[QUOTE=DeathFang;17111396]You are considered a child until you turn 18. You are telling me a 17 year old does not understand the risks and implications of sex?[/QUOTE]
I didn't say I agree with the age of consent.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17111365]If you're worried about drug violence, increase the punishments for DRUG VIOLENCE, not drugs as a fucking whole.[/QUOTE]
How about drug punishments which focus on fighting addiction and rehabiliation, not imprisonment?
And as I said (though I don't know if this applies to the US) the police generally are far more interested in drug dealers as opposed to the people who take them.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17111398]No, they're the same level of illegality. It's black and white. They carry different punishments.[/QUOTE]
Goddammit, I was gonna' say that.
The owner of the company is the U.S. government.
Stephen, the worker, is the guy not wearing a seat belt.
I'm asking if you would be opposed to the idea of firing him for it, in the same way would you be opposed to the idea of fining people for not wearing seat belts. I added that bit about companies not being liable so that you couldn't say "Of course I'd fire him because otherwise when he gets woodchipped, I'd be sued!".
And [B]I was fucking right about you getting mad god dammit[/B]
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;17111395]Then they get in trouble for assault or murder.
It's not a crime until they commit it, and it's stupid to make something illegal because [B]some[/B] users exert the behavior.[/QUOTE]
While that may seem logical to an extent, what do you say when it's YOUR close family member who is killed? I'm glad they let people have drugs that would make them do this?
[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111392]People who get meth brains often lose control over there state of mind. It doesn't matter if it's illegal, they will kill people anyway.[/QUOTE]
Then they would get in trouble for murder.
Is this really that hard to understand?
Or are you trying to get the 'we have to stop the problem before it starts' point across?
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;17111293][B]THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED STOP MAKING UP BULLSHIT STORIES TO JUSTIFY BULLSHIT LAWS[/B]
Jesus christ.
And if that is your argument:
[B]What about motorcyclists[/B]
They typically go faster than cars, and there is NO restraints to the vehicle for them. So they have the biggest chance of being dangerous.[/QUOTE]
This is a good point that I've overlooked. I change my stance on this.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;17111416]How about drug punishments which focus on fighting addiction and rehabiliation, not imprisonment?
And as I said (though I don't know if this applies to the US) the police generally are far more interested in drug dealers as opposed to the people who take them.[/QUOTE]
No, that's just as fucking stupid.
Why the fuck should you punish people who haven't done anything to hurt anyone?
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;17111421]The owner of the company is the U.S. government.
Stephen, the worker, is the guy not wearing a seat belt.
I'm asking if you would be opposed to the idea of firing him for it, in the same way would you be opposed to the idea of fining people for not wearing seat belts. I added that bit about companies not being liable so that you couldn't say "Of course I'd fire him because otherwise when he gets woodchipped, I'd be sued!".
And [B]I was fucking right about you getting mad god dammit[/B][/QUOTE]
Who the fuck is going to sue the government as though it's their goddamn fault some moron didn't wear a seatbelt?
[QUOTE=Lankist;17111385]
We are saying individuals shouldn't be liable for damage to themselves.[/QUOTE]
If they're damaging themselves willingly they shouldn't be considered apt to make any sort of decision. That's why we cage in suicide attemptees, isn't it?
wow, this thread certainly has heated up.
Hey guyz whats going on in here.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;17111421]The owner of the company is the U.S. government.
Stephen, the worker, is the guy not wearing a seat belt.
I'm asking if you would be opposed to the idea of firing him for it, in the same way would you be opposed to the idea of fining people for not wearing seat belts. I added that bit about companies not being liable so that you couldn't say "Of course I'd fire him because otherwise when he gets woodchipped, I'd be sued!".
And [B]I was fucking right about you getting mad god dammit[/B][/QUOTE]
We aren't talking about corporate liability. That is an entirely different discussion.
This is about individual choice in an individual setting.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;17111425]Then they would get in trouble for murder.
Is this really that hard to understand?
Or are you trying to get the 'we have to stop the problem before it starts' point across?[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah. I don't think anyone's right to drugs is more important than my family's right to live. If giving some one the right to drugs inhibits my family's right to live, I'm going to get upset about it.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;17111438]wow, this thread certainly has heated up.[/QUOTE]
Your avatar combined with that statement made me chuckle a bit.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;17111421]The owner of the company is the U.S. government.
Stephen, the worker, is the guy not wearing a seat belt.
I'm asking if you would be opposed to the idea of firing him for it, in the same way would you be opposed to the idea of fining people for not wearing seat belts. I added that bit about companies not being liable so that you couldn't say "Of course I'd fire him because otherwise when he gets woodchipped, I'd be sued!".
And [B]I was fucking right about you getting mad god dammit[/B][/QUOTE]
Again, I don't know about the US, but in the UK ignoring important safety requirements at work is grounds for dismissal if you ignore them repeatably.
[QUOTE=PacificV2;17111437]If they're damaging themselves willingly they shouldn't be considered at to make any sort of decision. That's why we cage in suicide attemptees, isn't it?[/QUOTE]
Who the fuck gets to decide mental stability?
Hate to break it to you but we're all crazy. We're philosophical, murderous monkeys. That's fucking crazy. Sanity is a delusion defined by the majority.
Nobody should be punished under any circumstances for doing anything to themselves and themselves alone. It isn't the government's place to decide what is and is not insane.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17111436]Who the fuck is going to sue the government as though it's their goddamn fault some moron didn't wear a seatbelt?[/QUOTE]
What?
I wasn't saying that would happen.
[B]I removed the company's liability in my metaphor in order to make the two scenarios more similar.[/B] IRL the government doesn't get sued or anything when people die in car crashes. There is coroner shit and stuff but it's not a tragedy on the national scale, in the way that a company getting sued is very bad for smaller companies.
[QUOTE=Vasili;17111451]Hey guyz whats going on in here.[/QUOTE]
Apparently a lack of reading comprehension skills.
[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111470]Well, yeah. I don't think anyone's right to drugs is more important than my family's right to live. If giving some one the right to drugs inhibits my family's right to live, I'm going to get upset about it.[/QUOTE]
Umm, their right to drugs and your right to live do not conflict. At all.
[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111422]While that may seem logical to an extent, what do you say when it's YOUR close family member who is killed? I'm glad they let people have drugs that would make them do this?[/QUOTE]
The drugs don't MAKE them do anything. The person made the choice to do the drug, and I would be pissed at the person, and hope they get slammed for murder.
Trying to stop something before it starts when it has to do with our individual rights could lead to some ridiculous restrictions.
[quote=lankist;17111460]we aren't talking about corporate liability. That is an entirely different discussion.
This is about individual choice in an individual setting.[/quote]
[b]I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT FUCKING CORPORATE [url=http://caps] [/url]LIABILITY.[/b]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17111486]Umm, their right to drugs and your right to live do not conflict. At all.[/QUOTE]
Not in an alalog manner, but really they do. If some one is given the chance to do something that destroys their state of mind, putting people at risk, it effects the chances of life for those around.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;17111478]Again, I don't know about the US, but in the UK ignoring important safety requirements at work is grounds for dismissal if you ignore them repeatably.[/QUOTE]
It's grounds for immediate dismissal here on the first account.
[QUOTE=Malumbre;17111485]Apparently a lack of reading comprehension skills.[/QUOTE]
i hope im not one of them
[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111470]Well, yeah. I don't think anyone's right to drugs is more important than my family's right to live. If giving some one the right to drugs inhibits my family's right to live, I'm going to get upset about it.[/QUOTE]
They're going to get them and do them anyway. I don't understand why you don't understand this.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;17111504][b]i am not talking about fucking corporate liability[/b][/QUOTE]
Your anecdote keeps referencing a company.
What an individual does for a company is done on behalf of the company, not themselves. That's what a job is.
[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111514]Not in an alalog manner, but really they do. If some one is given the chance to do something that destroys their state of mind, putting people at risk, it effects the chances of life for those around.[/QUOTE]
Except they're responsible for anything they do while under the influence of drugs. Drugs aren't beating people the fuck up, morons who can't control themselves are.
[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111514]Not in an alalog manner, but really they do. If some one is given the chance to do something that destroys their state of mind, putting people at risk, it effects the chances of life for those around.[/QUOTE]
Then we should ban video games too. There is a legitimate psychological effect that has been studied and proven and they do have a tendency to alter the state of mind of the youth that partakes in them. Video games murder your family via proxy just like drugs.
Your logic, not mine.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17111515]It's grounds for immediate dismissal here on the first account.[/QUOTE]
It would depend on how serious the infraction is in the UK, as far as I know. Though gross negligence or reckless is generally a one way ticket to the dole.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
