The Sad Drug War Is Necessary

[MichaelB]

Your post here is essentially a carbon copy of your last one, so I'll simply refer you to my previous reply: Your Controlled-by Issues Are Obvious

"Translation: "I, MichaelB, have so many controlled-by issues stemming from my unresolved issues from my family-of-origin ... so let 'em all have their damaging and deadly drugs!!! "

Yep, all these painful unresolved controlled-by issues so many freedom criers harbor, that all they want is to be left alone to do whatever they want, and they don't care at all how many lives are damaged and killed by these drugs they advocate.

In a healthy and progressive society we don't let people just do whatever the hell they please.

No, we set limits on allowable human behavior with respect to rights ...

... And the realities of rights place the foundational right to life first, the secondary right to security second and the tertiary right to freedom third.

That's why you can't run around murdering people and crying "freedom, freedom, freedom to do whatever I want!" as your lame excuse.

The same is true for abusing damaging and deadly drugs: there is no cry for "freedom" that overrides the security and the very lives of others the abuser comes in contact with while stoned, endangering the lives of others.

Just look at the car crashes stoners cause, posted earlier.

Just look at all the criminal acts caused by stoners that Andy posted earlier.

You've got to be seriously warped to think that a healthy society will tolerate this obvious cause and effect horror drug abuse causes.

When people are stoned they lose their cognitive judgement ability -- that's a fact.

And then they get behind the wheel of a car and injure and kill innocent others, caused by being stoned.

That cause and effect will not be tolerated by a healthy society.

And, of course, a healthy society wants healthy members, so of course the overwelming vast majority, 99% of the population who are not pot abusers, aren't going to listen kindly to druggies shouting "Gimme my drug!!!" because of the damage these druggies do to others, as well as the sad damage they do to themselves.

Healthy people just can't advocate or accept that kind of self-destructive behavior permeating their entire society.

So the drug war exists to defend ourselves from the scourge of druggies and the deadly drug war they cause.

Druggies, money-lovers, the oppositional defiant disordered, and others with unresolved family-of-origin controlled-by issues aren't going to get to work out their doomed-to-fail "corrective emotional experience" on society hoping that they can be childishly allowed to do anything they want.

Life doesn't work that way, not in a healthy and progressive society, it doesn't.

Human rights realities won't allow you to behave in ways that are proven to lead directly or too tragically often indirectly to the cause of injury and death to others.

It's time for all of you with these un-resolved family-of-origin issues to grow the f... up, resolve those issues with therapy, and find a dynamic balance between security and freedom that respects the human rights, security and the very lives of others, and thereby take your proper role as a responsible and accountable member of the society to which you are supposed to belong.

Those who don't, those who put the lives of others at risk via bad behavior caused by drug abuse, are headed for the pokey, where they belong, thereby keeping the rest of us who wish to do the right thing by ourselves and and fellow human beings safe from malcontents like drug abusers."

***

Learn to live with the fact, MichaelB, that society, that 99% that aren't drug addicts, are the ones who create the government and demand, in the representative democracy of our democratic republic, to keep drugs illegal and thereby protect society from those who use drugs and always end up harming innocent people.

Your beef isn't with the "big, bad government", MichaelB, your beef is with common ordinary everyday folks who simply say "no" to turning the world into a stoned out drug den.

Though you may wish to be a dysfunctional individualism island, isolated from the rest of mainstream society, society isn't going to let your reactive "let me do whatever I want whenever I want to no matter who I hurt in the process" coping mechanism destroy innocent lives.

Get use to it.

Your really do need to take your unresolved family-of-origin controlled-by issues to a competent mental health practitioner.

Wow, have you got me wrong and a lot of others out there .... you sure can get yourself all worked up ... and speaking of repeating ones self ... and you don't really read what others are trying to say to you ... I'm not advocating drug use, I just want people to make up their own minds about it ... you see, I can say what I want and express myself in a lot fewer words than yourself and that way it should be easier to see where I am coming from ... and in fact I am sure that this will illicit quite another speech from you and you will get yourself worked up for what .... you can not change people and how they are going to act and what they are going to do with their bodies no matter what laws are out there .... case in point ... just look around you!

 

[Chip]

Wow, have you got me wrong

False.

I nailed you.

You have exhibited in your posts undeniable evidence of suffering from unresolved controlled-by issues, issues which stem from damage suffered in your family-of-origin from dysfunctional behavior of caretakers, etc.

Your symptoms are that you cope by shouting "freedom, freedom, freedom!" without regard for the foundational right to life and the overriding right to security.

You want everyone to do whatever they want without regard to life and limb of others, let alone the self-destruction they addictively do to themselves.

No, MichaelB, you can deny obvious reality all you want, but I have nailed you right on ...

and a lot of others out there ....

... Just like I have nailed the others in this thread who share your unresolved controlled-by issues and therefore post understandably similarly.

you sure can get yourself all worked up ...

Exaggeration, irrelevant, passive-aggressive attempt to control the poster.

What you really mean is that you don't like getting nailed in detail.

You would do well to read: Realities of Rights.

There you will get an education of what human rights are all about and why your "freedom, freedom, freedom!" at any life-and-security price mantra is dysfunctional.

You will also, perhaps, come to understand why healthy, heart-centered, rights-balanced people object to your extremist perspective of way over-emphasizing freedom and completely disregarding the foundational right to life as well as the right to security, both, by nature, which trump the right to freedom when rights are in conflict.

It's all about understanding human rights.

Something you obviously do not seem to care about.

and speaking of repeating ones self ...

Your projection here is irrelevant ... and your passive-aggressive attempt to control the poster is, of course, rejected.

and you don't really read what others are trying to say to you ...

Erroneous, attempt to wipe your own "stuff" on others.

The fact of the matter is that I nailed you.

I read what you wrote, I recognized the dysfunction in what you wrote, I recognized your denial of the paramount right to life, I recognized that you advocate "freedom, freedom, freedom!" over the security of others, I recognized that you were thereby advocating in favor of legalizing damaging and deadly drugs ...

... And I responded accurately within that context.

What really bothers you is that I nailed you, and rather than honestly admit to the truth of it, your denial causes you to villify me for telling the relevant truth.

I'm not advocating drug use, I just want people to make up their own minds about it ...

Erroneous, subterfuge.

The obvious truth of the matter is that by thereby advocating making damaging, deadly drugs legal you put the very lives and security of billions of world-wide potential active addicts at risk as well as the very lives and security of billions world-wide who would be injured or killed by addicts operating machinery while stoned (cars, guns, etc.).

Your delivery of simple-matter-of-fact "just let everyone decide for themselves" is a presentation of ignorance.

And, it thereby reveals your unresolved controlled-by issues, unresolved issues you share with many who similarly cry "freedom, freedom, freedom!" without proper human rights respect for the very lives and security of others.

In effect, letting others make the decision for themselves is a stupid way of simply saying "I want all drugs made legal (so that others can simply decide for themselves)".

That you try to deny the obvious, that you're stumping for damaging and deadly drug legalization, is futile.

you see, I can say what I want and express myself in a lot fewer words than yourself

Irrelevant, meaningless, another dysfunctional attempt to control the poster.

What you really mean is that you don't like getting refuted in detail.

You don't like the world to see the error and dysfunction that is the basis for your thoughts on the matter to this degree.

and that way it should be easier to see where I am coming from ...

Erroneous, manipulative.

In fact, just the opposite is true.

You hide in brevity the massive detail of the dysfunction basis for your extremist advocation of freedom at the extremist denial expense of life and security.

Your brevity is an attempt to falsely present yourself as being "confident" ...

... But what it really does is attempt to hide the details of why you have the position that you do.

By hiding your why's, by being inappropriately brief, instead of showing confidence, you instead provide the reader with a "because I said so" holier-than-though arrogance.

Your lack of explanation of why you have the position you do, your lack of explanation of the philosophical basis that supports your position, etc., is a liability to your presentation, MichaelB, not an asset.

and in fact I am sure that this will illicit quite another speech from you and you will get yourself worked up for what ....

Irrelevant, meaningless, yet another attempt to control the poster, and projective.

It is not surprising at all that I am presenting the refutation in appropriate detail that your post deserves.

And, the only person who is getting himself likely worked up right now is you.

Indeed, I'm having a whole lot of fun, myself.

you can not change people and how they are going to act and what they are going to do with their bodies no matter what laws are out there .... case in point ... just look around you!

Erroneous, meaningless.

More than 90+% of the population has experienced sufficient damage to some degree in family-of-origin without recovery that makes them potential addicts.

Only 1% of the population has sufficent high addictive potential and sufficiently strong oppositional defiant disorder to defy the laws and risk serious penalty to be active addicts.

That's 1% of the more than 90% susceptible.

So why do you think only 1% of the more than 90% are active illegal addicts?

Because the law functions as a dissuader.

Indeed, the law controls behavior.

The behavior controlling function of law is an obvious reality that has been known for thousands of years.

Indeed, kings use to behead others at the king's whim. Then along came the Magna Charta, the English Bill of Rights, etc., complete with additional supporting statutes, and soon such murderous behavior ceased.

Law has that effect on people ... especially on addicts and utilitarians who "love" their precious freedom so much that they would not risk acting out their addiction for fear of going to prision.

If there is any failure in law its that the penalities have not been nearly stiff enough for doing damaging and deadly drugs and thereby putting the very lives of others at risk.

But just look around you.

Look at the percentages that I presented.

That's what matters, not hype, not how loud the tiny minority screams "freedom, freedom, freedom!"

By presenting the truth, which I do, I help educate all the others who pass this way and read these threads.

By refuting obvious dysfunctionals, I reveal the negative light in which these dysfunctionals are truly casting themselves, negative light they would prefer to hide.

Again, you are simply wrong when you say that law cannot control people.

It is presently obviously controlling the overwhelming vast majority of potential drug abusers.

But, of course, these facts are not of value to you.

Your addiction to "freedom, freedom, freedom!" at any life-and-security price will simply function as denial to prevent you from seeing the truth.

Oh yes, its disingenuous posters like you who make it crystal clear why the drug war against violent invading druggies is so very necessary.

 

[MichaelB]

Chip, like I said you do go on and on and have to talk so much that you are talking in circles and keep repeating yourself instead of bringing up something new that I haven't heard or read ... you say you know where I am coming from and I say I know where you are coming from ... When I read your entries all I read is Anger, Frustration, Control Issues and most of all a lonely, sad individual. Where is your compassion, understanding and ability to love ...

I feel for you and will pray that you will find yourself and that you will finally be happy ... Look inside yourself and find out why you have so much anger going on ... Someone asked you in an earlier post if you had experienced a devastating experience in your life to make you feel they way you do and want to strike out at everyone out there .... you never answered that question ... why don't you share yourself with those of us who do care .....

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Just look at the car crashes stoners cause......

....Especially if you haven't got a Life.....and, prefer to pursue phantoms (like Iraqi-WMDs).

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I just had a thought..have you lost a loved one to drug abuse or something related in the past? Has a woman left you for the pot dealer down the street? Something's going on here.You'll probably deny it, but those with psychological problems usually do..... You see, I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that your fascist like attitude is rooted in something much deeper.

I'm thinkin' Lil' Chippy is your average-"conservative", who dreads taking ANY kinds of calculated-risks; an aberration of what it means to be "American".

He reminds me (too much) of guys I've worked with, in the past, who're all-the-time tellin' everyone-else what's right & proper....'cause they couldn't get-away with it, at home.....where their WIFE was runnin'-the-show.

I'm thinkin' Lil' Chippy is an average, ordinary, garden-variety Claven.

​

 

[Chip]

Chip, like I said you do go on and on and have to talk so much that you are talking in circles and keep repeating yourself instead of bringing up something new that I haven't heard or read ... you say you know where I am coming from and I say I know where you are coming from ... When I read your entries all I read is Anger, Frustration, Control Issues and most of all a lonely, sad individual. Where is your compassion, understanding and ability to love ...

I feel for you and will pray that you will find yourself and that you will finally be happy ... Look inside yourself and find out why you have so much anger going on ... Someone asked you in an earlier post if you had experienced a devastating experience in your life to make you feel they way you do and want to strike out at everyone out there .... you never answered that question ... why don't you share yourself with those of us who do care .....

Translation: "Your arguments, Chip, are accurate and effective, and I, MichaelB, have nothing in substantive refutation. I therefore am relegated to repeatedly initiating projections and unwarranted villification of you, in a vain attempt to negate your valid points by unjustifiably assassinating your character with my fabrications, hoping to thereby suppress my painful feelings of facing the reality of my unresolved controlled-by issues that I would prefer to keep burried."



Give it up, MichaelB -- you don't stand a chance.

A quick glance above at this thread shows how you entered and began initiating your substantiveless attempted character assassination of me three or four of your posts ago ...

... And that I responded appropriately, deflecting your initiated attacks, and exposing your obvious unresolved controlled-by issues that motivate your attack, while simultaneously posting topical relevance in support of my position on the issue.

Your attempt to refute my valid points solely via your substantiveless fabricated character assassination is a futile, obvious, amateurish ploy, one a good moderator would pick up on quickly and put a halt to.

With respect to the topic of this thread, you would do well to cease inititation of your ad hominim attacks, and stick to the topic, as initiation of divertive ad hominems to purposely derail a thread, which is exactly what you are doing, is usually frowned upon.

 

[Chip]

I'm thinkin' Lil' Chippy is your average-"conservative", who dreads taking ANY kinds of calculated-risks; an aberration of what it means to be "American".

He reminds me (too much) of guys I've worked with, in the past, who're all-the-time tellin' everyone-else what's right & proper....'cause they couldn't get-away with it, at home.....where their WIFE was runnin'-the-show.

I'm thinkin' Lil' Chippy is an average, ordinary, garden-variety Claven.

​

Translation: "I too have nothing substantively topically relevant to add to this thread, so I will simply post nothing but unwarranted character assassination, as I always do when the substance of the matter places me in a losing position."



People, if you can't stay on topic, then find a less challenging thread in which to post.

 

[MichaelB]

Translation: "I too have nothing substantively topically relevant to add to this thread, so I will simply post nothing but unwarranted character assassination, as I always do when the substance of the matter places me in a losing position."



People, if you can't stay on topic, then find a less challenging thread in which to post.

You are the one that went off and kept going and going on .... you need to READ "your" posts ... you just can't keep it simple and to the point ... we have stayed on topic .... "YOURS"

 

[Chip]

You are the one that went off and kept going and going on .... you need to READ "your" posts ... you just can't keep it simple and to the point ... we have stayed on topic .... "YOURS"

Erroneous.

Again, rather than post substantitive content, the druggie sympathizer once again ignores the fact that he entered this thread, not to post substantive topically relevant content, but to initiate attempted assassination of my character (which he just keeps on doing with his post I quote here), and once again he ignores the fact that I merely responded to him appropriately.

My guess is that he is not happy unless he can bully people and they sit quietly and take it.

The opening post in this thread presented the general truth of the matter with respect to the drug war, those who take up sides in favor of the drug war, and those who take up sides against the drug war.

In the process some posters admitted being druggies, and I, being a counselor and experienced with the mindset of addicts, simply presented the addictive mindset, which a number of druggies in this thread then went on to substantiate with their behavior.

You need to accept the fact that druggies have known psychological disorders, psychological disorders that are germane to this thread.

Drug addiction is a diseased disorder, and that's not a matter for rational conjecture.

That I was attacked by druggies and their pro-legalization unresolved controlled-by issues sympathizers is understandable, as that's what these people do: blame innocent others rather than look within themselves.

That I defended my position in response to their unprovoked attacks seems to be a contention of yours.

Obviously you utilitarian users would prefer to bully people and then have them just lie down silently and take it.

I strongly urge you to get off of your oppositional defiant disordered attack horse and do the best you can to stay within the substantive relevance of this thread.

You've yet to do that, and your adolescent behavior, likely feigned in your attempt to keep on attacking to get this thread closed, is getting old.

 

[PLC1]

False.

I nailed you.

You have exhibited in your posts undeniable evidence of suffering from unresolved controlled-by issues, issues which stem from damage suffered in your family-of-origin from dysfunctional behavior of caretakers, etc.

Your symptoms are that you cope by shouting "freedom, freedom, freedom!" without regard for the foundational right to life and the overriding right to security.

Does Ben Franklin also show undeniable evidence of suffering from unresolved controlled-by issues when he says:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

?

 

[Chip]

Does Ben Franklin also show undeniable evidence of suffering from unresolved controlled-by issues when he says:



?

Maybe.

He was human ... and he lived in a less rights-respecting time.

Who knows what his childhood was like, what dysfunction existed there like it does in more than 99% of families ... and it may make an interesting study.

But, was he a libertarian?

If so, then "maybe" may indeed be a "likely".

After all, it is quite known that liberatarians are, by nature, coping reactors to having experienced things being unjustly taken from them too often.

They can often polarize, eschewing the right to security in deference to extremist lauding of freedom.

Thus they clamor "freedom" from taxation, "freedom" from "mommy telling me what to do", "freedom" to self-destruct, etc., but mostly the "freedom" to keep all their money, money they see as their savior from alliances that "only get me controlled".

The reactive nature of this coping causes these people to ignore the reality of security, a right that slightly supercedes freedom in a healthy balanced psyche, as well as in the reality of rights.

There were a lot of libertarian types in the founding times.

They reacted to the King of England and fought against what they thought was excessive taxation; their money was being taken from them, they felt controlled-by the excessive taxation.

But, when all of that was done, did they let go of their associated controlled-by issues ...

... Or did they keep on transferring and displacing them into the political arena ...

... At the extremist advocation of the right to freedom ...

... And at the extremist sacrifice of the right to security.

That is obvious imbalance.

Hero worship is not becomming ... especially if that hero has a few, perhaps obvious, faults.

 

[samsara15]

Erroneous.

Again, rather than post substantitive content, the druggie sympathizer once again ignores the fact that he entered this thread, not to post substantive topically relevant content, but to initiate attempted assassination of my character (which he just keeps on doing with his post I quote here), and once again he ignores the fact that I merely responded to him appropriately.

My guess is that he is not happy unless he can bully people and they sit quietly and take it.

The opening post in this thread presented the general truth of the matter with respect to the drug war, those who take up sides in favor of the drug war, and those who take up sides against the drug war.

In the process some posters admitted being druggies, and I, being a counselor and experienced with the mindset of addicts, simply presented the addictive mindset, which a number of druggies in this thread then went on to substantiate with their behavior.

You need to accept the fact that druggies have known psychological disorders, psychological disorders that are germane to this thread.

Drug addiction is a diseased disorder, and that's not a matter for rational conjecture.

That I was attacked by druggies and their pro-legalization unresolved controlled-by issues sympathizers is understandable, as that's what these people do: blame innocent others rather than look within themselves.

That I defended my position in response to their unprovoked attacks seems to be a contention of yours.

Obviously you utilitarian users would prefer to bully people and then have them just lie down silently and take it.

I strongly urge you to get off of your oppositional defiant disordered attack horse and do the best you can to stay within the substantive relevance of this thread.

You've yet to do that, and your adolescent behavior, likely feigned in your attempt to keep on attacking to get this thread closed, is getting old.

Chip, can't you lay off the personal attacks? Demonizing those who disagree with you does not help promote your cause very effectively.

 

[Chip]

Chip, can't you lay off the personal attacks? Demonizing those who disagree with you does not help promote your cause very effectively.

Translation: "Maybe if I, Samsara15, a self-admitted utilitarian I admitted earlier in this thread, also join in initiating personal attacks and ludicrously falsely blaming Chip for my own transgressions here, we can really get this thread closed, and I don't have to read this thread anymore and accept the fact that the truth of the facts supports the drug war that I oppose."



Once again, a self-admitted utilitarian druggie sympathizer has posted nothing but a false attack upon someone with an opposing position, someone who was merely responding appropriately to the attacks initiated on him.

Again, I had yet to even address Samsara15 in this thread, and the first time Samsar15 addresses me here in this thread, it wasn't about content, it wasn't about topical relevance, it was this attack he has just made, falsely accusing me of being the "bad" guy.

This is typical utilitarian, even druggie, behavior, where, having completely run out of topical relevancy with which to post substantive material, the utilitarian druggie-sympathizer simply initiates personal attacks with obvious false charges against those he topically disagrees with.

***

Look people, I realize you utilitarians and druggies and druggie-sympathizers are simply posting false accusations in an attempt to derail the topical relevancy of this thread and/or get this thread closed.

But the disingenuous process by which you go about doing so is unethical and speaks poorly of your character.

Again, as I had to remind so many of you before in the "A Conception's Right To Life" thread, please, stay on topic, posting substantive topical relevance sans inititation of personal attacks.

Thank you.

 

[PLC1]

Maybe.

He was human ... and he lived in a less rights-respecting time.

Who knows what his childhood was like, what dysfunction existed there like it does in more than 99% of families ... and it may make an interesting study.

But, was he a libertarian?

If so, then "maybe" may indeed be a "likely".

After all, it is quite known that liberatarians are, by nature, coping reactors to having experienced things being unjustly taken from them too often.

They can often polarize, eschewing the right to security in deference to extremist lauding of freedom.

Thus they clamor "freedom" from taxation, "freedom" from "mommy telling me what to do", "freedom" to self-destruct, etc., but mostly the "freedom" to keep all their money, money they see as their savior from alliances that "only get me controlled".

The reactive nature of this coping causes these people to ignore the reality of security, a right that slightly supercedes freedom in a healthy balanced psyche, as well as in the reality of rights.

There were a lot of libertarian types in the founding times.

They reacted to the King of England and fought against what they thought was excessive taxation; their money was being taken from them, they felt controlled-by the excessive taxation.

But, when all of that was done, did they let go of their associated controlled-by issues ...

... Or did they keep on transferring and displacing them into the political arena ...

... At the extremist advocation of the right to freedom ...

... And at the extremist sacrifice of the right to security.

That is obvious imbalance.

Hero worship is not becomming ... especially if that hero has a few, perhaps obvious, faults.

OMG! The founding fathers were all suffering from from unresolved controlled-by issues! I had no idea.

 

[The Scotsman]

Look people, I realize you utilitarians and druggies and druggie-sympathizers are simply posting false accusations in an attempt to derail the topical relevancy of this thread and/or get this thread closed.

But the disingenuous process by which you go about doing so is unethical and speaks poorly of your character.

Again, as I had to remind so many of you before in the "A Conception's Right To Life" thread, please, stay on topic, posting substantive topical relevance sans inititation of personal attacks.

Thank you.

Chip I think if you were more tollerant of other posters views you may have the opportunity of an interesting discussion. If everyone else is just so damned wrong all the time and you are just so damned right all the time then its not a discussion really is it? And, as for staying on topic, unless everybody agrees with you all the time then the topic might as well not be posted because all thats' going to happen is you attacking the poster rather than the comment or argument ...........

GET A GRIP ON YOUR OWN POSTING BEFORE ATTACKING OTHERS!