You don't. You've never experienced it and have no idea what it would be like. No he doesn't. His drug is prohibited, so he is forced into poverty and crime because of his illness. So, a lot like an alcoholic, then... That is called, "liberty." If you want the liberty to flourish, you have to accept that the scum of the earth will get liberty too. I understand it better than you. He's never experienced it, and neither have you.
Sometimes. Heroin doesn't make you act like a jackass. And being illegal is the main reason heroin is so dangerous. <sigh> You do realize that means hanging around with criminals because heroin is prohibited, right?
I'm not a blame-the-victim kind of person, no. There's no record in the media of the time that it was a motive for robbery. Every user knew it was cheap, so there was no reason to steal to buy it. It's easy to get $1/day by begging, borrowing or working. Not so easy to get $100/day.
A single dose of psilocybin has been found effective in treating PTSD, which is a common precursor of suicide.
I didn't say I would go with you. I've seen why heroin is so dangerous and somebody has been feeding you BS.
They have potential for treating depression/PTSD. Did you not bother reading what I gave you? They seem have the potential to trigger some sort of repair mechanism in brain neurons with benefits lasting beyond the molecules' presence. 1. False. No alcohol. No drugs. Less than five cigarettes in my entire life. I'm very strict with such things. But if I had a condition like depression/PTSD, I would give it a shot, assuming I'd be in the right state of mind to even be able to do anything. 2. Why such an unnecessary personal attack? It should be about ideas and the validity of information rather than making oneself or the other person a part of the conversation.
Anyone who gets arrested for committing a crime isn’t a victim. So you have no proof of your claim. Got it.
Thanks I did and I will. That I made recommendations for Amendments to the US Constitution to try to restore our Constitutional Republic? Or that you didn't? What does even mean? 1. The majority don't create laws though, Congress does that and so do the various state legislations. The laws are the way they are because they create those laws and so does the Supreme Court, it's called "case law", something that doesn't exist in the Constitution. 2. The majority knows better? On what planet do you live on? This majority knew better?: Or was it the majority who believed witches should be burned at the stake? Or this majority that knew better?: Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq Bush approval up 13 points to 71% https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx This is what the majority were supporting: So you believe in mob rule then? Democracy is mob rule, 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. {worthless babble skipped} Someone who believes the majority know better should not be criticizing someone else making recommendations that he doesn't have a clue about and certainly is in no position to comment on what he doesn't know. What are your recommendations? Oh yeah, jail them all. How brilliant and original, that's what authoritarians do.
When the "crime" is an act that violated no one's rights and they had every right to do, they are definitely a victim. By your despicable and evil "logic," people who were arrested by the Soviet secret police for listening to Radio Free Europe were not victims. Such claims are disgraceful and outrageous. <yawn> Thank you for proving you have no knowledge of logic. Can you prove people didn't steal to buy jelly beans in the 19th century? Should we ban jelly beans if you can't prove it? See how easily I always prove all your absurd and disingenuous nonsense is absurd and disingenuous nonsense?
No you haven't. You have only seen why ILLEGAL heroin is so dangerous. Legal heroin is not exactly healthy (it's very constipating, for one thing) but medically it is no more dangerous than a lot of other powerful drugs. It was actually invented as a safer alternative to morphine. As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
Nope. If there is a current law against something then one does not have the "right" to do it. Therefore they are NOT a victim if they are caught breaking any law. It should be a simple concept for you to grasp. Psst....I'm not the one who claimed people, prior to 1924, didn't steal to be able to buy drugs.
Such claims are always despicable, outrageous and evil, as already proved. By that evil "logic," people in Iron Curtain countries had no right to listen to Radio Free Europe, slaves had no right to read and people had no right to teach them to read, etc. On what basis do you think laws are made then, pray tell, if not by reference to rights that are considered to supersede law??? Blank out. It's a simple concept for me to grasp, and know to be evil. They didn't steal to buy heroin. They probably did steal to buy alcohol.
You don't know that as previously proved And now you're comparing the Iron Curtain to drug laws...brilliant. This just keeps getting better and better...hahaha
Legal drugs are currently preferred choice of addicts everywhere. Some of those addicts function and work.....till they don't.
It's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. These posters have no concept of justice. To them anything the state does is just and must be obeyed or else. And I believe most of these posters are Americans. They don't get that the founders revolted because of unjust laws and an unjust system. They don't get that injustice victimizes EVERYONE except those insulated by the unjust system they've manufactured. They believe they are free yet they are slaves under the thumb of the system they defend and even promote. “They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority.” - Gerald Massey
False. I know it the exact same way we know most negative things: Occam's Razor (a principle of logic with which you will not be familiar). I know people didn't steal to buy heroin the same way I know they didn't steal to buy jelly beans: they had no reason to, and there is no evidence they did. <sigh> Again, as you are innocent of all knowledge of logic, you cannot understand the concepts of logical consistency or reductio ad absurdum. If your principle was correct, it would also have been correct in Iron Curtain countries. It was not correct in Iron Curtain countries, so it is not a correct principle. Oh, nvm. You are evidently incapable of understanding even the simplest logical entailment.
So you still have no actual evidence to back up your claim? Got it Nope. You’re comparing apples and oranges. You know this so stop your silly nonsense.
I gave you the evidence. You just don't know enough -- i.e., any -- logic to understand it. No, I'm not comparing anything. I am stating the fact that your claim has been proved false by reductio ad absurdum. No, you just don't know enough logic to understand what an argument is.
No provided ZERO evidence. Clearly you don’t know what “evidence” means. And yet more nonsense from you. Got it