watched episode of cops last night

[HL2addict]

I was watching an episode of cops last night where these police from california were posing as dealers, selling fake drugs, then arresting people for buying the drugs. It got me thinking: what exactly were these people's crime? If they didn't buy drugs, then they didn't break the law yet. example: say I put sugar, baking soda, and flour in a little baggie and make it look like cocaine and sell it to you, telling you it's actually drugs. Since all you actually bought were household baking products, you never break the law. (i'm guessing you break the law if you "think" you are buying drugs and therefore you are "attempting" to buy them, so in that case if I actually buy cocaine and they tell me it's baking powder, a cop arrests me for possesion I can tell them I was told it was baking powder and they can't arrest me?) If I got arrested for buying something I think is illegal and isn't, where is the crime? I don't recieve an illegal substance at all!

 

[CptStern]

solicitation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitation

 

[HL2addict]

no, they were arrested on drug charges even though there were no actual drugs in the area. (sometimes these cop shows make no sense, it seems they would be guilty of entrapment)

 

[CptStern]

what were the drug charges? surely not "possession" they were arrested for solicitation ..read the link I posted ..simply attempting to buy is illegal. It's the same thing as prositution; if approach a hooker and ask "how much" an she's an undercover cop, I'll be arrested for solicitation ..no sex was had but it's still illegal to attempt to buy sex

 

[Pesmerga]

I don't think entrapment is very fair nor just. It's a step closer to thought crimes, in my opinion.

 

[xcellerate]

(sometimes these cop shows make no sense, it seems they would be guilty of entrapment)

that's not entrapment. The people would still buy drugs regardless of whether or not that officer was standing there, the druggies would have just walked an extra 2 blocks to do it.

Entrapment would be if the cops were running up to people going "hey man, hold this bag while I tie my show" and then when the guy holds the bag the cop goes, "hah! gotcha! possession!" Or maybe if the cop was walking up to people saying, "hey listen, i'm gonna sell you this crack for cheap! I just gotta get rid of it, please buy some!"

 

[MJ12]

I was watching an episode of cops last night where these police from california were posing as dealers, selling fake drugs, then arresting people for buying the drugs. It got me thinking: what exactly were these people's crime? If they didn't buy drugs, then they didn't break the law yet. example: say I put sugar, baking soda, and flour in a little baggie and make it look like cocaine and sell it to you, telling you it's actually drugs. Since all you actually bought were household baking products, you never break the law. (i'm guessing you break the law if you "think" you are buying drugs and therefore you are "attempting" to buy them, so in that case if I actually buy cocaine and they tell me it's baking powder, a cop arrests me for possesion I can tell them I was told it was baking powder and they can't arrest me?) If I got arrested for buying something I think is illegal and isn't, where is the crime? I don't recieve an illegal substance at all!

I don't think entrapment is very fair nor just. It's a step closer to thought crimes, in my opinion.

Then you would have to consider predators they catch by undercover police pretending to be children as "innocent" too.
Their intent was clear, it just so happened in this instance it was a trick, doesn't make them any less guilty, because their intent was still the same.

 

[repiV]

What were you expecting - the police to be fair, just and concentrating their resources on crimes that matter? You should know better than that. :E

A commonly used tactic in the UK for unmarked police cars to tailgate people on the motorway to encourage them to speed up and then pull them for speeding. Intimidating people into taking necessary action to ensure their own safety which also happens to be technically illegal. Lowlife scum.

 

[repiV]

Then you would have to consider predators they catch by undercover police pretending to be children as "innocent" too.
Their intent was clear, it just so happened in this instance it was a trick, doesn't make them any less guilty, because their intent was still the same.

Guilty of what, exactly?

Any police force that acts in the best interests of the citizenry would not be spending inordinate amounts of time and money persecuting people for something that shouldn't even be a crime.
Yet in the UK at least it's the decent people who get shafted for minor infringements of law and the real criminals are left to do whatever they want with impunity.

 

[MJ12]

Guilty of what, exactly?

They intended to buy illegal drugs, which means regardless if it was an undercover cop, or an actual drug dealer, they still would have bought the drugs.
Just like an online predator, regardless of whether he contacted an undercover cop, or an actual child, he still was out to act as sexual offender on children.

Any police force that acts in the best interests of the citizenry would not be spending inordinate amounts of time and money persecuting people for something that shouldn't even be a crime.

You think selling cocaine and seriously harmful drugs should be legal?
You think acting as a sexual online predator towards minors should be legal as well?

A commonly used tactic in the UK for unmarked police cars to tailgate people on the motorway to encourage them to speed up and then pull them for speeding. Intimidating people into taking necessary action to ensure their own safety which also happens to be technically illegal. Lowlife scum.

That example is very different, here you are talking about intimidation. That would be like if an undercover cop pretending to be a drug dealer said "Hey, buy these drugs or I'll beat the shit out of you".
Very different situation, it's not like the people buying drugs were buying them out of fear, they were buying them because they wanted them.

 

[repiV]

If they intended to buy illegal drugs, which means, regardless if it was an undercover cop, or an actual drug dealer, they still would have bought the drugs.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but people should be able to buy whatever the hell drugs they want. There's no logical reason whatsoever to suggest the contrary.

You think selling cocaine and seriously harmful drugs should be legal?

What, you mean like alcohol and tobacco, the two most harmful drugs of all?
Yes I do, last time I checked Gordon Brown is not my father, and I don't need him to tell me how to live my life. If you want to have your personal choices in life mandated to you by the government, bully for you but what the hell business is it of yours or anyone else's what other people do with their own body?
And moreover, how do you propose to justify the fact that the most harmful drugs are a massive worldwide industry, while some that are completely harmless will land you in jail?

You think acting as a sexual online predator towards minors should be legal as well?

Why on earth would I think that? What kind of nut would compare drug taking to paedophilia?

That example is very different, here you are talking about intimidation. That would be like if an undercover cop pretending to be a drug dealer said "Hey, buy these drugs or I'll beat the shit out of you".
Very different situation, it's not like the people buying drugs were buying them out of fear, they were buying them because they wanted them.

I'm merely making light of the underhanded banditry regularly engaged in by the police.

 

[Pesmerga]

You can't read someone's mind. Just because I walk into a whore house doesn't mean I'm intending to buy a whore.

Cops dressing up as prostitutes and luring men into the trap is completely unjust- it's buying into their weaker will of power and places them in a situation where they otherwise not be.

Cops arresting people for being at a certain place where drugs are known to be sold, even if it's blatantly obvious they're there to buy them, is also unjust. I think the tactic is to wait until they actually DO buy drugs until they make the arrest is the tactic they use, anyway.

How can the police determine the suspect in question isn't going to change his mind at the last second? It's unlikely but possible. Innocent till proven guilty.

 

[MJ12]

Yes, I'm aware of that, but people should be able to buy whatever the hell drugs they want. There's no logical reason whatsoever to suggest the contrary.

Yeah, you can do whatever you want with your body, but if you can't understand why the legalization of harmful drugs like cocaine, meth, etc are effectively harmful on a societal level then you are hardly looking outside of the box.

Why on earth would I think that? What kind of nut would compare drug taking to paedophilia?

Well because you quoted me when I was refering to sexual predators?

 

[CptStern]

zombieturtle your logic fails ight here:

You think selling cocaine and seriously harmful drugs should be legal?
You think acting as a sexual online predator towards minors should be legal as well?

how is someone supposed to answer that? you're stringing together two diseparate crimes, one that involves the sale of an item and the other terrorizing children

 

[repiV]

Yeah, you can do whatever you want with your body, but if you can't understand why the legalization of harmful drugs like cocaine, meth, etc are effectively harmful on a societal level then you are hardly looking outside of the box.

No, all the problems caused by illegal drugs (and prostitution, for that matter) are precisely due to the fact that they are illegal - and even then they're completely and utterly dwarfed by the public order problems/domestic violence/road deaths caused by alcohol and the health problems caused by smoking.
In any case, since when was something being harmful a valid reason for outlawing it? When are we going to ban fast food? What about arresting people for putting their health in danger by not getting enough sleep?

Well because you quoted me when I was refering to sexual predators?

So? :|

 

[MJ12]

zombieturtle your logic fails ight here:



how is someone supposed to answer that? you're stringing together two diseparate crimes, one that involves the sale of an item and the other terrorizing children

obviously they are two different crimes, my point was that I am speaking on behalf of intent because a few people believed that getting someone for intent is not justafiable, and you know if you were to use that reasoning, the people and even the government would argue to use it across the board rather than one type of situation, because thats how it always is, people will lean to far left or to far right.

 

[CptStern]

this isnt about intent, intent is meaningless here ..I can walk right up to a cop and say "I intend to buy large quantity of drugs" he cannot arrest me, however if I say "would you sell me a large amount, here's a roll of bills": it's solicitation

 

[MJ12]

In any case, since when was something being harmful a valid reason for outlawing it? When are we going to ban fast food? What about arresting people for putting their health in danger by not getting enough sleep?

How can you call my comparisons unreasonable when you make the extreme analogy between seriously harmful drugs and eating fast food and not getting enough sleep?

You can't compair the addiction of a dangerous drug to lack of sleep or fast food.

I eat fast food sometimes but I am a fit person, because I do it in moderation. Same with sleep, I lose sleep, yet I am still healthy, because it's in moderation.
You usually don't hear about avid cocaine and meth users doing their substances in "moderation".
You cannot compair the effects of those drugs to the effects of eating fast food or not getting sleep.
If someone is a lard ass from eating fast food than it is most likely their own problem for not controling themselves, it's not like their is cocaine in those cheeseburgers.

 

[repiV]

How can you call my comparisons unreasonable when you make the extreme analogy between seriously harmful drugs and eating fast food and not getting enough sleep?

How is it "extreme"? The only difference is that cocaine is illegal and fast food is not.

You can't compair the addiction of a dangerous drug to lack of sleep or fast food.

What, so everyone who does illegal drugs has to be addicted to them?

I eat fast food sometimes but I am a fit person, because I do it in moderation. Same with sleep, I lose sleep, yet I am still healthy, because it's in moderation.

So what?
Lots of people take cocaine in moderation, or pot or shrooms, difference being?

You usually don't hear about avid cocaine and meth users doing their substances in "moderation".

No shit, if they were doing it in moderation they wouldn't be "avid" users.
Of course you don't, the government and the media want you to believe that all illegal drugs are evil and will wreck your life if you go near them. Drugs "education" is all lies and propaganda.

You cannot compair the effects of those drugs to the effects of eating fast food or not getting sleep.

Yes you can. All of these things are harmful, and fast food is arguably the most harmful of the lot. Christ, a medium pizza from Pizza Hut has something like 5000 calories in. AND this kind of food IS clinically addictive, just like some drugs.

If someone is a lard ass from eating fast food than it is most likely their own problem for not controling themselves, it's not like their is cocaine in those cheeseburgers.

Yeah, the same way junkies are junkies because they can't control themselves. I totally fail to see any relevant arguments from you here - you really bought hook, line and sinker into the anti-drugs propaganda.

 

[Krynn72]

Repriv wins.

 

[Kyorisu]

their own problem for not controling themselves, it's not like their is cocaine in those cheeseburgers.

Pro Tip: Fast food is addictive. Some people are able to control themselves, the large majority however cannot. Hence the rising obesity problem in many 1st world countries.

 

[Social Bacon]

Repriv wins.

Truth.

 

[MJ12]

How is it "extreme"? The only difference is that cocaine is illegal and fast food is not.

Are you seriously kidding me? The leap between fast food addiction and cocaine addiction is like comparing apples and oranges.
For starters, eating a cheeseburger for the first time won't seriously harm or kill you unless you have some sort of freak health disorder or your cheeseburger has been laced with cyanide.
Secondly, stopping fast food consumption doesn't cause severe damaging withdrawal symptoms. I used to be a bit of a chunker when I was a kid, so I stopped eating fast food for about 4 years. I was perfectly fine, never had any "withdrawal" symptoms, didn't have to be hospitalized, perfectly fine.
Thirdly, You don't see fast food burning a whole in the less educated's and poor's pocket.
Don't hear of to many people commiting crimes for fast food money.

How often do you see people desperately scrambling for money for fast food?
"Shit, I gotta blow this guy, I need the money, they have the new jalapeno double bacon burger value meal at Wendy's" :dozey:

What, so everyone who does illegal drugs has to be addicted to them?

Look, we're talking about things like cocaine, meth, and herione, we're not talking about pot. We're talking about seriously dangerous drugs. Does everyone who takes dangerously addicting and damaging drugs have to be addicted to them? No not nessisarily, but lets look outside the box and consider the large majority.

So what?
Lots of people take cocaine in moderation, or pot or shrooms, difference being?

Once again, going from one extreme to the other, compairing cocaine to pot? Come on.

Of course you don't, the government and the media want you to believe that all illegal drugs are evil and will wreck your life if you go near them. Drugs "education" is all lies and propaganda.

Christ, conspiracy shit? Yeah okay. That makes absolutely no sense, if illegal drugs such as cocaine, heroine, and meth are so harmless, wouldn't you think that maybe they'd actually want them to be legal so they could make more money in the same way cigarettes and alcohol do?

I totally fail to see any relevant arguments from you here - you really bought hook, line and sinker into the anti-drugs propaganda.

You really bought hook, line, and sinker into the extremely liberal and selfish "do whatever I want because the government is always evil and wrong" bullshit. Your comparisons are over the top and you fail to recognize the effect of drugs like cocaine on larger societal level. If a drug like that is legal, it becomes more available, more availability means more users, more users means more addicts.
Have you ever taken into consideration for example if a parent becomes addicted to cocaine and therefore fails to properly care for their children? Hey, they're not hurting anyone else right? Obliviously they are.
If you can't see how a drug like that would effect others and degrade structures of society then you are being close minded to say the least.

 

[The Monkey]

that's not entrapment. The people would still buy drugs regardless of whether or not that officer was standing there, the druggies would have just walked an extra 2 blocks to do it.

We can't know that. Maybe it was the moment, maybe he would never buy drugs in his life if that cop hadn't been there at that moment, unlikely, sure, but to the best of our knowledge, that person would never had bought it if wasn't for the cop. The police made him a criminal.

 

[Letters]

Repriv wins.

If that ever actually happens, I'll... no it's just impossible.

Comparing crack addiction to "fast food addiction"... proof of ignorance that's actually bordering on pathetic.

 

[Llama]

How is it "extreme"? The only difference is that cocaine is illegal and fast food is not.

*facepalm*

Let's take this step by step.

1) How much cocaine would you need to die from it, or from an accidental overdose?

2) How many cheeseburgers would you need to die from them, or from an accidental overdose?

3) Looking at 1+2, which is inherently more dangerous?

:| Christ.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Barring any existing medical conditions, doing blow once doesn't kill you, eating a cheeseburger once doesn't kill you. Do either enough and they will. Do people commit crimes for food money? Yes, actually, and in a lot of communities fast food is sadly a dietary staple, especially in poor neighborhoods. Do people commit crimes against others for drug money? Yes.

Is a coke addiction more immediately harmful than a burger addiction? Yes, but both will catch up to you. There have been little cases of proved fatal overdoses purely from sniffing coke, aside from people who've had previously existing medical conditions. This doesn't make it anymore safe, but this thread is full of the utterly silly mentality that all drugs are the same because they are illegal and thus 'bad'. I can't stand that they teach drugs to kids this way in school.

That's not to say we should all run out and try cocaine, but being educated as what individual substances actually do never hurt anyone.

 

[repiV]

Are you seriously kidding me? The leap between fast food addiction and cocaine addiction is like comparing apples and oranges.
For starters, eating a cheeseburger for the first time won't seriously harm or kill you unless you have some sort of freak health disorder or your cheeseburger has been laced with cyanide.

Neither will taking an illegal drug for the first time. Some class A drugs are in fact completely harmless.
But you are in fact missing the most important point - fast food, like drugs, is harmful only to the person who uses it. It's noone else's business what people do with their own body, and the fact that some people can't handle their drugs is not a valid reason to ban them.

Secondly, stopping fast food consumption doesn't cause severe damaging withdrawal symptoms. I used to be a bit of a chunker when I was a kid, so I stopped eating fast food for about 4 years. I was perfectly fine, never had any "withdrawal" symptoms, didn't have to be hospitalized, perfectly fine.

Neither does stopping drug taking in the vast majority of people. There are exceptions with both.
Fast food is definitely addictive - if you spend a while eating healthy food, it tastes absolutely revolting. But then you get hooked on it and want more - until you go back to healthy food and it tastes horrible again.

Thirdly, You don't see fast food burning a whole in the less educated's and poor's pocket.

No shit, fast food is cheap. What did you expect?
Furthermore, illegal drugs are so expensive BECAUSE they're illegal.

Don't hear of to many people commiting crimes for fast food money.

If the prices of illegal drugs weren't massively inflated due to the illegality and junkies were more able to get help with their addictions (ie. the drugs were legal) then not many people would commit crimes for drug money either.

How often do you see people desperately scrambling for money for fast food?
"Shit, I gotta blow this guy, I need the money, they have the new jalapeno double bacon burger value meal at Wendy's" :dozey:

Yeah, because four quid is really hard to come by.

Look, we're talking about things like cocaine, meth, and herione, we're not talking about pot. We're talking about seriously dangerous drugs. Does everyone who takes dangerously addicting and damaging drugs have to be addicted to them? No not nessisarily, but lets look outside the box and consider the large majority.

Something like 7% of cocaine users are addicted to cocaine. Definitely not the "large majority". By far the most addictive drug is nicotine, 32% of smokers are addicted. And unlike other drugs, which offer some kind of good experience, cigarettes do **** all but destroy your lungs and health and make you come back wanting more.
Back in the days before we knew smoking was dangerous, IIRC a third of men died from lung cancer caused by smoking.
Your "seriously dangerous drug" is staring you right in the face, and it's perfectly legal. The other one is alcohol, which causes more problems in our society than possibly anything else - also legal. More people die from alcohol in a month than die from all illegal drugs combined in a year.

Christ, conspiracy shit? Yeah okay. That makes absolutely no sense, if illegal drugs such as cocaine, heroine, and meth are so harmless, wouldn't you think that maybe they'd actually want them to be legal so they could make more money in the same way cigarettes and alcohol do?

That makes no sense. Cigarettes and alcohol are anything BUT harmless - on the other hand, shrooms, LSD and responsibly handled ecstacy are completely safe - how on earth do you draw the conclusion that the relative levels of harm have anything to do with government policy?
Irrespective of which, it's none of the government's business what drugs people take.

You really bought hook, line, and sinker into the extremely liberal and selfish "do whatever I want because the government is always evil and wrong" bullshit.

As a conservative, I find that quite amusing. Usually when people misrepresent my political position on here, they call me a fascist.
I damn well can do whatever I like, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedoms. That's the whole point of a free society.
My responsibilities to society do NOT include abstaining from a substance "for my own good".

Your comparisons are over the top and you fail to recognize the effect of drugs like cocaine on larger societal level. If a drug like that is legal, it becomes more available, more availability means more users, more users means more addicts.

Really? So why do the countries with the most liberal drug laws have the least problems with drugs?
Same way the countries with the highest age of consent and most repressive attitudes to sex have the biggest problems with teenage pregnancy, and vice versa.

Have you ever taken into consideration for example if a parent becomes addicted to cocaine and therefore fails to properly care for their children? Hey, they're not hurting anyone else right? Obliviously they are.

What about all the other myriad freaking reasons that parents fail to care properly for their kids?
In any case, I'm far more likely to be killed riding my motorbike than any kind of recreational drug user is to become a danger to society. Why don't we just ban motorbikes too?
Well actually considering that 70% of sportsbikes get written off within 16 months of purchase, they're clearly FAR TOO DANGEROUS to allow anyone at all to enjoy them, let's punich everyone by banning them!
Jesus, the government does not exist to nanny everyone. If some idiot neglects his kids for drugs, that's not my problem and it's not the government's place to stop everyone else from taking drugs.
People should take responsibility for their OWN lives.

If you can't see how a drug like that would effect others and degrade structures of society then you are being close minded to say the least.

I'm just working with the evidence, not to mention the principles of PERSONAL FREEDOM - you're the one upholding a policy that has failed over and over and over again.

If that ever actually happens, I'll... no it's just impossible.

Comparing crack addiction to "fast food addiction"... proof of ignorance that's actually bordering on pathetic.

Of course, because your contribution to this thread has been positively enlightened.

*facepalm*

Let's take this step by step.

1) How much cocaine would you need to die from it, or from an accidental overdose?

How is that relevant? You could easily kill yourself on a bottle of absinthe too.
What the hell do you think happens when you ski into a tree, lose control of a hang glider, mess up a wave when you're surfing, crash a motorcycle? That's right - you suffer serious injury if you're lucky and die if you're not.

2) How many cheeseburgers would you need to die from them, or from an accidental overdose?

It's hardly the point. Fast food is increasingly a lifestyle choice in an incredibly busy world where noone can be arsed to cook, and an extremely damaging one at that. You don't have to die from it or even be overweight to be incredibly unhealthy as a result of a bad diet.

3) Looking at 1+2, which is inherently more dangerous?

:| Christ.

Who even cares? If you want to **** up your life on either one of them, be my guest.
The biggest tragedy of all here is this trend in our society lately to look down upon any kind of risk-taking whatsoever. Safety must be the #1 priority at all times.
If you want to live a boring, safe life where you accomplish nothing because you never risk anything, be my guest. I don't share your values.

 

[Absinthe]

I like how common it is for people to claim drug legalization would have negative societal repercussions without any serious backing.

 

[Steven]

Neither will taking an illegal drug for the first time. Some class A drugs are in fact completely harmless.
But you are in fact missing the most important point - fast food, like drugs, is harmful only to the person who uses it. It's noone else's business what people do with their own body, and the fact that some people can't handle their drugs is not a valid reason to ban them.



Neither does stopping drug taking in the vast majority of people. There are exceptions with both.
Fast food is definitely addictive - if you spend a while eating healthy food, it tastes absolutely revolting. But then you get hooked on it and want more - until you go back to healthy food and it tastes horrible again.



No shit, fast food is cheap. What did you expect?
Furthermore, illegal drugs are so expensive BECAUSE they're illegal.



If the prices of illegal drugs weren't massively inflated due to the illegality and junkies were more able to get help with their addictions (ie. the drugs were legal) then not many people would commit crimes for drug money either.



Yeah, because four quid is really hard to come by.



Something like 7% of cocaine users are addicted to cocaine. Definitely not the "large majority". By far the most addictive drug is nicotine, 32% of smokers are addicted. And unlike other drugs, which offer some kind of good experience, cigarettes do **** all but destroy your lungs and health and make you come back wanting more.
Back in the days before we knew smoking was dangerous, IIRC a third of men died from lung cancer caused by smoking.
Your "seriously dangerous drug" is staring you right in the face, and it's perfectly legal. The other one is alcohol, which causes more problems in our society than possibly anything else - also legal. More people die from alcohol in a month than die from all illegal drugs combined in a year.



That makes no sense. Cigarettes and alcohol are anything BUT harmless - on the other hand, shrooms, LSD and responsibly handled ecstacy are completely safe - how on earth do you draw the conclusion that the relative levels of harm have anything to do with government policy?
Irrespective of which, it's none of the government's business what drugs people take.



As a conservative, I find that quite amusing. Usually when people misrepresent my political position on here, they call me a fascist.
I damn well can do whatever I like, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedoms. That's the whole point of a free society.
My responsibilities to society do NOT include abstaining from a substance "for my own good".



Really? So why do the countries with the most liberal drug laws have the least problems with drugs?
Same way the countries with the highest age of consent and most repressive attitudes to sex have the biggest problems with teenage pregnancy, and vice versa.



What about all the other myriad freaking reasons that parents fail to care properly for their kids?
In any case, I'm far more likely to be killed riding my motorbike than any kind of recreational drug user is to become a danger to society. Why don't we just ban motorbikes too?
Well actually considering that 70% of sportsbikes get written off within 16 months of purchase, they're clearly FAR TOO DANGEROUS to allow anyone at all to enjoy them, let's punich everyone by banning them!
Jesus, the government does not exist to nanny everyone. If some idiot neglects his kids for drugs, that's not my problem and it's not the government's place to stop everyone else from taking drugs.
People should take responsibility for their OWN lives.



I'm just working with the evidence, not to mention the principles of PERSONAL FREEDOM - you're the one upholding a policy that has failed over and over and over again.







Of course, because your contribution to this thread has been positively enlightened.



How is that relevant? You could easily kill yourself on a bottle of absinthe too.
What the hell do you think happens when you ski into a tree, lose control of a hang glider, mess up a wave when you're surfing, crash a motorcycle? That's right - you suffer serious injury if you're lucky and die if you're not.



It's hardly the point. Fast food is increasingly a lifestyle choice in an incredibly busy world where noone can be arsed to cook, and an extremely damaging one at that. You don't have to die from it or even be overweight to be incredibly unhealthy as a result of a bad diet.



Who even cares? If you want to **** up your life on either one of them, be my guest.
The biggest tragedy of all here is this trend in our society lately to look down upon any kind of risk-taking whatsoever. Safety must be the #1 priority at all times.
If you want to live a boring, safe life where you accomplish nothing because you never risk anything, be my guest. I don't share your values.

tl;dr

 

[Link]

The reason they are illegal is public opinion, not harmfulness. Why not keep your masivley over huge noses out, they are not doing any harm.

I am not going to sit here and wade into this fight, so here is something I wrote a while back which explains why drug laws are bad, and you are short sighted. Clickeh

 

[Kyorisu]

repiV holy cow nice comeback. My hat is off to you.

 

[TechnoHippyChic]

repiV holy cow nice comeback. My hat is off to you.

Likewise.

DPA: What's Wrong With the Drug War?


On a side note for those with the munchies:

McDonald's has a free McSkillet Burrito promotion when you buy a drink, today and tomorrow. At the one I went to, they wouldn't let me buy coffee or orange juice, had to get a soft drink, which is rather dumb, but they are quite tasty...

 

[repiV]

Hey thanks.

I tell you what, that shit is deadly. I used to get like a Burger King or Subway or whatever for lunch when I was doing an extremely demanding job, and I often had no energy in the afternoons.
Started getting my lunch from M+S instead - and my performance at work went through the roof. And I felt a hell of a lot more alive inside.

What you eat really does have repercussions on your whole life, and weight gain is only a small part of that.

 

[Steven]

Neither will taking an illegal drug for the first time. Some class A drugs are in fact completely harmless.
But you are in fact missing the most important point - fast food, like drugs, is harmful only to the person who uses it. It's noone else's business what people do with their own body, and the fact that some people can't handle their drugs is not a valid reason to ban them.

Name one A class drug that is completely as in 100% harmless.

 

[repiV]

Name one A class drug that is completely as in 100% harmless.

Shrooms.

Now can we stick to the point, instead of focusing on things that are basically irrelevant?

 

[CptStern]

Name one A class drug that is completely as in 100% harmless.

Ecstasy, LSD, heroin, cocaine, crack, magic mushrooms, amphetamines


completely harmless if taken in moderation..your point is moot because anything taken to the extreme can potentially be harmfull ..love butter? try eating six pounds of it through a straw ..that's harmful, ban butter

 

[Que-Ever]

I wish some people would overdose on burgers, that'd show 'em.

Probably at least one of those guys the cops busted were probably trying to buy coke for the first time, and he was just like, "dammit!"

 

[CptStern]

I wish some people would overdose on burgers, that'd show 'em.

this guy came close

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbY9wnf7WlQ

 

[Steven]

Ecstasy, LSD, heroin, cocaine, crack, magic mushrooms, amphetamines


completely harmless if taken in moderation..your point is moot because anything taken to the extreme can potentially be harmfull ..love butter? try eating six pounds of it through a straw ..that's harmful, ban butter

cept the recreational dose is the extreme one.