User Controls
is alcohol for stupid fucks
-
2017-12-25 at 2:48 AM UTCi really hate myself for giving into the alcohol meme
it's without a doubt the shittiest fucking drug ever. it's used by normies and degenerates, and promoted endlessly by the (((media))). anyone successful doesn't actually drink (see: donald trump).
then there's the fucking faggots who justify it. "well a glass of red wine is actually good for you". oh okay, yeah, is that why you're drinking the entire bottle today, is it, faggot?
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-12-25 at 3:07 AM UTCikr. This ain't the early 1800's.
Post last edited by Needledick_Needledick_Needledick at 2017-12-25T03:14:53.507085+00:00 -
2017-12-25 at 5:04 AM UTCAlcohol is the drug we should all be well over, but we still aren't, and we should be ashamed of that fact.
The problem is due to Doctors and their monopoly on prescriptions. For instance a Lyrica would help you sleep better than a half bottle of wine? Bad luck goyim, you can't have any Lyrica. Not without at least 6 months of consultations.
Doctors, these slimy charlatans, crooks, and killers, singlehandedly keep the illegal drug market alive. -
2017-12-25 at 5:05 AM UTC
-
2017-12-25 at 5:22 AM UTCIn the early 1800's they actually had a plethora of drugs available such as opium syrups, cocaine tablets, and marijuana. Heroin was invented in like 1870 i think. The early 1800's was a good time for legal drugs.
-
2017-12-25 at 5:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by 哈哈你看不懂中文 In the early 1800's they actually had a plethora of drugs available such as opium syrups, cocaine tablets, and marijuana. Heroin was invented in like 1870 i think. The early 1800's was a good time for legal drugs.
Except that throughout the 19th Century the average white GDP was less than $1 per person per day, inflation adjusted. If you had the money to buy vials of heroin and the aperatus with which to inject it you were very well off.
Once prosperity rose they (a bunch of different influences, meaning basically the Anglos, the Prussians, and the ***s(three letter word)) started World War One/The Great War in order to fuck up our prosperity.
All wars are aimed at redistributing wealth from the producers (ie. the workers) to the consumers (ie. the people who rent out property/rentier class). Even the 2003 war had this basic goal in mind. -
2017-12-25 at 9:26 AM UTCSomething you want to kill yourself. But slowly. And with dignity.
That's the hour in which you turn to alcohol. -
2017-12-25 at 9:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 Once prosperity rose they (a bunch of different influences, meaning basically the Anglos, the Prussians, and the ***s(three letter word)) started World War One/The Great War in order to fuck up our prosperity.
All wars are aimed at redistributing wealth from the producers (ie. the workers) to the consumers (ie. the people who rent out property/rentier class). Even the 2003 war had this basic goal in mind.
How exactly are people who rent property different from manufacturers in a class-sense? Industrial manufacturers can be thought of as renting the means of production to the working class in a pretty reasonable sense. -
2017-12-25 at 11:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 Except that throughout the 19th Century the average white GDP was less than $1 per person per day, inflation adjusted. If you had the money to buy vials of heroin and the aperatus with which to inject it you were very well off.
Once prosperity rose they (a bunch of different influences, meaning basically the Anglos, the Prussians, and the ***s(three letter word)) started World War One/The Great War in order to fuck up our prosperity.
All wars are aimed at redistributing wealth from the producers (ie. the workers) to the consumers (ie. the people who rent out property/rentier class). Even the 2003 war had this basic goal in mind.
if you were buying heroin throughout most of the 19th century then you pretty fucking clever or seriously high afIn 1895, the German drug company Bayer marketed diacetylmorphine as an over-the-counter drug under the trademark name Heroin.[75] It was developed chiefly as a morphine substitute for cough suppressants that did not have morphine's addictive side-effects. Morphine at the time was a popular recreational drug, and Bayer wished to find a similar but non-addictive substitute to market. However, contrary to Bayer's advertising as a "non-addictive morphine substitute," heroin would soon have one of the highest rates of addiction among its users.[76]
From 1898 through to 1910, diamorphine was marketed under the trademark name Heroin as a non-addictive morphine substitute and cough suppressant.[77]
. -
2017-12-25 at 2:30 PM UTCI like alcohol a lot and I'm a stupid fuck so going off that one person sample I'd say there's some clear correlation.
-
2017-12-25 at 2:50 PM UTC
-
2017-12-27 at 1:35 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny How exactly are people who rent property different from manufacturers in a class-sense?
Do you mean rent property as in renting and paying money, or rent as in renting and receiving money? The English language around that verb is very unclear.
Rentiers (those who rent out property or money, but provide no other service) are the reactionary class against whom progress fights. If they rent out buildings, they tend to be opposed to new building. If they rent out land they tend to be opposed to industrialisation and social mobility. If they rent out money they tend to be opposed to economic social justice.Industrial manufacturers can be thought of as renting the means of production to the working class in a pretty reasonable sense.
You could also say that they rent production(labour) from the working class. Labour is how the means of production were created, in an iterative process. Really manufacturers and workers need each other, and the relationship should be symbiotic (and lots of manufacturers have recognised that fact).
The real problem is always the rentiers though. A lot of them would return the world to feudalism and indentured slavery if they were allowed. The problem of the rentier class has been extensively written upon, and measures to deal with them have caused a lot of political problems in the past (essentially Communism and Fascism were reactions against them), and will continue to do in the future. -
2017-12-27 at 1:38 AM UTC
Originally posted by Something Squirrel Stupid people and alcohol is a coupling of the ages.
Ironically smart people are the most likely to drink excessively, smart people being more likely to be anxious and depressed and more likely to need alcohol just to unwind or be social.
However stupid people + alcohol is the one for the lulz. -
2017-12-27 at 1:39 AM UTCI drink most days of the week
Yesterday I tried pure moonshine and it was quite enjoyable. -
2017-12-29 at 6:19 PM UTCyeah
I can't metabolize alcohol like a patrician king among roach -
2017-12-29 at 7:23 PM UTC
-
2017-12-29 at 8:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 Except that throughout the 19th Century the average white GDP was less than $1 per person per day, inflation adjusted. If you had the money to buy vials of heroin and the aperatus with which to inject it you were very well off.
Once prosperity rose they (a bunch of different influences, meaning basically the Anglos, the Prussians, and the ***s(three letter word)) started World War One/The Great War in order to fuck up our prosperity.
All wars are aimed at redistributing wealth from the producers (ie. the workers) to the consumers (ie. the people who rent out property/rentier class). Even the 2003 war had this basic goal in mind.
Kind of went off on a tangent there, but yeah, if you could afford to be a heroin addict in the 1800's you were really well off. But my point is that the law was a little more libertarian in that regard (and others.) So it's weird to say "it isn't the 1800's anymore" when the 1800's had a lot more legal drug choices.
Sometimes I wonder how the world would be if it didn't have Abrahamic influence. Seems like the world pre-westernization had a more practical and open approach to drug prohibition. I don't know of any drug that was ever banned based on a moral opposition to it. The Romans did have some flower they tripped on that got banned (I forget which it was exactly) but I think it was more public hysteria considering they had a multitude of other drugs that were perfectly legal to consume.
It's such a weird thing, isn't it? So much of prohibition used to be based on the precept that drug use was immoral. Now they try to make it seem like it's to keep people safe, even when the evidence clearly shows that it's doing the opposite. People don't think using heroin is 'wrong' they just think its stupid, and they've got all sorts of misinformation to back up that opinion.
I feel like I'm 15 every time I talk about prohibition, my fucking god. -
2017-12-29 at 8:36 PM UTC"evidence"
-
2017-12-29 at 8:45 PM UTCIt has already been established that you can't defend your point on this topic, Lanny. So why don't you just run along?
-
2017-12-29 at 8:49 PM UTCdrug prohibition started off being about racism.
.
