Originally posted by Silvershield

---

Originally posted by emcee

---

[...] (It doesn't make sense to lock people up for being sick) [...]

---

I'm not going to step in to the larger debate here, but I feel obligated to point out that this particular point is far oversimplified. I won't argue for a moment that addiction is not a terrible state to be subject to, but don't try to paint it as if these people are victims. You're going to be hard pressed to find a person who was given drugs at gunpoint, or who first used drugs without being aware of their addictive and harmful properties. Do addicts need help? Sure. But are they innocent victims? Not hardly.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

What you've said avoids my point. I never made a move to deny that an addict is "sick" under some definition of that term. However, you're argument uses "sick" with the implied assumption that the afflicted is in a state of victimization. That is, this person who is sick is without personal fault for his illness.

---

Originally posted by SamuraiX

---

I still think that this is going a bit too far away from the original discussion. It is my opinion that drinking is allowed and not marijuana, because one has become normalised. Drinking has become culturally acceptable, and I think that is more important as to a possible reason that there are more heavy drinkers. People look at someone drinking a glass of wine, a mug of beer, and on the whole they think that okay. People look at a person doing marijuana, and a good deal of them don't think that's okay. And certainly not the people who are making the laws, who mostly represent the older part of the population.

---

Originally posted by Sinfjotle

---

D.A.R.E. in school pretty much taught you the cause effects of drugs. I paid attention, because I do that for some reason, and then I researched it on my own later to learn that they horribly exaggerated it all. We were pretty much told that after one use, you would be screwed up forever. Obviously this is untrue.

---

Originally posted by Alice

---

So you're allowed to use it on Mac OS, as long as it's running on a PC. (This was of course before this was possible.)

---

Originally posted by Alastor

---

6. Stealthy trash soil (1 point)

---

Originally posted by SamuraiX

---

On the contrary, I'm pretty sure Pope John Paul II was strongly against abortion, if that's any indicator. Even so, how can one say American Christians represent all Christians, and thus theorise what a Christian would do under given circumstances? Does saying one is a Christian make them a Christian?
If there was a value clash between net neutrality and the immorality of abortion, most Christians on this board might just care more about net neutrality.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4288103.stm

---

Originally posted by FreeDOS +

---

Realistically, they very well could have no copyright laws in their own country, but what about other countries? It solves nothing when it'd still be illegal to import the data into your own native land.

---

Originally posted by Xkeeper

---

Five people making $10000 (aproximately $5.50/hr, 40hr/week, 52wk/yr), versus one making $50000 a year.

Those five people will get a much more major change, versus the $50k who won't feel much of anything.

Yet, with this way of thinking, those five people are still just 50% of the consideration, and a single person is now 50% as well.

I would like to point out that this is a flawed way of thinking, in that it would benefit a few (the wealthy) and go against many (the not-so-wealthy).

This is exactly the type of thinking we don't need.

---

Originally posted by Rom Manic

---

The only reason Pirate Bay got shut down was because of pressure from the United States MPAA and RIAA and associated lawyers. Unless new law has passed, Sweden is very much still a Pirate State, in terms of having nothing to do with international copyright.

Sealand may very well be the same, but unlike Sweden, the police (If any exist at all) will have no reason to bust down the door and shut them down, and anyone trying to convince them to do otherwise may as well be talking to a brick wall.

---

Originally posted by Kasdarack

---

That's ridiculous! The highest percent of the money earned is earned by very few. And the min wage increase will affect those rich people the least.

---

Originally posted by Kasdarack

---

Well... I'm just used to seeing real content on The O'Reilly Factor...

---