you've obviously never met an angry drunk.
Advertisement
by The Warrior Hearted » Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:58 pm
by Wienholdland » Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:59 pm
by The Islands of United Caribbean Colonies » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:00 pm
GreaterPacificNations wrote:Right, and when someone harms another person, whilst under the influence, they are responsible for that. There is a justice and civil court system in place to manage that after-effect of freedom.Most people don't stop to ask a stranger's name or anything else if they are next to them when they're smoking.
You don't need to be exposed to one concrete person smoking over extended periods of time, they could be exposed to various people smoking over extended periods of time. Which happens quite often.
If you were in a restaurant, and the restaurant condoned smoking inside, sue them. If they didn't, tell the waiter to stop the person from smoking. This basic premise can be applied to any premises open to the public. As for smoking outside- tough shit. Don't sit next to smokers on a park bench- it's easy to avoid.
by Keronians » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:01 pm
GreaterPacificNations wrote:Right, and when someone harms another person, whilst under the influence, they are responsible for that. There is a justice and civil court system in place to manage that after-effect of freedom.Most people don't stop to ask a stranger's name or anything else if they are next to them when they're smoking.
You don't need to be exposed to one concrete person smoking over extended periods of time, they could be exposed to various people smoking over extended periods of time. Which happens quite often.
If you were in a restaurant, and the restaurant condoned smoking inside, sue them. If they didn't, tell the waiter to stop the person from smoking. This basic premise can be applied to any premises open to the public. As for smoking outside- tough shit. Don't sit next to smokers on a park bench- it's easy to avoid.
by The Warrior Hearted » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:02 pm
by Biop » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:02 pm
by Biop » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:03 pm
Keronians wrote:Sibirsky wrote:Authoritarianism fails.
There is not a single (sane) person who believes there is nothing wrong with murder. There are people that are willing to do it, of course, for whatever reason. There is a difference.
There are quite a few people who believe that there is nothing wrong with murder.
by Wienholdland » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:03 pm
That's nice. I don't care. The alcohol is not responsible for an individual's actions.
by Keronians » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:03 pm
by Sibirsky » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:04 pm
Keronians wrote:GreaterPacificNations wrote: Right, and when someone harms another person, whilst under the influence, they are responsible for that. There is a justice and civil court system in place to manage that after-effect of freedom.
If you were in a restaurant, and the restaurant condoned smoking inside, sue them. If they didn't, tell the waiter to stop the person from smoking. This basic premise can be applied to any premises open to the public. As for smoking outside- tough shit. Don't sit next to smokers on a park bench- it's easy to avoid.
How about the fact that I'm causing no harm, while you are, therefore, you shouldn't smoke in a public place?
As for restaurants condoning smoking inside, yes, I should be able to, but at the same time, it means that the law recognises that a restaurant shouldn't allow smoking in it.
by Keronians » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:04 pm
Wienholdland wrote:That's nice. I don't care. The alcohol is not responsible for an individual's actions.The Warrior Hearted wrote:
There are drugs which DO change how you act. You can find someone who is the nicest guy on earth, but suddenly becomes an angry asshole after a few shots pretty easily.
by The Warrior Hearted » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:05 pm
Wienholdland wrote:That's nice. I don't care. The alcohol is not responsible for an individual's actions.The Warrior Hearted wrote:
There are drugs which DO change how you act. You can find someone who is the nicest guy on earth, but suddenly becomes an angry asshole after a few shots pretty easily.
by GreaterPacificNations » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:05 pm
They don't have to. Tobacco only really harms others via second hand smoke. So as long as people aren't smoking inside, no problem there. Same with weed. Alcohol, and Crack and few others have higher secondary incidences of harm based more or less behavioural problems. People become dicks when they use them.Keronians wrote:And consuming drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, etc. in public can cause harm to people who made no choice to willingly harm themselves.
Not to mention that I still don't see why we should allow something which does nothing but cause net harm be legal, apart from the fact that it is impossible to enforce.
by Keronians » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:05 pm
Sibirsky wrote:Keronians wrote:
How about the fact that I'm causing no harm, while you are, therefore, you shouldn't smoke in a public place?
As for restaurants condoning smoking inside, yes, I should be able to, but at the same time, it means that the law recognises that a restaurant shouldn't allow smoking in it.
How about letting property owners choose what they do with their property? If they allow smoking, they allow smoking. If they don't, they don't. And if you have your panties in a bunch over some smokers, don't go to a smoking restaurant.
But no. The state must dictate everything for us. It must hold my pee pee because I might get some pee on the seat.
by Wienholdland » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:07 pm
Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Quite easy to understand, really.Keronians wrote:Wienholdland wrote:No it can't.
Of course it can. Don't quite understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong.
A drunk will most likely cause harm he wouldn't do if his judgment weren't being clouded by the depressant. The cause of the harm can be traced back to the drug, so the drug does cause harm to others when individuals consume it.
by Keronians » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:07 pm
GreaterPacificNations wrote:They don't have to. Tobacco only really harms others via second hand smoke. So as long as people aren't smoking inside, no problem there. Same with weed. Alcohol, and Crack and few others have higher secondary incidences of harm based more or less behavioural problems. People become dicks when they use them.Keronians wrote:And consuming drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, etc. in public can cause harm to people who made no choice to willingly harm themselves.Not to mention that I still don't see why we should allow something which does nothing but cause net harm be legal, apart from the fact that it is impossible to enforce.
Because as Sibirsky said, use drops after legalisation. Also, a legalised problem is easier to manage. Because, as I said before, lots of things cause harm, like eating bacon, but we can't restrict people's freedom to force them to live an 'ideal' life. Society is just a whole bunch of us- all different- trying to find the best way to all get along while doing what we want to do.
In list format:
1)Impossible to enforce
2)Use drops with legalisation
3)Use can be managed and regulated to further reduce harm when legalised.
4)It is a basic freedom to do what you will with your body.
by Keronians » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:09 pm
Wienholdland wrote:Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Quite easy to understand, really.Keronians wrote:
Of course it can. Don't quite understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong.
A drunk will most likely cause harm he wouldn't do if his judgment weren't being clouded by the depressant. The cause of the harm can be traced back to the drug, so the drug does cause harm to others when individuals consume it.
by Sibirsky » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:09 pm
Keronians wrote:Not to mention that I still don't see why we should allow something which does nothing but cause net harm be legal, apart from the fact that it is impossible to enforce.
by Keronians » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:10 pm
by Sibirsky » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:11 pm
Keronians wrote:GreaterPacificNations wrote: They don't have to. Tobacco only really harms others via second hand smoke. So as long as people aren't smoking inside, no problem there. Same with weed. Alcohol, and Crack and few others have higher secondary incidences of harm based more or less behavioural problems. People become dicks when they use them.
Because as Sibirsky said, use drops after legalisation. Also, a legalised problem is easier to manage. Because, as I said before, lots of things cause harm, like eating bacon, but we can't restrict people's freedom to force them to live an 'ideal' life. Society is just a whole bunch of us- all different- trying to find the best way to all get along while doing what we want to do.
In list format:
1)Impossible to enforce
2)Use drops with legalisation
3)Use can be managed and regulated to further reduce harm when legalised.
4)It is a basic freedom to do what you will with your body.
by Keronians » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:12 pm
by Sibirsky » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:12 pm
by Milks Empire » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:12 pm
Biop wrote:Source for "drugs are addictive"? Are you serious?
by Sibirsky » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:12 pm
by Keronians » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:13 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Big Eyed Animation, El Lazaro, Spiritualiah
Advertisement