sees_all1

That keeping drugs illegal keeps people safer, and is less of a burden on society. And what is the baseline we're going on?

If the law says "Don't do X", and someone does x, it isn't the law that made their decision to do x. Focus on the bolded part, with a word placed in there that I'd forgotten to put in the sentence in the first place (the word is to.) If we could reduce the rates of those things, along with reduce the number of new users by making it legally obtainable, would you admit that you were wrong? What is it I'm supposed to be wrong about?

If the law says "Don't do X", and someone does x, it isn't the law that made their decision to do x.

So, because the person doesn't have the money, they should just be left to die? That's just sadistic and the most [bleep]ed up thing I've ever heard. I'm so glad I live in a country where basic healthcare is available for everyone, even if they have no money. No, it means they shouldn't be doing drugs in the first place, especially if they can't care for themselves afterwards. EDIT: You can also read it as: I don't want to pay for their drug addiction.

When someone finds a person OD'd and takes them to a hospital, where the staff brings them back to life, only to find that the druggy has no money and everyone else has to foot the bill. When someone high as a kite goes on a joy ride, and drives a car into a group of pedestrians, killing two and severely injuring five. When someone smokes pot in front of their kids, getting them high as well, in a sick form of child abuse. It's not you we care about, it's others.

Right, people choose to be fat in the same way people chose to be high. :rolleyes: Well of course it isn't a conscious or quick decision, but over time it is a personal choice that one makes, unless some disease is involved. Isn't it? enough said.

Right, people choose to be fat in the same way people chose to be high. :rolleyes:

You miffed the analogy. Obesity is a condition. Food is a substance. High is a condition. Narcotics is a substance. Comparing Obesity directly to Narcotics doesn't fit the analogy Ring made.

I'm afraid you and I can't be friends, you see I'm an Indianapolis Colts fan. Everyone knows that Peyton Manning is the best quarterback of all time.

Aboot that, I disagree. Eh. :twss:

That's not the point I'm making, but even then you're wrong. Read it and weep: http://www.healthnewstrack.com/health-news-2071.html if you actually read the article you linked to it said "The benefits were only seen in the overweight category not in those people who are obese." its also only 1 study, so the results have to be taken tentitively Yeah I read that, but the difference between the two can be less than a pound. That still isn't the point I'm making, so I really could care less if the semantics are off a bit.

I wasn't aware that you needed narcotics to survive. I wasn't aware that you needed to be obese to survive. That's not the point I'm making, but even then you're wrong. Read it and weep: http://www.healthnewstrack.com/health-news-2071.html

I wasn't aware that you needed narcotics to survive.

Me too, I'm disappointed that we even need laws.

what At work I have a specification that details all the tests we need to be able to run on our product at the factory. The specification was adopted from an older one; my company is a French company hence the French. I need to write "stubs" - incomplete functions - so that they can be easily implemented at a later date by a different individual.

Having to write function stubs for an API that's half in French and uncomplete.

Also, many places use taxes from tobacco sales to fund their children's health insurance programs. Banning tobacco outright gives the government less tax revenue, corrupt bastards.

I bought the wrong momentary switch. It's normally closed instead of open. Had I not double checked it I could be in a world of hurt right now (badly burned fingers). Since I checked it, I had to tear my project half apart, now I need to buy a replacement.

It's the same reason you don't drink alcohol at work. Both impair your coordination and balance, delay your reaction time. Pot also hurts your short-term memory and distorts your perception. Sure, but it's not like you turn into a rock. You can function at a near normal level. If you believe that cannabis should not be legal because of the danger, you also believe that alcohol and tobacco should be illegal. Is this correct? Alcohol can be measured very specifically - in a bottle and in the blood, relatively easily. Alcohol may affect one person's ability to function, but it doesn't affect people around you. Tobacco (Nicotine) can't be measured very specifically (unless it is processed in a gum or patch), but smoking next to someone won't impair their judgement or affect them directly. Marijuana can't be measured very specifically (THC can vary greatly from one plant to the next), it does impair people's judgement (like alcohol), and it affects people around them. So no, its different.

Notice where he says services. He's not just talking public-domain social network profiles. He's talking SMS and BBM. I'm sorry, I read the context of the quote and the word "services" references twitter and facebook.

It's the same reason you don't drink alcohol at work. Both impair your coordination and balance, delay your reaction time. Pot also hurts your short-term memory and distorts your perception.

I feel that the US/Mexico drug war is closely linked to immigration anyway... If you stop illegals from entering the country, you stop the drugs some of them will transport with them. I also think that the arguments made for and against drug legalization are very similar to the arguments made for and against prostitution. The people for legalization like to argue in the cleanest sense - "two consenting adults... with an exchange of money...", or "on a vacation or on a weekend... in the privacy of a basement..." I'd probably be much more supportive of legalization if there were rapid tests to determine how high people are. Operating a motor vehicle while high is a matter of public safety, in the same way of drunk driving. Unfortunately there is no breathalyzer for pot, and proving someone is high will be much more difficult.

I wasn't talking about public forums, I was talking about the Blackberry Wireless service. Anyone stupid enough to communicate about rioting or criminal activity over Facebook or Twitter is an idiot. Missed that. I feel like governments do that all the time, but they only "use it against you" if they have a warrant.

Yelling "Fire!" in a movie theatre isn't protected free speech. Advocating criminal acts in a public square isn't protected free speech. Inciting a riot isn't protected free speech. Monitoring a service like twitter or public facebook groups for people inciting violence, in my opinion, is very similar to policing a public square. There is no expectation of privacy on twitter (or public facebook groups), why should police have to obtain a warrant?

The funniest part about "Legalize it, regulate it, tax the crap out of it" is how the argument ignores the fact that there is an entire black market of people already buying, selling, transporting, etc. They don't care about the law, why do you think they'd start caring once it is legal?