+205 We as a race have almost completely eliminated Social Darwinism. Laws requiring people to wear seat belts, laws against drugs and laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets were all put in place to keep people safe. However these laws should be abolished because anyone dumb enough to do heroine after all the lessons preaching against it deserves the death they receive. amirite?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Inb4. "No one deserves to die" that's bull shit. No one deserves to live. You did absolutely nothing to be brought into this world, you should have to fight to stay in it, not be fucking spoon fed your entire life.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You sound like a pretentious prick. Everyone deserves to live. Do you know how many people have not been given the chance to live? The human genome possibilities are 1.6x10^12041. You might not be able to comprehend how fucking large this number is, so here is a very easy reference. The Universe is theorized to contain 3x10^52 kg of matter. The fact that a specific person was born gives them the right to enjoy life. We are the lucky ones. Think off all the humans who will never be born, the ones who are doomed to oblivion. They will never experience life, but we get to.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

PERFECTLY RELEVANT SELF PROMOTION! (It's about what you're saying with the chances of being born) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-U58SU_x_s

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Hey Brett buddy, this video is really interesting and all, but... it's not saying you yourself being born, but you're just a person... it's not like they were trying to create YOU, someone would have been born anyway. You're already someone else, you should take that into account

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I like how you're arguing with a hypothetical opponent who you made up.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Im not that anon. I can screenshot if you don't believe me though.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Screenshot what?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The comment .and it will not have delete over it because I didn't write it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Eh. One big reason we have such laws is because those who are injured (whether from drugs or motor vehicle accidents) actually drain tax payer money should government institutions, such as medicare, cover their medical expenses. (And, in case some of you don't realize, it doesn't matter if you don't have insurance, hospitals are REQUIRED to treat any life-or-death emergency case, at least in the U.S.--Britain's healthcare system has it especially worse as their hospitals are all funded by tax payer money anyway). TL;DR: The government saves money by having these laws in effect.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I was thinking about this quite a while ago. It's true really that humans have stopped evolving in most ways because everyone has the right to live and is protected (of course some places don't have as many rights as they should, but you know what I mean). Because of this, many people don't die and stupid breeds stupid.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Actually, multiple studies have shown people of higher intelligence are more inclined to do drugs. (But they do deserve the death if the do it.) Other than that I agree. I mean, if you don't have the common sense to wear a simple device that takes two second to put on and will make you more likely to live in the event of a car crash or wear a helmet while speeding down the road at up to 60 mph on a vehicle with 2 wheels... then ono

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Intelligent people are more likely to do drugs? I can see that, but it makes me wonder what kind of drugs. I imagine that intelligent people are less likely to do meth, maybe more likely to smoke weed. Do you have a link to this study?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2011/nov/16/new_study_smart_people_more_like http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2010/11/smart-people-do-more-drugs-because-of-evolution/18539/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111114221018.htm http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/14/high-iq-linked-to-drug-use/ I didn't actually read any of these, so I just gave you a few. I agree. I don't know if any of them state what drugs, but I'm pretty sure you're right.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Those don't specify the drugs used, they just say illicit drugs. But still, very cool.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"Everyone thinks being a super genius would be awesome, but they don't realize how much it sucks putting up with all the idiots in the world."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Drugs are illegal because they increase the chances of murder/rape/theft/accidents. If the impact was solely on the individual, they'd likely be legalized. Your argument is dumb.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That would be a good argument if alcohol hadn't been legalized again after they tried to make it illegal. Also, most drugs are not even as impairing as alcohol, so... bogus. That's all I have to say about that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

wut?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Firstly, you're assuming that every argument centers around the United States. Secondly, Prohibition in America ended mainly because it opened up jobs during the Great Depression. The violent backlash and the fact that alcohol wasn't found to be quite so dangerous were factors, yes, but neither of those points hold true for drugs.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

People who do heroin are going to do it regardless of it being illegal or not. People who don't do heroin are most likely going to continue not doing even if it was legal.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why not legalize murder, rape and robbery as well? Criminals are arrested and imprisoned in order to punish and rehabilitate them. The fact that it's illegal still prevents the vast majority of civilians from doing drugs, and those that are caught doing drugs are taken to jail for, again, punishment and rehabilitation. Lastly, that doesn't nullify the fact that a drug addiction harms others as well as yourself. 'People are going to do it anyway' is a sheepish, baseless argument in favor of legalization. There would be many more people smoking marijuana if it was legal.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Smoking marijuana and hiring prostitutes...both sound like victimless crimes to me. Marijuana isn't as dangerous as other drugs (for instance, heroin) because it doesn't alter the mind enough to make the user do something like rape, murder, or robbery. It is a "gentle" drug. How often do you hear about someone robbing a store so that they could buy weed, or crashing their car because they were high on weed, or anything like that? Not very often. Legalization of prostitution would probably result in an increase of STDs, so I can understand opposition to that, though I don't oppose it, myself.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, I'm arguing against the legalization of heroin/meth/cocaine/etc. Marijuana (and prostitution before editing) was used as an example because it seems easier to visualize how more people would hire prostitutes and smoke marijuana if they weren't illegal, if that makes sense. I'm in favor of legalizing the two.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because doing drugs =/= killing people. Even if killing people was legal, no one would do it. Or rape. And as for robbery... people might do that. The fact that drugs are illegal isn't what's keeping most people from doing them. Most people don't do drugs because drugs are bad, mkay? BTW: I'm not for the legalization of drugs. I was just pointing out people aren't going to start doing drugs because they all the sudden became legal, because there are other consequences to doing drugs other than going to jail. So their impact on people would likely be the same, legal or not.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

>Because doing drugs =/= killing people. Even if killing people was legal, no one would do it. I'll agree with this, but doesn't that make it even more imperative that dangerous drugs are kept illegal? Most wouldn't commit murder/rape due to their moral code, religion, and/or respect for human life. The same can't be said for drugs, as many are under the impression that they only hurt the individual. Legalization would prove those people wrong. If the fact that drugs are illegal isn't what keeps people from doing drugs, then what is?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I already said. "because there are other consequences to doing drugs other than going to jail." Since the people who don't do drugs will continue to not do drugs if they became legal, and the people who do drugs do them despite them being illegal, the impact they have on people, and NOT just the individual, would remain the same.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You never specified, though. What specifically?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Specified what? The consequences? That seems pretty obvious. Your health and safety. And of course, other people's safety would be in danger, but people are selfish and other people's well being doesn't keep people off drugs. Also: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view...40#ans10698608 In case anyone doubts that most people still wouldn't do hard drugs even if they were legal.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The consequences of doing drugs other than going to jail. I agree with you, by the way, as that was the basis of my original argument: the reason that drugs are illegal is //because// of the harmful side effects to both yourself and others that result from them. I'm asking because I'm not sure how we're disagreeing on that point.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Damnit. That link was supposed to take you to a question asking if you'd do drugs if they were legal, and only one out of 30 people said yes to hard drugs. (some people said they'd smoke weed)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's alright, answerbag links can get weird. But yeah, I agree that the vast majority of people refrain from drug use from reasons other than legality, but I don't think that justifies legalizing it, as we certainly wouldn't see drug use go down with that action. Sorry if I made that unclear :$

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And I don't think drugs should be legal, even though it kinda sounds like I'm arguing that they should.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

y Yeah, I realized that a few comments ago. Anyway, I understand what you're saying.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Drugs only increase the chances of all that when used by the wrong people. Those wrong people would use drugs regardless of their legality. //your// argument is dumb.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Many drugs impair your mental facilities to the point where you're not going to be making judgments no matter how smart you are.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Meth and heroin are the only two drugs I know of that are potent enough to turn a good person into a bad person that easily. And honestly I don't even know if those drugs do that, I don't know anyone that has had experience with those two. But I do know people that do/have done every other major drug and they have always been perfectly safe and sane people, perfectly capable of good judgement. At least good enough to not hurt anyone.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's not about being a bad person, but somebody taking ecstasy or lsd is not going be capable of making good decisions AT THAT TIME. Whether or not they are normally good decision makers is irrelevant. Many people taking those other major drugs would not be making sound judgments in the same way the people you know have.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think that someone on LSD or ecstasy may not be able to make "good" decisions, but that doesn't mean they will be a danger.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Potentially, yes it does.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There is always the potential, of course. But doing something as serious as murder, robbery, or rape takes more than just bad judgement, I think.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Maybe, but things like assault or vehicle accidents remain definite possibilities.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

All cars should have breathalyzers (or a variation of one to test for drugs) to prevent crashes because of drugs and alcohol. And again, there is always the possibility of assault. But most drugs don't make the user more prone to violence. That's the image that we're given and told is true (the violent druggie) but in most cases drug users aren't any more violent than non drug users. Well, not as a result of drugs, at least. But yes, the potential is always there.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, I agree with your first point, but addictions would be just as strong with or without the legality of drugs, and again, many drug users are unpredictable in their actions, and in my opinion there's no reason to legalize something that has negative effects on the majority of people who use them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

True. I'm imagining the system of legalization working perfectly, with people needing a license to use drugs. And there are ways that that could work, but not realistically. I think that all drugs except heroin and meth should be legalized, and I'm on the fence about cocaine. There would certainly be negative effects, but I think that the positives outweigh them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Hmm, I'm not entirely sure what the positives of legalizing psychedelics would be, and I think those are potentially dangerous because of the extent to which they impair judgment and because people tend to think of them as lighter drugs, but I agree certain drugs should be legalized.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If people started taking psychedelics seriously and using them responsibly I think that legalization of them would be great. It would be safer to the user because they would get the drug from someone trustworthy, not a guy in the alley. The government (or private companies) could make lots of money. The prison population would go down. The negatives are that more accidents would occur as a result of drug use. But if that's what we're worried about, alcohol should be illegal. Really, the only con to legalizing psychedelics that I can think of is an increase of accidents.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The thing is, it's damn hard to use psychedelics responsibly.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The 'wrong people'? You can be the paragon of a perfect, upstanding, and sane citizen, complete with a wife, two darling children and a white picket fence. An addiction to crystal meth is still going to harm you, your family, and anyone who gets in the way of your next fix.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay, fine. Don't legalize crystal meth and heroin.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Social Darwinism is something different than what you're talking about.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I guess I misunderstand what it is then. What would the correct word be?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think this would probably be survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism is basically letting the hardworking people prosper and not helping those who are not well off in order to get to a place where everyone is prosperous. But either way, it's pretty much died off, what with welfare and unemployment and everything.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Natural selection

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're talking about legitimate evolution. Social Darwinism has to do more with business. Other things as well, but mostly business (at least nowadays).

by Anonymous 13 years ago

This is what I was thinking. Isn't Social Darwinism the theory that backs the old idea that Europeans were more evolved than any other race?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm surprised it took someone as long as it did to say this

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I do agree that survival of the fittest is nearly gone and that those laws should be abolished because everyone should be able to make their own decisions based on how they feel and how much they value their life etc but I don't think I can agree with the "deserving death" part. They may have made a choice increasing the risk of dying because they saw the risk as worth it, that does not translate to them deserving death, however.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well said, well said.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Heroin*

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It really sickens me how many people easily dismiss drug users as being idiotic or "unworthy." Do you people have //any// idea how much literature, art, music, etc. was created by the genius of "junkies?" If you honestly believe all people who turn to drugs are just fucking stupid you have absolutely no understanding of the human mind. To say that people deserve death because they made the choice to use drugs is stupidly childish. Also, strict seat belt laws (which in America are relatively new, my parents didn't grow up with them) don't exist just for the individual, they were tightened because people have families and children. So if a person doesn't feel like wearing a seat belt (which is stupid) by law his children have to. Getting rid of those laws altogether would be beyond idiotic.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Jist because some of the greatest minds do it, doesn't mean that its not a stupid thing to do. This is gonna sound harsh but if they don't want their kids to die, they should put them in seat belts.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If they didn't see it as stupid then that's their business. Drugs are so demonized that rather than look at things objectively most people just swallow all the bad propaganda without really thinking about it. And no, I'm sorry but that's bullshit. A child's life shouldn't be dependent on mommy and daddy not thinking a seat belt is necessary. The law exists for a reason and it's a good one.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I understand what you're saying, but in my opinion and from experience, art/music that some drug users made does not nearly make up for the pain that drug users put their loved ones through. It's the worst thing in the world to watch a loved one turn into an absolute monster due to drugs or alcohol. I don't care about some modern paint splattering on a museum wall or some double-meaning song, because in the end behind that work there is probably someone else suffering to that person's choices. Of course it doesn't apply to everyone, but growing up in the "hood" I can safely say that most people who claim drug users as bad or terrible are likely due to a personal experience. I often call drug users terrible names, but after seeing my dad turn into a despicable person, I don't think I'm in the wrong. Some, and very few "junkies" made some pretty cool works of art. But it's just art. It doesn't change anything about the immense pain that drugs cause.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

MISUSE of drugs cause pain. MISUSE of drugs can tear families apart. My dad was a casual drug user. I don't mean just pot, he used heroin. And guess what? He was a fantastic father. He was loving, supportive, attentive, and everything a father should be. We had family vacations, outings, the works. I grew up in an environment where honesty, not scare tactics, were used. I myself never made the decision to do hard drugs, but I know first hand that bad stereotypes are just that. Stereotypes. I'm sorry for your experience, but that's not enough to pigeonhole all drug users. My opinion, and I'm sure yours, remains the same. And no, I'm not just talking about splattered paint in museums. Try some of the most renowned poets and authors ever known. (You know, the people we study in school.)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The thing is, some people can do drugs without serious consequences, and others are highly susceptible to addiction and go down bad paths. Drugs are also easy to abuse, and some people have a predisposition to take them (such as people with bipolar disorder who have a propensity to try to self-regulate and/or escape reality through drugs) are better off with the drugs put in the illegal category to deter them. Sure, some people can do drugs and be fine, but since very few (if any) people actually NEED the drugs that we debate the legality of often on this site, it makes more sense to leave them illegal and have some people disappointed by not getting to use them than allow people who would be hurt by them have their lives consumed. Now that's not a hard and fast rule, but since drugs can be so extreme, it applies. Also, a lot of the major artist already had the creativity and had much inspiration from internal/external personal problems, and could most likely have created incredible masterpieces of art/literature/music without drugs.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It was your decision ti take the drugs. You then assume full responsibility for any consequences you suffer. Its like how not studying and getting an F is entirely your fault.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Are you kidding me? I'm not one for "all life is sacred" crap, but you're actually talking about people who hurt nobody deserving death because they made a silly mistake. People turn to drugs for a whole myriad of reasons, and maybe you'll never understand any of them unless you're in that situation yourself. I know people have a whole lot of difficulty imagining people in any situation other than theirs, but sometimes people just make stupid decisions. So someone undoes their seatbelt just once to reach something on the backseat - the one time something happens to go wrong. That person deserves death? If this person was your friend do you think you'd feel the same way? Someone's desperate, depressed and contemplating suicide, so they do drugs to take the edge off. They deserve to die too? No matter what else they've done, that one thing means you honestly believe they should die? People make mistakes all the time. Even the most intelligent person can't honestly say they've never done SOMETHING silly, embarrassing, or risky. Your friends and family have probably done some pretty dumb stuff. YOU probably have. Do they all deserve to die as well?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well my stepmom died from drugs. But as a family we cared enough about her to get her to rehab and such but she still never quit. Anyways I was speaking of people who //never// wear their seatbelt, not ones who take it off for 5 seconds.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm very sorry to hear about your step-mother, and it's good that you tried to help her... but not everybody has family, or family close enough to trust with complex issues like this. Like I said, there are people in situations other than your own. A person who's depressed and suicidal, taking drugs to cope, is unlikely to want to go to rehab. It makes sense from the outside to go, but if reliance on drugs is the only alleviation they get from depression, how can you expect them to want to stop? They're not going to think it's a good idea to take away their only crutch. It's very easy to make rational decisions when you're an outside party. When you're invested in something, or relying on it, you're much more likely to make rash decisions. Nobody deserves to die for that. People make mistakes, and people turn to some pretty crazy stuff when they're desperate. Telling them they deserve to die is not going to help anybody. And yes, I agree it's really dumb to not wear a seatbelt. But not you-deserve-to-die dumb. For someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt, there could be a 'rational' reason not to. People never do stupid crap actually BELIEVING it's the stupidest option.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

People make mistakes, and with every mistake there is a consequence. Sometimes the consequence is fatal, that's all there is to it. And honestly many people with horrible, horrible lives have stayed away from harm that they are capable of staying away from, so a mistake doesn't excuse anything.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So what about children? What if their parent put them in a car and since, "hey! we don't need to put a seatbelt on that kid!" and just drove? The kid would be in no way at fault and if a police officer suggested they put a seat belt on the kid they would just tell them to fuck off, as they are not obligated by the law to obey. If the kid dies, does he deserve it? The law has to protect everyone. The poor, rich, young, old, and yes, even the stupid.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's too literal of an interpretation of the whole idea of survival of the fittest. What I'm getting from this post is: Only the people who don't make stupid mistakes should live because obviously they're smarter and more fit. They should survive to produce the next generation because they would pass down these smarter genes. The whole goal of evolution is to make survival easier by producing offspring that are more fit to survive. By creating a world where the consequences of a single action don't determine one's fate, we are, because of this, more fit to survive.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Nah, everybody makes mistakes.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I can't believe so many people agreed with this. You think that we should allow people to die for making a mistake?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There's a difference between making a mistake and constantly snorting cocaine. And even if you do get started, there are plenty of rehabilitation centers to help you stop if you wanted to. As for the seatbelts, I specified that I was referring to people who //never wear them// not those who take them off for 5 seconds to get something. And I don't see how you can accidentally forget your helmet when going to ride a motorcycle. That one seems the most intentional.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Making a bad choice that doesn't hurt others shouldn't entail death either.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

hurrdurdurr

by Anonymous 13 years ago

your logic is impeccable

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's the responsibility of our government to make laws to keep us safe. First of all, what's so bad about a seat belt law? It really isn't that tedious to just put on your seat belt. I'm sure most of us have been on a car and not worn a seat belt. Do we all deserve to die then? I'm for marijuana decriminalization but we can't just allow people to sell hard drugs and let them get away with it. Yes, people who do cocaine will still do it anyway, but legalizing it will allow drug dealers to coerce a young person into doing drugs in broad daylight and have it be legal. We need laws to keep them out of the public. It's our responsibility to make sure people live in a safe environment.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If you don't have a problem with wearing a seatbelt, then by all means go out and wear a seatbelt. There are some people who don't like wearing seat belts, and yes if they don't wear a seat belt then they do deserve to suffer the consequences. No one is saying, "If you don't wear a seat belt you deserve to die!"

by Anonymous 13 years ago

People are saying if you don't put on a seat belt you deserve to die if the car crashes. But that's irrelevant. People who don't wear seat belts are going to die in a car crash regardless of the law. This post is saying that the law should be abolished. I don't understand that. If someone not wearing a seat belt the law can't prevent them from dying. However, a cop //can// stop them if they see it and tell them to put it on. That may end up saving their life. I don't understand why you're against that. It's not like them dying strengthens the gene pool and rids it of stupid. I don't see why it's so bad to have a law that could save a life.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Fuck that, it is NOT the responsibility of the Government to keep us safe. The responsibility of the Government is to do whatever the fuck WE want it to do. They work for the people, and the reason they can take away so many freedoms is because people forget that. Is it your computer's job to keep you safe? No, you use it as a tool to have a better life. That's what the Government is, a tool used by the people. In regards to your second paragraph, you are misinformed. Dealers will disappear off the streets completely if drugs were legal. They would not be able to compete with the prices and quality of drugs sold in stores. When is the last time you saw people dealing alcohol or cigarettes on the street corner? It would still be illegal to sell to people under a certain age. It's that kind of illogical thinking that's keeping the Drug Was going.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The army, police force, and firefighters rely on government money. The government pays money to keep us safe. The money comes from us, but it's not just to keep ourselves safe. Even a person who doesn't pay money to the government, such as a child, gets safety. I feel that if a society becomes lenient towards an issue, such as marijuana, laws need to apply to that. Since more and more people are doing it, I think it's senseless to restrict it with old-fashioned laws. However, as a whole, society is very much against hard drugs, so it's stupid to push legalization at a time like this. Once ideas evolve, so can laws. Once the majority wants something, the laws should accommodate it. For example, gay marriage. I'm not 100% against the personal choice of using hard drugs, but I am definitely against the advertising that would go into it if it were legal. We've all seen beer commercials making it seem so amazing to go party with a can of beer. Whose to say that wouldn't happen to advertise LSD? I don't like the advertising of beer or cigarettes either. Regardless, legalizing drugs will definitely make it more popular and more accepted. If society's okay with that, the laws should too.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's not the Government's job to do that kind of thing, though. It's okay to keep people from killing each other, but it's a breach of liberty to control what we can put in our bodies. I hear more people are against legalization than ever. That's probably only cannabis, though. I don't think there would be any advertising. Cigarettes, for example, are illegal to advertise over the television and through billboards and such. Alcohol can only be effectively advertised because the act of drinking is enjoyable to some. LSD can't really be advertised as a good-time drug because the dose on average is only 250 micrograms. It's not really a process to derive pleasure from. I'm also fairly confident people would stay away from psychedelics no matter what. I've known kids that pop prescription pills without knowing what they do, and they thought I was crazy because I wanted to try psychedelics. I think the illegal aspect also creates a false sense of security with legal drugs. People assume that since certain drugs aren't illegal, they must not be dangerous. This led to people to be stupid with salvia, and their idiocy led to it being banned.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm a very strong believer in "my body, my choice". That's why I'm not completely against drug legalization. I think it might actually solve the problrm of teen drug use. But I feel that way only towards marijuana because it's basically harmless. Then again though, our society thinks all around drug legalization to be dangerous, marijuana included. Since there are countries out there with legalization and are doing fine, we should try it within some states. If it's successful we could expand, and even onto hard drugs. I agree. People need to have responsibility over their own body.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think if you're not hurting anyone, then just go out and od whatever the fuck you want.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

amen

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's not the government's responsibility to protect you from yourself.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Anarchy is not your friend

by Anonymous 13 years ago

... This post seems very well thought out and all that stuffs, but umm... heroin is a drug, you said heroine which is a female hero... I wouldn't mind doing a heroine hello.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I may not be Wonder Woman, but I recycle. Which is saving the Earth. ...COME AND GET ME, BABY

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I thought I should tell you I've sat here for 5 minutes thinking about how to respond to this, I'm not even kidding, I have been sitting here with this, puzzled/startled/aroused/confused look on my face for a true 5 minutes and my eyebrows are starting to hurt.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

when i'm in that situation, i usually use poker face http://ctrlv.in/84996

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://ctrlv.in/87704

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't understand how this is voted up. As far as drugs goes, not everyone is lucky enough to get a good education about the negative affects of drugs. Even if they were, you don't know what situation they're in, you don't know how shit they feel and how they just want to do a little something so that for one point in their shitty lives it just isn't quite at shit anymore. You haven't been in their shoes and you don't know what you'd do. As far as seatbelts go, removing those laws would affect the lives of the children of stupid parents, so those children deserve to die because of their parents' decisions? Anyway, if a stupid person does choose not to wear a seatbelt and dies then that isn't an event that only affects that person. Their loved ones are massively affected, if your best friend died because they weren't wearing a seatbelt you'd wonder where the law was protecting them from themselves.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The issue isn't about people being dumb enough not to. It's about the government taking away our personal freedoms. Also, it's a fact that after seat belts were installed on vehicles, there was an increase in car accidents because people felt safer and therefore drove more recklessly.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh I wouldn't say natural selection is almost completely eliminated... http://ctrlv.in/84966

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How many times have your parents told you not to do something and you still did it? And then regretted it? We all make mistakes.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's not just survival of the smartest or people with the most common sense, if you don't work hard, you don't make money. If you don't make money, good luck making it out alive.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So I decide to take a break from AP Euro studying and the POTD mentions Social Darwinism. IT NEVER ENDS.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, but is my opinion on this. So a few things: Where do you draw the line? Because the whole not evolving aspect- sure, it's very understandable that people that do "stupid" things (drive without seatbelts, do hard drugs, etc) are not necessarily evolutionary fit and thus should be naturally removed from the gene pool (but aren't, because of laws)- but where do you draw the line? That same argument could be extended to banning Caesarian (sorry for murdering the spelling) sections in birth. If a mother needs a C-section, she has a narrow birth canal, and if her child is born (which it will be, because we DO c-sections), she'll be passing on those genes. Potentially, all birth could become c-sections, as the birth canal of women is too narrow to support natural birth. Can you imagine the devastating consequences this would have if humans had to repopulate without technology (in some post-apocalyptic world)? What I'm getting at is you could say that C-sections should be outlawed, too, so that we remove "bad" genes. That would cause more stillbirths, and potentially mothers would die in pregnancy. But is that the right thing to do for the human species as a whole? Continued...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's not all, either. You could also argue that we shouldn't have retirement homes, and we shouldn't take care of the elderly, as they are a drain on our resources. You could say that most, if not all, of modern medicine is destroying evolution- because it is, it does allow those people who are not necessarily evolutionarily fit to survive. This list goes on. What you have in your post just scratches the surface of a broad ethical debate on humans and how we have controlled our evolution- which we have, for the better or the worse. So I agree with some of what you say: if a motorcyclist doesn't wear a helmet and he crashes and dies, that is his fault. But I disagree with the rest of the reasoning that can be extended by your argument. Humans ARE the dominant species on this planet, and our one great resource, our brain, is what has allowed us to innovate and advance. As a collective population, we have reaped the benefits of our advancements: we let people live because we are empathetic and we have the ability to, regardless of the effect that has on evolution. Continued in reply, last one...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lastly, as other's have mentioned, people crashing their cars and dying because they weren't wearing seatbelts can hurt other individuals, which is out of their control. Thus, the laws are in place, in general, for the good of humans. Nice thought, but the argument is grander than you may have realized.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I see what you're saying. Good point. I really didn't think of that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Maybe murderers deserve to die. Maybe rapists and child molesters deserve to die. But someone who tries hard drugs, maybe only once, does not deserve to die. You don't know what's going on in their life; they might have grown up in a situation where they did not receive all sorts of talks preaching against it. Maybe they're suffering from severe depression or some other mental disorder and just want to feel good. Shooting heroin is by no means a good decision, and I'm not saying it's ever rationally justifiable, but it's not as if anyone who does it is an all-around stupid person who deserves to die.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Drugs need to be tightly regulated because people using them won't have the same ability to make good judgments and choices as normal people, thus special laws need to be applied to them. (Let me also point out that some "illegal" drugs aren't really illegal. Meth, for example, is available as a prescription drug for ADHD patients. The issue isn't that people are using illegal drugs, it's that their drug use needs to be closely monitored and accounted for, which can't happen if the drugs are illegally acquired.) Seat belt laws, though, I'm not so sure about. People in their right state of mind can choose to not wear a seat belt, and I don't see how that decision affects anyone else. Kids under 18, though, should definitely be required, as they can't always be trusted to make the best decisions. (I write that assuming that seat belts really do improve safety to a significant degree, which I'm not actually sure about.)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

A lot of drug discussion on this post, but not too much of it is good. I can't blame anyone, though, because I have an obsession with drugs that's probably unhealthy. I'm just going to state a few facts, but I'm probably not going to respond to anyone who tries to refute what I say. It would seem nobody else I've argued with on this site can effectively argue with me. Drugs are NOT illegal to keep people safe. That's an absolute lie and you'd do good to remember that. Drugs are illegal because of ignorance, monetary reasons, paranoia, and racism. Cannabis is illegal because at first, people were afraid that minorities would smoke it and start raping white women and generally being violent. After that, there was a complete 180 and it was illegal because the Government feared the Communists would use it to pacify our citizens so we wouldn't resist being taken over. Cocaine was pretty much subject to the same thing about blacks getting high and attacking whites. LSD and psychedelics like that were made illegal because Nixon hated "dirty hippies". Opium was made illegal, again, because of racism. It was said the Chinese people were taking middle class white women to smoke opium and-

by Anonymous 13 years ago

ruining their morals. Drugs that are similar to the ones already made illegal can automatically be made illegal via the Federal Analogue Act. This means nobody has to even study new drugs for them to be illegal, as long as they are chemically similar to already illegal drugs. These drugs are going to stay illegal, too, because there's sooo much money to be had. Everybody involved in the War on Drugs gets paid from Government subsidiaries. The funding means the Drug Czar gets paid, the police get paid, etc. The alcohol and tobacco companies also get all the profits from people who want a psychotropic substance. They have no competition, and generally fund anti-drug organizations for that reason. Do you think companies producing two of the most toxic drugs really care about anything other than profit? The black market also gets all the money from people who still want to buy illegal drugs. Mexican cartels and domestic manufacturers are free to make insane amounts of money because none of the substances are regulated. Drug lords are some of the most wealthy people in the world, and constantly thank the U.S. Government for being stupid.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Finally, the people who own private prisons are getting paid well. They also receive money from the Government to keep their prisons running. Every prisoner means more money for them, and most prisoners are in jail for drug charges, even things like just having some cannabis on them. The U.S. only has 5% of the world's population, but we have 25% of the world's prison population. The argument that the laws prevent crime is also completely faulty. I mentioned that prohibition keeps the black market in charge of drug economy. As such, the prices are artificially inflated beyond belief. Cannabis is more expensive than just about any legal product by an unbelievable margin. It's that inflated cost that forces people to commit crime to pay for their next fix. When's the last time you've seen someone commit a crime for a cigarette or a beer? Alcohol is extremely addictive, and nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to man; more addictive than heroin. It must be the cost, not the addiction. Also, drugs provide funding for violent drug-runners and gangs fighting over territory. Countless cops and soldiers are killed every year trying to fight the War on Drugs.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If drugs were legal and all that money was kept in the economy and not funding gangs, the entire black market would crumble. Drugs are the last major source of income for organized crime. Dealers would disappear off the streets and stop shooting people. There'd no longer be guns being run South of the border, and we wouldn't have cartel members making their way into the U.S. People wouldn't have to rob to afford drugs. There's also the matter of danger. Everyone loves to talk about how dangerous drugs are and how we'd become a nation of druggies if they were legal. The Netherlands and Portugal are good places of reference. While overall drug use increased ever so slightly, drug deaths dropped, HIV frequency dropped, adolescent use decreased, and problematic use decreased. Crime not involving people from neighboring countries is also down. The fact is that the most dangerous thing about drugs is that they are illegal. There are safe injection sites around that provide people with sterile needles and and treatment if they OD. Nobody has ever died in these sites. We also can't have too reliable of an idea of how safe drugs are because they are manufactured illegally.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Prohibition era alcohol has been known to do things like cause blindness via methanol poisoning, and there's also been lead poisoning. We all know that alcohol nowadays doesn't do that, barring moonshine. I see you mentioned heroin specifically. I bet you didn't know that heroin itself is actually pretty harmless (except in overdose). The biggest danger with heroin is all of the impurities. Assuming one didn't overdose, one could potentially use it for a lifetime without many negative side-effects. The impurity is also a factor of overdose, because the user can't be certain of it's potency. Psychedelics also tend to be completely harmless as far as physical side-effects go. Cocaine certainly isn't too bad if used in moderation, either. Meth can also be pretty bad, but I feel like it wouldn't be sold under the name Desoxyn as a prescription if it were truly as life-wrecking as everyone thinks. Alcohol is worse than just about any illegal drug, and is the third leading cause of death in the United States, and kills about 10 times as many people as all illegal drugs put together. Tobacco in particular is VERY bad. The list of negative side-effects is a mile long, certainly longer-

by Anonymous 13 years ago

than any illegal drug. Nicotine is, like I mentioned, the most addictive out of most drugs. It's also more acutely toxic than heroin. People can die from handling wet tobacco leaves. Safety is obviously not an issue when it comes to drug laws. Another point people like to bring up is how lucid people are under the influence. This brings me right back to alcohol. People are more fucked up and belligerent under the influence of alcohol than anything other than perhaps a high dose of PCP or another dis-associative drug. Someone on heroin isn't likely to be going anywhere. It takes a lot of cocaine before someone starts being violent and unpredictable. Even so, they're not likely to kill someone via negligence or idiocy like a drunk person is. Stimulants basically increase everything, and they'd be less likely to hurt someone in a car accident, in fact. Meth can be bad, but how many people are really going to do meth just because it's legal? As someone with limited drug experience, I'd say the whole "judgement impairment" thing is overblown. I've taken a relatively high dose of DXM and been very high on cannabis at the same time, and my higher reasoning skills weren't impacted at all

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I had no trouble making decisions. It should be noted I happen to be very susceptible to the effects of cannabis and am not experienced with DXM at all. People on psilocybin or LSD aren't as likely to go crazy as you'd think. Basically, there's just no reason to keep drugs illegal. Humans are notorious for making a bad decision and sticking with it, or keep with old traditions no matter how outdated they are. Keep in mind that the QWERTY keyboard that most of us used has been extensively researched and created specifically to slow down our typing in order to keep us from jamming type-writers. Literally any other configuration would be more logical, yet we keep with it. I also forgot to mention that tobacco is the number one cause of death in the U.S., and the third leading cause of death in the world. If laws against substances were truly to protect us, don't you think there'd be a law against tobacco? TL:DR - Fuck you, read it or move on.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I just read on the government website that heart disease was the number one death...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Tobacco causes heart disease.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So many YYA's. People must not know what Social Darwinism actually is. Don't get me wrong, we have also eliminated Social Darwinism, but by other means. Nothing in this post is related to it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Drugs should still be illegal. Drug addicts are not just dangers to themselves.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Cars should be illegal. People driving cars are not just dangers to themselves. Kitchenware should be illegal. People using sharp objects are not just dangers to themselves. Pets should be illegal. Pet owners are not just dangers to themselves. Nuclear power should be illegal. Nuclear power plant owners are not just dangers to themselves. I'm sure you get the point.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Not really. Animals are not more dangerous tame than wild and drugs are far less necessary than any of those other things. Plus would you say that deliberately burning your own house down should be legal just because cars are and both pose a risk of harming others.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

More people are hospitalized due to pet attacks than because of illegal drugs. There's also about 3 times as many deaths due to vehicular accidents than illegal drugs per year. The danger part is nonsense. Necessity isn't the point, the point is that making these things illegal is stupid and causes more problems than it solves. There's not much of a market for burning down houses. There is a massive market for drugs, and all the profit goes to funding cartels that murder and rob people. There's also the fact that since the drugs are illegal, they are impure and much more likely to harm the users. Prohibition of alcohol was solely responsible for the birth of organized crime, and illegally brewed alcohol is notorious for causing methanol and lead poisoning. These are parallel to drug prohibition. If we ended it, organized crime would disappear, and safety of the drugs would be positively affected. It's not an argument whether or not drugs can be harmful, it's just objectively true that they cause less harm when legal and regulated.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That isn't social Darwinism, that's just regular Darwinism.. Social Darwinism ties into business and social class, not the species.

by Anonymous 13 years ago