously keeping score....So....what's the score???

The article reported a statistical fact, without bias, spin, or partisanship. That's all. Rather than address the content of the article you chose to make posts ridiculing the source. And when you're called out on it, you spent the next several posts playing stupid hair-splitting semantics.

How about you just keep your shit on topic and nevermind where I get my news. If I post something you don't agree with, say why. But ridiculing evertything from Fox, just because it's Fox, demonstrates your own echo-chamber ignorance. It also demonstrates that you're an ass hole.
03-09-2017, 11:54 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

OMG fuck off with this hair-splitting nonsense. You know what you said. You know why you said it. You know it was a de-rail. You know it was just you jumping on an opportunity to make a personal attack at me.

What's wrong with 'repeatedly citing' a news outlet anyway? If that was all I ever cited, you might have a point. But I don't. I'm going to ask you again, where is the list of poop-approved sources? What is the limit on Fox News? What % of citations I've used belong to Fox News anyway? What is the limit? Have I exceeded it?

You're obviously keeping score....So....what's the score???

The article reported a statistical fact, without bias, spin, or partisanship. That's all. Rather than address the content of the article you chose to make posts ridiculing the source. And when you're called out on it, you spent the next several posts playing stupid hair-splitting semantics.

How about you just keep your shit on topic and nevermind where I get my news. If I post something you don't agree with, say way. But ridiculing evertything from Fox just demonstrates your own echo-chamber ignorance. It also demonstrates that you're an ass hole.

Is that a 'yes' to my first question that you misrepresented my comment?
03-09-2017, 11:55 AM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Is that a 'yes' to my first question that you misrepresented my comment?

No, I got your meaning loud and clear. Ass hole.

It was obvious that you are butt-hurt by the amount of citations from Fox news that I post. I'll ask you again, for a third time now. What is the limit? What % of my citations are allowed to be from Fox? What % have I actually achieved?

Why does it matter anyway? The article reported a fact. Pointing out where I get my news, or how often I get it from that source, doesn't really affect the facts reported in the article. Its' a petty, ass-hole-ish, ad-hominem attack directed at me, for no reason.

it doesn't matter how you worded it, or what you want to claim you meant after the fact. Any fair minded person can see you're just being a hard-headed troll. We never should have got on this tangent, and we never would have if you could consume information with an open and objective mind. Instead, you didn't even read the content before you took a big steaming dump in this thread, laughing at me for reading Fox.
03-09-2017, 11:58 AM
OngBonga

Quote:

OMG fuck off with this hair-splitting nonsense.

Haha this is like me when I first started posting here. Fighting the tide, getting butthurt when everyone else is laughing...

It only took me about three years to stop getting trolled by everyone who knew what buttons to press.
03-09-2017, 11:59 AM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

No, I got your meaning loud and clear. Ass hole.

It was obvious that you are butt-hurt by the amount of citations from Fox news that I post. I'll ask you again, for a third time now. What is the limit? What % of my citations are allowed to be from Fox? What % have I actually achieved?

Why does it matter anyway? The article reported a fact. Pointing out where I get my news, or how often I get it from that source, doesn't really affect the facts reported in the article. Its' a petty, ass-hole-ish, ad-hominem attack directed at me, for no reason.

Sorry I'm not clear on whether that is a 'yes' or a 'no' from you. Did you or did you not misrepresent what I said?
03-09-2017, 11:59 AM
OngBonga

Well, keith still tries to press my buttons, but he fails miserably.
03-09-2017, 12:01 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Sorry I'm not clear on whether that is a 'yes' or a 'no' from you. Did you or did you not misrepresent what I said?

How are you not clear? the first word of my post was "NO"

Your intentions were clear, and I made no misrepresentation.
03-09-2017, 12:02 PM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Haha this is like me when I first started posting here. Fighting the tide, getting butthurt when everyone else is laughing...

It only took me about three years to stop getting trolled by everyone who knew what buttons to press.

The funny thing is I'm not even trying to troll him. I'm just trying to get him to acknowledge how he keeps making up shit that others supposedly said.

Tho I agree it's funny he's having such a massive freakout over Fox News being called propaganda.
03-09-2017, 12:04 PM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

How are you not clear? the first word of my post was "NO"

Your intentions were clear, and I made no misrepresentation.

So when someone says something, rather than answer what they actually say, you feel it's within your rights to ascribe some other meaning to their words, and reply to that instead. Is that it?
03-09-2017, 12:05 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

If you keep quoting Fox News like it's some respected source of information, you can expect to be called out on it.

^This is pure, unadulterated, ass-hole-ery right here. This is you concocting a justification for ridiculing me.

How often do I quote Fox News?

Why should I expect to get 'called out' (which, apparently, is a nice way of saying 'shit on') whenever I cite them?

Seriously, tell me what the rules are? Where is the list of poop-approved sources that are allowed in this thread?
03-09-2017, 12:07 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

So when someone says something, rather than answer what they actually say, you feel it's within your rights to ascribe some other meaning to their words, and reply to that instead. Is that it?

You can't possibly suggest that your comments were not directed personally at me, solely for the purpose of ridicule, just because I get *some* of my news from a different source than you.

But I guess, I'll play along. So fine, what did you actually say?

Quote:

If you keep quoting Fox News like it's some respected source of information, you can expect to be called out on it.

You said that ^

Now explain to me how citing a fact, released by an official government agency, and reported accurately, without spin, bias, or partisanship, should result in me 'being called out'. Tell me why posting that link today, was SOOO deserving of your mean-spirited dismissal?
03-09-2017, 12:14 PM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Now explain to me how citing a fact, released by an official government agency, and reported accurately, without spin, bias, or partisanship, should result in me 'being called out'

Dude, take a time out.

I wasn't calling you out for quoting that specific piece of admittedly factual reporting by Fox. I was laughing that you got it from Fox, and that you seem to rely so heavily (note I didn't say exclusively) on Fox for your news, and that you seem to think it's unbiased (if I understand you correctly inasmuch as you argue that having high ratings makes a source respected and trustworthy). That whole conglomeration of things to me is funny.

And if you don't like that I don't respect Fox, well all I can say is you're just going to have to deal with it, sorry.
03-09-2017, 12:16 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Tho I agree it's funny he's having such a massive freakout over Fox News being called propaganda.

I really don't care if you think Fox is biased or not. It's not relevant.

This "freakout" as you call it, spawned from YOUR ridiculous reaction to me linking a factual article with verifiable statistics. there was no reason for that other than to be an argumentative douche bag. Nothing you said addressed the information in the article, or the analysis of it in my post.

You just played this shithead game where anytime Fox gets mentioned, you somehow believe you're justified in being a total dick.
03-09-2017, 12:18 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

And if you don't like that I don't respect Fox, well all I can say is you're just going to have to deal with it, sorry.

So anytime I quote Fox, you're allowed to de-rail a thread with petty attacks directed at me?? Fuck off!

If you disagree with Fox's information or opinion, there's a way to respond to that.

What you did today, was NOT it.
03-09-2017, 12:18 PM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You can't possibly suggest that your comments were not directed personally at me, solely for the purpose of ridicule, just because I get *some* of my news from a different source than you.

If you identify so strongly with Fox News that if someone criticises them, you take it as a personal attack on yourself, then that's something you need to get a grip on.

Do you have the same reaction every time someone has a go at Fox News? Jesus.
03-09-2017, 12:21 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I was laughing that you got it from Fox, and that you seem to rely so heavily (note I didn't say exclusively) on Fox for your news,

What's "heavily"? Again, have you kept score enough to tell me what % of links I post are Fox's?

What's the limit?

I'm begging you now....tell me what the rules are? Where is the list of poop-approved sources, and what's the cap on the number of times each can be used?

Why does it matter to you where I get my news? Why even bother making a post to "laugh at me". You admit to posting just to 'laugh at me'. You admit that you made a post for no reason other than to ridicule me. Out of nowhere, for no reason other than the fact htat i get my news from a different place than you.

You really think that's ok?
03-09-2017, 12:21 PM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

So anytime I quote Fox, you're allowed to de-rail a thread with petty attacks directed at me?? Fuck off!

If you disagree with Fox's information or opinion, there's a way to respond to that.

What you did today, was NOT it.

Well it generally takes at least two to derail a thread, so I guess my advice is that if you want to stay on topic then just don't respond to the criticism of your precious Fox News.
03-09-2017, 12:22 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Do you have the same reaction every time someone has a go at Fox News? Jesus.

No. Only when they do it to "laugh" at me specifically.

There was no reason, to 'have a go' at Fox news in this case. You did it only as a personal attack on me. Which is complete dick-headedness.

You should expect to be called out for it.
03-09-2017, 12:22 PM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What's "heavily"? Again, have you kept score enough to tell me what % of links I post are Fox's?

What's the limit?

I'm begging you now....tell me what the rules are? Where is the list of poop-approved sources, and what's the cap on the number of times each can be used?

Why does it matter to you where I get my news? Why even bother making a post to "laugh at me". You admit to posting just to 'laugh at me'. You admit that you made a post for no reason other than to ridicule me. Out of nowhere, for no reason other than the fact htat i get my news from a different place than you.

You really think that's ok?

Yes, yes I do.
03-09-2017, 12:23 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Well it generally takes at least two to derail a thread, so I guess my advice is that if you want to stay on topic then just don't respond to the criticism of your precious Fox News.

You really weren't criticizing fox news. You were attacking ME

Quote:

I was laughing that you got it from Fox,
03-09-2017, 12:23 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Yes, yes I do.

Then you're an ass hole
03-09-2017, 12:25 PM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Then you're an ass hole

Yes, yes I am.
03-09-2017, 12:44 PM
Poopadoop

Though to be fair I'm not the one who loses his shit every time someone states an opinion contrary to his own.
03-09-2017, 12:56 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Though to be fair I'm not the one who loses his shit every time someone states an opinion contrary to his own.

Now it's my turn to play semantics. Robust debate is not the same as 'losing your shit'.
03-09-2017, 12:56 PM
BananaStand

Anyway, back on topic. It does seem that there is at least anecdotal evidence to suggest that rigorous law enforcement is successful at deterring criminal behavior.

I wonder if that applies to drug use as well? Hmmm
03-09-2017, 12:57 PM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Now it's my turn to play semantics. Robust debate is not the same as 'losing your shit'.

That would have a lot more credence if it were coming from someone who hadn't just finished losing their shit.

I could quote every time you lost your shit but its' too much like work.
03-09-2017, 01:11 PM
BananaStand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I could quote every time you lost your shit but its' too much like work.

Kind of like it's too much work to figure out how often I actually do cite Fox news. (I'll bet it's below 20%)

And I'll also bet that the number of times I've lost my shit coincides pretty closely with the number of times I've been "called out" personally for merely expressing opposing political views.
03-09-2017, 01:12 PM
OngBonga

Quote:

I wonder if that applies to drug use as well? Hmmm

Can't I ever heard someone say "no thanks, that's illegal" when I passed them a joint.
03-09-2017, 01:13 PM
OngBonga

I've heard people say "no thanks, don't smoke it", but they don't then harp on about law and health and all that bollocks, they carry on with whatever they were talking about before.
03-09-2017, 01:17 PM
Poopadoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Kind of like it's too much work to figure out how often I actually do cite Fox news. (I'll bet it's below 20%)

It's often enough that we've noticed it, let's leave it at that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BananaStand

And I'll also bet that the number of times I've lost my shit coincides pretty closely with the number of times I've been "called out" personally for merely expressing opposing political views.

I would wager it correlates more closely with the number of topics you've posted on than it does with that.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:25 PM.

Image resizer by SevenSkins