General Question

skateangel's avatar

Do you think it's hypocritical that alcohol is legal while drugs aren't?

Asked by skateangel (321points) November 21st, 2011

Not that I condone drugs at all but I personally think it’s wrong that drinking is legal and drugs aren’t, when they both mess with your mind. I also find drunk people to be scarier and more unpredictable than high people…Stoned people seem to just..sit there. While drunk people are more agressive, loud, etc. Not to mention the dozens of sickening crimes commited by them. I don’t think it makes sense to say that one sustance that messes with your mind is okay, while another one isn’t. Shouldn’t it either all be allowed or none at all?

Anyway, what are your thoughts on it?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

114 Answers

wundayatta's avatar

Of course it’s hypocritical. So what? It’s history that has led us to this situation. You can’t undo history, and it’s really, really hard to correct it.

Aethelflaed's avatar

Don’t conflate drugs with pot. Pot just makes you sit there, but other drugs, like PCP and cocaine and meth, quite the opposite.

But yeah, of course it’s totally hypocritical. But it’s getting better, we’re trying to right that wrong.

itsjustcruel's avatar

I personally think that marijuana should be legalized, but am against some other drugs. Mainly because weed doesn’t harm you long term and all you do (as you said) is just get high and sit there. Whereas alcohol, is in my opinion almost the opposite, drunk people can be violent and aggressive, and many crimes are committed by drunken people. I also think it is ridiculous that cigarettes are legal when they do so much more harm than soft drugs like weed.

MilkyWay's avatar

Yes, I think it is highly hypocritical. But as @Aethelflaed pointed out, not all drugs have the same affect.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

It’s only hypocritical if you are an alcoholic and you condemn other ‘drug-users’ for being drug-users.

bongo's avatar

Yeah I also don’t understand how they can decide upon a classification on certain drugs. I mean how is magic mushrooms or extacy in the same class as crack and meth and Marijuana more dangerous than ketamine and all of these dangerous than alcohol? (I say dangerous in the sense of overall to society etc. of how they classify drugs I know they don’t classify drugs into the classes on what damage they do to the individual person)
It is highly hypocritical.
@Simone_De_Beauvoir I think its also hypocritical if you drink (not even being an addict) and condemn other drug users for being drug users, surely if you drink at all you are just using another drug regardless of being addicted or not. Not all drug users are addicts just as not all drinkers are alcoholics. Just because it is deemed acceptable in western society does not make it any better than any other drug, it doesn’t matter on the level of use (in that sense I think). Obviously any addict is an addict and will destroy themselves and their friends to maintain their habit regardless of which substance they use.

Roby's avatar

I could care less, I don’t partake of eather one.

marinelife's avatar

I think that probably alcohol should be outlawed, but it has such a long history that it would be almost impossible to root it out of society. Also, it is relatively easy to make at home.

thesparrow's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Or if you’re a no-good, lazy stoner condemning alcohol users for being alcoholics.

deni's avatar

Yes, it is hypocritical. Or, it’s not even the hypocriticalness that bothers me, it’s more the fact that weed is so much safer in so many ways than alcohol. If ONE thing should be legal of all the drugs and stuff that messes with your mind, it’s weed. Not even gonna say any more.

@thesparrow I don’t really think that ever really happens. “Stoners” don’t tend to be hateful, unhappy, make-other-people-unhappy-as-much-as-i-can, violent, unpleasant people…..Just doesn’t really work that way.

thesparrow's avatar

@deni No, but some are lazy and can’t get jobs. That’s just as bad.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@thesparrow But I don’t think that really counts if they’d be lazy and couldn’t get jobs without the pot. And can’t get a job is different from could, but won’t – don’t be pissed off at those who are actually incapable of it, but those that simply choose not to.

bongo's avatar

@thesparrow how is it not hypocritical? surely alcohol is more addictive than many illegal drugs and does a lot more damage to society. How is that any different? Just by using drugs does not make you lazy. Not all drinkers drink every day, not all drug users use drugs everyday. You can not say that just because you use drugs from time to time it makes you jobless and lazy.
If you are jobless it is likely that it isn’t because you may have the occasional spliff at the weekend it is because of the massive lack of jobs there are at the moment. Does that mean that if you are jobless and drink all day thats ok because its legal? Or is it ok if you just have a drink at the weekend…. but as soon as you swap that drink for a spliff at the weekend they are automatically a druggie and jobless because they take drugs. That is one massive brush you are painting everyone with there.
People who get wrecked everyday will get wrecked everyday regardless of the substance. It is possible to take drugs and not get addicted and loose your life. Just as it is the same to be able to drink and not get addicted and loose your life.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

It is very two-faced, and that is the way the public likes it. Politicians drink, the man at the plant drinks, college kids believe they can’t have a decent party without booze, you have to have a drink to steady your nerves, to get comfortable around new people, to be social, etc, etc.

If you look at the triad of things, the public, the government, and the media, it is not too hard to fathom. It is like the relationship of the pimps, the Johns, and the prostitutes. The media being like the pimps, whip up hysteria about drugs and the misery they cause, because they know the public will eat it up; gullible as they are. The public is like the Johns, they buy into it, and purchase that hysteria because that is what is on their radar. The government is like whores, whatever the John/public wants, they are in a hurry to give it to them for attention at the ballot box.

Top that off with a good dose of pig-headedness, and you have drugs being illegal. Many things are misunderstood, or clearly bastardize, because no one cares to apply sound logic to them, but run off on knee jerk emotion.

Drugs maybe addictive to more people easier, however, you can’t cure stupid. If someone cannot deal with life in the real, you can’t really force them. The best you can do is to control the situation. They should legalize drugs under the tightest of reigns. Then, at lease the government can profit off those who being in the here and now is too boring. They can regulate the purity, where it can be sold, who it can be sold to, get tax revenue from it, and cut out the cartel. Then you have more ways to tell some one, you can’t handle life and need to be in Neverland, do it at home, if you are caught high in public, there are penalties waiting.

But politicians don’t take drugs, maybe because the media didn’t play it as an act the John/public care to see politicians doing, but they do drink. The media plays that as almost a social requirement, and booze is big business. Politicians will rarely go against the money and for things that can hurt them at the ballot box.

Even though booze will be the catalyst for accidents that will take out many people just trying to get home, drive to the mall, or home from practice, etc, it will still be king over drugs and cigarettes the pimps/media did a good job in making booze acceptable to most.

dannyc's avatar

Extremely hypocritical. And add in the pharmaceutical lobby, smoking lobby, gambling casinos, and you have a good inclination as to why the western democracies are in a state of turmoil. Drugs and addictions are legal, just no the one’s that are politically correct

Nullo's avatar

Not if you consider alcohol a drug. Then your question becomes “Do you think it’s hypocritical that X is legal while X are not?” which is just silly, and you realize that it’s about degree.
Alcohol gets a pass because it’s mostly harmless. It takes a lot (per gram, relative to other substances) to make you ‘high’, isn’t particularly addictive (there are addicts, certainly, but most consumers aren’t), and has some salutary effects. Heroin, not so much.

bongo's avatar

@Nullo Then what about caffeine? You can OD on caffeine way before you OD on THC, gram for gram that is way more dangerous?

deni's avatar

@Nullo You don’t think drunk driving is more of a problem than the worst that happens on weed which is essentially overeating foods that aren’t good for you? The two aren’t equal. And heroin? Come on, that’s not even comparable. Everyone knows that shit is a class of its own.

Male's avatar

…not until you pointed that out.

They’re hypocritical alright, and I wouldn’t give a damn if both were banned…

TexasDude's avatar

@Nullo my brain is full of fuck.

Alcohol doesn’t get a pass because it is mostly harmless, but because, thanks to its historical prevalence, society has managed to work out a compromise in regards to its use. Weed is probably a thousand times safer than alcohol. It is non-toxic, when ingested in a way other than smoking it, and it would take a huge amount to overdose (something to the extent of the equivalent of a thousand times your body weight, If I remember correctly).

Alcohol is highly addictive and has a number of detrimental health effects that weed simply does not have. Consult this chart for more information that you may find informative.

As for me, I say legalize weed and regulate it in the same way as alcohol. As for other drugs, I prefer harm reduction methods as opposed to criminal penalties. Save the criminal charges for the traffickers.

melissamoreno1's avatar

It is quite hypocritical.

Russell_D_SpacePoet's avatar

@thesparrow There are plenty of lazy people that don’t smoke marijuana. You shouldn’t generalize. It’s not the pot that makes them lazy. They are lazy anyway.

blueiiznh's avatar

I think you are glossing over all the crimes that are related to drugs. There are far more crimes committed so someone can get their next fix.

Prohibition was already attempted and went terribly wrong.

It is a balance in what is illegal and how it is enforced. There is just as big an underground market for prescription drugs.

How would YOU suggest to solve it?

digitalimpression's avatar

I think alcohol and drugs are two very distinctly different animals. While it’s true that just about 11,000 people die each year from drunk drivers (probably more).. those numbers would climb dramatically if everything was legalized.

If you are talking about drugs in general than you have to imagine an environment where crackheads are roaming around scratching at imaginary spiders while driving. You’d have to imagine people on ecstasy freely meandering about the roadway after this or that fancy with no regard to other drivers. You’d have to imagine meth-heads (whose brain cell count couldn’t have been that high to begin with) ruthlessly murdering more cells whilst texting, driving, and eating a bag of Doritos.

If you’re talking about just marijuana well… my opinion is too biased to comment. The only pot smokers I’ve known have been a very dull bunch with the wheel spinning but the hamster dead.

deni's avatar

@digitalimpression That is the worst kind of pot user. But from what I’ve seen that type is pretttttyyyyyy rare. And tend to be kinda brain dead aside from/before the drug use, anyhow.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@digitalimpression Before you make that assumption, just know that a lot of more casual pot smokers don’t exactly come out and say “I’m a pot smoker”, especially before knowing how they’ll be received. You might be surprised to find out how many interesting people smoke pot.

digitalimpression's avatar

@deni As I said, that was simply my exposure to the “high life”.

@Aethelflaed There is no assumption involved. I personally have known quite a few pot smokers and… they were quite dumb.. quite dumb indeed.

Joker94's avatar

Of course. Granted, the effects of some of these drugs are, in my opinion, considerably worse than those of alcohol. Marijuana is really the only drug that I think ought to be legal.

Paradox25's avatar

Most definitely yes it is hypocritical that anybody that uses alcohol in anyway should criticise others for smoking weed. There are harder drugs that are very dangerous and should never be legalized/decriminalized.

Cannabis and hallucinagenic mushrooms should be legalized in my own personal opinion. I also believe that the legalization of any type of controlled substance should be left up to the discretion of the people in each state, not the federal government.

Russell_D_SpacePoet's avatar

@digitalimpression You met the wrong pot smokers. Carl Sagan was a pot smoker. Abraham Lincoln was also.

Aethelflaed's avatar

Shitloads of professors are weed smokers, many at highly acclaimed universities.

digitalimpression's avatar

@Russell_D_SpacePoet From my experience with pot smokers I wish to meet no more of them.. regardless of their “prestige”. It’s really ok that I’m different than you.

I’d certainly not get in a car with someone who was smoking pot. (back to the original question)

Aethelflaed's avatar

@digitalimpression Someone who was smoking pot at the time, or someone who smoked pot but was not high during driving time?

bkcunningham's avatar

Alcohol, like most other drugs, is highly controlled. For instance, there are age restrictions on the use and sale of alcohol. There are alcohol manufacturing regulations. There are many and a variety of laws pertaining to selling alcohol. Whether it is in a state controlled alcohol beverage store, a privatized alcohol beverage store overseen by the state or an establishment selling alcohol for carryout or to drink on site.

At some point in history, most all drugs have been “legal” or “illegal.” It is just the type of regulatory control that varies. Most of the changes in the controls has come about by cultural changes in our societies.

deni's avatar

@Russell_D_SpacePoet three cheers for the mental image of Abe smokin a doobie!!!!!

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Legalize EVERYTHING now.

It will all work itself out within a single generation… and it would be the best thing for the economy.

bkcunningham's avatar

When you say legalize, do you mean absolutely no regulations, @RealEyesRealizeRealLies?

garb's avatar

Yes, it’s hypocritical. Yes, drugs should be allowed, but only if it is illegal for hospitals-doctors to give them any treatment when they overdose, or get sick. All safety nets should be denied for them, unless they purchase their own health insurance.

If they want freedom to do drugs, then they should bear the responsibility of any consequences. They should be left to die out.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@garb I don’t think you understand how doctors work. Doctors treat the patient in front of them. No matter what. Even if that person is a heroin addict. Even if that person is a warlord responsible for the deaths of thousands. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

garb's avatar


I don’t think they should treat just anyone. I think this should be illegal. This is my point. Druggies should not be treated unless they purchased their own health insurance. If they don’t have any, they should be thrown out on the street to rot.

No tax payer should be burdened with some junkies problems. As I said, if someone wants to get doped up, that’s fine, but they’re on their own if they wreck their own life and health.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Absolutely NO regulations @bkcunningham.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@garb The hatred is overwhelming.

garb's avatar

No hatred, just consistency in freedom. I mean we’re talking about hypocrisy here, right?
And there is no bigger hypocrisy then to ask for the freedom to do drugs, but to force tax payers to bail-out the druggies when they overdose, get sick, or destroy their lives.

Only way to be consistent in freedom here is to deny druggies free healthcare and any other type of welfare safety net, unless they purchase their own healthcare.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@garb They’re human beings, not “druggies”. Your entire plan is based around vengeance, not love or even rights – seeing as how you’re trying to deny doctors their right to help everyone, and those who use drugs their right to life. So, yeah, that’s hatred.

How do you plan to implement this? Are EMTs supposed to verify insurance before preforming emergency medical procedures? How are they supposed to do that? How do you know someone is sick from being addicted to drugs? How do you know that they aren’t sick with something else? By testing, presumably, but that costs money. How are hospitals supposed to screen out people who’ve done drugs? Isn’t figuring out that someone has an addiction to drugs something that takes time and money? Is it only someone who is currently addicted to drugs, or everyone who has at one point been addicted to drugs, or everyone who’s ever done drugs regardless of addiction status? What about illnesses that are not brought on by drug use alone, but rather drug use increases the statistical probability of getting that illness (but then so do genetics and other factors)? What if someone is in the process of buying drugs, but gets shot – is it the drugs we should look at, or the bullet wound? What if this illness, this OD, this whatever is what would spur them to finally get off drugs and get on the wagon – but only if they live?

deni's avatar

@garb Well when it comes to legalizing drugs, really the only one in question is marijuana (and maybe mushrooms) and nobody overdoses on weed, ever. I’m pretty sure no other drugs will ever be legal. I mean, weed has just started to be legalized in some places. It’d be hard to make a case to legalize meth, heroin, or cocaine, and probably acid too, just because they’re more intense and well, there really isn’t a reason to legalize them. Marijuana has medicinal purposes that are not just bullshit excuses for people to get high legally….it legitimately helps a ton of people with a variety of issues. So….you don’t have to worry about the junkies sucking up your tax dollars, ever, probably.

rojo's avatar

Other drugs, besides alcohol should be legal. The business of the government should be to protect you from me and me from you; not protect me from myself.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

While I agree completely with your sentiment @garb… It doesn’t have to be so black or white. Truth is usually found somewhere in the center of any hotly contested argument.

Freedom for all, is not paid by any one individual. We all share the cost of universal freedom.

Perhaps a society with druggies “out on the street” rotting to death is not a freedom to pursue. It would make driving my kids to school a bit discomfit. Sure, I wouldn’t mind my child seeing first hand what becomes of an addict… But I also wouldn’t mind teaching my child how to show compassion and empathy… forgiveness and understanding that any one of us has any number of demons chasing us at any given time.

I do not believe a healthy society would thrive with rotting addicts cluttering the streets. They would need to be contained… separated at least to the degree that they’re addictions could not infect the greater society. What better containment than one which offered rehab and education… along with a very present public awareness campaign?

Likewise… for those who demonstrate mature handling of drugs… their rituals should also be made open to the general public as an example of how to pursue a particular substance for the benefits it brings them.

rojo's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I agree with you about truth being found somewhere in the center but I would add the caveat “unless you are a member of a super committee”.

garb's avatar


Doctors can help anyone they want, just not at the tax payers expense. People have the freedom of choice, right? There are a lot of people in this country who are sick and tired of having their tax dollars go in to social welfare programs which they never benefit from and only support these druggies and anyone else who doesn’t know how to adapt to their environment. So druggies may have a right to life, but everyone else has a right to choose where their money goes. I assure you, not everyone shares your sentiment in bailing-out druggies.

It’s not that hard to verify insurance. Everything is automated these days. Now you’re getting into the details of it. Well, a medical professional knows the difference between someone who is sick from drug abuse, and someone who is not. Does it cost money to run the tests, yes, but a lot less then treating the person.

We’re talking about freedom and hypocrisy here, so all those detailed questions on how it would work are irrelevant for this conversation.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@garb None of the medical professionals I’ve run into seem to be able to tell if someone is a drug user right from looking at them. And I have worked in a few doctors offices. It’s actually quite a time-consuming process to verify insurance. And tests can often cost several times the amount of the treatment. Yeah, the details matter when setting out rules.

garb's avatar


I’m for individualism over collective. You want to show compassion, be my guest, but do it with your own wallet. Freedom of choice, right? This freedom shouldn’t stop when it comes to someone’s money.

I don’t mind having my kids see druggies rotting on the street because it teaches them valuable life lessons.

Aethelflaed's avatar

That hate is more powerful than love?

garb's avatar

There is a difference between killing someone and watching someone get killed. One is murder, the other is not.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@garb Taking actions that prevent that person from getting the help they need to continue living hardly constitutes just watching. And all that needs to happen for evil to reign is for good people to do nothing.

garb's avatar

What actions? Actually, I’m reinstated freedom of choice and removing force. Now individuals can choose freely if they want to help druggies with their health problems, and if they don’t that is their freedom of choice. So No, I don’t equate that to killing someone. The druggies killed themselves with drug abuse.

One cannot ask for freedom to do drugs if you deny others the freedom of choice, especially when it comes to their money. This is hypocrisy.

garb's avatar

The consequence of restricting freedom of choice is big and is being neglecting. Social institutions such as welfare allow druggies and anyone else who is incapable of adapting to survive, and reproduce at levels faster then those who are capable of adapting to their environment. This in turn causes a society of quantity, not quality. A society filled with maladaptive people instead of adaptive people.

It’s like the Spartans VS The Persians.You had 300 men of quality nearly annihilate the entire Persian army (quantity).

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

You can’t possibly have what you want @garb unless your last name is Gadhafi. You don’t even realize what you ask.

The rights of society trump the rights of @garb. As a member of that society, you are not in complete control of how your money is spent. A portion will build the roads you drive on and keep the national parks clean for everyones benefit… not just yours.

Some of your money pays for the street cleaners to drive by twice a month. You don’t get to chose certain programs and reject others under a cry of “individual freedom” over society benefit. Shall we not have the streets cleaned? Shall you justify dirty streets as a lesson to teach your child not to litter?

Same for sick people. Shall we pick trash off the street yet not sick humans? What lessons will your child learn from that nonsense?

garb's avatar


I know how it is, i’m telling you how I want it to be. Individual should come before collective. Roads can be built by the market. Streets can be cleaned by the market.

There is a difference between paying for a service you want & pay for it only when you need it, rather then paying for one you don’t want, paying for others, and paying for it constantly.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I know how you want it to be. I’m saying it can’t be that way unless your last name is Gadhafi.

Can you pay for your own road @garb? How will “the market” build you a road?

garb's avatar

Boy are we jumping topics here. Now we going into economics? I’ll just answer you in simple terms. Entrepreneurs and consumers. Well defined property rights. Contracts. Supply and demand. That’s all you need for roads to be built and maintained.

There is only one thing that the government can do better that the market, force. Meaning, the government is more efficient at preventing people from killing each other and violating each others properties. Technically, the market can be efficient as well, but there has to be an moral uplifting.

It can be that way, and it was that way before the social welfare programs came in, but i’m not even going there now. Too much arguing. It’s hopefully heading that way anyway. People are getting tired of all the social welfare programs, hence the government cuts, hence the tax cuts.

You’re either consistent in your freedom or you’re a hypocrite. That’s the way I see it.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Put your thinking cap on.

You contract for a road in front of your house because you need to drive to work. But I’m your neighbor… and I work from home and ride a bike everywhere else. I don’t want a road and don’t pay for it. So whatever your contract says… the road ends at my property line.

You contract for trash cleanup because you want to keep property value up and the smell to a minimum. But I as your neighbor like the smell of stench and love the landfill look. Your property value doesn’t look so good now… no matter what your contract says or how clean you keep your yard.

I don’t know where you’re from… but on planet Earth, the rights of an individual do not trump the benefit of a global society.

As I said before… Freedom has a price.

garb's avatar


As I said, I’m not looking to start arguing economics. It’s a long discussion, and I had way to many of them already. I didn’t even expect to argue here. Just wanted to say my piece. The market can handle all the issues you presented. If you really interested in how, then read some of Murray Rothbards books.

I don’t care about the benefit of the global society. I care about myself, and whoever I choose to care about, family, friends, etc… That’s it. Individual > collective.

For the sake of avoiding arguments, i’ll answer you as follows. Will comes before rationality. Will is more important then rationality. Meaning is given based upon one’s will. I willed individualism over collective, and that’s that.

I don’t care about someone’s education, health, whatever. What’s yours is yours, what is mine is mine, not what is yours is mine, and what is mine is yours.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

We’re not arguing economics. We’re arguing personal freedom vs the good of society.

@garb “The market can handle all the issues you presented.”

Please illustrate how the market will address “the issues” I “presented”. Just those two… the road that ends at my property, and the trash pile that lowers your property value. There are countless more. But just address those two.

garb's avatar


Everything can be put into the realm of economics. Semantics.

I told you, i’m not interested in this discussion. Firstly, because I think it’s off-topic, and secondly, because i don’t want to re-argue these points, especially when it’s all written up in book already. If you geniunely interested to how the market handles everything, then as I said, read some Murray Rothbard books.

I give you a much simpler answer that avoids arguments. My will triumphs everything. The end.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

You’re not interested because you can’t defend your claims… desires… your will.

You made the claim here. I expect you to defend it here. I shall not be sent on a wild goose chase to settle an argument with shallow and selfish idealism.

And the only reason you’re talking economics is to divert the discussion away from the real matter at hand… which is… personal freedom vs the good of society.

Back up your smack.

garb's avatar

Well you’re going to have to deal with my freedom of choice of not wanting to defend my claim. Can you handle that?

Yes, there is no place for idealism, which is why it’s pointless to argue about this stuff. The practical is what is important (wealth, power). Well for me, anyways.

I told you my opinion on personal freedom vs the good of society. I’m a social Darwinist. I’m a hedonist, and materialist. Does that some it up for you?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

We know what you are and what you believe. You’ve made that clear.

We also know you can’t support your beliefs beyond the statement. You’ve made that clear.

garb's avatar

No beliefs can be supported. A basic lesson in epistemology will teach you that.

This right here is language game.

And why is the objective to support my beliefs when I can just follow my will? And you’re mistake, this can easily be achieved on a practical level. You put a guy like Ron Paul in office, and you’ll be seeing social Darwinism at its finest.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@garb I can see your point, and I can see their point. When the EMT shows up to see someone who tumbled down the stairs it would be hard to know if it was a seizure, too stoned, or some stoke or something.

The way to handle that, is if the person test with drugs in their system once they get to the ER they get their wages attached, and a lien slapped on them. If they win more than $600 dollars, in a lotto, the state takes it until they are square again. If they have a job, a portion of that paycheck goes to paying pack the state. If they have property a lien gets slapped on it so if they try to sell, get a loan, etc, they have to pay off the lien 1st. Those who want to do drugs and not have those risk can take out Stoner Insurance, I am sure some company will underwrite, then if they end up in the ER because of their drug use, their insurance will pay for it and not the tax payers. Problem solved.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Hide behind your will all you wish @garb. If you don’t support your argument, even upon the simplest request, then you live in a shack of personal truth.

Even Ron Paul can explain the “why” and “how” of what he stands for. He doesn’t change the subject, nor does he hide behind shortsighted views of epistemology. He doesn’t play language games either. That’s why he has my vote.

You @garb have no teeth. You’re all lip smack. I trust that no form of Darwinism can survive without teeth. I trust your kind of thought will become extinct by your own undoing.

garb's avatar

I think you assume I’m trying to convince you of beliefs, which is why you’re so fixated on facts and fictions. Well I’m not trying to convince you. Does that clear things up?

What’s wrong with living in a shack of personal truth?

I’m surprised to see you vote for Paul especially when he champions individualism over collectives.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

A shack of personal truth lacks supporting walls and the deep seated foundation necessary for survival and stability. It is not surrounded by other truths. It blows down under the slightest tremor put upon it. It cannot last. It stands alone.

But a house of truth has many rooms. They are covered under one roof and the walls between them support the overall purpose of uplifting truth. The rooms may be different, but the differences all share the same foundation. The deepest most inner rooms of truth are the best supported and protected… far away from the shack.

No… I don’t think you’re trying to convince me. If that were so, you’d address my specific questions directly, sans the need to avoid them completely while cleverly moving the goal posts to politics and economy to divert the issue.

Your world view will die specifically because your Social Darwinism will not see it fit for living.

garb's avatar

But i’m alright with personal truths and I don’t mind the potential consequences of my will.
If what you said were true, then I wouldn’t be surviving right now since I rely only on my will alone.

And it’s not that I cannot support my claims, it’s that I don’t want to argue. Arguing is only valuable if I want to convince you, but I don’t want to convince you, so what is the point? And why retype arguments that have been already covered in various books?

Now that you wrote this vague theory, are you capable of putting your theory into practice, or are you guilty of idealism too?

I don’t quite see how cutting off support for maladaptive people will cause instability for me? Maybe people will get violent, but that’s what wars are for, and after war, you still have the winners and losers. The maladaptive and adaptive.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

You’re arguing about arguing… but you don’t want to argue.

@garb “I don’t quite see how cutting off support for maladaptive people will cause instability for me?”

Will you release criminals from prison? Will you release lunatics from the bin? They are “maladaptive” and you do support them. For one who lives in an unstable shack of truth, perhaps “instability” has a different meaning for you. You’ll allow my personal freedom to keep trash in my yard and and lower your property value. You’ll let your child grow up in a world where criminals, lunatics, and addicts roam the streets. If that’s not instability, then what is?

garb's avatar


Criminals from prison wouldn’t end up in prison, they would end up dead as it was before. Some criminal tries to steal something off of you, or from your house, you shoot the criminal in the head. You defend yourself.

Lunatics from the bin would die out quickly because they wouldn’t know how to adapt to their environment.

Addicts would too die out quickly for failure to adapt.

It’s your responsibility to teach your children the skills necessary for adaption. You should really watch the movie 300.

It’s a natural process. This way you will end up with quality, not quantity. As I gave the example of 300 Spartans (quality) V.S 300,000 Persians (quantity).

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I don’t let Hollywood romanticize my world view.

Are you suggesting there were no criminals, lunatics or addicts in ancient times?

garb's avatar


Well if not hollywood, then read the history of it.

There were, and will always be, but let the organic environment handle it, not a planned system.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

So just let nature remove the trash from the streets? Our neighborhoods become landfills on the basis of allowing the “organic environment handle it”?.

I thought you said the “maladaptive” would all just “die out quickly”?.

But now you say they “will always be” regardless…

Please make up your mind.

garb's avatar

I don’t care how it works out. The consistency of freedom comes first.

As Benjamin Franklin put it, “he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”

There would always be some form of mutation, but either that would adapt or not. The important part is not to preserve bad traits, or you will have a society filled with the mentally ill.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I consider it a “bad trait” to be of the mind set that criminals, lunatics, and addicts can roam the streets… and neighborhoods can become landfills… all for the false banner of freedom. You are correct. That world view should not be preserved.

As to mutation… You’ll find no support in a biological model. Every cell has specific instruction from the genetic code as to what it is and how it assists the body as a whole. Those cells that don’t follow their genetic instructions are called cancerous. ANY CELL which goes against its programming is a cancerous cell. ANY CELL that does not fulfill its duty to the body is an errant mutation. No cell stands alone.

garb's avatar

Great, jump into the details of another topic. Well I disagree, and I’ll leave it at that.

Why are you so bent up on proving things right and wrong? Are you trying to convince me?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

And “that” is why your world view is deemed unfit for survival.

garb's avatar

It’s alright to try and reinstate it though.

The principles of darwinism still apply. You still have the maladaptive and adaptive. No equality. You can try all you want. There will always be a hierarchy. You have 48.5% of the American population on welfare (the maladaptive) and then you have the other half, the non-recipients (the adaptive).

Pay attention to where the world is heading. One gigantic collapse. So much for planned systems.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I don’t think it’s alright for cancer to “try and reinstate” itself upon the body. But you’re right. It probably will.

Sure there is hierarchy… just like cells in the body have different roles to play. But they all serve the body first and foremost. Those that don’t, are removed with painful therapies.

And when a foreign agent (outside influence) makes some cells sick… the healthy ones don’t decide to kill them. The healthy cells rally to remove the sickness… not the sick.

garb's avatar

Nice theories, but not practical.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@garb “Nice theories, but not practical.”

You’re talking about mutations and dawinian social modelling. What I’ve stated is very practical because it is the absolute truth that you cannot refute. You may reject it out of ignorance, or stubbornness, or greed, or selfishness… but you cannot refute it with any logic beyond your shack of false truths.

@garb “Why are you so bent up on proving things right and wrong? Are you trying to convince me?”

Because some things like your world view are wrong, and cancerous. I don’t need to convince you of that. You can’t support it. You can keep saying it. But you can’t support it, nor address my concerns of it.

garb's avatar

You keep forgetting that it doesn’t matter how it ought to be in theory, it’s not like that in practice.

Someone has to be willing to play by your rules. I’m not. I’m apathetic to your criterion’s.
You cannot account for that, other then to say I’m wrong, but one has to care for it make an impact. You don’t know how to handle selfishness and apathy.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@garb “I’m apathetic to your criterion’s”

You say that now. But just a moment ago you hailed mutation and darwinian social modeling as the criterion to use. But finding that you cannot refute my explanation of how mutations and darwinian theory operate, you now reject your own original criterion.

Double talk.

@garb “Someone has to be willing to play by your rules. I’m not.”

I don’t make the rules for society. I follow them. You don’t. Who’s the cancer?

@garb “You cannot account for that other then say I’m wrong, but one has to care for it make an impact.”

Read above. I addressed every situation you brought up with great detail. I did much more than simply say you’re wrong. I compared your position with the truth of your own criterion. Noting that, it is plain to see your world view is unfit for survival. Simple math.

@garb “You don’t know how to handle selfishness and apathy.”

I don’t, but the darwinian model does. Selfishness is rewarded by extinction. Societies flourish when balance is maintained. Resources must be utilized effectively… not selfishly.

And as to apathy… well… Evolution abhors apathy because nature loves courage… not apathy, not greed, not selfishness, and especially not narcissistic shortsightedness.

garb's avatar


That’s my opinion, it’s not an absolute truth, like you claim yours to be.

Yes, most sheep follow the herd which is led by the Shepherd.

If what you said were true, then I should be extinct. I should be on the bottom of the food/money chain, but I’m on top of it.

Wall street should be on the bottom, yet it’s on top.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Being extinct, and being on your way towards extinction are different things.

What does society benefit from anyone on top of the “food/money chain” and holds your world view? Any mutation that is not beneficial to the greater body… dies.

garb's avatar

I never said society will benefit. I told you individualism > collective.

Again if what you said were true, those on top of the food/money chain should be long gone, yet it always exists.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@garb “I never said society will benefit.”

Again, anything that does not benefit the body will die… or kill the body with it. That’s what the darwinian model is based upon.

@garb “I told you individualism > collective.”

Then retract your darwinian social model as support for your position.

@garb “if what you said were true, those on top of the food/money chain should be long gone, yet it always exists in different forms.”

Every cell has a different role to play. The Gadhafi Narcissist cells are indeed dying out rapidly. The Wall Street/Banker crowd will take note and adapt, or die out as well. Surely the tremors of revolution cannot be denied. Surely it may survive… but not for long in its present form. Its only chance for long term survival is to prove to the rest of the body that it is beneficial somehow.

garb's avatar

Social Darwinism is survival of the fittest, so i don’t see how it’s about collectives over individualism. Quite the opposite.

There will be revolutions, but you end up with the same result. You will still have the people on top of the food/money chain that don’t benefit society. Governments do nothing. People continue to die and suffer. Inequality continues to exist.

Just curious, what’s your financial situation? Because I find that people who support collectives are the very same people who struggle with adapting to their environment. You will find them to always be at the bottom or middle of the food/money chain.

Why do you think history keeps repeating itself. Why do you think market psychology is so effective. It’s vicious cycles.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@garb “I told you individualism > collective.”

You just put your narcissistic elitism in the same league as criminals and addicts. They all place a higher value on individualism than the benefit of the collective. Nice crowd you’re running with.

@garb “Social Darwinism is survival of the fittest, so i don’t see how it’s about collectives over individualism. Quite the opposite.”

Darwinist is about the survival of a species… not an individual. That’s why Darwin named the book Origin of Species and not Origin of Me.

@garb “There will be revolutions, but you end up with the same result.”

Tell that to the Civil Rights Movement, or the Feminists, or the Gay Rights Movement. Things have changed for the better for them. Evolution and Darwinian models only work with change. Apathy and stagnation are the enemies of Darwinism. That which does not evolve… dies.

@garb “Why do you think history keeps repeating itself. Why do you think market psychology is so effective.”

Novelty Theory. It overthrows corrupt Dictators and changes everything for the better when Novelty reaches a boiling point… and things cannot go on as they did before for one second longer. Over time, the cancer returns, secretively, deceptively, until Novelty throws it down again.

Novelty appears at exponentially faster rates throughout history. The cycles are coming quicker and quicker, and will continue to do so now that the common man has access to global communication for establishing revolution. We have crossed into the age of the Petabyte, where Google, Youtube, and Wiki Leaks are making it much easier to access the truth of any given situation. Novelty is on the rise and there is nothing that can stop it. Narcissist beware.

garb's avatar

Maybe I used the wrong label then. Is survival of the fittest the right label?

It’s amazing how little practicality you have in your theories. Are you going to answer my question or not? What is your position on the food/money chain? I think you’re all lip smack.

There was another guy who was talking about his theories, how things are and ought to be, but on the practical level, he was an unemployed, dirt poor teacher that consumed welfare benefits. No one valued anything he had to say other then some internet followers. No practical application.

So do you value being poor and wise?

garb's avatar

I suppose I should reverse your question to me back at you. How do druggies/poor people benefit society other then being a massive burden?

deni's avatar

This has gotten really dull for everyone else on this thread, I think. It was a good question to begin with…...

@garb People who have medical marijuana licenses in states that it is legal in really stimulate the economy…........

garb's avatar


I never gave an opinion against the point you brought up….

deni's avatar

@garb I didn’t say it was, but in your post above mine you asked the question that I answered. If pot was legal (and nothing else) our economy would be soooo much better off. Think of taking away all the money spent on alcohol. That’s what we’re losing right now with weed being illegal.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@garb What better practicality than reality? Cancerous genes are challenged by healthy ones… Cancerous memes are challenged by healthy ones. Your world view chases its own tail attempting to eat itself. What can eat itself and live?

Why would you assume me poor and wise? Are you psychic?

garb's avatar

Dodging my questions again? See…you’re all talk. An idealist. If you want to talk about reality then answer my questions. These are practical questions, not theory.

I knew you wouldn’t give me an answer because that would be proving my point. The most selfish thing people can do is preach a system of dependency (collectivism) when they’re failing to survive in their environment. They’re putting their own selfish needs above others.

Why do they do this? Because poor, disabled, sick, mentally ill, and druggies have no value. They can only be a burden. They benefit no one. The same exact thing you excuse wall street of.

You do realize most cancer patients don’t survive the cancer, and even when they do survive it, it comes back in a different form.

I didn’t assume, I asked… Dodge more.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

“What is your position on the food/money chain?”

I’m not sure what you mean by that… my position? Are you asking where I am on the chain? Or how I feel about the chain? My position?

“Just curious, what’s your financial situation?”

Related to the other question? I hope this is what you’re talking about.

I’ve operated a successful photography business for the past thirty years.
I’ll leave it to you to decide my financial position. Just know that I’m in want of nothing.

But if you’re asking my feelings about it… I see it as a chain… where every link is important. Taking a link out doesn’t help the chain… It breaks it.

I work with Philanthropists on their pet projects. These are super rich folks at the top of the chain… the very top. They create institutions for helping battered women, educating low income teens, rehabilitating the homeless and drug addicts to become contributing members of society. It could be as simple as reading a book with a child who’s parents don’t know how to. They change the world for the better. They are not narcissists concerned only with themselves.

One of my favorite projects is photographing orphaned children. Adoption rates go up when the child has a quality photographic album in their file. A silly little thing like good pictures of smiling kids can increase their odds of adoption.

I hope this is what you meant. Let me know if I’ve missed anything.

Now when shall I expect an answer to my original questions as to how you’ll take care of the trash and lacking road at your neighbors property line?

garb's avatar

Wow, way to gear your answer for the theme of threads question, bravo.

You’re not in want of nothing. You obviously bought a computer and pay for internet access so you can come on here to argue and hopefully convince someone of your ways either by dismantling his/her way, or by making yours more appealing.

Funny, I’ve been surrounded by rich people all my life, now as well, and whenever they donated any money to charity it was so they can write it off on taxes. There were a few who preached systems that are about collectivism, and that is because they would easily rule those systems since they have a head start with all their current wealth accumulation. Then you have those that don’t do any philanthropy at all, even for tax purposes, because they see no future for maladaptive people even when rewarding their failures with food/money. I mean look at Africa, they get billions of dollars a year, and it’s still one of the worst places on earth, and look at all the billions put into welfare, yet you have 5th generation welfare recipients, and look at all the billions in education, you still have a myriad of those who continue to fail and drop out. It’s just quantity, not quality. Given these personal experiences, i’m very skeptical of your answer.

Fine, i’ll answer your original questions, but i expect you to hold your word on leaving it at these two points.

You started off with the exception to the rule, but ask yourself how railroads,communication (pipes, wires) were built without issue? If you don’t want to allow roads on your property, then they will contact the next land owners. Keep in mind, that allowing a road to pass on your property is a cash cow. So a land owner has an incentive to do so, of course he/she will have to give up on say quietness, but that’s where market pricing comes in given proper “compensation” they would agree.

Have you heard of saying that ones man trash is another mans treasure? There is money to be made in garbage collection. That’s a simple economical fact and because on one hand you have property owners and likes who want to dispose of it and on another hand you have entrepreneurs seeking to extract profit from it, you have a market.

Keep in mind, at the end of the day, each person needs to eat, and to provide for that he/she has to utilize whatever resources he/she has, be it land, money, hands or talent
again, your thinking off bases and using extreme examples. People did sell their lands to railroad companies.

garb's avatar

There are a lot of theories as to why we changed from the way it was to the way it is now. Why my thoughts are “extinct” as you call it, which is not true either.

Anyway, one theory is that people get lazy and accoustomed to certain material leval after a while. They start taking shit for granted. Think it’s given to them. so when shit hits the fan, they start crying and want their stuff returned, so being only humans, they look for easy ways out (i.e. without pain and suffering) and they run to their politicians, who in turn only too happy to sell free lunch to get reelected

Another theory, is that as conditions swing, new intellectual ideas arise to explain shit and to provide solutions rather then letting giving the market some time to adjust and deal with the problem.

So on one hand, we have human nature with all its weaknesses, i.e. desire to have something for nothing, and to live better, and on another hand we have ever evolving intellectual climate. We also have influence of industry, lobbying,

It was on the second half of 20th century that we saw a major shift towards socialism thinking.

Also, you need to view intelectual climate through prism of major historical events, such as wars and depression. Keep in mind that great depression was considered by contemporaries as a major failure of free market capitalism, hence a major reversal and reaction against it, in intelectuals and regular people. It’s only much later, true causes of great depression were researched, but even to this day there are different school of though on the topic. For instance if you ask monetarists (aka friedmanites) they’ll give you one explanation. If you ask austrians or Rothbard in particular you’ll get completely different explanation and yet Keinsians (Krugman) will offer yet another explanation. and since they all differer in causes they automatically differ in solutions.

Alright I’m done, this opens up too many channels for arguing. Knowing you, you’re going to want to argue every point.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

As to the OP… I think we agree that all drugs should be legal. And every person should be held accountable to their own actions. We only disagree how to deal with the fallout of that.

I believe that humanitarian efforts to rehabilitate are beneficial to society… and thereby beneficial to the individual. Perhaps the free market could find incentive to keep the streets clean of both refuse and human garbage alike… I don’t know. But it must be done in some form or another. Otherwise everyone else’s individual freedom is compromised with a lowered quality of life.

Whether the not for profits are genuine or trickery can only be determined by audit. Not all pursue humanitarian efforts just for tax breaks.

Regardless of our further disagreements, you may have the last word.

garb's avatar

No need, I’ve said what needed to be said. It’s the antithesis of your perspectives.

Atoic_mess10's avatar

I don’t think drugs should be legalized for one for killings may occur due to drug lords loosing buisness and you have heroine crack and all of those that will be in questioned as well

TexasDude's avatar

@Atoic_mess10 implying there isn’t a huge volume of killing already…

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

nice catch @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard . way to not let it end there.

Crashsequence2012's avatar


I have more respect for the terminal drunk enduring the terrible weather in his refrigerator box than the jobless pothead who believes he is superior to sherry drinkers and blathers on about hemp “facts” from his mom’s basement sofa.

What were we just talking about?

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther