| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2006 06:19:35 AM |
| Object: |
HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
The right to control one's own body, and the right to privacy implies
many things. It doesn't just apply to abortion, it applies to drugs as
well. Since a woman has the right to an abortion for non-medical
(personal) reasons under that pretext, so too does a person have the
right to use drugs or other recreational substances for "non-medical"
(personal) reasons under that VERY same pretext. And I'll tell you why.
HEROIN on DEMAND:
* Allows addicts habituated to heroin and other opiates or opioids to
put their lives BACK ON TRACK almost IMMEDIATELY with FEW problems and
with MINIMAL withdrawal issues.
* RESTORES the full range of opportunities and financial freedom for
addicts and those tortured by severe intractable depression and enables
them to return to their lives without being further troubled by
depression and enabling addicts to manage their addiction safely and
with minimal financial expenditure and therefore less risk of long-term
financial RUIN.
* Allows SOME individuals for whom anti-depressant medication REFUSES
to work, such as myself, to use heroin or other opiates to treat severe
intractable depression.
* Since addicts and individuals suffering from untreatable depression
can ACCESS the HUGELY beneficial remedy of heroin or other opiates to
treat this disorder, of which only 50% of cases are resolved with
current SSRI, SNRI, Tetra- and Try- cyclic and MAOI medications, they
can rid themselves, perhaps permanently, of this seriously unwanted
medical condition.
ALSO :=
BARBITURATES, which are certain varieties of sleeping pills and
sedative-hypnotics that have been needlessly phased out in favour of
the non-lethal BENZODIAZEPINES, should also be available ON DEMAND.
If that were the case, we wouldn't be reading all this nonsense about
voluntary euthanasia being such a problem.
It wasn't a problem back in the 1950s and 1960s when these drugs were
FREELY available to ALL and SUNDRY. People knew when their time had
come and they simply took a massive overdose of these highly lethal
medicines (Nembutal, Tuinal, Seconal, sodium Amytal, Butisol, Soneryl,
Lotusate, et al.) and died PEACEFULLY and in the company of LOVED ONES
in the PRIVACY of their own homes and without ANY fuss.
It wouldn't be a problem ANY MORE because those afflicted with SERIOUS
and UNCONTROLLABLE pain who are at the endstage of a terminal illness
will be able to buy BARBITURATES from the pharmacy and take 100 doses,
NEVER to wake again, NEVER to suffer again!
NOWADAYS it's a different story, and as with all SELF-RIGHTEOUS
government busybodyism, we are seeing individuals feverishly CLAMOURING
for the freedom to die peacefully and with DIGNITY. What a sad and
terrible state of affairs when those suffering and in dire agony are
needlessly DENIED the right to a humane and DIGNIFIED end to their
suffering. We treat our pets with more respect than we do fellow humans
suffering in the endstages of fatal illnesses or diseases.
Now, one serious and eager question by all who have read this.
Am I being radical? I think not! If I am being radical, then tell me
why?
What do you think? Take your time and take it slowly.
It's your call.
ABORTION on DEMAND is okay, and has been in the U.S.A. since 1973 Roe
vs. Wade confirmed that basic human right to be constitutional, so
access to OPIATES/OPIOIDS and BARBITURATES on DEMAND is ALSO okay and
should be duly ruled as constitutional, given the same pretext.
After all, it is YOUR body, YOUR life, YOUR consequences, YOUR
responsibility, and last but not least, YOUR choice.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as the wise old man
once said.
It's your call.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
17 Mar 2006 09:50:10 PM |
|
|
<rhinestoneau@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
The right to control one's own body, and the right to privacy implies
many things. It doesn't just apply to abortion, it applies to drugs as
well.
No, it doesn't. A right to decide how your body will be used does not
imply a right to use your body for any purpose.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anapiel" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
19 Mar 2006 09:35:19 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in news:441b8372$0$58113
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
<rhinestoneau@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
The right to control one's own body, and the right to privacy implies
many things. It doesn't just apply to abortion, it applies to drugs as
well.
No, it doesn't. A right to decide how your body will be used does not
imply a right to use your body for any purpose.
Uhh, actually, by tautology, it does just that.
Proposition: I have a right to decide how my body will be used.
Discussion: This is an open ended right - analyzing it the right has a
possessor (me) an object (my body) and an implied term (eternal - there is
no time limit on the exercise of this right). Moreover, according to the
proposition there is no restrictions ont he exercise of this right inherent
to the right itself. So, it can be restricted only by non-inherent external
factors - incarceration, or specific laws restricting the exercise of this
right. In the former case, you surrendered your absolute right via the
process which also stripped your right to freedom.
In the latter, you are dealing with laws which simply violate the
proposition. This is self-evident. If a government institutes laws which
place limits on this right then it is rejecting this proposition
completely, and thus not acknowledging the right one has to dispose of
their bodies.
From this, it follows that you have a right to use your body for any
purpose. Were this not the case then there would need to exist an external
compulsion to prevent you from deciding how your body will be used if you
decided on certain things (using heroin, e.g., or getting a tattoo, or any
other number of actions which directly impact you and you alone).
This last phrase is important: you have a right to use your body for any
purpose, but not other people's bodies (also self-evident from the initial
Proprosition.)
When one enters the murky world of ethical philosophy, it is important to
keep fuzzy thinking to a minimum.
And really, who the ***** cares about abortion? Hell, I think mandatory
abortions, with the dead foetuses used for stem cell research with the goal
of making my generation (well, actually just me and the people I like from
whatever generation) immortal.
Grind the little fuckers up, put them in centrifuges, and lets start
cracking on the human cell replacement therapy. People are too fucking
obsessed with children - its unhealthy. Every fucking pregnant couple
expects to be treated special - time off from work, boring ***** news about
the development of what looks to me like a little blobby reptile on the
crappy-***** ultrasound. And never mind what happens when the crotchdropping
finally materializes. Then, we're all supposed to give a *****?
Why?
That's just one more fucking baby taking up resources on our slowly dying
planet. Another consumer of gasoline, leading to the eventual distruction
of our planet via greenhouse emissions. But oh, its a little fucking
miracle? Two people did what any two fucking dogs can do, and we're
supposed to be impressed?
One baby maximum. And even then, only to parents who agree to adopt a Green
(environmentally friendly) lifestyle.
Otherwise, abort it and harvest its fucking stem cells.
--
Free in the middle of the afternoon.
Just me, and my arm and my spike and my spoon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Morgan" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
24 Mar 2006 02:06:59 PM |
|
|
I wouldn't normally top post but I just had to say how much I liked this
post. The counterpoint of style between the two parts makes compelling
reading.
"Anapiel" <anapiel@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
Xns978B4D35C1AD4anapielgmailcom@216.196.97.136...
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:441b8372$0$58113
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
<rhinestoneau@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
The right to control one's own body, and the right to privacy implies
many things. It doesn't just apply to abortion, it applies to drugs as
well.
No, it doesn't. A right to decide how your body will be used does not
imply a right to use your body for any purpose.
Uhh, actually, by tautology, it does just that.
Proposition: I have a right to decide how my body will be used.
Discussion: This is an open ended right - analyzing it the right has a
possessor (me) an object (my body) and an implied term (eternal - there is
no time limit on the exercise of this right). Moreover, according to the
proposition there is no restrictions ont he exercise of this right
inherent
to the right itself. So, it can be restricted only by non-inherent
external
factors - incarceration, or specific laws restricting the exercise of this
right. In the former case, you surrendered your absolute right via the
process which also stripped your right to freedom.
In the latter, you are dealing with laws which simply violate the
proposition. This is self-evident. If a government institutes laws which
place limits on this right then it is rejecting this proposition
completely, and thus not acknowledging the right one has to dispose of
their bodies.
From this, it follows that you have a right to use your body for any
purpose. Were this not the case then there would need to exist an external
compulsion to prevent you from deciding how your body will be used if you
decided on certain things (using heroin, e.g., or getting a tattoo, or any
other number of actions which directly impact you and you alone).
This last phrase is important: you have a right to use your body for any
purpose, but not other people's bodies (also self-evident from the initial
Proprosition.)
When one enters the murky world of ethical philosophy, it is important to
keep fuzzy thinking to a minimum.
And really, who the ***** cares about abortion? Hell, I think mandatory
abortions, with the dead foetuses used for stem cell research with the
goal
of making my generation (well, actually just me and the people I like from
whatever generation) immortal.
Grind the little fuckers up, put them in centrifuges, and lets start
cracking on the human cell replacement therapy. People are too fucking
obsessed with children - its unhealthy. Every fucking pregnant couple
expects to be treated special - time off from work, boring ***** news about
the development of what looks to me like a little blobby reptile on the
crappy-***** ultrasound. And never mind what happens when the crotchdropping
finally materializes. Then, we're all supposed to give a *****?
Why?
That's just one more fucking baby taking up resources on our slowly dying
planet. Another consumer of gasoline, leading to the eventual distruction
of our planet via greenhouse emissions. But oh, its a little fucking
miracle? Two people did what any two fucking dogs can do, and we're
supposed to be impressed?
One baby maximum. And even then, only to parents who agree to adopt a
Green
(environmentally friendly) lifestyle.
Otherwise, abort it and harvest its fucking stem cells.
--
Free in the middle of the afternoon.
Just me, and my arm and my spike and my spoon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sunny" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
19 Mar 2006 11:48:51 AM |
|
|
"That's just one more fucking baby taking up resources on our slowly
dying
planet. Another consumer of gasoline, leading to the eventual
distruction
of our planet via greenhouse emissions. But oh, its a little fucking
miracle? Two people did what any two fucking dogs can do, and we're
supposed to be impressed?
One baby maximum. And even then, only to parents who agree to adopt a
Green
(environmentally friendly) lifestyle. "
I like the idea, but how would we ensure that the breeders were
actually committed to teaching their offspring how to respect the
planet?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
25 Mar 2006 11:06:20 AM |
|
|
Anapiel <anapiel@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:441b8372$0$58113
<rhinestoneau@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
The right to control one's own body, and the right to privacy implies
many things. It doesn't just apply to abortion, it applies to drugs as
well.
No, it doesn't. A right to decide how your body will be used does not
imply a right to use your body for any purpose.
Uhh, actually, by tautology, it does just that.
Proposition: I have a right to decide how my body will be used.
Discussion: This is an open ended right - analyzing it the right has a
possessor (me) an object (my body) and an implied term (eternal - there is
no time limit on the exercise of this right). Moreover, according to the
proposition there is no restrictions ont he exercise of this right inherent
to the right itself.
That is quibbling. There are always exceptions.
So, it can be restricted only by non-inherent external
factors - incarceration, or specific laws restricting the exercise of this
right. In the former case, you surrendered your absolute right via the
process which also stripped your right to freedom.
In the latter, you are dealing with laws which simply violate the
proposition. This is self-evident. If a government institutes laws which
place limits on this right then it is rejecting this proposition
completely, and thus not acknowledging the right one has to dispose of
their bodies.
Quibbling again. The proposition that "people have the right to
deicde how their bodies are used" has qualifications which a
reasonable person would understand.
From this, it follows that you have a right to use your body for any
purpose.
Determining HOW your body is used by another person is different from
using your body for any purpose.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
19 Mar 2006 12:16:05 PM |
|
|
Anapiel <anapiel@gmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:441b8372$0$58113
<rhinestoneau@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
The right to control one's own body, and the right to privacy implies
many things. It doesn't just apply to abortion, it applies to drugs as
well.
No, it doesn't. A right to decide how your body will be used does not
imply a right to use your body for any purpose.
Uhh, actually, by tautology, it does just that.
So a right to decide how your own body is used means that you have the
right to use your body to kill people?
Proposition: I have a right to decide how my body will be used.
Discussion: This is an open ended right - analyzing it the right has a
possessor (me) an object (my body) and an implied term (eternal - there is
no time limit on the exercise of this right). Moreover, according to the
proposition there is no restrictions ont he exercise of this right inherent
"If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance than baffle 'em with
*****."
to the right itself. So, it can be restricted only by non-inherent external
factors - incarceration, or specific laws restricting the exercise of this
right. In the former case, you surrendered your absolute right via the
process which also stripped your right to freedom.
In the latter, you are dealing with laws which simply violate the
proposition. This is self-evident. If a government institutes laws which
place limits on this right then it is rejecting this proposition
completely, and thus not acknowledging the right one has to dispose of
their bodies.
From this, it follows that you have a right to use your body for any
purpose.
No it doesn't.
Were this not the case then there would need to exist an external
compulsion to prevent you from deciding how your body will be used if you
decided on certain things (using heroin, e.g., or getting a tattoo, or any
other number of actions which directly impact you and you alone).
This last phrase is important: you have a right to use your body for any
purpose, but not other people's bodies (also self-evident from the initial
Proprosition.)
That contrdicts your argument.
When one enters the murky world of ethical philosophy, it is important to
keep fuzzy thinking to a minimum.
Something to keep in mind for the next time you post.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
18 Mar 2006 02:31:16 AM |
|
|
No, it doesn't. A right to decide how your body will be used does not
imply a right to use your body for any purpose.
Ray, that is correct. What you are saying is that the right to decide
how your body will be used is fundamentally different from the right to
use your body to, let's say for example - punch another person or
destroy another person's property.
I agree 100% with that wholeheartedly.
But when it comes to PRIVACY and you are talking about drug use, then
it's a different thing altogether. And mind you PRIVACY was one of the
MAIN reasons why Roe vs Wade was resolved to secure legal abortion for
all women in the USA.
In that case it applies DIRECTLY to drug use, because what drugs a
person choose to ingest is absolutely NONE of my, yours, or the
governments' business BUT the person choosing to ingest said substance!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
18 Mar 2006 11:47:31 AM |
|
|
<rhinestoneau@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
No, it doesn't. A right to decide how your body will be used does not
imply a right to use your body for any purpose.
Ray, that is correct. What you are saying is that the right to decide
how your body will be used is fundamentally different from the right to
use your body to, let's say for example - punch another person or
destroy another person's property.
I agree 100% with that wholeheartedly.
Thank you.
But when it comes to PRIVACY and you are talking about drug use, then
it's a different thing altogether. And mind you PRIVACY was one of the
MAIN reasons why Roe vs Wade was resolved to secure legal abortion for
all women in the USA.
While I agree that drug laws are ... bizarre, I don't see much
point in arguing logic or consistency with people who really only
care about controlling people. Abortion opponents are the same way.
It's all about forcing other people to do what you think best.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "creamedbrainsontoast" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
18 Mar 2006 05:22:41 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in news:441c47b3$0$58043
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
While I agree that drug laws are ... bizarre, I don't see much
point in arguing logic or consistency with people who really only
care about controlling people. Abortion opponents are the same way.
It's all about forcing other people to do what you think best.
in the case of abortion, it's also about making dirty filthy *****-*****-
whores pay for the consequences of their loose sexual morals. if they'd
just keep their legs shut and not give it up to every guy they see and wait
until they get married, and then only have sex for the purpose of
procreation as god intended, then there would be no need for abortion.
the same goes for opposition to birth control. allowing people free access
to it tacitly condones their having sex for non-procreative purposes
without the risk of pregnancy to make them think twice about what they are
about to do. it's rarely put in such explicit terms, but underneath all the
talk about the sanctity of life lies an undercurrent of wanting to punish
people for having the kind of sex of which you disapprove. to put it in
economic terms, it's trying to increase the price of having non-procreative
sex or sex outside the bounds of holy matrimony to the point that no one
will do it anymore. unfortunately, that kind of approach doesn't work when
you're dealing with something for which there exists a general demand (take
drugs for example: in singapore simply testing positive for drugs in a
urinalysis is a punishable offense while importing drugs carries the death
penalty, yet even then people still smuggle in and use drugs) does little
to dampen the rates at which people engage in a given behavior. when it's a
basic biological imperative such as the drive to have sex (which in the
higher primates serves a social function in addition to a procreative
function to the extent that the two are basically totally separate in
humans anyways) the only effect laws trying to limit access to birth
control or abortion have is to make life miserable for those who can't for
whatever reason afford to circumvent the law.
--
-creamedbrainsontoast
"One tablespoon of butter, one egg yolk, one scant tablespoon of flour,
salt and pepper to season, half cup of milk, three-fourths pound of brains.
Parboil the brains. When cool, salt to taste and chop in small pieces. Cook
flour and butter in double boiler; add milk and beaten egg yolk and stir
slowly into butter and flour, add seasoning and brains. Cook about three
minutes and serve on toast."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
18 Mar 2006 04:14:23 PM |
|
|
Despite personal beliefs, I am still pro-choice on all issues,
including the abortion issue and the death with dignity issue.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
18 Mar 2006 02:14:27 PM |
|
|
On 18 Mar 2006 03:50:10 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<rhinestoneau@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
The right to control one's own body, and the right to privacy implies
many things. It doesn't just apply to abortion, it applies to drugs as
well.
No, it doesn't. A right to decide how your body will be used does not
imply a right to use your body for any purpose.
Any restriction on rights, means they aren't rights. Rather they
are privileges granted by society. Just as a slave owner could grant
some privileges to a slave. Now all rights have natural restrictions,
the freedom or rights to swing your fist, stops at some one else's
body.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
18 Mar 2006 02:26:27 AM |
|
|
Why bother arguing on legal terms? It just pisses people off. The law
is OBVIOUSLY wrong when it comes to drugs, otherwise I wouldn't be
ranting and raving on about it.
I was arguing on moral terms, not legal ones. Just because a law says
something is right doesn't make it right, and vice versa. Simple as
that.
If one is libertarian on abortion, the one logically must be
libertarian on the use of drugs, otherwise their argument for legal
abortion just falls to bits at the seams and makes them look like
abject dickwads.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
17 Mar 2006 09:51:54 AM |
|
|
wrote:
HEROIN on DEMAND:
The legalization I will agree, with reservations.
Very good point but, what gives us the right to terminate a living soul
(that is what you would call a life), for whatever reason?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
17 Mar 2006 09:51:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The right to control one's own body, and the right to privacy implies
many things. It doesn't just apply to abortion, it applies to drugs as
well. Since a woman has the right to an abortion for non-medical
(personal) reasons under that pretext, so too does a person have the
right to use drugs or other recreational substances for "non-medical"
(personal) reasons under that VERY same pretext.
[...]
I agree in principle. I think that all drugs should be legal or at
least decriminalized. At the same time, I think they should be
regulated, just as prescription drugs are. This is consistent with the
principle that abortion should be legal but regulated. And by
"regulated", I mean that abortions should only be performed by licensed
medical professionals.
So where do we go now with your argumentum ad absurdum?
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
17 Mar 2006 11:16:10 AM |
|
|
On 17 Mar 2006 07:51:47 -0800, "spartakus@my-deja.com"
<spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote:
rhinestoneau@yahoo.com.au wrote:
The right to control one's own body, and the right to privacy implies
many things. It doesn't just apply to abortion, it applies to drugs as
well. Since a woman has the right to an abortion for non-medical
(personal) reasons under that pretext, so too does a person have the
right to use drugs or other recreational substances for "non-medical"
(personal) reasons under that VERY same pretext.
[...]
I agree in principle. I think that all drugs should be legal or at
least decriminalized. At the same time, I think they should be
regulated, just as prescription drugs are. This is consistent with the
principle that abortion should be legal but regulated. And by
"regulated", I mean that abortions should only be performed by licensed
medical professionals.
More like alcohol and tobacco, except for age in the case abortion.
If a girl is pregnant she can not wait until she is of age.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "smoke" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
17 Mar 2006 10:57:12 PM |
|
|
Agree 100%
But you can't have what you want, because some one might get high.
OOOh, we cant have that now can we.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anon-e-Mouse" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
18 Mar 2006 03:43:59 AM |
|
|
Twin obsessions, illogically connected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
18 Mar 2006 04:04:01 AM |
|
|
Nah, they're both one and the same - the right to privacy...which
includes to right to commit suicide, the right to terminate a
pregnancy, and the right to take drugs if you so wish.
Don't like that? Fine with me, why don't you move to Afghanistan?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cesar" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
18 Mar 2006 11:20:14 AM |
|
|
This conversation is jumping around and at times almost ridiculous like
Rhinestone's statement if you "don't like that. . . move to
Afghanistan?" Aren't you a bit angry here simply because you want
Heroin and can't get it legally? Then get it illegally as no one on
here is stopping you.
You have people here who are suffering from inadequate pain relief and
my sympathies and votes go out to them as they need paid meds, and they
deserve to get pain relief. But my sympathies don't go out to someone
who wants to stay in bed all day and night in a drug stupor because
they can, and insist family, girlfriend, and friends clean up their
vomit or excrement because they want to stay non stop in that drug
stupor and require someone to take care of them. Without money to buy
Heroin, you will resort to some type of crime even if that is stealing
from relatives.
When you tell others to move to a foreign country if they don't agree
with you, then that gives you the opportunity to move to a foreign
country too and you could finally enjoy all their rights they offer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jimmy" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
19 Mar 2006 03:09:25 PM |
|
|
{
You have people here who are suffering from inadequate pain relief and
my sympathies and votes go out to them as they need paid meds, and they
deserve to get pain relief. But my sympathies don't go out to someone
who wants to stay in bed all day and night in a drug stupor because
they can, and insist family, girlfriend, and friends clean up their
vomit or excrement because they want to stay non stop in that drug
stupor and require someone to take care of them. Without money to buy
Heroin, you will resort to some type of crime even if that is stealing
from relatives.
}
If someone wants to puke all day and pass excrement all night is that
really any of your business? You want to pass laws so that they cannot
legally ***** themselves and puke themselves silly? BTW when I ran out
of cash for my 'H' habit I went on methadone. Then I realized that
that stuff is zonkoid city and quit that chit. Not everyone who has a
habit will steal. Not even close. Also one in five become addicted to
'H'. The others either stay away or become weekend chippers. And alot
of those weekend users will say that they're an addict when in reality
they're not. Not everyone who ingests heroin allows themselves to
become habitual pukers and excreters of movements of the bowels
radically(whatever that means; but you know what it means). Like get
off of my cloud man. I wouldn't mind living in Afghanistan where the
opium is plentiful and well I don't think they have toilet paper but
I'll get used to that. I can always raid an American Base for the
stuff.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jose." |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
17 Mar 2006 11:31:13 AM |
|
|
As well as your own OP
here goes...rant mode on...
(Migrained and scatterbrained and in pain so a rant of the same....)
You have some valid points, however...
Good luck with the present course of events, pal
We live in a land where our rights have
been given-up like the sheep we have become
All it takes is a 911 type incident or the govt giving an alarm and the
people bend over and give up the last of our rights
You talk of RoeVWade
That's in the process of being disbanded along with our other other
rights
we gave away via the patriot act and our submission
to the government
And it wont stop
You know why?
The drug users and those who have freedom in their veins DONT freakin
vote
and never have
The old people and the frightened woman who read and believe in Dare's
nonsense and what the govt spoon feeds them and such are the ones who
DO
vote (and no mysogenism(sp) here as simply look at the voting tables)
....and the govt only listens to those who vote
By NOT voting you allow the laws and such to become more draconian and
Amerika less free
Until you junkies and whiners get off your asses and vote and do
something
instead of ***** and moan--and perhaps not just you OP, as YOU may
vote...
....Until that time YOU get the govt you deserve and the laws you
deserve
Libertarinan types and pro drug types as well as freedom loving types
are
usually younger and/or thinkers and sadly they dont vote to any degree
even
though they COULD make a differance
Politicians and lawmakers know it too
They just laugh at you as they vote higher salaries for themselves and
more
draconian laws for YOU to sweat over
And, the underworked cops, da's and justice dept who has seen a huge
shift
in less violent crime as a percentage have to keep their job security
and
their peers security so they push the "fight crime" agenda and for
higher
sentences and to make
simple misdemeaners into felonies at the fastest rate in our nation's
history-ever- (in the last decade) to keep our prisons full
Most large prisons are slave labor camps where the congressmen and
wardens get to
run the factories and COLLECT the profits
ex
We have lost all of our office furniture business industry and much of
our furniture
business in general to prison companys
The fighter planes in our country have wiring and cabling all made in
our
prisons for pennies on the dollar and the American taxpayer sees NO
savings
in the end--it goes to line the pockets of the hugely successful prison
councils and congressmen who own these prison industries and only vote
for
companies to build those war machines who use their prison industries
as
well! WE still pay going-rate for the parts produced and THEY get the
cash!
Check it out --you will be amazed at how entire industries in this
country
have been bankrupted by prison labor factories and such where they only
have
to pay an avg of 17c an hour to slave workers who dont even need a
benefit
package! Their only "benefits" are paid for by the taxpayer
Until congressmen are no longer able to COUNT people in prison--who
cant
vote--as constituents for federal aid money in their areas and to keep
their
seats in congress they will keep em filled and in construction as they
are
the FASTEST growing "housing" segment as listed in the statistics in
our
nation today and only serve to line the pockets of congressmen
Take away their profit incentive in prisons and allow prisoners to
vote--as
they do in Maine--and you will see a big change -fast too--- as Im sure
prisoners--having little else to do--will vote and it wont be for MORE
draconian measures in the laws--Im sure! (or to line their crooked
warden's/congressman's pockets at the expense of the amercian taxpayer
and
THEIR children as they have kids and families on the outside, too!)
You need stats and links--I can easily supply for the asking --but be
prepared if you ask as I will post em in full
As far as drugs go....
Before the Harrison Act--which was enacted with the pushing of a racist
agenda--Heroin, cocaine and other hard drugs were sold openly over the
counter for children's teeting drops and such and we didnt have people
lined
up for rehab and in methadone clinics and drug wars and huge amounts of
US
money going to S America and other nations for drugs
It was said by a drug council expert back in '84--if I recall by a govt
council on the drug problem (it's on the dea site of all places)--that
if
heroin was legalized a dose of it would cost the same as a stick of gum
as
it is so cheap and easy to produce
But, it it was that easy to come-by-----there would not be any junkie
based
crime and such as an excuse for more cops and
more money to the govt lawmakers and such!
And, people in pain could get the meds they needed
Doctors would no longer be afraid to give the painkilling drugs they
needed
to give out but then look at the doctor's salaries as recorded BEFORE
and
AFTER the Harrison act when one had to go to a doctor for hard drugs...
They skyrocketed!
Like a rocket!
(mortimer /mama coca etal)
Doctors rely on that prohibition to keep their high salaries and such
as
well--
Sure, any doctor who is honest will tell you opiates do far less damage
than
glue sniffing or whatever inhalents kids use over the counter nowadays
but they like
their power over the 'cookie jar' and their easy money
ka ching
It's all about money and power and voter apathy that keeps the
draconian
types in power
They seem to be their own fascist elite anymore
Now what were you saying about abortion......?
.
|
|
|
| User: "neurodancer" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
17 Mar 2006 11:39:45 AM |
|
|
If you think anyone read this endlessly incoherent post you are even
more deluded than everyone thinks you are. How the hell do you find
the time to waste this much bandwidth? Don't you have anything better
to do?
ND
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jose." |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
17 Mar 2006 10:55:59 PM |
|
|
Hey one-last-neuro-dancing-very-sloowly
Here's a big kiss for ya.....
Smooooch
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cesar" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
17 Mar 2006 01:04:43 PM |
|
|
People are born with many traits and some addictive ones. If you take
suicide out of the equasion, you will still have addicts if you
legalize drugs, and with easy access they would find it easy to be
forever high, not working and be a segment of the population who would
be completely wasting away at their own hands and really unable to care
for themselves. In earlier times, there were many addicts because of
the unknown effects of these drugs, and servicemen coming home were
addicted from pain medication while in war.
I do believe that the health care system within the US is very poor and
fails to provide sufficient care to all. Doctors should be able to
provide better pain management and stop skimping on pain meds for fear
they will be prosecuted. Every year the amount of disabled people
jumps considerably, and some of these disabilies are due to work
injuries from employers who did not provide proper safety or equipment.
Many have injuries that came from long term work at certain jobs. So
we are not preparing our medical community to deal with the ever
increasing number of disabled who are in pain and need treatment. That
is a crime.
I do believe that every state should have access to end of life
remedies, like Oregon. No person that is terminal should be required
to go through the standard pain regime--the pain may be extreme but
they can't give you enough pain meds for fear of killing you. We treat
our pets better than we treat humans and no human should have to endure
pain like that.
Just thinking out loud, but for those that are suicidal but not
terminal, maybe we should be pushing for programs for them. For those
suicidal due to pain, let's get pain meds to see if that helps. For
those who are suicidal after sufficient pain meds or for other reasons,
have them go through a program where they discuss what is happening and
if after that program, the patients find no improvement then they be
permitted to choose if they want to be provided a peaceful and easy way
to pass on.
I also believe you can't equate legalizing drugs to abortion, except
that they are rights you are seeking. Various states are setting up
laws to force a Supreme Court challenge to Roe v. Wade. I do agree we
are seeing an erosion of personal rights. I also believe that we may
eventually in 50 years find ourselves with the middle class wiped out
with so many jobs moved overseas that we find ourselves without jobs
that pay well and the work tier be high level executives here and low
paid workers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
18 Mar 2006 07:32:53 AM |
|
|
On 17 Mar 2006 11:04:43 -0800, "Cesar" <Cesartop@cox.net> wrote:
People are born with many traits and some addictive ones. If you take
suicide out of the equasion, you will still have addicts if you
legalize drugs, and with easy access they would find it easy to be
forever high, not working and be a segment of the population who would
be completely wasting away at their own hands and really unable to care
for themselves.
And making the drugs legal, would lower the amount of crimes, to
support that addiction. Not increase the number of addicts. The
stupidity of the anti drug crowd is they always claim that making
drugs legal, would cause the problems that making them illegal caused.
In earlier times, there were many addicts because of
the unknown effects of these drugs, and servicemen coming home were
addicted from pain medication while in war.
Very true, and making the drugs illegal, made the situation worse.
As well as turning victims into criminals.
I do believe that the health care system within the US is very poor and
fails to provide sufficient care to all. Doctors should be able to
provide better pain management and stop skimping on pain meds for fear
they will be prosecuted. Every year the amount of disabled people
jumps considerably, and some of these disabilies are due to work
injuries from employers who did not provide proper safety or equipment.
Many have injuries that came from long term work at certain jobs. So
we are not preparing our medical community to deal with the ever
increasing number of disabled who are in pain and need treatment. That
is a crime.
I do believe that every state should have access to end of life
remedies, like Oregon. No person that is terminal should be required
to go through the standard pain regime--the pain may be extreme but
they can't give you enough pain meds for fear of killing you. We treat
our pets better than we treat humans and no human should have to endure
pain like that.
Just thinking out loud, but for those that are suicidal but not
terminal, maybe we should be pushing for programs for them. For those
suicidal due to pain, let's get pain meds to see if that helps. For
those who are suicidal after sufficient pain meds or for other reasons,
have them go through a program where they discuss what is happening and
if after that program, the patients find no improvement then they be
permitted to choose if they want to be provided a peaceful and easy way
to pass on.
I also believe you can't equate legalizing drugs to abortion, except
that they are rights you are seeking. Various states are setting up
laws to force a Supreme Court challenge to Roe v. Wade. I do agree we
are seeing an erosion of personal rights. I also believe that we may
eventually in 50 years find ourselves with the middle class wiped out
with so many jobs moved overseas that we find ourselves without jobs
that pay well and the work tier be high level executives here and low
paid workers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
18 Mar 2006 08:11:20 AM |
|
|
robpar wrote:
On 17 Mar 2006 11:04:43 -0800, "Cesar" <Cesartop@cox.net> wrote:
People are born with many traits and some addictive ones. If you take
suicide out of the equasion, you will still have addicts if you
legalize drugs, and with easy access they would find it easy to be
forever high, not working and be a segment of the population who would
be completely wasting away at their own hands and really unable to care
for themselves.
And making the drugs legal, would lower the amount of crimes, to
support that addiction. Not increase the number of addicts. The
stupidity of the anti drug crowd is they always claim that making
drugs legal, would cause the problems that making them illegal caused.
Drugs don't commit crimes, human nature commits crimes. But at the same
time drugs will make "weak-mined" users do things they know is wrong but
they do it anyway cause it will get the "fix" for them easier.
Not all the time mind you but enough, so in that respect it doesn't matter
if drugs are legal or illegal, the cries will still happen. It's human
nature that must be changed first, THEN we can work on the laws.
In earlier times, there were many addicts because of
the unknown effects of these drugs, and servicemen coming home were
addicted from pain medication while in war.
Very true, and making the drugs illegal, made the situation worse.
As well as turning victims into criminals.
That's a crock of *****, drugs were known to be harmful in excess, and in
the several conflict this country has had, drugs were illegal, so the ones
in service knew this and in the cases where they got addicted in regards to
medical treatment they were given the chance to detox from them. But they
still took the drugs anyway.
That make that point mute.
You really need to get your head out of your ***** and examine the real world
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SteadyEddy" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
17 Mar 2006 08:03:14 PM |
|
|
shove it *****, you don't vote so you don't count. You are a fucking
moron
neurodancer wrote:
If you think anyone read this endlessly incoherent post you are even
more deluded than everyone thinks you are. How the hell do you find
the time to waste this much bandwidth? Don't you have anything better
to do?
ND
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
17 Mar 2006 07:30:54 PM |
|
|
So well said Jose. There are some dickheads who think this post was
incoherent. But I think otherwise. That post was VERY, VERY coherent.
And VERY, VERY believable.
After all, money is the main motive for a lot of atrocities inflicted
upon the human race today. And it will continue to do so until either
such evil individuals who are found to be destroying lives for enormous
profit are either killed (executed) or have their power over the human
race completely removed and replaced by benevolent counterparts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SteadyEddy" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
17 Mar 2006 08:01:52 PM |
|
|
wrote:
So well said Jose. There are some dickheads who think this post was
incoherent. But I think otherwise. That post was VERY, VERY coherent.
And VERY, VERY believable.
After all, money is the main motive for a lot of atrocities inflicted
upon the human race today. And it will continue to do so until either
such evil individuals who are found to be destroying lives for enormous
profit are either killed (executed) or have their power over the human
race completely removed and replaced by benevolent counterparts.
I agree with Jose and rhinestone. If you don't vote you can't *****
about the system. I wish everyone eligible would vote. I can accept the
fact that if the young people vote the republican party will be in
serious trouble. Tough ***** on me. I accept it. However, people who sit
on their duff, get loaded and don't vote are fucked up. How many
junkies in florida didn't vote? How many young people? they could have
elected a different president. You had a mandate to elect a president
and you sat home getting loaded. Good job, the repulicans love you. The
system is designed around the right to vote. However, get loaded and
stay home. Bush thanks you for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cesar" |
|
| Title: Re: HEROIN on DEMAND...(a basic human RIGHT)...read on |
17 Mar 2006 09:32:51 PM |
|
|
Actually I vote, but when you start talking assassination, what are the
criteria for killing someone and who makes that decision---will the
addicts be the ones who decide? Remember it was the US that put
Castro into Cuba and look what happened--so you don't want a repeat of
that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
