Quoted from dogglebe No one has ever robbed an elderly woman to satisfy his caffeine or cheese addiction.  Fact. Phil

Cheese and caffeine are cheap, legal, and easily accessible. Nicotine is more addictive than cocaine, how many people rob elderly ladies to satisfy their nicotine addiction?

Quoted from Death Monkey Cheese and caffeine are cheap, legal, and easily accessible. Nicotine is more addictive than cocaine, how many people rob elderly ladies to satisfy their nicotine addiction?

Once again, apples and oranges. Seriously, comparing cheese and caffeine to cocaine is asinine. Any crack addict could tell you that. I've got nothing against a healthy debate but let's play fair here. You flat out can't compare the three. Nicotine is fair game though.

Quoted from Soap Hands Why isn't it? You (or most people for that matter) may not find it as compelling as a scientific study with numbers but thats far from it not being admissible as evidence. Many great thinkers have used personal observations in their arguments (Plato, Hume, Locke, Freud).

Well, I think it's quite obvious why, which is why I supplied the example with my friend. One side can enter "personal observation without having to supply factual evidence, or detail the circumstances around the anectdote. Thus it holds no weight in a discussion as it can neither be proved nor disproved but arbitrarily argued.

I can choose to disbelieve your personal anectdote because it holds no inherent merit of truth. In other words, you can claim whatever you want and there's no way I can know.

Scientific facts, on the other hand, are testable and recreatable.

Quoted Text I'm not speaking for the prodigal son, but for me personally it would be a strong indicator that they were a loser. I suspect that there is a correlation between using illegal drugs (or misusing legal drugs) and loserdom.

Most university professors have glasses. That doesn't mean the glasses made them smart.

Quoted Text Again other things with addictive qualities are being compared to hard drugs. You said earlier that weren't equating the effects, are you now equating their level of addictiveness? Or are you asking this rhetorically because the prodigal son's argument hinges merely on the fact that hard drugs are addictive? Is that what the prodigal son is arguing?

Not equating. Comparing. Prodigalson's problem with drugs seems to be their addictiveness, and would like to know if this applies to legal drugs and substances with addictive nature. If not, then were is the line drawn.  I used nicotine as an example of a legal drug whose addictiveness I would directly compare to cocaine. Cheese and chocolate were examples of substances in our everyday life that are addictive as well, yet (rather) harmless.

Quoted Text In that post I was more or less I was trying to combat the general argument of your side and wasn't trying to target you specifically. I did exclusively quote seth however but I wasn't trying to target him either, it was just that he was the last person to post at the time, and in that post I thought he touched on most of the points that were being put forth. ... For me at least it has become unclear as to what each side is specifically arguing. I know that there are a lot of different arguments going on here that are all part of the main argument (although am not sure what that is anymore) so I think the discourse would benefit greatly if each side clearly laid out what they are arguing and how they are arguing it. sheepwalker

You assume there are clear-cut sides in this matter. I'm against legalisation of most drugs (I'm not even sure about Marijuana), but I'm pro a constant debate about them and against propaganda in combatting it.

Let me know which side I'm on, 'cause I'm not sure.

Quoted from James McClung Once again, apples and oranges. Seriously, comparing cheese and caffeine to cocaine is asinine. Any crack addict could tell you that. I've got nothing against a healthy debate but let's play fair here. You flat out can't compare the three. Nicotine is fair game though.

I'm getting to you, James. Cut some friggin slack here, I'm quoted all over the place!

Like I just stated I'm NOT equating the effects or addictiveness of cheese to cocaine, nowhere have I done so. I'm asking prodigalson if he would have a problem with legal, harmless substances that are addictive. I'm doing this to find out if he draws the line between loser and non-loser and the boundaries of the law. So if you're a loser for using non-addictive illegal drugs, what about using addictive legal substances.

Please don't jump the gun on this, but look first at WHAT I'm comparing. You can compare properties of a wrecking ball to a marble. they're both round. that doesn't mean you're saying the marble can tear a house down.

Quoted from Death Monkey Please don't jump the gun on this, but look first at WHAT I'm comparing. You can compare properties of a wrecking ball to a marble. they're both round. that doesn't mean you're saying the marble can tear a house down.

I understand what you're getting at but I still think it's apples and oranges. The marble and the wrecking ball don't compare.

Anyway, now that I've gotten myself caught up in this thread, I might as well contribute to discussion. My stance on drugs aside, I think drugs like cocaine and heroine have a considerably bigger impact on one's life than, say, cigarettes. The fact that they're illegal is a complication but I think they'd effect people relatively the same if they were legal. As for all drug users being losers, loser is a subjective term and can't really be debated in a logical context, as all of you guys seem to be doing. In any case, I think everyone can agree that being addicted to anything isn't good.

Quoted from Soap Hands At least until the addict loses his job and can't afford to buy it.

Well if he's unemployed healthcare should cover it. Anyway, drug addiction for many is a health issue not a moral issue. You wouldn't fire someone for having cancer or depression; therefore you shouldn't fire an addict. Bottom line, prescribing heroin at an affordable price would be much less damaging to society and the individual than prohibition. There are plenty of unemployed people on methadone who don't need to steal to pay their pharmacist.

At what point are we going to know that this debate has been won, guys?    

Quoted from Xtopher Well if he's unemployed healthcare should cover it.

The Australian health care system would buy an addict his fix? lol
I'm moving to Australia.

Quoted from Xtopher You wouldn't fire someone for having cancer or depression;

If it was to such a degree they couldn't preform their job well I would in so many words fire them. If it was because of cancer I would probably be more sympathetic, but it would still probably happen, just with soft hands. And also, it may just be the US but for a lot of people here it is a moral issue, but then again what isn't in the US?

Quoted from Xtopher Bottom line, prescribing heroin at an affordable price would be much less damaging to society and the individual than prohibition.

It would be even less damaging to society if no one was an addict in the first place. If you don't think thats achievable, how about the minimal amount of addicts possible which some believe is more likely to happen if heroin wasn't legal.

Quoted from Xtopher At what point are we going to know that this debate has been won, guys?

As far as I'm concerned its already over, Reagan has spoken, drugs win.

But seriously, it probably won't just "end". The people disagreeing most likely do because they have different values, the argument can go back and forth indefinitely. Like the war on terror there won't be a ceremony on an aircraft carrier nor a parade down main street.  

Quoted from James McClung I understand what you're getting at but I still think it's apples and oranges. The marble and the wrecking ball don't compare. Anyway, now that I've gotten myself caught up in this thread, I might as well contribute to discussion. My stance on drugs aside, I think drugs like cocaine and heroine have a considerably bigger impact on one's life than, say, cigarettes. The fact that they're illegal is a complication but I think they'd effect people relatively the same if they were legal. As for all drug users being losers, loser is a subjective term and can't really be debated in a logical context, as all of you guys seem to be doing. In any case, I think everyone can agree that being addicted to anything isn't good.

But the point is the marble and the wrecking ball ARE comparable. Like I said. they're both round, the can both roll. However in the context of effect they're NOT comparable.

Again, I'm not saying caffeine is the SAME as cocaine, but I'm saying they share a characteristic: They're both addictive. Are they equally addictive? No. But if you look at the context in which I used the argument you can see that wasn't my point.

I think all drugs should be legal, not that i like them, i hate them in fact, but if it gets dealers off the street it is worth it, and if someone wants to kill themselves with crack or heroin I say go for it, less human garbage walking around.  People have the right to do what they want to do to themselves, if they choose or not choose to do drugs is entirely up to them, you do have to be a moron to say "hey, crack sure sounds like fun".  I wouldn't want anyone telling me what I can or can't do with my own life, if I'm dumb enough to do drugs I deserve what i get, same if I chose to drink and drive, if I'm that stupid i deserve the book thrown at me.

Quoted from Takeshi At what point are we going to know that this debate has been won, guys?

You won't.  It'll just go on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

Quoted from The boy who could fly and if someone wants to kill themselves with crack or heroin I say go for it, less human garbage walking around.

That's a wonderful thought, except that they sometimes take innocent people with them.


Phil

This is the thread that never ends... it goes on and on my friends...

Quoted from Soap Hands At least until the addict loses his job and can't afford to buy it. QFT I think at its core it makes sense, if the person has habitually committed crimes its likely they're going to commit a crime again so they might as well be off the streets. Its just that they should count stealing a pizza as a felony. I think it's about time the all seeing, all knowing, all encompassing one weighs in on this: He has spoken, 'nuff said. sheepwalker

That is the GREATEST video ever. lol, I change my mind, if the Ronnie is an addict it is OK.

Wow...

Quoted from ABennettWriter Wow...

I was kidding. I am preparing my retort, which will suck and throw us for yet another 6-12 pages of comparing cheese and crack.