6 ms·

Most of the article is about how dangerous the manufacture of the stuff is... who's fault is that, dumbass? There are plenty of things that are dangerous to man

by voisine 17y ago

Most of the article is about how dangerous the manufacture of the stuff is... who's fault is that, dumbass? There are plenty of things that are dangerous to manufacture that we manage to produce safely in massive quantities every day. Stop using force against people engaged in voluntary exchanges and the problem is solved. You don't hear about people's houses blowing up from bathtub gin operations anymore do you?

tsally 17y ago
Right, the government is responsible for the deaths of the people who die in meth lab explosions. That's pretty twisted logic.
- voisine 17y ago
  Not directly, but they are absolutely causing the situation, just as they were at fault for the rise of the American mob during prohibition. Using violence against adults engaged in voluntary exchange is evil and has evil consequences.
  - tsally 17y ago
    The government isn't causing the situation, the dumbasses who choose to take a chemically addictive substance are causing the problem. You don't have the right to do whatever you want in this country if it's going to fuck up everything around you. Using violence against adults engaged in voluntary exchange is evil and has evil consequences. Not really. There are certain thing that should be allowed in society and certain things that shouldn't. I personally believe that alcohol and non addictive substances should be. Meth and other chemically addictive substances, plastic explosives, and automatic weapons shouldn't be. The key here is impact on others. If whatever you want to exchange is going to have a significant negative impact on those around you, it shouldn't be allowed. Smoking is public places? Nope. Can you smoke in your car by yourself? Sure. Same concept applies to everything we do. It's the price you pay for living in a civilized society. If you want to do meth and hunt deer with a 50 cal, you can always move to an empty island or a large desert. I personally think the benefits of staying a part of a society outweigh the costs, and that's why I'm still here.
    - voisine 17y ago
      You can disallow all you like. Prohibition didn't work then and won't work now. You're just going to ruin more people's lives, and in this case, make the life of nearly every person in the country a little more miserable when they get sick. Using violence for any reason other than defense against violence is wrong. I don't understand why so many people have so much trouble with such a simple concept.
      - tsally 17y ago
        You seem to be claiming that the laws against meth ruin more lives than meth addiction itself? The data we have say differently. I suggest you read more on meth and its effects and stop using the prohibition of booze as your only data point. You're essentially just ranting about prohibition and violence with no concrete point in mind. There's no significant movement to legalize meth and there never will be. Any violence employed counteracting meth operations is certainly justified given the tactics used by organizations that deal with meth. This whole freedom to the people, freedom from oppression, start a revolution mentality is bullshit in this case. You can still be a free man without having the right to run a meth lab in your basement. If you're going to pick a battle about freedom, meth isn't it my friend. And if it's not about freedom, well then it's about the high.
        anamax 17y ago
        > You seem to be claiming that the laws against meth ruin more lives than meth addiction itself? Actually, I'm claiming that the laws against meth do not reduce any of the problems with meth addiction. In short, they provide no benefits. However, they do have costs. The value of a program is the difference between the realized benefits and the incurred costs. The war on drugs doesn't have significant realized benefits. (I don't place much value on the "we're saying that drugs are wrong" benefit.) > The data we have say differently. Oh really? What data shows that the laws against meth reduce the costs of meth use? How about the amount of meth use? How about the availability of meth? (Seizures don't necessarily cause scarcity. Jailing 100k meth suppliers doesn't matter if we still have "enough" meth suppliers to satisfy demand.) If something isn't doing anything about the problem, it isn't a solution, it's merely another problem.
- garply 17y ago
  It doesn't seem twisted at all to me. These operations are forced to exist in non-safe locations because of prohibition. I think the current laws are just as responsible for these explosions as they are for the hashish you find cut with shoe polish - when was the last time you bought a bottle of beer that was cut with a toxic substance?
  - tsally 17y ago
    No one is forcing them to make meth. Maybe the people should run meth labs should consider graduating high school and getting a real job. I hear you don't have to worry about getting blown up if you have one of those.

by voisine 17y ago

tsally 17y ago

Right, the government is responsible for the deaths of the people who die in meth lab explosions. That's pretty twisted logic.

voisine 17y ago
Not directly, but they are absolutely causing the situation, just as they were at fault for the rise of the American mob during prohibition. Using violence against adults engaged in voluntary exchange is evil and has evil consequences.
- tsally 17y ago
  The government isn't causing the situation, the dumbasses who choose to take a chemically addictive substance are causing the problem. You don't have the right to do whatever you want in this country if it's going to fuck up everything around you. Using violence against adults engaged in voluntary exchange is evil and has evil consequences. Not really. There are certain thing that should be allowed in society and certain things that shouldn't. I personally believe that alcohol and non addictive substances should be. Meth and other chemically addictive substances, plastic explosives, and automatic weapons shouldn't be. The key here is impact on others. If whatever you want to exchange is going to have a significant negative impact on those around you, it shouldn't be allowed. Smoking is public places? Nope. Can you smoke in your car by yourself? Sure. Same concept applies to everything we do. It's the price you pay for living in a civilized society. If you want to do meth and hunt deer with a 50 cal, you can always move to an empty island or a large desert. I personally think the benefits of staying a part of a society outweigh the costs, and that's why I'm still here.
  - voisine 17y ago
    You can disallow all you like. Prohibition didn't work then and won't work now. You're just going to ruin more people's lives, and in this case, make the life of nearly every person in the country a little more miserable when they get sick. Using violence for any reason other than defense against violence is wrong. I don't understand why so many people have so much trouble with such a simple concept.
    - tsally 17y ago
      You seem to be claiming that the laws against meth ruin more lives than meth addiction itself? The data we have say differently. I suggest you read more on meth and its effects and stop using the prohibition of booze as your only data point. You're essentially just ranting about prohibition and violence with no concrete point in mind. There's no significant movement to legalize meth and there never will be. Any violence employed counteracting meth operations is certainly justified given the tactics used by organizations that deal with meth. This whole freedom to the people, freedom from oppression, start a revolution mentality is bullshit in this case. You can still be a free man without having the right to run a meth lab in your basement. If you're going to pick a battle about freedom, meth isn't it my friend. And if it's not about freedom, well then it's about the high.
      - anamax 17y ago
        > You seem to be claiming that the laws against meth ruin more lives than meth addiction itself? Actually, I'm claiming that the laws against meth do not reduce any of the problems with meth addiction. In short, they provide no benefits. However, they do have costs. The value of a program is the difference between the realized benefits and the incurred costs. The war on drugs doesn't have significant realized benefits. (I don't place much value on the "we're saying that drugs are wrong" benefit.) > The data we have say differently. Oh really? What data shows that the laws against meth reduce the costs of meth use? How about the amount of meth use? How about the availability of meth? (Seizures don't necessarily cause scarcity. Jailing 100k meth suppliers doesn't matter if we still have "enough" meth suppliers to satisfy demand.) If something isn't doing anything about the problem, it isn't a solution, it's merely another problem.
garply 17y ago
It doesn't seem twisted at all to me. These operations are forced to exist in non-safe locations because of prohibition. I think the current laws are just as responsible for these explosions as they are for the hashish you find cut with shoe polish - when was the last time you bought a bottle of beer that was cut with a toxic substance?
- tsally 17y ago
  No one is forcing them to make meth. Maybe the people should run meth labs should consider graduating high school and getting a real job. I hear you don't have to worry about getting blown up if you have one of those.