Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

[ladajo]

I like the quote about "it is easier to get than alcohol"...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/10002114

and the driving is improved myth revisted (again),

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16961112


edit: corrected second link

[Betruger]

I still can't figure out how not doing drugs is any different from looking before crossing a street. Other than special cases like being poisoned e.g. as with date rape junk.

[MSimon]

And the pro-drugs coalition seems to be winning the war of opinion, with no worries to what it actually does to people (certainly not their problem now is it)...

And the cartels are winning the supply war. And corrupting governments as an added benefit.

The war of opinion is being won by experience. As more people get experience with these drugs - first and second hand - the opinion against them declines.

BTW Prohibition is one of the best forms of advertizing to children known to man. Forbidden fruit.

In countries where use is legal, rates of use by kids is below the kid use rates in the US.

=====

As I keep pointing out - "conservatives" are not engineers in this matter. Results are not important. Only intent matters.

I'm not a big fan of moral or social improvement by enforcers. Which is why I'm no fan of either major party in the US. The faith in government from all sides (on different issues) is touching. And funny - given the generally accepted results. (You know - waste, fraud, and abuse. With a healthy dose of corruption thrown in for flavoring.)

Especially funny is when Rs start in on the "nanny state".

[Betruger]

Forbidden fruit.

Not only that, but prohibition makes use such a more stressful experience than it ought to be that, IMHO, it probably increases the chance of addiction. In the... behavioral sense. In the sense that it becomes a habit, aside from any actual biological addiction.

That's how it is with sex anyway, as far as I've seen it in a few different countries on 3 continents.

[Diogenes]

APA to eliminate gender identity disorder, replace with ‘gender dysphoria’

In May 2013, the APA will publish the DSM-5, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. A significant change will be the reclassification of Gender Identity Disorder to “Gender Dysphoria.” “Dysphoria” is a word meaning “emotional distress.”

Proponents of the change believe it is a positive step, removing the stigma of mental illness from a group of people—not all of whom feel the need for psychological counselling. Critics, on the other hand, including one former president of the APA, maintain that the change is motivated by politics, rather than science.

Dr. Cummings said that the APA’s redefinition “ is more of a political issue than it is scientific,” he said. “All this talk is based on politics, attitude—not science. If you try to be scientific, you choose to be a homophobe.”

“When treatment, whether psychological or medical, is determined by politics, it’s very frightening.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/apa-to ... -dysphoria

[palladin9479]

And the pro-drugs coalition seems to be winning the war of opinion, with no worries to what it actually does to people (certainly not their problem now is it)...

*Cough*

The pro-drug coalition won the war of opinion back in 1933 with the removal of the prohibition on methylcarbinol. Even though methylcarbinol has been demonstrated to have a negative impairment on your judgement, ability to drive, work heavy machinery and function in a society. Addiction to methylcarbinol has destroyed countless lives through it's effect as a depressant of the central nervous system. Yet despite these immense negative side effects it's status as an illegal recreational substance was changed to being legal yet regulated.

As much as I hate using wiki, this part particularly applies and should end all attempt at debate on the matter.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition

After several years, prohibition became a failure in North America and elsewhere, as bootlegging (rum-running) became widespread and organized crime took control of the distribution of alcohol. Distilleries and breweries in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean flourished as their products were either consumed by visiting Americans or illegally exported to the United States. Chicago became notorious as a haven for prohibition dodgers during the time known as the Roaring Twenties. Prohibition generally came to an end in the late 1920s or early 1930s in most of North America and Europe, although a few locations continued prohibition for many more years.

Replace "alcohol" with "cannibis" and everything that happened then is happening now. Change Chicago for California and it's darn near identical.

Thus there is absolutely zero rational argument for supporting the prohibition of cannabis yet not supporting the prohibition of methylcarbinol. People can put on blinders all they want, can use mental gymnastics to convince themselves that cannibis is this evil world destroying substance yet methlycarbinol is perfectly safe, doesn't change the cold hard logic of the argument. If cannibis is bad then methlycarbinol is worse. If cannibis should be outlawed then methylcarbinol should also be outlawed.

I just want to hear the pro-prohibition come clean and admit they are for the prohibition of methylcarbinol or that their arguments are illogical.

[palladin9479]

One of the funniest things about the prohibition of methylcarbinol is who supported it and who didn't. It was a conservative christian Republican movement, sound familiar. The Republicans of the time would readily drink at their homes and even at the lavish political party's, yet would then turn around and publicly state they were against methylcarbinol.

So even in the 1920's Republicans were hypocrites. It took a moderate female Republican who no longer agreed with the hypocrisy to attempt to repeal the law. None of the Republicans would support her so she ... *gasp* switched sides and asked the Democrats who threw in with her. Eventually they gained enough support to repeal the amendment and the prohibition of methylcarbinol was dead.

Seeing as the same conservative christian Republicans are behind the prohibition of cannibis, and the Democrats are against it, I foresee a repeat of history. If there is one thing history loves to do, it's being a broken record.

[Diogenes]

And the pro-drugs coalition seems to be winning the war of opinion, with no worries to what it actually does to people (certainly not their problem now is it)...

*Cough*

The pro-drug coalition won the war of opinion back in 1933 with the removal of the prohibition on methylcarbinol. Even though methylcarbinol has been demonstrated to have a negative impairment on your judgement, ability to drive, work heavy machinery and function in a society. Addiction to methylcarbinol has destroyed countless lives through it's effect as a depressant of the central nervous system. Yet despite these immense negative side effects it's status as an illegal recreational substance was changed to being legal yet regulated.

As much as I hate using wiki, this part particularly applies and should end all attempt at debate on the matter.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition

After several years, prohibition became a failure in North America and elsewhere, as bootlegging (rum-running) became widespread and organized crime took control of the distribution of alcohol. Distilleries and breweries in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean flourished as their products were either consumed by visiting Americans or illegally exported to the United States. Chicago became notorious as a haven for prohibition dodgers during the time known as the Roaring Twenties. Prohibition generally came to an end in the late 1920s or early 1930s in most of North America and Europe, although a few locations continued prohibition for many more years.

Replace "alcohol" with "cannibis" and everything that happened then is happening now. Change Chicago for California and it's darn near identical.

Thus there is absolutely zero rational argument for supporting the prohibition of cannabis yet not supporting the prohibition of methylcarbinol. People can put on blinders all they want, can use mental gymnastics to convince themselves that cannibis is this evil world destroying substance yet methlycarbinol is perfectly safe, doesn't change the cold hard logic of the argument. If cannibis is bad then methlycarbinol is worse. If cannibis should be outlawed then methylcarbinol should also be outlawed.

I just want to hear the pro-prohibition come clean and admit they are for the prohibition of methylcarbinol or that their arguments are illogical.

Not a problem. I think alcohol should be more heavily regulated than it is. It wouldn't bother me greatly if it were prohibited. The stuff kills something like 75-100 thousand people per year. Many if not most, innocent, who's only fault is having come into the influence sphere of an irresponsible drunk. (but I am being redundant.)

We as a society have decided that a hundred thousand deaths per year is an acceptable price for alcohol usage. I think marijuana would be initially cheaper in terms of life.

I think the longer term effects of it as a "gateway drug" may (or maybe not) result in it being more dangerous than Alcohol. At this point, I say regulate it with licenses, and then let's wait and see what the consequences of tolerating it are.

[Diogenes]

One of the funniest things about the prohibition of methylcarbinol is who supported it and who didn't. It was a conservative christian Republican movement, sound familiar. The Republicans of the time would readily drink at their homes and even at the lavish political party's, yet would then turn around and publicly state they were against methylcarbinol.

I think your characterization is completely wrong, but facts don't get in the way of people like you. Even if we pretend you are right, You are still impugning the same people who abolished slavery and gave women the right to vote. No doubt you are uniformly opposed to all the work of this group of people. (And what is it with you regarding your pretentious use of the term "methylcarbinol" as if to imply you are intelligent because you looked up a chemical name for alcohol?)

It is a fact that the coalition that created prohibition was the same group of people that gave women the right to vote. (And previously had abolished slavery) You characterize the people who pushed the prohibition movement as being the same people who were drinking alcohol. This is an absolute F*CKING LIE, but again, you don't care what is the truth. Sure, wealthy big city Republicans threw parties and drank a lot. They were NOT the primary supporters of the prohibitionist movement. The vast bulk of the supporters were small town Christian women. Any support from Wealthy big city Republicans was artificial and only for political reasons. (Just as today) Their intent was to get in front of a movement they saw as ascendant. They did NOT favor prohibition, but dared not say so.

The Temperance league was anything but what you portray it as.

So even in the 1920's Republicans were hypocrites.

Blow it out your ass. You are either an intentional liar or an ignorant fool. *I* don't care what you think. As a matter of fact, given the idiocy i've seen coming from your direction, I much prefer that you hate and detest me. Nowadays a person can tell when they are on the correct side of an issue because the right people hate them.

It took a moderate female Republican who no longer agreed with the hypocrisy to attempt to repeal the law. None of the Republicans would support her so she ... *gasp* switched sides and asked the Democrats who threw in with her.

Who should be surprised that the party of Slavery, of lynching, of Jim Crow, Of Margret Sanger Eugenics, of Welfare slavery, of Vote fraud, of Abortion, of Perverted Sexual practices, of Kickbacks, of corruption, of Communism, of Lying cheating and stealing, would not support another deadly vice? No surprise there, if it has a component of evil in it, they are for it!

Eventually they gained enough support to repeal the amendment and the prohibition of methylcarbinol was dead.

Seeing as the same conservative christian Republicans are behind the prohibition of cannibis, and the Democrats are against it, I foresee a repeat of history.

Given the accuracy of your current understanding of history, I wouldn't worry about it turning out as you expect.

If there is one thing history loves to do, it's being a broken record.

Kinda like drug legalization supporters.

[Diogenes]

The latest in my ongoing effort to demonstrate that socially accepted conduct is constantly moving towards the debauched. It will eventually pass milestones that the bulk of you currently consider offensive. (but you won't by then.)



Toyota uses Topless Transgender in advertisement.




Image cropped. If you want to see estrogen enhanced male boobies, click on the youtube link to see the commercial.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVwJrAr7 ... r_embedded


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2922437/posts

[paperburn1]

I remember when the BOND girl/guy from your eyes only(i think) caused an uproar because he/she legs were vote the best in the world until they were found out to belong to a guy
http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/bondgirl.asp
This kinda makes sense in a weird way. In Japan there is a movement that basically involves making oneself gender neutral and the culmination is when one can not discern what gender you are by observation and question. Kind of a turning test for gender identity.

[choff]

From the prohibition era,

Four and twenty Yankee's sitting home all dry,
Took a trip to Kingston and bought a case of rye,
And when the case was opened the Yankee's did sing,
To hell with the president, god save the king!

[Diogenes]

First Civil Union Between Three Partners in Brazil Sparks Outrage

Controversy has been sparked as the first civil union between three separate partners was registered in Tupã, in the Northwestern region of Sao Paulo state, Brazil last week. The three-person union has shocked religious groups in the country, and sparked further concerns that the traditional family unit is being further eroded by the current day society.
Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news/fi ... Bef4smC.99

http://global.christianpost.com/news/fi ... age-80592/

[Diogenes]

Here Comes Incest, Just as Predicted

in April, 2007, Time Magazine featured a major article entitled, “Should Incest Be Legal?” The article noted that critics of the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas ruling in 2003, which struck down Texas’ anti-sodomy law, argued that the ruling would lead to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage and polygamy. “It turns out,” Time noted, “that the critics were right,” adding that plaintiffs were now “using Lawrence to challenge laws against incest.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelb ... page/full/


All too easy.

[Betruger]

It's like we're back in Classic Greece.