Oakland California legalizes Shrooms & Peyote

[NomadPatriot]

I've done both mescaline and psilocybin. Both are non-addictive and but should also be treated with respect

I see you glossed over my point without addressing it .. you just want to yell 'strawman'
so.. ok.. I guess I proved my point on that.. thanks..

but, why do you say psilocybin should be treated with respect?
does it have some sort of uncontrollable mind altering attribute that would convince someone something else entirely is occurring then what is reality...?

like say . .people shouldn't operate a vehicle because they might not realize they are actually driving down the road..?

As soon as something is illegal, it becomes a moral issue which is asinine

no.. when something is made "illegal" it becomes a .. 'LEGAL ISSUE'.. morals are not part of the legal system..

Moral law is a system of guidelines for behavior. These guidelines may or may not be part of a religion, codified in written form, or legally enforceable. For some people moral law is synonymous with the commands of a divine being.

so who's Dumb now.. ?

[spurgistan]

So, we should ban alcohol, then, I suppose? I'd venture the number of drunk drivers will be higher than the number of people driving under the influence of peyote and shrooms COMBINED. By a whole lot of degrees.

[HitRed]

The Temperance Movement tried and failed. Likely the women really wanted their husbands to change in a real way. Instead they shot low blamed alcohol.

[NomadPatriot]

So, we should ban alcohol, then, I suppose? I'd venture the number of drunk drivers will be higher than the number of people driving under the influence of peyote and shrooms COMBINED. By a whole lot of degrees.

your thought experiment is pointless because shrooms & peyote ARE NOT as readily available for purchase In the united states as alcohol is nor equally consumed...

[spurgistan]

Its not pointless just because it goes against your point that certain drugs should be legal and others shouldn't, despite the legal drugs having a much higher rate of violent crime attached to them. Oakland saying they're not gong to cooperate with state and federal authorities investigating drugs that aren't connected with violent behavior is letting them focus on actual violent behavior. Which is what cops should do. Did you watch The Wire? I know you probably weren't alive when it first came out but you can watch it online.

[riskllama]

[what,me worry?]

Its not pointless just because it goes against your point that certain drugs should be legal and others shouldn't, despite the legal drugs having a much higher rate of violent crime attached to them. Oakland saying they're not gong to cooperate with state and federal authorities investigating drugs that aren't connected with violent behavior is letting them focus on actual violent behavior. Which is what cops should do. Did you watch The Wire? I know you probably weren't alive when it first came out but you can watch it online.

Oakland PD, Alameda County Sheriff, and company (federal LEO) have their hands full with their seasonal "weed whacking" of violent street gangs, human trafficking, and drug rings selling Latin American based drugas (meth and coke).

Agreed law enforcement is making the correct decision even if it's a form of triage as opposed to rational thought a few decades ago

[NomadPatriot]

since you immediately responded to my "it's pointless" comment with this

Its not pointless just because it goes against your point that certain drugs should be legal and others shouldn't

I can only assume you were responding to me.. so go right ahead and quote me where I say 'certain drugs should be legal'..

this should be interesting .. because I never said anything like that.

[jimboston]

Define ‘drugs’.

I defy anyone to define that term, and then argue that all ‘drugs’ should be illegal.

Two catches...
1) by ‘illegal’ we will assume that excludes use prescribed by a doctor. So that helps the argument.

2) the definition you come up with must not include, as part of the definition, something like ‘substances that are illegal’.

This is the default definition of the word ‘drug’ from Google...
1. a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.

This is the default definition of the word ‘physiological’ from Google...
1. relating to the branch of biology that deals with the normal functions of living organisms and their parts.

Based on those two definitions pretty much anything you ingest is a drug, including water.
So clearly we need a better definition before we can intelligently discuss if ‘drugs’ should be legal or illegal.

[NomadPatriot]

Define ‘drugs’.

Jimmy Butts.. the Adults are talking..
we ( everyone but you..) understands the flow of the conversation and what is being referred too when we are referring to legal or illegal drugs..

this is part of intelligence, and having an intelligent conversation entails being able to follow the flow of a conversation without some garbled headed caveman yelling.. " i can make fire.. what's a wheel...? "

no one wants to engage with your " I need to argue about something that's just plain stupid " rhetoric..
go find your Barbie.. she needs her hair combed..

[jimboston]

Define ‘drugs’.

Jimmy Butts.. the Adults are talking..
we ( everyone but you..) understands the flow of the conversation and what is being referred too when we are referring to legal or illegal drugs..

this is part of intelligence, and having an intelligent conversation entails being able to follow the flow of a conversation without some garbled headed caveman yelling.. " i can make fire.. what's a wheel...? "

no one wants to engage with your " I need to argue about something that's just plain stupid " rhetoric..
go find your Barbie.. she needs her hair combed..

So you can’t define the term drugs?

[what,me worry?]

Define ‘drugs’.

Jimmy Butts.. the Adults are talking..
we ( everyone but you..) understands the flow of the conversation and what is being referred too when we are referring to legal or illegal drugs..

this is part of intelligence, and having an intelligent conversation entails being able to follow the flow of a conversation without some garbled headed caveman yelling.. " i can make fire.. what's a wheel...? "

no one wants to engage with your " I need to argue about something that's just plain stupid " rhetoric..
go find your Barbie.. she needs her hair combed..

So you can’t define the term drugs?

Improvement in nomenclature: drugs--> psychoactives

[jimboston]

Psychoactive substances are just one property or ‘drugs’... unless you;re going to provide a full definition that includes this property.

I mean Aspirin is a drug, but not many would call it ‘psychoactive’.

Maybe. What Nomad wants to make illegal (or keep illegal) is the subset of drugs we could label “Psychoactive Drugs”?

Now as part of the definition you gotta define what level of ‘psychoactiveness’ is required.

[NomadPatriot]

the topic is " Shrooms & Peyote "

Jimmy Butts cannot defend that position.. so he is trying to steer the conversation away from that topic onto the most generalized simple minded argument his brain can muster up...
just so he can still argue about something

[2dimes]

Well it's 9:28 on a Saturday, the regular crowd shuffles in..

[jimboston]

the topic is " Shrooms & Peyote "

Jimmy Butts cannot defend that position.. so he is trying to steer the conversation away from that topic onto the most generalized simple minded argument his brain can muster up...
just so he can still argue about something

Didn’t you block me?
So why are you still reading my posts if you believe that I’m just looking to argue and I make no valid points?

Oh, I know why you’re gonna do, you’ll misquote me and delete everything I wrote except
“I’m just looking to argue and I make no valid points”
... then you’ll write something witty like “you finally admit it” or “I couldn’t summarize your posts any better myself.”

Let me try to simplify the points for you.

You are complaining that California is legalizing Shrooms and Peyote.

Now, firstly I think most mushrooms are already legal in most States, so I assume you’re referring to what are colloquially called ‘magic mushrooms’.

Now you are saying these are dangerous, and others are pointing out they’re no more dangerous than alcohol, so why is that legal.

You don’t seem to be able to article why one substance should be legal and the other illegal.

So in order to drive the debate forward I want to make sure we all agree on the definitions of certain terms necessary to the debate.
I mean it’s pretty simple if we don’t agree on what the word ‘drug’ means, how can we debate if these substances should be legal, illegal, or just regulated.

Saying “they were illegal before” or some such isn’t a good argument.... because before they were illegal, they were perfectly legal and unregulated.

Now if you’re incapable of proposing a definition for the term ‘drug’... then I submit you’re equally incapable of debating the point you started this thread to discuss.

[2dimes]

Didn’t you block me?
So why are you still reading my posts if you believe that I’m just looking to argue and I make no valid points?

Because your posts are amazing on peyote.

[spurgistan]

since you immediately responded to my "it's pointless" comment with this

Its not pointless just because it goes against your point that certain drugs should be legal and others shouldn't

I can only assume you were responding to me.. so go right ahead and quote me where I say 'certain drugs should be legal'..

this should be interesting .. because I never said anything like that.

alcohol's a drug, homie. I was restating the argument every college first-year makes for why it's insane that alcohol is legal and weed sisn't. The argument for shrooms and peyote are even stronger, since those have roots in various world religions.

[NomadPatriot]

alcohol's a drug, homie. I was restating the argument every college first-year makes for why it's insane that alcohol is legal and weed sisn't. The argument for shrooms and peyote are even stronger, since those have roots in various world religions.

it is perfectly fine for you to respond with some generalized argument that a portion of society makes about a subject... to try to deflect away from your accusations towards me.. that's called a tactical defensive maneuver to try to take the spotlight off of yourself..

but you directly said I STATED certain drugs should be legal..
which I never did..
which is why you couldn't quote me..

you cannot even quote me as previously saying I think Alcohol should be legal ( which honestly I do not think it should be legal...) ... or that alcohol ISN'T a drug..


what just happened is you getting called out for accusing me of saying something, failing to be able top back up your claim's & me openly bitch slapping your accusation like a $2 whore..

in other words..

[jimboston]

which honestly I do not think it should be legal... or that alcohol ISN'T a drug

So why are you avoiding the idea of coming up with a definition for ‘drug’?

You can create a definition that would include alcohol, and then at least you’d have pretty solid ground on which to debate your belief.

I mean, this view actually makes sense.... so rock with it. We can say it’s not practical, but you’d have firm moral AND logic ground to stand on.

[spurgistan]

alcohol's a drug, homie. I was restating the argument every college first-year makes for why it's insane that alcohol is legal and weed sisn't. The argument for shrooms and peyote are even stronger, since those have roots in various world religions.

it is perfectly fine for you to respond with some generalized argument that a portion of society makes about a subject... to try to deflect away from your accusations towards me.. that's called a tactical defensive maneuver to try to take the spotlight off of yourself..

but you directly said I STATED certain drugs should be legal..
which I never did..
which is why you couldn't quote me..

you cannot even quote me as previously saying I think Alcohol should be legal ( which honestly I do not think it should be legal...) ... or that alcohol ISN'T a drug..


what just happened is you getting called out for accusing me of saying something, failing to be able top back up your claim's & me openly bitch slapping your accusation like a $2 whore..

in other words..

I deleted this gif to make you look better.

Lol, there's a spotlight on me? I wish, homie.

Allow me to refresh your memory. Your initial statement involved the argument that certain hallucinogenic drugs should be illegal since they might lead to deaths from driving, a real concern that I'm willing to concede can be linked to maybe 10 deaths in the last 50 years in the case of the drugs you listed in the goddamn thread title (peyote and psylocibin? these are public safety risks?!?!). I compare this to deaths from alcohol, which are about 29 a day from drunk driving alone. Your response is to say that a lot of people use alcohol, so we can't ban it, which is like an argument, I guess. Logically extended, maybe if Oakland's attempt to decriminalize these two results in a dramatic increase in their use and not just reassigning police from hassling low-risk drug users to more productive things (in a pure policy sense, sitting outside bars to watch for drunk drivers would be a more public good use of policing) then you could argue for that. But, we'd want to see. Portugal is a good example of a country that decriminalized a lot of drugs and didn't see use go through the roof.

I didn't quote you because I really don't care enough, and because I know that you don't care either.

Quick edit - the government site on drug abuse doesn't list driving as a potential risk for hallucinogen abuse. I don't use these guys, but come on bro. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/ ... lucinogens

[riskllama]

*pwned

[NomadPatriot]

Allow me to refresh your memory. Your initial statement involved the argument that certain hallucinogenic drugs should be illegal since they might lead to deaths from driving, a real concern that I'm willing to concede can be linked to maybe 10 deaths in the last 50 years in the case of the drugs you listed in the goddamn thread title (peyote and psylocibin? these are public safety risks?!?!). I compare this to deaths from alcohol, which are about 29 a day from drunk driving alone. Your response is to say that a lot of people use alcohol, so we can't ban it, which is like an argument, I guess. Logically extended

1st your initial comment: "

So, we should ban alcohol, then, I suppose? I'd venture the number of drunk drivers will be higher than the number of people driving under the influence of peyote and shrooms COMBINED. By a whole lot of degrees.

the claim your trying to say you stated --> "I compare this to deaths from alcohol, which are about 29 a day from drunk driving alone."
- no where in your initial comment did you mention any '
stats' of people dying in any sense .. you compared drunk drivers to driving under the influence of Peyote & shrooms..

my response to your 1st comment:

So, we should ban alcohol, then, I suppose? I'd venture the number of drunk drivers will be higher than the number of people driving under the influence of peyote and shrooms COMBINED. By a whole lot of degrees.

your thought experiment is pointless because shrooms & peyote ARE NOT as readily available for purchase In the united states as alcohol is nor equally consumed...

the claim your trying to say I said in response--> "Your response is to say that a lot of people use alcohol, so we can't ban it,"

- I never mentioned anything about either banning it or not banning it...

see how quoting people directly helps clarify things..
the reason your NOT quoting me or yourself is because you know your creating a false narrative, stating I am saying things I never have ( once again).. and yet once again.. you are getting called out on it..
not only am I owning you.. I am embarrassing you..