Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Griz1
New member
MACHI said:"While not a big proponent of harder rec drugs I would say that anecdotal evidence/experience is hardly a basis in which to base a broad national policy on. If you believe that, then you'd be about as dumb as the ones sticking oxy, or worse into thier arms." Nicely biased and judgemental statement there on your part!
You've said all of these things. lol not me. Are you criticizing your own statement????....(things you said will be in red) Huh? Once again, what the fuck are you talking about. How am I critisizing my own statement. I think you're interpretation is way off.
I'll use up top to explain the logical thought progression that led me to say this...
4)LOL and I'm afraid to say that the US has MUCH more than 'anecdotal' evidence on the harder rec drugs lol. Even if the US didn't, your second statement shows that you agree with the overwhelming anecdotal evidence that you claim national policy is based on. So you tell me what type of evidence the US is lacking and I'll find it for you. What the fuck are you talking about here? Have you not been reading? Oh that's right, you've been reacting, not reading...sorry... For christ sake! My point is, as with TONS of others (and not just pro-drug folks) that the US HAS scientific evidence, it's just VERY biased AND directed to whatever results they desire (in this case "oooh drugs are the problem of all evil, etc."). For fucks sake, that critisism has been ALL OVER the news lately anyway. How the fuck do I agree with the states' national policy?
Definition of anecdotal -- ...based on reports of unscientific nature....
I know what that means, I'm wondering if YOU DO.
1)You said that it is not right for US policy to be based on 'anecdotal evidence/experience. Or any country for that matter.
IMPLICATION - In your opinion the US does not have enough scientific based studies to make rec drugs illegal. The only reason they are illegal, in your opinion, is because of anecdotal evidence. Well this pretty much sums up my complaint with even dealing with you. That is hardly the implication. You are trying to read between the lines here, and unfortunately you're putting garbage inbetween them. Ever consider that the implication might be something else...duh! (YOU are assuming the govt is just naturally benevolent and wouldn't dare make a policy based on faulty information whether it be anecdotal, OR poor science.) Further to you mis-interpretation, when I said "it is not right for US policy to be based on 'anecdotal evidence/experience" I was responding to YOUR statements because that is what YOU were advocating in your post (and some other folks to to be fair). That was not necessarily to say that the US had in fact used anecdotal evidence to make their policy. That concept as I said is just a bad one in any case. See this is what I mean when I'm saying "can't you read?".
2)Crack, and stuff is just a bad choice all around. I think criminalizing it (and other "hard" rec drugs) breeds more social problems than the use of it itself however. But you're right, two different worlds.
IMPLICATION - The two different worlds in this statement is referrencing the comparison of an AAS user to a basehead. So if you think crack is a bad choice all around then why are you arguing for its legalization? *insert annoying comment directed at you* My point is that despite the fact that the stuff IS bad for you (as is AAS - which you disagree with because your "goals" predjudice you) is should not be illegal. That is merely pouring gas on a fire. As I've said before take the 90 billion dollars (old figure) that has been spent on drug prohibition, and put it towards education and awareness, while wiping out organized crime by making the stuff LEGAL, and you've managed rec drugs down to levels which cease to be a serious problem...duh! Do you have ANY idea of what level of education and awareness (NOT propaganda which is done already - actual education and awareness) could be achieved with that kind of cash???? All you would have left is responsible use of rec drugs with a much much smaller contingent of abusers, and a ton of avenues for rehabilitation when sought. You think that crime rates will fall if we legalize crack? I'll say that there is a chance that they will because of what happened with prohibition. But this does not mean that its legalization will be better for society! People will just be 'legally' getting even more fucked up than they allready are! Huh? What kind of an argument is that? Your saying that keeping it illegal will be "better for society"? How? So people can have jobs with the DEA?
See my previous argument. The evidence shows that, yes, after legalization there is a period where people DO tend to get "fucked up" followed by a drastic reduction in use (I guess the appeal wears off). If things follow, as in my previous argument (eliminate organized crime around drugs, education awareness, etc.), how is getting wasted legally or illegally any different?
3)"The best arguement i've heard yet is "I will disagree with anybody that compares a Bodybuilder with a Basehead... Two different worlds man!" But to include weed in that is RIDICULOUS!"
I said "best argument", not necessarily fully valid.
IMPLICATION - You believe that they are two different worlds because the basehead is much more effected by the drugs he uses because they are much much more drastic in their effects than AAS. While the US does not have AAS legalized it does view AAS as less harmful than rec drugs. Hence the reason AAS are schedule 3 and most rec drugs are schedule 1. You claim that the US only has anecdotal evidence for the basis of their national drug policies. As I said before. NO. I did not say this nor imply it. YOU made a faulty inferrence. So you do then agree with the evidence the country does have in the scheduling of the different types of drugs, which you support by your statement......... No need to answer this, it is a faulty inferrence on your part.
The best arguement i've heard yet is "I will disagree with anybody that compares a Bodybuilder with a Basehead... Two different worlds man!" But to include weed in that is RIDICULOUS!"
I said "best argument", not necessarily fully valid.
So I guess I'm looking for two things......
1) Why isn't the argument of a steroid user being dissimilar to a basedhead fully valid?
2) If you feel I am unjustified in making any of the assumptions I've made from your statements, why?
I think I've answered your BS fully.
