Dasus
@Dasus@lemmy.world
- Comment on Anon's sister is a NEET shut-in 14 hours ago:
As a kid i always wondered why the chocolate in the Christmas choco calendars tasted like vomit.
Then I grew up and learned of American dairy practices.
- Comment on Anon's sister is a NEET shut-in 14 hours ago:
Laughs in Fazer
- Comment on Bottoms up! 15 hours ago:
Username checks out. Sort of?
- Comment on Chewsday 1 day ago:
Running a bit slow, definitely
- Comment on Chewsday 1 day ago:
Yes it is
- Comment on Tomb Raider TV Series Written By Fleabag's Phoebe Waller-Bridge Ordered By Amazon Prime Video 1 day ago:
Fuck yeah
- Comment on Never Forget 4 days ago:
still the frontrunner for president to be legally elected in 2024.
The front runner? Really?
I’m not being sarcastic. Im genuinely interested, but can’t be arsed to start going through polls because it’d mean going through the biases of the pollers.
- Comment on The way my daughter's middle school health class classifies drugs is insane. 5 days ago:
I stand by my original post, which was a cursory google search of us history.
It wasn’t, or your horrible at it.
“when was weed made illegal” produces
…wikipedia.org/…/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the…
This
Which opens with
In the United States, increased restrictions and labeling of cannabis (legal term marijuana or marihuana) as a poison began in many states from 1906 onward, and outright prohibitions began in the 1920s. By the mid-1930s cannabis was regulated as a drug in every state, including 35 states that adopted the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act.[1] The first national regulation was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.[2]
Which indeed makes your attempt to mock someone for poor research / knowledge very ironic indeed
- Comment on The way my daughter's middle school health class classifies drugs is insane. 5 days ago:
It was banned in 1970
You are coming across as very emotional about this, but you are showing how little you have researched.
Ironic.
1951-56:
Stricter Sentencing Laws
Enactment of federal laws (Boggs Act, 1952; Narcotics Control Act, 1956) which set mandatory sentences for drug-related offenses, including marijuana.
A first-offense marijuana possession carried a minimum sentence of 2-10 years with a fine of up to $20,000.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/…/cron.html#:~:t….
Alcohol was banned in 1920, and 13 years later, it was unbanned.
The prohibition was protested long before it was finally repealed.
Uneven enforcement and the continued circulation of illegal alcohol led to widespread lawbreaking, corruption, and a nationwide backlash. Opposition to Prohibition by elected officials and grassroots organizations in New York, including Governor Al Smith, Congressman Fiorello La Guardia, and the Manhattan-based Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR), increased throughout the 1920s.
- Comment on The way my daughter's middle school health class classifies drugs is insane. 6 days ago:
Oh and yes, it would send illegal trade to the extent ending the prohibition of alcohol did.
I live in Finland and black market drugs are 1000x easier to get than black market alcohol. Or black market guns for that matter. Both exist, but not really.
Everyone knows someone who sells drugs of some sort. Most people’s definitely don’t know people who sell alcohol or drugs. Well, alcohol is slightly more common, but usually it’s just flogged tax free or even completely legally ordered in bulk from Germany and then sold to friends.
But yeah, the science is in and yes, legalising drugs would kill the illegal drug trade.
- Comment on The way my daughter's middle school health class classifies drugs is insane. 6 days ago:
Just like I said. You won’t even question your attitude, despite the overwhelming objective evidence that you’re wrong, despite everyone in the drug trade admitting to this, despite world leaders calling for legalisation. See what I mean when I say that it’s people like you who are responsible for the horrible drug situation that we have? That amount of willful ignorance is literally harmful to society.
Where exactly do you think the guns come from? From legal manufacturers. Comparing guns to drugs is appealing because they seem so similar, yet they both have the exact same solution: regulation.
The US doesn’t regulate drugs, and it doesn’t really regulate guns at all either. In other countries, black markets for guns are ridiculously negligible. They exist, sure, but they’re ridiculously small compared to the US and the Americas in general. Perhaps because the US has a military-industrial complex. Again, about what makes money for people.
The only way to properly implement regulation to guns is to have proper gun laws, which most other countries have. The US is a massive outlier in gun-violence, exactly because of the lack of regulation.
The argument is also disingenuous because there’s only violent uses for guns, but the same doesn’t apply for recreational substances. Show me one larger culture group of humans that don’t have some sort of recreational way to get their buzz on. Might take you a moment. But to point out a culture which doesn’t have guns at all, or at least nearly to the level the US does? Pick a map and throw a dart on it, you’ll more than likely land on an example.
Legalizing drugs will not solve the problem. Instead, you will have food service workers carrying drugs like opium on them, without legal repercussions
This is exactly what I mean. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, so you make these asinine arguments that were brainwashed into you. So what if your waiter has a pinch of opium in his pocket? Alcohol is legal. Waiters carry alcohol all the time, for work even. Why doesn’t that bother you? Is it perhaps because it’s not cool to drink on the job? Would legalising drugs make it so that it’s socially acceptable to be fucking smashed at work? I’ve heard a ton of variations of this moronic bs “argument.” “*B-B-Bbut if we legalise drugs, I’ll have to worry about my surgeon being high when he’s performing surgery” “I don’t want to have to be piloted by some junkie scum” Like… when did you last meet a drunk pilot? A drunk surgeon? A surgeon who’s high? They have constant access to high grade narcotics, you know. Again, exactly what I meant, saying that you have to make up these fantasy scenarios which would never ever happen and even then the logic doesn’t even work.
You should ask yourself why was the prohibition of alcohol repealed. Googling that you might come upon names like “Al Capone” and even something as familiar as “Machine Gun Kelly”, but this one isn’t about the rapper. (Shortly: organised crime got so out of hand and the toxicity of homemade booze and even government poisoned booze that it was insane and the situation couldn’t be continued without society falling apart.)
Legalising drugs makes them safer, gets them out of the hands of criminals, meaning taxes for the government, health for drug abusers, and less stigma for responsible drug users. Yes, we exist, much like gays did even back in the 50’s. They just weren’t talked about all that much, for some weird reason. It’s not even just about what good it will do. It’s also about personal liberty.
“I don’t have to agree with you.” No, you don’t, but this isn’t my opinion. This is reality. So you’re saying “I don’t have to agree with reality and objective facts.” Which is exactly what I said in the first place; willful ignorance.
You did exactly as I said you would, and protested loudly, but I bet you didn’t read a single one of those links or even watch the 5 second clip. There really aren’t any other options except being ignorant of the matter or directly benefitting from drugs being illegal. Those are the only two type of people who think prohibition should be maintained. And if you think “I don’t think they should be legalised but I don’t benefit from illegal drugs in any way” then you’re in the former group.
- Comment on The way my daughter's middle school health class classifies drugs is insane. 6 days ago:
If you are willing to use a substance that is (was) entirely illegal, you are more likely going to be willing to try other drugs that are legitimately addictive, because you’ve already crossed one of the major hurdle
It’s honestly rather ludicrous to still see 60’s propaganda being parroted. You’re on the internet, dude. There’s no need for you to be that ignorant.
- Comment on The way my daughter's middle school health class classifies drugs is insane. 6 days ago:
“They’ve given me opiates in a medical setting so that’s why I know recreational drugs are bad for society”
So, to reiterate, exactly your type of intelligently stupid willfull ignorance is one of the main reasons that we have so many drug problems. If people like you weren’t brainwashed so easily, if you actually spent even a tiny bit of time looking into this subject, you’d realise you’re wrong. But you won’t. You won’t.
I’ve argued about this longer than most of Lemmy users have been alive. I know all the science. I bet you know none of it.
Drug prohibition does not work and anyone who supports it is either ignorant or directly benefitting from the illegal drug trade. That’s it. There’s no other alternatives. There is not a single logical reason to keep the prohibition according to science. Everything improves with proper legal frameworks in which to sell the drugs that clearly can not be effectively banned.
This isn’t about “feelings”. It’s about cold facts. And the fact is that by your rhetoric, by your behaviour, you’re indirectly enabling drug abuse and all the heinous shit that cartels get up to. That is unless you’re willing to admit you’re wrong and start supporting a complete reformation of this inane law. That’s the only moral position.
It isn’t safe to have people carrying drugs on them that can be used to poison others.
These are the types of weird fantasy scenarios you have to make up and it still doesn’t even work, in the slightest. There are a dozen more dangerous chemicals in everyone’s cleaning cupboard than anything you’d find sold as a recreational substance. Why aren’t they banned? Why are people allowed to handle gasoline by themselves? You know you could torch people with gasoline, right? And we allow people to drive around in metal hunks filled with gas, as incredibly velocities? You know you can die just from falling down, right? You walk on the street, every day. Anyone could push you and with bad luck, kill you.
People like you honestly never stop to think about the things you say. They make absolutely no sense. And it doesn’t matter to you that you can’t make a single thing make sense when you’re trying to defend the drug prohibition. No… it’s just been stamped to your brain that “DRUGS = WRONG” and you don’t have the cognitive capability to question that.
Here, have a listen to what a former police officer who used to infiltrate drug gangs has to say about the war on drugs: youtu.be/y_TV4GuXFoA?si=SXdIKIP1ON43N594&t=716 (Hint: his memoir is called “Good Cop, Bad War”)
There is literally no other option than to have a properly managed and regulated legal trade of these recreational substances. To keep the situation were currently in, willfully, is to willfully endanger lives, perpetuate drug ABUSE (not use, which is different) and to support criminal gangs which don’t give a fuck about anyone.
Oh right, that copper is just one guy. Hmm how about globalcommissionondrugs.org/world-leaders-call-fo…
And I could literally paste studies and data here for several comments to max char limit and it still wouldn’t even make you question that maybe you should question your feelings on the matter in accordance with reality. I know it won’t, because I’ve had this exact same argument a million times, and it’s always the same. If you really wanted there to be less problems caused by drugs, you’d be in favour of legalising them, as backwards as it must sound to you. Because legalising is the only way to take the market out of the hands of the criminals, as the market will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER die.
- Comment on The way my daughter's middle school health class classifies drugs is insane. 6 days ago:
And it’s everyone’s business that people like you make drug reform impossible, because all the science agrees that the only way to solve “the drug problem” is to legalise and regulate everything.
You’re suffering from the same bias that transphobes who say “I can always spot trans people” do; you’re simply unaware of how blindingly ignorant you are of the reality of the situation.
- Comment on what's a good way to stick a laser leveler to the wall? 1 week ago:
I think made more sense without.
- Comment on blast me off, fam 1 week ago:
Well obviously written by someone who was brought up using imperial rather than metric.
But what ld50 means is grams per kilogram of bodyweight. That’s what the poster is trying to say.
- Comment on Glorious Victory 1 week ago:
“we’re sorry that we got caught”
- Comment on blast me off, fam 1 week ago:
Grams of substance per kilograms of bodyweight.
- Comment on sweet dreams 1 week ago:
“Quod est superius est sicut quod inferius, et quod inferius est sicut quod est superius.”
“That which is above is like to that which is below, and that which is below is like to that which is above.”
- Comment on Sticks 1 week ago:
- Comment on Water Dragons 1 week ago:
Need I remind that the average snake will shed its skin two to four times per year. This average varies with age and species, however. Young snakes that are actively growing may shed their skin every two weeks. Older snakes might only shed their skin twice each year.
- Comment on Sticks 1 week ago:
- Comment on It definitely *was* a good idea though 1 week ago:
*Us
- Comment on The miracle of childbirth 2 weeks ago:
Probably just “regular” mammals.
Mammals have a lot of weird dick things. Some bats have gone from penetrative sex back to just like touching genitals because their dicks are so huge they literally don’t fit anymore.
livescience.com/…/bats-with-weirdly-giant-penis-h…
So having a impractically huge dick was more important for some reason.
Guess something similar happened with hyenas vis-a-vis having become matriarchal at some point.
- Comment on KHAAAANNNNN!!! 2 weeks ago:
Drizzt Do’Whoorden
- Comment on Anon is vengeful 2 weeks ago:
Evidence of small time drug dealing, you bet they do.
Ofc the police are different in places, but that seems to be pretty common.
- Comment on Trust issues 2 weeks ago:
Have fun arguing with positions you’re making up for yourself.
Oh the irony.
I haven’t laughed at that sort of philosophy larping this hard in ages. “Cringe”, I believe is how the youth refers to the feeling that accompanied my laugh.
What do you find so very incoherent about “the internet was not better in 1994”?
You implied that the person I’m talking to isn’t ignoring reality they know exists, like the average speed of an Internet connection being 14kbit/s in 1994. Of course the internet was worse in 1994, and the “wild west” applied to ads and malware as well.
It’s funny how big words you try using though, after not being able to even spell “gonorrhea” and not having the wits to check how it’s spelled when you write it and doing with “gonerea”, and, have, such weird, punctuation that makes, reading your, text very, weird. :D which makes the logical fallacy larping all the more hilarious via it’s pretentiousness.
Your argument is essentially “people don’t remember bad things”. Mine is “people would prefer to ignore bad memories”, which is why he is “wearing rose coloured glasses” as I’m sure he still understands what the internet actually was like in 1994, and willfully ignores the negatives.
- Comment on Trust issues 2 weeks ago:
No, that’s not anything that was actually said, or even the sentiment expressed.
No, it wasn’t said outloud, it was implied.
- Comment on Trust issues 2 weeks ago:
Very true.
But CRT also had a different quality, so it didn’t feel as bad as 640 on an LCD
- Comment on Trust issues 2 weeks ago:
“It’d be a weird sort of person who doesn’t willfully ignore reality”
Really?
You can remember good things about the past, but it you willfully ignore the most of what the past was, you’ll get something unrealistic. Like his notion that the internet was better in 1994.
By 1994, the World Wide Web had only existed for five years, HTML was published in 91 and the browser source code for the first web browser for public use in 1993.
You can like things about the past without saying things like “the Internet was better 30 years ago”, because obviously it wasn’t.
Some people like the Model T Ford and be history buffs and whatnot, and that’s perfectly fine. But who of them would say that a Model T is objectively better than a modern car — even a Tesla with all it’s problems? They can like the experience more than driving a regular car, but I’m sure they would never imagine actually traveling with one. It’s just a novelty. Nostalgia.