Except I did answer your questions. Address the first book I’ve given, and then we’ll talk about nine others, mkay? Or was there perhaps zero reason for you to ask them, because you were asking in bad faith and had no response to when me offering actual literature as an answer, and now you’re just pissy about it?
No, I don’t agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society
Then you’re either ignorant of the subject, or directly benefitting from the prohibition. There’s simply no other alternative. The prohibition of drugs is harmful to society.
What I do believe is drugs should be available for use by consenting adults in a heavily regulated market coupled with intense social safety nets to deal with drug use related problems.
That is them being legal. I never said “unrestricted access to any drug”, did I? (But you won’t have the same asinine literal criteria for your own arguments as you’re trying to do with mine, showing yet another measure of pretentiousness.)
This edit is hilarious as well. Made especially funny by the fact that no one is arguing for drug prohibition.
You’re arguing against the facts of the matter, and now pretending like you don’t know that you’ve only now stated your opinion on the matter, and clearly argued against me, who made his stance very clear. You’re just so pretentious it twists my stomach.
It is really funny to me that you keep cherry picking my responses. It is even more funny that you believe I am arguing against “the facts of the matter”.
I never said “unrestricted access to any drug”, did I?
So you definitely agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted, for the good of society?
What do you believe is the difference between “Prohibition of all drugs to be lifted” and “unrestricted access to any drug”?
Last I checked prohibition means “to prohibit”, or in other words “to restrict”, so a lack of prohibition is a lack of restriction. In your own words “Prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society”.
To quote you, to you.
You’d rather chew your own leg off than answer my question from the previous comment. That’s how strong the propaganda is, and I don’t know why it affects you so much.
I will pose my questions one more time.
Did you ever stop to think that the propaganda you speak of is directly influenced by exactly what steeznson was speaking about?
Why do you believe that anti-drug propaganda only began in the 20th century?
Do you have anything other than wikipedia links to back your stance up? Say, a real study done on the impacts of anti-drug propaganda through the ages which demonstrates that the 20th century was the most militant with it?
Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?
I am most interested in your answer on the last question regarding religion, because you have dodged that one completely while merely touching on the others in your rants.
Is it because to acknowledge religions influence on drug prohibition is to acknowledge that you are wrong about anti drug propaganda “technically” starting in the 20th century just like electricity was “technically” discovered by ancient Greeks?
You’re just so pretentious it twists my stomach.
You should really read that link I commented about “projection”.
Except I did answer your questions. Address the first book I’ve given, and then we’ll talk about nine others, mkay? Or was there perhaps zero reason for you to ask them, because you were asking in bad faith and had no response to when me offering actual literature as an answer, and now you’re just pissy about it?
Then you’re either ignorant of the subject, or directly benefitting from the prohibition. There’s simply no other alternative. The prohibition of drugs is harmful to society.
That is them being legal. I never said “unrestricted access to any drug”, did I? (But you won’t have the same asinine literal criteria for your own arguments as you’re trying to do with mine, showing yet another measure of pretentiousness.)
You’re arguing against the facts of the matter, and now pretending like you don’t know that you’ve only now stated your opinion on the matter, and clearly argued against me, who made his stance very clear. You’re just so pretentious it twists my stomach.
It is really funny to me that you keep cherry picking my responses. It is even more funny that you believe I am arguing against “the facts of the matter”.
What do you believe is the difference between “Prohibition of all drugs to be lifted” and “unrestricted access to any drug”?
Last I checked prohibition means “to prohibit”, or in other words “to restrict”, so a lack of prohibition is a lack of restriction. In your own words “Prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society”.
To quote you, to you.
I will pose my questions one more time.
I am most interested in your answer on the last question regarding religion, because you have dodged that one completely while merely touching on the others in your rants.
Is it because to acknowledge religions influence on drug prohibition is to acknowledge that you are wrong about anti drug propaganda “technically” starting in the 20th century just like electricity was “technically” discovered by ancient Greeks?
You should really read that link I commented about “projection”.