Posts by Brandon Castillo4

Chocolate, Coca-Cola 😁—that’s what I heard at least 🙂.

Or maybe it's just one of those classic cases of selective hearing, where people only pick up what they want to believe 😁.

Jamie Rivera78, for crying out loud, you see a conspiracy theory in every single thing. You make it sound like modern medicine is just one big, useless joke. Don't you think you're laying it on a little too thick? 🙄

You hit the nail on the head there. Honestly, you could have just dumped this straight into the Politics section from the jump. It took us some twenty posts or so to finally pivot the whole conversation toward actual political discussion, but at least we eventually landed on arguments like these.

All things considered, solid post.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with people identifying that way, provided it doesn't spiral into actual physical or political conflict. At the end of the day, people just crave that "bread and circuses" kind of escapism.

When I brought up the status of nationalism, I wasn't questioning the concept itself—I was talking about the sheer intensity of that collective consciousness.

And honestly, I couldn't disagree more with the idea that things are worse here than elsewhere. Take a highly developed place like Sweden, for example. During a Sweden-Paraguay match, you'll see at least 50,000 fans out there, and most of them are absolutely hammered.

I really don't think they have anything to do with the vibe in the North America 😁.

Olivia Martinez20 said:Yeah, though honestly, that kind of nationalist folklore in most countries only gets reactivated during the World Cup—it isn't really part of the mainstream otherwise. But in America, it's a constant fixture and part of everyday life (those red, white, and blue patterns are everywhere regardless).

While other groups use the SNP as a platform to vent all that nationalism they can't let loose back home, the American collective just takes whatever they do domestically and transplants it directly into the host country where the tournament is happening.

What I find interesting is this whole "we are playing" concept. Personally, I don't "play," and that automatic group mentality is completely foreign to me—professional athletes are playing, not "us." Collective identity is something that holds zero weight for me compared to my own individual identity.

Look, this boils down to the difference in how nationalism functions in America versus other countries. I think there’s a legitimate reason why national identity feels more vital and emphasized here. That reason is history—specifically the constant oppression America has faced. That’s the root cause of why things are this way, not an excuse, so don't get me wrong. Hate is never justified. But patriotism isn't inherently bad, provided there aren't any hidden agendas lurking underneath.

And as for this "we are playing" thing, I don't even think the people using that phrase identify with the national team as deeply as your post implies. It's more like a stage for venting, a way to experience some sort of artificial, vicarious success. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing either. People love soccer, the World Cup lasts maybe thirty days, games happen once a week (club level), and the rest of the time, people are busy with their own ambitions and priorities. The way you wrote it makes it sound like every single American just sits around staring at a screen doing absolutely nothing😁.
If that were true, it would be tragic. As it stands, it's just a brief distraction fueled by a certain dose of emotion.

Something "sacred" can be family, faith, or love; it can't be a soccer national team or a squad of players. But it can be dear to someone, and people can certainly get emotionally invested, why not?

I'm not one to draw direct parallels between the psychology of warfare and soccer, because at its core, war is an absolute horror show that drags out the absolute best and worst parts of a person. No matter how much pressure players and fans feel during the carnival nationalism of a World Cup, it doesn't even come close to that sense of total helplessness and dread you associate with actual combat.

Secondly, war has massive, direct consequences on the economy, industry, politics—basically every single branch of life. Soccer doesn't work like that. If people don't want to watch, they just don't. There's no systemic collapse if a match goes poorly.

But when you look at those primal instincts—the tribalism, the group identity, the battles—it’s very similar. The big difference is there aren't casualties here, aside from the occasional outbursts of fan violence, which is notoriously difficult to control.

Fortunately, those incidents are outliers. The backbone of a tournament like the World Cup is still built on fair play, peace, respect, and genuine athletic competition.

I wouldn't say it's just the World Cup that shares this link to combat, though. Humans just have this inherent drive to compete. The Olympics are built on that same concept, and even it goes down to kids playing Quake III on a console. The underlying feeling is always the same: competition and the hunger for victory.

The only thing is that in these bigger arenas, you've got nations and symbols involved, which makes sense given it's a global stage.

It’s just bread and circuses. And honestly, it’s better that way.

John Adams4 said:sometimes you just have to make some comparisons to make things clearer

Aha, yeah, that’s crystal clear. 🤣 🤣 Sometimes you gotta. For Christ's sake.

You’re making some seriously stupid comparisons here.

"More people die from smoking" — wow, thanks for the insight, Albert Einstein. DUH. Of course they do, considering more than half the world picks up a pack. That doesn't mean a cigarette is somehow more lethal than heroin. Your whole argument is just laughable.

Obviously, mortality rates spike when you have more people consuming 😵

That's like claiming more people will die in China this year than in Austria. 😵

Olivia Martinez20, once again, I think you’re skillfully shifting all the "blame" onto society or institutions, claiming they didn't inform these poor kids enough, leaving them without a fair choice at the end of the day.

Look, sorry, but to me, that just sounds like you're hunting for an alibi. If kids light up a joint, they already know through peer talk that heroin is a much heavier hitter. They get told. I remember back in fifth grade, I had to give a seminar on drugs. Yeah, a SEMINAR. I was the one presenting to the class, while my Biology teacher spent way more actual hours talking to us about it.

The thing is, what she taught was part of the official school curriculum, so it isn't quite the dark void you're trying to paint. "those poor kids are kept in the dark, so they're forced to..."

Besides, most people aren't starting drugs in fifth grade when they're still goofy kids susceptible to everything. It happens LATER. Much later. And please, don't try to tell me a seventeen-year-old today doesn't know the difference between weed and heroin.

So, sure, I agree with you that proper information is essential, but I don't buy this alibi method where you just pass the buck to "someone else."
I honestly think people are better informed than you're giving them credit for.

Edward Green said:They basically said something more like, "Who cares about junkies, let them rot, I wouldn't even lift a finger to help." Where would you even put them on a scale of morality?

If that’s all they meant, then fine. But I highly doubt people actually think that way; I think they're just enforcing a "ZERO TOLERANCE" policy toward users. Which, honestly, isn't a great way to handle it. You'd be eating those words pretty fast if it were your own kid getting hooked.

because there is a distinction. Not providing info on how different drugs impact you is dangerous in my opinion. Someone could be using something regularly for six months without realizing how bad it is, and then they move on to something way more lethal because they think it's all the same thing.

Information is AVAILABLE. Even today, people who don't know anything about drugs understand the differences. I knew the difference between marijuana and cocaine or heroin when I was 12, and I hadn't even SEEN any of it by then, let alone tried it.

I haven't seen heroin in person once in my entire life.

For a while, I didn't know the chemical makeup, but I knew what stuff did and the consequences involved. I think that's a much more useful approach than just saying, "Don't do that, it's bad." Because if you don't explain *why* it's bad, there's a higher chance someone will just reject that along with everything else they're rejecting during a phase of irrational rebellion against the status quo just because someone told them how to live. At least, that's how it seems to me.

You're drifting a bit too far off track here. It's not like people are so uneducated that they have NO CLUE what's going on. And drug use doesn't just come from pure rebellion; there are plenty of other factors at play.

I was only drawing a parallel in the sense that these are all things that cause harm. People know they are harmful and they do them anyway, so they need medical care, the costs of which are mostly covered by Medicare. But here, some people have gotten really worked up about the idea that their money is going toward a specific group—addicts—who consciously start something with health consequences. Meanwhile, the fact that it also covers everyone else is apparently no big deal. To me, it's a lot easier to start eating healthy than it is to get off heroin.

I agree, and well put. But you still can't draw a parallel between addicts and alcoholics versus people who eat junk food or smoke cigarettes.

Fine, let's take it to the extreme then. Let's say people living in major cities like Chicago are consciously breathing in smog, and since they didn't move out of the city when they knew it would screw them over, it's their own fault.

You have to draw a line somewhere. But when we're talking about who "DESERVES HEALTHCARE" and who doesn't, there's no debate—EVERYONE deserves it, regardless of income, gender, age, race, sexual orientation, or medical history.

Edward Green said:The sentiment some people have expressed here is that the ideal state for an addict isn't "harm reduction"—it's death. Because even if they get clean, they’ll be totally burned out, so why bother? Or that the government should just fund a "golden silence."

You don't have to be an ultra-liberal to not want someone dead. And frankly, I mean almost immediately.
I don't think the issue is how much freedom you believe in; it's the sheer amount of hate being spewed.

I usually try not to hedge my bets just to make a point, but I have to step in here, simply because I DISAGREE.
It's not that I want anyone to die, nor do I think someone "deserves" it just because they used drugs. But there is a massive difference between years of drug abuse, alcoholism, systematic self-destruction, and something like a car accident or lung cancer—and yeah, even though lung cancer is caused by cigarettes, there's a huge distinction based on the specific fallout drugs and alcohol leave behind on a person. It's far more destructive than smoking.

Of course, these people need help. Harm reduction is one way to go, but in my view, it only works when combined with something that progressively pushes the individual toward getting off the needle. Step by step, but steady.

Edward Green said:I don't recall anyone actually saying that.

Maybe not directly, but reading all this counter-moralizing is just exhausting.
Do you honestly think Olivia Martinez20 was being a "fake moralist" when she basically said these people are at the bottom of the social ladder because they claimed "who cares about addicts, we have bigger problems in society"?

I think people should reflect on how rapidly their opinions would shift if it were someone they actually loved. At the same time, I don't think counter-moralizing under the guise of being "ultra-liberal" solves anything.
It just deepens the hole. I’ve written about this before: you have to strike at the core of the problem, always.

Olivia Martinez20 said:This is just another one of those tornado-style generalizations. While it's true nobody stumbles into addiction by accident, it's not true that everyone falls into it fully aware of the risks. Drug education in America is basically built on old wives' tales rather than scientific facts, and prevention programs basically boil down to scaring kids with the "bogeyman" version of drugs.

You're wrong. Either you didn't finish your thought or you completely missed the point.

So, what, the person using drugs isn't to blame because "drug education" isn't adequate?
I've never jumped off a building, and I've never downed a whole bottle of Vim or Clorox from the bathroom cabinet. And I don't know what would *scientifically* happen if I did. I just know I'd die. That's enough reason for me not to try.

Your argument doesn't hold water. Education is one part of prevention, but I don't see why an elementary school kid needs to learn the nuanced differences between the effects of various pills, coke, or heroin.

Would you show your own kid drugs as a "boogeyman," or would you educate them to the level of Uber so they know the chemical composition of every single piece of crap out there? I don't get it.

Look, I think it’s already been made pretty clear in this thread: people aren't all cut from the same cloth. We don't all live the same lives, we don't have the same access to the facts, and honestly, not everyone has the capacity to make a truly informed decision. Some people just can't. It isn't just about information, either. Not everyone possesses the same level of willpower or the sheer strength of character required to pull things together. Let's be real—not everyone was dealt a hand they would have actually wanted.

Look, I’m not saying that. I never said I was sitting here judging some guy for relapsing or falling back into drug use. That’s not my style. It’s just that I can't bring myself to point a finger at someone for something that could easily happen to me, or to someone I actually care about. Life is messy like that.

Look, even if you say they’re "to blame"—even if they walked right into it with their eyes wide open knowing exactly what was coming—that doesn't change a damn thing for me. In my book, at least, that doesn't make them any less valuable. Period. I need some help here. Anyone got a second? Or maybe we should just turn our backs on them entirely, instead of wasting any energy trying to judge them.

Exactly. HELP. Look, I’ll say it again: everyone here has a different vision of how to fix this. Most people have already conveniently washed their hands of the whole thing by dismissing addicts as if they’re just "their own fault." They write them off immediately to clear their conscience. I don't buy that. I don't think they are "guilty" in the way people want to frame it. But they are responsible. There’s a massive difference. Being responsible means they need help—real, direct, hands-on help. It shouldn't be as simple as providing some supervised injection sites and then checking a box to say, "Okay, my job is done, problem solved." That’s lazy, and it doesn't work.

So, we're talking about going straight for the jugular. Taking it right to the core.

Look, I can disagree with something. I can be personally against an idea, sure. But judging everyone else just because they don't see it my way? That's where people lose the plot. The life choices they've made. Honestly, I see this as nothing more than a pathetic attempt to stroke someone's ego and manufacture a sense of false superiority. Look, I’m completely against smoking while pregnant—period. But my upbringing and just plain old common sense tell me not to sit here and judge a mother-to-be for lighting up. What are her circumstances? Why hasn't she been able to quit? I don't know, and frankly, I can't pretend to know.

Look, buddy, I’ll be blunt. Choosing to work in woodworking? That’s a legitimate life path. Deciding to spend your days working a parking lot shift? Sure, that's a choice you can make. Even dedicating your life to studying bugs? Fine, whatever, that's a calling. But drugs? Drugs aren't a lifestyle choice. They're just a dead end.

Look, if someone makes a choice in the moment, sure—that’s one thing. But this? This isn't a conscious decision where they walk away feeling satisfied with the outcome. It’s different. They didn't choose this; they were dragged into it. It happens slowly, creeping up on you, just like everything else in life. But make no mistake, they are trapped. And unless they actually find the willpower to step up and demand change, they’re going to need serious help to break free from it.

I think it’s a massive mistake to try and equate drug use with smoking cigarettes or eating junk food just because people love using that "it all kills you anyway" logic. Sure, we hear stories about how smoking cuts seven years off your life—whether that's actually true or just some statistic peddled by health lobbyists doesn't really matter to me. But look at the reality on the ground. A cigarette isn't going to push someone to the edge of existence or drive them straight into a life of crime. Having two beers after work isn't going to do that either. There is a massive, fundamental difference between grabbing a couple of brews and being forced into a lifestyle of desperation. Two beers and a quick jog hit your system differently than hard drugs ever will. It's not even a fair comparison.

Olivia Martinez20 said:Look, you can't lecture people or judge them and expect anything good to come of it. All you’re doing is deepening the stigma and killing any chance of actual cooperation. If you want proof, just look at the addiction prevention programs here in the States. They’re built entirely on that kind of condescending, moralizing attitude, and the results speak for themselves—they're a total failure. We’re seeing about 15% more kids experimenting with drugs every single year because of this exact approach. It's basic math.

When people start talking down to you in an argument, it’s not even a discussion anymore. It’s just condescension. At that point, the dialogue breaks down completely, and I’m right there with you on that—it's a total split. But honestly, I’m struggling to wrap my head around this whole idea that drugs need to be "demystified" or "destigmatized." What exactly is the goal there?

Does being better informed actually lead to fewer people taking the same thing? It’s a fair question. I’ve been thinking about this lately—whether more knowledge really results in less conformity. Usually, you'd assume that once people actually wrap their heads around the facts, they stop following the herd. But is that always how it plays out in reality? I'm curious if we're looking at a shift toward individual choice or if people just find new ways to cluster together under different labels.

I wouldn't bet my life on it. Honestly, this supposed "lack of information" isn't nearly as widespread as you’re making it out to be. Kids these days actually get it—they know drugs are something to stay far away from. By the time they hit their early teens, they understand the *why* behind it and what the actual consequences look like. I really don't see where this "uninformed" narrative is coming from.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being conservative and standing against drugs, prostitution, or whatever else. Look, different perspectives are more than welcome in any debate, and frankly, I agree with most of what you just said.

That was the response to my post. Just that. And I completely agree. It is NOT bad to be conservative or to hold people to high standards, which is why your comment about "condemning someone to the bottom of the ladder" rubbed me the wrong way. But, I realize now you were actually referring to this specific group:

But it is a sin to be a hypocrite who sits safely in a soft armchair, hidden behind a veil of anonymity, telling people in desperate, life-altering situations—whose lives you clearly don't know or understand—that they deserve to "waste away" simply because it's "their own fault."

Now, that? That truly is a sin.

Dennis said:Why even bother posting when you clearly have no clue what you're talking about?

Have you ever actually looked at a mortality chart regarding opioid overdose rates?

At the top of the list, you've got CIGARETTES, then ALCOHOL, and heroin doesn't even hit the top three.

Maybe it's because a massive number of people smoke, whereas heroin users represent a much smaller percentage of the population?
So, you're telling me cigarettes are more lethal than heroin? Go back and actually read what I wrote; maybe it'll click. If not, well, screw it.

🙄

Scarlet Rose said:I honestly don't get it. If you’re going to go through all the trouble of being "proactive," why bother if you aren't actually doing any real prevention? It feels like a complete waste of breath. You're making all this noise about staying ahead of things, but then you skip the actual work that matters. What's the point of all that posturing if you aren't following through with the real deal?

Look, there’s a massive difference between what we're talking about here. Are we actually trying to stop people from getting hooked in the first place? Or is this just some reactive, damage-control bullshit where we try to lower the body count of addicts dropping dead from overdoses? One is actual prevention; the other is just cleaning up the mess after the damage is already done.

Look, let’s call this what it actually is. This isn't some "preventative measure" or a way to head off trouble before it starts. It's something else entirely. Damage control. That’s all this is. They’re scrambling to fix a mess they created themselves, trying to spin a disaster into something that looks like an "unforeseen complication." It’s pathetic, really. I’ve seen this play out a thousand times—from local politics in Chicago to the biggest corporate scandals on Wall Street. You break something, you realize people are actually paying attention, and suddenly everyone is suddenly very concerned about "accountability" and "transparency." Give me a break. It’s just damage control.

And now... someone’s getting high in that high-security room.
Is anyone actually going to suggest he goes to rehab?
Or they'll just shoot at each other in peace and nobody’s going to ask any damn questions.
And even if someone actually had the guts to ask him straight up—wouldn't that just piss him off enough to make him finally stop showing his face around here? 😁

This is actually a solid point. We’re talking about real prevention here, not just creating some "safe space" where people can sit around and fixate on their issues. It needs to be handled in a way that actually works psychologically—meaning we stay away from the heavy-handed stuff like police presence, repression, or threats. None of that. Instead, it should be built on genuine conversation and earning people's trust. That's how you actually make an impact.

I honestly think that, in the end, we'd see much better results if we went that route.

Society is going to be exactly what you make of it. If you go ahead and legalize handguns and rifles, people aren't just going to sit around; they’re going to start hitting banks with tanks and tearing up the streets. Once everyone is packing heat, a single gun won't mean a damn thing anymore.
Look, if you go down the road of legalizing soft drugs, you’re eventually going to see a massive spike in hard drug abuse. It’s a slippery slope. Just look at what happened over in the Netherlands. They thought they had things under control after they legalized marijuana and psilocybin—you know, those magic mushrooms—but it was just a temporary lull. Once that initial calm wore off, they hit a massive wave of heavy drug use, and the numbers for hard drugs are actually higher now than they were before everything was deregulated. History tends to repeat itself, whether people want to admit it or not.

Look, it’s pretty simple: you get exactly what you aim for. If you set the bar low, don't act surprised when the results end up being mediocre. It all comes down to the criteria you establish from the jump—if the laws are strict and the standards are high, that’s the caliber of outcome you’re going to see in the end. Period. It’s like we just lost an entire layer of depreciation. One whole level wiped out.
If you start lowering the standards, don't be surprised when society follows right down the drain with them. It’s basic cause and effect. When we stop demanding excellence and settle for mediocrity, the whole foundation starts to crumble. I've seen it happen in smaller circles—once people stop holding each other accountable, everything just turns to chaos. You can't expect a functional, high-functioning nation if nobody cares about meeting the bar anymore. Lower criteria lead to a lower quality of life, period.

Look, if you try to force a totalitarian military regime down everyone's throats, you’re just going to trigger a massive backlash. It’s a guaranteed way to fail. If you actually want results, you need to work within a healthy environment—one that’s socially and economically stable. In a society like ours, you don't need a dictator; you need teeth in your laws. We should be talking about heavy taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. We need massive, life-altering penalties for drunk driving. We need brutal, crushing sentences for drug dealers. That’s how you actually see a decline in these behaviors across the board. The problem right now is this ultra-liberal mindset where everyone is obsessed with finding "external factors" to blame. Everyone wants to look at the root cause instead of fixing the actual issue. They ask, "Where is the drug coming from?" or "Why haven't we broken the supply chains yet?" They point at some dealer who got caught with 23 kilos of product and complain that he’s back on the street after only six months. It's nonsense. Stop looking for excuses and start hitting the problem right in the heart.

-------------

ONTOPICI had to take a wide lens with this one because, honestly, the whole topic has these sociological implications that pull in all sorts of other stuff.
These mistakes wouldn't necessarily be a sign of some extreme liberal agenda. Honestly? They’d just be a sign of people actually standing on the front lines where they need to be. It’s about taking action when it counts.

Look, if we actually tackled this, we could prevent a massive chunk of overdose deaths. We’re talking about making diseases like HIV or Hepatitis way less common too. But honestly? I’m worried about how people would spin it. My fear is that we end up demystifying drug use too much—treating it like it's just some minor, everyday nuisance of modern life instead of the serious crisis it actually is.

Look, I’m just going to say it: people struggling with addiction deserve to be treated like actual human beings. Plain and simple. But instead, they’re treated like animals—which, if we're being honest about how society functions right now, is exactly what happens. It's a grim reality, but it's the truth. Drug addiction and the actual presence of drugs on our streets—it’s a mess. It's one thing to talk about it in some ivory tower at a university, but it's a completely different beast when you're actually seeing it happen in cities like Cleveland. You see people spiraling, and it isn't just some abstract statistic; it's a reality that hits you right in the face. Let’s be real: people like that shouldn't be getting the same kind of social standing they do. It just doesn't sit right with me.

One more thing, even though I am NOT arguing the point that addicts are bad people, nor am I saying they don't deserve treatment if they're using—I just don't get why the ULTRA liberals always jump out of the woodwork to spit on anyone who isn't ultra-liberal.

For example:

Olivia Martinez20 said:Life is full of different stories, and the generalizations promoted by this handful of uneducated, prejudice-filled people participating in this thread are anything but true.

As history has shown, the biggest moralists are always at the very bottom of the moral ladder.

Look, I'm not advocating for moralizing or judging (feel free to check my previous post, I’ve got nothing to hide), but I don't understand why people who condemn drug use at all costs are suddenly labeled "fake moralists."

Nobody accidentally stumbles into a needle in their vein. A person gets sucked into it, but they do it consciously. An alcoholic enters that life consciously too. While they are still sober, they know exactly what's going to happen if they knock back 23 shots a day. They KNOW. They know they are destroying themselves. And not just themselves.

So, you have people who, for instance, just can't wrap their heads around why anyone would EVER try drugs, and they attribute it to boredom or laziness mixed with a level of self-destruction that isn't just lurking anymore, it's active.

So, Olivia Martinez20, while you wrote a good post (and an informative one), I’d ask you to please let others have their own opinions without dragging them to the bottom of the social hierarchy.

I know for a fact that even if everyone in my circle wanted to help me—and they would—if I ever found myself in that situation, they would all judge me just as HARSHLY (and they do). It's not because they're fake moralists; it's because that's how most of them were raised, that's how they're wired, and even if they were born 120 times over, they wouldn't touch drugs.

-----------------------------------------------------------
What I really want to say, regardless of my stance on THIS THREAD, is that nowadays, if you aren't ultra-liberal, you're basically a piece of trash. Bottom of the barrel. Because you dare to judge drug use. Or you judge vandalism, or alcoholism, or promiscuity.

Today, there's an explanation for everything. People pull parallels from god-knows-where just to cover up the actual bullshit. Because the truth is the least important part. The circumstances and the optics matter more.

Everyone is guilty, except for the guy who HIDES SOMETHING—he's innocent. Because he was raised that way. Because his friends screwed him over. Because he went through a rough patch in his life.

Help them? Yes. Criticize them? Yes. Condemn them? No—that's where I draw the line. But some people don't live by those rules. And that's why I find some of Olivia Martinez20's conclusions so irritating.

Look, I only skimmed the first few pages because I didn't have the stomach to read EVERYTHING 😁. Seriously, there’s just too much here. First off, I don't have any personal experience dealing with addicts, and thank God for that. Not because they aren't people—they are—but because having that experience would mean someone close to me ended up in that hellhole. I know folks who have struggled with this stuff, but I haven't been right in the thick of the recovery process myself.
So, I'll start by quoting Willard: It's easy to beat someone else's dick with.

This is an incredibly sensitive topic, and the biggest mistake anyone can make is jumping straight to instant judgment, moralizing, or spewing total garbage. We all agree that this could happen to someone we love, yet somehow everyone’s criteria suddenly change when it hits home.

Regardless, this whole harm reduction approach makes sense. But not as a long-term solution. In my view, there needs to be a definitive process designed to actually pull an addict out of that cycle—something that helps them realize they have no choice but to quit. That requires prevention, education, and actual, decent medical treatment.

I don't agree with some of the people drawing parallels to alcohol (even though alcoholism is just as big a threat to society as drug addiction, alcohol itself isn't inherently the same thing; you can have two beers, but once you start hitting the hard stuff, the damage scales up differently), or cigarettes (cigarettes aren't psychoactive substances and they don't drive people into a life of crime or on the edge of existence)...

I'm not a fan of legalizing soft drugs, except for marijuana; there is no such thing as a "soft drug." As far as I know, they all cause permanent damage.

Now, regarding these supervised sites, I think they could exist. To me, the "who's going to pay for it" argument sounds stupid, considering how much money the government pours into all sorts of other nonsense. Unfortunately, even primary healthcare in the US isn't properly sorted out, so what we're discussing here is even further out of reach.

But let's say the funding was there. It would be good to have these facilities, but ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY if there was a clear path forward—meaning a solid approach without the fake moralizing or threats, focusing instead on gradually winning people over to cooperate. Because at the end of the day, this is for their own good. The ultimate goal has to be getting them off the drugs. The first step would just be monitoring, controlled dosing, clean needles, etc., and then eventually helping that person move toward recovery.

My fear is that if these rooms existed solely and exclusively to provide clean supplies, while they might reduce the risk of HIV or hepatitis, they'd also send a subliminal message to society that this behavior—while bad—is something manageable and "understandable." Okay, I'm not saying that banning things automatically makes people stop; if anything, it does the opposite, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the societal message should be that liberal.

When it comes to drugs, there shouldn't be any compromise. When it involves people abusing substances, they need help. If they want it. But that should always be the target.

So, supervised injection sites? YES,

but only in combination with:
*strict penalties for dealers,
*proper education,
*prevention programs,
*psychological and psychiatric support,
*a well-developed system of rehab communities,
*and a general push to get drugs out of society altogether.

That's all from me, for now.

Wronže, I haven't been tuned into the music scene for a while, but aren't you being a bit much? Look, I was just messing around; it’s not like I actually intended to churn out another 28 posts using that exact tone 😁. Is there even a real discussion happening regarding Power metal? Does Power metal even exist as its own thing?

Because if it does, then Hollywood metal exists too, and honestly, that's the real deal 🙏

Arslan said:They needed a urine sample, so they just went ahead and used a catheter—standard procedure, apparently. But honestly, why did you even let them pull that move on you? You’re clearly sitting there in pain now because of some unnecessary catheterization that happened just because someone was too impatient to wait. You could have just told them straight up: "No way am I doing that." Tell them to give you more time, and you can just hold it until you're actually able to go.

Look, they didn't put the cath in for that reason... nah, makes no sense. You're totally overthinking this. 🙂

That squirrel is absolutely unhinged 🙏 my girlfriend and I were practically in tears when he finally started getting his act together, only for him to fumble the acorn again 🤣

Honestly though, the first one was way better. I have no idea where they were even heading the whole time. Nothing really got resolved, they didn't actually arrive anywhere; we were just sort of tagging along for the ride, watching them struggle.

Plus, the jokes in the original movie hit much harder.

All in all, it’s a decent enough flick 🙂

How can you say that? What about Nordic skiing 😁? You can't ignore Bjorndalen 👋