|
|
Post by Bluefinger on May 28, 2011 6:13:57 GMT -5
I see you're one of those smokers who think they're the only ones who shouldn't ever be inconvenienced, but it's fine if others are inconvenienced because of your smoking  Nope, I just believe that people with treatable conditions are responsible for controlling their disease. I, too, have asthma. Get this, I take responsibility for managing it, and I carry an inhaler and avoid triggers, instead of expecting the rest of the world to fucking cater to me and stop producing triggers. Your condition, your responsibility to manage. Not mine. Not the neighbor's. Not the guy on the corner having a smoke. YOURS. Just like it's my responsibility to take my meds. It's not my partner's job to remind me. It's not my mother's responsibility. It's mine. And, as it's my illness that's being treated, I accept that responsibility. It would be nice if others could do the same, and stop expecting the world to cater to their quirks and illnesses. After all, the world ain't gonna stop producing things like pollen, smoke, dust, animal dander.... Afterthought: As for the crack in the wall? Dude, seriously, it's not that hard to fix. Even I could fix it. All it takes is some fucking spackle, which isn't that expensive. Again, responsibility.... Smoke causes harm, particularly those with breathing conditions like asthma. It can still cause harm without acting on pre-existing conditions like asthma. The harm can extend to beyond the person smoking, effecting others around them who might not want to breathe in smoke. Why should your smoke overrule others' right to be healthy and self determination? |
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on May 28, 2011 8:26:07 GMT -5
Those who wish to take drugs will always insist that the act of taking drugs has no effect on anyone but themselves.
It does not matter how many times you point out the horrible things that people will sometimes do while under the influence of drugs. It does not matter how many times you point out that drug addicts frequently destroy their families and neighborhoods with their drug use. Those who want to take drugs will always insist the fault lies with the person, not the drug.
It does not matter how many times you point out how purchasing drugs is pumping insane amounts of cash into a shockingly violent criminal subculture. Those who want to take drugs will always blame the government for making the drugs illegal in the first place.
Those who want to take drugs will always find some excuse, some loophole as to why their drug use is not harmful, how their drug of choice is not harmful. Some will go so far as to begin to extol amazing amounts of "facts" as to why their drug of choice is actually beneficial. They will shout down all opposition as being "sheep" or "brainwashed by the government" or "duped" by some vast, nebulous, anti-drug conspiracy.
In the end it comes down to this: they want to take drugs. So they will reject, out of hand, any evidence, proof, fact, or data that weakens their chosen position. Just as the closed minded anti-drug crusader will do about anything that questions the "evilness" of all drugs. These people are the same; just on opposite sides of desire. You will never be able to convince a person who wants to take drugs that drugs are bad because they want to take drugs.
|
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on May 28, 2011 8:32:01 GMT -5
Oh my God, kitty. Shut the fuck up. You have no idea what you're even talking about. More of a clue than you do, you authoritarian boot-licker.
Kitty....This is not F&B. Consider this a warning.
And that goes for the other people in this thread who can't seem to remember that as well.
MOD HAT OFF |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 28, 2011 9:34:26 GMT -5
CAN YOU SHOW ME, WITHOUT USING GOVERNMENT-FUNDED PROPAGANDA, THAT CONSUMING MARIJUANA IS HARMFUL TO ANYONE BUT THE CONSUMER?* *It's a given that inhaling smoke of any kind is harmful. I'm talking, like, eating a pot brownie, here. And this is you putting a moronic qualifier on your statements after the fact. You said "drugs" which means everything from eating a brownie with marijuana in it to somebody hopped up on PCP. ** And before Vene starts up with "b-but ASTHMA" -- First off, Asthma is TREATABLE. If she chooses not to treat/control her asthma, SHE is the only one responsible for it. Not me. Not your neighbor. Not the guy two blocks over with a wood-burning stove who doesn't even know she exists. Just like it's my responsibility to take my meds every day. (Which reminds me, where ARE my meds?) Secondly, if there's a crack in the wall, buy some fucking spackle or whatever you use to fix walls, and FIX IT. She has meds, you twit, but she shouldn't have to use them when the sole trigger is another person's actions. And even with the inhaler, that doesn't mean the smoke isn't causing damage to her lungs (or mine for that matter). And it's not just some cracks in the walls, there's also things like doors and windows. Rooms are not airtight and should not be airtight. We also should be able to open our goddamn window without fucks like you polluting the air. If you want pot brownies or whatever, I don't care. But you are bloody stupid if you seriously believe that consumption of a drug never has any negative effect on somebody other than the person using it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 28, 2011 9:39:35 GMT -5
And Jackmann is right, this is totally irrelevant to the OP. There was nothing done in this situation that wouldn't be allowable with any other crime. The police's actions were 100% supported by the Constitution. If you don't think they were, read up on probable cause and plain view searches.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 28, 2011 13:52:35 GMT -5
AND THOSE "CRIMINALS" ARE, BY AND LARGE, CREATED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PROHIBITION EFFORTS! So, end prohibition, end drug violence, problem solved. Unfortunately, as with ALL things in politics, if you follow the money, you'll quickly discover that the anti-drug hysteria is fueled in large part by the prison and corrections industry -- the very people who profit from prohibition efforts. Hi Miss "Miss the Point" You are continuing to buy illegal narcotics and thus financing illegal operations. You are financing crime. You are part of the circle. Trying to shift blame is stupid and a screaming example of denial |
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 28, 2011 22:51:19 GMT -5
God, you people are dense.
Incidentally, I asked three direct questions, none of which have been answered.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 28, 2011 22:52:33 GMT -5
Nope, I just believe that people with treatable conditions are responsible for controlling their disease. I, too, have asthma. Get this, I take responsibility for managing it, and I carry an inhaler and avoid triggers, instead of expecting the rest of the world to fucking cater to me and stop producing triggers. Your condition, your responsibility to manage. Not mine. Not the neighbor's. Not the guy on the corner having a smoke. YOURS. Just like it's my responsibility to take my meds. It's not my partner's job to remind me. It's not my mother's responsibility. It's mine. And, as it's my illness that's being treated, I accept that responsibility. It would be nice if others could do the same, and stop expecting the world to cater to their quirks and illnesses. After all, the world ain't gonna stop producing things like pollen, smoke, dust, animal dander.... Afterthought: As for the crack in the wall? Dude, seriously, it's not that hard to fix. Even I could fix it. All it takes is some fucking spackle, which isn't that expensive. Again, responsibility.... Smoke causes harm, particularly those with breathing conditions like asthma. It can still cause harm without acting on pre-existing conditions like asthma. The harm can extend to beyond the person smoking, effecting others around them who might not want to breathe in smoke. Why should your smoke overrule others' right to be healthy and self determination? By that logic, nobody should drive, either, because your car produces a shit-ton more pollutants and harmful chemicals than my one cigarette every four hours. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 28, 2011 22:55:35 GMT -5
God, you people are dense. Incidentally, I asked three direct questions, none of which have been answered. Your questions are stupid, I will ignore them. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 28, 2011 22:57:03 GMT -5
God, you people are dense. Incidentally, I asked three direct questions, none of which have been answered. Your questions are stupid, I will ignore them. Ditto. Because I'm too awesome for them. |
|
Paimun
Full Member
Captain Punderpants!
dick fingers
Posts: 221
|
Post by Paimun on May 28, 2011 22:57:08 GMT -5
By that logic, nobody should drive, either, because your car produces a shit-ton more pollutants and harmful chemicals than my one cigarette every four hours. Let me know when you need to drive a cigarette to work. |
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 28, 2011 23:02:14 GMT -5
God, you people are dense. Incidentally, I asked three direct questions, none of which have been answered. Your questions are stupid, I will ignore them. WADR, that's not how the direct question rule works. |
|
|
|
Post by sugarfreejazz on May 28, 2011 23:03:04 GMT -5
Kitty don't you receive government aid?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on May 28, 2011 23:03:14 GMT -5
God, you people are dense. Incidentally, I asked three direct questions, none of which have been answered. How the fuck does the legality or illegality of marijuana or other intoxicants relate to the reasonableness and constitutionality of a good faith search of an incorrect apartment during a hot pursuit chase of a lawful suspect? If they had been chasing a murderer and found evidence of a kidnapper, chasing a rapist and found a thief, or chasing a pimp and found a black market beagle smuggling ring, the constitutional question would still be the same. It happened to be drug offenses. What the fuck do airport security measures (which were created as part of the war on terror, not the war on drugs, different stupid war) have to do with the 4th amendment case at hand? If drugs were legal, this particular case wouldn't exist. Sure. If Target paid me more, I'd buy more Nerf Guns. What else would I do with that money, save it? If I had a girlfriend, I'd have better things to do with my nights than argue on online. God I hope so. If "ifs" and "buts" were candies and nuts, we'd all have a fucking wonderful Christmas. Damn straight. But none of those are the case - drugs are illegal, Target pays me a bit more than minimum wage, I'm single, and "if onlys" don't amount to shit. |
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 28, 2011 23:04:18 GMT -5
Those who wish to take drugs will always insist that the act of taking drugs has no effect on anyone but themselves. [etc. cut for space] Wouldn't all of that also apply to alcohol though? |
|
