Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Anyone selling or smuggling drugs should get life.

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Pmacv1
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭Pmacv1


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    What about all the smokers, the boozers or even the auld dears addicted to legal benzos and sleepers that the doctor gave them...possibly because their nerves were shot when they tried and failed for the 15th time to give up their legal addiction to nicotine.

    This country is packed to the gills with addicts, a tiny tiny proportion are addicted to "illegal" drugs. I say "illegal" because it's an entirely arbitrary distinction, a line drawn in the sand at the whim of public mood.

    Cocaine + mdma bad / alcohol + nicotine good - not really what the science would suggest though. Fúck the science, think of the votes, eh i mean the children.

    I don't drink or smoke. I'm also not stupid enough to try something as addictive as cocaine, nor use MDMA.


  • Options
    #93
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    I think the system we currently have with letting drug dealers shoot each other is working quite well.


  • Options
    #94
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,805 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    biko wrote:
    I think the system we currently have with letting drug dealers shoot each other is working quite well.


    Thankfully they're a considerate bunch, and have never injured or killed those not involved


  • Options
    #95
    Tacitus Kilgore
    Registered Users Posts: 2,128 ✭✭✭Tacitus Kilgore


    biko wrote: »
    I think the system we currently have with letting drug dealers shoot each other is working quite well.

    Agree, there can't be many of them left now surely.


  • Options
    #96
    ollkiller
    Registered Users Posts: 847 ✭✭✭ollkiller


    Pmacv1 wrote: »
    Given all the talk about Michela McCollum, she, like any smuggler or dealer should be locked up an buried underneath the prison.

    First rule of economics. Supply will always meet demand. So you will always have a supply of drug dealers. The penalties have not stopped the trade growing. Maybe a different approach is needed. Or you could just keep doing what we've been doing since Reagan started the war on drugs. That's been effective hasn't it?

    Your point of view is infantile in the extreme.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,805 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Tacitus Kilgore wrote:
    Agree, there can't be many of them left now surely.


    Never ending conveyor belt


  • Options
    #98
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The countries that do it still have plenty of drugs. It doesn't work.


  • Options
    #99
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,016 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Pmacv1 wrote: »
    Junkies are morons. Anyone who takes drugs in this day and age deserves prison time.
    Pmacv1 wrote: »
    I'm clever enough to not associate with anyone stupid enough to smuggle or sell drugs.
    Pmacv1 wrote: »
    Clever. Illegal drugs trade obviously.
    Pmacv1 wrote: »
    I don't drink or smoke. I'm also not stupid enough to try something as addictive as cocaine, nor use MDMA.

    You're all over the place here; but why are you against MDMA but in favour of alcohol or nicotine, despite not doing any of them? If your answer is purely based on the idea of legality, then why do you support a Nanny State mentality?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #100
    Pmacv1
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭Pmacv1


    ollkiller wrote: »
    First rule of economics. Supply will always meet demand. So you will always have a supply of drug dealers. The penalties have not stopped the trade growing. Maybe a different approach is needed. Or you could just keep doing what we've been doing since Reagan started the war on drugs. That's been effective hasn't it?

    Your point of view is infantile in the extreme.

    It was Nixon that started the war on drugs. Your knowledge of the subject is what's infantile.


  • Options
    #101
    jiltloop
    Registered Users Posts: 2,182 ✭✭✭jiltloop


    Pmacv1 wrote: »
    Until that day, smugglers should be shot.

    Maybe you should be shot for having an opinion I don't agree with?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,805 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Pmacv1 wrote:
    It was Nixon that started the war on drugs. Your knowledge of the subject is what's infantile.


    What age are you?


  • Options
    #103
    Pmacv1
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭Pmacv1


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    What age are you?

    That's hardly relevant, though I'm 26. What age are you?


  • Options
    #104
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,805 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Pmacv1 wrote:
    That's hardly relevant, though I'm 26.


    I think it's relevant enough, you come across as being rather immature, this is an extremely interesting subject matter, and many posters would be willing to have a mature debate about it, if you engaged so, name calling isn't exactly mature


  • Options
    #105
    Pmacv1
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭Pmacv1


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    I think it's relevant enough, you come across as being rather immature, this is an extremely interesting subject matter, and many posters would be willing to have a mature debate about it, if you engaged so, name calling isn't exactly mature

    I never engaged in name-calling, I referred to someone as infantile, who as called me the same. Go preach to him.


  • Options
    #106
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Pmacv1 wrote: »
    I don't drink or smoke. I'm also not stupid enough to try something as addictive as cocaine, nor use MDMA.

    Your loss Pmacv1;);) I've never smoked, but the other 3 are great craic :D

    Do you drink tea or coffee, coca cola, red bull?

    Or do you live entirely on organic lettuce and distilled mineral water?


  • Options
    #107
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,016 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Pmacv1 wrote: »
    It was Nixon that started the war on drugs. Your knowledge of the subject is what's infantile.

    True, but his aides have since come out and admitted it was a complete lie to turn hippes and African-Americans into pariahs, and had nothing to do with social safety.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #108
    ollkiller
    Registered Users Posts: 847 ✭✭✭ollkiller


    Pmacv1 wrote: »
    It was Nixon that started the war on drugs. Your knowledge of the subject is what's infantile.

    Fair enough. So Nixon instead of Reagan. Now do you wish to debate any of the rest of the post.

    "First rule of economics. Supply will always meet demand. So you will always have a supply of drug dealers. The penalties have not stopped the trade growing. Maybe a different approach is needed. Or you could just keep doing what we've been doing since Reagan (now Nixon) started the war on drugs. That's been effective hasn't it?"

    Btw your suggestion in the title thread will do nothing to stop the drugs trade. It's a simplistic view that prohibition and harsh sanctions will win the war on drugs. Which it never will. So you can keep doing the same thing over and over again with the same outcomes. Which is plainly ridiculous.


  • Options
    #109
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Ah jaysus, what is the world coming to?
    If you can't trust Tricky Dicky who can you trust?:D


  • Options
    #110
    ArrBee
    Registered Users Posts: 790 ✭✭✭ArrBee


    Pmacv1 wrote: »
    Until that day, smugglers should be shot.

    So let me get this straight....

    You are happy to allow the supply so long as it's become legal and so long as it is not, the law breaker should be killed?

    Seems to me that you are not trying to take a stance based on the effect of the crime, only that a crime is being committed.


    Imaging the day that a drug becomes legal and all of a sudden you're like... "whoops, shouldn't have killed that guy yesterday while the law was different, turns out that today he would have been ok. oh well."

    Any other crimes that should result in death? breaking liquor licensing conditions ?


  • Options
    #111
    o1s1n
    Registered Users Posts: 34,420 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    OP sounds like someone who just came out of a Christian indoctrination camp.

    Live your puritanical life all you want, but just so you know, your preachy attitude will only leave you sad and alone.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [Deleted User]


    What's your opinion of the Sackler family OP? They grew the opioid epidemic in America legally. Oxycontin is the absolute definition of a gateway drug.


  • Options
    #113
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users Posts: 4,279 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    Pmacv1 wrote: »
    I'm clever enough to not associate with anyone stupid enough to smuggle or sell drugs.

    How do you know ?

    Have you personally asked everyone you associate with ?


  • Options
    #114
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Pmacv1 wrote: »
    They should be put into a rehabilitation program. Bottom line is if there are no drugs available, they'll have none to take.

    How's that working out


  • Options
    #115
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Pmacv1 wrote: »
    It was Nixon that started the war on drugs. Your knowledge of the subject is what's infantile.

    You're actually wrong on this. A man name Harry Anslinger is the first man responsible for what we know as the modern War on Drugs.

    https://timeline.com/harry-anslinger-racist-war-on-drugs-prison-industrial-complex-fb5cbc281189

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger


  • Options
    #116
    dartboardio
    Registered Users Posts: 2,436 ✭✭✭dartboardio


    Holier (Holyer?) than thou comes to mind :D

    If OP tells me they smoke weed but hate 'illegal drugs' I will bust my arse laughing.


  • Options
    #117
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,341 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    Lay off the drugs OP.

    A lot of stoopider than usual threads in the last few days.


  • Options
    #118
    Bigbagofcans
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Bigbagofcans


    Arghus wrote: »
    Lay off the drugs OP.

    A lot of stoopider than usual threads in the last few days.

    The same few newbies starting multiple threads in the past few weeks.


  • Options
    #119
    Tacitus Kilgore
    Registered Users Posts: 2,128 ✭✭✭Tacitus Kilgore


    Bigbagofcans wrote: »
    The same few newbies starting multiple threads in the past few weeks.

    decades


  • Options
    #120
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I swear this thread is guerrilla marketing for an upcoming pro legalisation politician given the strawmans OP has put forward.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Trigger Happy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,068 ✭✭✭Trigger Happy


    Bigbagofcans wrote: »
    The same few newbies starting multiple threads in the past few weeks.

    Russian bots!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement