To Protect and to Serve II

#6,927
#6,927
Cdywolfe said:
There are just a few super easy things LE could do that would win back the majority of the public that's become "anti-cop" and they simply refuse to. So this loser union rep can forget his victim mentality. If cops want to know why so many have turned against them they need to look no further then the mirror.
Click to expand...
It's like the old movie Colors..... you've got cops like Duvall and then you have cops like Penn..... and it's the cops like Penn that screw it up for everyone
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#6,929
#6,929
n_huffhines said:
But everything we do has some impact on somebody else, so with that justification you're asking for unlimited intervention in our lives. Obesity has more of a social cost than the war on drugs. Should we be banning fattening foods? This is mayor Bloomberg type reasoning.
Click to expand...
Not asking for unlimited intervention in the least. Nor do I believe that you are asking for a free for all either. Or are you?
 
#6,930
#6,930
37L1 said:
Not asking for unlimited intervention in the least. Nor do I believe that you are asking for a free for all either. Or are you?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, let me rephrase. Your argument is that the social cost of drug use is enough justification for intervention. If the social cost of obesity is greater than the social cost of drug use, it follows that you see enough justification for intervention there too, right? If not, why is bad food different than bad drugs?
 
#6,931
#6,931
n_huffhines said:
Fair enough, let me rephrase. Your argument is that the social cost of drug use is enough justification for intervention. If the social cost of obesity is greater than the social cost of drug use, it follows that you see enough justification for intervention there too, right? If not, why is bad food different than bad drugs?
Click to expand...
I have yet to see Narcan administered to OD's on food.
 
#6,937
#6,937
n_huffhines said:
So the shock factor is what gets you?
Click to expand...
Nope. It's the element of death by addiction. Death from opioid abuse tends to be quicker and the victim much younger than those who die from heart disease brought on by bad habits and advancing age.
 
#6,938
#6,938
37L1 said:
Nope. It's the element of death by addiction. Death from opioid abuse tends to be quicker and the victim much younger than those who die from heart disease brought on by bad habits and advancing age.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet that if you take out all the "advanced age" deaths, more still die from obesity/heart disease than drugs.

You're now talking about the effects on the individual who chooses to take these drugs, and not the societal cost. Your original justification was the societal cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and MercyPercy
#6,939
#6,939
n_huffhines said:
I'm willing to bet that if you take out all the "advanced age" deaths, more still die from obesity/heart disease than drugs.

You're now talking about the effects on the individual who chooses to take these drugs, and not the societal cost. Your original justification was the societal cost.
Click to expand...
You like to do this a lot. If something isn’t the most or the leading cause then everything else is nil and you toss it aside. It’s silly.
 
#6,943
#6,943
DancingOutlaw said:
Do you know anyone who wants to try heroin but is afraid because it’s illegal?
Click to expand...
Well if we're going to sale it at pop up 7 11s at every corner how manys going to try it because it's now legal?

Then when those people lose their job and need money for more whose house they coming in?
 
#6,944
#6,944
n_huffhines said:
I'm willing to bet that if you take out all the "advanced age" deaths, more still die from obesity/heart disease than drugs.

You're now talking about the effects on the individual who chooses to take these drugs, and not the societal cost. Your original justification was the societal cost.
Click to expand...

I doubt your first bet but whatever. Go ahead and link that information and then I'll believe it. The deaths by drug OD is gaining on the HD numbers and it is impacting a younger demographic.

Was my "original justification societal cost"? I don't recall that but either or both are appropriate since no man is an island.

Oh, there is a societal cost. The family and friends of the younger person saddled with addiction, the theft and other criminal behavior to obtain the drug by the "victim" as well as their suppliers, the cost in intervention, emergency responses, medical care, etc., etc., etc. Now you may argue that it is the same for heart disease but you know that is a specious and basically fallacious argument but I get your main point, which is, where do you choose to draw the line?

Here's a simple way to look at it: Addicting drugs really, really bad; unhealthy diet is just bad. It takes a whole lot longer to get to the end game. And with the drug addiction it's a whole lot easier to blame someone or something else for the problem instead of the "victim's" own behavior. So society looks for someone else, like government, to solve the problem.
 
#6,946
#6,946
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Wasn't agreeing. His speech was saying they're tired of being spotlighted as the bad guy while they protect and serve all the azzholes that think this way.
Click to expand...
Well first off, the courts have stated that police have no obligation to protect anyone. Second, who exactly are the police serving and protecting in their war on drugs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: oz615 and MercyPercy
#6,947
#6,947
Rasputin_Vol said:
Well first off, the courts have stated that police have no obligation to protect anyone. Second, who exactly are the police serving and protecting in their war on drugs?
Click to expand...
I don't need the cops to protect me.

I'm guessing the little old lady that lived next to these idiots is sleeping a little better at night.
 
#6,950
#6,950
37L1 said:
I doubt your first bet but whatever. Go ahead and link that information and then I'll believe it. The deaths by drug OD is gaining on the HD numbers and it is impacting a younger demographic.

Was my "original justification societal cost"? I don't recall that but either or both are appropriate since no man is an island.

Oh, there is a societal cost. The family and friends of the younger person saddled with addiction, the theft and other criminal behavior to obtain the drug by the "victim" as well as their suppliers, the cost in intervention, emergency responses, medical care, etc., etc., etc. Now you may argue that it is the same for heart disease but you know that is a specious and basically fallacious argument but I get your main point, which is, where do you choose to draw the line?

Here's a simple way to look at it: Addicting drugs really, really bad; unhealthy diet is just bad. It takes a whole lot longer to get to the end game. And with the drug addiction it's a whole lot easier to blame someone or something else for the problem instead of the "victim's" own behavior. So society looks for someone else, like government, to solve the problem.
Click to expand...

600k heart disease deaths and 70k drug overdose deaths (including legal), so if 85% of the former are "advanced age", then heart disease is still the more intervention-worthy problem, according to your strangely specific criteria.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top