Brain storming arguments aginst Drug Legalization

...

Nobody said that, Jew. Leave until you find a real argument.

Norm equalization arguement (source roissy) as applies for same sex marriage

Weight loss for morbidly obese

This is an incredibly Jewish post.

"Read Brave New World you stupid pleb."

...

You're the one who literally equated 'muh drugz' to child molestation. Go Jew somewhere else. Your 'no u' is meaningless.

Fuck off npc.

You're fooling no one, bongnigger.

Just like alcohol.. oh wait.

No, I'm not.

Low-IQ people should just lurk, not post.

I had a fake ID when I was 13.

Also, legalization doesn't eliminate the black market, it acts as an entry vector.

Pilpul.

There is literally nothing wrong with drugs. All you need to do is use it responsibly. Puritans can suck the projectile out of a shotgun.

A crux of Conservatism (true conservatism not neocon bullshit) is order. Without order we fall into disorder and the nation falls apart. White homogeneity, religious virtue, all of this stems from the instinct to preserve an orderly society. When Commiefornia legalized marijuana, they taxed the Hell out of it which doubled the amount of illegal sales due to legal weed's outrageous price. Crime = disorder. Additionally, weed is linked with schizophrenia and degenerative behaviors. Degeneration, mental disorders, and crime are literally antithetical to an orderly society. No Conservative (not an intelligent one anyway) would campaign for marijewanas legalization because in practice it is handled poorly.

Outlawing drugs simultaneously makes less-or-non-addicting and potentially beneficial substances such as entheogens, entactogens and psychedelics scarce while the most harmful and addictive substances such as opiates and stimulants the most available to fund organized crime and deep state corruption.

Vices should be treated as vices, permissive=/=sanctioned.

You legalize and decriminalize ALL drugs or none at all. Your doctor is nothing more than a glorified Drug Dealer in a lab coat.
We already know prohibition does not work as people will make their own booze in a bathtub rather than be sober.
Governments worldwide would love their citizenry to be docile, yet just smart enough to operate the machines.

Why this major push for ONLY weed? Their are plenty of functional drugs like Modafinil, Methylphenidate and Phenethylamine derivatives that should not even be scheduled. I propose that the government wants you fat and happy rather than too smart to question the motives of the elite.

The real question that you should be asking is who benefits from the legalization of marijuana? The tax payer sure as hell doesn't.

It's about control, prohibitionist method delivers this and so does provision method, notice our admitted Afghanistan policy.
The bias for downers is real, even tamer stims like ecigs are being patrolled.

Out of hundreds of people I've asked you are one out of about ten that got the right answer.
Not terribly well, it's why the mafia became a "thing" and people where boozing it up at the speakeasies. I've been to dry counties, people either order online, hop over the county line or make their own.

I'm of the opinion that everything should be decriminalized (descheduled). You'll see a spike in drug use and in a single generation the people that are addicts will die out.

Attached: 1520781379313.gif (768x576, 82.37K)

Who's we?

Attached: igowk2tv9y8z.jpg (1200x827, 89.63K)

I'm American thus the "we" pronoun.

Not a comparative juxtaposition between drug abuse and child molestation within the context of the populace's response relative to the legality of each in turn.

Again, not this.

You're just upset that you don't understand the difference between comparative juxtaposition and implication of equivalence.
Nobody is calling you a baby fucker on the basis of being a pothead in their comparing the response of people with regards to variation in the legality of baby fucking and pot smoking.

...

Great fucking idea OP! Let's impose our ideology on others for the good of society! What's that called again?

Civilization?

Nothing works in America

It's only illegal if you get caught.

Off topic sadly, create another thread for that discussion.

Your country is already unproductive and wasted on pot

Thing is, prohibition DID work.

>What everyone knows about Prohibition is that it was a failure. It did not eliminate drinking; it did create a black market. That in turn spawned criminal syndicates and random violence. Corruption and widespread disrespect for law were incubated and, most tellingly, Prohibition was repealed only 14 years after it was enshrined in the Constitution.

Prohibition was a Womyns temper tantrum.

Attached: america-when-feminized (1).jpg (950x1200, 283.9K)

Prohibition takes away free will.

It was caused by religious groups getting uppity.

Doesn't matter, it worked.

So, what's gonna happen when we rescind the long-standing prohibition on pot?
Well, the data suggests more people will smoke pot and the black market will not disappear, but a ton more people will be exposed to a vector leading into that black market.

Whether or not prohibition was related to twats being salty is irrelevant - it worked. That's all that matters.

So do laws against baby-fucking you incredibly sophist.

*incredibly sophist faggot.

Yes church ladies rabble rousing while all the men were dying for Palestine in europe.

We really need better moderation on this board.

According to you. If it worked then alcohol would still be illegal.

So do laws against baby-fucking you incredibly sophist.
Ad hominem attacks are a low blow. Try harder.

No, according to what it means to have 'worked' - it reduced alcohol usage by a significant margin, as well as the resultant negative consequences.

That doesn't follow.
Its purpose was to reduce alcohol consumption. It worked.
It ceased to be a law because people of (((influence))) wanted to make money selling drugs. That doesn't alter the fact that prohibition worked.

If it's supposed to be illegal at the federal level, and it's not in the constitution, there's supposed to be an amendment.
The entirety of BATF is illegal, along with the IRS.

Prove me wrong faggot.

Who cares lolberg?

So are you saying roasties were right for the wrong reasons?

Attached: download (23).jpeg (217x232, 9.84K)

I guess?
I don't know that they were even right, in that they wanted to get rid of ALL drinking it seems, and the legislation didn't even TRY to do that.
I just know that the process worked at its intended purpose, and that was probably for the best.

Alcoholism is a terrible blight upon our people, much akin to the opiate epidemic, but people have gotten so used to boozehounds being a thing that they don't even consider the notion of trying to do anything about it anymore.

Making it legal to have weed and grow it for personal uses is one thing, making it legal for massive grow operations run by pharma companies owned by the same jews shilling opiates and booze to the masses seems like a bad idea.

Says the guy who gets his stats from a nytimes article:
nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

You should care.
Do you want to have the government telling you what you can and can not eat or drink?

Lolbergs should know their economics better. There are undesirable incentives that low cost and abundant Intoxicants , widespread have on level on population. This atomized model is not tenable.

Agreed on all points.
I guess a good compromise for alcohol would only allow for it be made in the home of the the drinker, not for distribution or sale to anyone else.

And? Feel free to disprove the assertions.
I mean, I assume you aren't going to cry about ad hom and then fall back on attacking the source, are you?

Says the guy whose argument can't be reconciled beyond his limited context of introduction.

Then we have to legalize baby-fucking.
Restrictions on murder restrict your free will. If everything limiting free will has to go, then so does the restriction on murder.
So is drunk driving.
People wanted to make money selling drugs to people. That's it.

I'd be fine with that. Same with weed, to be honest.

The issue isn't the drugs themselves, nor peoples access to them, its the way large-scale operations form up around them and pimp them to people.
Fucking hate South Park, but god damn if they didn't get this one right on the money.

That would do a lot of people a lot of good based the obesity rate.

You're right. I've changed my mind. Thank you for the convincing argument.

I'm still having a difficult time on grasping the government regulating what I put into my body though.

No legalization of drugs without the privatization of its consequences.

Wow it actually got even worse.

There's only about 30,000 firearms related DEATHS (about 60% of that being suicides) in any given year in the US.

Do you trust the government to make the correct decisions? I'd be on board with this if it where not for the fact that government fucks up at everything.

I understand, but if you don't have an issue with the government telling you in whose holes you can stick your body, them telling you not to put addictive chemicals in your body is probably not a huge issue in the long run.

Plus, as I said, I don't have an issue with you USING drugs and alcohol - I have an issue with major international corporations bribing your government to allow them to run massive operations to manufacture and distribute addictive drugs, coupled with huge platforms of propaganda urging people to use those drugs in ways that are not in their best interest.
I'm sure you understand how that's an issue.

Want to have a beer you made yourself in your home with some friends and family? Great! Have fun! (But don't drive drunk!)
Want to smoke a joint at home, from the garden you tended and grew from a seedling and processed for use in the home? Go for it! Especially if you've got chronic pain or the like.

But if you want to run a massive operation funded by my enemies to shill addictive literal-poison to my people en masse, using manipulative media advertising, without any consideration for the damage this does on both the individual and societal levels, then you can go fuck yourself sideways with an iron bar.

Not at all.
They already are fucking it up, thats where you're getting confused.

The government SHOULD be saying "Hey, you wanna use that shit, its on you to make it. Have fun" instead of "Oh, hello Mr. Schlomobergsteinowitz! Oh, you want to build another factory to manufacture addictive substances? And you want to run manipulative media adverts urging people to use them? Couldn't that have a negative eff- oh wow that's a lot of money you have there! FOR ME!? YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE! Huh? Oh, yeah, the factory, do whatever you want man!".

Some Key Note Speakers at a few cannabis Conventions;
.
Fox; MX Illegal Cannabis is laundered thru dispensaries.
Sharpton; still owes the IRS, Cannabis is all cash bidness.
Whoopi; who da fuk?
.
Culling and Quelling…

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1280x720 1.08 MB, 869.34K)

The major issue is the government is terrible at regulating peoples choices. I don't think we'd be having the conversation if advertising existed for these products (or any for that matter) and we had killed off the socialist revolution of the 60's, thus preventing the decline of critical thinking in schools.

The government shouldn't be the one forcing this. It'll be alcohol today, then sugar the next day, then meat the next day. Obama's school lunch program was a disaster due to our government being so shitty at regulating food. This is what worries me about government controlling what we put in our bodies.

Wouldn't this create a black market?

Kill yourself. We will go through absolute anarchy before any of us has a chance to positively effect governmental change.

whether they ban or enable, their control remains.

Qite true! That's why it shouldn't be regulating PEOPLES choices in that capacity.

What do you mean?
FTFY and yes, I'm inclined to agree there.

That didn't happen with prohibition. In fact, again, the government didn't even say the people couldn't use it - they said the people couldn't MASS PRODUCE it or DISTRIBUTE it.
And surely you don't have an issue with the government telling people not to MASS PRODUCE or DISTRIBUTE addictive drugs, right? I mean, by the sound of it, its really the reverse of what you said: I was alcohol yesterday, today it'll be pot, the next day it'll be MDMA, then heroin the next (granted, they already a legalized variant of heroin, but you get the idea).

Black market already exists.
Legalization does nothing in that capacity, as I addressed in a previous post.

Legalization invariably comes with increased cost. That's just the way it is, because the dispensers have increased costs they have to cover, thus this gets shunted onto the customer/product cost.
That variance in price is all that is required for a black market to emerge if it did not already exist, especially when you're talking about an addictive substance.

That said, if you really wanted booze, or weed, but nobody was selling it, why not just make it yourself?
I mean, yeah, you could buy it off someone who might be making it, but that's a lot of risk on your behalf - not to mention the risk of the guys making enough of it to have enough to distribute!

Point being, a black market will exist no matter what you do, so legalization won't change that in any way.
Further, if we're talking about making MASS PRODUCTION and DISTRIBUTION illegal, but NOT making personal production/consumption illegal, then a lot of the issues therein fall away - why risk breaking the law for something that I can produce myself at even lower cost than the stuff available on the black market?
Basic shifting of incentives.

As long as the current order exists, yes of course. Thus, my previous statement. There is no acting within a system, we have no legitimate government. In a certain sense we are already living under the failures and evil of anarcho-tyrrany, as of course we know that laws are selectively enforced mostly upon White men and thus there is no law as such.

This too shall pass
NOW

What I find time and time again is that the people who seek to control drugs are the ones that know the least about them.

Take Canada for example. The "legalization" has gone about as bad as I have expected. There is nowhere near the supply of legal cannabis to fit the demand, and municipalities are allowed to ban the sale, leaving organized crime with plenty of business. This isn't surprising, the government and organized crime are hand in hand here. On top of that, growing your own cannabis is still outlawed. Moving it over the border is outlawed. We're not even allowed to eat it if we want. Now if you get caught breaking these new regulations you get giant fines rather than being dismissed in court. Real fucking legalized right?

The next step is to declare legalization a failure and put the lid back on it for the long term. What will the crooks ever do without their weed income?

Oh, right and as evidenced in that article you didn't like very much above, there really wasn't any negative consequence from saying "You can't MASS PRODUCE or DISTRIBUTE alcohol - but you can make it yourself at home and enjoy it therein" other than that which was already extant.

The whole 'prohibition failed!' narrative is a figment made up by those who 1) want to have free license to shill this crap en masse to the goyim, and/or 2) have a really autistic issue with authority imposing upon them in any way, shape or form.
You were kinda coming off as a 2 there for awhile, but I think you're just not keen on an authority you don't trust having power over you, and that's understandable on some level.

My thing is, instead of having the government standing over us, regulating these drugs and imposing taxes on them and such, while allowing (((big business))) scumbags to shill the shit for shekels regardless of the damage it does, we should be allowed to have it in our homes and use it at our leisure (if we have the agency to produce it, of course!), while the (((big business))) faggots get left out in the cold without allowances to shill it or to make enough of it to shill.

Wrong, they know the most about them. It's the retards who haven't learned the price of drug addiction who don't know shit about them

I was going to say something about how clueless OP is about the pharmajew, but his thought process is so telling… 'child rape' huh? Just kill yourself, nigger and I would wager you're at least some halfbreed mongoloid abomination that doesn't belong here. Giving a fuck what other adults put in their body hahaha. You can't even control your weight, you fake fuck. Those cheeseburgers are going to kill you the same as any pill.

Laws don't prevent people from drugs. People don't do drugs because they don't want to do drugs. Laws don't prevent shit.
By ops logic we should ban guns because banning them would prevent misuse.

The comments above are demonstrable of baitposting.
It's basically shitposting, but with the intent of gaining (you)s.
The only people who do this as douchebags trying to create arguments to no end, and malicious operatives who get paid based on the number of responses they get.

The moderation staff has spectacularly failed to combat the sudden uptick in this activity seen since the moderation purge after the midterms.

Check em baitniggerz.

Well the doctors here, who you would think should know about drugs, were pushing to limit the amount of THC in cannabis, therefore forcing the users to smoke more of it, increasing the chances of respiratory disease. If they knew how cannabis was used they would know this is stupid, especially with our oh-so-great socialized health care system. They can drain those taxpayer dollars treating even more cancer and emphysema and the like. Dare not we eat it avoiding these health hazards.

Just corporations?

I don't think we'd be having this conversation if advertising didn't exist for these products (or any for that matter).

100% socialism, 80% Kike.

Not really. I take Modafinil and Ritalin yet I'm not an addict and no one can make this stuff at home. However I buy it off the black market because it is cheaper, you got me there. The solution here is to publicly shame addicts and force them into rehab, then kill them if they don't get their act together.

More oversocialized drivel. We've had this thread 6 gorrillian times since at least the second exodus, which is why the actual responses are already fleshed out. The hivemind has spoken on this issue, thus it needs no thread. But newfaggots will need to see it a few times before they get bored of it, which is why we're bothering to reply.

Attached: egg thread derail.png (1361x1366, 476.52K)

You can't just get Medical cannabis unless you prove that you tried taking everything before getting approved

Most drugs can't be made at home though.

Scratch that image, this is the unfucked one

Attached: egg thread derail(1).png (1361x1366, 476.3K)

it all come down to societal productivity and individual repercussions. With tobacco: you can smoke a cigarette and still work so the years it takes to develop lung cancer doesn't matter. With Alcohol: you can't work while drunk, however you are punish for doing so with a hangover the next day, so people know not to drink to great excess. With every other drug your productivity is impaired and the negative effects don't come until years down the line. Which makes it easy for a society to get high, addicted, stagnate, and then collapse.

Attached: 1512059436329.jpg (792x868, 115.67K)

Most drugs can be made in a bathroom if you know what you're doing.

Who profits from adderall

Not true. It's the dose that makes the poison.
Take 10mg of Ritalin than proceed to study a difficult concept such as 4th year EE coursework.
Take 40mg of Ritalin and you tweak about government conspiracies.

Tell me how to make Modafinil and Ritalin in the bathtub without killing myself and I'll believe you.

If taken legally as prescribed? The patient.

Learn safe practices of organic chemistry. Look up synthesis on internet. BAM

Kill yourself faggot.

Pic related conveys the stupidity of your statement

Attached: 1547226006136.jpg (925x617, 85.31K)

He said profit, not benefit. When was your last hit?

Still didn't answer my question.

Both of those drugs can't be made at home because of the inability to acquire the precursors, along with the cost to make sure you made the drug safely. Their is a reason most drugs are made in a lab and not your bathtub.

You are correct.
Society profits from it as you now have a functioning person who can hold a job and contribute to his nations economy and have a family rather than living in a cardboard box.
Ask stupid questions, win stupid questions.

Next time ask:
What companies profit from formulating adderall

web.archive.org/web/20131216080856/http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ndc/results.cfm?beginrow=1&numberperpage=160&searchfield=amphetamine&searchtype=ActiveIngredient&OrderBy=ProprietaryName

Ask stupid questions, win stupid prizes.

typical lolberg argument. Let's not make any laws! It could make things worse so let's not even try.

Meanwhile our enemies push and push and push and even if it takes decades they get the job done.

Well obviously you would need precursors, and yes, with a bit of effort you can get pretty much anything you want. My point is that if someone really wants to, they can.

I would however recommend proper facilities.

Your words, not mine. I'm open for something that works, historically speaking the government does a piss poor job at making laws that work because of Kike influence.

That's because laws are not about justice and keeping the peace anymore, they are about a (((revenue))) stream.

What would your solution to this problem entail then?
Teach critical thinking skills in school and to enforce the CCA of 1968? Or have a nanny state? I'm open for real ideas.