Do you think I was somehow referring to the people who agreed with you, or did you just want to say a snarky thing?
Don't patronize me.
But you do see the difference, right?
Do you think I was somehow referring to the people who agreed with you, or did you just want to say a snarky thing?
Don't patronize me.
Show me someone who lost their house, family, and job because of Vicodin.
But you do see the difference, right?
Ahem.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...1_painkiller-jaime-taccetta-hydrocodone-pills
I've more or less agreed with you to this point, but that's just stupid. I know at least two people personally who lost their jobs because of their addictions to Vicodin.
Because the argument for that post was not "is Vicodin addictive." It was "is Vicodin as bad if used at the amount prescribed by a non-crooked doctor?" It seems highly unlikely that someone cursed their doctors for giving them too much Vicodin and causing them to build a habit.
Maybe it seems unlikely, but that's how it usually happens. Do you think people are introduced to Vicodin by drug-dealers, by and large? What usually happens is this: someone is injured, in a car accident or whatever, and is prescribed painkillers to ease his/her recovery. Well after the recovery period is over, he/she continues to need Vicodin (or whatever it is) because painkillers are highly addictive.
You're probably right that painkillers aren't as bad if used in the amount originally prescribed, but the problem occurs when that doesn't happen, which is often.
The problem with legalizing something this big is there will be a shock amongst the American society. Whether it be the way both, users and non-users react, or it be the effects on society in the long-run economically and socially. Some users are held in check by the fact that this is an illegal substance and therefore do not over-indulge in it. If it were legal, many may see this as the government indirectly saying "smoke weed daily...just like we suggest some people take aspirins daily for health benefits."
My view on alcohol is listed in older posts.
Amsterdam is not the United States socially or economically. Vegas doesn't seem to have an issue with prostitution. Should London start hiring hookers to stand outside Harrod's and Marks?
Long term effects include memory and attention deficits. Hence why most users drop out of school and work shitty jobs as a result. They're educated on the economic effects and social effects of legalizing it, but they don't realize society will not function if everyone is like them, working minimum wage.
I agree with legalising prostitution. There would need to be some standards in place. But it would be a hell of a lot safer for the girls.
Although the exchange of money for sex is not actually illegal in the UK. Solicitation and kerb crawling are.
Depends on the person. I have a friend who smokes weed daily and is a fucking genius. I wouldn't say he's the exception. I'd say that what you are describing is a cliché. Obviously when high someone will experience these affects. But very few people are high all day, or even once a day.
In what ways is he a genius? It seems like such a relative word, something that's in the eye of the beholder, sometimes.
Who will regulate the girls, the government? You think the few women in government positions, with their feminist ideas will allow for it? We can make child labor legal too, then, if we get Cambodia to "regulate" it.
I feel a lot of issues have been at a standstill for decades for a reason. People fear and/or realize a lot of these issues are slippery slopes. If something goes wrong, it will be extremely hard to make illegal again, much like tobacco and alcohol. It's true. They are just as destructive. But it's awfully hard to go back and ban those now, isn't it?
I think society learned from mistakes like that and prevent repeats by adamantly blocking the progress of more drugs being legalized.
Im going there next month
