The campaign is heating up!

[RonE]

Yeah let the druggies die. It's kinda like a genocide of stupid people where you let them remove themselves from society. It also would discourage people from getting on meth in the first place when they find out that if you go to the hospital bc of meth related illness they're gonna let you die.

So what if someone just makes one mistake and gets hooked on meth? You're not going to help an innocent person when all they did was make a mistake?

You either don't think you made a mistake or you admit you did and get help. We can't, as hard as the liberals try, make other peoples choices for them. We can't legislate against stupidity. Druggies have it both ways and we pay for it. Fuck them, let them die.

[RonE]

Yes olly, METH kills people just the same as GUNS kill people. You should run for office on the democrat ticket with that logic.
Keeping the drugs off our streets would be nice. But it ain't gonna happen. As much as you and other here would like it to be true I am not a proponent of DRUG USE. I am a proponent of free will and an opponent of government intervention in our day to day lives.

I cannot believe you're comparing guns to killing people the same as meth. A gun is an inanimate object. Meth is evil, you try it once and you're hooked for life. IMO that's apples and oranges man. Like I said above I'm against the government interfering in our lives more than anyone here I practically wrote the book on down with the man! But some government is a good thing, you aren't an anarchist are you? Without strict drug laws there would be nothing to stop people from trying drugs in the first place.

Just fucking listen to yourself, then stop spewing and start thinking. When did Meth become something other than an inanimate object? When did it grow legs so that it could jump on your back?

Sounds like your mommy, daddy and your preacher told you that drugs are bad. Did they tell you that alcohol and tobacco were bad too? We, to a certain extent have free will and the ability to choose the paths we take.

What is it that is inherently wrong with letting people sort things out without interference? Who is on the committee that determines which drugs are good, OK or just plain "evil"?

[RonE]

Olly wrote: ..."Meth is evil, you try it once and you're hooked for life."...

Much the same as Pussy, I see your point, lots of people get killed over Pussy too. I like it so much that I would never think of giving up Pussy. I'm sure glad the government hasn't said that Pussy was illegal or I would be a scofflaw and that wouldn't be good. Wonder if they have a government program that will help you if you think you aren't getting enough Pussy?

[Olly]

Yes olly, METH kills people just the same as GUNS kill people. You should run for office on the democrat ticket with that logic.
Keeping the drugs off our streets would be nice. But it ain't gonna happen. As much as you and other here would like it to be true I am not a proponent of DRUG USE. I am a proponent of free will and an opponent of government intervention in our day to day lives.

I cannot believe you're comparing guns to killing people the same as meth. A gun is an inanimate object. Meth is evil, you try it once and you're hooked for life. IMO that's apples and oranges man. Like I said above I'm against the government interfering in our lives more than anyone here I practically wrote the book on down with the man! But some government is a good thing, you aren't an anarchist are you? Without strict drug laws there would be nothing to stop people from trying drugs in the first place.

Just fucking listen to yourself, then stop spewing and start thinking. When did Meth become something other than an inanimate object? When did it grow legs so that it could jump on your back?

Sounds like your mommy, daddy and your preacher told you that drugs are bad. Did they tell you that alcohol and tobacco were bad too? We, to a certain extent have free will and the ability to choose the paths we take.

What is it that is inherently wrong with letting people sort things out without interference? Who is on the committee that determines which drugs are good, OK or just plain "evil"?

This is awesome.

Someone clue RonE in...

[3legged_lab]

Someone clue RonE in...

No, its more fun this way.

[Redbeard]

Of course it should remain ilegal Red. Anyone who thinks differently is a crankster or cares not a whit for people.

Spoken like a true liberal. You can run other people's lives better than they can their own. Thank you for your shining guidance.

It's not that I, personally, can run someone's life better than I can. It is that the accumulated opinion of a society can see the effects of certain practices, and when those practices are recognized as having absolutely NO social value, are life-threatening,and have no positive merits either to the individual or the society, the society can utilize whatever tools are at hand to rid itself of a pestilence. Placing meth in the same category as weed is akin to placing a bullet to the brain as equal to target shooting. If we had an epidemic of a certain disease with a high fatality rate would we not do whatever was possible to eliminate that disease from our society? Well, we know that the innoculation of certain strains of disease are beneficial, and we know that the body develops a strong resilience to many diseases through the introduction of these pathogens. So based on the one is good, all is good theory, we should give every child a shot of HIV/AIDS withhis measles innoculation.
However, do we? NO. We recognize one as beneficial, or at the least has very few negative effects. The other is opening the door to mass destruction of the spirit and soul of a human being. Why condone that? Or, if it makes you happier, why allow that to be an option in a civilized society? Many do NOT know their limits, do not have the ability to resist immediate gratification at the expense of their long-term health, face peer-pressure to conform to the worst behavior imaginable, and in accordance with that peer-pressure, there are always some that wish to demonstrate their machismo by going to the extremes.
Allowing the use of a toxin to be implicitly condoned by a society results in the weakening of a society.
And who is going to be financially responsible for the resultant health issues? A destitute, sneak-thief plagued by an addiction, or society in general?

Jesus man. Run on sentences.... I'll sum up your last post for everyone else because I'm most certainly the only one dumb enough to try and read it.

You're a socialist.

wow

[Redbeard]

....And who is going to be financially responsible for the resultant health issues? A destitute, sneak-thief plagued by an addiction, or society in general?

If not for socialised medicine, the problem would work itself out in short order. This isn't a drug that has to be smuggled into our country. It's made in people kitchens out of stuff you can buy at the store. Right now, anyone that wants to do meth, can do meth and is doing meth. Don't get me wrong. It's fucking putrid and I wish there was a way that we could make it disappear, but where do you or I get the right to tell someone else what they can or can't put in their own bodies, and where do they get the right to expect us to pay for their self inflicted medical issues?

They do not necessarily expect the right to be cared for, cd, but ultimately who does? Rising medical care costs, rising insurance costs? Do the indigent cover their share of that?

We're not talking about all of the poor in general. We're talking about people who have made a decision knowing where it would probably lead. If they go to the emergency room knowing full well that they aren't going to pay for their medical care then they do in fact expect someone else (us) to pay for it. It's a sad thing, no doubt about it, but the term "bitter pill to swallow" fits.

Clamp in true liberal fashion he's going to pull out the "so you're going to let people die" card next. Just wait.

i'm not a liberal, yet I'd ask that question

[Redbeard]

Yeah let the druggies die. It's kinda like a genocide of stupid people where you let them remove themselves from society. It also would discourage people from getting on meth in the first place when they find out that if you go to the hospital bc of meth related illness they're gonna let you die.

So what if someone just makes one mistake and gets hooked on meth? You're not going to help an innocent person when all they did was make a mistake?

he musta took that from Sunday school

[Redbeard]

....And who is going to be financially responsible for the resultant health issues? A destitute, sneak-thief plagued by an addiction, or society in general?

If not for socialised medicine, the problem would work itself out in short order. This isn't a drug that has to be smuggled into our country. It's made in people kitchens out of stuff you can buy at the store. Right now, anyone that wants to do meth, can do meth and is doing meth. Don't get me wrong. It's fucking putrid and I wish there was a way that we could make it disappear, but where do you or I get the right to tell someone else what they can or can't put in their own bodies, and where do they get the right to expect us to pay for their self inflicted medical issues?

They do not necessarily expect the right to be cared for, cd, but ultimately who does? Rising medical care costs, rising insurance costs? Do the indigent cover their share of that?

We're not talking about all of the poor in general. We're talking about people who have made a decision knowing where it would probably lead. If they go to the emergency room knowing full well that they aren't going to pay for their medical care then they do in fact expect someone else (us) to pay for it. It's a sad thing, no doubt about it, but the term "bitter pill to swallow" fits.

what about other costs?

[Redbeard]

Gayest tag team ever!

[FlintRiverFowler]

zzzZZZzzzZzZ.... Weak trolling attempt. Regroup and come back with something that's gona cut me deep.

[Olly]

Just a reminder that this is all in good fun. I explained to Ron that flint and I were playing around and poking fun at that super serious debate we all had a while back. No intentions of offending anyone here.

[clampdaddy]

....And who is going to be financially responsible for the resultant health issues? A destitute, sneak-thief plagued by an addiction, or society in general?

If not for socialised medicine, the problem would work itself out in short order. This isn't a drug that has to be smuggled into our country. It's made in people kitchens out of stuff you can buy at the store. Right now, anyone that wants to do meth, can do meth and is doing meth. Don't get me wrong. It's fucking putrid and I wish there was a way that we could make it disappear, but where do you or I get the right to tell someone else what they can or can't put in their own bodies, and where do they get the right to expect us to pay for their self inflicted medical issues?

They do not necessarily expect the right to be cared for, cd, but ultimately who does? Rising medical care costs, rising insurance costs? Do the indigent cover their share of that?

We're not talking about all of the poor in general. We're talking about people who have made a decision knowing where it would probably lead. If they go to the emergency room knowing full well that they aren't going to pay for their medical care then they do in fact expect someone else (us) to pay for it. It's a sad thing, no doubt about it, but the term "bitter pill to swallow" fits.

what about other costs?

What? The shovels needed to dig the holes? Hell, those will come easy once the welfare system has less freeloaders weighing it down. Then there's all the cops we can lay off.