Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: novaAddictive drugs used illegally offers no long term benefits to the users.
    What long term benefits does any addictive drug used legally (such as alcohol, caffeine or tobacco) offer to its users?
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: novaYou listed fossil fuel. Are you serious? Being dependent on something does not relate to being addicted. I'm dependent on food for survival but not addicted.


    Fossil Fuels - of course I'm serious. We continue to use them - not even mitigating their use, despite evidence of adverse consequences. That's the very definition of an addiction. In the USA, the right to bear arms might be described as an addiction given the death and injury statistics.

    As for food, that might depend - if you are 150Kg and breakfast is a couple of burgers, chips and a couple of litres of a sugar loaded soda drink - then 'food' might well be described as an addiction.

    The very nature of drugs that alter the state of mind has potential of being addictive.


    "potential of being" - that seems to suggest that someone could use drugs without being/becoming addicted.

    Addictive drugs used illegally offers no long term benefits to the users.


    No? Have you asked MS sufferers in the UK about that? There certainly seem to be a number of them who claim illegal drugs offer them beneficial effects.
  1.  
    The border between what constitutes an illegal, 'bad' drug and a legal one is entirely arbitrary as far as I can tell. It's not like a rational person sat down and reviewed the data on potential harm to users and then constructed a list. Otherwise why is booze legal and pot, MDMA and psilocybin all illegal?

    Even for drugs that are more dangerous, crack and meth primarily, I fail to see how making them illegal reduces harm. It's certainly done bugger all to restrict supply. The massive profits that are available from illegal distribution help drive the gang violence that drives the murder rate up.
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: pcstruFossil Fuels - of course I'm serious. We continue to use them - not even mitigating their use, despite evidence of adverse consequences. That's the very definition of an addiction.

    Mood altering street drugs have no redeeming qualities and offer no benefits. Fossil fuel is necessary for transportation. Being dependent on fossil fuel does not mean addictive. There are no suitable alternatives to fossil fuel, labeling fossil fuel as addictive is foolish.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: pcstruFossil Fuels - of course I'm serious. We continue to use them - not even mitigating their use, despite evidence of adverse consequences. That's the very definition of an addiction.

    Mood altering street drugs have no redeeming qualities and offer no benefits.

    Then why do MS sufferers say they benefit from them?

    Fossil fuel is necessary for transportation. Being dependent on fossil fuel does not mean addictive. There are no suitable alternatives to fossil fuel, labeling fossil fuel as addictive is foolish.


    'Necessity' does not rule out addiction and most addicts will claim their drug is a 'necessity'. The word "addiction" is entirely appropriate in the context of fossil fuels.
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Living was being alive with an excitement of being in a country where opportunity was everywhere.


    Afghanistan is a country where opportunity is everywhere. It's pretty exciting too. It's just that there's not much else to be had.
    Afghanistan is a country of religious oppression. There is very little freedom and I doubt that they regard free market capitalism as a noble ideal. There is no excitement for life that I can see.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012 edited
     
    'Necessity' does not rule out addiction and most addicts will claim their drug is a 'necessity'. The word "addiction" is entirely appropriate in the context of fossil fuels.


    It certainly is when the fossil fuels are applied to individual transportation in privately owned vehicles when collective public transport could be developed instead.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012 edited
     
    Afghanistan is a country of religious oppression. There is very little freedom and I doubt that they regard free market capitalism as a noble ideal. There is no excitement for life that I can see.


    Just think of the money a sharp operator could make improving that situation.

    Why do you imagine that free market capitalism is a noble ideal? Have you read any Dickens?
    •  
      CommentAuthorping1400
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Who cares about drugs being bad or dangerous, as long as you can tax it!
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    A few interesting comparison’s of the US and Canada.
    The US ranks no. 1 in gun ownership at more than 88 per 100 residents.
    Canada ranks no. 13 in gun ownership at more than 30 per 100 residents.
    The Wiki entry lists 178 countries.
    The major difference in gun laws is that Canada makes it extremely difficult to get a concealed carry license.
    Another major difference is the wait period from gun application to taking gun delivery. Canada has a 28 day waiting period.
    I can walk into a gun store here in Missouri and get an instant FBI check and then I’m allowed to purchase a gun.
    Some US states require registration but Canada requires all firearms to be registered.
    Here in Missouri when hunting with a shotgun I am allowed only three shells in my gun. Canada has no such restriction.
    Also if I read right, a loaded firearm is not allowed in the homes of gun owners in Canada? Not sure on this. If this is true then your home is your castle has little meaning in Canada.
    Concealed carry did not really take off in the US before 1987-88. Since concealed carry has swept across the US crime has statistically lowered. Whether this is a cause or not is not determined.
    < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States >

    The US does not allow felons to own guns. The same as Canada. The US does background check and requires safety training in most states to get a concealed carry licence. Canada requires the same to purchase and possess firearms.
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: joshs
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: joshsI think having lots of guns is stupid. Guns are accelerants. In a tense situation stress impairs clear thinking. Adding accelerants to the situation won't make that better. The answer to: intimidation is not to gun people down in the streets. The answer to crime is better policing.
    What situation?
    Any confrontation.


    Most of the time in a 'confrontation, where one or MORE thugs are coming to rob someone, if the potential victim is armed and fires back the 'thugs' trip all over themselves trying to get away. Why wouldn't you want to see more good responsible armed citizens?? Good responsible armed citizens is like having a non paid police force if an extreme situation arises.
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: Duracell
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: joshsThere is a lot wrong with the welfare system and how it rewarded and encouraged dysfunctional behaviors. However but for a lot of luck, many of us could find ourselves in much more difficult circumstances. Does or does not society have an obligation to see that children do not starve?
    You assume that unless the government intervenes, children will starve. And when you ask, does not society have an obligation you are actually saying does not government have an obligation and my answer is no.


    So, your argument is that all social welfare should be abandoned then? A government shouldn't "intervene" under any circumstances? What about the elderly and the infirm? What about people with mental health issues, learning difficulties and other disabilities? You reckon that if the US government were to cease even pretending that it's trying to provide the poorest and most marginalised members of its population with the bare minimum amounts of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare & education they require, then somehow this would reduce poverty and crime (including gun related crime) in the US? You believe that this would somehow provide the missing motivation that the poorest and most marginalised members of US society need in order to transform themselves into fully functional, healthy, fit, able, successful, well-educated and law-abiding members of the their communities?


    Exactly. Charity used to be through the churches and various civic groups. Those who were helped often became the helpers as part of the deal when they could. However, some brainiacs decided we didn't need either and that the gooberment can do it all better. Now we have a perpetual welfare class always with their hand out. Brilliant.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: joshsThere is a lot wrong with the welfare system and how it rewarded and encouraged dysfunctional behaviors. However but for a lot of luck, many of us could find ourselves in much more difficult circumstances. Does or does not society have an obligation to see that children do not starve?
    You assume that unless the government intervenes, children will starve. And when you ask, does not society have an obligation you are actually saying does not government have an obligation and my answer is no.
    No, I assume that unless someone intervenes children starve as has been demonstrated. Would you kindly answer my question?
    •  
      CommentAuthorping1400
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: sonoboyGood responsible armed citizens is like having a non paid police force if an extreme situation arises.


    Good responsible citizens are only 10% of the people (generalization warning: not using medicins, alcohol, not being just stupid, not being under 25 years, not being over 60 years, not having mood swings, not being secretly member of a nazi sympathization organization, not playing online games, not having arguments with wife/husband/neighbors, not having been member of the SKDB club, etc. etc.). Typically these are the boring people that do not want to be armed.

    All the others that do like to be armed are most likely to just incidently shoot themselves, the neighbors or their children in case of an extreme situation.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: sonoboy
    Posted By: joshs
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: joshsI think having lots of guns is stupid. Guns are accelerants. In a tense situation stress impairs clear thinking. Adding accelerants to the situation won't make that better. The answer to: intimidation is not to gun people down in the streets. The answer to crime is better policing.
    What situation?
    Any confrontation.


    Most of the time in a 'confrontation, where one or MORE thugs are coming to rob someone, if the potential victim is armed and fires back the 'thugs' trip all over themselves trying to get away. Why wouldn't you want to see more good responsible armed citizens?? Good responsible armed citizens is like having a non paid police force if an extreme situation arises.
    Sure, you think the population are a bunch of Dirty Harry's. You fail to consider that most, including a lot who think they are all macho are a lot more like Barney Fife.

    You did get one thing right: Weapons are often something that people who are cowards carry in order to feel more secure.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Canada does permit quite liberal gun ownership, but not as a right. You forgot one important statistic:

    firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year, historical

    USA 10.27
    Canada 4.78

    Is your home not your castle unless you have loaded heat about? Then your society is not working and you are reverting to the law of the jungle. The rest of us in the civilised world continue to develop our civilisation, although those of us too near the border with you do have some problems.
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: AngusCanada does permit quite liberal gun ownership, but not as a right. You forgot one important statistic:

    firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year, historical

    USA 10.27
    Canada 4.78

    Is your home not your castle unless you have loaded heat about? Then your society is not working and you are reverting to the law of the jungle. The rest of us in the civilised world continue to develop our civilisation, although those of us too near the border with you do have some problems.


    Jamaica 8.1 guns per 100 residents.

    Firearm related death in one year per 100,000 in one year.
    Jamaica 44.74.

    No correlation of gun ownership and firearm related death. None.
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: AngusIs your home not your castle unless you have loaded heat about? Then your society is not working and you are reverting to the law of the jungle.
    No, I don't need loaded heat about but it should be a matter of choice. Eventually socialist governments turn against the citizens. Always in that plan somewhere is the disarming of the citizens.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: AngusCanada does permit quite liberal gun ownership, but not as a right. You forgot one important statistic:

    firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year, historical

    USA 10.27
    Canada 4.78

    Is your home not your castle unless you have loaded heat about? Then your society is not working and you are reverting to the law of the jungle. The rest of us in the civilised world continue to develop our civilisation, although those of us too near the border with you do have some problems.


    Jamaica 8.1 guns per 100 residents.

    Firearm related death in one year per 100,000 in one year.
    Jamaica 44.74.

    No correlation of gun ownership and firearm related death. None.


    Canada and USA are highly comparable societies, bar a few important differences for which we Canadians thank our good fortune daily. USA and Jamaica are not:

    GDP per capita at purchasing power parity

    USA #6 in the world $48,387
    Canad #12 in the world $40,541
    Jamaica #88 in the world $ 9,029

    You have to compare apples to apples.
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    From a Canadian.
    "Since Canada brought in the gun registry, gun related crime has grown drastically. Sadly that is related to the massive drug import export business. "
    < http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-819159 >