assumptions which have no backing whatsoever. consumption didnt skyrocket in czech republic either though you can legally own small amounts of most (all?) drugs since 2008 or so. also germany, a state with ~80mio inhabitants spends about 16mio euro related to drugs - each "bundesland" also spends 5-10mio (hamburg is an exception with 27mio, why?). the biggest portions are "preventive" campaigning. so lets assume the worst, you live in hamburg. that means you pay 1/80mio of lets say 40mio. thats 50cent a year. pathetic, want me to gift you 10€ so you have nothing left to complain? here is the source, its the most drug report of your gvmnt -> http://www.dhs.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Reitox_Jahresberichte/REITOX_Jahresbericht_2010.pdf also, i didnt read the full report but others - you might want to read up on what causes drug consumption other then "oh im so lazy i do heroin" which is among the most retarded polemics ive ever heard ...
You didn't understand my saccasm at all, did you? I even wrote that there is no such situation where this would be valid ... What I was trying to tell you is that if you justify taking drugs by bringing up healthy food is like saying you take heroin or w/e drug because you're too lazy not to do so. Which is not the case, thus you can't compare these two at all, but you still did, ... speaking about retarded polemics.
i didnt compair it to healthy food but to white sugar, there is no need to eat a single piece in your entire life, though you probably consume several tons. this has a way bigger impact on health care then drugs as EVERYONE is "on" saccharosis. how many kids are overweight, how many kids are drug addicts - how long will you survive with diabetis, how long will you survive on heroin? do you think insulin is for free? its the perfect comparison actually ... also addiction is not monocausal, you completely ignore the psychosocial part, which is a very relevant part actually - especially in treatment ... again, there is no sane argument for criminalizing soft drugs. and imo there none against hard drugs either, all you get is easier access to addicts - they gotta go to a pharmacy to get it - less crime and lower drug induced deaths.
banning something that is dangerous to the user is retarded in our no-borders world in its essence awareness and education work far more effective at keeping everyone alive and healthy, are far cheaper and give lots of side benefits unrelated to it (no more retarded "lets clean my gun while loaded, looking into the barrel etc" people, more common sense) there are some exceptions, like thermonuclear bombs or radioactive uranium rods, or self replicating killer robots without a kill-switch... but in all honesty those don't fall under "just" dangerous for the user, since both probably are going to damage innocents as well (and thus should no longer fall under "just" dangerous to yourself) i believe if you are so dumb you get yourself killed without the government stepping in, even if you were properly warned you should be "allowed" to do so (i'm not saying they shouldn't step in when you are about to harm others btw)
So you say if you go shopping and buy some food you don't have to only to check for sugar but also for drugs? Sorry but I don't see how this doesn't fall exactly under "too lazy to watch out for x" be it sugar, weed or heroin. If you were to completly avoid sugar you couldn't eat potatos or pasta or really anything with starch either, because it turns into glucose. Or any fruits since it contains fructose, ... Saccharose turns into glucose and fructose aswell, leaving you with a very unhealthy diet just to avoid sugar. But none of these turn into THC ... And seriously ... overweight? It doesn't matter what you stuff down your throat, fat, carbohydrates or proteins, in the end the ammount is what's causing overweight, and fat is far worse as sugar aswell, isn't it? So I'm not sure if this is just some empty rambling that goes well with diabetics ...?! On a side note, Insulin is quite cheap and gives pharma industries a steady income, I don't see this happening with alldaycare centers tho ... Umm, is that an excuse why they shouldn't pay for bringing themselves into a higher health risk group? They still have a choice, you know, if they hadn't they would need to be institutionalized ... Huh, I didn't go there, I said make weed and tobacco illegal since you affect others (even if you don't want it to be true) and all the other stuff legal, I didn't say anything about hard or soft drugs (which are terms I highly despite btw, if anything it should be highly addictive and less addictive drugs, you're getting high from both) ...
SACCHAROSE!!!!! you know, the shit they put in sugar. also our body does in fact produce cannabinoids, not THC though, i give you that -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannabinoids#Endocannabinoids
So I heared you like saccharose in your saccharose, so I put some saccharose in your saccharose so you can enjoy some saccharose with your saccharose... [insertpichere.jpg] I see what you did thar... Fail.
the first argument goes well with marijuana too. it funds jobs and generate taxes. its probably not gonna be the pharma industry which will profit, so maybe thats a reason too. in the end they still want to sell their shit antidepressants - which btw are addictive too (which ofc doesnt mean you will get addicted automatically - there is more factors then how addictive a substance is) i also already showed you, that you only pay 50cent a year if you assume the spendings of hamburg which are the highest in germany (why ever). 50cent, omg poor boy. also you cant say x amount of people consume drugs so youll have x drug deaths or x "problematic addicts". thats only a very small percentage and its usually preexisting psychosocial problems or the criminal enviroment which you will be introduced to which cause social failure ... criminalize running. if you run against someone and he falls over in an unlucky way you could kill him. you dont have to smoke close to others, it already is forbidden to smoke in public buildings, transportation and at your workplace (as long as it isnt a seperate room, which is considerably smaller and seperate air supply system thing). also industry, households and cars produce particulates which cause cancer aswell - forbid those, good luck ... blahblahblah, am i at least right if i say that no matter what i say you will always find a counter argument as absurd as it might be?
No,you already showed me what you belive it would cost me, you can't back it up by comparing germany with the czech republic were drug usage was prolly halfway normal before it got legalized thus you can't possibly assume that the consumption would stay the same if it were legal here ... Yeah, MY counter arguments are absurd ... let's criminalize running since it's the same as second hand smoke, I fully agree. And if it wouldn't cost far more money to stop the production of "particulates", I would like to see it happen aswell, but again, to compare a neccesiety for a modern industry to work with something you just do to stop your addiction from having an effect on you and getting high is absurd. Talking about sucrose without knowing what it is is absurd. Belitteling someones opinion on bases of "don't belive everything that is told to you" is absurd. Btw just out of curiousity, are you one of these self-proclaimed hippies?
i at least know that saccharose is a valid term for sucrose even in english. my statement stays true, you dont need saccharose/sucrose at any time in your life - you will invevitably consume some though, its contained in fruits. diabetis and heart deseases are advancing civilisatory deseases far worse and far more costly then drug usage caused by the amount of white sugar we consume with our everyday meal. the only usage it has is that it makes certain food taste good. and no, i wouldnt describe myself as hippie.
I do aswell, furthermore I know that saccharose (a.k.a "saccharosis", see your earlier posts) is an obsolescent term for sucrose, in both english and german. (Wikipedia won't tell you that) But thx for your thoughts. You don't like hippies? Well that actually suprised me, but that's why I asked, I don't want to be affected by prejudices.
so what? your counter argument was that i used saccharosis instead of sucrose? pathetic kane, i expected better nonsense ...
Are you even reading your own posts?! You accused me of not knowing that saccarose is the same as sucrose in english, I think I have every right to deny such an accusation, since it's not true. That you can't even write saccharose in english was just a side fact and had nothing to do with my counter arguement. Are you kidding me? Given you don't have to eat it in pieces, but I don't think it's physical form affects you in any way. Hearth diseases are mostly caused by too much fat intake, but I'm sick of the stereotypical food excuse so w/e.
exactly, overuse is bad, in theory you could poison yourself with apple. the reasons though are barely ever the substance alone. and off you don't like the food argument, because it disproves you ... also we refine saccharose as food additive, this is what isn't needed but wanted. the intake via fruits btw is neglectable and could be avoided.
No it doesn't, it's just as stupid as a drugs discussion can get. Is it about addictive effects, SUGAR IS ADDICTIVE TOO!!!!! Is it about it being expensive because unhealthy, SUGAR IS CAUSING THIS TOO!?! Are we talking about a nuclear fallout? SUGAR IS CAUSING THIS ASWELL??? In short, drug users shouldn't pay for the costs they create because there is sugar? In your brain that might make sense, but to me this sounds like one pile of horseshit down the road. I don't see any reason to argue about something you're ridding on like it would be some ultimate solution. It is a fucking excuse, that's what it is, one you won't let go no matter how often I disprove it, so why should I waste my time on a lost cause. Yeah hearth failures are not monocausal neither are they bicausal. Drugs and sugar can cause hearth failures too, not only fat. But fat is the most likly to do so, and you need something to burn through, else you starve to death, but you don't need drugs. Yeah, your point? Make food producers which add sugar pay more health insurancy, too? I'm all for it, but I don't see how this would change anything here.
I actually typed out the "fucking billions" quote in this thread, but I edited it out of my post before anyone saw it because I figured no-one would get it. That's honestly one of my favourite films ever made.
last night was the premiere of a documentary about my job and company. first of three episodes aired last night on nat geo tv. i have provided a link to the preview. i haven't watched the first episode, so i don't know how it's slanted or how ridiculious i came off. sadly i just turned in the keys to the store moments ago. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/american-weed/
