 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:35
|
|
dont forget the chinese stores on every other corner so people can start they day eating cheap fried chicken and smoking loosey newports, along with the liquor.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:35
|
|
the sad thing is, the middle class that you are referring to has little to fear from poor criminals... the poor are too busy robbing and killing the poor.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999 time: 23:35
|
|
Kid - quote: I usually don't put more than one smiley, but since I was actually laughing at your post I figured I would this time. |
After "debating" Speer, I'm used to people laughing when they have nothing else to fire back with. 
quote: You have no idea what reckless means in the legal context. It means putting others at risk not yourself. |
Can you quote me saying "reckless" behavior excludes behavior toward others? Weren't we just talking about driving recklessly on a sidewalk which does involve others? As strawmen go, that was pretty pathetic...
quote: When you put others at risk that justifies action against you to prevent you from doing so. There is no point in taking action against you for putting yourself at risk. |
But that was your argument, that because drugs can alter one's personality or brain chemistry, that makes it reckless and worthy of punitive action. Are you backtracking now?
quote: I don't think I need to prove that drugs diminish your ability to make decisions that insure public safety and that they deteriorate your overall decision making ability over time. |
Yes you do need to prove it because not all drugs are the same and do not share alcohol's characteristics (do you want to jail everyone who uses alcohol too? I bet not, public safety my a$$). Speed enhances awareness, not diminish it. That's why many truckers use it and why flyers used it during WWII.
Furthermore, you need to prove that using a drug in the privacy of one's own home creates this conveniently ambiguous danger to public safety. And one more thing, would you advocate jailing the mentally deficient too because they may be a threat to public safety? Or are you going to use the loophole that because they can't help it, jailing them would be unjustified?
If so, doesn't that ruin your argument that punishing drug users for the sake of public safety is necessary? You see, it doesn't matter if someone can or cannot help themself according to your logic, what matters is they are a perceived threat to public safety regardless of whether or not they actually are, and whether or not they can help it is irrelevant. The drug war is a threat to public safety, so it's ironic to hear a supporter of the drug war use threats to public safety to justify a threat to public safety. 
quote: Government is always going to exist. Why do you ask these questions. |
To expose the immorality of your position, I take it that's why you're dodging the question. You wouldn't do that to other people if there was no government to hide behind. 
quote: Society bands together to protect their common interests. I know you hate that, but it will never change. |
Now that's funny, society doesn't band together, people band together to form a society. And that's irrelevant...
quote: I didn't say taking all drugs were reckless. In fact, I believe marajuana should be legal as long as people don't drive and do other reckless activity. |
You said "drugs", not "some" or "the ones I don't like". And some people will drive under the influence if it's legal or if it's illegal. So do you want to punish ALL pot smokers because of those who do drive under the influence? That's your argument when it comes to "drugs", or should I say, "some unnamed drugs".
quote: Working hard is a risk. Many take that risk and lose. |
Is taking the risk or not taking the risk reckless behavior if it leads to poverty which leads to crime? If poverty leads to crime, which is your rationale for punishing drug users, i.e., drug use leads to crime, then being poor is reckless. Paint yourself out of that corner, Kid. 
quote: They still end up poor, and if they take out loans for college they end up poor and in debt. Taking a risk and losing is not control, and no one should be forced to take a risk. |
Being put in a cage with criminals is risky, but you want to force drug users to take that risk. So we're right back to my question: if drug users need to be jailed because drugs leads to crime which is reckless, then why not poor people since poverty leads to crime which is also reckless? Aren't generalisations fun? 
quote: Cops aren't breaking into people's homes to bust them smoking pot. You are paranoid. |
Now that's quite a detachment from reality. Try watching "Cops" for a while and then tell us cops don't break into people's homes to bust them for drugs, or just pot. Hell, PBS ran a show a while back that focused on how cops are breaking into people's homes to bust them for medicinal pot. And don't splice two quotes together to change what I said, the second quote didn't mention pot, just personal behavior which can refer to pot or any other drug.
Ted - quote: One more thing regarding drug dealers that destroy neighborhoods. There are 3 other legal things that will destroy neigborhoods, which is why most people don't want them around:
1) Liquor stores
2) Gun stores
3) Strip clubs |
Strange, we have all three and our neighborhood isn't ruined. 
quote: Remember the old saying that went, "why is there a liquor store on every block in the ghetto???"
Watch the lines form at 5 AM so the locals can stock up on 40s and start the day ****ed up. |
That ruins a neighborhood? I thought it would be the drive by shootings between gangbangers who make their money by selling "illegal" drugs. If people don't want to allow people to be drunk in public, so be it. But if those people who are buying go home and get drunk, does that still ruin the neighborhood?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:35
|
|
blah?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970 time: 00:35
|
|
quote: Well you don't have an ex-slave population which accounts for 12% of your population and 48% of your murders either. |
I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but must point out that none of these people are ex-slaves. Neither did they suffer under Jim Crow and segregation in Detroit and Philadelphia. But, alas, in DC we are only 35 years removed from Jim Crow and segregation. Parts of DC are just getting out from under the 60s race riots.
quote: the sad thing is, the middle class that you are referring to has little to fear from poor criminals... the poor are too busy robbing and killing the poor. |
This isn't strictly true. Those who are middle class who own property in the city suffer disproportionately from criminals because criminal violence impacts property values so much. All it takes is one crack house on the block and millions of dollars in property value is flushed down the tubes.
Last edited by DanS on 28-07-2004 at 19:41
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35. Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|