Have A Question? V2

[Wwweeeeeewwww]

^ Yes, sending naked photos to someone else is cheating. But if you've only been in a relationship for a week or two I don't think there is any expectation of exclusivity.

 

Its only cheating if your dick gets wet.

 

Even then, grey area.. talk to Clinton about that one.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Wwweeeeeewwww

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

 

^ Yes, sending naked photos to someone else is cheating. But if you've only been in a relationship for a week or two I don't think there is any expectation of exclusivity.

Its only cheating if your dick gets wet.

 

Even then, grey area.. talk to Clinton about that one.

By wet do you mean aroused or sex?

[Frank Brown]

 

 

^ Yes, sending naked photos to someone else is cheating. But if you've only been in a relationship for a week or two I don't think there is any expectation of exclusivity.

Its only cheating if your dick gets wet.

 

Even then, grey area.. talk to Clinton about that one.

By wet do you mean aroused or sex?

 

 

If it was arousal I think most people would be considered cheaters at one point or another.

[Frank Brown]

Question:

 

Why is there still such a hatred for drugs and their users in the United States and countries around the globe? Why should any drugs be illegal?

[CatDog96]

What is up with the animated avatars? I've uploaded one to this site, and when uploaded, it only plays through the animation once, then stops on the last frame. Another one that I uploaded to Photobucket (Avenged Sevenfold one), when I've imported the link here, it won't animate at all, just displaying the first frame.

 

 

Halp.

Yes I would also like to know if anything happened to animated avatars, My last one was animated and it was fine but my current one doesn't move.

[GunWrath]

I believe there is a cap on avatars (100kb), that may be causing the issue of your animations not working.. atleast from where I'm standing, I may be wrong though.

[CatDog96]

I believe there is a cap on avatars (100kb), that may be causing the issue of your animations not working.. atleast from where I'm standing, I may be wrong though.

Yep it was the gif size, it had to be under 300kb. now I have a new avatar, a burger avatar.

[Panz]

Finn: If you even for a second feel guilty about it, then consider it cheating. Tell the girl to f*ck off if you care about your girlfriend, and if she remains persistent about it, delete her from snapchat and do the right thing. If you have feelings for her, then you should reconsider your current relationship and follow what you want before anything gets too serious. Be careful that she doesn't just selectively express interest in you, though, which seems to be what you're suggesting. There was a guy I was always into who only ever bugged me and expressed interest in being with me whenever I was seeing other guys. So just be thoughtful about it.

 

Vlynor: What do you mean exactly?

 

Unfortunately, we can't rely on humans not to use drugs if they're legal, and I feel that we may have these laws because, if they were legal, we'd have more addicts and higher healthcare costs. It's kind of like the whole soda tax by Bloomberg. It's not really because they care about the people. It just saves them money. Still, drugs often don't produce harmful effects until later down the line, so it's also a nice method to at least attempt to prevent people from using them. They might produce nice, stimulating effects at first, but they'll destroy the body eventually.

 

I'd assume that there's a hatred for drugs because they're terribly addictive and have a pretty messy history of messing up relationships and lives. And the fact that people make money off of such substances is pretty scummy, too.

[DEALUX]

Why should any drugs be illegal?

Short answer: because people are not equally responsible.

[Mr. House]

Question:

 

Why is there still such a hatred for drugs and their users in the United States and countries around the globe? Why should any drugs be illegal?

Because they're trying to keep the black man down.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

Finn: If you even for a second feel guilty about it, then consider it cheating. Tell the girl to f*ck off if you care about your girlfriend, and if she remains persistent about it, delete her from snapchat and do the right thing. If you have feelings for her, then you should reconsider your current relationship and follow what you want before anything gets too serious. Be careful that she doesn't just selectively express interest in you, though, which seems to be what you're suggesting. There was a guy I was always into who only ever bugged me and expressed interest in being with me whenever I was seeing other guys. So just be thoughtful about it.

 

Vlynor: What do you mean exactly?

 

Unfortunately, we can't rely on humans not to use drugs if they're legal, and I feel that we may have these laws because, if they were legal, we'd have more addicts and higher healthcare costs. It's kind of like the whole soda tax by Bloomberg. It's not really because they care about the people. It just saves them money. Still, drugs often don't produce harmful effects until later down the line, so it's also a nice method to at least attempt to prevent people from using them. They might produce nice, stimulating effects at first, but they'll destroy the body eventually.

 

I'd assume that there's a hatred for drugs because they're terribly addictive and have a pretty messy history of messing up relationships and lives. And the fact that people make money off of such substances is pretty scummy, too.

I don't think the legal status of a drug has stopped anyone who wanted to get high...ever. The only drug prohibition does is make criminals out of addicts and users and enables criminals to get rich, all while devastating poor and minority communities.

[Frank Brown]

Vlynor: What do you mean exactly?

 

Unfortunately, we can't rely on humans not to use drugs if they're legal, and I feel that we may have these laws because, if they were legal, we'd have more addicts and higher healthcare costs. It's kind of like the whole soda tax by Bloomberg. It's not really because they care about the people. It just saves them money. Still, drugs often don't produce harmful effects until later down the line, so it's also a nice method to at least attempt to prevent people from using them. They might produce nice, stimulating effects at first, but they'll destroy the body eventually.

 

I'd assume that there's a hatred for drugs because they're terribly addictive and have a pretty messy history of messing up relationships and lives. And the fact that people make money off of such substances is pretty scummy, too.

 

But what right does the government have to tell you what you can or cannot put into your body? If I want to shoot up heroin, become an addict, and then go to rehab/relapse, why not let me? It's my life, my body, etc. You mention healthcare costs, but healthcare costs, if determined by a private market, should have no effect on you, so why should you care? If we ever do nationalize medicine, then why not make certain people pay out of pocket for drug-related treatments? They could purchase a supplemental insurance program that covers drug use and rehabilitation.

[Panz]

It has stopped people, especially those on probation.

 

Hey, I never said it was a good system. It's sad, but we're not in control. The ones who call the shots are often the most detached from the reality of it all, but as long as they save money in the long run, they don't care what they have to do.

 

Vlynor, the idea is that, the more people who use drugs, the more costs we all have to endure. Health care costs, criminal justice costs, and whatever else. And drug laws have been shown to reduce drug use and thus the costs for the rest of us.

 

No, there should be no say in what we put into our bodies. I understand what you're saying, and I agree that we should have these freedoms, but why would you ever want to reverse this when drugs are nothing but harmful, anyway? I say leave it alone. It's only helping people.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Panz

[I cucked Alex Jones]

I imagine if we drug tested everyone would in the US and threw anyone in prison who failed, drug use would go down, but is that a practical solution?

 

Prohibition has never stopped ANYONE. I can guarantee that more than half the people my age have smoked weed at least once in their life. Hell, our past three presidents smoked weed. No one who wants to get high is going to let a law get in the way.

[Frank Brown]

Vlynor, the idea is that, the more people who use drugs, the more costs we all have to endure. Health care costs, criminal justice costs, and whatever else. And drug laws have been shown to reduce drug use and thus the costs for the rest of us.

 

No, there should be no say in what we put into our bodies. I understand what you're saying, and I agree that we should have these freedoms, but why would you ever want to reverse this when drugs are nothing but harmful, anyway? I say leave it alone. It's only helping people.

 

Because, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, so don't take it personal, you have no business telling me what I can and can't do if it's not harming you or anyone else. You don't have to help people and you shouldn't be using other people's money to enforce laws which limit choice. The criminal justice costs are there because money is spent busting non-violent offenders.

 

Health care costs could actually be a way of convincing people not to do drugs. Would you start snorting cocaine if you had to pay completely out of pocket for any damages done?

[Panz]

Vlynor: Like I said, I completely agree with you that we should have our freedoms, so I'm not offended. I could argue that it does harm others because it creates a sort of drug culture that has the potential to lure many other vulnerable people in, but still, you're right. How is this constitutional? I really don't see how it is. I think a drug tax would be more effective, honestly. That way, we're getting the same sort of effects without limiting freedoms.

 

And yeah, I doubt healthcare will ever go that route, but it's an interesting suggestion.

 

Nipperkins: Not everyone is your friends, though. Statistics and studies have shown that there is an astoundingly higher number of users of legal drugs, currently, than there is of illegal drugs. It does work, maybe not on everyone, but it's making enough of a difference for them to keep it.

[Frank Brown]

Vlynor: Like I said, I completely agree with you that we should have our freedoms, so I'm not offended. I could argue that it does harm others because it creates a sort of drug culture that has the potential to lure many other vulnerable people in, but still, you're right. How is this constitutional? I really don't see how it is. I think a drug tax would be more effective, honestly. That way, we're getting the same sort of effects without limiting freedoms.

 

And yeah, I doubt healthcare will ever go that route, but it's an interesting suggestion.

 

I don't think a drug tax would be too fair, really. Taxing it like any other good? Go right ahead, but to add another tax on top of that seems excessive.

[Soran Is On]

How do you embed a youtube video within a post...

 

Ive tried the special bbcode button and code button but never seem to be able to embed.

 

Lil help please?

[Frank Brown]

How do you embed a youtube video within a post...

 

Ive tried the special bbcode button and code button but never seem to be able to embed.

 

Lil help please?

 

[.youtube] xyz [/youtube.]

 

Remove the dots, place your video's link in-between the brackets in place of xyz.

[Panz]

Vlynor: Unfortunately, it still exists. Like I mentioned earlier, I was just reading articles about the soda tax introduced to cut obesity numbers. Whatever saves the moolah.

 

Ultimately, yes, it's our right to ingest what we want. But, in my personal opinion, I can't say I hate the laws. Drugs almost took my brother's life, and the police intervened, which likely prevented him from killing himself in the end, so I'm biased here. Yeah, it's his fault that he couldn't control himself, but drugs are addicting and mind-altering and incredibly manipulative. They have the potential to throw people into completely uncontrollable mental states, which could easily turn into a threat to society. These laws ultimately protect us from harming ourselves and others if it gets out of hand.

 

Plus, drugs aren't the worst things that could be banned right now. The fact that gay marriage is illegal in some states? Now that's ridiculous...but that's another topic of discussion, of course.

 

Stonepimpso: You can just post the link directly into the box and it automatically embeds, as well.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Panz

[Frank Brown]

Vlynor: Unfortunately, it still exists. Like I mentioned earlier, I was just reading articles about the soda tax introduced to cut obesity numbers. Whatever saves the moolah.

 

Ultimately, yes, it's our right to ingest what we want. But, in my personal opinion, I can't say I hate the laws. Drugs almost took my brother's life, and the police intervened, which likely prevented him from killing himself in the end, so I'm biased here. Yeah, it's his fault that he couldn't control himself, but drugs are addicting and mind-altering and incredibly manipulative. They have the potential to throw people into completely uncontrollable mental states, which could easily turn into a threat to society. These laws ultimately protect us from harming ourselves and others if it gets out of hand.

 

Plus, drugs aren't the worst things that could be banned right now. The fact that gay marriage is illegal in some states? Now that's ridiculous...but that's another topic of discussion, of course.

 

I'm sorry about your brother. I won't bring this up anymore if it bothers you. If you want to continue a discussion about this or whatever else we can PM about it or open a new thread so we don't derail this one. And yeah, gay marriage bans are idiotic. The LGBT community needs to be given the same protections as heterosexual couples. That's all, I couldn't care if they called it a Civil Union or whatever as long as the protections are the exact same.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Vlynor

[Panz]

No no no, it doesn't bother me at all! Don't worry about it. I'm just saying that you're 100% correct in that drug use should be legal. I just don't hate it for personal reasons.

 

I really think it's anyone's right to use drugs, just as it should be anyone's right to do anything with their own bodies, really. And for me, that includes abortion, gay marriage, and whatever else. You should be entitled to do whatever you want with yourself, even if it's harmful to you in the end because, hey, that's your choice.

 

My question: Why don't we require re-tests for driver's licenses after a certain age? Do you think it's too discriminatory? Elderly people simply don't have the reaction time that younger people do, so how do we account for this on the road? I even think we should instill some sort of check-up permit test after every so many years to ensure that people are still up to date with the rules of the road, and I'm surprised we don't have a system like this in America.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Panz

[I cucked Alex Jones]

 

 

Nipperkins: Not everyone is your friends, though. Statistics and studies have shown that there is an astoundingly higher number of users of legal drugs, currently, than there is of illegal drugs. It does work, maybe not on everyone, but it's making enough of a difference for them to keep it.

Alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine have been socially acceptable well before marijuana has. Laws can only influence social behavior so much before breaking the law becomes the social norm; that's where we are right now. Marijuana, LSD, MDMA, a few others, all seen as normal. Very few people I grew up with see those drugs as dangerous, nor the usage as foreign. It's seen the same as alcohol.

[Mr. House]

Vlynor: Unfortunately, it still exists. Like I mentioned earlier, I was just reading articles about the soda tax introduced to cut obesity numbers. Whatever saves the moolah.

 

Those laws don't 'save money', that doesn't make sense. Firstly it serves to make money, but what I assume you mean is that such a taxation is used to cover expenses caused by overweight people. Sure it does, but I'm not sure how this warrants the cynicism. Surely freeing up budgets to be spent on more proactive things such as community enhancements is much better than having it all dragged down on public services to deal with obesity.

[Panz]

Oh, they save money. The taxes are intended to deter consumers from buying more product, thus lowering consumption and therefore healthcare costs for treating health issues such as obesity and diabetes and high blood pressure. It has been quite effective, too.

 

And do you think these taxes are being instilled because these people genuinely care about the obesity epidemic, or do you think they're doing it primarily to focus on saving money? And are they really using that money elsewhere, or are they making budget cuts? The second one is a genuine question (the first a bit more rhetorical), as I know we're in a bind with money and I'm not so sure whether we're actually redistributing the saved money or just, well, saving it.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Panz

[Frank Brown]

Oh, they save money. The taxes are intended to deter consumers from buying more product, thus lowering consumption and therefore healthcare costs for treating health issues such as obesity and diabetes and high blood pressure. It has been quite effective, too.

 

And do you think these taxes are being instilled because these people genuinely care about the obesity epidemic, or do you think they're doing it primarily to focus on saving money? And are they really using that money elsewhere, or are they making budget cuts? The second one is a genuine question (the first a bit more rhetorical), as I know we're in a bind with money and I'm not so sure whether we're actually redistributing the saved money or just, well, saving it.

 

Are we talking about New York City? Since that's the only place I know of that has limited sodas to a certain size.

[Ex Hellraiser]

 

 

 

 

 

Vlynor: What do you mean exactly?

 

Unfortunately, we can't rely on humans not to use drugs if they're legal, and I feel that we may have these laws because, if they were legal, we'd have more addicts and higher healthcare costs. It's kind of like the whole soda tax by Bloomberg. It's not really because they care about the people. It just saves them money. Still, drugs often don't produce harmful effects until later down the line, so it's also a nice method to at least attempt to prevent people from using them. They might produce nice, stimulating effects at first, but they'll destroy the body eventually.

 

I'd assume that there's a hatred for drugs because they're terribly addictive and have a pretty messy history of messing up relationships and lives. And the fact that people make money off of such substances is pretty scummy, too.

 

But what right does the government have to tell you what you can or cannot put into your body? If I want to shoot up heroin, become an addict, and then go to rehab/relapse, why not let me? It's my life, my body, etc. You mention healthcare costs, but healthcare costs, if determined by a private market, should have no effect on you, so why should you care? If we ever do nationalize medicine, then why not make certain people pay out of pocket for drug-related treatments? They could purchase a supplemental insurance program that covers drug use and rehabilitation.

 

It all boils down to self control. Until the early 1900's, there were few such laws as cannabis, morphine, etc being illegal, because at the time the vast majority of the population had self control. A child could go to a corner store and buy morphine, because no child would use it improperly, and because everyone was expected to use it for controlled reasons (illness). Nobody at the time really would buy drugs for recreation, only if they truly needed it. But nowadays, if the same system existed, where any and all drugs were legal, we would live in one dangerous f*cking country. Do you know just how bad industry would be, if half the population was under the influence of any number of substances? If nothing was regulated at all? Would you really feel safe going down the road, knowing one or all of the cars around you had someone blacked out on something, and could kill you at any moment? Would you really feel safe sitting in a passenger jet, knowing your pilot could be high as a kite, (pun intended) And send the plane crashing into the Atlantic?

 

When it comes down to it, every law that exists is simply a restriction of freedom. Every law. There were no such things as speed limits when automobiles first came about, because there was little need to try pushing the limits at the time. Once cars became more refined, faster, more purpose-built, a need to create a speed limit came about, because people began to push the envelope, mainly, because there wasn't a law that existed telling them that they couldn't. Rules and laws exist for simply because someone did it. Not allowed to shoot a firearm less than 50 yds from a building? Someone did it, someone died, someone said no longer. Stop signs? Someone went through an intersection without stopping, someone wrecked, and someone said no longer. In a society without self control, lawmakers, unfortunately, are forced to make rules and regulations, because when someone does something that isn't illegal and begins abusing it, eventually it begins to affect others, and someone has to step in and stop them (legislators). That is how it works.

 

I seem to have gone off on a tangent... But I digress, if drugs became legal today, no restrictions, the lack of morals and self control that the majority of the population has will cause the country to crumble in no time.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Ex Hellraiser

[Frank Brown]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vlynor: What do you mean exactly?

 

Unfortunately, we can't rely on humans not to use drugs if they're legal, and I feel that we may have these laws because, if they were legal, we'd have more addicts and higher healthcare costs. It's kind of like the whole soda tax by Bloomberg. It's not really because they care about the people. It just saves them money. Still, drugs often don't produce harmful effects until later down the line, so it's also a nice method to at least attempt to prevent people from using them. They might produce nice, stimulating effects at first, but they'll destroy the body eventually.

 

I'd assume that there's a hatred for drugs because they're terribly addictive and have a pretty messy history of messing up relationships and lives. And the fact that people make money off of such substances is pretty scummy, too.

 

But what right does the government have to tell you what you can or cannot put into your body? If I want to shoot up heroin, become an addict, and then go to rehab/relapse, why not let me? It's my life, my body, etc. You mention healthcare costs, but healthcare costs, if determined by a private market, should have no effect on you, so why should you care? If we ever do nationalize medicine, then why not make certain people pay out of pocket for drug-related treatments? They could purchase a supplemental insurance program that covers drug use and rehabilitation.

 

It all boils down to self control. Until the early 1900's, there were few such laws as cannabis, morphine, etc being illegal, because at the time the vast majority of the population had self control. A child could go to a corner store and buy morphine, because no child would use it improperly, and because everyone was expected to use it for controlled reasons (illness). Nobody at the time really would buy drugs for recreation, only if they truly needed it. But nowadays, if the same system existed, where any and all drugs were legal, we would live in one dangerous f*cking country. Do you know just how bad industry would be, if half the population was under the influence of any number of substances? If nothing was regulated at all? Would you really feel safe going down the road, knowing one or all of the cars around you had someone blacked out on something, and could kill you at any moment? Would you really feel safe sitting in a passenger jet, knowing your pilot could be high as a kite, (pun intended) And send the plane crashing into the Atlantic?

 

Someone can kill you with a car now regardless. Alcohol is legal, they could drink and then smash into you and kill you, your family, and whomever else is in your car. That's a very real possibility, and you know what? No one is banning alcohol anytime soon. Your pilot would be screened beforehand, just like is done already. Private businesses would set their standards. And how bad industry is? So what? If I want to shoot up heroin, snort cocaine, take ecstasy, etc. why not let me? Don't want to employ me? Don't, no one's forcing you to. The government's job isn't to regulate who is going to be the best worker or the best citizen. If I end up on the streets from drug addiction, let me, it's none of yours or the government's business.

 

 

 

I seem to have gone off on a tangent... But I digress, if drugs became legal today, no restrictions, the lack of morals that the majority of the population has will cause the country to crumble in no time.

 

Again, the government's job isn't to regulate morality. If I'm harming you, fine, throw me in jail. But, if I'm sitting at home shoving needles into my arm and watching television, what business is that of yours?

[Panz]

Vlynor: Yeah, NYC is what I was talking about.

 

Do you think this drug thing is about image? Hypothetically, let's just say we legalized drugs and societies began to spiral out of control with drug problems. Who wants to lead a city or state or country with drug prominence? What do we relate drugs with? Well, violence and poverty. It's not necessarily the case, but it's a general association. What kinds of families with children want to move to a city with these issues? Not many, most likely. Who wants to visit this type of city? Likely not many people.

 

I think it's also the fact that drugs are just so addictive. It's easy for a person to become addicted and start to blow his money on these drugs. And then he loses his job because he fails a routine drug test at work or maybe wants to stay home and shoot up instead. Then he stresses out and turns to more and more drugs because now he's not making money, and then he falls into this vicious cycle. Maybe he turns to selling drugs because it's easier. If enough people fall into this cycle, then the society starts to crumble because priorities change. I really don't know many people who can casually sit around and use drugs without it affecting their lifestyle, but maybe I'm just biased from my own experiences.

 

If you're talking marijuana, then that's a different story. I really don't see the problem with that one except maybe that it often serves as a gateway drug (but let's not get into that).

Edited January 22, 2014 by Panz

[Frank Brown]

Vlynor: Yeah, NYC is what I was talking about.

 

Do you think this drug thing is about image? Hypothetically, let's just say we legalized drugs and societies began to spiral out of control with drug problems. Who wants to lead a city or state or country with drug prominence? What do we relate drugs with? Well, violence and poverty. It's not necessarily the case, but it's a general association. What kinds of families with children want to move to a city with these issues? Not many, most likely. Who wants to visit this type of city? Likely not many people.

 

It might be. But then I have to ask you, do you think if drugs were legalized that crime rates would spike? Would we see rates similar to the 90's? And would you personally start using any hard drugs?

 

 

 

I think it's also the fact that drugs are just so addictive. It's easy for a person to become addicted and start to blow his money on these drugs. And then he loses his job because he fails a routine drug test at work or maybe wants to stay home and shoot up instead. Then he stresses out and turns to more and more drugs because now he's not making money, and then he falls into this vicious cycle. Maybe he turns to selling drugs because it's easier. If enough people fall into this cycle, then the society starts to crumble because priorities change. I really don't know many people who can casually sit around and use drugs without it affecting their lifestyle, but maybe I'm just biased from my own experiences.

 

Shouldn't you have the choice of whether or not to blow your money and become an addict or not? I know, it can cause a cycle, but that's because of personal choice, not because anyone's forcing you to do X and then that causes Y. If you asked the people you live by if drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, are addictive, what would the general consensus be: Yes? Or no? If it's the former, do you really thing we need to regulate a choice?