 | | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism! —Ross Crawford
|
| | | (...) Maybe you're right, Chris. I just can't get past seeing a friend's family breaking up because they were always arguing about money, when they had a combined tobacco habit of about $200/w. Sure, criminalising tobacco wouldn't have helped. It's (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism! —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) Wow! How much do cigarettes cost? Isn't that like what it would cost to have three lit simultaneously, 24 hours per day? I suspect that they had deeper problems of which smoking and arguing were merely symptoms. It is a shame to see any family (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Are you sure about that bit? I've heard, for instance, that two glasses of red wine per week can be heart-beneficial, but that isn't the same as a correlation between alcohol consumption and benefit; there are plenty of other components in red (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism! (the stigma) —Kirby Warden
|
| | | | | | | What exactly *is* the harm in legalizing narcotics? Some people will certainly abuse them, regardless of the law. Some people will also die from them. But people die from all manner of things daily, so why should narcotics be considered some (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism! (check this out) —Kirby Warden
|
| | | | | | | | | I was browsing through Fark.com and came across this: (URL) is a rather long article, but informative. Exactly who do these people think they are to tell The People what they can or cannot suggest? (23 years ago, 7-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism! (the stigma) —Adam Myers
|
| | | | | | | | I agree with both Kirby and Chris wholeheartedly. Legalizing drugs would most definately solve more problems than it would create. Those who sit and believe that if legalized drugs would still be sold by your local corner pusher need a strong dose (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism! —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | (...) Maybe I got it wrong. I know about the red wine thing, but I also remember the frequency of intake being greater, so maybe I'm just mixed up. I thought it was a glass per day or something. But I thought there was some greater effect attributed (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That's a good point, too. It's my understanding that a sizable number of OD's result from unpredictable substance purity, rather than from some inherent evil in the substance. Dave! (23 years ago, 7-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Healthy Alcohol (was: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) I meant to get back to this before now, but here goes: (URL) that for men, up to two "drinks" per day without regard to source of alcohol is a health benefit. They say that the red wine this was once believed, but is no more, and that it's (...) (22 years ago, 6-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Should recreational drugs be illegal? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) was (...) Thats AU$. At $7 a pack, that's about 2 packs a day each, though he was smoking more than she was. Not hard for chain smokers. Tobacco is addictive. If you become addicted it's hard to stop even when you have no (other) need for it. (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
