bobman @ bobman @unilem.org

Posts

4

Comments

1,140

Joined

2 yr. ago

In most cases it was just any “mutt” was considered a pitbull.

Seems like an issue specific to wherever you went to school.

Most rational people would immediately draw clear separations between mutts and pitbulls or pitbull mixes.

I don't think this comment is indicative of the problem at all.

Curious where you went to school though, lol. Might want to get a refund for that degree.

To be fair, cat bites can leave you with stitches.

Big difference: mix

Yeah. They were literally bred to be as vicious as possible.

We can write them off. I don't blame the dogs, I blame the people who made them this way.

Dang. They still have to be dicks and end the price in 9 to fool people into thinking they're paying $40 instead of $50.

Scumbags.

But people also do Meth at every other point in their life.

Never said they didn't, just talking from my own experience which I know is relevant for a lot of people.

On average, it's poor people who are sad with life that resort to meth use. That doesn't mean it's all of them. Just the vast majority.

Good point. I'm not sure either.

I think the scientific approach would be best applied here. Let's legalize them so we can experience what it's like. Right now, we only really have information pertaining to prohibition.

If I'm wrong, I'd have no problem admitting it. The problem is that all we can do is speculate, because we can't seem to test any of this.

People don’t try it because they’re down or miserable.

Every single meth user I know has done meth at the lowest point in their lives.

I'd like to see why you think 'People don’t try it because they’re down or miserable.'

So... if people are going to do drugs anyways, why make them illegal?

Seems like you're simultaneously saying that drugs should be illegal because it 'limits the number of people who do them,' yet there will always be people who do drugs no matter what?

Wouldn't it still make sense to make drugs legal so the resources wasted on enforcing drug laws can be better spent somewhere else? That way we actually reduce the amount of people who resort to drug use out of misery. The people who you say will do drugs 'no matter what' are going to be doing them whether they're illegal or not. So it doesn't really make sense to make them illegal because we're not actually reducing the number of users.

Does it really limit the amount of people who try it?

Looks to me like people resort to drug abuse when their lives are miserable. Seems like the best way to 'limit' the people who abuse drugs is to improve their lives without them.

Seems like all the money spent enforcing drug laws would be better spent improving society. And it's a lot of money.

Yep. It's all a tool to control the masses.

Making it illegal doesn't stop people from getting addicted to it.

Well, I guess the alternative is to keep it illegal and live with what we have now.

Meth would be less harmful to society if we legalized it.

You're not making any sense.

I don't think implants would be necessary.

Can't we just put ankle bracelets on them?

To be fair, it's an excruciatingly difficult task that only gets exponentially harder as time goes on.

Woah, I was just reading about this when it was happening.

Forgot what was going on.

because you believe billboards without a second thought

What?