|
|
Rank: Frosh
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 9
Location: Burlington/Scarborough
|
well, utsc had a dry frosh, so no drinking, and i had a ton of fun anyway... and if there was drinking it would have been afterwards/not really involved in the frosh stuff.
UTSC 2011 (journalism, history, english.) frosh leader & res orientation leader in September '08 
|
|
Rank: Student Council
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/24/2008
Posts: 436
Location: mississauga
|
karla wrote:[quote=seamoraine]Enjoy all the alcohol you can while you’re young kids.
Because after college, it’s known as alcoholism. lol i love this quote. and the rugby one after
"My parents live in Ohio; I live in the moment." -himym.
|
|
Rank: Student Body Vice-President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/6/2008
Posts: 971
Location: Ottawa, ON.
|
Miss wrote:guys, TRUST D.DICKIN. he has seen and done it all, so he clearly KNOWS what he's talking about. always. ;) Thank you May I use your quote as my campaign slogan?
Carleton University Class of 2012, Honours Bachelor of Arts
|
|
Rank: Student Council
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/24/2008
Posts: 436
Location: mississauga
|
dude, clearly sarcasm is not your forte, if you were to have one.
"My parents live in Ohio; I live in the moment." -himym.
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/5/2008
Posts: 1,758
Location: Edmonton, AB
|
Oh goodness. Although sarcasm in typing is much more difficult to detect
University of Alberta - Mechanical Engineering '11
|
|
Rank: Student Body Vice-President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/6/2008
Posts: 971
Location: Ottawa, ON.
|
Miss wrote:dude, clearly sarcasm is not your forte, if you were to have one. Clearly sarcasm is not your forte, as I was replying to your sarcasm with my own.
Carleton University Class of 2012, Honours Bachelor of Arts
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/5/2008
Posts: 1,758
Location: Edmonton, AB
|
Wow what a ridiculous thought process. She said no such thing and you inferring all this is just absurd.
University of Alberta - Mechanical Engineering '11
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/5/2008
Posts: 1,758
Location: Edmonton, AB
|
Her opinion in no possible way interferes with your life. She is not preventing you from doing drugs and simply stated that she thinks that doing drugs is wrong.
If anyone tries to impose their beliefs on this forum Stringer, it is definitely you.
University of Alberta - Mechanical Engineering '11
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 1,814
Location: Wilfrid Laurier University
|
karla wrote:Her opinion in no possible way interferes with your life. She is not preventing you from doing drugs and simply stated that she thinks that doing drugs is wrong.
If anyone tries to impose their beliefs on this forum Stringer, it is definitely you. I would say that throwing people in jail for using drugs is "interfering". Without people subscribing to a belief system where drugs are illegal, you don't have that problem.
-Stringer
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/5/2008
Posts: 1,758
Location: Edmonton, AB
|
And you could say that arresting people for driving drunk is 'interfering'. And don't think for a second that drug use doesn't hurt others. What about meth addicts breaking into houses, assaulting people, etc?
University of Alberta - Mechanical Engineering '11
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 1,814
Location: Wilfrid Laurier University
|
karla wrote:And you could say that arresting people for driving drunk is 'interfering'. And don't think for a second that drug use doesn't hurt others. What about meth addicts breaking into houses, assaulting people, etc? Yes, it is interfering. So is arresting people for murder. The difference is that using drugs does not harm anybody else. I believe that interfering with somebody's life should only be done if they are harming somebody else. See the Harm Principle. If a meth addict breaks into a house or assaults somebody, arrest them for doing those actions. The reality is that using meth does not harm anybody except the user.
-Stringer
|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/20/2008
Posts: 260
Location: Greater Toronto Area
|
Quote:The reality is that using meth does not harm anybody except the user. Are you kidding me? There are numerous "drug-related" crimes in Canada (too lazy to look up the stats). Drugs impair your judgment and motor skills and you are more liable to cause harm to not only yourself, but to others as well. Whenever there is a violent crime, the TV almost always mentions: "The man/woman was found to be under the influence of drugs". So please, take off your blindfold and don't try to convince us that drugs only harm the user... that sounds like something a typical junkie would say (not that I'm implying you are one).
UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012
|
|
Rank: Student Body Vice-President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/6/2008
Posts: 971
Location: Ottawa, ON.
|
Here's one of the best sources: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040223/d040223a.htm.I don't see how you can advocate allowing people to do harm to themselves. If they're in such a self-destructive mode they, more than anyone else, need the help of the government to ensure they stop such a reckless lifestyle.
Carleton University Class of 2012, Honours Bachelor of Arts
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 1,814
Location: Wilfrid Laurier University
|
bimmer35 wrote:Quote:The reality is that using meth does not harm anybody except the user. Are you kidding me? There are numerous "drug-related" crimes in Canada (too lazy to look up the stats). Drugs impair your judgment and motor skills and you are more liable to cause harm to not only yourself, but to others as well. Whenever there is a violent crime, the TV almost always mentions: "The man/woman was found to be under the influence of drugs". So please, take off your blindfold and don't try to convince us that drugs only harm the user... that sounds like something a typical junkie would say (not that I'm implying you are one). So, by your logic, alcohol should be illegal as well. Anybody who drinks should be in jail, which is the vast majority of the Canadian population.
-Stringer
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 1,814
Location: Wilfrid Laurier University
|
D.Dickin wrote:Here's one of the best sources: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040223/d040223a.htm.I don't see how you can advocate allowing people to do harm to themselves. If they're in such a self-destructive mode they, more than anyone else, need the help of the government to ensure they stop such a reckless lifestyle. So should every person who drinks alcohol be thrown in jail? Also, that link you provided just proves that making drugs illegal just bogs down the legal system and creates a dangerous black market for drugs. If drugs were legal, you take the power away from gangs and can tax and profit from it.
-Stringer
|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/20/2008
Posts: 260
Location: Greater Toronto Area
|
Quote:So, by your logic, alcohol should be illegal as well. Anybody who drinks should be in jail, which is the vast majority of the Canadian population. I never mentioned ANYTHING about jail. I would rather that drug addicts get the treatment they need than spend years in prison. As for alcohol, what do you think prohibition was? People back then realized that alcohol was causing problems, and they tried to get rid of it. Obviously, it didn't work. So now, we have VERY strict limits concerning the consumption, distribution and activities permitted regarding alcohol. There's no use in trying to ban alcohol since it has become so common and as you've mentioned, a part of most people's lives. On the other hand, drugs are not yet as common and can still be controlled before it becomes widespread. Also, the effects of hard drugs are FAR worse than the effects of alcohol. I would be biased in saying that we should ban alcohol since I don't drink myself, but I do believe that if alcohol was eliminated, society would be much safer. Alcohol is not a necessity, and it only has negative outcomes (outside of "feeling good" or "having fun") ie. drunk driving, abuse, poisoning, etc. Same with drugs... nothing positive comes from them.
UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 1,814
Location: Wilfrid Laurier University
|
bimmer35 wrote:Quote:So, by your logic, alcohol should be illegal as well. Anybody who drinks should be in jail, which is the vast majority of the Canadian population. I never mentioned ANYTHING about jail. I would rather that drug addicts get the treatment they need than spend years in prison. As for alcohol, what do you think prohibition was? People back then realized that alcohol was causing problems, and they tried to get rid of it. Obviously, it didn't work. So now, we have VERY strict limits concerning the consumption, distribution and activities permitted regarding alcohol. There's no use in trying to ban alcohol since it has become so common and as you've mentioned, a part of most people's lives. On the other hand, drugs are not yet as common and can still be controlled before it becomes widespread. Also, the effects of hard drugs are FAR worse than the effects of alcohol. I would be biased in saying that we should ban alcohol since I don't drink myself, but I do believe that if alcohol was eliminated, society would be much safer. Alcohol is not a necessity, and it only has negative outcomes (outside of "feeling good" or "having fun") ie. drunk driving, abuse, poisoning, etc. Same with drugs... nothing positive comes from them. So, you're actually pro-drugs from a political standpoint. Making drugs legal (which you are supporting) is being pro-drugs. What "VERY strict limits" are there concerning alcohol? You can drink and buy as much as you like. Drugs are very common as well. 42% of Americans have tried marijuana. The number is likely very similar for Canadians. If you think drugs can be controlled, you haven't been watching the news in about 30 years. Drugs are more readily available and cheaper than ever before. The effects of marijuana pale in comparison to the effects of alcohol. Also, should everything that's bad for you be illegal? Should pop be illegal since it is terrible for you and greatly increases your chances of dying an early death? Where do you draw the line? Who are you to say what are positive outcomes from a drug or alcohol usage perspective? If there were no positives from drugs, why would people use them?
-Stringer
|
|
Rank: Frosh
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 7
Location: right
|
does anyone know how does frosh work in mcmaster?
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/5/2008
Posts: 1,758
Location: Edmonton, AB
|
Stringer, all your arguments seem to be based on ridiculous inferences you make, twisting other people's words, and finding ONE example that sort of supports your point and running with it. I have never seen a flimsier argument.
University of Alberta - Mechanical Engineering '11
|
|
Rank: Student Council
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/24/2008
Posts: 436
Location: mississauga
|
magicalland wrote:does anyone know how does frosh work in mcmaster? LMAO aaahahahaha you just made my day. way to break the tension ;)
"My parents live in Ohio; I live in the moment." -himym.
|
|
