Sunday, April 24, 2005

The conversation the other night at dinner came around to the legalization of marijuana, or the prohibition of this and other drugs. An argument was put forth that we wouldn't allow people to sacrifice children in the name of religion. I argue that that is not a valid analogy.

My basic stance on the use of any drugs, be they marijuana, or entheogens, or anything else, is that the government has no right to tell myself, or any other citizen, what I can and cannot injest into my body. (I also find it sadly amusing that it's often the same people who argue so vehemently for limiting government that are often for prohibition.) First of all, there is a tradition of shamanic usage of these substances, such as ayahuasca, that goes back for millenia, wherein plants are seen as teachers, with something to offer other than simply a source of energy or nutrients. (The The Santo Daime church is one group that uses ayahuasca as a sacrament. Another group is the UDV, which was recently in the news. Apparently the US Supreme Court will hear their case. The Native American Church uses peyote as a sacrament. You're beginning to see the picture.) If you study anthropology, you will find that where there are people, and there are plants or animals that can change or alter consciousness in the environment where those people live, these substances have been used for their spiritual benefit.

Therefore, the argument that these substances are dangerous (they can be, if abused by stupid or ignorant people) to be faulty at best, and at worst beside the point. If I, as an consenting adult, choose to injest something that I know may or may not be dangerous to myself, that is my choice. They also have a long history of perfectly safe usage by those who respect what the plants have to teach.

Then the argument often comes around to "But what if they drive while they're in an altered state of consciousness and hurt or kill someone?" This is not a valid argument. You could argue the same about alcohol, but, as we learned from Prohibition, this does not work (I won't even bring up the failures of the War on Drugs). It causes more problems than it solves. It is simply a matter of personal responsibility. It doesn't matter whether the person driving is impaired from alcohol, marijuana or prescription drugs. If a person's judgement or perceptions are impaired or altered, they shouldn't drive. It's that simple. Also, restricting access to a substance does not stop its abuse. In other words, making these substances illegal will not prevent people who use them from driving under the influence. Non sequiter.

Daniel Pinchbeck wrote a very interesting book on the uses of entheogens called Breaking Open The Head, A Psychedelic Journey into the Heart of Contemporary Shamanism. If you find the idea that people could derive spiritual insight from ingesting a plant, then you might find this book an interesting read. He covers the Ayahuasca traditions, as well as the use of an obscure plant from Africa called Iboga to break people of their heroin addictions. It's more than a memoir. It's more like a personal history of spiritual transformation by encounters with traditional shamanic practices. He also has a forum on his website.

Also, the late Terrence McKenna wrote a very interesting travelogue called True Hallucinations. It's quite worth the read. As well as being informative, it's a ripping yarn.

I think there is a general tendency in the West to discount anything that falls outside of our traditions. I'm not saying that this is racist, but in some ways you could see it that way. At the least, there is a tendency to belittle or laugh at non-Western spiritual beliefs or traditions. But it should be remembered, that our Western worldview is less than 2000 years old. And shamanic traditions are found among indigineous peoples everywhere, and go back to the dawn of man, over 100,000 years ago. I think we forget this. Or perhaps most people don't really think about it.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Had a similar recent conversation with a friend of mine in seminary. I was enlightneing him to the fact(?) that the jewish priests used hemp oil to purify themselves before going into the "holy of holies". He maintained that he didn't want anything to "influence his descision making"... I pointed out that his religion influenced every one of his descisions, usally toward the irrational side.

Cannabis causes the same synapsis patterns in the same area of the brain that is active during religious expression, it has been known to many cultures as a "god enhancing" plant.

1:16 PM  
Blogger munkee girl said...

Hey, Pete, if you'll remember the end of the conversation, you and I agreed that someone at the "church" should be responsible for not using drugs and making sure that those who did didn't drive. As always, one person's rights end when they infringe on another person's rights (in this case, public safety). Other than that, hemp based celebrants can go crazy, as far as I'm concerned--smoke your heads off, more brain cells for me. (Yes, I'm baiting you, go ahead and give me the lecture about marijuana being better for your health than vitamin C and tofu and excellent at regulating pain.)

And, I wasn't trying to draw a direct comparison between sacrificing babies and smoking weed. I was *trying* to start a larger debate about whether anything is justified as long as someone ties it to religious practice. So, if you're an Aztec and you think killing innocents in human sacrifices is the way to make God happy, are your actions moral? Course, someone had to jump in and assume that the crux of the argument was that weed is nasty, wicked, we hates it my precious.

1:34 PM  
Blogger munkee girl said...

P.S. Non "sequitur" (just trying to help "vanquish ignorance" and such). Semper ubi sub ubi--AR AR!

1:37 PM  
Blogger Ken said...

Now why do you have to go pick on me....Ms. Munkee Girl?

5:51 PM  
Blogger Peter said...

Mea culpa about the mispelling "sequitur." That being said, the analogy is still not valid. Anything is valid in religious practice, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of someone else. Obviously, human sacrifice would fall into the 'infringing' category.

THAT being said, the Aztecs had strong reasons for what they did, from their point of view. We know that they believed that if they did NOT sacrifice to the gods, that the gods would destroy the world. The actions may be anathema to us, but it still shows the power and strength that faith can have over human behavior. A powerful object lesson, indeed.

7:32 PM  
Blogger Michael "VendorX" Heaney said...

The 'it's ok if done for religious purposes' statement is useful in that it serves to reveal the most common fallacy in any belief system, that it's somehow relevant to any perspective outside of the subjective.

The fact is that for all bleeding hearts and zealots want to believe otherwise, all behavior we have so far seen humans exhibit, whether practical, ethical or moral, is at BEST related directly to a goal orientation (this means that people do things for the reason of furthering a some personal interest) and that to a T those goal orientations, no matter how much we try and dress them up in the garments of conveniently absent 'higher authorities', are entirely subjective and arbitrary.

So to have any really relevant 'debate' (as in one in which you actually hope to promote the spread of a desired behavior onto others) you must at some level either convince others to accept your entirely arbitrary goals (like the Aztec wanting to keep the sun from going out or the Christian wanting to save as many souls from a doomed earth as possible or the Green trying not to interfere with other life forms too much,) or you must try and find a way to make the behavior you want to encourage relate to the goal orientation others have already chosen for themselves.

“It’s ok if done for religious purposes,” then illustrates the fact that any person can choose to embrace whatever goal orientation they desire, no matter how personal, impulsive or even delusional their reasons for doing so, and once that person has chosen a goal, any behavior that seems to further it in their mind is entirely defensible on a ‘moral’ level. The trick, then, is to either resort to violence and beat the behavior out of them, as was done to the Aztecs, or to find ways to allow these various goals to work together without eliminating one or more of them.

In societies which value or support the freedom to promote your own arbitrary goal, like the United States, the common solution to the numerous conflicting goals out there is to find those areas in which the various goals intersect, either in conflict or harmony, and try and fashion rules for public behavior around them. One of the most classic examples that most can understand is what Munkee alludes to, the ‘it’s alright so long as you’re not hurting others’.

This is a pretty clear-cut case that most people can, in theory, agree with and incorporate into their goal orientation. A sort of combination peace offering/veiled threat, this footnote to the social contract tells us that so long as the behaviors of our goal orientation don’t interfere with the goals or behaviors for others, we can pursue them at will, and most people’s goals are either sufficiently self centered or benign that this works for them.

The trouble with this theory, of course, comes out about as clearly in the drug war as it has in any social conflict, namely what people will claim is ‘hurting them’ or others. Turn to the blatant lies of According to freevibe, you are hurting your family every time you do drugs. Apparently if I smoke pot, I’ll ignore my little brother’s birthday! Never mind all the good birthdays my sisters have had where everyone sat around and smoked pot and had a grand old time. Or the argument Pete mentioned about ‘what if they drive a car?’ What if a person drives while over-tired? Should we then demand that everyone MUST get a good eight hours of sleep every night, lest they drive while drowsy?

What’s being done here is this : those wishing to persecute a fairly harmless behavior are taking the rare instances, the exceptions, or even claims with NO instance of actual precedent to support them, in which the behavior DOES hurt others, and trying to build up a ‘you’re hurting others’ notion around it (commonly known as the ‘think of the children’ defense.) The problem, naturally, is that we don’t infringe on a behavior for the exceptions or accidents, hence why we don’t outlaw automobiles, firearms, surgery, sky diving, sports like soccer, religion, etc. etc. etc.

A vast majority of popular recreational chemicals today hurt no one but the user, and they hurt the user no more (or far less) than, say, the Los Angeles air I breath daily. The history of some drugs, like LSD, is so benign to both the user and those around the user that it’s actually difficult to find general objects in the world with such tranquil pasts. Common scissors have a bloodier background than LSD. People may behave in manners, on drugs, that do infringe on the ‘don’t hurt others’ rule, but about the only drug these days which sees that figure exceed the horrors people commit on one another without drugs to aid them along is alcohol.

9:29 PM  
Blogger twd3lr said...

I would have agreed with Mike's thoughts prior to almost getting nailed by a meth-head driver on I-30 after work this afternoon. This begs the question--which drugs do cause harm to others (either the use or manufacture of) and who decides which are relatively "benign" to society at large? Oh, and Mike, while your paragraphs are very well written, wouldn't it have been simpler to quote (for those of us who are citizens of the U.S. of A.) the bit in the Declaration of Indepedence about ", liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? ;)

10:19 PM  
Blogger Peter said...

"Common scissors have a bloodier background than LSD"

Heh heh. I got a real chuckle out of that.

10:19 PM  
Blogger Wahoo said...

If it makes any of you guys feel any better, most of the cops I've talked to (which, granted, isn't a whole lot of people) tell me that most other cops couldn't give a shit about weed. But these are rural sheriff's deputies who spend most of their time chasing crankheads and drunks. I believe they think it's a big pain in the ass having to pretend that pot is more destructive than alcohol, especially when they're the guys scraping the results of our legal drugs off the road every night.

Personally, I'd just like to be able to get high without having to hang out with damn dirty hippies. Get off my lawn.

8:55 AM  
Blogger Melissa said...

So the standard is religiousity and not harmful to others? So this means bigamy is okay too?

5:23 PM  
Blogger Kara said...

Bigamy, or any other arrangement shared by consenting adults, is perfectly acceptable to me. Certainly more acceptable than drunk driving, or blind religiousity. After all, very few of our society's taboos have a non-religous basis and the only taboo that really makes sense to me is the one against cannibalism...

4:39 PM  
Blogger Melissa said...

So a mass suicide among cult members is okay? Interesting.

4:32 PM  
Blogger Michael "VendorX" Heaney said...

Melissa, both are clearly ok. After all, people choose to do them. The only notion by which they aren't ok is a subjective one on the part of someone else, based on differing personal goals, interests and beliefs.

9:32 PM  
Blogger Melissa said...

I'm not sure I agree with that Michael

"This is a pretty clear-cut case that most people can, in theory, agree with and incorporate into their goal orientation. A sort of combination peace offering/veiled threat, this footnote to the social contract tells us that so long as the behaviors of our goal orientation don’t interfere with the goals or behaviors for others, we can pursue them at will, and most people’s goals are either sufficiently self centered or benign that this works for them."

While you do seem to describe human behavior rather accurately (although I have to wonder where taking care of kids goes into that), a government is not a person and has other agenda.

This is an in theory thing and you've assumed that taking drugs does not affect other people's goals.

Also, not all goals are entirely arbitrary, most people want to be able to eat, be social, and have some sense of purpose in the world. I'm not quite sure why you would think that all goals are entirely arbitrary.

Twd3lr put that you could have just
"life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" The Pursuit of happiness in many ways can be limited to the "pursuit of money" Or at least in AMerica, anything that messes with the economy or the ability to make money will trump anything else, legally speaking.

Many of the laws affecting society in order to keep the order blah blah blah crime cakes have to do with either (1) hurting other people or (2) messing with the economy.

Now drugs by the fact that people take them hurts the economy by people taking off work, lowering worker productivity, etc.

Besides, the cheap convict labor is too hard for government ot pass up. There is a vested interest to keep jails as clogged as they are.

ALso, it's not entirely given that certain drugs are not harmful.

For example, PCP is known to make people violent. It's a pretty common side affect, if you will. WOuld this mean that while pot which, for the sake of argument, should be legal but PCP which has a propensity for making people violent and thereby causing harm to people other than the one taking it?

Okay I threw that out there. I could go on the "the first amendment is not the free for all for religious means it's okay" (which it's pretty close but peyote smoking by Indians was held not enough to have the constitution make an exception for Oregon's anti-pot smoking laws)

6:19 PM  
Blogger Michael "VendorX" Heaney said...

First off, no need to wonder where taking care of kids comes into play. Some people want to take care of kids, some people don't. Some people kill kids. Some societies only take care of certain kids, etc. etc. Like everything else, it varies based on the person and circumstance.

Now, at this point you make a claim about my argument :

>> "This is an in theory thing and you've assumed that taking drugs does not affect other people's goals."

I do nothing of the sort. I state that the use of many (not all) recreational drugs does not interfere with the goal 'do unto others.' I didn't say 'ANY' goal. Clearly, there are wacky, antisocial and irrational people out there who actually embrace the goal 'stop drug use at any cost and without any demonstrated reason.' Obviously, recreational drug use would come up against that goal. As for assumption and theory? Not a bit of either. If I smoke pot in the privacy of my own home during hours I’d be at home, isolated, anyway and remain there until sober once more, well, then there is simply no possible way you can argue that your freedoms under the ‘maximized individual freedoms’ concept are even glanced at in a mean way, much less threatened. And that’s just one of many scenarios.

>> "Also, not all goals are entirely arbitrary, most people want to be able to eat, be social, and have some sense of purpose in the world."

'Most people'. That means that some don't, hence arbitrary. The beauty of the conscious human mind is that it can conflict and counter instinctive desires. I suppose you could argue that goals which enjoy an instinctive impulse, like the desire to eat, might not be ENTIRELY 'arbitrary', since they have a root source, even if some ignore that source. Indeed I almost made mention of that exception in my first post, but I felt it was getting too wordy. I have paid for my laziness. Still, in the end, a person chooses their goals, and I defy you to find a conscious goal that some person, at some time, hasn’t rejected or chosen the opposite of.

>> "Now drugs by the fact that people take them hurts the economy by people taking off work, lowering worker productivity, etc. "

I'm sorry, that's just ridiculous. Firstly, most people work their drugs around their profession. I defy you to track the movements of any set of employees whom you don’t know and then, a month, even a year later, give me a very accurate picture of which ones are and are not illegal recreational drug users based on their productivity or reliability. In fact, a USA Federal survey, which I will endeavor to dig up, actually found that pot users were among some of the MOST responsible and reliable members of our work force. A second study done in Britain found the same.

A majority of my friends have or still do use drugs like pot and it has in no way cost them or our 'economy'. They range from lawyers to businessmen to police officers. Further, if you look at government figures tracking our economy and drug use, you’ll see no correlation at all. In fact, if we took Bush at his word, he is claiming that during this economic slump, drug use has declined. Of course, we’re smart enough to not take Bush at his word and instead check the figures, which don’t hold up his claims, but hey, he’s a liar. Whatcha gonna do, blame it on drug use?

Secondly, as alluded to in my previous long winded comment, the primary drug responsible for people missing work beyond and in excess to what they do drug-free is alcohol. Likewise, social damage and costs due to alcohol use easily eclipse that of many other recreational drugs combined, including pot. Of course, the reason we tolerate this is that we discovered that making alcohol illegal is even more costly, something we're also learning with pot.

But most important, I must expose the flaw in your notion of what obligation I owe YOUR 'goals' in a society that promotes our INDIVIDUAL freedoms. Sure, 'you' might want to work towards economic prosperity as part of your 'right to life, freedom and happiness', but all I'm required to do is not stop you. You're claiming that if I don't fall in line, that I'm somehow thwarting you. Wrong. The notion that we can both lead our lives separately, you working for the economy and me choosing not to, is what that freedom is, not you forcing me to alter my behavior for your ends. Only when I seek out to directly prevent you from exploring your own freedoms, namely in methods like burning down your shop, strong arming your vendors, things like that (which private recreational drug use clearly isn’t,) can you claim that we have a 'goal’ conflict in a free society.

The New Zealand cannabis study you mention is getting slammed for its vague conclusions from very limited data, as is the notion that the mental health link is ‘generally agreed upon by doctors’, which it is not. Of course, that’s hardly relevant. Alcohol and cigarettes both harm the body considerably, but they’re legal. As I stated previous, skydiving carries a great risk, but it’s not illegal. We usually don’t (and never SHOULD) legislate behavior simply because it carries some personal risk. Hell, the only reason we should outlaw suicide is because then someone else is forced to clean up.

Of course, you yourself stated that it is, “not a given that certain drugs are not harmful.” Of course, you’re right, but let’s focus on that key word ‘certain’. You then go on to talk about cannabis when, oddly, the drug I actually focused on was LSD, which still has no demon in its closet.

What we need to consider is ‘how harmful is a drug, actually?’ For instance, if someone created a recreational chemical that was 100% chemically addictive, sterilized you, killed you inside of five years AND caused your cells to start generating an infectious virus that had similar affects, yeah, I’d probably be all about making that illegal. PCP, if we found correlations that showed that those on it were likely, as in MORE than likely to get out and start breaking shit, well, I’d consider making it illegal as well, although in the end I would probably decline, arguing (I think correctly) that we can punish people if and when they’ve broken those laws regarding violence as well as the fact that with all drugs legal, people are going to avoid those which are more dangerous and not fun like PCP anyway. But things like Pot, LSD? Seriously, you just pointed out that all drugs aren’t alike. You can’t then suggest that we treat them all like they were, legally.

Not all drugs are alike. Some harm the body. Some rare few can even make you a dangerous person *coughALCOHOLcough*. However, the big issue that people don’t seem to be able to grasp is that the rare instance behaviors that they keep describing, like reckless driving or violence, well, we already have laws against those things. If a person behaves that way, whether on a drug or sober, they should, and by law will be, punished. Demonizing the vast majority of responsible drug users for the crimes committed by a handful does not equate free or sound law. It amounts to irrational hysteria, blown to such absurd proportions that lies like ‘gateway drugs’ or ‘kids under your care will DROWN’ are now being used to peddle its contemptible fruits.

The fact is that the arguments made for the drug war these days don’t even amount to good coffee table debate. Take your own economics arguments. It’s fun to toss about hypothetically, I suppose, but you yourself are already a mere half step from its obvious flaw, namely that people already use pot and yet we cannot isolate business or economic trends hurt by conventional use. We now live in a nation where close to one in three adults have engaged or continue to engage responsibly in a personal behavior that is illegal, without crashing their cars or beating up their wives or ruining the economy. Or, put in a more simplistic way, the notion that drug users could somehow be hurting your freedoms is lunatic, because they’re already out there using the drugs and yet, somehow, your freedoms remain in place. And that is one serious issue that pro drug war arguments continue to fail to recognize, that we already know what sort of society drug users create : we’re living in it.

11:06 PM  
Blogger Michael "VendorX" Heaney said...

11:07 PM  
Blogger Melissa said...


First of all.

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

There are goals that are based on necessity (getting food, shelter, etc.) and most goals are based on some reason or principle.

A person changing their mind is not necessarily based on being arbitrary. People having varying goals isn't arbitrary either.

Now if you are saying that people don't have a way of seeing the world which is classic existential philosophy. Which might be what you are saying. Then yeah. People don't see beyond their own nose butif that is true then what is the purpose of of this conversation. Because everybody is seeing their own truth and sharing information is pointless.

I never claimed that drug users are hurting my freedoms. You have misread my entire post but thanks for playing. You put your post in that framework and have made assumptions based on that.

Just because your friends are able to go to work while smoking pot (or LSD) doesn't mean that there are lots of people who don't. (nice antecdotal evidence and the "ooh my friends are smart too so you should listen to me, girly girl" addage was NICE) I know lots of people who don't manage their jobs and commit crimes. IN fact, Brooklyn created a drug court which got non violent drug users (not sellers) to get court ordered treatment instead of jail due to the other crimes such as shoplifting, fare beat (trying to get a free subway ride), panhandling, and other crimes that soaked a shitload of money from the criminal justice system.

I was speaking of drugs in general. The post and most of the comments aren't clear whether it was a Weed only discussion so I addressed all drugs in my discussion.

I believe the issue with LSD is that no one knows what it does.

Since you went to hell in a handbasket with antecdotal evidence, (nice for a person who likes to wax poetic about logic. And the oooh my drug using friends have fancy pants jobs so your ridiculous is just as ludicrous as anything I said) I'm not going to waste my time with the rest of it. I admit that I wasn't as clear as I probably should have been with someone willing to write a doctorial thesis on a website but you misread what I wrote to the point that I'm pretty sure I didn't say what you think I did.

Irony here, I don't give a rats ass about pot.

2:15 AM  
Blogger Michael "VendorX" Heaney said...

I really don’t want to turn this into a flame war, but some things must be addressed

You post a dictionary definition of arbitrary, and yet no use of the word I ascribe in any of my arguments deviates from

>> “2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference.”

Judgement or preference. Anything I’ve stated as arbitrary amounts to one or the other.

You suggest that I’m using an existentialist notion of aboslute, unique and unminglable minds and beliefs, but that I ascribed earlier to social notions like the collective goals of the Aztecs and Christians makes it very obvious that this couldn’t be the case. To clarify, I’m using a relativist concept of uncertainty, not an existentialist notion of absolute division.

You claim that I’m misreading you and arguing things you don’t say. Yet, going back over your previous post, you write, quite clearly, that you felt that ‘pursuit of happiness’ could be translated largely as ‘pursuit of wealth’ and then suggested that, since drug use harms the economy, it could be seen as counter that goal. I merely argued that point and the flaws I felt it had.

And finally, you write :

>> “Since you went to hell in a handbasket with antecdotal evidence, (nice for a person who likes to wax poetic about logic. And the oooh my drug using friends have fancy pants jobs so your ridiculous is just as ludicrous as anything I said)”

which is both unfair and untrue. Total word count in my last post? 1,454. Total words used to mention friends? 33. Hardly going to hell, or even outlying suburbs. Further, while the statement was certainly one based on personal experience, that doesn’t make it irrelevant or ridiculous. When discussing how drugs affect someone’s ability to work, CERTAINLY I am allowed to bring personal experience in as evidence. The ideal argument is one which combines objective study, objective theory AND field experience. To suggest that simply because evidence is personal rather than gleaned from a book or a peer reviewed journal is not logical debate.

Had personal experience been my only argument, you might have had a complaint. As it is, two sentences were devoted to mentioning my friends. Whole paragraphs were devoted to other types of arguments, including 1) exciting tests you can run yourself like tracking federal job rates or other economic factors in relation to drug use, 2) the easily verifiable argument that its one of our legal drugs that does the most damage to our economic infrastructure, and 3) my explanation as to why, based on how I interpret our individual freedoms to exist, the argument is moot even where it to be determined that recreational drug use hurts the economy. For you to get as upset as you do over one citation of relevant personal experience within that host of arguments simply makes no rational sense, ESPECIALLY IF, as you claim, none of it pertains to any point you were making, anyway.

What, are you jealous of my friends? I’ll share…

3:16 PM  
Blogger Melissa said...

Calling something ludicrous is a strong word and suggests that you are upset.

"Or, put in a more simplistic way, the notion that drug users could somehow be hurting your freedoms is lunatic," is not respectful either and calling it as such indicates that you are upset or are baiting me which isn't a rational discussion or debate.

You say this things that are indicative of something with statistics but you don't cite anything and I'm supposed to think it's true because you say so or that it isn't true because you say so. I can cite things if you want. C'mon. that's as LUNATIC as anything you have put on your posts.

I mean really there's nothing respectful about calling something ludicrous. it's a "fighting word" really, tantamount to stupidest thing I ever heard. So don't get all "why are you upset on me." I thought your friends i.e. Kabal of Ken were respectful of other people's views but it is obvious with your name calling that YOU are not. Seriously, you are quite patronizing in your post and make no attempt to dispute my questions other than saying it is lunatic. That isn't a vigorous debate. that is FLAMING! And you expect me to NOT be upset. C'mon. I've tolerated your "lunatic name calling" a lot longer than I would with most people.

No I'm not jealous of your friends. I'm pretty sure that if they are anything like you, I probably don't want to hang out with them. I can be disrespected a lot more places than this board.

Lunatic, bitch please!

But now that I've made point.

I will actually address your post.

Whether or not to legalize drugs which is the ultimate subtext of this discussion and it is based on how drugs affect society as a whole, not just your friends. Of course you can cite your personal experience but America has oh 6 million people and how many friends do you have? How much relevance do you think I should put on it? Not very much.

Seriously your next to last post sounds like rationalizing. And how much seriousness am I supposed to give a statistic on NORML, that's like taking a gun statistic from NRA seriously or believing that FOX is indeed fair and balanced. They have an agenda. So try again. That's LUDACROUS and LUNATIC as well.

So really, if you don't want things to become a flame war, don't call anyone or their ideas LUNATIC! or LUDACROUS because you merely don't like them. AND especially! if you're not even going to go to the trouble of proving them wrong. Seriously calling something bad because you say so is the George W. Bush way of the world.

I'm done. You set this up to be a flame war, not me. And no i'm not posting a response.

8:47 AM  
Blogger Melissa said...

And let it stand for the record that you edited the lunatic and ludracrous stuff out.

10:09 AM  
Blogger Michael "VendorX" Heaney said...

Melissa, you're a hostile dweeb, and apparently deLOOSional as well. I haven't edited anything out. A: it's all still there, b: I can't edit my posts.

I noticed your behavior when you first began to post on Ken's site. You're reactionary, hostile, conflict oriented, but what's most important is that you're sloppy. You don't converse or debate, you look for ways to avoid conversing or debating. You pretend that mentioning personal experience is somehow automatically irrelevant. It's not. It's valid debate. Personal experience only becomes irrelevant if you try and make it apply to the whole world. OF course, I was merely using it to demonstrate examples of where drug use/miss work didn't hold. You pretend you can ignore a source simply because they have an 'agenda'. You can't. That's bad debate. The argument made by NORML (although a quick google search will show you other sources saying the same thing) is valid, that a 3 person difference in a thousand person unduplicated study is not evidence of anything, especially in regards to something so poorly defined as schizophrenia. What you're doing is saying, "I don't have to consider this argument, because it comes from a source I don't trust." That's an informal fallacy. You can't blindly dismiss arguments, ever. An argument is only rendered invalid if and when a flaw in either the reasoning or the applied data is brought to light.

You want to know what creates our modern 'pro Bush' world? People who converse like you do, whose only interest is in not losing face. You'll ignore any argument, hazard any half assed claim at fallacy, use any limp wristed tactic to avoid actually addressing an issue.

If you're someone interested in learning or talking about a subject seriously, then when someone alludes to information that doesn't agree with your beliefs, you know what you do? You seek it out. You don't decide you can just arbitrarily ignore it because they didn't lead you by the nose to a source. If they post a source from a group you consider biased, an honest and intelligent person must and will still consider the argument. Only the intellectually dishonest peron will decide, from the get go that they don't even have to see what argument was made. I call your argument ridiculous? That's because it is ridiculous. 'Fact' that drug use hurts the economy? Freaking laughable. The point is that, once again, your hurt feelings don't invalidate my subsequent arguments. You never even mentioned, say, the fact that drug figures and economic figures show no correlation. Why not? Why have you continued to ignore this point?

Only one type of debate makes for honest debate, and that's honestly addressing the points and facts made. It is not acheived by ignoring the majority of arguments and whining about one anectdotal reference. It is not achieved by pretending you can ignore a source simply because it has an agenda. It is not achieved by getting upset that someone found something you claimed to be a fact too absurd to pretend to consider plausible. All of that amnounts to forms of informal fallacy; attempts to find unrelated ways to ignore the points being made.

You may not like my debate style. A lot of people don't. It's not 'nice' or polite, but you know, it's honest and includes 'reasoned arguments', and I'll take honest argument over dishonest weasling any day. That's the serious dividing point between the two of us, and based on your last post, the only real question left is whether you're being intentionally dishonest or if you, yourself, are mired too deeply in the drug world. Seriously, read the post. Nothing's been editted out.

4:05 AM  
Blogger Melissa said...

Your debate style is not honest. Nothing of the sort. To say that your debate style is not hostile is just plain lying. Period. Because no one likes to be talked down to and calling anything they have to say idiotic, lunatic, or what the fuck ever and is right up there with Sean Hannity in the style of debating.

And really DWEEB, is that the best you can do? no really.

You also bait. I distinctly remember on Ken's site saying "I was done" and then you made a smart ass comment. I also said I was DONE here and you went ahead and wrote a whole entire post calling me delusional, dweeb, and what have you. No really, that's baiting. What's honest about baiting? It's immature and dumb.

But, I will honestly debate you if you want. (because I like talking about drugs. yee haa)

I asked questions about mass suicide and bigamy because I wasn't sure how far you were willing to take the "as long as it doesn't hurt me" paradigm.

You say that I don't honestly respond to your points, well you haven't honestly responded to mine. (see baiting and name calling and some things listed below)

You don't know me. I wouldn't dare base something as broad as a personality assesment based on a miniscule amount of posts you have read but that is the difference between you and me.

You seem to have an tendencey to assume that anything you say is right and everybody else who disagrees with you is stupid, crazy , or an idiot. You also tend to go OUT OF YOUR way to tell other people they are stupid. (which is why I'm guessing insecurity) Instead of saying you disagree, you have to call people names. There's nothing admirable or honest about that. It's reactionary as well, assuming that I am reactionary. And considering that my cat was diagnosed with FIV on the same day I wrote said post, yes I probably was but it was more raw nerves than anything and for that I apologize. Then again I don't see you apologizing for your name calling which really, if something hurts another person's feelings and you don't apologize, isn't that you avoiding saving face? just a thought. It's like you don't want to admit that you have fallen on the assy side of the fence. But anyway. You also participate in the Post Bush world of saving face by demonizing the messenger.

Or at least that's what it appears here.

Although I gotta wonder the wisdom of someone who truly thinks that one person is delusional calling that unknown person that on a website when he uses his real name and location. I mean if I was really delusional wouldn't you be scared taht I'd stalk you or something? i could be writing this from prison for all you know. As someone who did get the crazy call from a random web person, I will tell you, think twice bucky, it's not pretty. YOu might want to tone it down with people you don't know.

You categorization of me doing anything to avoid saving face is just clearly wrong. You haven't even explained WHY you think that but go ahead. I point blank said that I thought this disucssion was about drugs in general at one point which I thought would show that I was saying "oops" and moving on but you seemed to have missed that.

You are still name calling and if you had a problem with the way I treated Ken, you could have taken it up there. Oh you did but obviously you didn't have your entire say. I believe that baiting someone and then bringing something outside the current argument is called being passive agressive.

I said that I was sloppy at this juncture. if you paid attention to time, it was late in the evening at the time. And I'm sorry that I have other things to do like takecare of my cat that has FIV, mother's day, and a whole host of other things to not give you the attention you deserve.

Since I like talking about drugs.

I can find data to say that people on drugs do lose work, You can find data that says otherwise. It will be a battle of the experts.

ALSO, the point about work place, you merely told me I was stupid and then put a MOST people work around drugs but then give nothing to state why you think it's MOST people. Just because you SAY something is true doesn't make it true and it isn't even an honest point of debate. Why do you know that? Why should I believe you? I wasn't aware you were the keep drugs free czar who is the be all end all of drug policy? No really, you can't just say something about MOST people and then give a reason why it's MOST. So, you think you're more honest than you actually are. If you want to cite a study, go ahead but its' not going to be MOST people. It can be a large number but not MOST. Overexaggeration at best.

I never said mentioning personal experience was completely irrelevant. You took that from my statement. Just like you said that I called Ken pretentious on his site. I never said that. You misread me which isn't the first time.

Now personal experience has the same problem that you think my study from New Zealand has. It's a small sample. Just because something doesn't happen to you and your friends doesn't mean that it is indicative of drug users as a whole. It doesn't. You and your friends might be the small amount of people who use drugs who are otherwise law abiding responsible citizens. I believe pot users is in the millions in the US so no matter how popular you are or claim to be, you don't have a large enough sample size. That's why I'm not giving it much weight. I didn't say I wasn't giving it ANY weight. That is something you inferred from my statement that isn't there.

Telling someone that they are basing a fact on bad data isn't dishonest debate, it's an honest debunking of a point. If there is a credibility issue with the source of the information, that is also an honest debunking of said information. Why should I believe someone or something that has a tendency to spin the truth? If it was so easy to get another source for your study, then why use the NORML ad. If you want honest debate, why use something that so clearly skews information one way or the other? you could have as easily put a more balanced source yourself. So why should I google the information instead of you since you were the one putting forth the information? No really.

To repeat, It's an issue of credibility.

And I thought we were conversing . . .where have I not "conversed" with you?

I dropped the Arbitrary thing because once I put all the definitions, it was clear that I was thinking definition 1. and you were using another definition. I'm not sure I agree with it but I'm not sure why Was I supposed to give you some great sign telling you specifically that. I thought you were smart enough to figure that out on your own.

I did put in my original post that government is different than people and their individual rights. A government has more aims than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of its citizens. Those are the main goals in the US but there is also economy, foreign diplomacy, national security, etc.

AND I DID put that "government is diffent" in my original not well written post. You glossed over it.

Also, I put a very cynical point on the world or more specifically the US government, that yes people's freedom to smoke pot is less important than the free prison labor. It's cynical but it's true. Look up Prison Industrical Complex. There is a lot of people who have jobs based on running prisons. If you let all the drug users out of prison, a lot of people would lose their jobs. Also, you might not like that this would be a factor in the legalization of drugs but any big business has pull over the government and the prison industry (yes there is an industry. the people who make the prison uniforms, etc. OH and let's not forget the private prisons) is a fairly big industry complete with fortune 500 companies.

AGAIN! I mentioned this albeit briefly in my intial post and you completely ignored it. (free prison labor)

Your last rant was to paraphase, "prove to me why my drug using is violating your rights," Well I say "it's not about just YOU and just ME." It's about Drug users as a class vs. the citizens of the US. That's how all laws work. Think about the seatbelt law or the helmet law or the not drinking over the age of 21. All laws aren't based on the smart savvy people who can drive all right without busting their head whether or not they wear a seatbelt. They are mainly based on prevention of people doing stupid things to themselves. Why do you think there are things written on products like "harmful to pregnant women" "drinking bleach will kill you" "do not eat rocks"? Because there is a "forseeable misuse" law.

So proving me personally vs. you personally isn't necessary.

Drug law is going to be based on All people or the stupidest of drug users and the way that the stupidest of drug users play with drugs. And those people do miss work and whatnot. And I can say that from personal experience (I have ties to the criminal justice system)

I think that with LSD, it's bad trips are a big factor in why it will never be legalized. Think about Fen/Fen being taken off the market. I don't even think it was that large of a sample that actually had heart problems in relation to the number of people overall but the heart problems will kill that person and that's considered too much. A bad trip or the people who are permanently damamged from Acid although small will probably be considered too much to legalize even though most people have no problems whatsoever. There is always a balancing test between side effects vs. good effects and something that is catastrophic if taken as directed will be bad.

Eh I'm sleepy so I will get less concises or more sloppy if I go on.

11:09 PM  
Blogger Michael "VendorX" Heaney said...


As regards our recent debate, I’d like to clear up some of the finer points regarding my ‘style’ of debate.

You seem to think that I treat you in a patronizing and cruel manner. I’m addressing this first because this is one of the few times you are both correct and coherent in your assessment. However, like most people who are being treated this way, you, in your conceit and arrogance, refuse to contemplate for even a second that there might be a reason for this treatment that, in fact, lies with you. I will explain your myriad failings in a way I feel certain you can comprehend.

Point one, you are demanding, peevish and oversensitive to a fault. In the case of Ken’s blog, you come on and make a lot of off the cuff assessments. I make a short, simple and friendly response clarifying my position. I even debase myself by including an ascii smiley at the end to make it plain that I am not digging at you. But apparently, this is rude and ‘baiting’, because if someone comes onto a blog and makes a bunch of assessments about other people’s statements, but then says ‘they’re done’ then obviously no one else is allowed to respond! So, in short, only you are allowed to determine if and when people can respond to your comments, and regardless of the nature of their responses, you’re going to take offense? Your response to Ken’s purely friendly interest in your own blog was another example of this. So point one, I treat you like a child because you behave like one, insisting that the world revolves around your desires while at the same time raging in the face of people who are only treating you in a polite manner. As for why I didn’t carry it further in Ken’s blog, I was being polite to Ken, who hardly needs me to defend him or overwhelm his blog with pointless argument. (In the case of this blog, Pete has given the go ahead to overwhelm.)

Next in line, You are a liar, and worse, you are a bad liar. I will give a beautiful example.

>> “You don't know me. I wouldn't dare base something as broad as a personality assesment based on a miniscule amount of posts you have read but that is the difference between you and me.

You seem to have an tendencey to assume that anything you say is right and everybody else who disagrees with you is stupid, crazy , or an idiot. You also tend to go OUT OF YOUR way to tell other people they are stupid. (which is why I'm guessing insecurity)”

Hahahaha, isn’t that great? It’s a rare gift to tell a lie and then reveal it as such in your very next statement. Wait, wait, there’s more!

>> “I believe that baiting someone and then bringing something outside the current argument is called being passive agressive. “

>> “So, you think you're more honest than you actually are.”

It goes on. So, in fact, the real difference between you and I is that you’re a rabid liar, or at worst, that I can at least tell a convincing lie. Two bits of friendly advice. First, if you’re going to make such a blatant lie, wait at least a couple of paragraphs before saying something that makes it clear you’re a fucking liar. Secondly, as a well practiced braggart myself, I recommend that before you start boasting, you wait for some boast worthy quality to present itself. It really adds to the power of the brag, trust me.

Point three, your debate style is sophomoric, at best. I will give you some examples. For instance, your demand that I give you sources for the claim ‘most people’. You go on to ask why you should trust me when I make a statement. That’s simple, you should ‘trust’ me, unless you have some actual reason to doubt me, because that’s the point of debating people. If you demand a source every time someone says something you don’t know or that doesn’t fit into your little world view, then you aren’t really debating them, you’re using them as a cheap research resource and calling them a liar at the same time. You, liar that you are, claim that I gave no reasons initially for my claim ‘most people’, but in fact I gave two, personal experience and drug figures related to economic figures. Even so, I’ll do one better. Here are the official FED stats on work loss due to illicit drug use.

Look at that, no figure breaks 15%! That means that in excess of 85% show no measurable work loss due to illicit drug use. That’s most by ANY definition. That is one of the many reasons I don’t believe that illicit drug use has a significant economic impact. Now, I also want to point out another interesting little fact, here. If, at this point in the debate, I were to call you an ignorant fucktard, you will be amazed to note that those figures listed by SAMHSA do not change at all. Insulting you may hurt your feelings, but it does not change the facts or make me ‘wrong’.

Of course, you suggest you can find figures which counter mine, but as I stated initially, you can’t. You won’t. You won’t find a goddamned thing which flies in the face of any argument I’ve made. You said you weren’t, “aware [I was] the keep drugs free czar…” You should have asked. Now you are. And that’s point four as to why I patronize you. I know this shit. I’ve researched, debated, studied, written about, experienced it for years. To come on with your talking points and your rhetoric with this bushy tailed attitude that you’re going to enlighten everyone is the height of self centered conceit. You came here convinced from the start you could ‘educate’ everyone, but the sad truth is that there isn’t anything you’ve said so far that isn’t old hat to me, drug mythos debunked by those in the know years hence. Naturally, if you should at any point suddenly start hitting me with arguments, facts or even conclusions that are new to me, I will reassess my evaluation, but I’m not really expecting there to be much promise of that, at this point.

Now, as for the ‘saving face’ comment (point five,) let’s check out this attempt to save face.

>> “That's why I'm not giving it [my personal reference to friends] much weight. I didn't say I wasn't giving it ANY weight. That is something you inferred from my statement that isn't there.”

Now, let’s read what you actually wrote.

>> “Just because your friends are able to go to work while smoking pot (or LSD) doesn't mean that there are lots of people who don't. (nice antecdotal evidence and the "ooh my friends are smart too so you should listen to me, girly girl" addage was NICE) “

“Since you went to hell in a handbasket with antecdotal evidence, (nice for a person who likes to wax poetic about logic. And the oooh my drug using friends have fancy pants jobs so your ridiculous is just as ludicrous as anything I said) I'm not going to waste my time with the rest of it.”

Yeah, I guess I was totally coming from left field with that ‘no weight’ concept! Wait, no, my mistake. You’re actually a dipshit trying to save face through being dishonest. Sorry, I was right the first time.

Next in line, your absurdly self centered view of how debate works. You take me to task for everything I don’t write. If I don’t jump on your ass immediately on Ken’s site, then it’s some kind of error, I’m obviously doing it to be dishonest! Did it never occur to you that I might not respond to things simply because they aren’t response worthy? If I don’t commend you for simply ‘not mentioning your misused word definition’ anymore, then I’m intentionally GLOSSING over the fact that you quietly and covertly decided to admit your error by ignoring it. Seriously, I’m supposed to applaud because, once an error of yours was exposed, you simply made no more mention of it? Bravo, real bold of you not to continue to flaunt an obvious error in future posts (idiot.) If I don’t comment on your cheap prison labor comment, oh yeah, it’s gotta be because I’m scared of the argument! Never mind that I’m not inclined to comment on arguments that could only be interpreted as humorous. I mean, were you serious? In a discussion about the social ethics of drug use, you were promoting cheap prison labor as an actual, valid argument? And you wonder why I’m MOCKING you? Bitch, please!

Look, I’m arrogant, but at least I realize that debate is a two way street. You are the sort of person who slanders someone for three pages and then says, “I’m done,” NOT to indicate that you, yourself aren’t going to talk anymore, but that you expect OTHER PEOPLE to stop responding to your slander. And you wonder why I insult you. I’m not at your command, you childish halfwit, and such a puny attempt to get in the last word earns you no respect from this quarter. Further, response to slander is not baiting. It’s response to slander, nothing more, nothing less. I’m guessing that you weren’t punched in the face quite enough in your childhood for acting like a self centered brat, which might account for this kind of ludicrous behavior. Here’s a rule of life you’ve missed out on. If you counter people’s statements, assess their motives, get angry about their comments, etc., especially if you do so in a way they’re likely to disagree with, then they’re going to respond. Claiming that you are ‘done’ isn’t going to stop that, and thinking it should amounts to delusional.

You are unforgivably sloppy when it comes to even the most basic argument. Example? Your query as to why, if I think you’re delusional, I’m not concerned that you’ll come over and stalk me. Of course, your question assumes, for some stupid reason, that delusional and dangerous are synonyms. Of course, they aren’t. Now, this is the sort of breach in conscious thought I might expect from someone in, say, their early college years, but among my peers it would be an unforgivable kind of blunder. This is a fair example, among numerous, of why I do not treat you like a peer. You’re not one.

Point, what, I think seven or eight, here : you have no clue what constitutes a logical fallacy.

>> “Telling someone that they are basing a fact on bad data isn't dishonest debate, it's an honest debunking of a point. If there is a credibility issue with the source of the information, that is also an honest debunking of said information.”

WRONG. Entirely wrong. The credibility of a source does not automatically upset figures or arguments presented by that source. ONLY a demonstrable flaw in either the facts of a premise OR the logic applied to a premise/conclusion vector can be used to DEBUNK either. Credibility of a source doesn’t even come close. If the credibility of the source is in question, then you have the right (which you should be doing anyway) of counterchecking the facts stated. They are not ‘debunked’ blindly by a credibility issue. Once again, someone in a 101 philosophy course might be forgiven this mistake, but a peer of mine? Never.

Bias in a source is arbitrary. Anyone can declare a source to have bias should it promote any notion they disagree with. I happen to find NORML an excellent source for relevant information, and your fuckwit notion that I have to confirm my sources with YOU is another example of your naïve arrogance, your blind and self centered attitude. You don’t like NORML? Who the fuck cares. Find an flaw in their statement or shut the hell up.

Worse, you can’t seem to retain the basic points of an argument from response to response. You go on at length about how law isn’t just ‘about me or about you’. I say it is. That was the whole point of my INITIAL comment, that in a society which values individual freedom, law is sure as FUCK about JUST ME and JUST YOU. It’s been the center of the debate from the start. So, this far in the future, you suddenly pretend that the entire previous set of arguments haven’t taken place. Unforgivable. Idiotic.

You do prop up a limp wristed defense of your belief, your foreseeable misuse laws, but what you are apparently too stupid to grasp on your own is that most of your examples involve labeling, which is not a law that limits the individual, but instead the maker of a product. Your one non-drug related example, seatbelt and helmet laws, are a decent ‘example’ except that they are both fairly new at the federal level and are both currently under ATTACK for the exact same reasons as drug laws are, namely that the government cannot FORCE personal safety. So what you do is list another example of the same problem without addressing the ethical issue at HAND. In the meantime, your other cited examples all show manners in which foreseeable misuse is handled properly, by simply demanding that the potential user be informed of possible risks and NOT by outlawing their right to take those risks, which is quite clearly a ‘just you, just me’ issue. With arguments as poorly thought out and ignorant of all previous argument as this one, once again you ought to be realizing that all mistreatment you’ve received, you’ve earned in spades.

As for your LSD speculation, the ONLY valid argument you’ve presented in what amounts to nine pages of dialogue, the facts once again overwhelm the myths. You can go to various sites which make vague allusions to cases of LSD accidents, suicides, psychosis, etc. What’s conspicuously missing, however, is any actual data, tracking figures, etc. However, I’ve provided a source here, one actually biased towards drug illegalization, which has some very clear cut tests and results regarding the damaging mental effects of LSD. The results are actually pretty damning, with once again numbers of problem cases so low as to result in a statistic assessment of ‘zero’.

In the meantime, a lot of sites, mostly government or anti drug crusading ones, make vague mention of ‘reports’ involving LSD related suicides and accidents, but these reports are, as I said, nowhere to be found. In the few cases where a person has ended up dead or seriously injured, and this is interesting, there is no official data anywhere pointing to LSD as the cause. In most cases, other drugs were detected in the body. Of course, the difficulty in detecting LSD makes it very difficult to determine its role in things like accidents or suicides, but that just makes these vague claims even more suspect. Related, there are less than ten recorded cases of death due to LSD overdose many sources only recognize one of them as a clear case of toxicity death.

In the meantime, here’s the DAWN report (more SAMHSA) which has tracking figures on LSD related emergency room visits,

and heres the report which advises us that, to qualifiy under DAWN as an LSD related visit, the word LSD need merely be mentioned, no matter how much in passing, in any report.

You may also note that DAWN actually lists more LSD related visits in a year than it does users. So what are we learning from this? Not much, not much. We learn how often the word LSD is mentioned in hospital reports. On the other hand, once again, I’ve been around easily over a thousand cases of LSD use, none of which ever resulted in a death, physically damaging accident, psychosis, hospital visit, so on and so forth, and you can say all you want, 1000+ is a statistically viable number, especially against the data means like HARM is using.

Obviously the above arguments aren’t reasons you’re an idiot. Like I said, your LSD argument, although one I’ve heard and dealt with countless times before, at least isn’t utterly absurd.

Official deaths reported due to LSD 1995-2003? Zero.

The truth is, Melissa, I like talking about drugs, too. I like conversation and I like debate. But I honestly kind of prefer it with my peers, people whose actually knowledge outweighs, or at least matches, their arrogance, as well as outweighing or at least matching my own. You know, People who are more inclined to rely on fact and reason, rather than rhetoric, people who are interested enough in the truth to, should I disagree with them, honestly research on their own, but at the same time, people who’ve done enough research that they rarely need to. I enjoy the conversation of people who can really add to my base of knowledge, or provide me with arguments that actually challenge me, and trust me, when people tell me things I don’t know, or disagree with me for reasons that make sense, I’m more than receptive. I prefer those who only ask for sources out of a desire for more knowledge, not to covertly call me a liar for disagreeing with them, and I prefer those who know at least enough about honest debate to avoid most blatant informal fallacies. I really enjoy those with the brain pan to keep their mind on my arguments over time and to present me with arguments that keep my mind occupied, and I derive more enjoyment out of those who can tolerate one of their arguments being called ridiculous, even if they don’t agree, without getting their feelings hurt. I honestly kind of enjoy those who don’t treat me politely when I have earned a rebuke, and in a way this applies to you, except you’re two faced and dishonest about it. I much prefer conversation with those who realize that conversation is about two people, and that they aren’t the soul voice over when people can comment or what sources they can use.

I mean, I can debate someone who doesn’t meet these qualifications, as we see here, but in the end, I’m more likely to end up patronizing them in the process, since they’re clearly not up to peer to peer debate. Further, since such debate isn’t nearly as much fun, I’m likely to compensate by finding other ways to make it fun, like insulting them. Is that immature? Yeah…yeah, I suppose it is. Whaddaya gonna do…

So, in conclusion, I have reasons both good and childish for talking down to both you and your arguments. If you don’t enjoy my debate style then you have, as I see it, two choices. Don’t talk to me or increase the level of your debate to a level which induces more of a ‘peer’ response from me. Now, as for this particular ‘debate’, it’s no longer about drugs, and it’s no longer enjoyable. It’s laid waste to this comment string, and I see no further reason to carry on. At this point, ‘I’ am saying ‘I am done’, and what I mean by that is that you can comment at your leisure, but I am no longer going to add my voice to this debate.

9:01 PM  
Blogger Melissa said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice site!
[url=]My homepage[/url] | [url=]Cool site[/url]

10:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit

10:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice site! |

10:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good design!
[url=]My homepage[/url] | [url=]Cool site[/url]

5:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well done!
My homepage | Please visit

5:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you! |

5:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home