All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Fact is, I am against drugs because I have grown up around losers that abuse them and went no were with there life. (When I say grow up around them, I do not mean family. My parents are very cool people, and as an extension lots of people like to treat my parents like there parents. it is weird) The best drug education is seeing these people first hand. They are people I do not want to be, nor should other inspire to. Fact is drugs are addictive, and so are ciggs. But I hardly see anyone who smokes a cigg start to have there life do a downward spiral.
I may not have a lot of argument to back up my point, they are my beliefs. But this is how I feel.
It's very apparent this is a personal issue for you which is why your arguments are grounded in fervor and strong conviction rather than "numbers and science".
The best drug education is NOT seeing drug addicts wither away and die first hand. that's probably the best DETERRENT, but not education. I can't stress this enough. The "I know a guy/people who..." is anectdotal, and not admissable in an open discourse on drugs. I know a guy who uses drugs and has done so for many years and it in no way influences his daily life, but that's not an argument. And neither is yours.
And you evade my question. Are you a loser if you are addicted to cigarretes? Are you a loser if you use LSD but aren't addicted to it?
Is your beef with JUNKIES or addiction rather than the actual drugs, because so far you've not been able to tell me WHY you're a loser if you use a drug recreationally without being addicted. What about caffeine? Chocolate? Certain types of cheese? All addictive. Fact.
Finally, I understand why you feel the way you do, but this is a discussion about drugs and you won't convince anyone just because you feel really strongly about it. If you can't back up your beliefs then you always have the right to retire with them intact.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Is your beef with JUNKIES or addiction rather than the actual drugs, because so far you've not been able to tell me WHY you're a loser if you use a drug recreationally without being addicted. What about caffeine? Chocolate? Certain types of cheese? All addictive. Fact.
Forget apples and oranges. Dude, are you comparing recreational drugs to cheese? Are you kidding me?
The "I know a guy/people who..." is anectdotal, and not admissable in an open discourse on drugs.
Why isn't it? You (or most people for that matter) may not find it as compelling as a scientific study with numbers but thats far from it not being admissible as evidence. Many great thinkers have used personal observations in their arguments (Plato, Hume, Locke, Freud).
Quoted from Death Monkey
And you evade my question. Are you a loser if you are addicted to cigarretes? Are you a loser if you use LSD but aren't addicted to it?
I'm not speaking for the prodigal son, but for me personally it would be a strong indicator that they were a loser. I suspect that there is a correlation between using illegal drugs (or misusing legal drugs) and loserdom.
Quoted from Death Monkey
Is your beef with JUNKIES or addiction rather than the actual drugs, because so far you've not been able to tell me WHY you're a loser if you use a drug recreationally without being addicted. What about caffeine? Chocolate? Certain types of cheese? All addictive. Fact.
Again other things with addictive qualities are being compared to hard drugs. You said earlier that weren't equating the effects, are you now equating their level of addictiveness? Or are you asking this rhetorically because the prodigal son's argument hinges merely on the fact that hard drugs are addictive? Is that what the prodigal son is arguing?
And for the record:
Quoted from Death Monkey
I don't know if it was directed at me or you were scattershooting
In that post I was more or less I was trying to combat the general argument of your side and wasn't trying to target you specifically. I did exclusively quote seth however but I wasn't trying to target him either, it was just that he was the last person to post at the time, and in that post I thought he touched on most of the points that were being put forth.
...
For me at least it has become unclear as to what each side is specifically arguing. I know that there are a lot of different arguments going on here that are all part of the main argument (although am not sure what that is anymore) so I think the discourse would benefit greatly if each side clearly laid out what they are arguing and how they are arguing it.
COPS SAY LEGALIZE DRUGS! ASK US WHY After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled making building prisons the fastest growing industry in the United States. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more guaranteeing those prisons will be bursting at their seams. Every year we choose to continue this war will cost U.S. taxpayers another 69 billion dollars. Despite all the lives we have destroyed and all the money so ill spent, today illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent, and far easier to get than they were 35 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists continue to grow richer than ever before. We would suggest that this scenario must be the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease!
The stated goals of current U.S.drug policy -- reducing crime, drug addiction, and juvenile drug use -- have not been achieved, even after nearly four decades of a policy of "war on drugs". This policy, fueled by over a trillion of our tax dollars has had little or no effect on the levels of drug addiction among our fellow citizens, but has instead resulted in a tremendous increase in crime and in the numbers of Americans in our prisons and jails. With 4.6% of the world's population, America today has 22.5% of the worlds prisoners. But, after all that time, after all the destroyed lives and after all the wasted resources, prohibited drugs today are cheaper, stronger, and easier to get than they were thirty-five years ago at the beginning of the so-called "war on drugs". With this in mind, we current and former members of law enforcement have created a drug-policy reform movement -- LEAP. We believe that to save lives and lower the rates of disease, crime and addiction. as well as to conserve tax dollars, we must end drug prohibition.
This is from the second of the two links I posted.
Is your beef with JUNKIES or addiction rather than the actual drugs, because so far you've not been able to tell me WHY you're a loser if you use a drug recreationally without being addicted. What about caffeine? Chocolate? Certain types of cheese? All addictive. Fact.
No one has ever robbed an elderly woman to satisfy his caffeine or cheese addiction. Fact.
No one has ever robbed an elderly woman to satisfy his caffeine or cheese addiction. Fact.
Yes I have. I do it often. It is way cheaper then buying diet coke... especially with my twelve pack a day diet coke habit. I don't hit them or anything. I don't need to. Most grannies don't remember they even had a diet coke sitting at the edge of the table.
I also don't pay for alcohol. Paying is for losers.
And a bum swiped a cheese pizza in LA a few years back and got his third strike because of it. He just wanted some cheese pizza not 15 years in jail.
And a bum swiped a cheese pizza in LA a few years back and got his third strike because of it. He just wanted some cheese pizza not 15 years in jail.
What loser came up with the third strike rule? What's it too complicated to handle situations on a case by case basis? I guess this is what happens when people want easy answers to complex problems. By this sort of logic we could cure HIV by just killing everyone who has it. Ah yes, the Hitler approach.
I also don't pay for alcohol. Paying is for losers.
QFT
Quoted from Xtopher
What loser came up with the third strike rule? What's it too complicated to handle situations on a case by case basis?
I think at its core it makes sense, if the person has habitually committed crimes its likely they're going to commit a crime again so they might as well be off the streets. Its just that they should count stealing a pizza as a felony.
I think it's about time the all seeing, all knowing, all encompassing one weighs in on this:
Pages: 
Author
The Drug Debate
Logged
