Quoted from Death Monkey 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.

You can compare anything on some level. That doesn't mean you should. Comparing cheese to cocaine doesn't work "in the context of effect."

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

I agree word for word. If you use crack or cocaine, your addiction is bound to effect someone else down the line since it's basically impossible to use either in moderation.

Quoted from James McClung You can compare anything on some level. That doesn't mean you should.

I think you miss the point again. I compared two properties in a CONTEXT; not frivolously.

Had I said "Cocaine and cheese are alike beacuse they're both MATTER" then you might have a point, but the comparison of addiction is relevant, I hope you agree, when we're debating drugs. I think you just don't like that cocaine and cheese appear in the same sentence, honestly.

Quoted Text Comparing cheese to cocaine doesn't work "in the context of effect."

Which is pretty much what I've been saying these past 3-4 pages...

Drugs, caffeine, chocolate, cheese, etc. are all addictive. I get it. But drugs are so much more addictive than the rest, I'd say you can't compare them. Forget the technicalities. From what I understand, you're trying to call theprodigalson out on condemning drugs based on their lack of legality so you asked him if he would make distinctions between drugs and lesser addictive substances. But considering these lesser addictive substances don't have a history of being so detrimental to one's quality of life on a mass scale, of course anyone you grab off the street is going to make such a distinction. In short, I don't think it's a fair argument to make if you want someone to admit they're against drugs because they're illegal. Cigarettes and alcohol would be better examples to use. Both legal and both at least in the same ballpark in terms of addictiveness.

Never knew you could be addicted to cheese. That explains alot.

Don't like drugs, don't do'em...If someone wants to smoke a bone in the privacy of his own home? Doesn't matter to me, just don't get behind the wheel of a car. Same as if someone wants to get smashed on booze, don't care, just don't get behind the wheel of a car.

One can make the argument that the $10 dimebag funds street gangs, drug cartels, and international terrorism. That may be true and should be considered before making that purchase, however, that moral descision is up to the individual purchasing, not to me.

I think they should manage weed as a controlled substance, like alchohol or even Sudafed. Legalize it, tax it and control its manufacture and distribution. Take the illegal dealers and growers out of the equation.

Ending prohibition stopped the bootleggers in one fell swoop. Be nice to see history repeat, but it probably won't.

Quoted from James McClung Drugs, caffeine, chocolate, cheese, etc. are all addictive. I get it. But drugs are so much more addictive than the rest, I'd say you can't compare them. Forget the technicalities. From what I understand, you're trying to call theprodigalson out on condemning drugs based on their lack of legality so you asked him if he would make distinctions between drugs and lesser addictive substances. But considering these lesser addictive substances don't have a history of being so detrimental to one's quality of life on a mass scale, of course anyone you grab off the street is going to make such a distinction. In short, I don't think it's a fair argument to make if you want someone to admit they're against drugs because they're illegal. Cigarettes and alcohol would be better examples to use. Both legal and both at least in the same ballpark in terms of addictiveness.

Prodigalson's argument was that you were a loser if you were addicted to any illegal substance (at least that's how he came off to me), so I asked if you were a loser if you addicted to anything, if that was what made one a loser, and if so being addicted to caffeine would prompt "loserdom"?

Why isn't it fair? Because the effects don't match? Well effect has almost been a non-issue so far; whilst being addicted to a substance has been controlling this debate. The reason why caffeine and cheese are better examples than alcohol and nicotine is exactly because they are so far remioved from illicit substances (Alcohol and nicotine have been or is considered to be made illegal). So if addictiveness in itself is the issue this would be applicable to ALL addictive substances.

However, most people wouldn't call someone addicted to caffeine a loser, exactly because it's not (that) damaging to your health. So my point is, addictiveness in itself can't possible be what makes you a loser.

So is it how harmful the substance is? Is it a self-destruction issue? Well, if that's the case then close down Wendy's 'cause coronary heart disease is one of the leading causes of death in North America. Junk food kills more people than any designer drug.

Is it a combination then? A harmful, addictive drug? Fair enough, but that brings me back to the non-addictive illegal drugs like hallucinogens or canabis? They must be exempted from loserdom?

My point is that it's very easy to draw the line at the law, and say people who use illegal drugs are losers, but that's saying they're losers because they're breaking the law, not because of the moral implications of the actual behaviour.

Sorry about the QED-approach but I think this is the only way to make myself understood clearly in this debate.

Quoted from Death Monkey Prodigalson's argument was that you were a loser if you were addicted to any illegal substance (at least that's how he came off to me), so I asked if you were a loser if you addicted to anything, if that was what made one a loser, and if so being addicted to caffeine would prompt "loserdom"? Why isn't it fair? Because the effects don't match? Well effect has almost been a non-issue so far; whilst being addicted to a substance has been controlling this debate. The reason why caffeine and cheese are better examples than alcohol and nicotine is exactly because they are so far remioved from illicit substances (Alcohol and nicotine have been or is considered to be made illegal). So if addictiveness in itself is the issue this would be applicable to ALL addictive substances. However, most people wouldn't call someone addicted to caffeine a loser, exactly because it's not (that) damaging to your health. So my point is, addictiveness in itself can't possible be what makes you a loser. So is it how harmful the substance is? Is it a self-destruction issue? Well, if that's the case then close down Wendy's 'cause coronary heart disease is one of the leading causes of death in North America. Junk food kills more people than any designer drug. Is it a combination then? A harmful, addictive drug? Fair enough, but that brings me back to the non-addictive illegal drugs like hallucinogens or canabis? They must be exempted from loserdom? My point is that it's very easy to draw the line at the law, and say people who use illegal drugs are losers, but that's saying they're losers because they're breaking the law, not because of the moral implications of the actual behaviour. Sorry about the QED-approach but I think this is the only way to make myself understood clearly in this debate.

I see where you're coming from now. Still, you gotta admit the comparison is a helluva stretch at face value.

Anyway, if pissing your life away with drugs makes you a loser, I'd definitely lump people who eat at fast food restaurants on a daily basis in that crowd as well. I don't think it's addiction that connects the two however. I think it's abuse. You can abuse any substance and not neccesarily be addicted to it. Either way, that substance, in essence, becomes your life. I think a lot of people would agree that someone who's happiness depends on some external entity is a loser.

In any case, I think loser is a subjective term. I don't think it can be debated logically, which it seems like all you guys are trying to do. I think it's a matter of opinions and, to a further extent, beliefs. A pothead who sits on his ass all day can call a business CEO a loser for conforming to the system while the CEO can turn around and call the pothead a loser for not doing anything useful with his time. Just because you brand someone a loser doesn't quite make it so.

Well I wasn't really trying to debate loserness objectively, I was simply probing prodigalson's definition.

But I think you're right about abuse. In my book anyway. Maybe instead of addiction we should talk about dependence?

Personally, I think people who don't take responsibility for their life and who pity themselves for who they are, are losers. Often you find this in junkies. but not exclusively.

Quoted from Death Monkey Personally, I think people who don't take responsibility for their life and who pity themselves for who they are, are losers.

I think that should just about sum up this debate.

Quoted from James McClung I think that should just about sum up this debate.

Agreed.