The "This crime will never go away, so why make it illegal" argument is bullshit.

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Leadfinger:

Realitycrash:

Leadfinger:
I'm interested in discussions which have a factual basis.

And he said that his comments in said topic had factual basis, and you say they haven't, and this is turning into "He said, She Said". Either quote said comments you think do not have factual basis, and provide sufficient claims for why, or let it drop, please.

Look, here's what Blablahb said in this very thread, "If it was about the costs it would be a very short debate, because the indirect costs of marijuana (like caring for those driven insane by it, or fighting the massive amounts of crime caused by addicts) are huge." In this one sentence are four dubious claims-1. have people been driven insane by marijuana in significant numbers 2. there is a massive amount of crime related to marijuana use 3. there are marijuana addicts 4. the indirect costs of marijuana use are huge
Since Blahb made these statements, it's up to him to document them. (see the "Burden of proof" logical fallacy for further guidance on this point.)

And he said he did. He even quoted the threat were he said he did. So..You're annoyed that he didn't quote his arguments right into this thread?
C'mon, if you think he is wrong, go into the thread, pick up the arguments, quote them here, and show how they are wrong (unsubstantiated). If you think this is 'his job', then I'd go with 'Yeah, let it drop', as it is just slightly lazy.

Realitycrash:

Leadfinger:

Realitycrash:

And he said that his comments in said topic had factual basis, and you say they haven't, and this is turning into "He said, She Said". Either quote said comments you think do not have factual basis, and provide sufficient claims for why, or let it drop, please.

Look, here's what Blablahb said in this very thread, "If it was about the costs it would be a very short debate, because the indirect costs of marijuana (like caring for those driven insane by it, or fighting the massive amounts of crime caused by addicts) are huge." In this one sentence are four dubious claims-1. have people been driven insane by marijuana in significant numbers 2. there is a massive amount of crime related to marijuana use 3. there are marijuana addicts 4. the indirect costs of marijuana use are huge
Since Blahb made these statements, it's up to him to document them. (see the "Burden of proof" logical fallacy for further guidance on this point.)

And he said he did. He even quoted the threat were he said he did. So..You're annoyed that he didn't quote his arguments right into this thread?
C'mon, if you think he is wrong, go into the thread, pick up the arguments, quote them here, and show how they are wrong (unsubstantiated). If you think this is 'his job', then I'd go with 'Yeah, let it drop', as it is just slightly lazy.

No...the burden of proof lies with Blahb, the person making these claims. And it's not a question of his arguments, it's a question of what he claims are facts. I would simply like to see the facts-they aren't in the other thread.

Leadfinger:
No...the burden of proof lies with Blahb, the person making these claims. And it's not a question of his arguments, it's a question of what he claims are facts. I would simply like to see the facts-they aren't in the other thread.

Then here you go, and after this point I'm just going to condescendingly repeat this study over and over if you choose to ingore what I've written before again:
http://now.msn.com/marijuana-linked-to-psychosis-in-teens-says-dutch-study

The health consequences of marijuana use may be presumed common knowledge, and you've seen them presented many times over now.

Blablahb:
Then here you go, and after this point I'm just going to condescendingly repeat this study over and over if you choose to ingore what I've written before again:
http://now.msn.com/marijuana-linked-to-psychosis-in-teens-says-dutch-study

A study of a statistically-weak sample demonstrating a correlation, eh? Well, I guess it's still evidence.

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/13/lessons-from-dutch-cannabis-system/

^ Observe the somewhat better sample-size (a country).

dressing up as Indians and throwing tea into the Boston Harbor was illegal as was drinking during prohibition or sitting on the wrong bus seat during segregation.

sometimes "the law's an ass".

when "The law" becomes immutable it becomes...well lemme put it this way: Judge Dredd is NOT a hero mmmkay...

at the end of the day "the law" is an expression of the collective societal values of the people and not some kind of separate and disparate entity.

in short: we are "the law"...and we change our minds.

GunsmithKitten:
Still legitimate, however, to ask if the actual resources required to enforce it, especially the costs of prison space and legal resources, are worth keeping something illegal.

Not to mention that the actual argument is since the crime is only harming the dumbfuck committing it and no one else and it will never go away, then why make it illegal. The latter part of the argument is never utilized without the former.

Blablahb:

Leadfinger:
No...the burden of proof lies with Blahb, the person making these claims. And it's not a question of his arguments, it's a question of what he claims are facts. I would simply like to see the facts-they aren't in the other thread.

Then here you go, and after this point I'm just going to condescendingly repeat this study over and over if you choose to ingore what I've written before again:
http://now.msn.com/marijuana-linked-to-psychosis-in-teens-says-dutch-study

The health consequences of marijuana use may be presumed common knowledge, and you've seen them presented many times over now.

Your link is broken, but I was able google the study in question. Anyway, thank you!, finally. The study is interesting, but doesn't prove that marijuana causes psychosis. I will quote- "As with previous studies, the researchers weren't able to establish that marijuana use is directly causing an increased risk of psychosis, or vice versa. Their point is that since some teens with psychotic symptoms seem more likely to self-medicate with marijuana, it could be confounding the data that suggests pot somehow causes psychosis." http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/study-why-psychotic-teenagers-smoke-more-pot/266701/
Also, the study doesn't support any of your claims: 1. have people been driven insane by marijuana in significant numbers 2. there is a massive amount of crime related to marijuana use 3. there are marijuana addicts 4. the indirect costs of marijuana use are huge
If you can't prove harm with marijuana, cannabis prohibition is just another form of hysteria.

When this argument is made in defense of keeping all guns and all magazines legal, I counter with what I like the call The Bazooka Argument.

You're right. Criminals will be able to get weapons no matter what we do. Let's start selling bazookas at the corner store! Bazookas for everyone!

The original argument is too simplistic to be meaningful. Yes criminals will be able to get guns still. The question is, will it be any harder for them? In countries with strict gun controls laws (or bullet control), shooting deaths are much lower. I see this as evidence that supports gun control.

Whereas the idea of legalizing weed has my support, because making it illegal has done nothing but put a bunch of poor minorities in jail, leaving no room for rapists and murderers. So yeah.

Sonofadiddly:
When this argument is made in defense of keeping all guns and all magazines legal, I counter with what I like the call The Bazooka Argument.
You're right. Criminals will be able to get weapons no matter what we do. Let's start selling bazookas at the corner store! Bazookas for everyone!
The original argument is too simplistic to be meaningful. Yes criminals will be able to get guns still. The question is, will it be any harder for them? In countries with strict gun controls laws (or bullet control), shooting deaths are much lower. I see this as evidence that supports gun control.

Totally true, but that's why the "Criminals always get guns!" argument never gets elaborated. It's just thrown in as another unfounded claim, and the gun lobby never shows just how that would work, why prices wouldn't increase massively or availability wouldn't go down.

Leadfinger:
If you can't prove harm with marijuana, cannabis prohibition is just another form of hysteria.

Uh, no. If you can prove marijuana is completely harmless, non-addictive and nobody's ever stolen or perpetrated any other form of crime as a result, then it becomes another form of hysteria.

I wish you good luck putting together that argument.

It depends what specifically we're talking about and the cost of attempting to enforce it. Prohibition was an excellent example of a law making things worse because it created crime not just from people drinking, but also from smuggling and violence.

Shock and Awe:
It depends what specifically we're talking about and the cost of attempting to enforce it. Prohibition was an excellent example of a law making things worse because it created crime not just from people drinking, but also from smuggling and violence.

This. No one has ever argued what the OP suggested. Or at least ive never seen it argued.

The real arguement is this:

When enforcing a law causes more harm to society than not enforcing said law that law has become unnecessary.

Blablahb:

Leadfinger:
If you can't prove harm with marijuana, cannabis prohibition is just another form of hysteria.

Uh, no. If you can prove marijuana is completely harmless, non-addictive and nobody's ever stolen or perpetrated any other form of crime as a result, then it becomes another form of hysteria.

I wish you good luck putting together that argument.

It's not necessary that marijuana be proven to be completely harmless. I mean, even butter or candy aren't completely harmless. Rather, the burden is on prohibition advocates to prove why cannabis prohibition is at all necessary. After all, this is a policy that costs the U.S. $7.3 billion a year in enforcement costs, results in 800,000 arrests a year in the U.S., and clogs up the courts and jails with non-violent offenders. Worst of all, this policy has proven completely futile in terms eliminating the use of marijuana. Indeed, marijuana is now the leading cash crop in the U.S., exceeding the value of corn and wheat combined.

Blablahb:
Uh, no. If you can prove marijuana is completely harmless, non-addictive and nobody's ever stolen or perpetrated any other form of crime as a result, then it becomes another form of hysteria.

You're shifting the burden of proof. The default assumption is that activities are not harmful enough to warrant legislation (if you disagree then please point to the court cases that decriminalized drinking water, swimming, bathing, going for walks, etc). Thus the burden of proof lies with those claiming that an activity is dangerous enough to warrant criminalization.

The fact that something isn't "completely harmless" isn't enough to warrant criminalization--after all, everything carries a risk of harm (you can overdose on pretty much anything, for example, including water). The fact that a substance is potentially addictive isn't enough to warrant criminalization either (many activities are potentially addictive, including videogames). The fact that some people perpetrate crimes as a result of the activity might be a valid reason depending on whether or not there's actually a strong causal relationship that isn't predicated on the activity already being illegal (so if someone is guilty of possession of an illegal substance, you can't use that crime as an argument for keeping the substance illegal).

Blablahb:

Leadfinger:
No...the burden of proof lies with Blahb, the person making these claims. And it's not a question of his arguments, it's a question of what he claims are facts. I would simply like to see the facts-they aren't in the other thread.

Then here you go, and after this point I'm just going to condescendingly repeat this study over and over if you choose to ingore what I've written before again:
http://now.msn.com/marijuana-linked-to-psychosis-in-teens-says-dutch-study

The health consequences of marijuana use may be presumed common knowledge, and you've seen them presented many times over now.

How do the health consequences of prison compare?

Blablahb:
Prohibition could've worked if there wasn't a rich and especially well-armed organised crime to profit from it, and the impact of the ban was sufficient.

So in other words, prohibition could have worked if we lived in a world where everything isn't centered around money.

OP- you are thinking about it the wrong why. What is the purpose of the law? And is the law enforceable?

What is the purpose of drug laws? To prevent people from using drugs. Can the law be enforced? No. So it should not exist.

What is the purpose of laws against murder? To punish people for murdering others. Can the law be enforced? In large part yes. So it should exist.

If a law cannot be enforced then it should not exist.

This argument is usually used for the legalization of drugs, specifically marijuana.

I am fine with legalizing drugs, even the hard stuff, but we have to lay down some rules first. We have to alow employers to discriminate against drug users, even ones who "have it under control". My big fear with drugs becoming legal is this situation playing out in a place of employment.

Crackhead: "So, do I get the job?"

Employer: "Of course not! I'm not going to hire someone who somokes crack to work in my store!"

ACLU Lawyer: "Crack is legal now, so you cant discriminate against my client based on that. Either you hire him or your company will be hit with a lawsuit"

Employer: "Shiiiiit"

Crackhead gets hired and robs the store blind on his first day.

cthulhuspawn82:
This argument is usually used for the legalization of drugs, specifically marijuana.

I am fine with legalizing drugs, even the hard stuff, but we have to lay down some rules first. We have to alow employers to discriminate against drug users, even ones who "have it under control". My big fear with drugs becoming legal is this situation playing out in a place of employment.

Crackhead: "So, do I get the job?"

Employer: "Of course not! I'm not going to hire someone who somokes crack to work in my store!"

ACLU Lawyer: "Crack is legal now, so you cant discriminate against my client based on that. Either you hire him or your company will be hit with a lawsuit"

Employer: "Shiiiiit"

Crackhead gets hired and robs the store blind on his first day.

If I have a drink or two outside my work, but never drink at work or come into work intoxicated, should my employer be able to fire me?

Leadfinger:

cthulhuspawn82:
This argument is usually used for the legalization of drugs, specifically marijuana.

I am fine with legalizing drugs, even the hard stuff, but we have to lay down some rules first. We have to alow employers to discriminate against drug users, even ones who "have it under control". My big fear with drugs becoming legal is this situation playing out in a place of employment.

Crackhead: "So, do I get the job?"

Employer: "Of course not! I'm not going to hire someone who somokes crack to work in my store!"

ACLU Lawyer: "Crack is legal now, so you cant discriminate against my client based on that. Either you hire him or your company will be hit with a lawsuit"

Employer: "Shiiiiit"

Crackhead gets hired and robs the store blind on his first day.

If I have a drink or two outside my work, but never drink at work or come into work intoxicated, should my employer be able to fire me?

It is possible to "drink responsibly" but that doesn't hold up for all drugs. I don't think there is any way to do meth or heroine responsibly. I cant see someone being able to do those those things in moderation and not have it affect them on the job. I really cant envision a "model employe" with needle tracks running down his arm.

Hardcore_gamer:
Lots of people try to defend the idea that "insert whatever illegal activity" should be made legal on the bases that since the state can't ever fully prevent it, then there is no point in combating it.

This however, I find to be an extremely stupid argument.

The problem with this argument, is that it could also apply to every other crime that has ever existed. The police will never be able to catch every criminal for ANY CRIME.

That doesn't mean that there aren't any good arguments for whatever it is that you want to be legalized to be legalized, but simply pointing out that people will contine to break the law even when things aren't legal isn't a good argument.

Thoughts?

Yes, you are right. That's why we need to beef up the ATF. That's why we need to make the current gun control laws much easier to enforce. That's why we need certain laws and restrictions so that less gun violence occurs.

I mean, your argument fits perfectly here, doesn't it?

cthulhuspawn82:

It is possible to "drink responsibly" but that doesn't hold up for all drugs. I don't think there is any way to do meth or heroine responsibly. I cant see someone being able to do those those things in moderation and not have it affect them on the job. I really cant envision a "model employe" with needle tracks running down his arm.

There are people that can control their addictions to drugs, even things like heroin. Some addicts are well in control and are safe with their habit (sharps boxes, clean needles, etc.) and if you went into their home you'd not be able to tell they were any different from a non-addict.

If we legalised drugs then the same rules as alcohol would apply; you can't fire someone just because they use drugs but the second they come to work high you can kick their ass out the door so hard they can't sit down for a week.

Leadfinger:
In the case of gun control, this argument is bullshit. The fact is, the U.S. has never really tried to seriously regulate guns. Gun control works very well in most of the other developed nations, so we can't say it doesn't work. In the case of drugs, we have to look at whether prohibition actually prevents more harm than it causes. For drugs, I don't think it does.

No, gun control will not work in the U.S. the Mexican cartels are already bringing in tons of illegal and harmful drugs. If there are extreme gun laws the cartels only have to make a phone call home for some guns. Yes, the U.S. has tried serious regulations. Chicago has the highest level of gun control in the nation yet it has the highest crime rates in the U.S. For reducing gun crime, yes strict gun laws have worked for the U.K. but every all other crimes skyrocketed. And the United States tried an "assault weapons ban." It didn't work. Crime shot up. When D.C. banned handguns from private ownership crime rose up. When the ban was removed crime when down. And the idea of a "developed nation" only being used for comparison is biased. If it only requires strict laws to reduce crime, the level of technology won't matter. If I'm missing something on the developed nations only counting please tell me. I just don't get it.

drnogood59:

Leadfinger:
In the case of gun control, this argument is bullshit. The fact is, the U.S. has never really tried to seriously regulate guns. Gun control works very well in most of the other developed nations, so we can't say it doesn't work. In the case of drugs, we have to look at whether prohibition actually prevents more harm than it causes. For drugs, I don't think it does.

No, gun control will not work in the U.S. the Mexican cartels are already bringing in tons of illegal and harmful drugs. If there are extreme gun laws the cartels only have to make a phone call home for some guns. Yes, the U.S. has tried serious regulations. Chicago has the highest level of gun control in the nation yet it has the highest crime rates in the U.S. For reducing gun crime, yes strict gun laws have worked for the U.K. but every all other crimes skyrocketed. And the United States tried an "assault weapons ban." It didn't work. Crime shot up. When D.C. banned handguns from private ownership crime rose up. When the ban was removed crime when down. And the idea of a "developed nation" only being used for comparison is biased. If it only requires strict laws to reduce crime, the level of technology won't matter. If I'm missing something on the developed nations only counting please tell me. I just don't get it.

We don't compare gun laws in the U.S. to gun laws in countries like Somalia because Somalia doesn't have a working court system and an effective system of laws and policing as developed countries do. And compared to any other developed country, the U.S. has a lot more gun violence. A lot more-no country even comes close. Let's take the UK, for example. Last year there were 51 gun deaths in the UK. In the U.S.? 30,000. You say that serious regulations have been tried in the U.S., but it's simply not true. The U.S. has had at best piecemeal regulation with plenty of loopholes. Of course banning guns in a particular city like Chicago or D.C. won't work if guns can be brought in from outside the city limits where guns are both legal and plentiful. And assault rifle bans won't work if thousands of weapons remain available because of a grandfather clause loophole in the law. Now, you imply that banning guns causes crime to increase, but I think you'll find if you examine the facts closely you'll find that banning guns causes crimes to decrease, especially murder and gun violence.

Karma168:

cthulhuspawn82:

It is possible to "drink responsibly" but that doesn't hold up for all drugs. I don't think there is any way to do meth or heroine responsibly. I cant see someone being able to do those those things in moderation and not have it affect them on the job. I really cant envision a "model employe" with needle tracks running down his arm.

There are people that can control their addictions to drugs, even things like heroin. Some addicts are well in control and are safe with their habit (sharps boxes, clean needles, etc.) and if you went into their home you'd not be able to tell they were any different from a non-addict.

Whilst what you are saying is factually correct, he still has a point. The percentage of heroin users that are well adjusted, reliable users that you wouldn't know used if you went into their house is, I'd imagine, quite small. Especially compared to those who consume alcohol.

I think the user was making the point that alcohol is in a very different field to hardcore drugs. You can't pretend to apply the same rules to them.

Karma168:
If we legalised drugs then the same rules as alcohol would apply; you can't fire someone just because they use drugs but the second they come to work high you can kick their ass out the door so hard they can't sit down for a week.

In situations like this, it matters less about what is legal and more about what is a taboo. If we were to legalise heroin tomorrow - the taboo wouldn't just disappear. It would linger for years, even decades possibly. If I were an employer, especially in the field of government, I'd be very careful about hiring someone who enjoys a habit the population deems to be incredibly dangerous and irresponsible.

I can foresee someone countering this point by suggesting that the current illegality of heroin is what makes it so dangerous and makes the users irresponsible. This is true to a degree, but only a small degree. I've been up close and personal (as close as you can get without actually taking any) to the drug and it is incredibly, incredibly destructive. I've seen people a million times more adjusted and composed than myself take one hit and never be the same again. You can't say the same about alcohol or pot or even cocaine.

There are a few drugs out there that warrant specific discussion about the moral obligations of the law in regard to them.

drnogood59:
No, gun control will not work in the U.S. the Mexican cartels are already bringing in tons of illegal and harmful drugs. If there are extreme gun laws the cartels only have to make a phone call home for some guns. Yes, the U.S. has tried serious regulations.

Uh, you're aware that the flow of guns for the cartels is from the US, towards Mexico? The free gun possesion of the US is the main reason the cartels are so heavily armed. The only exception are truly military arms like rocket launches, which are stolen from military armories in middle-american countries. But the main armanent of the Mexican drug cartels comes from the US. There've been thousands of weapons intercepted despite efforts of the gun lobby to sabotage the ATF.

So a gun ban in the US would indirectly disarm the Mexican cartels as well.

drnogood59:
Chicago has the highest level of gun control in the nation yet it has the highest crime rates in the U.S.

...And without gun control it would've been even higher than it is now. New York in the meantime, is celebrating record-low crime rates due to strict gun control measures.

Remarkable considering the extent to which a city is handicapped when trying to do that, by national regulations that keep them from effectively fighting gun violence.

drnogood59:
If I'm missing something on the developed nations only counting please tell me. I just don't get it.

Population density and wealth are determinants for crime. The thinner populated and richer a country, the lower the crimerates. This is why it's so stunning the US, thanks to gun possession, has a crime rate similar to a few warzones.

Also it's why the gun lobby's main straw of Switserland is not a valid comparison, because Switserland is very thinly populated and wealthy, so their seemingly low crime rate is actually quite high. Looking further one would of course discover Switserland suffers under extremely high levels of firearms violence. Family dramas where people murder their family are frequent there, because every domestic dispute can turn into a massacre in a split second because of military weapons stored in homes.

It's mainly to refute the gun lobby tactic of comparing unstable impoverished warzones that, in theory, have strict gun regulations, to the US and then going 'see? proof that guns don't cause crime', while they're just doing bullshit statistics.


The gun lobby is basically doing the same as when someone would go "If we look at historical crime data for the US, there were no problems with street gangs when slavery of black people was still allowed. This proves that slavery prevents crime." It's just an invalid comparison.

FavouriteDream:

In situations like this, it matters less about what is legal and more about what is a taboo. If we were to legalise heroin tomorrow - the taboo wouldn't just disappear. It would linger for years, even decades possibly. If I were an employer, especially in the field of government, I'd be very careful about hiring someone who enjoys a habit the population deems to be incredibly dangerous and irresponsible.

While correct the legality of drug use and employment is very important. When you apply for a job you don't fill in a form stating your alcohol consumption (for most jobs at least), you can be a raging alcoholic that downs a litre of vodka a day but as long as it doesn't interfere with your work it's none of the employers business. If it comes out that you have a problem it might change the way your boss and colleagues see you as a person but it's not legal grounds for you to be fired.

The same would be true of drug use post-legalisation. As long as you've never been convicted of any drug related crime your habit is completely private and should not be a part of any job application process. If an employer found out you were a heroin addict somehow and decided to sack you because of it (assuming that you are an otherwise ideal employee) then you'd be well within your rights to take them to court. We can't have a system where your lifestyle is automatically dangerous, regardless of what your personal situation is; for example the European courts ruled (i think) last year that it is illegal to charge young male drivers more than young females for insurance just because young men are statistically a higher risk than women.

If we allow employers to hire/fire based on ex-taboos that they feel uncomfortable with it sets a very bad precedent, after all there are still people who still feel uncomfortable with openly gay people. It's one of the reasons I don't like those 'equality' forms you fill in with some companies when you apply for a job that uses an application form; you basically hand them a checklist of things that a bigoted employer can use to rule you out.

Karma168:
We can't have a system where your lifestyle is automatically dangerous, regardless of what your personal situation is

We do have that system already. A good example is transport safety legislation. You hop into a car intoxicated you are automatically dangerous regardless of your personal situation. Where I live it is illegal for new drivers to have any trace of alcohol in their system whatsoever when driving. Some people have tried to dodge DUI charges and fines by claiming (sometimes scientifically) that the small amount of alcohol in their system that was registered wasn't even enough to slightly impair them. Invariably these get thrown straight into the rubbish bin.

Karma168:
for example the European courts ruled (i think) last year that it is illegal to charge young male drivers more than young females for insurance just because young men are statistically a higher risk than women.

First of all, this isn't something that can be used to further your point. You are appealing to an example and using it to imply your position is factually correct. All you have done is highlighted an example where a government's opinions on an issue reflect yours.

Anyway, you're referring to the EU gender directive - which, in its appeal to be anti-discriminatory, has made life for women far more difficult and is making insurance companies even more money.

Instead of charging male drivers higher insurance fees, insurance companies have just raised female drivers insurance fees to the level that of a young male. So now everyone is paying the higher price. It's making them a fortune.

Karma168:
If we allow employers to hire/fire based on ex-taboos that they feel uncomfortable with it sets a very bad precedent

I don't agree.

Karma168:
after all there are still people who still feel uncomfortable with openly gay people.

Good luck trying to create a scientific and legally compelling argument that gay people are worse employees than straight people. However, I could create a pretty damn convincing argument that heroin addicts make worse employees than non heroin addicts do.

All that would be needed is to place restrictions against firing people for elements outside the control of the employee (with culture, race and sexuality defined as such). Hey presto, it works a lot better now.

edit:

Annnnnd I just thought of a huge hole in my ideology. Making it legal to fire employees who are heroin addicts might open the door for employers to fire employees who were heroin addicts, making all chance of rehabilitation pointless. Stupid of me, disregard. Bad idea! I wasn't being very thoughtful, my apologies!

FavouriteDream:

We do have that system already. A good example is transport safety legislation. You hop into a car intoxicated you are automatically dangerous regardless of your personal situation. Where I live it is illegal for new drivers to have any trace of alcohol in their system whatsoever when driving. Some people have tried to dodge DUI charges and fines by claiming (sometimes scientifically) that the small amount of alcohol in their system that was registered wasn't even enough to slightly impair them. Invariably these get thrown straight into the rubbish bin.

The difference is drink driving is actively dangerous, while just being a drinker isn't; you can drink, you can drive but you can't drink and drive. That's the kind of idea I'm trying to get across - heroin use in of itself is not dangerous when done responsibly, same as alcohol, so is it fair to say "you are a heroin user, you are automatically a danger to others/a bad candidate"? It would be like saying if you drink alcohol you are danger behind the wheel, even when your blood alcohol level is zero.

First of all, this isn't something that can be used to further your point. You are appealing to an example and using it to imply your position is factually correct. All you have done is highlighted an example where a government's opinions on an issue reflect yours.

My point was more that it's wrong take everyone that fit's into group X (male drivers under 25, heroin users, etc.) and punish them for something that subgroup Y have done, it's like saying all black teenagers are criminals because they have a high criminal ratio.

The assumption that you are a risk due to a factor (heroin use) when that doesn't take into account anything that is unique to you is basically stereotyping and is it wise to base your decisions on a stereotype?

Anyway, you're referring to the EU gender directive - which, in its appeal to be anti-discriminatory, has made life for women far more difficult and is making insurance companies even more money.

Instead of charging male drivers higher insurance fees, insurance companies have just raised female drivers insurance fees to the level that of a young male. So now everyone is paying the higher price. It's making them a fortune.

Oh I won't argue that it's messed up but I do think it's better than the alternative. Penalising someone because of their genitals is iffy, if it had been the other way round there'd have been a feminist outcry over it, and it makes sense to make things equal.

Have groups that are based on age, time since passing, claims, etc. as they provide a more reliable guide on how someone will perform as a driver. Using gender however tells you nothing about what kind of driver someone is.

For example I know a girl who was (and probably still is) a god awful driver, she couldn't go 2 weeks without dinging her car off a wall, bollard, etc. even with a year of this, giving the insurance company plenty of evidence that she's not that great a driver, guys who had just passed their test couldn't get a quote close to hers (for similar cars). It was still more expensive for a new male driver with no issues than a female driver with a year of minor claims because of the massive price difference between genders.

I guess I see it as a case of "We're getting fucked but at least we're getting fucked equally"

I assume we're talking about the pot arguement, eh?

Well, I'm against legalization of anything that permanantly inhibits brain function. I know alcohol can do the same thing, but it got grandfathered into modern law. It'd be almost impossible to ban it now, but it would be much easier to keep things that are currently illegal, illegal.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked