20 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by CliffLandinCliffL: "So are you for banning alcohol... "
So are you for banning alcohol, society pays the cost of this on a daily basis. You cannot deny that alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs out there, yet you probably drink so you aren't for banning this drug. As far as cost, doe ...[text shortened]... s that you and I are financing. How would you solve that problem?
This is what I said in an earlier post:
IvanH: "If you look at the following quotes which I took from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4218851.stm
You'll probably get some idea why it is necessary to have a policy of discouraging the use of illegal drugs, not just the "hard" drugs like coke, crack, etc. but also the drug cannabis, that we used to call "soft"."
CliffL: "As far as cost, does not the cost of the war on drugs bother you. Is that not society paying the cost? And the cost of that far out-weighs the cost of treatment."
What I am worried about most is the people's health.
20 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeCar crashes injure more people per year than anything else.
I would say if he knows the risks and still wants to use them he should bare the consequenses, not just the emotional consequenses for himself and his loved ones and friends, but also for the financial costs, which can grow skyhigh. How would you solve that problem ?
Cigarettes injure.
Alcohol injures.
Industry injures.
Not sporting is detremental to one's health.
Monitors are bad for one's eyes.
There's no end to it. The solution is as such: Free health care for all. We all pay and we all get.
Simple as that. No matter your choice of life-style.
EDIT:
I was just thinking of all those soldiers our governments keep sending around the world to kill little people all over the place.
I'm totally opposed to this. But surely...should one of them get injured he should get health care?
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI am not for banning alcohol, my point is that alcohol is much more damaging to our society than other drugs and it is legal. If you are for keeping other drugs illegal, why not make alcohol illegal if you are truly worried about peoples health. Why not make laws that control what people do while on drugs, like drinking and driving laws or public intoxication laws. Why make some drugs illegal and the one that does the most damage legal? If you don't think that alcohol is the most damaging drug do some research or at least go to a bar for a night and watch the nice guys turn in to a$sholes.
CliffL: "So are you for banning alcohol... "
This is what I said in an earlier post:
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by shavixmirShavixm: "Then, you can objectivly educate people on the pros (yes, there are pros to using most drugs) and the cons of each individual drug."
But Ivanhoe,
If someone knows all the risks and still wants to use it. Who are you to tell him he can't?
There was a study (about 10 years ago) into the use of Marijuana, by the way, which concluded that using it can lead to psychotic episodes.
Some very clever people used the same testing mechanisms and found the same to be true about masturbati ...[text shortened]... on the pros (yes, there are pros to using most drugs) and the cons of each individual drug.
There can certainly be pros. That's why I am in favour of creating possibilities for doctors, professionals, to prescribe them as medicine in case there is a medical, a health, reason for using the drug in question.
However, to throw these substances on the market, with or without profit margins, with or without heavily taxing, as a free recreational drug is, in my view, an irresponsable policy if you want to promote national health.
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou didn't answer my point. The first judge of how healthy someone wants to be is the individual involved; if he wants to weigh 300 pounds that's going to expose him to increased health risks. By your logic, therefore, society would be justified in making it a crime and putting in prison millions of overweight people to "promote national health." My point is that while "promoting the national health" might be a laudable goal, in the calculus of a Lockean democracy it cannot override a individual's basic right to make decisions regarding his own existence which have no DIRECT effect on someone else. Your position is authoritarian and contrary to the basic political philosophy of the US.
Shavixm: "Then, you can objectivly educate people on the pros (yes, there are pros to using most drugs) and the cons of each individual drug."
There can certainly be pros. That's why I am in favour of creating possibilities for doctors, professionals, to prescribe them as medicine in case there is a medical, a health, reason for using the drug in quest ...[text shortened]... tional drug is, in my view, an irresponsable policy if you want to promote national health.
20 Feb 05
I thought Shavy made the best point as to the defeat of the problem.
Hell. Just give it away and let the commies go back to making money in South America from torture, instead of the drug rackets.
Seriously.
I am torn. What would happen to us poor fools who can't even eat a candy bar without becoming addicted? And there are a lot of us out there.
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThere's money to be made in torture??
I thought Shavy made the best point as to the defeat of the problem.
Hell. Just give it away and let the commies go back to making money in South America from torture, instead of the drug rackets.
Seriously.
I am torn. What would happen to us poor fools who can't even eat a candy bar without becoming addicted? And there are a lot of us out there.
20 Feb 05
2 edits
Originally posted by darvlayYes.
There's money to be made in torture??
See the USSR. They haven't always been the fiscal midget that they are now. In the year 1947 alone, over a million slaves died extracting gold and silver from death camps in Siberia. That was real wealth.
The secret is in knowing how to kill in silence. Do a Google on "Kolyma"
And before the anal retents CORRECTLY point out that the USSR is no more. I know. They changed the name and promoted the head of the KGB to "President". Sorry. Stupid me. That should have a deep meaning. I guess.
20 Feb 05
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1, I'm beginning to lose my patience with you. Please don't apply all kinds of strawmen reasoning here. I will not adress these ridiculous questions inbedded in your strawmenreasoning.
You didn't answer my point. The first judge of how healthy someone wants to be is the individual involved; if he wants to weigh 300 pounds that's going to expose him to increased health risks. By your logic, therefore, society w ...[text shortened]... ritarian and contrary to the basic political philosophy of the US.
This is what I said: You'll probably get some idea why it is necessary to have a policy of discouraging the use of illegal drugs, not just the "hard" drugs like coke, crack, etc. but also the drug cannabis, that we used to call "soft"."
You're a bit to preoccupied with "the basic political philosophy of the US". It would be very healthy for you to examine the ways other countries, democracies, handle their problems. You might become a little less dogmatic and a little less America focused.
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by CliffLandin
I am not for banning alcohol, my point is that alcohol is much more damaging to our society than other drugs and it is legal. If you are for keeping other drugs illegal, why not make alcohol illegal if you are truly worried about peoples health. Why not make laws that control what people do while on drugs, like drinking and driving laws or public intox ...[text shortened]... o some research or at least go to a bar for a night and watch the nice guys turn in to a$sholes.
I'm also in favor of implementing a policy that wants to reduce the alcohol consumption.
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI could care less about your impatience with me. Your position is authoritarian; the government must protect the people from themselves for their own good. That is not a "strawman"; it is implicit in your "promoting national health" rationale. Either discuss the implications of your position or don't; I don't care either way. My position is based on the value of an individual's self-autonomy; this happens to be also the central theme behind the political philosophy of the Founders of the US. If other countries don't value individual's self-autonomy they will pass all kind of laws restricting people for "their own good"; these countries are tyrannies in my view. If you want to defend your authoritarian view against my view which puts first individual freedom, go ahead as this issue is absolutely crucial in debating drug laws.
No1, I'm beginning to lose my patience with you. Please don't apply all kinds of strawmen reasoning here. I will not adress these ridiculous questions inbedded in your strawmenreasoning.
This is what I said: You'll probably get some idea why it is necessary to have a policy of discouraging the use of illegal drugs, not just the "hard" drugs like coke ...[text shortened]... dle their problems. You might become a little less dogmatic and a little less America focused.
20 Feb 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1, I dislike the way you always seem to manage to turn a debate into a "good guy-bad guy" discussion. Of course you are the good guy and the other, in this case me, is the bad guy.
I could care less about your impatience with me. Your position is authoritarian; the government must protect the people from themselves for their own good. That is not a "strawman"; it is implicit in your "promoting national heal ...[text shortened]... o ahead as this issue is absolutely crucial in debating drug laws.
Let's discuss the topic of this thread, shall we ?
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy don't you just discuss the issues and stop personalizing everything?
No1, I dislike the way you always seem to manage to turn a debate into a "good guy-bad guy" discussion. Of course you are the good guy and the other, in this case me, is the bad guy.
Let's discuss the topic of this thread, shall we ?
20 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeDon't hold your breath. Somebody made the terrible mistake of telling him he was a great debater and had won in the past little while.
No1, I dislike the way you always seem to manage to turn a debate into a "good guy-bad guy" discussion. Of course you are the good guy and the other, in this case me, is the bad guy.
Let's discuss the topic of this thread, shall we ?
He believes it. Silly chimpness. He now thinks that the world is his toy. For a while.