Highschool of the Dead

Drugs are bad, clearly.

Honestly, I don't get it. Grossenschwamm has been consuming drugs for years without many issues and I believe that track record alone speaks highly of the benign nature of illegal substances. Grossenschwamm is in this legal mess because of an adverse reaction from the abuse of incense. Why are the politicians doing nothing to protect the population from incense? I used to feel safe.

Grossenschwamm, it seems to me as if you are approaching your legal issues with a calculated, preemptive strategy. Have you been in similar situations before?

I would appreciate the legalization of opium, if only for the classic appeal of the substance. The legalization of opium is possibly the only measure that could distract me from my new campaign against incense.

 

Speaking autistically, macro-economics seems like a great game of lies and deceit, but... according to that wikileak guy, there is a lot of players who profit from drug money going off and on and off the US tax registry. At least, in reference to the Vietnam-Afgahnistan heroin industries.

 

Awh man! He's right! Let's deny everyone the right to do what they want to do to their own body! People go around nowadays thinking they have a right to their own life. Well guess what! The government owns you! Who are we to make our own decisions? Punk ass kids and their music! Drugs are bad, like; they do bad things; and bad things are illegal; like alcohol, and tobacco, and hurting feelings, and self-harm, and masturbating over your mother! That's why they put Oedipus away for life! Where's all this 'liberty' come into it? Hippy-dippy bullshit, if you ask me!

 

I don't think people should have complete liberty to do whatever they want to with there own body. The general concept is nice and if it was all a question about "This is my body, I should be allowed to get high if I want to", then it would all be fine.

But take a look on Mexico. The death toll for these later years is comparable to a war zone, most of it caused by gangs fighting each other about who's going to control drug smuggling to the US. One solution could be to legalize drugs and start producing cocaine n' shit in the States, but that then you might just move the problem.

As long as there's blood on the drug packages, it should be illegal. I guess if you grow your own cannabis at home, it probably won't affect anyone else, but I still don't like it.

 

Making them illegal doesn't stop people taking them, clearly.

It wouldn't move the problem - it would eliminate the problem. If cocaine was produced by Pfizer in a huge factory it would be cheaper than anything a criminal gang could produce, and it would have proper quality control so people wouldn't die from accidental overdose or ingesting the stuff that criminals dilute the drugs with. You'd also free up a whole load of police time.

The reason there is blood on the drug packages is BECAUSE they're illegal. You don't get blood on "vodka packages", except where alcohol is illegal.

 

Doesn't really matter if you don't like it. Tough luck, pal! If you would ban drugs because of the violence and death that they cause, then you've no call to not want to ban alcohol or suicide. It makes just as much sense to ban them because they ruin families; but that's not the government's area. War causes death, and governments go to war, often over things that wouldn't cause a greater death toll without the war; and an attempt to deprive people of their right to their own bodies is bound, inevitably, to fail.

 

Actually, pot use was only a little less rampant than alcohol or tobacco use when it was criminalized. It's all about tree pulp. Hemp pulp is a cheaper alternative to trees, and hemp actually out-produces trees by four times in pulp production.

 

Yes, keeping control over what every citizen does with his or hers body is more or less impossible (with the technology we have today). Keeping drugs out of the country, on the other hand, is still something worth striving for.

 

Contrary to what I previously thought, and even expressed on this forum, the sum of the angles of a triangle do not add up to two right angles. I say this, because it's equally as irrelevant to what was being said previously as your statement about keeping drugs out of the country is.

 

They don't? I really thought they did, which my admittedly limited maths.

But surely, the angles in a triangle add up to 180 as do two 90 degree right angles?

 

So I found out season one has 12 episodes. I am up to 11, so looking forward to the last episode next week. I believe the second season is being developed at the moment although if one were really dying to get their HOTD fix they could read the manga which is up to volume 28 or 29.

 

Wayne is probably drawing triangles on balloons and inflating them or something of that nature.

Back on topic (well, almost), if legalising drugs only meant weak and/or stupid people dying because of a legal overdose of hard drugs, I would be all for. It would eliminate the individuals that would best be removed from the world anyway.

I'm not happy with substances making irresponsible and/or trash-tier people more dangerous to strangers than they already are, though. Drunk drivers and punks in dark alleys are bad enough, adding drugged ones wouldn't make me feel any safer.

Before anyone decides to point out that following that logic, alcohol should be illegal as well, I'll put it this way: I enjoy some forms of alcohol from time to time, yes. There are things in this world, though, that I enjoy but would happier if they were non-existent or cyanide-tier poisonous to humans, since the sacrifice of myself not having them would be worth the benefits of everyone else not having them as well. Ethanol is one of those things.

 

Yeah, pretty much. Since triangles are drawn on a plain, if the plain isn't an n-dimensional surface, then the angles don't add up to 180 degrees (though two right angles do, if right angles are 90 degrees). If you say that drawing a triangle on a plain that is curved (like a balloon) is actually extending the triangle to the third dimension (as I did, when ytzk said something about this), notice that three-dimensional shapes have a volume, and the triangle does not.

Obviously, that's just your opinion. No-one is going to deny certain people the right to their bodies just because you think it's a good idea. Banning drugs seems a bit like charging someone with a crime before they even commit it, Through the Looking-Glass (I think) style! Notice that some sort of religious maniac could come alone and say the same thing about alcohol, and then law-abiding citizens would be punished like children by the state simply because certain fucktards might do something bad. You put the bad guys in jail, and leave the good guys to their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I'll also point out that your argument could be translated to argue that muggers &c. should be killed, because it would make the streets safer, though I don't know if you'd agree with that particular sentiment.

 

Killing them would be such a waste of precious biological material. Using them in medical experiments sounds more like it.

 

Depriving people of rights to suit other people doesn't make any sense if there's no reason to. Even if banning drugs would make the streets safer, it doesn't matter. It'd be like the government banning arguing so that the state would be a happier place. Whether they're correct or not, they don't have the right to do so, and can't generally enforce it. People have just as much right to do what they want to themselves as people like Xyle have to their stupidity and ignorance (religion); it is only once that freedom infringes on the freedom of others that the law should step in.

 

Banning drugs does not make the streets safer. In fact, from banning drugs even more crime is created. If the government truly wants people to be safe from drugs, they should properly educate the populace in their use, and perhaps market their own supply of drugs that is guaranteed safer than street substances, that may be cut with something toxic or laced with something toxic. If the government offered clean, pure substances that directly competed with the street pushers, everyone would get the cleaner stuff from the state because it's cheaper and safer than what you can buy from the street. By decriminalizing the illicit substances, a whole war on drugs is avoided, and the state earns capitol for the amount sold. Do you know how many people were arrested in the US for marijuana related charges last year? About 800,000. These "crimes" populate prisons with innocent people, leaving the hard criminals on the street to perpetrate further crimes. True, many crimes are instigated by those who are desperate, but marijuana use, as it stands, is a victimless crime. Most people who use cannabis do not distribute their supply to others, and if they're growing it, normally it's to bolster a personal supply. No one is being harmed in the production of the substance, and it's been shown that people who smoke pot tend to either over-eat, listen to music, or just sit in their houses being high.

 

Don't even bring anything like this up in connection: it just muddies the waters and isn't even related to whether they should ban drugs or not. If somebody comes back and agrees, or somebody comes back and disagrees, neither is making a point either in favour or against the illegalisation of drugs, since the point is mainly about personal liberty.

 

That's mostly just personal musings. There's no real backing behind it except for a few statistics and my own experience.

 

I like my plan better. Making living for the worthy safer, disposing of the unworthy, scientific advancement - everyone benefits, except for the Untermenschen maybe.

 

The worthy? Who are they? Am I worthy? Are you? Is Xyle? Who makes the criteria? Are those people worthy? Are the criteria worthy?