- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Don't ruffle my feathers, pal.
Fine. I vote for "drugs." Drugs win over guns.
Good day.
Who would want guns and drugs to be legal? Great. So we can have people running around armed, high on bath salts. That sounds real smart..... god bless democracy. Our lives are in the hands of idiots.
Didn't anyone follow the Miami zombie story? Sheesh.
I guess the concept of making abuse of either item illegal and subject to severe punishments is beyond your comprehension?
It's easy enough, and relatively free of controversy, to define “abusing” guns. Handling a gun in an unsafe manner, which creates an unreasonable danger to self or others would clearly be such an abuse. So would any unjust use of a gun to threaten or harm one's self or another person. It's really that simple. And the vast majority of uses that are made of the vast majority of guns, are clearly non-abusive.
Drugs are a whole different animal. Their entire purpose is to harm the person who takes them. And by so doing, the person often harms others as well. How does one use drugs in a non-abusive way? The answer, quite clearly, is that one simply does not.
Guns are nearly always ever only used non-abusively.
Drugs are never used non-abusively; they are only ever used abusively. There is no non-abusive use for them.
Clearly, the abusive use of either of these things should be illegal. I have little problem with the mere possession of something being illegal, when that thing has no non-abusive use, and the possession can be taken as prima facie evidence of an intent to abuse it; which is clearly the case with drugs, but not with guns.
Drugs are never used non-abusively; they are only ever used abusively. There is no non-abusive use for them.
Yeah, but when drugs are abused, they harm only the guilty.
Not true.
It is the luser who is usually most harmed by drug abuse, but the harm is seldom confined to him. Obviously this is more so with some drugs than with some others. Do you not recall all the news stories recently about people under the influence of “bath salts”, and the violence which this drug caused them to instigate against innocents? Some drugs have a proven tendency to cause their lusers to engage in violent, dangerous behavior that they otherwise wouldn't, which creates danger not just to themselves, but to others around them.
Less spectacularly, of course, it is a trait of nearly all these drugs that they cause impaired judgement and motor control; when people under the influence of such drugs drive or operate heavy machinery, they certainly create a danger to others.
And then, of course, there is the fact that drug use renders many people incapable of holding down a productive job, which means that instead of contributing to society, they become a burden thereon; adversely affecting everyone else who must share some portion of that burden.
Drugs are never used non-abusively; they are only ever used abusively. There is no non-abusive use for them.
Sure there is, recreation and relaxation. Are you going to tell me you're a tea total [sic]?
Also, how about some of the other points I raised? People easily obtain drugs whether legal or not, so encouraging responsible use/abstinence is far more likely to have a positive outcome than simply forcing it underground (a la prohibition).
Also, do you ever use the "it's just an inanimate object" argument in favor of gun rights? I ask because it applies to drugs too in my opinion.
If you're talking about the Miami bath salts incident, both the victim and the "zombie," for lack of a better word, were under the influence of the bath salts. Think about it, would you allow someone to literally eat your face you were sober? I don't even need to ask that. Of course you wouldn't.
You seem to be referring to one specific incident, in which “bath salts” have been suspected, but not proven to have been involved. I don't know where you're getting the claim that the victim of this attack was also on “bath salts”, as I do not find that in any of the accounts that I am finding online regarding this incident.
While that may or may not have been an example of “bath salts”-induced violence, it is certainly not the only one.
Thanks for conceding.
Thanks for conceding.
Since you didn't actually address anything it still sounds like a concession to me.That wasn't a concession; it was a way of pointing out an instance of you “speaking with a forked tongue”.
Drugs are a whole different animal. Their entire purpose is to harm the person who takes them. And by so doing, the person often harms others as well. How does one use drugs in a non-abusive way? The answer, quite clearly, is that one simply does not.
By that definition, you cause harmful behavior by just existing. Supply and demand dictates that your demands for food, housing, etc. increase everybody else's cost of living, which an obvious adverse effect for everyone else.To cause harmful behavior is to cause harm to anyone who is adversely affected by that behavior.