@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:I'm talking about obesity because obese people cost society money. Try to focus on the strong version of the argument instead of the weaker one based on a mistake in terminology.
It's up to you to clarify your mistake in terminology, which is fine to make, but don't bag other people for taking your mistakes literally, or seeking to clarify them. And strong version of the argument? That’s, ummm...interesting (I do note you gave up on your sports example. So I presume you mean strong in comparison to that)
vikorr wrote:You can't outlaw food, while you can drugs.
Night Ripper wrote:No, but you can outlaw being obese, which is what I was talking about.
Of course, while I don’t like obesity, due to it’s many negative impacts, I’m surprised you would pursue this absurd line of obesity being deserving of criminalisation / or being comparable to the harm many illicit drugs cause. Obesity never lead to domestics, assaults, murders, never triggered schizophrenia, never lead to property damage, and rarely lead to family grief (as in social grief). It’s social effects are different, and certainly not as drastic as many drugs.
Obesity also doesn't lead to break & enters and theft... Of course it is debatable how much of those are caused by drugs being criminalised, but no one has stats to back it up either way how much decriminalisation would cut back the crime rate, nor how much the corresponding support services would cost.
Obesity hasn’t lead to an overdose death either. I'm guessing that you will argue it can lead to an early death, which is true enough, as I daresay ongoing drug use would also.
And again, in terms of illegality of a drug...the corresponding illegality for obesity would be food. You can't outlaw food, while you can outlaw drugs. You may wish to ignore this, but it is also major obstacle to your argument.
vikorr wrote:Then of course comes the argument of whether or not you have the right to endanger someone else, or even yourself. The latter is argued by many people, but I daresay the majority prefer you not committ suicide. There is also the fact that it is very rare that any suicide not have a impact on direct family, friends, and even emergency workers.
Night Ripper wrote:Of course I have the right to endanger myself. That's why skydiving, obesity, alcoholism, unprotected sex and a million other things aren't illegal. There's no question about it.
vikorr wrote:A skip past suicide as I was talking about, and there’s obviously a plethora of people who disagree with you. It would of course come down to a matter of degree.
Night Ripper wrote:You also argued that I can't endanger myself. Are you going to respond to that? You are quick to accuse me of skipping things while doing so yourself. I'm not going to argue about suicide because what are you going to do, arrest a corpse? It's a moot point.
vikorr wrote:That would be a misrepresentation of the point of what I said.
Night Ripper wrote:If you say so. That doesn't really add much. You should clarify what you mean like what I'm doing here now.
Perhaps you should go back and read what I said . My wording, was quite clear. You simply misread and/or misrepresented what I said. I've added the quotes together for you, for ease of reading, though if you would not let your biases sway you in the first place, it would not be necessary.
Night Ripper wrote:Well you're the one making assertions about things being "rare". How else could you know this without some kind of statics? You can't. So, you must be talking out of your ass.
This is a bemusing statement. However, I do take it back that there are no stats showing carry on effects
http://www.caradvice.com.au/93465/drugs-linked-to-18-percent-of-fatal-us-car-crashes-report/
Probably if I looked hard enough, I'd find other things too. Considering you've also made assertions about commonality, and you consider me to be talking out of my ass (you consider what I say highly dubious, and also wish to insult), perhaps you'd like to supply some evidence for your stance?
