anyone sober?

[darkwing]

There's too much middle ground for this to be true. It's too black and white. Nothing is ever this cut and dry.

Mac vs PC?

 

[mactastic]

The problem with your comparison is that these people aren't seeking permission from the government to do those things. Plus, accidents happen. You can't stop all of those. Why should I pay to keep some guy breathing who smoked for 50 years though? That's no accident.

Sigh... Libertarians are SOOOO one dimensional. Look, smoking is no guarantee of contracting a smoking related disease, right? I mean an individual smoker could just as easily die of a congenital heart problem, or of plain old age, just as it's possible to get lung cancer without smoking at all. Your premise isn't that smoking is a guaranteed case of emphezema (I hope), it's that smoking raises the probability of a smoking-related medical problem. Ok, I accept that. But free-climbing also raises the possibility of, shall we say, a gravity-related medical problem, does it not? Riding a motorcycle sans brain-bucket raises the risk of a severe head injury, does it not? Why should I pay to keep someone like that breathing when they should have left well enough alone? I mean, I don't free climb, so why should I have to suffer the financial consequences of someone who does? That's what your argument against health care for smokers is coming down to: I don't do it, so why should I have to pay for someone who does.

Further, the comparison has absolutely nothing to do with seeking government permission. What if I want to drink myself to death instead of smoke? Will you be happier paying for my liver transplant than you would for my lungs? Or would you not want to pay for either, since you weren't responsible for my decisions?

How about overeating / dining at McDonalds daily? No permission required from the government there, but we all know that when I get morbidly obese and my body starts to shut down that it's 'no accident'. It could have been prevented by stopping anywhere along the way, right? But you'll allow that to be covered under your ideal system of health care?

I thought we were talking about crimes committed while under the influence, not crimes committed over something. Do you mean drug related crime like say, stealing to buy drugs, or do you mean the guy who does something stupid while high?

I'm saying that were drugs legal you'd still find crime related to them. People steal to get an iPod, why would they not steal to get some weed -- even if the weed is legal? Sure it would lower the amount of crime related to drugs -- possession or sale would no longer be illegal. But those aren't the people committing crimes to pay for their habit.

How many cigarettes are stolen each year? The number is astronomical. And yet, they are legal. Hell, the mob deals in cigs.

You'll never stop people from doing dumb things while intoxicated. It's the nature of the beast. Education is the only antidote.

 

[darkwing]

I never said there weren't problems with things that are legal. All your arguments boil down to the premise that since there are problems with legal things, it's ok to make something illegal legal. Why don't we just do something about the existing problems before adding new ones.

Nothing is more comical to me than seeing someone try to justify why he or she should be allowed to do drugs.

 

[cr2sh]

Sigh... Libertarians are SOOOO one dimensional. But free-climbing also raises the possibility of, shall we say, a gravity-related medical problem, does it not?

So you're comparing the single greatest cause of preventable illness and death... to rock climbing?

You seem pretty intelligent, tell me.. without reading this entire thread... why would anyone who is intelligent, who knows the increased odds, smoke?