Quote Originally Posted by jirisys View Post
There is only one good reason, and it is when you directly may, will or have harmed others. No other such reason exists.
Opinion, not fact.

Funny how you went through all this complication to prove my definitions were closer than yours.

Who will stop them from doing it? The LAW?
My definition was not wrong, a right is something you are automatically allowed to do, a privilege is granted to you.

Intoxication is a word which describes a state where one substance is harming a person.

Intoxication is not a privilige. And you can get intoxicated with pretty much anything. A child in Indonesia smokes 2 cigarette packages a day. So? It's not a right to get intoxicated, it's a damned action. The right you are talking about, is the right to consume, inject and sniff copious amounts of anything you want. As long as it doesn't directly affect anybody or is unintended.

You confused yourself, the definitions you put forward make your argument invalid. You put forward that "intoxicating yourself is not a right, it's a privilege."

And then:


WT*?
I'm sorry - where's the problem? Intoxication would only be a right if everyone was allowed to do it, but we restrict intoxication by age and chosen substance. Only adults are allowed to intoxicate themselves, ergo it is a privilege.


Pseudo intellectualism plus spelling mistakes make for a funny situation.

Take it all the way and say "Politeia", makes more sense.
Focusing on spelling mistakes is a vage form of ad hominem and irrelevent.

For crying out loud! Say POLICY! Stop using the same word that can be easily replaced.
I don't mean "policy" though.

MORAL. Not "Morel"
Impossible to read? No. Get over it.

So we just learned you are xenophobic, you think of immigrants as murdereds. That's cute.
Ad hominem, and incorrect. I simply said that a murderer from another country should not be allowed to immigrage, nor should other undesirables like professional criminals.

Also you missed my point.

My point is that the problem is still there, even if you deport them and jail them, there's no resolution to that problem. You're just wasting time and money that could go to solve the problem, not cut it's fingernails.
nails.
So, because a particular policy doesn't work perfectly we should abandon it? Don't be infantile, whatever policy is adopted will be imperfect and fail to be succesful 100% of the time, that does not make immigration control something that should just be abandoned.

Have you seen American TV?*

You missed my point again. I put forward a hypothetical situation, you turned into a censorship debate.

Kids watch porn. I think you never heard that many kids start watching porn before they even become of legal age. Does the law stop it? No. Is it really that big-a deal? No. Why? He's going to watch it anyways, even if you censor it till midnight. I doubt that any internetz will claim that he has never seen porn, or at least a naked woman.
So, at what age is it ok, 2, 6, 10? Again, your argument is "well we won't stop everyone, so let's just give up."

Picard.
Not helpful.

Representative democracy fails in every way possible. When have you ever felt secure at night in a low-class neighborhood? Why is there a low-class neighborhood? Why isn't equality really emphazised? Why do people still kill gays in Uganda, where a president and reprentative democracy is installed? Why do people still protest the goverment even if their choices are supposed to be heard? Why did thousands pour into Seattle to protest agaisnt the G-8? Were they protesting because the democracy worked too much?
Well, I live in a poor neighbourhood, and I'm really fairly happy with our political system. Is democracy perfect? No. What you suggest instead.

Also, you might not that, on reflection, the Ugandan parliament did not pass a law mandating the death penalty for homosexuality. Even so, that debate is a result of Ugandan society, not Ugandan democracy.

The privilege to be free from violent assault? It's not truly right. It's a privilege only few people get. (I base this on my definitions, not yours)
No, it's a right - at least here - it is illegal to assault someone in the UK, which includes threatening them, it has been this way for around 400 years. Actually touching someone it "Battery" if you are convicted of both that can be up to a year in prison.

Then how do you expect to handle ANY smoker that does that stupidity? You plan to sue him?
Actually, blowing smoke in my face is illegal, it is also a form of assault, or maybe actually battery, but you'd be prosecuted under assult - if I bothered to bring charges. The point is that I should never have to deal with that in the first place.

What is it with you and impossible questions? You never have asked a single question that can be answered by your own imposed narrow limits.
You just think that because they aren't the sort of answers you want.

So... You make the link yet? Make packaged joints without nicotine, and you get better smokes.
Packaged joints would have what else in, though? Loose Hash would still be cut with tobacco to stretch it out, why would people start smoking it pure anyway. How soon do you want the walls to start oozing?

Also:

Not many cancer health hazards from hash mah brotha'. You just making that **** up!
Any smoke inhalation is bad for your health, cannabis has tar in, doesn't it? That's the thing that causes most of the lung disease and the hacking cough in smokers.

Good for you to reject that.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

They're gonna do it anyway. If I want to end my life, I should be entitled to do so. Euthanasia for the sad.
There's the difference between you and me then, I care about other people and about society in general. You don't.

Yes, it shows that we are no longer middle-age religious fanatics who would be shocked and order and execution when seeing a women prancing around with half of her belly showing.
Right... so modern exploitation of women is better, then?

Gullible. Why should he need to steal if Meth and Marijuana are highly less addictive than even alcohol and tobbaco? I think the difference between alcoholic thieves and hash thieves is a ratio of 20:1. Only one with high amounts is cocaine. And only becasue it's illegal, so it's expensive. Get rid of the conjured up illegality and drop crime rates. They don't have anything to steal.

What are you implying? That every single pot smoker is a thief? I have two hashead friends, never stole a thing besides a few pencils since they lost their own.
I was thinking more of heroin users, or is drug legalisation just for some drugs all of a sudden?

Pointlessness.
Not if you were the French in WWI or WWII, it was fight or be enslaved or exterminated. Sadly their are worse things for a country to endure than war, much worse ones.