Drug war.. Is it worth your time. Yes or no and why page 3

70 posts

Flag Post

Well reject as far as this thread goes apparently people feel in danger from drug users that they don’t even know. Not realizing that you likely talk to drug users every day and don’t even know it. You would be surprised how many successful people use drugs when you only look at the negatives. So to answer your question reject ill just give this as an example I don’t feel in danger simply because somebody likes to use drugs.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Wraymond:

Well reject as far as this thread goes apparently people feel in danger from drug users that they don’t even know. Not realizing that you likely talk to drug users every day and don’t even know it.

If you are justified feeling endangered by intoxicated drivers, then feeling endangered by people using mind altering drugs is equally as justified.

You would be surprised how many successful people use drugs when you only look at the negatives.

Did I ever say I only look at the negatives?

So to answer your question reject ill just give this as an example I don’t feel in danger simply because somebody likes to use drugs.

That doesn’t answer my question at all.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Wraymond:

Actually I just said I would care if someone hit me when they aren’t able to operate a vehicle. I don’t think anyone should drive like that. If someone poses a real danger to other people around them then that danger should be removed. The problem is what people think of as a danger. But that a whole other topic, my main point in this thread is people should be free to do as they please as long as they don’t harm (*or put anyone in imminent danger)

Actually, it is the very same topic. See, driving whilst under the influence of a mind-altering substance should be regulated – as per your own statement in the quote. Thus you are actually acknowledging that drug use should be illegal in some circumstances.

It logically follows that its use should be monitored, and subject to stiff penalties if you are caught using it at inappropriate times – like getting drunk as a lord whilst driving an 18 wheeler, or getting high on heroin whilst operating a fort-lift.

This then directly contravenes your claim that: “people should be free to do as they please as long as they don’t harm”.

If there’s the potential for loss of life or limb of others, then even if that person would have been ok – the truck driver would have navigated the city safely after 20 beers, or the heroin addict would’ve missed the kids in the store by inches had those specific incidents been allowed, that there is such a strong potential for everything to go horribly wrong does demand that they not be allowed to “do whatever they please” in certain circumstances.

Those circumstances being anytime they are in a position of power over other members of society, their judgement must not be clouded by any mind-debilitating substances.

 
Flag Post

How clear do I have to be… I DON’T SUPPORRT INTOXICATED DRIVING. that’s that so I don’t know why your still arguing with me about that. All I’m saying is that the drug war is a huge waste of time and resources. And no that doesn’t mean I support drunk driving once again.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Wraymond:

How clear do I have to be… I DON’T SUPPORRT INTOXICATED DRIVING.

But you do, because you are still claiming everyone should be free to do whatever they wish whenever they wish, so long as they’re not actually harming others at the time. So if someone wishes to booze up then drive a truck, its no different to someone who wishes to shoot up with their drug of choice before doingthe same.

Truck driving whilst having an acid trip, for example. Perferctly sober, but not actually on the same plane of reality as their truck.


I’m trying to get you to acknowledge, that we do not have the right to do whatever we wish to our bodies and minds if we are going to then go on and drive dangerous vehicles / operate heavy machinery / conduct delicate surgery / make strategic decisions for others.

All are interaction with society from a position of power, and to do that you need to have a clear head.

So, we must have laws dictating when and where you are absolutely, under no circumstances, be allowed to use any substance which has a negative effect on your ability to think clearly. Can you not see that?

 
Flag Post

Wow lol Vic. If you look back I clarified that people should not be allowed to put anyone in danger like that as well, mabe you missed it but this is the last time I say it once again, I don’t think intoxicated driving, intoxicated during surgery etc. should be legal. I agreed with you on that a while back. So to clarify my outlook more. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are absolutely at the very most putting themselves in danger or harming themselves and no more.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Wraymond:

People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are absolutely at the very most putting themselves in danger or harming themselves and no more.

And why should your definition of danger be used? You still haven’t answered that.

 
Flag Post

Because I my definition of danger is the same one in the dictionary natural reject. Why not?

 
Flag Post

No, your definition of danger is not the dictionary’s definition. According to the dictionary’s definition of danger, people doing drugs are a danger. You seem to claim they’re not.

 
Flag Post

A danger to themselves yes. I never said a person doing drugs can’t be dangerous. In fact I said they could while driving in several earlier posts. But a person “doing drugs” is to broad a description to determine wether or not it is dangerous to other people than the user.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by Wraymond:

People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are absolutely at the very most putting themselves in danger or harming themselves and no more.

And why should your definition of danger be used? You still haven’t answered that.

Originally posted by Wraymond:

Because my definition of danger is the same one in the dictionary natural reject. Why not?

Originally posted by NaturalReject:

No, your definition of danger is not the dictionary’s definition. According to the dictionary’s definition of danger, people doing drugs are a danger. You seem to claim they’re not.

Reject, either YOU are being obstinate or obnoxious.
What Wraymond is saying makes perfect sense,,,
and is one of the basic foundations of law.

YOU want to pander YOUR concept of what danger is.
Here is what A dictionary says:
Danger, hazard, peril, jeopardy imply harm that one may encounter. Danger is the general word for liability to all kinds of injury or evil consequences, either near at hand and certain, or remote and doubtful: to be in danger of being killed. Hazard suggests a danger that one can foresee but cannot avoid: A mountain climber is exposed to many hazards. Peril usually denotes great and imminent danger: The passengers on the disabled ship were in great peril. Jeopardy a less common word, has essentially the same meaning as peril but emphasizes exposure to the chances of a situation: To save his friend he put his life in jeopardy.

Point in case: in law, one can be “drinking” (alcohol) and still be doing do LEGALLY….to a point. However, ANY substance can cause “danger” to others on the road when taken in ANY amounts. I’m including PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

While I’m talking about “dangerous driving”, let us include a whole host of behavior that causes “danger” to all manner of “others” (this includes property).l
Texting
Gawking (inattentive driving)
Reading
Shaving
Doing makeup
Being sleepy
Dialing a phone #
NOT looking to make a lane change
Etc…etc…etc.

So, stop it w/ this crap about how doing drugs HAS TO BE “DANGEROUS” to “all”.
Yes, in a VERY broad sense, whatever a person does has “some” effect on society at large.
This is because, at the very least, that person IS A MEMBER of said society.

Wraymond makes this very clear when he says:

Originally posted by Wraymond:

A danger to themselves yes. I never said a person doing drugs can’t be dangerous. In fact I said they could while driving in several earlier posts. But a person “doing drugs” is too broad a description to determine whether or not it is dangerous to other people than the user.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Wraymond:

A danger to themselves yes. I never said a person doing drugs can’t be dangerous. In fact I said they could while driving in several earlier posts.

So you agree that people do become more dangerous to others when doing drugs?

But a person “doing drugs” is to broad a description to determine wether or not it is dangerous to other people than the user.

I’m talking about drug use in general, as your claim is that drugs in and of themselves never make anyone more dangerous.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Point in case: in law, one can be “drinking” (alcohol) and still be doing do LEGALLY….to a point.

When did I say you can’t drink legally? I’m not arguing that you’re illegal if you drink, only that you’re more of a danger in general when you do drink than when you are sober, even if you drink at home.

So, stop it w/ this crap about how doing drugs HAS TO BE “DANGEROUS” to “all”.

As the premiss of the argument I am contesting is that you don’t become more dangerous at all, I think I am quite justified in arguing that you do become more dangerous when doing drugs. You even somehow seem to understand my point in your very next sentence:

Yes, in a VERY broad sense, whatever a person does has “some” effect on society at large.

I’m not arguing that all drugs should be illegal, I’m arguing against that all drugs should be legal. There’s a major difference.

 
Flag Post

I don’t agree that people do become more dangerous to others, I agree that they can. Big difference. It all depends on the circumstances the user uses the drug. I don’t see what is so hard to understand here. You should have understood what I meant already. And when did I ever say drugs can’t make someone more dangerous. Are you even reading my posts??? I have said countless times that people driving drunk etc are more dangerous.

 
Flag Post

Good grief, Reject….what is “wrong” w/ YOU?
Either ya just aren’t reading the posts….at least very well.
OR, ya have a huge penchant for the negating hyperbole.
I shall attempt to emend YOUR post to show where YOU are making these mistakes. They will cross out YOUR words & the correct ones will be in bold

Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by Wraymond:

A danger to themselves yes. I never said a person doing drugs can’t be dangerous. In fact I said they could while driving in several earlier posts.


So you agree that people do CAN become more dangerous to others when doing drugs?


But a person “doing drugs” is to broad a description to determine whether or not it is dangerous to other people than the user.


I’m talking about drug use in general, as your claim is that drugs in and of themselves never (often?) CAN {{this is Wraymond’s position}} make anyone more dangerous.


Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Point in case: in law, one can be “drinking” (alcohol) and still be doing do LEGALLY….to a point.


When did I say you can’t drink legally? I’m not arguing that you’re illegal if you drink, only that you’re CAN BE more of a danger in general when you do drink than when you are sober, even if you drink at home.


So, stop it w/ this crap about how doing drugs HAS TO BE “DANGEROUS” to “all”.


As the premiss of the argument I am contesting is that you don’t become more dangerous at all Wraymond’s "premise is: One MIGHT/CAN become (more?) dangerous—how hard can it be to grasp this?, I think I am quite justified in arguing that you do CAN/MIGHT become more dangerous when doing drugs. You even somehow seem to understand my point in your very next sentence:

The corrected version IS what I said below.

Yes, in a VERY broad sense, whatever {{this can be both negative AND positive….w/ the former not being a “danger” per se.}} a person does has “some” effect on society at large.


I’m not arguing that all drugs should be illegal, I’m arguing against that all drugs should be legal. There’s a major difference.

Of course there is an obvious difference.
What YOU are doing is making the case for this difference in extreme (hyperbole) positions on what constitutes “danger”.
Did YOU not read the definition I provided?

 
Flag Post

Arguing semantics with people who cannot defend their point coherently makes you look like kind of an intellectual bully. You’re literally just analyzing his broken logic and not really making any positive points in the direction of mitigating risks by implying the universal intentions behind certain risk-taking behaviors, while falsely assigning fault for failure of judgement regarding that risk mitigation on drugs and not the decision maker themselves. Just like laws regarding traffic safety need not specifically cite books as being dangerous pastimes while driving, we needn’t arrest and fine people for not actually driving poorly unless of course they are.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Arguing semantics with people who cannot defend their point coherently makes you look like kind of an intellectual bully. You’re literally just analyzing his broken logic and not really making any positive points in the direction of mitigating risks by implying the universal intentions behind certain risk-taking behaviors, while falsely assigning fault for failure of judgement regarding that risk mitigation on drugs and not the decision maker themselves. Just like laws regarding traffic safety need not specifically cite books as being dangerous pastimes while driving, we needn’t arrest and fine people for not actually driving poorly unless of course they are.

Errrrr….why not try that again in a manner that isn’t so intellectually bullying? LOL

BUT, I do agree that a universal law regarding traffic safety might be, on the superfical glance, a nice “comfort blanket” form of law for the books.
However, in RL practice….it just won’t work.
It is just waaaaaay too broad and traffic courts would be flooded w/ cases.

Recent laws regarding texting while driving are a good example.
While a bad example (because it poses NO danger to other drivers because it is NOT “bad driving”), not wearing seat belts also allows an officer to pull over a driver.

AND, it doesn’t have to be the driver that is the cause of bad vehicular operation on the road. It can be faulty/poor-maintence of the vehicle itself. Many states have mandatory annual vehicle inspections….which hopefully can help lessen dangers to ALL drivers.

As far as arguing semantics (and the gross mistakes of hyperbole) w/ Reject goes….my last post was also my last endeavor to make it clear to him why/where he was “going awry”. Any further exercise would be as futile as it would be redundant. I saw my posts as being an effort to help? the discussion. So sorry if joining in a discussion on a discussion forum was so offensive. 0¿~

 
Flag Post

I wasn’t really talking to you, specifically. Just noting how arguing with NaturalReject Wraymond has about as much bearing on the point of drugged/drunk driving laws as arguing against bizarre gun-nut logic is making a decent point about firearm safety laws. He’s getting tripped up by the most basic logical fallacies, and everyone’s taking turns.

 
Flag Post

Right, apparently I’m tripped up, I’m very sorry about that. I’ll leave the topic now, I made my point.

 
Flag Post

First, I actually meant Wraymond, not NaturalReject, apologies. Secondly, even if I was talking to you, I wasn’t really trying to insult or attack the guy, I was implying that he’s fighting a losing battle for no reason when people are begging the question, among other useless arguments, and he’s addressing you guys for no reason.

In fact, I probably should’ve addressed him in my post instead of the rest of you, and suggested he’s getting tripped up by acknowledging stupid arguments about objective claims to endangerment, when laws regarding traffic violations can already include impairment in their policies without needing to specify coherent levels of intoxication or awareness like that’s even possible. I know people who can be staring down the road that I don’t trust in the car, and I know people who can play with the car radio while driving in between a meteor shower.

That said, I’m not advocating reckless or intoxicated driving “if you can handle it.” In fact, I doubt there’s very many situations at all where a person is on a drug but not being pulled over for intoxicated driving in the first place. A cop notices a bunch of kids in a car driving slow, they were too high to drive. The problem comes when a car is pulled over for dubious reasons and retroactively validated when an illicit drug is found. The problem comes when someone in a car is hit by a reckless driver, but because there are drugs in the victim’s car or the person has been on a drug to any measurable degree (including within a month of doing cannabis, which wouldn’t include intoxication), they still experience legal and financial repercussions from insurance companies as if their use of those drugs somehow invited danger into their lives.

The concern that a person would take a drug and drive being addressed by laws that separate drug use from driving recklessly implies that this law would somehow change the decision making process of a person who would take an inhibiting drug and drive. Furthermore, even if this law somehow forced people to make the decision to take drugs and drive impossible, a person who needed a law to have not made that decision probably just shouldn’t drive at all, right? So in one scenario, we’re holding people accountable for their poor decisions and making sure they’re not even capable of making those decisions in the future by taking away their licenses for repeated offense, and in another scenario we’re holding people accountable for the decision they may or may not make in the future but haven’t made this time.

I like my laws to be acute and not inclusive, just in case the person holding the baton doesn’t like me.

 
Flag Post

Agreed bsg… I was just a bit irritated at reject lol he seemed to not understand English. And I agree with your outlook on laws.