|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/20/2008
Posts: 259
Location: Greater Toronto Area
|
Quote:
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?
Again, I never said anything about being pro-drugs... I think I made it pretty clear that I am against them. You are trying to view everything in a black and white perspective, similar to the "if you're not with us, you're against us" idea. Just because I don't think drug addicts should go to prison does not mean that I am PRO-drugs. The suggestion that I made was that drug addicts receive suspended sentences, rather than incarceration, providing that they get the treatment that they need. Of course, there are people who will not be able to stay on path, and repeat offenders should face some sort of imprisonment. When I said "very strict limits", I was eluding to the numerous laws we have involving alcohol. The most obvious being driving under the influence, public intoxication, licencing, age limits, not selling to those who are intoxicated, requirements to display signs, unlawful possession/consumption, advertising, restricted areas, etc. All of which are in place to minimize the harm caused by alcohol. Yes, drugs are much more widespread than in the past, but it's still VERY taboo compared to alcohol. You are truly grasping at straws if you are suggesting that POP is even comparable to drugs and alcohol. People use drugs because they are ADDICTED. Please, if you can think of ANY positives that come from drugs, please feel free to share them with us. (with the exception of "feeling good" or "having fun")
UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/20/2008
Posts: 587
|
Miss wrote:magicalland wrote:does anyone know how does frosh work in mcmaster? LMAO aaahahahaha you just made my day. way to break the tension ;) Agreed, reading though the intense thread battle and then BAM! Anyways, really not going to get involved in this whole argument but it's an interesting read.
UWO 2012
|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/13/2008
Posts: 56
Location: Markham
|
karyy wrote:How does frosh work? specifically at utsc please  the website for UTSC's frosh is up on the SCSU website if you wanna see pictures from last years frosh and what will be happening this year 
UTSC '11 Specialist: Psychology Changing it up this year Logistics Leader=D FroshYou2012ers
|
|
Rank: Student Council
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/24/2008
Posts: 436
Location: mississauga
|
and way to miss the boat but, just to get this one going again, You can't bunch all drugs together. Drugs is a general term, it could be refering to steroids, to narcotics, to alcohol, to weed, to caffeine, ecstacy, etc, etc. I personally think that anything in excess is dangerous, but some things are easier to have in excess than others. Especially since some drugs are addictive, and others aren't. Caffeine is way more addictive than weed, but they both don't pose much of a threat, unless it gets in the way of productivity/economic issues, or ionno. something along those lines. eh? eh?
"My parents live in Ohio; I live in the moment." -himym.
|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/20/2008
Posts: 259
Location: Greater Toronto Area
|
Thankfully, Victoria College (University of Toronto) has set up a whole website dedicated to Frosh week. Apparently, it's a 90's theme this year because we are the first class that were born in the 90s. There is a schedule on there which lists exactly what activities are planned for each day. Looking forward to Casino Night and the Wacky Tacky Boat Cruise. link here, if anyone's interested. http://vicorientation.ca/Vic%20Orientation%3A%20Monday.html
UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/20/2008
Posts: 587
|
bimmer35 wrote:Thankfully, Victoria College (University of Toronto) has set up a whole website dedicated to Frosh week. Apparently, it's a 90's theme this year because we are the first class that were born in the 90s. There is a schedule on there which lists exactly what activities are planned for each day. Looking forward to Casino Night and the Wacky Tacky Boat Cruise. link here, if anyone's interested. http://vicorientation.ca/Vic%20Orientation%3A%20Monday.html WOW I've always known that UT makes Frosh really exciting but this is some kind of dedication. Now I really want to know what happens at UWO for Frosh =( And good idea, 90's theme...But some kids from last year's class are born in the 90's as well. Oh well.
UWO 2012
|
|
Rank: Frosh
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/5/2008
Posts: 44
|
bimmer35 wrote:
Of course, there are people who will not be able to stay on path, and repeat offenders should face some sort of imprisonment.
That's in essence, making it illegal. And I can't do something just for fun now? lol
|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/20/2008
Posts: 259
Location: Greater Toronto Area
|
Quote:
That's in essence, making it illegal.
And I can't do something just for fun now? lol
(Sigh)... We're back on this again. Number one, drugs are already illegal, and I am a strong supporter of them staying that way. So I don't really understand what your intention was with your first comment. Number two, sure, you can have as much fun as you want. But when that "fun" has a negative affect on the people around you and could possibly put them in harm's way, it becomes a wrongful act. If every drug user in the world got high/low by themselves, in a confined area with absolutely NO contact with society until they are sober, maybe I wouldn't be so opposed to drugs. Who am I to judge a person on what they do to their own bodies? Having said that, I'm not naive enough to believe that all drug users will act rationally when they are under the influence. For every one responsible drug user, there will be at LEAST one who WILL make reckless decisions, possibly causing harm to innocent people. And as a member of society, I would hate to take that risk.
UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012
|
|
Rank: Frosh
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/5/2008
Posts: 44
|
bimmer35 wrote:
(Sigh)... We're back on this again.
Number one, drugs are already illegal, and I am a strong supporter of them staying that way. So I don't really understand what your intention was with your first comment.
Hi Quote:
I don't think drug addicts should go to prison
Of course, there are people who will not be able to stay on path, and repeat offenders should face some sort of imprisonment.
Number one, drugs are already illegal, and I am a strong supporter of them staying that way
Make up your mind. Quote:Number two, sure, you can have as much fun as you want. But when that "fun" has a negative affect on the people around you and could possibly put them in harm's way, it becomes a wrongful act. If every drug user in the world got high/low by themselves, in a confined area with absolutely NO contact with society until they are sober, maybe I wouldn't be so opposed to drugs. Who am I to judge a person on what they do to their own bodies? Having said that, I'm not naive enough to believe that all drug users will act rationally when they are under the influence. For every one responsible drug user, there will be at LEAST one who WILL make reckless decisions, possibly causing harm to innocent people. And as a member of society, I would hate to take that risk. That's cool and all, and I am sure a lot of people support your views. Maybe even me. Too bad you're doing a straw man. My argument is actually against your claim that all drug users are addicts.
|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/20/2008
Posts: 259
Location: Greater Toronto Area
|
You missed one little tidbit... Quote:The suggestion that I made was that drug addicts receive suspended sentences, rather than incarceration, providing that they get the treatment that they need. THEN came the suggestion that REPEAT offenders get prison time. A suspended sentence means that the person has committed a crime, but have their sentences put aside, as long as they meet certain criteria. Quote:That's cool and all, and I am sure a lot of people support your views. Maybe even me. Too bad you're doing a straw man.
My argument is actually against your claim that all drug users are addicts. I apologize if I came off that way, because that wasn't my intention. As I have mentioned in my previous post, I do believe that there are responsible drug users. But I also KNOW that there are far too many irresponsible ones to justify that drugs are "safe" or cannot cause harm.
UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/5/2008
Posts: 1,758
Location: Edmonton, AB
|
And not to mention the large range that the word 'drugs' encompasses. I could be friends with someone who did pot, but not with someone who did meth. They certainly can be put in different classes I think.
University of Alberta - Mechanical Engineering '11
|
|
Rank: Frosh
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/5/2008
Posts: 44
|
bimmer35 wrote:
You missed one little tidbit...
THEN came the suggestion that REPEAT offenders get prison time. A suspended sentence means that the person has committed a crime, but have their sentences put aside, as long as they meet certain criteria.
According to you, it is illegal, even the first time. Quote:
I apologize if I came off that way, because that wasn't my intention. As I have mentioned in my previous post, I do believe that there are responsible drug users. But I also KNOW that there are far too many irresponsible ones to justify that drugs are "safe" or cannot cause harm.
What does this have to do with addiction? Quote:So....are we done now? I'm sure there's some people here who were hoping to learn about frosh rather than the legalization of marijuana. I'm sure taxpayers are willing to pay for the enjoyment of junkies. Or drug users are willing to pay to get a place to do drugs. You might as well say let's just get rid of all the drugs in the world.
|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/20/2008
Posts: 259
Location: Greater Toronto Area
|
Quote:
According to you, it is illegal, even the first time.
It is, and it should be. But like most first time offenders, they should not be thrown in prison right away. Therefore, a suspended sentence. What don't you understand about this? Quote:What does this have to do with addiction? Just an apology about generalizing every drug user as addicts. Then a statement explaining that I do believe that there are responsible users (ie. non-addicts) but also irresponsible ones (ie. addicts).
UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012
|
|
Rank: Frosh
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/5/2008
Posts: 44
|
bimmer35 wrote:
It is, and it should be. But like most first time offenders, they should not be thrown in prison right away. Therefore, a suspended sentence. What don't you understand about this?
Perhaps this? Quote:I don't think drug addicts should go to prison Are they not drug addicts after the second offense? Quote:
Just an apology about generalizing every drug user as addicts. Then a statement explaining that I do believe that there are responsible users (ie. non-addicts) but also irresponsible ones (ie. addicts).
How does someone having an addiction have to do with him being responsible?
|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/20/2008
Posts: 259
Location: Greater Toronto Area
|
Quote:Perhaps this? Quote:I don't think drug addicts should go to prison Are they not drug addicts after the second offense? Is this your plan? To quote a snippet of one of my earlier posts while ignoring the numerous clarifications that I have made afterwards? If you had read all of my posts (which I'll assume you have), you'll know that I clarified what I meant by drug users going to prison. Similar to MOST crimes in Canada, a first offence should not land you in prison. Rather, you should get the help that you need (ie. treatment, classes, etc.). When you offend a second or third time, it is obvious that you did not learn your lesson and you must pay for your crimes in jail. This system is already used for DUIs. For a first DUI, you might have to pay a fine, lose your licence and attend some classes, and if you DUI a second time, it is automatic jail time. If you are nitpicking about my use of the word "addict", I have already apologized. I probably should have used drug "user", not addict... because as you have already mentioned, not all users are addicts. Quote:
How does someone having an addiction have to do with him being responsible?
If you have an addiction, it means that your habit is uncontrollable. In other words, you don't use drugs recreationally or because you enjoy it, but because you crave it and you NEED it. Now if a person cannot even control their own desires, wouldn't you consider them as being irresponsible? If you can't be responsible for your own body's desires, how are you to be trusted to be responsible to others/society? I could have used various words in place of irresponsible... that was just the word that came to my head when I wrote that post and the one previous.
UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012
|
|
Rank: Frosh
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/5/2008
Posts: 44
|
bimmer35 wrote:
Is this your plan? To quote a snippet of one of my earlier posts while ignoring the numerous clarifications that I have made afterwards? If you had read all of my posts (which I'll assume you have), you'll know that I clarified what I meant by drug users going to prison. Similar to MOST crimes in Canada, a first offence should not land you in prison. Rather, you should get the help that you need (ie. treatment, classes, etc.). When you offend a second or third time, it is obvious that you did not learn your lesson and you must pay for your crimes in jail. This system is already used for DUIs. For a first DUI, you might have to pay a fine, lose your licence and attend some classes, and if you DUI a second time, it is automatic jail time. If you are nitpicking about my use of the word "addict", I have already apologized. I probably should have used drug "user", not addict... because as you have already mentioned, not all users are addicts.
So you do think that drug users should go to jail, but you also think that first time offenders should not be imprisoned for minor crimes? How were you clarifying anything when you were expressing 2 different views? Quote:
If you have an addiction, it means that your habit is uncontrollable. In other words, you don't use drugs recreationally or because you enjoy it, but because you crave it and you NEED it. Now if a person cannot even control their own desires, wouldn't you consider them as being irresponsible? If you can't be responsible for your own body's desires, how are you to be trusted to be responsible to others/society? I could have used various words in place of irresponsible... that was just the word that came to my head when I wrote that post and the one previous.
What's your idea of a responsible drug user?
|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/20/2008
Posts: 259
Location: Greater Toronto Area
|
Quote:So you do think that drug users should go to jail, but you also think that first time offenders should not be imprisoned for minor crimes?
How were you clarifying anything when you were expressing 2 different views? I don't really understand the question here, so I'll just quote one of the clarifications I made in an earlier post. Quote:The suggestion that I made was that drug addicts receive suspended sentences, rather than incarceration, providing that they get the treatment that they need. Of course, there are people who will not be able to stay on path, and repeat offenders should face some sort of imprisonment. I think in this statement I clearly stated my belief that drug users be offered treatment for first time offences, but imprisonment for repeat offences. They're not 2 different views... they are obviously related to one another. First time offenders (ie. first time with a drug related offence) should get a lighter sentence, no prison time, while repeat offenders (ie. people who continue to abuse drugs and cause harm despite their "warning") get jail time. Quote:
What's your idea of a responsible drug user?
A person who knows his/her limits, does not exceed it, and does not put him/herself in situations where he/she could cause harm to others due to their drug use. Please, let's just drop this. I'm sure it is getting tired for many of the other posters. Just for fairness' sake, I'll let you have the last word. (If you please)
UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012
|
|
Rank: Frosh
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/5/2008
Posts: 44
|
bimmer35 wrote:
I don't really understand the question here, so I'll just quote one of the clarifications I made in an earlier post.
I think in this statement I clearly stated my belief that drug users be offered treatment for first time offences, but imprisonment for repeat offences. They're not 2 different views... they are obviously related to one another. First time offenders (ie. first time with a drug related offence) should get a lighter sentence, no prison time, while repeat offenders (ie. people who continue to abuse drugs and cause harm despite their "warning") get jail time.
1. Drug users shouldn't go to jail (aka drugs are legal) 2. First time drug users shouldn't go to jail (illegal) Quote:
A person who knows his/her limits, does not exceed it, and does not put him/herself in situations where he/she could cause harm to others due to their drug use.
All addicts can't use drugs, aka satisfy their needs responsibly (within limit/no harm to others) because they were stupid in the past? Just like recreational users can't go over the limit/cause harm to others just because they are satisfying their wants? Quote:
Please, let's just drop this. I'm sure it is getting tired for many of the other posters. Just for fairness' sake, I'll let you have the last word. (If you please)
PM works if it's only for the other posters.
|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/20/2008
Posts: 259
Location: Greater Toronto Area
|
Actually, I decided explaining my side is worth annoying the other posters for a little bit longer. Quote:1. Drug users shouldn't go to jail (aka drugs are legal)
2. First time drug users shouldn't go to jail (illegal) I said #1 in one of my very first posts on this subject, which Stringer misconstrued as me being PRO-drugs. So THEN, I clarified, by stating #2, that I didn't think FIRST time offenders should be thrown in prison without being given a chance to help themselves. So don't think of them as two different points... they are meant to mean the exact same thing. I know it's confusing, but if you look at the post I made after I said #1, you can see that I was expanding on what I meant by #1, NOT providing a new argument. I haven't changed my views throughout this discussion. Quote:
All addicts can't use drugs, aka satisfy their needs responsibly (within limit/no harm to others) because they were stupid in the past?
Just like recreational users can't go over the limit/cause harm to others just because they are satisfying their wants?
When did I say that addicts can't be responsible users? It doesn't matter if the user has had a long list of drug related acts in the past... as long as they are staying within their limits and being safe NOW, I would consider them to be responsible users. Just as I would consider first time users who cause harm as irresponsible ones.
UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012
|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/20/2008
Posts: 259
Location: Greater Toronto Area
|
These are my 2nd and 3rd posts on this subject, just for clarification purposes... Quote:
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.
Obviously I should have been more clear about this statement. When Stringer implied that I was PRO-drugs, I DID clarify, with this... Quote:
Again, I never said anything about being pro-drugs... I think I made it pretty clear that I am against them. You are trying to view everything in a black and white perspective, similar to the "if you're not with us, you're against us" idea. Just because I don't think drug addicts should go to prison does not mean that I am PRO-drugs. The suggestion that I made was that drug addicts receive suspended sentences, rather than incarceration, providing that they get the treatment that they need. Of course, there are people who will not be able to stay on path, and repeat offenders should face some sort of imprisonment.
When I said "very strict limits", I was eluding to the numerous laws we have involving alcohol. The most obvious being driving under the influence, public intoxication, licencing, age limits, not selling to those who are intoxicated, requirements to display signs, unlawful possession/consumption, advertising, restricted areas, etc. All of which are in place to minimize the harm caused by alcohol.
Yes, drugs are much more widespread than in the past, but it's still VERY taboo compared to alcohol.
You are truly grasping at straws if you are suggesting that POP is even comparable to drugs and alcohol.
People use drugs because they are ADDICTED. Please, if you can think of ANY positives that come from drugs, please feel free to share them with us. (with the exception of "feeling good" or "having fun")
I think it is obvious that this statement was a CLARIFICATION, NOT a new attitude. By the way, is this where you got the "I don't think drug users should go to prison" statement from? Because if it is, that is blatant selective reading. Read the very next sentence after that and you will see that I was for the "first offence" rule from the beginning.
UTSG Rotman Commerce (Victoria College) 2012
|
|
