You cant get addicted to jumping off highway overpasses

Well... Maybe you can. Then to rephrase: you cant take meth with a bungee cord

Right. This republican attitude might work in certain circles of callous and selfish, but those actualy interested in a better society, anyone with a heart and a brain, will try to our darnedest to make sure tea party douchebags like yourself dont get to make policy decisions.

lsd is a drug

caffeine is a drug

therefore, they are the same legal entity

no, this is just intellectual dishonesty, sophistry, or you're just stupid

marijuana should be legal, but there's drugs out there where the effects are so horrible, they should stay illegal. simply because the effects of those drugs being illegal, while bad, are less than the effects drugs being legal: screwed up lives

methamphetamine. what this shit does to you? permanently? this shit should be legal?

then we get into a discussion about how safe environments and how carefully monitored dosing prevents tragedies

what the fuck?

when did society get in the business of enabling drug use?

if someone has fallen through the cracks and is addicted to drugs, society should treat this person, not put them in jail. but this should be reactive, not proactively enable "safe" use of highly addictive substances that really fuck up your life. addiction is a REAL PROBLEM, not a vague idea that a little application of will power can get over.

of course, some treatment is ineffective. with more resources, they might be effective

well yeah, with inffinite resources, even the most helpless basically suicidal self-destructive addict can be saved

but we don't live in a world of infinite resources

there's a difference between recreational casual use, and a person that is basically trying to kill themselves in slow motion

highly addictive substances have probably destroyed more lives in the history of homo sapiens than all wars combined, by orders of magnitude. making it all legal really just enables a lot of us walking around with the seeds of self-destruction to go full blown self-destructive. there has to be a barrier in society against the use of really vile substances

you have to understand what chronic drug use really is: suicide. society is not interested in enabling suicidal tendencies. therefore, there will always be illegal substances. come to grips with this, naive idealists

don't engage in sophistry and reductive nonsense when you talk about drugs. it is one of the most if not most complicated issues ever to face mankind. there are no easy answers, and there is really just a lot of pain, no matter what the legal approach

all i can say about drug use with certainty is this: as soon as someone says the answer is simple, and that simple answer is complete legalization or complete prohibition, you are dealing with a fucking moron who doesn't understand drugs

you are blaming google for what china is doing, and you are not giving google any credit for being subtle, perhaps because you are a person who doesn't understand anything subtle

china is going to censor the web. with google or without google

now anyone with an iq over 50 can tell why their connection is breaking: it's not google, it's china being a censor

they didn't carefully avoid anything, they didn't say "china is censoring us" because then china would cut off google

do you understand now?

who wrote stuxnet

well yeah, scientists are always improving their models. this is why you can trust them, because they admit to unavoidable error and correct for it to the best of current abilities. eventually, the gray area is so small that you can trust them within an acceptable margin of error

what are you saying? that because there is a gray area in their model at all, no mattter how small, their model is completely unusable?

what is superior in your mind? just making shit up, covering your ears, and attacking anyone who questions you?

i actually think if someone is engaged in unsafe sex, gay or not, they should be penalized, since this has societal costs. if you have aids, and you know it, and you knowingly have unsafe sex with someone else, gay or not, you should be punished

and you don't have to make fat people pay more for healthcare, nor do you have to ban large sugary drinks

you just have to tax the hell out of it, like cigarettes

go ahead, enjoy your large soda... that'll be $20 please

"we just need a sliding scale deductible single payer health insurance system"

well, if you feel a need to insult me, go ahead, since you agree with me 100% ideologically

health insurance is already mandated, by common morality

if you show up at the hospital, unable to pay, we treat you, and pass the bill onto the taxpayer via state bailout of the hospital

all the argument about socialized universal healthcare is a joke: we've already had it, for decades

now all that we ask is all the ignorant freeloaders whargarbbbling about "freedom" (from responsibility), to pay their fair share of the healthcare safety net which they already enjoy

furthermore, i agree: people who make unhealthy choices should pay higher insurance rates

because such a person doesn't exist, unless you are worth 6 figures. and even those people worth 6 figures are smart enough to have health insurance

meanwhile, everyone else bloviating about not being forced to purchase health insurance don't have $50K sitting in their bank account for emergencies

they are one slip and fall away from having a broken arm and avoiding the bill when it comes in the mail

the hilarious irony is that these losers vomit ignorance about not wanting to pay for lazy poor people's insurance. when the truth is THEY are the freeloaders!

we already have socialized universal healthcare: when people can't pay their healthcare bills in the USA, it gets passed to the taxpayer via state bailout so the hospital doesn't go bankrupt

now all we ask is that these ignorant assholes whargarrbbbling about freedom (from responsibility) pay their fucking fair share

or is it that you deserve the "freedom" to be a freeloading douchebag off the rest of us, is that your position?