Iran to blind criminal with acid in 'eye for an eye' justice

[GommeInc]

If I turned this around however and said that homosexuality should be regulated by the state, I can only imagine your reaction would go something along the lines of 'the state shouldn't have anything to do with what people do behind closed doors' - the same logic is applied here. Both drug taking and anal sex to a degree can be dangerous, but I don't find thats any of my business.

Women can partake in anal sex too, and sex is natural while drug abuse is something humans created, something synthetic. Gay sex and breeder sex are both natural in the Kingdom of Animalia. That said, drug usage is a bit of a different topic to what we're meant to be discussing and as far as I see it many drugs are a waste of time and resources for those who are too stupid to know how to use them. Those who do tend to do it secretly anyway. Making it available to the general public would be a problem, particularly the big drugs that don't involve being smoked (e.g. needles, snorting etc.)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Women can partake in anal sex too, and sex is natural while drug abuse is something humans created, something synthetic. Gay sex and breeder sex are both natural in the Kingdom of Animalia.

Indeed however that doesn't take viruses into account, of which can travel easier via anal sex - of which gay men are likely to partake in.

That said, drug usage is a bit of a different topic to what we're meant to be discussing and as far as I see it many drugs are a waste of time and resources for those who are too stupid to know how to use them. Those who do tend to do it secretly anyway. Making it available to the general public would be a problem, particularly the big drugs that don't involve being smoked (e.g. needles, snorting etc.)

There is no 'correct way' to use drugs in my opinion as they are stupid and dangerous and as I stated before, I have not and would never take them. On the other hand however I understand that others may wish to do so - just as some will view gay sex as immoral and a risk not worth taking due to the risk of infectious diseases. The fundemental value of liberty is that people should still be allowed to partake in it even if different sides may disagree. Neither are the business of the state to intervene in.

..as for the general public argument, as Ron Paul asks 'if drugs were legalised, would everybody in the room start taking drugs the moment they were legalised? oh the law is abolished so now i'll suddenly start taking drugs just because I can' - its ridiculous, the concept that we need the nannying state involved. If drugs were legalised there's no reason to imagine that thousands would all of a sudden start taking drugs when they could acquire them previously anyway.

[GommeInc]

Indeed however that doesn't take viruses into account, of which can travel easier via anal sex - of which gay men are likely to partake in.

Actually, any sex has a risk of viruses, not just anal sex. Oral sex with any sexual partner can lead to genital herpes, ulsers and in this day in age people are likely to wrap up for anal sex than for oral sex as no one particularly likes the taste of rubber, so it's double standards really though we're far away from such a scenario Viruses happen with any sexuality and for any type of sex. Suggesting anal sex is the problem is like saying murderers who kill using guns instead of knives are good people.

There is no 'correct way' to use drugs in my opinion as they are stupid and dangerous and as I stated before, I have not and would never take them. On the other hand however I understand that others may wish to do so - just as some will view gay sex as immoral and a risk not worth taking due to the risk of infectious diseases. The fundemental value of liberty is that people should still be allowed to partake in it even if different sides may disagree. Neither are the business of the state to intervene in.

..as for the general public argument, as Ron Paul asks 'if drugs were legalised, would everybody in the room start taking drugs the moment they were legalised? oh the law is abolished so now i'll suddenly start taking drugs just because I can' - its ridiculous, the concept that we need the nannying state involved. If drugs were legalised there's no reason to imagine that thousands would all of a sudden start taking drugs when they could acquire them previously anyway.

There are correct ways. The wrong mixture of heroin is potentially lethal, as are the wrong levels of cocaine - overdoses exist for a reason afterall, but we can both agree that it's at the individuals risk and they probably deserve it. Cannabis is possibly the safest, although high doses will most likely leave you hanging on the ceiling for a couple of days

[Mathew]

But you are, its typical run-of-the-mill sociological nonsense 'Mrs Doris down the road was mugged and beaten as a result of the mistreatment of Little Johnny by his Dad and the system' - of course enviroment can give people more of a chance of being a criminal, but its purely statistical - it leaves out the concept of human morality and the idea that we as individuals are responsible for our own actions along rather than our social band, race or gender.

How can you be 100% sure that Little Johnny has a concept of human morality? How are you going to measure that? How are you going to sentence someone to death when you aren't 100% sure they have a "concept of human morality"? I will say it yet AGAIN, you cannot give someone the death penalty because there are way too many factors which could contribute which makes it all far too ambiguous.

I do not believe it is the job of the state to regulate what substances people grow and smoke in their own time, this comes from somebody who is anti-drugs and hasn't touched them despite being offered them on numerous occasions. If I turned this around however and said that homosexuality should be regulated by the state, I can only imagine your reaction would go something along the lines of 'the state shouldn't have anything to do with what people do behind closed doors' - the same logic is applied here. Both drug taking and anal sex to a degree can be dangerous, but I don't find thats any of my business.

You are born gay, you aren't born a drug addict. Simple as. Discriminating against homosexuality is only considered immoral because the individuals had no choice. Drug addicts DO have a choice and they can seek help when and where. Poor analogy. Next?

It goes back to the central point, those who commit wicked acts are responsible for their actions - and should be held accountable for them in the eyes of the law.

Do you think the 9/11 bombers had a sound mind and knew exactly what they were doing? I'm sure you've heard of the numerous news stories of peer pressure, drugs and threats which circulate in terrorist organisations. Yes they did it and they should be punished, but you can't take away their life (which at the end of the day, is the whole point of this debate).

I'm not arguing in favour of the use of torture and bad methods, I want a strong justice system which has the death penalty (which is painless and moral) and which also has hard labor as a form of punishment to deter criminals from committing crime again - this is something that the main three parties refuse to commit themselves to.

Why would we want a death penalty where hundreds of people would be killed for no reason, when the justice system should have no right or authority to end someones life?

What causes them to commit crime is the fact that they wish to commit crime, nothing else.

Obviously not. http://www.nickoh.com/emacs_files/ps...owlby1944.html

There is no 'correct way' to use drugs in my opinion as they are stupid and dangerous and as I stated before, I have not and would never take them. On the other hand however I understand that others may wish to do so - just as some will view gay sex as immoral and a risk not worth taking due to the risk of infectious diseases. The fundemental value of liberty is that people should still be allowed to partake in it even if different sides may disagree. Neither are the business of the state to intervene in.

Of course it's the business of the state to intervene. That's exactly why we have a government; to restrict and allow certain things - to keep us all at a high, moral standard. Don't be so silly - do you really want to drive about and see the streets lined with people smoking goodness knows what? Of course people will take advantage of it. If it's legal, then it's readily available.... and if it's readily available then you'll have a hell of a lot more people smoking / injecting it.

It's simply absurd to suggest the state would allow people to smoke themselves to an early grave. The UK has higher morals than that... :rolleyes:

[Stephen]

so have they blinded him yet

[Narnat,]

It is torture there are many other ways of punishing someone and I don't feel that it has to be taken to such an extent!