Political Crossfire Forums

[Otacon]

That's right, car fumes can also cause asthma attacks. There are many things that can cause them, so I wouldn't be so worried over cigeratte smoke.

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Gee...sounds a lot like what I said about drug use, huh? :lol:

like i said, the people you knwo who use drugs maturely are in a minority

Thank you for admitting that there are people that can use drugs with a mature and reasonable ability. Now considering that is the case, it would then entail the conclusion that drug use does not necessarily lead to the infringement of another person’s rights, and as such, we need not have a prosecutory nature towards it. Using a drug does not pervert any qualification, or infringe upon any right. To prosecute what the irresponsible do while under the influence is another matter. Specifically, that it is not illegal to hurt yourself; however, you remain liable for the consequences of your actions.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: No, it can't.

a prison sentence and rehab seem to do wonders for some people

Your claim to want to help people now stares into the face of a contradiction, in that robbing someone of years of their life in a miserable environment is not a help, but rather a destruction on their life greater than what drugs can do. Jail is to protect the populous from the dangerous, not to help those put in; that is why it is called punishment. Thus, by definition, you want to punish those who do drugs. Your attitude is predatory in nature, not helpful, as demonstrated here. And the point still stands, you cannot stop drug use, or why haven’t we been able to so far?

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: That is irrelevant and unrelated to the verity of the argument as to whether they should be legal.

okay. it's irrelevant.

Alright, thank you. Now moving on.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Irrelevant. How can they afford them now?

they steal them and kill for them. the same as what they would do if drugs were legal.

The same? Thank you. So by your own admission, nothing in this regard would change between drugs being legal, and illegal, and so, we have no need to imprison people for their use.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Hmm, drug users would probably choose to remain clean if they want employment then, won't they? It isn't hard. I've done it.

what?

how can they be drug users and work at a company that won't hire drug users at the same time?

Just what I said. If they wanted to gain proper employment, they would choose to put down the drugs in order to do so.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: A problem of their own creation, not mine, or the man's who can use, and enjoy, drugs, responsibly.

then let him use the drugs. if he's mature and smart about it then he won't get caught and sent to prison. if he does get caught, oh well, he gambled and lost.

This argument does nothing to singularly work on the drug argument as opposed to anything else. In short, it is not specific to the prohibition of drugs as opposed to anything else, and thus, does not help your argument. For example, we could help ourselves to the same logic and quite literally ban anything under the guise that if a person is smart, they will not get caught with said substance. But the conclusion needs to be supported with premises that demonstrate why such a prohibition needs to be put in place to begin with, which was not done here.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Unwarrented conclusion. Is your position weak to the point where you must make things up. People do this now that they are illegal. Are you able to demonstrate legality of drugs will nessesarily lead to an increase in killing for money for drugs? I do not think you can.

i never said it would increase. i said it would stay the same.

Then once again, if things in this regard would remain the same under legality as it would under illegality, then nothing is to be gained from prohibition, which was what many of us have said all along, and we do not need to imprison people for them.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Where does it say this is the government's resonsibility? :wink:

being a burden on society directly effects the government. the government, in turn, tries to help the wastes of oxygen under it's dominion not be a burden.

Unemployment is a burden on society, and it is not illegal, so we know now that the argument that being a burden on society is not a valid premise to support illegality.

So again, where is it stated that this is the responsibility of the government?

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Unrelated to Boneman's point.

okay.

Indeed.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Are you going to ban everything that is overpriced in American now, as you said just now...everything?

i deffinatly said i want to ban over priced things.

for someone who usually has well thought out arguments, this one seems to miss the mark.

And now my friend, how do you propose to define what is overpriced without using arbitrary means? Furthermore, it was said earlier that capitalism by its very nature is supposed to drive down prices through competition. It is lack of competition that drives up prices. Considering drugs could call under the category of many other recreational things, there is no reason why it could not follow the same trends as Pop, candy, alcohol, or cigarettes. Furthermore, drugs in this nature are not necessary, but rather, recreational, so those that could afford them could have them. Those that can not would have more difficulty. Your argument that they would steal and kill for the money to get these things seems unsupported, in that people do this anyway for a variety of reasons, very often unrelated to drugs.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Since when?! :lol: :lol:

the 30s,40s, and 50s(when driving was in full swing) one would not get in trouble for driving drunk.

So then it was inaccurate when you stated it was not a crime to drive drunk. That was my point.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: That's fine. You're right. It is however, a crime to operate a vehicle while unqualified to do so. :wink:

how is being drunk make you unqualified. i mean you still have your license, two legs and two arms, eyes, a head. it seems all in order to me.

So does a man in a coma. :lol:

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Which is completely legal, and accepted into our culture. Thank you.

when did i say otherwise?


The Grandmaster wrote: Which is completely legal, and accepted into our culture. Thank you again.

when did i say otherwise again?

Then you admit those arguments are not sufficient to support prohibition of drugs, and we can then throw them out and move on.

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote: Thank you for admitting that there are people that can use drugs with a mature and reasonable ability.

i said it earlier, and i have never said otherwise.


The Grandmaster wrote: Now considering that is the case, it would then entail the conclusion that drug use does not necessarily lead to the infringement of another person’s rights, and as such, we need not have a prosecutory nature towards it. Using a drug does not pervert any qualification, or infringe upon any right. To prosecute what the irresponsible do while under the influence is another matter. Specifically, that it is not illegal to hurt yourself; however, you remain liable for the consequences of your actions.

the minority does not make laws for the majority. if the majority of drug users were responsable in what they did there would be no need for drugs laws. unfortunatly, that's not the case.

The Grandmaster wrote: Your claim to want to help people now stares into the face of a contradiction, in that robbing someone of years of their life in a miserable environment is not a help, but rather a destruction on their life greater than what drugs can do. Jail is to protect the populous from the dangerous, not to help those put in; that is why it is called punishment. Thus, by definition, you want to punish those who do drugs. Your attitude is predatory in nature, not helpful, as demonstrated here. And the point still stands, you cannot stop drug use, or why haven’t we been able to so far?


well drugs can make your teeth fall out, your heart explode, lose your memory, lose your nasal passage, ruin your lungs, turn your eyes yellow, throw you into depression, they make you highly addicted to the substance. they cause death.

prison isn't much worse.



The Grandmaster wrote: Alright, thank you. Now moving on.

twas a bit of sarcasm.


The Grandmaster wrote: The same? Thank you. So by your own admission, nothing in this regard would change between drugs being legal, and illegal, and so, we have no need to imprison people for their use.

ugh. there's no getting out of this corner.

i willfully admit that i said that(i haven't been able to sleep lately). i've probably contradicted myself more then this one time...


The Grandmaster wrote: Just what I said. If they wanted to gain proper employment, they would choose to put down the drugs in order to do so.

it's not that easy. you can't just stop using drugs all of a sudden. withdrawal can be just as if not more deadly then the drug abuse itself. also, some people are so addicted that they either can't wuit, or if they did, they would relapse.


The Grandmaster wrote: This argument does nothing to singularly work on the drug argument as opposed to anything else. In short, it is not specific to the prohibition of drugs as opposed to anything else, and thus, does not help your argument. For example, we could help ourselves to the same logic and quite literally ban anything under the guise that if a person is smart, they will not get caught with said substance. But the conclusion needs to be supported with premises that demonstrate why such a prohibition needs to be put in place to begin with, which was not done here.

okay.

do drugs. if you get caught, your fault.

i think that is directly involved with drug illegality.




The Grandmaster wrote: Then once again, if things in this regard would remain the same under legality as it would under illegality, then nothing is to be gained from prohibition, which was what many of us have said all along, and we do not need to imprison people for them.

The Grandmaster wrote: Where does it say this is the government's resonsibility? :wink:

didn't you already respond to this?


The Grandmaster wrote: Unemployment is a burden on society, and it is not illegal, so we know now that the argument that being a burden on society is not a valid premise to support illegality.

uneployment cannot be illegal as it is impossible to end. there aren't enough jobs so everyone can be employed. also, if osmeone fires you, i fail to see how it is your own fault that it happened, and how you become a burden on society? how does you being unemployed directly effect society(other then unemployment checks)?

now tell me how a drug user who robs someone or kills someone for dope or money doesn't affect the society.

The Grandmaster wrote: So again, where is it stated that this is the responsibility of the government?

i'm sure there's a piece of paper that says "the government is responsable for keepign it's citizens from messing things up". it's probably in the consitution.


the various laws enacted which protect citizens or help them speak for themselves in regards to your question.





The Grandmaster wrote: And now my friend, how do you propose to define what is overpriced without using arbitrary means?

over priced. something that costs more then it should.

it seems simple to me


The Grandmaster wrote: more, it was said earlier that capitalism by its very nature is supposed to drive down prices through competition.

hey, how many prices have you seen go down in the past five years? becuase i'll i've seen is steady increases.

The Grandmaster wrote: lack of competition that drives up prices. Considering drugs could call under the category of many other recreational things, there is no reason why it could not follow the same trends as Pop, candy, alcohol, or cigarettes.

soda has gun up in price. candy has gone up in price. alcohol and cigarettes have most certinaly gone up in price.

there's plenty of competition and yet prices don't seem to be falling.

[quote="The Grandmaster"]ore, drugs in this nature are not necessary, but rather, recreational, so those that could afford them could have them. Those that can not would have more difficulty. Your argument that they would steal and kill for the money to get these things seems unsupported, in that people do this anyway for a variety of reasons, very often unrelated to drugs.

a recreational feel good. alochol isn't required either and yet people(rich and poor) drink their sorrows away. what's stop the poor from, like i said, using drugs, getting addicted, then unable to pay his addiction.

he's going to resort to stealing.

now obviously i never said only drug users steal and kill. but why add to the problem?

The Grandmaster wrote: Since when?! :lol: :lol full swing) one would not get in trouble for driving drunk.

The Grandmaster wrote: So then it was inaccurate when you stated it was not a crime to drive drunk. That was my point.

innacurate when i sated it wasn't a crime to drive drunk?
what part of "in the 30s,40s, and 50s you wouldn't get in trouble for driving drunk", which was a response to your "since when".

obviously it's a law now, and you know why? because people started dying from drunk driving.

the same applies to drugs. they were legal, then people started dying.commiting crimes because of drugs, and they became illegal.


The Grandmaster wrote: So does a man in a coma. :lol:

coma patients rights are highly infringed on. they should be allowed to drive just as much as everyone else.


The Grandmaster wrote: Then you admit those arguments are not sufficient to support prohibition of drugs, and we can then throw them out and move on.

when did i say that. never, that's when.

[Wolverine]

Malcolm Kyle wrote: What about the children?

Prohibition glamorizes drugs and encourages children to experiment with them, as shown by recent statistics on adolescent drug use. The "forbidden fruit" phenomenon makes some activities attractive to young people who are testing their limits. There are higher use rates among adolescents in the US where it is completely prohibited than in the Netherlands where things are somewhat more relaxed.

What kind of world are we making for our children: One full of prisons, secret police and repressive laws that tell them to spy on their own parents and family. Instead, let's build them a world that respects each individual while it teaches them to work together for the common good in the exercise of freedom.
I agree completely.

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Thank you for admitting that there are people that can use drugs with a mature and reasonable ability.

i said it earlier, and i have never said otherwise.

And since this point was brought up by another poster, who said that divorce, by your logic, would seem to need to be outlawed because it affects the other family members; you denied this was necessary by stating that if done maturely, no one had to get hurt. And now we both agree that drugs, if done maturely, can be done in a manner as to not hurt anyone else, and we can help ourselves to the same logic as other things that do not hurt others if done properly, and not concern ourselves with prohibition of drugs. You are, it seems in effect, agreeing with me.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Now considering that is the case, it would then entail the conclusion that drug use does not necessarily lead to the infringement of another person’s rights, and as such, we need not have a prosecutory nature towards it. Using a drug does not pervert any qualification, or infringe upon any right. To prosecute what the irresponsible do while under the influence is another matter. Specifically, that it is not illegal to hurt yourself; however, you remain liable for the consequences of your actions.

the minority does not make laws for the majority.

Is that honestly a premise you want to support? What if I told you there were many cases where the minority did in fact make laws for the majority.

The Comrade wrote: if the majority of drug users were responsable in what they did there would be no need for drugs laws. unfortunatly, that's not the case.

I am not trying to be rude to you Comrade, for your posts are quite entertaining in the lounge, but you might be running into a little trouble here. The reason is because one of the main keystones of your argument is that the majority of drugs users are not responsible when they use them. Unfortunately, before you can enter this premise into the argument, it must be supported and demonstrated, and that is something I believe will be impossible for you to do.

Have you met everyone that has done drugs? How can you know how they all behave?

You can provide me with statistics and studies, but even that will not help you, because millions of drugs users do not get caught, and no study or statistic will ever know how they act while on drugs.

In fact, the vast majority of those I know who have done drugs, have never been caught. (I don't want to hear that they do not have to worry about the law then, because it is inrelated to our argument, their legality) So if you want to support the main crux or your argument, you have to prove something I believe is impossible, that “the majority of drug users are irresponsible in their actions.” Can you do this? Until you can speak with them all, you cannot achieve this. You better get started.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Your claim to want to help people now stares into the face of a contradiction, in that robbing someone of years of their life in a miserable environment is not a help, but rather a destruction on their life greater than what drugs can do. Jail is to protect the populous from the dangerous, not to help those put in; that is why it is called punishment. Thus, by definition, you want to punish those who do drugs. Your attitude is predatory in nature, not helpful, as demonstrated here. And the point still stands, you cannot stop drug use, or why haven’t we been able to so far?

well drugs can make your teeth fall out,

Faulty premise. Not all drugs make your teeth fall out.
But hell, so can candy. Ban Candy?

The Comrade wrote: your heart explode,

Faulty premise. Not all drugs make your heart explode.
But so can colestoral. Ban Cheeseburgers?

The Comrade wrote: lose your memory, lose your nasal passage, ruin your lungs, turn your eyes yellow, throw you into depression, they make you highly addicted to the substance. they cause death.

Wow, sounds more like ciggerettes to me. What are you trying to argue needs to be banned here? :lol:

Let me help your argument out here. Many drugs can harm people. I’m not contesting that. And I don’t need to for my argument. The difference is, many thins a person can do in their life can harm them. Working too long of hours, smoking cigarettes, eating too many hamburgers. But we do not concern ourselves with banning these things, because we understand a person is responsible for their own actions, and the consequences that arise from them. An adult makes his own decisions, and learns, or suffers because of them. If they have not the ability to use something with discretion, then I have no pity for them, and it should not be banned by penalty of jail for the rest of us. Because remember, almost anything, if not used with discretion, can be very detrimental.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Alright, thank you. Now moving on.

twas a bit of sarcasm.

You might want to be careful then, for while sarcasm is often a very effective tool in debate, if done so in a manor that concedes a needed premise for your argument, it can be very damaging, for your argument will start to crumble from lack of support.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: The same? Thank you. So by your own admission, nothing in this regard would change between drugs being legal, and illegal, and so, we have no need to imprison people for their use.

ugh. there's no getting out of this corner.

No, there isn't.

The Comrade wrote: i willfully admit that i said that(i haven't been able to sleep lately). i've probably contradicted myself more then this one time...

That’s my point. It isn’t your fault even, you are trying to support an untenable position, and that is what I am showing you.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Just what I said. If they wanted to gain proper employment, they would choose to put down the drugs in order to do so.

it's not that easy. you can't just stop using drugs all of a sudden. withdrawal can be just as if not more deadly then the drug abuse itself. also, some people are so addicted that they either can't wuit, or if they did, they would relapse.

This goes under my previous premise of personal responsibility. Many people can’t get to work on time anyway, they are lazy. That is not the fault of those of us who can take responsibility for our actions, and get employment. I have seen recreational drugs users become very successful at their careers, so I don’t want to hear that it cannot be done.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: This argument does nothing to singularly work on the drug argument as opposed to anything else. In short, it is not specific to the prohibition of drugs as opposed to anything else, and thus, does not help your argument. For example, we could help ourselves to the same logic and quite literally ban anything under the guise that if a person is smart, they will not get caught with said substance. But the conclusion needs to be supported with premises that demonstrate why such a prohibition needs to be put in place to begin with, which was not done here.

okay.

do drugs. if you get caught, your fault.

i think that is directly involved with drug illegality.

And as I said before, that is wholly irrelevant to whether or not they should be legal. It is in effect me saying “Why should drugs be illegal” and you saying “because you can avoid getting caught and be fine.” This argument makes no sense to support the conclusion you were trying to work toward.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Then once again, if things in this regard would remain the same under legality as it would under illegality, then nothing is to be gained from prohibition, which was what many of us have said all along, and we do not need to imprison people for them.

The Grandmaster wrote: Where does it say this is the government's resonsibility? :wink:

didn't you already respond to this?

Yes, and you failed to answer the question 3 times now. :wink:

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Unemployment is a burden on society, and it is not illegal, so we know now that the argument that being a burden on society is not a valid premise to support illegality.

uneployment cannot be illegal as it is impossible to end.

:shock:

Comrade, this is basically like giving away your queen in a chess game. I'm going to give you a chance to take this back, and do something else with that part of the post

What were you thinking? If you enter that into the argument, you are finished.

The Comrade wrote: now tell me how a drug user who robs someone or kills someone for dope or money doesn't affect the society.

Because drugs to not entail that someone will be robbed or murdered. You are trying to support a conclusion with an unrelated premise. Furthermore, there are an infinite number of motives a person can have to rob or murder, and you cannot remove them all. Tomorrow, someone is going to snap at work, and kill someone else, but we obviously do not call for an end to long working hours for this reason, or any other analogy that could lead to someone doing something bad. You’re only argument here is that banning drugs can lead to less deaths…but so would banning an infinite number of other things that bring stress on people, and so drugs are not singular here. Plus, their can be strong arguments made that the drug war, and the culture that is required to exist because of their legality lead to more deaths than were they legal, so you cannot use this.

For example, how many deaths in this country do you think are related to cigarettes or aspirin. :wink:

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: So again, where is it stated that this is the responsibility of the government?

i'm sure there's a piece of paper that says "the government is responsable for keepign it's citizens from messing things up". it's probably in the consitution.

:lol: Good luck finding that. We'll talk when you do.
It appears you are having difficulty here supporting this part of the argument, No?

The Comrade wrote: the various laws enacted which protect citizens or help them speak for themselves in regards to your question.

Which are unrelated to whether they should be able to control what we injest.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: And now my friend, how do you propose to define what is overpriced without using arbitrary means?

over priced. something that costs more then it should.

it seems simple to me

How much should something cost? Is this your place to determine?

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: more, it was said earlier that capitalism by its very nature is supposed to drive down prices through competition.

hey, how many prices have you seen go down in the past five years? becuase i'll i've seen is steady increases.

It's called inflation, and it's a natural occurrence of the economic engine.And the price of drugs were they legal, is also unrelated to whether or not they should be legal.You going to ban high priced condominiums, because some people can’t afford them?

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: lack of competition that drives up prices. Considering drugs could call under the category of many other recreational things, there is no reason why it could not follow the same trends as Pop, candy, alcohol, or cigarettes.

soda has gun up in price. candy has gone up in price. alcohol and cigarettes have most certinaly gone up in price.

there's plenty of competition and yet prices don't seem to be falling.

See above. They move with the market. If there were only one producer of soda in the world, they could charge whatever they wanted. Again, irrelevant to the argument at hand.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: ore, drugs in this nature are not necessary, but rather, recreational, so those that could afford them could have them. Those that can not would have more difficulty. Your argument that they would steal and kill for the money to get these things seems unsupported, in that people do this anyway for a variety of reasons, very often unrelated to drugs.

a recreational feel good. alochol isn't required either and yet people(rich and poor) drink their sorrows away. what's stop the poor from, like i said, using drugs, getting addicted, then unable to pay his addiction.

What's to stop him now? Making it illegal hasn't helped. You ask what's to stop him. Personal responsibility. It isn't my fault if another make their life suck.

The Comrade wrote: he's going to resort to stealing.

Then he will go to jail for stealing. But since any number of things can lead to a person stealing, you going to ban all that too? You going to ban low wages next?

The Comrade wrote: now obviously i never said only drug users steal and kill. but why add to the problem?

Unfortunately, your argument has failed to support your premise that more people will steal for drug money if they were legal, than if they were illegal, and so, this premise used to support your conclusion remains unwarranted.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Since when?! :lol: :lol full swing) one would not get in trouble for driving drunk.

The Grandmaster wrote: So then it was inaccurate when you stated it was not a crime to drive drunk. That was my point.

innacurate when i sated it wasn't a crime to drive drunk?
what part of "in the 30s,40s, and 50s you wouldn't get in trouble for driving drunk", which was a response to your "since when".

Comrade...is it illegal to drive drunk or not. :lol:

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: obviously it's a law now, and you know why? because people started dying from drunk driving.

the same applies to drugs. they were legal, then people started dying.commiting crimes because of drugs, and they became illegal.

Unwarranted conclusion.

You have not demonstrated this. Now remember, when you provide your links showing a vague increase in crime when drugs were legal, just be ready for my refutation of said links by showing correlation does not imply causation, that the studies failed to take into account confounding third variables, that the studies failed to demonstrate that the crime was absolutely caused by drug legalization, and that my own links will demonstrate that in places where differing degrees of drugs are legal, crime is not significantly higher.
I’m already one step ahead of you.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: So does a man in a coma. :lol:

coma patients rights are highly infringed on. they should be allowed to drive just as much as everyone else.

How is a man in a coma going to drive Comrade.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Then you admit those arguments are not sufficient to support prohibition of drugs, and we can then throw them out and move on.

when did i say that. never, that's when.

You admit you cannot support the prohibition of drugs?

[toddytodd]

Malcolm Kyle wrote: What about the children?

Prohibition glamorizes drugs and encourages children to experiment with them, as shown by recent statistics on adolescent drug use. The "forbidden fruit" phenomenon makes some activities attractive to young people who are testing their limits. There are higher use rates among adolescents in the US where it is completely prohibited than in the Netherlands where things are somewhat more relaxed.

What kind of world are we making for our children: One full of prisons, secret police and repressive laws that tell them to spy on their own parents and family. Instead, let's build them a world that respects each individual while it teaches them to work together for the common good in the exercise of freedom.

Education and knowledge seem to be the enemy here, as with many (or most) things in life. We all know that many kids seem to gravitate more to things 'forbidden' than to things spoke about openly. I think that is one problem America has - they try to tackle problems once they are in full bloom and not at the root. When constructing a building, you (generally) start at the bottom (or root level) and go up, not at the top and go down. Correctly educating people about drugs, alcohol, sex, STDs, etc when they are young an open to new ideas, not after the fact when they are being punished, is more beneficial to everyone.
Granted, this type of thinking is alarming to many organized groups of special interest that use the typical 'brain washing' techniques that have served them well in the past.

[Æ]

Quicksurf wrote: Otacon wrote: Green wrote: We should treat pot and other illegal drugs like narcotics, tax them, put warning labels on them, and sue the f**k out of a company that tries to advertise them.

That's a horrible idea. The last thing you should want is to tax something. Drugs should be legalized. Put warning labels on them and correct dosage amounts on the label, also, to avoid overdoses. If a company advertizes them, they should not get sued. They have every right to advertise their product without fear of lawsuit.

:lol:

Saying that crime went up due to the enactment of a new law, and therefore we should abolish the law is ludacris. Just because murder crimes have gone up since murder became a law, doesn't mean it shouldn't remain so.

Is this your philosophy for reducing crime? By getting rid of laws?
You cannot justify victimless crimes. The rest of what you have to say on this matter is irrelevant.

[Æ]

The Comrade wrote: Protostar wrote: Quicksurf wrote: Otacon wrote: Green wrote: We should treat pot and other illegal drugs like narcotics, tax them, put warning labels on them, and sue the f**k out of a company that tries to advertise them.

That's a horrible idea. The last thing you should want is to tax something. Drugs should be legalized. Put warning labels on them and correct dosage amounts on the label, also, to avoid overdoses. If a company advertizes them, they should not get sued. They have every right to advertise their product without fear of lawsuit.

:lol:

Saying that crime went up due to the enactment of a new law, and therefore we should abolish the law is ludacris. Just because murder crimes have gone up since murder became a law, doesn't mean it shouldn't remain so.

Is this your philosophy for reducing crime? By getting rid of laws?

Murder is an infringement on a human beings right to live. Please tell me how someone smoking a joint infringes on your rights in any way shape, form, or fashion? And don't come back with that "well it will when someone mugs me for drug money" crap because that would fall under theft/assault and the reason drugs are so expensive is because of the black market created from the illegality of the drugs in the first place.


how about people just don't do drugs and no one needs to worry about getting arrested.
That's impossible and you know it. Whenever there is a demand, it will be supplied; it's just a question of who is supplying it and what injustices will be brought on others as a result. You'd be just as helpful telling people they shouldn't do drugs as you would telling children not to play video games.

[Æ]

The Comrade wrote: why so you can complain about how the government is spending too much time looking for molestors and not enough time keeping people from dropping like flies form drug abuse?
The most dangerous drugs, alcohol being one of them, are already legal. The usage of the vast majority of "controlled" substances has significantly less fatalities associated with them. The real victims in this "war on drugs" are the people who have to live on street corners with drug dealers because those dealers can't sell legally. And guess what...the real harm to people is not from the drugs themselves, but from the bullets being shot into their head on those street corners as a direct result of governmental actions.

[Æ]

The Comrade wrote: Otacon wrote: The Comrade wrote: let's get rid of drunk driving laws too.


drunk drivers don't infringe on your rights UNTIL they hit you. but when they do that goes under negligant driving. so prosecute them after they kill your entire family.

Damn straight.


okay. so now people won't have to worry about getting arrested for driving drunk(they aren't going to think "oh s**t i could kill someone if i drive tonight" while drunk). now you have an increase in drunk driving since the penalties attributed to it are gone. accidents now increase and people start dying even more then with drunk driving laws.


so instead of pulling people over and throwing them in the brig for a day or two, you let the person go, and they could make it home fine, or they could hit someone head on and kill everyone in the car.


not preventing that makes you just as much at fault as the drunk driver.
There was a simple solution to this problem that was already suggested (and I believe it is currently used in NM). Cars should come complete with breathlyzer devices. If the person is clearly intoxicated, these devices would prevent the engine from starting.

[Shady]

agentkgb wrote: Shady wrote: You believe YOU must force people to be safe? I suppose you also support helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking bans in restaurants and other nanny laws?
Smoking in public places isn't a "nanny law," it doesn't stop people from smoking. What it stops is people who smoke hurting others with secondhand smoke.

In places owned by the government, there is nothing wrong with a smoking ban. But I didn't say that, I'm referring to smoking bans in private establishments. Such as restaurants.

[perdidochas]

Aereus wrote: The Comrade wrote: Otacon wrote: The Comrade wrote: let's get rid of drunk driving laws too.


drunk drivers don't infringe on your rights UNTIL they hit you. but when they do that goes under negligant driving. so prosecute them after they kill your entire family.

Damn straight.


okay. so now people won't have to worry about getting arrested for driving drunk(they aren't going to think "oh s**t i could kill someone if i drive tonight" while drunk). now you have an increase in drunk driving since the penalties attributed to it are gone. accidents now increase and people start dying even more then with drunk driving laws.


so instead of pulling people over and throwing them in the brig for a day or two, you let the person go, and they could make it home fine, or they could hit someone head on and kill everyone in the car.


not preventing that makes you just as much at fault as the drunk driver.
There was a simple solution to this problem that was already suggested (and I believe it is currently used in NM). Cars should come complete with breathlyzer devices. If the person is clearly intoxicated, these devices would prevent the engine from starting.

A few problems. 1) these devices are expensive--about $1000 2) A drunk driver could get their buddy who's not drunk to blow into the device, etc.

I do think these sort of devices should be required for people who have been convicted of DUI, I think it's draconian for those of us who haven't.

[perdidochas]

Shady wrote: agentkgb wrote: Shady wrote: You believe YOU must force people to be safe? I suppose you also support helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking bans in restaurants and other nanny laws?
Smoking in public places isn't a "nanny law," it doesn't stop people from smoking. What it stops is people who smoke hurting others with secondhand smoke.

In places owned by the government, there is nothing wrong with a smoking ban. But I didn't say that, I'm referring to smoking bans in private establishments. Such as restaurants.

State/local governments can regulate a lot about restaurants. They can regulate hte number of parking spaces built, etc. Not allowing smoking is like any other regulation of things that require a license. The state/local governments have the power to do this.

[agentkgb]

Otacon wrote: That's right, car fumes can also cause asthma attacks. There are many things that can cause them, so I wouldn't be so worried over cigeratte smoke.
Cigarette smoke is kind of "the" asthma trigger. If you have asthma, cigarette smoke will almost cerainly cause an asthma attack, but car fumes aren't that common a trigger. Also, car fumes are usually concentrated on highways, where people seldom actually walk, unlike restaurants. Thirdly (this is a very weak point, I just feel like putting it) car fumes are caused by something useful to society, whereas cigarettes are caused by something of absolutely no use to society which are used because people are addicted to them because they didn't pay attention when their health teacher in high school told them what a bad idea smoking was.

[Otacon]

agentkgb wrote: Otacon wrote: That's right, car fumes can also cause asthma attacks. There are many things that can cause them, so I wouldn't be so worried over cigeratte smoke.
Cigarette smoke is kind of "the" asthma trigger. If you have asthma, cigarette smoke will almost cerainly cause an asthma attack, but car fumes aren't that common a trigger. Also, car fumes are usually concentrated on highways, where people seldom actually walk, unlike restaurants. Thirdly (this is a very weak point, I just feel like putting it) car fumes are caused by something useful to society, whereas cigarettes are caused by something of absolutely no use to society which are used because people are addicted to them because they didn't pay attention when their health teacher in high school told them what a bad idea smoking was.

Don't go to the resaurant is you will have an asthma attack.

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote: And since this point was brought up by another poster, who said that divorce, by your logic, would seem to need to be outlawed because it affects the other family members; you denied this was necessary by stating that if done maturely, no one had to get hurt. And now we both agree that drugs, if done maturely, can be done in a manner as to not hurt anyone else, and we can help ourselves to the same logic as other things that do not hurt others if done properly, and not concern ourselves with prohibition of drugs. You are, it seems in effect, agreeing with me.


that was not the point of my argument. you're starting to take things out of context in order to further your views, but i don't feel arguing about it so i'll leave it at that.




The Grandmaster wrote: Is that honestly a premise you want to support? What if I told you there were many cases where the minority did in fact make laws for the majority.

why should a majority of people be affected by something that a minority wants? minority does not rule a society.

look at modern government. democracy, the epitome of majority rule.


just because there are examples of such laws does not prove that they're correct.

The Grandmaster wrote: I am not trying to be rude to you Comrade, for your posts are quite entertaining in the lounge, but you might be running into a little trouble here. The reason is because one of the main keystones of your argument is that the majority of drugs users are not responsible when they use them. Unfortunately, before you can enter this premise into the argument, it must be supported and demonstrated, and that is something I believe will be impossible for you to do.

in that case, you must provide me with proof that the majority of drug users do use them responsably.

saying you or the people you know are responsable is not sufficient evidence.


essentially, both our points are moot as neither of us can prove the other wrong.


The Grandmaster wrote: Have you met everyone that has done drugs? How can you know how they all behave?

have you?

The Grandmaster wrote: You can provide me with statistics and studies, but even that will not help you, because millions of drugs users do not get caught, and no study or statistic will ever know how they act while on drugs.

all i have to go by is television specials, new reports, studies(which yo udon't believe in).

if you don't want it to be proof, then it obviously won't be.

The Grandmaster wrote: In fact, the vast majority of those I know who have done drugs, have never been caught. (I don't want to hear that they do not have to worry about the law then, because it is inrelated to our argument, their legality) So if you want to support the main crux or your argument, you have to prove something I believe is impossible, that “the majority of drug users are irresponsible in their actions.” Can you do this? Until you can speak with them all, you cannot achieve this. You better get started.

half of what we're talking about now isn't related to the legalization of drugs anyways.

can you disprove it?


i fail to see either of us getting anywhere. you have a very libertarian view of drug use where as i ahve a conservative approach to the issue. differing ideoligies will not not agree on a subject like this.




The Grandmaster wrote: Faulty premise. Not all drugs make your teeth fall out.
But hell, so can candy. Ban Candy?

i never said that. i used ane example of an effect drugs can have on people.

candy is also not addictive, peopel don't murder eachother over it, if you brush your teeth they don't rot(unlike what meth can do).

you're comparing apples and oranges here.



The Grandmaster wrote: Faulty premise. Not all drugs make your heart explode.
But so can colestoral. Ban Cheeseburgers?

colestoral is a required element of the human body. saying to ban it is the same as saying you should ban water.

also, food is required(As gross or fattening as it can be) is non addictive, doesn't kill you from eating it(over comsupmtion does after decades).



The Grandmaster wrote: Wow, sounds more like ciggerettes to me. What are you trying to argue needs to be banned here? :lol:

if it was up to me i would have ciagrettees banned. they're just as lethal as drugs(only they take longer).

The Grandmaster wrote: Let me help your argument out here. Many drugs can harm people. I’m not contesting that. And I don’t need to for my argument. The difference is, many thins a person can do in their life can harm them.

and many of things are impossible to ban as they are connected to something required to live. also, they are only dangerous when not used in moderation.

The Grandmaster wrote: Working too long of hours,


job required to live maybe?

walking outside is dangerous as well. everything you do is dangerous to you. but, some things are preventable(drugs) and should be made illegal.

The Grandmaster wrote: smoking cigarettes, eating too many hamburgers. But we do not concern ourselves with banning these things, because we understand a person is responsible for their own actions, and the consequences that arise from them. An adult makes his own decisions, and learns, or suffers because of them. If they have not the ability to use something with discretion, then I have no pity for them, and it should not be banned by penalty of jail for the rest of us. Because remember, almost anything, if not used with discretion, can be very detrimental.

once again, all i can say is our differing ideologies on the idea of legalization of drugs will never allow us to agree.


The Grandmaster wrote: You might want to be careful then, for while sarcasm is often a very effective tool in debate, if done so in a manor that concedes a needed premise for your argument, it can be very damaging, for your argument will start to crumble from lack of support.

i have almost no support in this debate anyways, and i don't think my arguments are "crumbling".



The Grandmaster wrote: That’s my point. It isn’t your fault even, you are trying to support an untenable position, and that is what I am showing you.

matter of opinion.


The Grandmaster wrote: This goes under my previous premise of personal responsibility. Many people can’t get to work on time anyway, they are lazy. That is not the fault of those of us who can take responsibility for our actions, and get employment. I have seen recreational drugs users become very successful at their careers, so I don’t want to hear that it cannot be done.

i never said it couldn't, what we were discussing was emlpoyers refusing to higher drug users.


The Grandmaster wrote: And as I said before, that is wholly irrelevant to whether or not they should be legal. It is in effect me saying “Why should drugs be illegal” and you saying “because you can avoid getting caught and be fine.” This argument makes no sense to support the conclusion you were trying to work toward.

if you want to use drugs, go for it, but if you get caught, take responsability for what happens to you.


like you'e bee nsaying all along, personal responsability. if someone wants to do something illegal, so be it, but they have to take responsability for their actions.


this isn't trying to prove if drugs should be legal or illegal, it is merely a side note i opened up on.


The Grandmaster wrote: Yes, and you failed to answer the question 3 times now. :wink:

i answered it up top.


The Grandmaster wrote: :shock:

Comrade, this is basically like giving away your queen in a chess game. I'm going to give you a chance to take this back, and do something else with that part of the post

What were you thinking? If you enter that into the argument, you are finished.

?


grandmaster, in lieu of sounding like an ass, that's a stupid thing to say.

do you deny that unemployment is impossible to stop, and therefor it cannot be banned?

that's like banning people with brown eyes. it's something that cannot be helped at times.


The Grandmaster wrote: Because drugs to not entail that someone will be robbed or murdered. You are trying to support a conclusion with an unrelated premise. Furthermore, there are an infinite number of motives a person can have to rob or murder, and you cannot remove them all.

not every soldier in a war dies, not every banker is a jew.


i have already admitted that people can be responsable drug users. your response omits that fact.


The Grandmaster wrote: Tomorrow, someone is going to snap at work, and kill someone else, but we obviously do not call for an end to long working hours for this reason, or any other analogy that could lead to someone doing something bad. You’re only argument here is that banning drugs can lead to less deaths…but so would banning an infinite number of other things that bring stress on people, and so drugs are not singular here.


yes but banning drugs is something that is preventable. banning stress when it decreases producitivity or puts a company out of business is essentially banning business in and of itself.






The Grandmaster wrote: :lol: Good luck finding that. We'll talk when you do.
It appears you are having difficulty here supporting this part of the argument, No?

there is no law saying the government needs to protect it's people, but if you can't see that p The Grandmaster wrote: e a government plays, then you're blind.

if a government wasn't meant to protect it's citizens, then it would be useless, and anarchy would be the law of the land.





[quote="The Grandmaster"]How much should something cost? Is this your place to determine?


to be honest it should cost as much as it was produced for. unfortunatly it wouldn't work out, and companies raise prices to make a profit.



The Grandmaster wrote: It's called inflation, and it's a natural occurrence of the economic engine.And the price of drugs were they legal, is also unrelated to whether or not they should be legal.You going to ban high priced condominiums, because some people can’t afford them?


what is to say that drugs would not fall under inflation, and thus their prices would go up to what they are now?
The Grandmaster wrote: You going to ban high priced condominiums, because some people can’t afford them?

you're making wild hyperboles now.


never did i say or imply that high priced commodities should be banned.



The Grandmaster wrote: See above. They move with the market. If there were only one producer of soda in the world, they could charge whatever they wanted. Again, irrelevant to the argument at hand.


and the market is under inflation and price hikes, so drugs, even with compeition, would not necessarily go down in price.



The Grandmaster wrote: What's to stop him now? Making it illegal hasn't helped. You ask what's to stop him. Personal responsibility. It isn't my fault if another make their life suck.

once again, differing ideologies.


T The Grandmaster wrote: hen he will go to jail for stealing. But since any number of things can lead to a person stealing, you going to ban all that too? You going to ban low wages next?

drugs are preventable, low wages aren't.



The Grandmaster wrote: Unfortunately, your argument has failed to support your premise that more people will steal for drug money if they were legal, than if they were illegal, and so, this premise used to support your conclusion remains unwarranted.

i never said more people would steal, i said it would stay the same.

now you're putting words into my mouth.


legailization of drugs in the past hasn't worked. opium in china for example. all england did was make opium highly available and cheap, and china practically shut down. another example would be legalized morphine in america after the civil war.



The Grandmaster wrote: Comrade...is it illegal to drive drunk or not. :lol:


what are you talking about?


i was comparing two different times periods to show you that when drunk driving wasn't outlawed, there was a problem, and when drunk driving laws were enacted, drunk driving deaths were prevented.



The Grandmaster wrote: Unwarranted conclusion.

You have not demonstrated this. Now remember, when you provide your links showing a vague increase in crime when drugs were legal, just be ready for my refutation of said links by showing correlation does not imply causation, that the studies failed to take into account confounding third variables, that the studies failed to demonstrate that the crime was absolutely caused by drug legalization, and that my own links will demonstrate that in places where differing degrees of drugs are legal, crime is not significantly higher.
I’m already one step ahead of you.


note my explinations above. they show that legalization of drugs would cause the prices to either stay the same, and crime would not decrease or increase, or that drugs would become incredibly available, and cause an actual problem(china and their opium wars for example).


The Grandmaster wrote: How is a man in a coma going to drive Comrade.

i was merely making a sarcastic remark to a silly argument.



The Grandmaster wrote: You admit you cannot support the prohibition of drugs?


i have never said nor implied such.

[The Comrade]

Aereus wrote: That's impossible and you know it. Whenever there is a demand, it will be supplied; it's just a question of who is supplying it and what injustices will be brought on others as a result. You'd be just as helpful telling people they shouldn't do drugs as you would telling children not to play video games.


it's impossible for people not to do drugs?


if that isn't what you're saying, the rest of your post is irrelevant.

[The Comrade]

Aereus wrote: The most dangerous drugs, alcohol being one of them, are already legal. The usage of the vast majority of "controlled" substances has significantly less fatalities associated with them. The real victims in this "war on drugs" are the people who have to live on street corners with drug dealers because those dealers can't sell legally. And guess what...the real harm to people is not from the drugs themselves, but from the bullets being shot into their head on those street corners as a direct result of governmental actions.



okay, with alcohol bieng legalized, look at how widely accepted and used it is?


are you saying that if drugs were legalized they would not follow this trend also?

[The Comrade]

Aereus wrote: There was a simple solution to this problem that was already suggested (and I believe it is currently used in NM). Cars should come complete with breathlyzer devices. If the person is clearly intoxicated, these devices would prevent the engine from starting.

contradiction.


personal responsability arguments now being mixed with government intervention?

[Shady]

perdidochas wrote: Shady wrote: agentkgb wrote: Shady wrote: You believe YOU must force people to be safe? I suppose you also support helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking bans in restaurants and other nanny laws?
Smoking in public places isn't a "nanny law," it doesn't stop people from smoking. What it stops is people who smoke hurting others with secondhand smoke.

In places owned by the government, there is nothing wrong with a smoking ban. But I didn't say that, I'm referring to smoking bans in private establishments. Such as restaurants.

State/local governments can regulate a lot about restaurants. They can regulate hte number of parking spaces built, etc. Not allowing smoking is like any other regulation of things that require a license. The state/local governments have the power to do this.

I would disagree with those things too. Just because the state/local government MAY have the right to ban smoking from restaurants doesn't mean they should. You can easily go somewhere else, and in fact here in my state of VA we have no laws about it but roughly half or more then half of the restaurants have voluntarily instituted smoking bans. Capitilism works if you give it a chance.