Canon: "Not sure one can do some drugs safely, per se. The training would be to minimize damage. But I can't predict what will happen. Your concerns are entirely valid."

I agree. I believe rehab is the only real solution.

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Canon said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Don't think I have commented on this thread, but would point out that it starts with an unproven assumption by asking why "so many" flee from police etc. I suspect that "so many" don't flee police etc. we just see the ones that do, and that influences our perception.

---

If we cut back on the ridiculous laws that police have to enforce, that multiply both their contact with citizens and the frustration of those citizens when their freedoms are infringed, we could get criminal justice reform that meant something.

Start by ending the drug war we continue to lose.

---

The hundreds of thousands of deaths in our country from the opioid crisis in recent years should be a pretty good indicator that legalizing all dangerous drugs is probably not a good idea. Just my opinion.

---

Of the hundreds of thousands mentally ill individuals scratching a pathetic existence on the streets..........a significant percentage were initially brain damaged by heroin. meth or crack use.

But of course lets sound 'cool' and advocate the widespread availability of such narcotics.



Gotta luv the internet .

---

I don't think a discussion should be a nonstarter. From a public policy perspective, the cons are certainly centered around those who would make themselves burdens on society via unchecked addiction. That is unarguably a major problem. However, the pro side removes a very significant (maybe the most significant) nexus around which organized crime and gangs coalesce. With no illegal market to profit from, the need for private enforcement of illegal contracts (drug sales, prostitution, etc) dries up.

Purely from a public policy point of view, it would be valuable to try and calculate the ultimate outcome differences of the two policies. We have several states or cities that may offer us test cases to analyze over the next several years, the best data coming from those that legalized vs simply stopping prosecution of existing laws.

---

Certainly respect your comments.....only time will tell.

However I have worked in the homeless shelters, visited loved ones in mental hospitals, and attended the funerals of too many drug users.

---

I don't doubt it. Each death like that individually is terrible for those remaining.

I'm just curious if the deaths from illegal sales (including unregulated sales to minors), when added to those from criminal organized violence around illegal drugs, might be higher.

There's no doubt we would be trading one societal ill for another. The question is, will it be a lesser ill and will it allow regulation that ameliorates it, particularly around use by minors?

---

Portugal has shown that freedom + harm reduction lowered deaths, etc. We should try it.

---

This would be a cultural shift. It should be slow and allow for time to train the population on how to use those drugs safely.

---

With respect............how does anyone use heroin safely ?

Have had doctors repeatedly tell me even one hit of heroin can result in Type One Bipolar Disorder. That additional hits can result in permanent brain damage. That similar realties exist with meth and crack cocaine use.

Our country doesn't take proper care of its mentally ill now.......why would anyone believe that care would improve with hundreds of thousands of additional addicts competing for the same ( often nonexistent ) hospital space ?

Many folks don't realize.......but in many communities the de facto ' mental heath facility ' is the county jail. The few mental wards available are usually full.

Adding hundreds of thousands of more patients via the legalization of heroin, meth and crack would only expand the nightmare .

---

Doctors prescribe it for a variety of conditions under the name Diamorphine. But they do it in Europe, so...

---

Then shoot up goofus.

You're already so ****ed up it would be hard to tell the difference .

---

Triggered by facts.

---

Muddled by years of recreational chemicals .

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Canon said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Don't think I have commented on this thread, but would point out that it starts with an unproven assumption by asking why "so many" flee from police etc. I suspect that "so many" don't flee police etc. we just see the ones that do, and that influences our perception.

---

If we cut back on the ridiculous laws that police have to enforce, that multiply both their contact with citizens and the frustration of those citizens when their freedoms are infringed, we could get criminal justice reform that meant something.

Start by ending the drug war we continue to lose.

---

The hundreds of thousands of deaths in our country from the opioid crisis in recent years should be a pretty good indicator that legalizing all dangerous drugs is probably not a good idea. Just my opinion.

---

Of the hundreds of thousands mentally ill individuals scratching a pathetic existence on the streets..........a significant percentage were initially brain damaged by heroin. meth or crack use.

But of course lets sound 'cool' and advocate the widespread availability of such narcotics.



Gotta luv the internet .

---

I don't think a discussion should be a nonstarter. From a public policy perspective, the cons are certainly centered around those who would make themselves burdens on society via unchecked addiction. That is unarguably a major problem. However, the pro side removes a very significant (maybe the most significant) nexus around which organized crime and gangs coalesce. With no illegal market to profit from, the need for private enforcement of illegal contracts (drug sales, prostitution, etc) dries up.

Purely from a public policy point of view, it would be valuable to try and calculate the ultimate outcome differences of the two policies. We have several states or cities that may offer us test cases to analyze over the next several years, the best data coming from those that legalized vs simply stopping prosecution of existing laws.

---

Certainly respect your comments.....only time will tell.

However I have worked in the homeless shelters, visited loved ones in mental hospitals, and attended the funerals of too many drug users.

---

I don't doubt it. Each death like that individually is terrible for those remaining.

I'm just curious if the deaths from illegal sales (including unregulated sales to minors), when added to those from criminal organized violence around illegal drugs, might be higher.

There's no doubt we would be trading one societal ill for another. The question is, will it be a lesser ill and will it allow regulation that ameliorates it, particularly around use by minors?

---

Portugal has shown that freedom + harm reduction lowered deaths, etc. We should try it.

---

This would be a cultural shift. It should be slow and allow for time to train the population on how to use those drugs safely.

---

With respect............how does anyone use heroin safely ?

Have had doctors repeatedly tell me even one hit of heroin can result in Type One Bipolar Disorder. That additional hits can result in permanent brain damage. That similar realties exist with meth and crack cocaine use.

Our country doesn't take proper care of its mentally ill now.......why would anyone believe that care would improve with hundreds of thousands of additional addicts competing for the same ( often nonexistent ) hospital space ?

Many folks don't realize.......but in many communities the de facto ' mental heath facility ' is the county jail. The few mental wards available are usually full.

Adding hundreds of thousands of more patients via the legalization of heroin, meth and crack would only expand the nightmare .

---

Doctors prescribe it for a variety of conditions under the name Diamorphine. But they do it in Europe, so...

---

Then shoot up goofus.

You're already so ****ed up it would be hard to tell the difference .

---

Triggered by facts.

---

Muddled by years of recreational chemicals .

---

Lol, no. I am advocating for a policy to benefit others, not myself.

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Canon said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Don't think I have commented on this thread, but would point out that it starts with an unproven assumption by asking why "so many" flee from police etc. I suspect that "so many" don't flee police etc. we just see the ones that do, and that influences our perception.

---

If we cut back on the ridiculous laws that police have to enforce, that multiply both their contact with citizens and the frustration of those citizens when their freedoms are infringed, we could get criminal justice reform that meant something.

Start by ending the drug war we continue to lose.

---

The hundreds of thousands of deaths in our country from the opioid crisis in recent years should be a pretty good indicator that legalizing all dangerous drugs is probably not a good idea. Just my opinion.

---

Of the hundreds of thousands mentally ill individuals scratching a pathetic existence on the streets..........a significant percentage were initially brain damaged by heroin. meth or crack use.

But of course lets sound 'cool' and advocate the widespread availability of such narcotics.



Gotta luv the internet .

---

I don't think a discussion should be a nonstarter. From a public policy perspective, the cons are certainly centered around those who would make themselves burdens on society via unchecked addiction. That is unarguably a major problem. However, the pro side removes a very significant (maybe the most significant) nexus around which organized crime and gangs coalesce. With no illegal market to profit from, the need for private enforcement of illegal contracts (drug sales, prostitution, etc) dries up.

Purely from a public policy point of view, it would be valuable to try and calculate the ultimate outcome differences of the two policies. We have several states or cities that may offer us test cases to analyze over the next several years, the best data coming from those that legalized vs simply stopping prosecution of existing laws.

---

Certainly respect your comments.....only time will tell.

However I have worked in the homeless shelters, visited loved ones in mental hospitals, and attended the funerals of too many drug users.

---

I don't doubt it. Each death like that individually is terrible for those remaining.

I'm just curious if the deaths from illegal sales (including unregulated sales to minors), when added to those from criminal organized violence around illegal drugs, might be higher.

There's no doubt we would be trading one societal ill for another. The question is, will it be a lesser ill and will it allow regulation that ameliorates it, particularly around use by minors?

---

Portugal has shown that freedom + harm reduction lowered deaths, etc. We should try it.

---

This would be a cultural shift. It should be slow and allow for time to train the population on how to use those drugs safely.

---

With respect............how does anyone use heroin safely ?

Have had doctors repeatedly tell me even one hit of heroin can result in Type One Bipolar Disorder. That additional hits can result in permanent brain damage. That similar realties exist with meth and crack cocaine use.

Our country doesn't take proper care of its mentally ill now.......why would anyone believe that care would improve with hundreds of thousands of additional addicts competing for the same ( often nonexistent ) hospital space ?

Many folks don't realize.......but in many communities the de facto ' mental heath facility ' is the county jail. The few mental wards available are usually full.

Adding hundreds of thousands of more patients via the legalization of heroin, meth and crack would only expand the nightmare .

---

Doctors prescribe it for a variety of conditions under the name Diamorphine. But they do it in Europe, so...

---

Then shoot up goofus.

You're already so ****ed up it would be hard to tell the difference .

---

Triggered by facts.

---

Muddled by years of recreational chemicals .

---

Lol, no. I am advocating for a policy to benefit others, not myself.

---

Only 'benefit' would be to the casket industry.

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Canon said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Don't think I have commented on this thread, but would point out that it starts with an unproven assumption by asking why "so many" flee from police etc. I suspect that "so many" don't flee police etc. we just see the ones that do, and that influences our perception.

---

If we cut back on the ridiculous laws that police have to enforce, that multiply both their contact with citizens and the frustration of those citizens when their freedoms are infringed, we could get criminal justice reform that meant something.

Start by ending the drug war we continue to lose.

---

The hundreds of thousands of deaths in our country from the opioid crisis in recent years should be a pretty good indicator that legalizing all dangerous drugs is probably not a good idea. Just my opinion.

---

Of the hundreds of thousands mentally ill individuals scratching a pathetic existence on the streets..........a significant percentage were initially brain damaged by heroin. meth or crack use.

But of course lets sound 'cool' and advocate the widespread availability of such narcotics.



Gotta luv the internet .

---

I don't think a discussion should be a nonstarter. From a public policy perspective, the cons are certainly centered around those who would make themselves burdens on society via unchecked addiction. That is unarguably a major problem. However, the pro side removes a very significant (maybe the most significant) nexus around which organized crime and gangs coalesce. With no illegal market to profit from, the need for private enforcement of illegal contracts (drug sales, prostitution, etc) dries up.

Purely from a public policy point of view, it would be valuable to try and calculate the ultimate outcome differences of the two policies. We have several states or cities that may offer us test cases to analyze over the next several years, the best data coming from those that legalized vs simply stopping prosecution of existing laws.

---

Certainly respect your comments.....only time will tell.

However I have worked in the homeless shelters, visited loved ones in mental hospitals, and attended the funerals of too many drug users.

---

I don't doubt it. Each death like that individually is terrible for those remaining.

I'm just curious if the deaths from illegal sales (including unregulated sales to minors), when added to those from criminal organized violence around illegal drugs, might be higher.

There's no doubt we would be trading one societal ill for another. The question is, will it be a lesser ill and will it allow regulation that ameliorates it, particularly around use by minors?

---

Portugal has shown that freedom + harm reduction lowered deaths, etc. We should try it.

---

This would be a cultural shift. It should be slow and allow for time to train the population on how to use those drugs safely.

---

With respect............how does anyone use heroin safely ?

Have had doctors repeatedly tell me even one hit of heroin can result in Type One Bipolar Disorder. That additional hits can result in permanent brain damage. That similar realties exist with meth and crack cocaine use.

Our country doesn't take proper care of its mentally ill now.......why would anyone believe that care would improve with hundreds of thousands of additional addicts competing for the same ( often nonexistent ) hospital space ?

Many folks don't realize.......but in many communities the de facto ' mental heath facility ' is the county jail. The few mental wards available are usually full.

Adding hundreds of thousands of more patients via the legalization of heroin, meth and crack would only expand the nightmare .

---

Doctors prescribe it for a variety of conditions under the name Diamorphine. But they do it in Europe, so...

---

Then shoot up goofus.

You're already so ****ed up it would be hard to tell the difference .

---

Triggered by facts.

---

Muddled by years of recreational chemicals .

---

Lol, no. I am advocating for a policy to benefit others, not myself.

---

Only 'benefit' would be to the casket industry.

---

Good research says otherwise. I have posted it before and you chose to ignore it.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Why are you trying to cancel her?

You guys don't engage. You care about nothing so much as expressing rage at your your own mediocrity by projecting it onto anyone else. It'd be sad if it weren't so predictable.

It doesn't matter how patently false your idols prove out to be (telling you to drink bleach, saying COVID is a hoax that will just "go away", or that there are MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE of a stolen election.... run by Republicans in Arizona and Georgia and Pennsylvania... that are juuuuust beyond reach, etc.) you just keep coming back to the well to drink even more of this poison.

But you blame others who have even less power than you do, because you just need someone else to blame for the fact that the sands of your life are slipping away, and the lies you tell yourself are wearing thin.

Good luck with all that.

---

Speaking of heroin. Good God Almighty!

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Why are you trying to cancel her?

You guys don't engage. You care about nothing so much as expressing rage at your your own mediocrity by projecting it onto anyone else. It'd be sad if it weren't so predictable.

It doesn't matter how patently false your idols prove out to be (telling you to drink bleach, saying COVID is a hoax that will just "go away", or that there are MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE of a stolen election.... run by Republicans in Arizona and Georgia and Pennsylvania... that are juuuuust beyond reach, etc.) you just keep coming back to the well to drink even more of this poison.

But you blame others who have even less power than you do, because you just need someone else to blame for the fact that the sands of your life are slipping away, and the lies you tell yourself are wearing thin.

Good luck with all that.

---

You are right. Trump's lies cannot stand.

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Canon said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Don't think I have commented on this thread, but would point out that it starts with an unproven assumption by asking why "so many" flee from police etc. I suspect that "so many" don't flee police etc. we just see the ones that do, and that influences our perception.

---

If we cut back on the ridiculous laws that police have to enforce, that multiply both their contact with citizens and the frustration of those citizens when their freedoms are infringed, we could get criminal justice reform that meant something.

Start by ending the drug war we continue to lose.

---

The hundreds of thousands of deaths in our country from the opioid crisis in recent years should be a pretty good indicator that legalizing all dangerous drugs is probably not a good idea. Just my opinion.

---

Of the hundreds of thousands mentally ill individuals scratching a pathetic existence on the streets..........a significant percentage were initially brain damaged by heroin. meth or crack use.

But of course lets sound 'cool' and advocate the widespread availability of such narcotics.



Gotta luv the internet .

---

I don't think a discussion should be a nonstarter. From a public policy perspective, the cons are certainly centered around those who would make themselves burdens on society via unchecked addiction. That is unarguably a major problem. However, the pro side removes a very significant (maybe the most significant) nexus around which organized crime and gangs coalesce. With no illegal market to profit from, the need for private enforcement of illegal contracts (drug sales, prostitution, etc) dries up.

Purely from a public policy point of view, it would be valuable to try and calculate the ultimate outcome differences of the two policies. We have several states or cities that may offer us test cases to analyze over the next several years, the best data coming from those that legalized vs simply stopping prosecution of existing laws.

---

Certainly respect your comments.....only time will tell.

However I have worked in the homeless shelters, visited loved ones in mental hospitals, and attended the funerals of too many drug users.

---

I don't doubt it. Each death like that individually is terrible for those remaining.

I'm just curious if the deaths from illegal sales (including unregulated sales to minors), when added to those from criminal organized violence around illegal drugs, might be higher.

There's no doubt we would be trading one societal ill for another. The question is, will it be a lesser ill and will it allow regulation that ameliorates it, particularly around use by minors?

---

Portugal has shown that freedom + harm reduction lowered deaths, etc. We should try it.

---

This would be a cultural shift. It should be slow and allow for time to train the population on how to use those drugs safely.

---

With respect............how does anyone use heroin safely ?

Have had doctors repeatedly tell me even one hit of heroin can result in Type One Bipolar Disorder. That additional hits can result in permanent brain damage. That similar realties exist with meth and crack cocaine use.

Our country doesn't take proper care of its mentally ill now.......why would anyone believe that care would improve with hundreds of thousands of additional addicts competing for the same ( often nonexistent ) hospital space ?

Many folks don't realize.......but in many communities the de facto ' mental heath facility ' is the county jail. The few mental wards available are usually full.

Adding hundreds of thousands of more patients via the legalization of heroin, meth and crack would only expand the nightmare .

---

Doctors prescribe it for a variety of conditions under the name Diamorphine. But they do it in Europe, so...

---

Then shoot up goofus.

You're already so ****ed up it would be hard to tell the difference .

---

Triggered by facts.

---

Muddled by years of recreational chemicals .

---

Lol, no. I am advocating for a policy to benefit others, not myself.

---

Only 'benefit' would be to the casket industry.

---

Good research says otherwise. I have posted it before and you chose to ignore it.

---

Portugal and the Unites States are two different cultures entirely . Any reasonable/rational individual would factor that reality into the analysis .


And even in Portugal this little experiment has been by no means a clear cut success.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Canon said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Why are you trying to cancel her?

You guys don't engage. You care about nothing so much as expressing rage at your your own mediocrity by projecting it onto anyone else. It'd be sad if it weren't so predictable.

It doesn't matter how patently false your idols prove out to be (telling you to drink bleach, saying COVID is a hoax that will just "go away", or that there are MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE of a stolen election.... run by Republicans in Arizona and Georgia and Pennsylvania... that are juuuuust beyond reach, etc.) you just keep coming back to the well to drink even more of this poison.

But you blame others who have even less power than you do, because you just need someone else to blame for the fact that the sands of your life are slipping away, and the lies you tell yourself are wearing thin.

Good luck with all that.

---

Your entire post is a study in why people with an interest in honest and rational debate stop engaging people like you. One does not continue to spend time, which could be better used elsewhere, engaging with those who mischaracterize, ubiquitously use absurd straw men or simply lie, outright.

Setting aside the size of mountains, each 'example' you gave above is not something that actually happened. We have a word for that sort of claim. Oh yes, we call it a lie.

Engaging with lies, other than to ridicule them, is like agreeing to a canoe trip with imaginary oars. Paddle all you like; nothing useful will ever happen. No thank you.

---

You need to cut Brooks a little slack. He is just happy to be here! LOL!!!

Have never seen a grown, educated man so ashamed of being born white, except for maybe Waco1947.

---

On his 'good' days...I like Brooks .

Believe him to be sincere .

Unfortunately he goes off the rails frequently .

Regardless, I wish him good fortune and a peaceful life.

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Triggered by facts.

---

Muddled by years of recreational chemicals .

---

Lol, no. I am advocating for a policy to benefit others, not myself.

---

Only 'benefit' would be to the casket industry.

---

Good research says otherwise. I have posted it before and you chose to ignore it.

---

Portugal and the Unites States are two different cultures entirely . Any reasonable/rational individual would factor that reality into the analysis .


And even in Portugal this little experiment has been by no means a clear cut success.

---

They were from the US but whatever, I know you don't read things if they contradict your position.

Buddha Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Don't think I have commented on this thread, but would point out that it starts with an unproven assumption by asking why "so many" flee from police etc. I suspect that "so many" don't flee police etc. we just see the ones that do, and that influences our perception.

---

If we cut back on the ridiculous laws that police have to enforce, that multiply both their contact with citizens and the frustration of those citizens when their freedoms are infringed, we could get criminal justice reform that meant something.

Start by ending the drug war we continue to lose.

---

The hundreds of thousands of deaths in our country from the opioid crisis in recent years should be a pretty good indicator that legalizing all dangerous drugs is probably not a good idea. Just my opinion.

---

A lot of these overdoses are started by addiction to prescription drugs. Once again, strictly an American problem. Stop advertisements of drugs on television altogether.

---

Completely agree with this. Problem is, Big Pharma sends more money to congressional candidates than any industry in the world, and it's not even close. Despite the fact that the top pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. all have extensive felony records for the blatant disregard of human life, we continue to allow them to have free reign.

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Triggered by facts.

---

Muddled by years of recreational chemicals .

---

Lol, no. I am advocating for a policy to benefit others, not myself.

---

Only 'benefit' would be to the casket industry.

---

Good research says otherwise. I have posted it before and you chose to ignore it.

---

Portugal and the Unites States are two different cultures entirely . Any reasonable/rational individual would factor that reality into the analysis .


And even in Portugal this little experiment has been by no means a clear cut success.

---

They were from the US but whatever, I know you don't read things if they contradict your position.

---

You 'know' extremely little and have no real interest in expanding your world view.

Mothra said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Don't think I have commented on this thread, but would point out that it starts with an unproven assumption by asking why "so many" flee from police etc. I suspect that "so many" don't flee police etc. we just see the ones that do, and that influences our perception.

---

If we cut back on the ridiculous laws that police have to enforce, that multiply both their contact with citizens and the frustration of those citizens when their freedoms are infringed, we could get criminal justice reform that meant something.

Start by ending the drug war we continue to lose.

---

The hundreds of thousands of deaths in our country from the opioid crisis in recent years should be a pretty good indicator that legalizing all dangerous drugs is probably not a good idea. Just my opinion.

---

A lot of these overdoses are started by addiction to prescription drugs. Once again, strictly an American problem. Stop advertisements of drugs on television altogether.

---

Completely agree with this. Problem is, Big Pharma sends more money to congressional candidates than any industry in the world, and it's not even close. Despite the fact that the top pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. all have extensive felony records for the blatant disregard of human life, we continue to allow them to have free reign.

---

Big government is not the solution to Big X.

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Don't think I have commented on this thread, but would point out that it starts with an unproven assumption by asking why "so many" flee from police etc. I suspect that "so many" don't flee police etc. we just see the ones that do, and that influences our perception.

---

If we cut back on the ridiculous laws that police have to enforce, that multiply both their contact with citizens and the frustration of those citizens when their freedoms are infringed, we could get criminal justice reform that meant something.

Start by ending the drug war we continue to lose.

---

The hundreds of thousands of deaths in our country from the opioid crisis in recent years should be a pretty good indicator that legalizing all dangerous drugs is probably not a good idea. Just my opinion.

---

A lot of these overdoses are started by addiction to prescription drugs. Once again, strictly an American problem. Stop advertisements of drugs on television altogether.

---

Completely agree with this. Problem is, Big Pharma sends more money to congressional candidates than any industry in the world, and it's not even close. Despite the fact that the top pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. all have extensive felony records for the blatant disregard of human life, we continue to allow them to have free reign.

---

Big government is not the solution to Big X.

---

You continue to confuse corporatism with libertarianism. The two are decidedly different.

---

Libertarians believe in less government, you advocate for more: "Big" Pharm, "Big" Tech, etc.

The only thing I'm confused about is why someone who claims to be a conservative is so keen on enlarging the scope and power of government to infringe on free citizens.

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The hundreds of thousands of deaths in our country from the opioid crisis in recent years should be a pretty good indicator that legalizing all dangerous drugs is probably not a good idea. Just my opinion.

---

A lot of these overdoses are started by addiction to prescription drugs. Once again, strictly an American problem. Stop advertisements of drugs on television altogether.

---

Completely agree with this. Problem is, Big Pharma sends more money to congressional candidates than any industry in the world, and it's not even close. Despite the fact that the top pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. all have extensive felony records for the blatant disregard of human life, we continue to allow them to have free reign.

---

Big government is not the solution to Big X.

---

You continue to confuse corporatism with libertarianism. The two are decidedly different.

---

Libertarians believe in less government, you advocate for more: "Big" Pharm, "Big" Tech, etc.

The only thing I'm confused about is why someone who claims to be a conservative is so keen on enlarging the scope and power of government to infringe on free citizens.

---

I do not advocate for big govt., much less big pharma and big tech. Instead, I favor free market capitalism and equal treatment under the law - a decidedly conservative position. In short, I favor a laissez fair approach to corporations rather than a system which embraces the interests of big corporations, as you do (see your advocacy of Section 230 protections for big tech). Your approach often times results in favorable government treatment of big business at the expense of the general public, and is contrary to a laissez fair free market approach.

---

Yep

If these tech publishing platforms take a role of actively deciding what content is allowed or not allowed, t those companies should not receive the extra protection that 230 provides. The minute they decide what to allow and what to delete, they become a publisher and cease being a platform

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Don't think I have commented on this thread, but would point out that it starts with an unproven assumption by asking why "so many" flee from police etc. I suspect that "so many" don't flee police etc. we just see the ones that do, and that influences our perception.

---

If we cut back on the ridiculous laws that police have to enforce, that multiply both their contact with citizens and the frustration of those citizens when their freedoms are infringed, we could get criminal justice reform that meant something.

Start by ending the drug war we continue to lose.

---

The hundreds of thousands of deaths in our country from the opioid crisis in recent years should be a pretty good indicator that legalizing all dangerous drugs is probably not a good idea. Just my opinion.

---

A lot of these overdoses are started by addiction to prescription drugs. Once again, strictly an American problem. Stop advertisements of drugs on television altogether.

---

Completely agree with this. Problem is, Big Pharma sends more money to congressional candidates than any industry in the world, and it's not even close. Despite the fact that the top pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. all have extensive felony records for the blatant disregard of human life, we continue to allow them to have free reign.

---

Big government is not the solution to Big X.

---

You continue to confuse corporatism with libertarianism. The two are decidedly different.

---

Libertarians believe in less government, you advocate for more: "Big" Pharm, "Big" Tech, etc.

The only thing I'm confused about is why someone who claims to be a conservative is so keen on enlarging the scope and power of government to infringe on free citizens.

---

There are times where government should intervene. Otherwise big business will hijack capitalism and hijack government. It's an inevitable cycle, and that is one of the few times we need govt.

Buddha Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Don't think I have commented on this thread, but would point out that it starts with an unproven assumption by asking why "so many" flee from police etc. I suspect that "so many" don't flee police etc. we just see the ones that do, and that influences our perception.

---

If we cut back on the ridiculous laws that police have to enforce, that multiply both their contact with citizens and the frustration of those citizens when their freedoms are infringed, we could get criminal justice reform that meant something.

Start by ending the drug war we continue to lose.

---

The hundreds of thousands of deaths in our country from the opioid crisis in recent years should be a pretty good indicator that legalizing all dangerous drugs is probably not a good idea. Just my opinion.

---

A lot of these overdoses are started by addiction to prescription drugs. Once again, strictly an American problem. Stop advertisements of drugs on television altogether.

---

Completely agree with this. Problem is, Big Pharma sends more money to congressional candidates than any industry in the world, and it's not even close. Despite the fact that the top pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. all have extensive felony records for the blatant disregard of human life, we continue to allow them to have free reign.

---

Big government is not the solution to Big X.

---

You continue to confuse corporatism with libertarianism. The two are decidedly different.

---

Libertarians believe in less government, you advocate for more: "Big" Pharm, "Big" Tech, etc.

The only thing I'm confused about is why someone who claims to be a conservative is so keen on enlarging the scope and power of government to infringe on free citizens.

---

There are times where government should intervene. Otherwise big business will hijack capitalism and hijack government. It's an inevitable cycle, and that is one of the few times we need govt.

---

Business cannot hijack capitalism without the assistance of government.

Buddha Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

quash said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Don't think I have commented on this thread, but would point out that it starts with an unproven assumption by asking why "so many" flee from police etc. I suspect that "so many" don't flee police etc. we just see the ones that do, and that influences our perception.

---

If we cut back on the ridiculous laws that police have to enforce, that multiply both their contact with citizens and the frustration of those citizens when their freedoms are infringed, we could get criminal justice reform that meant something.

Start by ending the drug war we continue to lose.

---

The hundreds of thousands of deaths in our country from the opioid crisis in recent years should be a pretty good indicator that legalizing all dangerous drugs is probably not a good idea. Just my opinion.

---

A lot of these overdoses are started by addiction to prescription drugs. Once again, strictly an American problem. Stop advertisements of drugs on television altogether.

---

Completely agree with this. Problem is, Big Pharma sends more money to congressional candidates than any industry in the world, and it's not even close. Despite the fact that the top pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. all have extensive felony records for the blatant disregard of human life, we continue to allow them to have free reign.

---

Big government is not the solution to Big X.

---

You continue to confuse corporatism with libertarianism. The two are decidedly different.

---

Libertarians believe in less government, you advocate for more: "Big" Pharm, "Big" Tech, etc.

The only thing I'm confused about is why someone who claims to be a conservative is so keen on enlarging the scope and power of government to infringe on free citizens.

---

There are times where government should intervene. Otherwise big business will hijack capitalism and hijack government. It's an inevitable cycle, and that is one of the few times we need govt.

---

Business cannot hijack capitalism without the assistance of government.

---

Business will inevitably hijack govt if completely left to its own devices. Business and government are in a constant power struggle in a capitalist society. We want business to drive things, but business needs to be kept in check from time to time. Otherwise business consolidates industries to a point where competition is squashed completely, and it becomes powerful enough to influence politicians for its own gain. Monopolies (or near monopolies) will always corrupt a government. It needs govt intervention before it reaches that point.

We have half a dozen industries in the US that are not far off from this. It's bad for everyone if the industry titans are not kept in check. They will operate as a kind of mafia if completely left unchecked. Same goes for each division of government. Absolutely power corrupts absolutely, both in government and business. It plays out like this everyday all over the world.

---

Yup. Well said. One of these things we agree on.

I think libertarians often confuse libertarianism with corporatism.

Canon said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Why are you trying to cancel her?

You guys don't engage. You care about nothing so much as expressing rage at your your own mediocrity by projecting it onto anyone else. It'd be sad if it weren't so predictable.

It doesn't matter how patently false your idols prove out to be (telling you to drink bleach, saying COVID is a hoax that will just "go away", or that there are MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE of a stolen election.... run by Republicans in Arizona and Georgia and Pennsylvania... that are juuuuust beyond reach, etc.) you just keep coming back to the well to drink even more of this poison.

But you blame others who have even less power than you do, because you just need someone else to blame for the fact that the sands of your life are slipping away, and the lies you tell yourself are wearing thin.

Good luck with all that.

---

Your entire post is a study in why people with an interest in honest and rational debate stop engaging people like you. One does not continue to spend time, which could be better used elsewhere, engaging with those who mischaracterize, ubiquitously use absurd straw men or simply lie, outright.

Setting aside the size of mountains, each 'example' you gave above is not something that actually happened. We have a word for that sort of claim. Oh yes, we call it a lie.

Engaging with lies, other than to ridicule them, is like agreeing to a canoe trip with imaginary oars. Paddle all you like; nothing useful will ever happen. No thank you.

---

Where did I lie?

You make claims about the Big Lie. Y'all talk about ANTIFA. You have people here who talk about replacement theory. You have people here who post absolutely untruthful drivel about crime rates and refuse to admit anything is racist.

Where do y'all get off saying anything is a lie?

Mothra said:

---

quash said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The hundreds of thousands of deaths in our country from the opioid crisis in recent years should be a pretty good indicator that legalizing all dangerous drugs is probably not a good idea. Just my opinion.

---

A lot of these overdoses are started by addiction to prescription drugs. Once again, strictly an American problem. Stop advertisements of drugs on television altogether.

---

Completely agree with this. Problem is, Big Pharma sends more money to congressional candidates than any industry in the world, and it's not even close. Despite the fact that the top pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. all have extensive felony records for the blatant disregard of human life, we continue to allow them to have free reign.

---

Big government is not the solution to Big X.

---

You continue to confuse corporatism with libertarianism. The two are decidedly different.

---

Libertarians believe in less government, you advocate for more: "Big" Pharm, "Big" Tech, etc.

The only thing I'm confused about is why someone who claims to be a conservative is so keen on enlarging the scope and power of government to infringe on free citizens.

---

I do not advocate for big govt., much less big pharma and big tech. Instead, I favor free market capitalism and equal treatment under the law - a decidedly conservative position. In short, I favor a laissez fair approach to corporations rather than a system which embraces the interests of big corporations, as you do (see your advocacy of Section 230 protections for big tech). Your approach often times results in favorable government treatment of big business at the expense of the general public, and is contrary to a laissez fair free market approach.

---

Here's what I don't get. Laissez Faire doesn't *actually* work. It runs counter to Adam Smith's ideals, as well. Everything in the Wealth of Nations revolves around the concept of a fair and defined marketplace. The invisible hand will work either way, but it is only sustainable when there is an actual cost to breaking a market.

The Baker will work to efficiently sell their bread at the right price point/gain through fair competition right up until the point there is a cost from a failure to do so. The problem is that the larger the market, the more unwieldy it becomes, and the easier it is to subvert the system. In laissez faire markets, corruption often reigns through monopoly or subterfuge.

Look at cable companies since deregulation.

I think there's a reason why there are no places where a true laissez faire market has been sustained at any sort of scale. I'd love to see examples otherwise. (Legit economics nerd over here. I believe in market forces and the "invisible hand" as a way of allocating resources, I just see that it has absolutely no moral core and therefore is incompatible with a society that values merit).

Do you want to be respected as superiors or as equals? If you are not respected as a superior and "only" repected as equals , do you interpret that as being disrespected?

Canon said:

---

robby44 said:

---

---

They told him 29 times to exit the vehicle. He refused. I suppose they could have tried to coax him out with a puppy. Or, alternatively, he could have complied with lawful orders after perhaps the 23rd time he was told?

---

He was concerned about getting shot. Given the behavior of these officers, his concern was justified.

C. Jordan said:

---

Canon said:

---

robby44 said:

---

---

They told him 29 times to exit the vehicle. He refused. I suppose they could have tried to coax him out with a puppy. Or, alternatively, he could have complied with lawful orders after perhaps the 23rd time he was told?

---

He was concerned about getting shot. Given the behavior of these officers, his concern was justified.

---

BS!

He was looking for a big payday. Look at his dash camera. You are telling me that is the face and demeanor of someone concerned about getting shot???? BS!!

I'm not saying the officers were right but either this guy is severely mentally challenged, was on quaaludes or was indeed looking for an opportunity to make this police interaction into a huge payday for himself.

Go back to my first post.............Chris Rock understands.

Thee University said:

---

Go back to my first post.............Chris Rock understands.

---

So you wear a mask because the state told you to.

quash said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Go back to my first post.............Chris Rock understands.

---

So you wear a mask because the state told you to.

---

Absolutely.

I have no problem obeying laws and requests. In this China Flu case it makes sense to not only protect myself but to be an example to others.