>druglord poisons the supply, infecting drug users all across the world with a killing disease and orders the American president to legalize all drug trade
>president says "Fuck that, let the druggies die", opens up a bottle of whiskey to celebrate the end of War on Drugs
>is portrayed as the bad guy because "muh people who were just experimenting and working long hours"
What a disgustingly degenerate movie.
I fucking hate this entire "let's normalize drug use" shit (((they))) are pushing.
Every time we ban a harmful substance, we end up worsening the problem.
>Morphine addiction problems? No worries! Here's some Heroin!
More Americans died of drug overdose in 2016 than all American casualties of the Vietnam war.
whats wrong with choosing what u put in your body?
Eventually choice disappeares with addiction
The first one was a 2 hour buttsex propaganda flick, what exactly were you expecting?
And as long as it is illegal, instead of getting help for addiction problems, they suffer in silence because they're afraid they'll get prosecuted and lose their rights.
Because if you put drugs in your body, you are - at best - a useless and unproductive piece of shit, while at worst you're a murdering drug-addicted animal.
In either case, the society does not benefit from you, but you remain dependent on it.
You want to "experiment", build a hut in a forest somewhere then opiate yourself to death for all I care, but don't expect me to pay your treatment bills or tolerate you acting like a lunatic in public.
I care about what you put inside your body, because I'm sharing the fragile remnants of civilization with the likes of you. So don't pretend like your stupid decision and hedonistic tendencies don't affect me. Or are you too high to even consider that for a minute?
reminder
SAGE Sup Forums posts
HIDE Sup Forums posts
REPORT Sup Forums posters
Yeah, I can understand Sup Forums deleting Sup Forums posts, but I don't see why Sup Forums can't discuss sociopolitical issues like wide-spread drug use just because the discussion is started with a reference to a movie - a piece of culture, used as a tool of public indoctrination.
This is legit Sup Forums-related, you stupid weasel.
.
>the golden circle
Obvious MI6/CIA circle jerk movie complete with overt occult symbolism and political undertones.
trashman.gif
Have you ever heard of Cluster Headaches? They're also affectionately known as "The Suicide Headache" for reasons you can likely deduce and are considered the most painful thing a human being can experience.
The only effective treatment for these is psilocybin, "magic mushrooms".
MDMA, "ecstasy", is extremely effective for treatment of PTSD and other anxiety conditions.
Do you think we should still have these drugs completely banned and legally prosecute anyone who uses them?
>Have you ever heard of Cluster Headaches?
No, never. And I consider myself quite well-read. This just goes to prove that this is some bullshit outlier condition. And even though I can't say I don't care about people suffering from it, basing our legal systems on exceptional cases is deffinetly not the way to go.
Life is suffering, some just suffer more. I never asked for anyone to provide me with free migraine medication. Deal with it, you bleeding-heart socialist.
I'm more sympathetic towards PTSD cases. I must admit I'm not an expert in the field, but I am absolutely sure this "extremely effective" use of MDMA is not the only option available, and honestly, I don't see how drugging a distressed man is anything but a temporary alleviation of his fucked up mind.
That being said, PTSD cases are still a relative minority, and I've already presented my case on this in the above paragraph.
I'd suggest to look into ways of preventing PTSD from occuring in the first place, not legalizing drugs to provide them with some relief and not fix the underlying issues that keep producing more of these poor souls.
your a fag
And you're fat.
>I fucking hate this entire "let's normalize drug use" shit (((they))) are pushing.
Fair enough, but this shitty movie was a shifty way to push said narrative.
>bad guy pushes drug legalization by threat of terrorism and blackmail
>badshit befalls all drug users, no distinction between addict, functional user, and casual user
>hero of story not showing doing drugs. In fact, you never see the hero drunk (well, maybe one scene). Could make an arguement the hero exhibits moderation.
>hero doesn’t make argument for legalization (could be wrong, only saw movie once)
This movie was not the best of (((their))) propaganda vehicles.
Your ignorance is no indication of the commonality of a condition.
The use of MDMA in PTSD and other anxiety cases is in a theraputic environment. Other illegal drugs like ayahuasca are also very effective for it.
The point isn't that we should base laws on exceptions. The point is that people fucking themselves up on illegal drugs isn't a drug problem so much as an addiction problem.
The overdose problem we're having in North America is, in large part, because the concentration of active ingredients in the illegal drugs is completely unregulated. If someone doses up thinking it's just morphine and it turns out that it's actually fentanyl (or laced with it), then they die. How is that better? Most opiate addicts get addicted to it because they were prescribed morphine, codeine or other opiates by doctors and then resort to street drugs when their prescription runs out.
I'm reading up on this CH condition you mentioned, and here's what I found:
>The cause is unknown. Risk factors include a history of exposure to tobacco smoke and a family history of the condition. Exposures which may trigger attacks include alcohol and nitroglycerin.
The irony just writes itself. You're asking me to feel sympathy for people who cause themselves tremendous pain through abuse of unhealthy substances, and the solution you're offering is... allowing them a less restrictive access to even more unhealthy substances.
Reconsider your values, Maple.
Also, for a dealer to taint their supply with something harmful is one way to lose customers, even if you do have the majority of control over a market. Another shitty aspect of said shitty movie.
Well, they still have to follow certain default rules of writing a story. If they straight-up made the hero a drug user, most people would not like him, and the movie would risk becoming a financial failure.
This did not stop them from making his friends druggies. At least one of them. Who just happened to be a chubby white dolt. Coincidence? Maybe.
People with poor judgement and addictive personalities will fuck themselves up even if they live in a fucking prison. They'll get addicted to gambling or sex or fucking cutting themselves.
Your own brain produces chemicals that are banned in Canada and the US.
>They'll get addicted to gambling or sex or fucking cutting themselves.
Well what do you suggest we do, then?
Impose stricter quality control over drugs and sell them legally, so that limpdicks with a propensity towards addiction can safely satiate their needs? Doesn't sound like a long-term solution. The poor fucks will just increase the dosage gradually. If they don't have the willpower to regulate their intake of substances, their brain sure won't, either.
Why should we disallow everyone who has good judgement, don't easily get addicted to substances and may very well have legitimate medical problems that can be treated with them from using them just because there are people who are too incompetent to manage themselves or their actions?
When you ban things, you're not helping society. You're not helping the addicts who will not longer be able to actually seek help without horrendous legal implications. You're creating a massive black market which can only resort to violence to maintain its "turf" and you create a massive prison industry (Old meme pic related).
It.
Doesn't.
Work.
If a black market develops, that just means law enforcement agencies aren't performing well, and parents aren't educating their children well enough to avoid this shit in the first place.
You cuddle weak-willed people like an over-protective parent. You condone normalization of criminal behavior. And you fail to address the issue of the growth of addiction. A steady, rationed dose won't do for long, and the dosages will inevitably increase as the body adjusts itself to a regular intake of a substance. PTSD and MDMA may not be my fields of expertise, but I'm familiar with the underlying biochemical mechanisms of substance addiction.
In short, your trust in weak-willed, fragile-minded people is very much misplaced. I admire your optimism, but that's about the only positive thing I can say to you.
It's impossible to stop people from doing what they want. Even people in prison still manage to make or acquire illegal drugs in an environment entirely controlled by law enforcement.
What we are doing and what you are condoning is a FUTILE EXERCISE. All it does it worsen the repercussions of addiction, make recuperation for people who have addiction problems itself problematic and concentrates more and more power in the hands of politicians.
I don't trust humans worth shit. I just don't want all of society to be under a jackboot because some fuckwits will huff paint if they "need" to. Let them rot their brains on their own time.
Fine, you tolerant leaf.
Have it your way.
I just hope you'll get to experience the consequences of such a line of though. Maybe not too sever, of course - I'm not an asshole - but just enough to make you reconsider your position.
Just finished the movie, too.
The president was impeached, his position was taken by not-at-all-a-Clinton-clone, a drug user herself, and the anti-hero of the movie, who also tried to stop the antidote from getting delivered, was... minced to pieces. Honestly, this is a death usually reserved for irredeemable villains, not morally-ambiguous characters. Hell, I would have tolerated him getting imprisoned, as that at least would be lawful, but nope, they just minced him to pieces.
I believe the message of the movie is very clear.