Beer.
PissWar Man wrote:
So what does Yuengling taste like?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I'm coming to the conclusion that you're an amateur party-goer - IF YOU EVEN PARTY AT ALL.uziq wrote:
dilbert do you actually even drink regularly? champagne gives crushing headaches, it's infamous for it.
I bet the figures for sugar are worse.20% of all people hospitalised have problems with drinking that are contributing to their ill-health and poor lifestyle. that's a frightening statistic.
People are going to get sick and die, there's no changing it. Maybe we should empty the cancer wards of drinkers and let them take drugs antil they've smoked themselves stupid or filled their heads with psychoses?
Perhaps they'd be better off with early onset Alzheimers?
Add this to the list of reasons not to take cocaine: Chronic use of the drug may speed up the aging process. According to a new imaging study, cocaine abusers in their 30s and 40s show brain changes more commonly seen in people over 60. The finding also calls attention to the special medical needs of older drug users—a group that, until now, hasn't garnered much notice.
Old beyond years. A 3D model of merged imaging scans shows the brain areas affected by age (blue) in healthy people (left) and longterm cocaine users (right). KAREN ERSCHE/UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/04 … -age-brain
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-07-04 20:09:10)
Fuck Israel
yeah regular use of cocaine is bad for you. thanks for the scientific study and for putting 'UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE' in capitals.
have you seen frequent drinkers or smokers in their 40s and 50s, by the way? 'old beyond years' comes to mind.
but yes, in general i'm glad to see you coming around to the view that everything we take is bad for you, and we take what we decide to be acceptable risks to get our pleasures. you can stop demonising anyone who smokes pot or takes ecstasy now.
have you seen frequent drinkers or smokers in their 40s and 50s, by the way? 'old beyond years' comes to mind.
but yes, in general i'm glad to see you coming around to the view that everything we take is bad for you, and we take what we decide to be acceptable risks to get our pleasures. you can stop demonising anyone who smokes pot or takes ecstasy now.
Last edited by uziq (2019-07-08 01:34:05)
The article had it in caps. Dilbert's just copy/pasting.
Which still isn't an argument for legalising drugs. In the end society pays the consequences of the risks and I'd rather not be around people who are off their heads - temporarily or permanently - or paying for their treatment or incarceration.uziq wrote:
but yes, in general i'm glad to see you coming around to the view that everything we take is bad for you, and we take what we decide to be acceptable risks to get our pleasures.
Not planning to do that, thanks. They make the choice, not me.you can stop demonising anyone who smokes pot or takes ecstasy now.
Fuck Israel
the cost to the public purse and burden to society of alcohol and tobacco far outweigh any illicit substance. ‘paying for treatment or incarceration’? you do know how much money is spent treating alcohol and smoking related health problems, right? the cognitive dissonance is astounding.
So do you actually never go out to pubs and bars then or...?Dilbert_X wrote:
Which still isn't an argument for legalising drugs. In the end society pays the consequences of the risks and I'd rather not be around people who are off their heads - temporarily or permanently - or paying for their treatment or incarceration.
he lives with his parents in the outback. dilbert’s exposure to the world of drugs is probably some meth-head rednecks that he keeps as neighbours.
And if heroin and cocaine were legalised the cost would be a whole lot higher.uziq wrote:
the cost to the public purse and burden to society of alcohol and tobacco far outweigh any illicit substance. ‘paying for treatment or incarceration’? you do know how much money is spent treating alcohol and smoking related health problems, right? the cognitive dissonance is astounding.
I don't live in the outback.he lives with his parents in the outback. dilbert’s exposure to the world of drugs is probably some meth-head rednecks that he keeps as neighbours.
Fuck Israel
There's a world of difference between people who are drunk and psychotic drug addicts.coke wrote:
So do you actually never go out to pubs and bars then or...?Dilbert_X wrote:
Which still isn't an argument for legalising drugs. In the end society pays the consequences of the risks and I'd rather not be around people who are off their heads - temporarily or permanently - or paying for their treatment or incarceration.
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou … 24eafc6d9c
Fuck Israel
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3936
Your average stoner is less dangerous than your average drunk. I would feel less safe at a bar at night than I would a bunch of random potheads. There is no marijuana equivalent of "angry drunk."
the number of violent crimes and domestic abuses associated with alcohol invalidate your argument there, dilbert. alcohol makes people aggressive, short-tempered, and emotionally volatile. 'psychotic drug addicts' is a bit of an extreme case, when, say, people on weed or ecstasy or any other number of illegal drugs are a lot nicer to be around than drunks. look at any high-street on any friday or saturday night, and it's pretty regularly a collection of blue lights and sirens and people in various states of distress or aggression. it's funny that you turn a blind eye to the almost officially sanctioned round of weekly battering that goes on outside nightclubs the world over every weekend, but then think anyone taking a drug with a legal classification is an 'out of control psycho'. i know people who are out of control after their fourth pint at the local pub.
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publication … ortugal_en
that's a whole lot of supposition with no supporting evidence. unfortunately for your little pet-counterfactual, portugal has already decriminalised those drugs and that hasn't happened.And if heroin and cocaine were legalised the cost would be a whole lot higher.
https://transformdrugs.org/drug-decrimi … -straight/Levels of drug use are below the European average
Drug use has declined among those aged 15-24, the population most at risk of initiating drug use
Lifetime drug use among the general population has increased slightly, in line with trends in comparable nearby countries. However, lifetime use is widely considered to be the least accurate measure of a country’s current drug use situation
Rates of past-year and past-month drug use among the general population – which are seen as the best indicators of evolving drug use trends – have decreased
Between 2000 and 2005 (the most recent years for which data are available) rates of problematic drug use and injecting drug use decreased
Drug use among adolescents decreased for several years following decriminalisation, but has since risen to around 2003 levels
Rates of continuation of drug use (i.e. the proportion of the population that have ever used an illicit drug and continue to do so) have decreased
Overall, this suggests that removing criminal penalties for personal drug possession did not cause an increase in levels of drug use. This tallies with a significant body of evidence from around the world that shows the enforcement of criminal drug laws has, at best, a marginal impact in deterring people from using drugs. There is essentially no relationship between the punitiveness of a country’s drug laws and its rates of drug use. Instead, drug use tends to rise and fall in line with broader cultural, social or economic trends.
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publication … ortugal_en
Last edited by uziq (2019-07-08 01:43:39)
Saturday night aggro is only one factor, dealing with a generation of 50 year-olds with psychoses and alzheimers is not an attractive or cheap proposition.
Fuck Israel
society already copes with 50 year-olds with chronic lung disease, heart disease, and alzheimer's. smoking tobacco creates all of those health risks.
https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dem … d-dementia
alcohol causes long-term damage to your physical and mental health. 'dealing with a generation' of people with drug-related issues? do you have your eyes closed to the current state of affairs, or something?
case studies on countries that have decriminalised drugs have shown that rates of drug use and consumption do not increase, just because they are easy to obtain and don't carry a hefty criminal penalty. do you really think everyone in society is going to become a cocaine addict, with chronic/long-term use patterns? everyone is really going to have crack-alzheimer's, do you believe this nonsense? i love how you'll downplay alcohol-related harm as 'saturday night aggro', when it is quite literally endemic and a huge financial drain on society, whilst making out that anyone who goes near cocaine is going to end up psychotic and with alzheimer's, as if they'll start taking it three times a week. how many people do you think have cocaine-induced alzheimer's, as opposed to people who develop alzheimer's because their arteries are glugged with fatty deposits from poor diet and life-long smoking and drinking habits?
i can't figure out if you're really this stupid or are just being obtuse about your own personal vices.
is long-term incarceration and criminalising huge swathes of the population a 'cheap proposition', by the way?
https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dem … d-dementia
alcohol causes long-term damage to your physical and mental health. 'dealing with a generation' of people with drug-related issues? do you have your eyes closed to the current state of affairs, or something?
case studies on countries that have decriminalised drugs have shown that rates of drug use and consumption do not increase, just because they are easy to obtain and don't carry a hefty criminal penalty. do you really think everyone in society is going to become a cocaine addict, with chronic/long-term use patterns? everyone is really going to have crack-alzheimer's, do you believe this nonsense? i love how you'll downplay alcohol-related harm as 'saturday night aggro', when it is quite literally endemic and a huge financial drain on society, whilst making out that anyone who goes near cocaine is going to end up psychotic and with alzheimer's, as if they'll start taking it three times a week. how many people do you think have cocaine-induced alzheimer's, as opposed to people who develop alzheimer's because their arteries are glugged with fatty deposits from poor diet and life-long smoking and drinking habits?
i can't figure out if you're really this stupid or are just being obtuse about your own personal vices.
is long-term incarceration and criminalising huge swathes of the population a 'cheap proposition', by the way?
Last edited by uziq (2019-07-08 07:54:16)
Still not an argument for creating a whole new class of problems.
Legalising drugs in Portugal is one thing, try it in Michigan, or, god forbid, Scotland and you'll see a different result.
Legalising drugs in Portugal is one thing, try it in Michigan, or, god forbid, Scotland and you'll see a different result.
Fuck Israel
portugal had a heroin epidemic before they legalised it. the country was a mess economically, it was post-dictatorship, and it is one of the main first ports of call for drug smuggling into europe. they went down the decriminalisation route because their policy was failing so badly.
it's almost like you never look at facts and statistics and spout ill-founded and illiterate bullshit.
strange how a man of science is so impervious to evidence-based legal and public health policy.
it's almost like you never look at facts and statistics and spout ill-founded and illiterate bullshit.
strange how a man of science is so impervious to evidence-based legal and public health policy.
Last edited by uziq (2019-07-08 07:38:16)
Yes, people should use heroin, not beer, I can't see that in the article though.
Fuck Israel
you seem to struggle with basic reasoning. i am debunking your naive and illiterate view of the world being composed of straight, law-abiding citizens taking legal drugs like alcohol, which are supposedly basically harmless (due to some gut biota biological evolution, or something; whatever your crank theory was about metabolising ethanol) and psychotic, demented, out-of-control illegal drug takers. i'm not saying people should swap out their glass of wine for a crackpipe, or take up heroin as a great and fulfilling hobby. i'm saying your ignorant view of your own drugs of choice being 'fine' and others being 'not' is pharmacologically illiterate. i am in favour of harm-based drug laws (in which obviously heroin and cocaine would be classed alongside alcohol and tobacco as quite properly Bad Things). you demonise and fear people taking MDMA or seemingly any party drug, even though your own tipple of choice is more poisonous and more harmful -- to you as an organism and society as a whole -- by an order of magnitude.
i wouldn't recommend heroin to anyone, and i'd never take it myself. i wouldn't recommend alcohol to anyone either, though. like macbeth said above, there are other drugs with far more pleasant effects. being around drinkers is often a fraught and tense affair. people take a very casual view of problematic drinking. there's a lot of things swept under the carpet for the sake of sanctioning alcohol abuse; it's often considered anti-social or rude to point out that people are 'problem drinkers'. you seem to fall into this area of people who are very blithe and casual about a very dangerous drug, whilst being hysterical about other substances. cognitive dissonance, as i've said time and time again.
i wouldn't recommend heroin to anyone, and i'd never take it myself. i wouldn't recommend alcohol to anyone either, though. like macbeth said above, there are other drugs with far more pleasant effects. being around drinkers is often a fraught and tense affair. people take a very casual view of problematic drinking. there's a lot of things swept under the carpet for the sake of sanctioning alcohol abuse; it's often considered anti-social or rude to point out that people are 'problem drinkers'. you seem to fall into this area of people who are very blithe and casual about a very dangerous drug, whilst being hysterical about other substances. cognitive dissonance, as i've said time and time again.
Last edited by uziq (2019-07-09 02:25:13)
Never met a problem or problematic drinker or felt tense around anyone, I have seen multiple people go off the rails with marijuana and party drugs though.
Just because one product when used to excess is harmful is not an argument for allowing other harmful products onto the market.
Human beans do do have a long history with alcohol, with whatever your buddy who thinks he's a neurochemist cooked up in his lab the other day - probably less so.
Just because one product when used to excess is harmful is not an argument for allowing other harmful products onto the market.
Human beans do do have a long history with alcohol, with whatever your buddy who thinks he's a neurochemist cooked up in his lab the other day - probably less so.
Fuck Israel
I've concluded Pilsner is my favourite kind of beer. Not too light, not too heavy, good ones are sharp and crisp.
Fuck Israel
a long history with alcohol doesn't mean our bodies have adapted to make it not poisonous. that's not how it fucking works. human beings have a long history with mushrooms, too -- do you take those regularly? they are about 10,000x less toxic and harmful than alcohol. go nuts dilbert!Dilbert_X wrote:
Never met a problem or problematic drinker or felt tense around anyone, I have seen multiple people go off the rails with marijuana and party drugs though.
Just because one product when used to excess is harmful is not an argument for allowing other harmful products onto the market.
Human beans do do have a long history with alcohol, with whatever your buddy who thinks he's a neurochemist cooked up in his lab the other day - probably less so.
you've never encountered a problem drinker? lol sure okay. alcohol isn't addictive and doesn't destroy lives. got you.
Last edited by uziq (2019-07-09 04:59:51)
Again the more you read the more you think Dilbert's experience of drinking is sitting at home on his own drinking 2 beers at most.
it's also amusing to me that human beings have been chewing cocoa leaves, khat, eating mushrooms, brewing yagé, etc. for much longer than we have been fermenting alcohol as an agricultural civilisation, and yet dilbert isn't out on vision quests with his native indian brethren every weekend. haven't human beings historically adapted to the ritualised experiences of these drugs, too?!? why is it only alcohol that gets the blind-eye pass because it has been taken for so long. historical inertia doesn't protect livers or combat the risks of heart disease and colorectal cancer, dilbert. lots of people die from alcohol-related morbidities.
Last edited by uziq (2019-07-09 05:43:54)