TheeBadOne
Moderator
Before and after photos (4-5 years of use of meth)
Faces of drug legalization
- Thread starter TheeBadOne
- Start date
- Status
Worst thread title ever, since all those progressions were during the current drug prohibition.
Find me federal or state Constitutional authorization for drug laws.
This is just about the same as showing pictures of GSW victims and suggesting that guns need to be banned.
I'm not sure this nonsense fits in L&P.
Find me federal or state Constitutional authorization for drug laws.
This is just about the same as showing pictures of GSW victims and suggesting that guns need to be banned.
I'm not sure this nonsense fits in L&P.
TheeBadOne
Moderator
Find me the same for Speed limits, or residential zoning laws.
TheeBadOne
Moderator
Nice talk :barf:
Typical JBT tactics, perhaps, but you ever consider that we are actually right on this one?
For every one of those photos you find, Ive encountered 10 on the street worse. Meth is not marijuana, my friends, nor is heroin or crack. To even attempt to rationalize the legalization of this poison is the pinnacle of idocy.
For every one of those photos you find, Ive encountered 10 on the street worse. Meth is not marijuana, my friends, nor is heroin or crack. To even attempt to rationalize the legalization of this poison is the pinnacle of idocy.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
The title of this thread is misleading to the point of being D.A.R.E. type manipulative propaganda.
What's your point? If drugs are made legal, normal people will have an uncontrollable desire to take Meth and end up like that?
It's already been pointed out to you that these people acquired their stunning good looks under a total drug prohibition. One could argue that if cleaner intoxicants of better quality were available in drug stores legally, they wouldn't have resorted to snorting battery acid and ephedrine to get high.
Next, please post a few pictures of alcoholics ("The Speakeasy Gallery"), and educate us how much better we'd be off if booze was prohibited. Remember, alcohol kills far more people every year than all illegal drugs combined.
Sheesh. You know, TBO, I do support my local law enforcement, but you just come across like an overzealous door-to-door preacher sometimes.
Yeah, well, I've seen alcoholics that looked just as bad or worse, but I am not too hot on the idea of a return of alcohol prohibition, the way the first one turned out.
There's a term for the selective application of logic witnessed in the two-martini-lunch drug prohibitionists: it's called "cognitive dissonance". This country suffers from a strange kind of amnesia, a stubborn refusal to learn from the mistakes of the past.
What's your point? If drugs are made legal, normal people will have an uncontrollable desire to take Meth and end up like that?
It's already been pointed out to you that these people acquired their stunning good looks under a total drug prohibition. One could argue that if cleaner intoxicants of better quality were available in drug stores legally, they wouldn't have resorted to snorting battery acid and ephedrine to get high.
Next, please post a few pictures of alcoholics ("The Speakeasy Gallery"), and educate us how much better we'd be off if booze was prohibited. Remember, alcohol kills far more people every year than all illegal drugs combined.
Sheesh. You know, TBO, I do support my local law enforcement, but you just come across like an overzealous door-to-door preacher sometimes.
Yeah, well, I've seen alcoholics that looked just as bad or worse, but I am not too hot on the idea of a return of alcohol prohibition, the way the first one turned out.
There's a term for the selective application of logic witnessed in the two-martini-lunch drug prohibitionists: it's called "cognitive dissonance". This country suffers from a strange kind of amnesia, a stubborn refusal to learn from the mistakes of the past.
MeekAndMild
New member
HAR! Why not post Ted Kennedy's driver's licence photos? 
Don't get me wrong. I'm not an advocate of street drug abuse. But Federal approval versus disapproval doesn't neccessarily equal safe versus dangerous. For instance mixed amphetamine salts, the legal cousin of methamphetamine, is widely prescribed despite growing evidence that it damages the part of the brain known as the corpora striata.
Good point. The current public debate on the matter is whether to reign in court extremism regarding the interstate commerce clause of the constitution as it relates to terminally ill persons home-growing marijuana. As far as I can tell these photo progressions have nothing to do with that issue.
How about the tenth amendment? BTW the tenth is where lies the justification for state and local drug law, but it can also be used to justify reducing the power of the interstate commerce clause as applies to federal drug control.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not an advocate of street drug abuse. But Federal approval versus disapproval doesn't neccessarily equal safe versus dangerous. For instance mixed amphetamine salts, the legal cousin of methamphetamine, is widely prescribed despite growing evidence that it damages the part of the brain known as the corpora striata.
You seem to be unfamiliar with how laws are supposed to work in this country. It is you who must rationalize drug criminalization. A few scary pictures won't cut it.liliysdad said:
I'm still waiting for someone to cite constitutional authorization for federal and state laws interfering with private possession and consumption of something that can be made by anyone with modest knowledge of chemistry.
Mike, here you go.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
I don't take meth, and I wouldn't start taking meth even if it was legal tomorrow.
People who want to take meth will do so, regardless of whether it is legal or not.
Like Dennis Miller says, you could take all the drugs in the world away, and people would spin on their front lawns until they fell down and saw God. It seems like the desire to get a buzz on is deeply ingrained into the human psyche, and no amount of legislation will ever change that.
The War on Some Drugs has been going on for generations now. It cannot be won, because it is a self-fulfilling and self-justifying crusade. Make one drug illegal, people will move to another, and so on.
It is a fight that cannot be won. Your father and grandfathers have fought it with equal well meaning and zeal, and virtually every infringement of our civil liberties is directly attributable to it. The Prohibition brought us organized crime, which brought us gun control. The War On Some Drugs has gone on for eighty years, cost the nation billions and billions of dollars, and I could go downtown and inside of ten minutes buy any drug I want, cheaper and more available than ten or twenty years ago.
Every generation has its boogeyman drug, the one that's so terrible that every and any way to fight it is righteous and legit, even if that fight leaves our civil liberties by the wayside as collateral damage. First it was booze, then it was marijuana, then cocaine, then heroin, then crack. Now the boogeyman of the week is called methamphetamine, a drug that was so widely prescribed in the 1950s and 1960s that practiccally every other housewife was on it.
I am sick of people dictating how much pain medication my doctor may prescribe, or how much cough medicine I may buy (only against signature and presentation of ID), all so some people can pat themselves on the back and sleep sound in the knowledge that they've protected me from myself.
People who want to take meth will do so, regardless of whether it is legal or not.
Like Dennis Miller says, you could take all the drugs in the world away, and people would spin on their front lawns until they fell down and saw God. It seems like the desire to get a buzz on is deeply ingrained into the human psyche, and no amount of legislation will ever change that.
The War on Some Drugs has been going on for generations now. It cannot be won, because it is a self-fulfilling and self-justifying crusade. Make one drug illegal, people will move to another, and so on.
It is a fight that cannot be won. Your father and grandfathers have fought it with equal well meaning and zeal, and virtually every infringement of our civil liberties is directly attributable to it. The Prohibition brought us organized crime, which brought us gun control. The War On Some Drugs has gone on for eighty years, cost the nation billions and billions of dollars, and I could go downtown and inside of ten minutes buy any drug I want, cheaper and more available than ten or twenty years ago.
Every generation has its boogeyman drug, the one that's so terrible that every and any way to fight it is righteous and legit, even if that fight leaves our civil liberties by the wayside as collateral damage. First it was booze, then it was marijuana, then cocaine, then heroin, then crack. Now the boogeyman of the week is called methamphetamine, a drug that was so widely prescribed in the 1950s and 1960s that practiccally every other housewife was on it.
I am sick of people dictating how much pain medication my doctor may prescribe, or how much cough medicine I may buy (only against signature and presentation of ID), all so some people can pat themselves on the back and sleep sound in the knowledge that they've protected me from myself.
The Big Bad Drug used to be crack, then heroin (on which a highschool classmate of mine OD'd), then pcp, now crystal meth.
I don't know what was before crack... LSD, and before that ordinary coke? I remember my parents telling me horror stories about LSD way back in lower and middle school. I think they thought those rumors of evil drug pushers giving LSD-laced stickers to young kids were real.
I don't know what was before crack... LSD, and before that ordinary coke? I remember my parents telling me horror stories about LSD way back in lower and middle school. I think they thought those rumors of evil drug pushers giving LSD-laced stickers to young kids were real.
glock glockler
New member
Mistitled thread for another reason...
...because drug legality is not the cause of the present situation with those people shown, drug misuse and abuse is. I doubt you'll find any of us who want to end the war on drugs advocating misusing and abusing drugs, heck I do my best to eat only organic foods.
Our photogenic friends have problems that are psychological/medical, and that is what you must address. Simply throwing them in prison is the quick and easy "solution" for one who simply wants to feel as though they are doing something as opposed to the painful and often difficult work of truely solving a complicated problem.
Those people shown above have problems, big problems, do you think they will find the solutions in prison?
...because drug legality is not the cause of the present situation with those people shown, drug misuse and abuse is. I doubt you'll find any of us who want to end the war on drugs advocating misusing and abusing drugs, heck I do my best to eat only organic foods.
Our photogenic friends have problems that are psychological/medical, and that is what you must address. Simply throwing them in prison is the quick and easy "solution" for one who simply wants to feel as though they are doing something as opposed to the painful and often difficult work of truely solving a complicated problem.
Those people shown above have problems, big problems, do you think they will find the solutions in prison?
Not sure if you realize this but all of these people you see every day are here and now, doing these drugs, and guess what? They are already illegal!
Every time you see an alcoholic do you think alcohol should be banned? Because what you need to see and understand is that some individuals are self-destructive and that's just a fact of life. Hopefully they can be helped and realize the errors of their ways, but banning substances only drives them to obtain it in a criminal manner which further accelerates their downward spiral into nothingness.
Billions of our taxpayer money is spent to drive this activity underground. It's not going to go away. With every bit of money spent to make it more illegal, the price of those illegal drugs goes up and up and criminal organizations are making more money. Study the prohibition of alcohol and tell me that alcoholism stopped and crime went down.
Every time you see an alcoholic do you think alcohol should be banned? Because what you need to see and understand is that some individuals are self-destructive and that's just a fact of life. Hopefully they can be helped and realize the errors of their ways, but banning substances only drives them to obtain it in a criminal manner which further accelerates their downward spiral into nothingness.
Billions of our taxpayer money is spent to drive this activity underground. It's not going to go away. With every bit of money spent to make it more illegal, the price of those illegal drugs goes up and up and criminal organizations are making more money. Study the prohibition of alcohol and tell me that alcoholism stopped and crime went down.
Meth can do allot of damage. It can make people do things (as I see with the transiates around here) that a moral person wouldn't even think about.
But, with all that, my body is my own, as theirs is their own. They choose that lifestyle, they choose to use those drugs. Their body, is their own. It doesn't belong to the cops, to the government, or to the state.
I don't take drugs except that which is given by a doctor (and I don't like doing that either). I drink because I chose to drink. I smoke because I chose to smoke. Why do I do such stupid things? Because it's my body and I'll do as I damn well please with it.
Just as prohabition didn't work, neither will the war on drugs. Drugs have been around since the beginning of man, and will be around after the end of man. No law ever created by man will "win" this war. And to keep on "fighting" will just lead to more and more freedoms being removed from the People.
To completely control the behavior of people (and that is what this war is all about), you can't have nothing short of a police state. I assume that some of the LEO's would like this, total power (names will not be named), and this is unacceptable in the view of what America stands for.
Oh, by the way, nice pictures. I noticed that each, the before and after, are mug shots. Are you trying to tell us that each person was a law abiding person until they got caught up in the meth? That we, as law abiding People, should knuckle under to police state tactics because people that have already proven themselves as criminals, habitual, have a problem with a drug that most sane people would know to stay away from?
And if you bring up that these people, and the war on drugs, is needed because of the harm that these people can do, then why doesn't the police state get off our backs and allow us to actually use the 2nd amendment to help curb some of the crime committed by such folks if the need arises?
Wayne
But, with all that, my body is my own, as theirs is their own. They choose that lifestyle, they choose to use those drugs. Their body, is their own. It doesn't belong to the cops, to the government, or to the state.
I don't take drugs except that which is given by a doctor (and I don't like doing that either). I drink because I chose to drink. I smoke because I chose to smoke. Why do I do such stupid things? Because it's my body and I'll do as I damn well please with it.
Just as prohabition didn't work, neither will the war on drugs. Drugs have been around since the beginning of man, and will be around after the end of man. No law ever created by man will "win" this war. And to keep on "fighting" will just lead to more and more freedoms being removed from the People.
To completely control the behavior of people (and that is what this war is all about), you can't have nothing short of a police state. I assume that some of the LEO's would like this, total power (names will not be named), and this is unacceptable in the view of what America stands for.
Oh, by the way, nice pictures. I noticed that each, the before and after, are mug shots. Are you trying to tell us that each person was a law abiding person until they got caught up in the meth? That we, as law abiding People, should knuckle under to police state tactics because people that have already proven themselves as criminals, habitual, have a problem with a drug that most sane people would know to stay away from?
And if you bring up that these people, and the war on drugs, is needed because of the harm that these people can do, then why doesn't the police state get off our backs and allow us to actually use the 2nd amendment to help curb some of the crime committed by such folks if the need arises?
Wayne
GeorgeStraub
New member
I thought thin was in. 
You can get any drug out there, even though they are illegal, unless you have absolutely no contact with the outside world.
You can get any drug out there, even though they are illegal, unless you have absolutely no contact with the outside world.- Status