You are here

Im vegan but I can't stand...

Stereotypical hippies.

There are a bunch of damn hippies at my school that go around slapping peace sign stickers on stuff whenever they get the chance. Then the go and drive to Hartford (CT) and buy "the good stuff" from drug dealers, which helps "promote peace and expand minds." Then they smoke that shit and go and eat a bunch of McDonald's "food." I know 2 girls off the top of my head that party often, and have had abortions. I don't know what is more sickening, their actions, or the fact that they are so open and laid back about it.

The way I see it, buying drugs from drug dealers supports gang violence. Smoking shit makes you weak and apathetic, and hardly "expands minds." Eating McDonald's... speaks for itself on this website. And abortion as a form of birth control is just fucking appalling.

All this stuff adds up to what I could hardly call a peaceful life. Granted there are chill hippies out there but most of them just piss me off.

Any of you guys feel the same way? Oh and by the way, did I mention that they smell bad and have scummy hair...

I live in SoCal.  In all but a few areas (Malibu / parts of Los Angeles / part of San Diego) it's a vat of conservative Christians/Muslims/etc.  We have a larger group of emo and a smaller group of punk who do what you describe, but we don't have enough hippies to notice.  Oh, and we have a lot of homeless.

maybe i will lure all the faux hippies in my town into a box with doritoes and an extra large pizza then nail it shut and send it to SoCal.

You can do the same just change the bait in the box to something like a monkey playing drums and upset toddler with a microphone. Some of the kids will enter the box thinking it is a punk show, but you may also  want to label your box "Totally cool anarchist punk show", as some of the other kids may not recognize the music as "punk" unless someone else tells them it is.

ok this is totally off subject haha, but you seem to kind of be bashing punk music, but then label yourself as 'straightedge.' Which is a term coined by a punk band. Not that you have to like punk music or even Minor Threat just to be straightedge, but i'm just curious as to if you knew that I guess. Not trying to argue or be an ass, i promise lol.

0 likes

I live in SoCal.  In all but a few areas (Malibu / parts of Los Angeles / part of San Diego) it's a vat of conservative Christians/Muslims/etc.  We have a larger group of emo and a smaller group of punk who do what you describe, but we don't have enough hippies to notice.  Oh, and we have a lot of homeless.

maybe i will lure all the faux hippies in my town into a box with doritoes and an extra large pizza then nail it shut and send it to SoCal.

You can do the same just change the bait in the box to something like a monkey playing drums and upset toddler with a microphone. Some of the kids will enter the box thinking it is a punk show, but you may also  want to label your box "Totally cool anarchist punk show", as some of the other kids may not recognize the music as "punk" unless someone else tells them it is.

I missed seeing this comment.  I totally would, except for postage is outrageous nowadays.  We'd have to come up with some ingenious shipping method.

0 likes

"If it were alcohol, not cannabis, that brought out the worst in Your mom, would You call for the prohibition of alcohol?"

I already think alcohol should be illegal, doesn't do anyone good. There isn't a real reason to drink it other then some peoples pleasure, and in cases like other people I know, a means to forget parts of their life. So yeah I would have no problem with them outlawing alcohol. To top it off, smoking tobacco should be banned too. This comes from an ex smoker, there is no good in it, theres no point to it, its a waste of money and harms people around you.
I actually see this happening soon, Here in Iowa, you can't smoke in public with the except of casinos. Same thing in Nebraska.

Banning cars? That won't happen. Some people live out in the middle of no where with no way to get food/supplies/etc. I get what you're saying though, I do think there should be a law down about the types of vehicles people drive. Unless you have a bunch of kids, you don't really need a hummer, for example. Even then, a more economic minivan would be better then a hummer. I know it will never happen, oh well.

0 likes

"If it were alcohol, not cannabis, that brought out the worst in Your mom, would You call for the prohibition of alcohol?"

I already think alcohol should be illegal, doesn't do anyone good. There isn't a real reason to drink it other then some peoples pleasure, and in cases like other people I know, a means to forget parts of their life. So yeah I would have no problem with them outlawing alcohol. To top it off, smoking tobacco should be banned too. This comes from an ex smoker, there is no good in it, theres no point to it, its a waste of money and harms people around you.
I actually see this happening soon, Here in Iowa, you can't smoke in public with the except of casinos. Same thing in Nebraska.

Banning cars? That won't happen. Some people live out in the middle of no where with no way to get food/supplies/etc. I get what you're saying though, I do think there should be a law down about the types of vehicles people drive. Unless you have a bunch of kids, you don't really need a hummer, for example. Even then, a more economic minivan would be better then a hummer. I know it will never happen, oh well.

you really must like to be told what to do, huh?
Why should cigarettes be banned? I understand the idea to prohibit smoking in public, that makes sense as it would harm other people, but to suggest that people shouldn't be legally aloud to smoke in their own homes or vehicles is ridiculous. Whether it's harmful to people or not, they can decide for themselves if they want to harm their own body.
Cigarettes don't even have an intoxicating, behavior altering effect, so you can't say that it could cause someone to harm someone else besides the smoker, as is the case with drinking and driving.

Well, just know that there will always be people like me out there. People who are going to decide things for themselves and do things anyways if they don't think they're wrong, even if they might be illegal.  If I don't agree with a law, then I find no need to follow it.

0 likes

I already think alcohol should be illegal, doesn't do anyone good. There isn't a real reason to drink it other then some peoples pleasure

Goodness. We can't have any of that pleasure business.  I like pleasure-associated drinking.  It's... pleasurable.

Some people go through life with a victim mentality.  They drink excessively because they're weak.  Sucks to your assmar for them. The people who are fuck-ups will find a way; restricting something from the rest of us won't prevent them from messing up their lives however they can.  You can't regulate away everyone's bad decisions.

0 likes

I think what she was trying to say is that the only good thing about alcohol (among the many negatives) is that some people find it fun, so there's no good reason for it to be legal/allowed.

I don't think addiction/substance abuse can be put so simply as "they're weak." It's surely not a good coping mechanism, but it's not exactly helpful for anyone in a victim mentality to think that, oh well, they're weak (just a furthering of the victim mentality...). I guess one could likewise say that people who are depressed or suicidal are weak. And yeah, you could say that those people might have a reason to be depressed/suicidal, but apparently so do a lot of people who abuse drugs/etc.

Also, as far as drinking goes, some people have way more or way less than normal alcohol dehydrogenase. People who don't have as much as the average get "Asian glow," and feel awful after very little alcohol. Others who have a lot of alcohol dehydrogenase can drink *a lot* without many of those ill effects. However, the problem is the level of dehydrogenase doesn't affect how addicting the alcohol is... in other words, people with high levels of the dehydrogenase can become addicted much more easily because there's much less of an aversion.

0 likes

I don't like thinking that fun isn't important.

The human species is, what, 200,000 years old?  No one is weak.  We are the descendants of people, who, for 200,000 years, were survivors - they survived every famine, every disease, every accident, every war long enough to give birth to the next generation.  That's some true grit.

So, I'm not saying people are weak (even though that's exactly what I said).  No one is really weak, but they play the weak card.  They allow themselves to think they're weak because that's easier than taking positive action (which is often more difficult).

0 likes

The other day I was shopping in a somewhat poor neighborrhood.  There was a prominant sign in the middle of the shopping center for a alcohol and tobacco store.  All I could think was 'that is why their is so many undernourished and neglected children'.  Their parents would rather spend money on those things than take care of their children.

The original temperance movement was an offshoot of the women's (and children's) rights movement(s) of the 19th century.  People in the US use to drink and use drugs much more than they do now.  Women and children being rapped, beaten, neglected and abandoned was very widespread.  The idea was to limit the rights of drinkers and drug addicts so that others could have a basic freedoms.

I agree with faylein.  I think that alcohol, cigarettes and drugs, including marijuanna, should be outlawed.  They are not victimless crimes.  Many women and children are still neglected and abused due to their use.  Also, Mexico and other countries are essentially fighting wars to produce and distribute them to our country.  That is the big elephants in the room.  There is no way that is could take anymore effort or money to expand prohibition than we are already spending on rehabilitation, foster care, domestic violence centers and police/military force.  This is my two cents.

0 likes

That was back in the day when women didn't have high paying jobs.  A big chunk of the people I work with are women who earn $100K.  And they have flexible family schedules available, if need be.  My partner is the person I share things with, not the person who "takes care of me."  I do that for myself.

eta:  And to bring this back to the topic at hand, do you find that the substance abusers you're thinking of tend to be hippies?

0 likes

Did people really drink more than they did now? I can see smoking, because of the campaigns and health info that there has been in the past half century. But drinking? I think the current estimate is that 40% of adults will/have abused alcohol, and 20-25% of adults will have/do have/have had an alcohol dependence problem. It's hard to imagine it being much higher :( Also, another factoid is that 1/4 women will be hit by their partner/s in their lifetime.

also, maybe there was more to your story... but drawing that conclusion on that anecdote seems kind of classist. Surely wealthier people smoke and drink. And there are plenty of higher class alcohol stores, like Bevmo (ok, they sells seltzer and syrup too), or hell, even Trader Joe's, where a third of the small store is wine/other alcohol in many cases.
domestic violence is likewise not a class problem. It is simply reported more in closer housing situations (-> poorer neighborhoods). In fact, the highest rate of batterers (per person, not sheer number) occurs in doctors and police officers.
I don't think the problem of neglect, abuse, and self-destructive behavior can be solved or even majorly helped by banning the abused substances. By laying all the blame on the substances, we evade the personal responsibility in these situations. Why do people start abusing drugs to begin with? What about other addictive behaviors? It might be harder to get people psychological help or cognitive-behavior therapy (and more expensive) than banning substances outright, but I think it would ultimately be more effective.
Also, how would such an outlawing work? What about current addicts? Many people who are addicted will do whatever they have to in order to get high/drunk/etc, whether or not it's legal. That was apparently the problem with the Prohibition... it didn't decrease drinking rates, it just drove the business and practice underground.
I don't think it matches to say tobacco/alcohol should be outlawed, and then say that there's a huge drug trade for illicit drugs. There's not for tobacco or alcohol - why? There's an above-ground, cheap, "safe" (well, safer) way of getting it. Doesn't the violence surrounding illicit drugs make an argument for their legalization? If they were legal, we wouldn't have impoverished persons risking their lives and freedom just to traffic drugs into the US.

0 likes

I was talking about people who drink themselves half to death and run over small children. I could care less if someone goes out, has a beer, makes it home safe and puts no ones lives at risk. THAT is when I have an issue with it. And I again could care less if someone smokes in their own home, but don't come around me and do it, I don't want someone smoking around my step son. As far as children go, I think its like child abuse to smoke around children, they don't have a choice, that whole "walk outta the room stuff" is bullshit and you know it.  But I still hold to my original opinion that no drugs should be legal. I question even some legal "drugs" they give to people.

I'm honestly done arguing my point of view, there's no point to it, and you can take that statement as you please.

0 likes

This is confusing:

I could care less if someone goes out, has a beer, makes it home safe and puts no ones lives at risk... And I again could care less if someone smokes in their own home

But I still hold to my original opinion that no drugs should be legal. I question even some legal "drugs" they give to people.

This comes back to what I was talking about earlier, about how people base the threshold of what's acceptable based on their own preferences.  Anything beyond that threshold is unacceptable.  This is how same-sex marriage got banned.

I just remembered something from freshmen year history about Prohibition:
After a dip in the beginning, alcohol sales weren't that affected, it's just that there was more violence around the supply chain.  So, for all of the people who don't like gang violence over drug trafficking and sales, making alcohol illegal would increase exactly that.  Also, during prohibition there was a rise in marijuana and cocaine use.  I can see that.  If I chose to buy something legally, but then it became illegal and I was going to buy something anyway, then the whole world of illegal substances would be opened up for my purchase.  They're all equally illegal, so why not?

Seeing that people aren't answering the question, I'm going to suppose that the people this thread migrated to talking about aren't all hippies.

0 likes

I was talking about people who drink themselves half to death and run over small children. I could care less if someone goes out, has a beer, makes it home safe and puts no ones lives at risk. THAT is when I have an issue with it. And I again could care less if someone smokes in their own home, but don't come around me and do it, I don't want someone smoking around my step son. As far as children go, I think its like child abuse to smoke around children, they don't have a choice, that whole "walk outta the room stuff" is bullshit and you know it.  But I still hold to my original opinion that no drugs should be legal. I question even some legal "drugs" they give to people.

I'm honestly done arguing my point of view, there's no point to it, and you can take that statement as you please.

I feel the same way.  Obviously, people are not responsible with alcohol, tobacco and drugs.  A large percentage of women and children still live in povery and are stuck with abusive men and parents.  Substance abuse has quite a bit to do with this problem.  I wanted to point out that prohibition movements are about people's rights not an attempt to make everyone live at their standards.  Yes, not all of us uses drugs or alcohol. This idea has tarnished any attempt to promote vegetarianism or animal rights. 

P.S. The first Federal legislation banning a substance was in the 1870's for morphine.  Most states had long banned the sale of alcohol or tobbaco before the 18th ammendment.  Also, the argument that prohibition leads to more violence and underground sales needs to be taken in the context of the Great Depression.  During the hieight of the depression, people did anything to survive. 

0 likes

Obviously, people are not responsible with alcohol, tobacco and drugs.

That's quite a blanket statement. 

0 likes

I agree that alcohol is so entrenched in our current way of life that not only would banning it promote violence, it would be practically impossible to accomplish.  There is too much of a culture around alcohol, and that culture is not entirely negative and abusatory.  In many instances, choice alcohols and social drinking are a sign of privilege.  To say that people are irresponsible with alcohol is totally out of line.  Having a glass of wine with dinner can be done in a way that is 100% responsible, for example.

I do think there is a distinction between alcohol and smoking (marijuana OR cigarettes).  I think the difference is that you can't say that smoking cigarettes can be done responsibly.  Each cigarette has ill health effects, necessarily.  As far as the research I can find on alcohol, there are unlikely any negative effects of moderate drinking.  As long as you don't drink too much, it's just metabolized and the effect wear off.  This is not really analagous to inhaling carcinogens during smoking.  We might have yet to discover more serious effects of light drinking, but the risks of smoking are just so dramatically clear.

Again, it bothers me to see abuse or violence blamed on alcohol.  These substances only aggravate existing problems.  The fact that improverished (and upper class!) women have abusive alcoholic husbands doesn't mean that removing alcohol will remedy this.  That's just misguided.  Like, "Oh, Joe Shmoe would have been a warm, loving, husband but for the liquor!"  No, but the liquor makes it worse, as could any other substance, weapon, brute physical strength, etc.  I know of a student who was about to fail 7th grade, and whose parents got high that night and beat the shit out of him.  We can't very well say that the marijuana is the culprit in that situation, though it did impair they're judgment, no doubt.  But problems are problems.

Anyway I really dislike the whole culture that surrounds marijuana use, in terms of, as I mentioned earlier, glamorizing it and putting it on some separate, immune pedestal from other drugs.  It belongs in the same category as tobacco, from a health/scientific standpoint, with the additional mental effects.  That and the bluriness between medicinal and recreational use bother me.  

0 likes

What we define as responsible socially and medically are sometimes different... with alcohol, it's (at times) socially responsible to get buzzed but not "drunk," and not drive. Or sometimes it's acceptable to get drunk/sick/hung over, but certainly still no driving. But biologically speaking, a person can develop alcoholic fatty liver with 1-2 drinks per night, where a drink is 12 oz beer/5 oz wine/1.5 oz hard liquor (some people think a given glass of a mixed drink is "one drink," but it's often not the case). That's considered totally moderate, socially responsible (most people wouldn't get drunk, or maybe even buzzed by that), but you're still doing damage to your liver. Of course, fatty liver is mostly reversible (if you stop drinking at that level, and don't take any other drugs that could further compromise liver function).

I'm just saying that normal amounts of drinking are not necessarily as innocuous as reputed, even though we're told that that amount might even be good for us. Also, I'm sure you could get away with inhaling the fumes from a cigarette a few times and come out pretty unscathed (but because of the high likelihood of addiction, it's probably not realistic to smoke "in moderation"). But, there's the difference between the lungs and the liver... the liver can, to a degree, regenerate. Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is social acceptability affects how noxious we perceive something to be. Public opinion doesn't favor smoking, and we see any amount as terrible, but alcohol has a different reputation.

0 likes

Refined sugar does more harm than drinking.  I think we should ban that next.  Followed by caffeine.

0 likes

I was thinking of something more like 1 drink per week, not 1-2 per day.  I think the latter is too much, I think.  And I guess you are right that a cigarette a week won't kill you, but who does a cigarette per week?  They are not used in the same manner.

Refined sugar does not do more harm than drinking.  I can eat a bit of refined sugar every day for the rest of my life and as long as I retain my weight it won't affect me a bit.  It's the overall lifestyle and excess calories that matter.

0 likes

The sugar comment was sarcasm on my part, but it got me thinking.  Eating loads of sugar eventually lead to insulin resistance, which leads to Type 2 Diabetes.  (I recognize that sugar does not directly cause diabetes, but high sugar intake is associated with insulin resistance.)  According to the American Diabetes Association, 23.6 million people have diabetes and it's the 7th leading cause of death in the U.S.  So, if we're going to outlaw drinking and smoking, we might as well keep the population safe by continuing to make decisions for them.

I don't give much thought to cigarettes.  In California, the only place I see someone smoking is occasionally an employee in front of a store.  Smoking is banned from pretty much everywhere, including vehicles in which children are riding.  (I think you can smoke in casinos on tribal land, but I don't go to those, so I'm not sure.)  In Santa Monica, you can't smoke in an apartment or condo because of shared ventilation between units.  It's not an issue in my world.

0 likes

At least with sugars/fats, they're something that is necessary but harmful in large enough amounts. With tobacco/alcohol, you don't need any, and they're pretty avoidable.

0 likes

Pages

Log in or register to post comments

More Posts Like This