Yes, they can. Sometimes. It depends. Biastophilia is a sexuality and can only be controlled. What exactly does a rapist need to be cured of anyways? I guess they could have a mental illness or issues in their life, but those can be taken care of.
Did I even say anything like that? I said that they can get therapy to handle their issues. As to my talk about what they would need a cure of, using the word cure isn't accurate as they don't have an ailment that can be cured. It's not like they got the cold.
And 50% of women have a rape fetish and men are in the same neighborhood.
Just sayin', from what I've heard, rape fantasies (where YOU are ultimately in control) and actually being raped are totally different. Read: even women with tape fantasies would never want to actually be raped.
Women that have “rape fantasies” probably just like the idea of the man being totally in control, and she has no power. She has still given her consent beforehand. Women that are actually raped have not given consent, which is why it is totally different to a fantasy
Rape fantasies can be both raping and being raped. A rape fetish is just having constant rape fantasies. If I really wanted to rape people then I would say I have biastophilia rather than a rape fetish.
In that case, there would be a distinction between the types of drug dealers, since I'm sure most dealers don't deal every type of drug. There are plenty who only deal weed, but I don't think the court makes a distinction between those who sell drugs that are very dangerous and drugs which are not.
3
deleted
· 7 years ago
By that logic, store owners who sell rope or kitchen knives could also be jailed for potential manslaughter. The aim of these objects is not to kill the user, but it happens. Same thing with drugs, though I do agree that feeding someone’s heroin addiction is not a good thing
Kitchen knives and rope dont offer people a chemical dependency or a temporary laps of their pain that can fester and grow to the point where don't realise the damage that's happening. Theres a big difference.
Well... a rope can offer a permanent lapse of their pain <_<.
Anyway, outside of opiods, meth and coke, an overdose resulting in death is practically non existent for other recreational drugs, the only one I can think of is MDMA.
There is a clear difference between dealing those 3, and even I'd put in a different category, than dealing pot, shrooms, peyote, DMT, or collecting sonoran desert toad excretions to smoke.
I should also add I'm excluding alcohol and tobacco, because there is just no comparison when you add those two.
Firstly, the post specifically talks about drug dealing.
Secondly, possession of drugs means either abusing drugs or dealing drugs. Both of which are detrimental to society in the eyes of government because it leads to unproductive workers and increase in crime etc. Also the punitive for those 2 are usually different. At least in some countries.
Thirdly, what Britain did is intentional, and so is drug dealing and possession. People don't accidentally get addicted to drugs. I don't even see what point you're trying to make with that statement.
That is a broad claim and entirely false. You need to describe what drugs you are speaking about before making a blanket statement such as saying "unproductive workers and increase in crime etc."
As far as I know we are not talking about any specific drug. My claim is entirely false? Therefore you are saying that not a single drug in existence has caused a decrease in productivity, or an increase in crime. Obviously you have not idea what you're talking about. You better provide a shit load of hard evidence to disproof the huge amount of evidence that already back up my claim. And please don't say things like "citations needed" when you can just google it yourself.
people can ask for citations if they want. You're the one making the claim and if someone asks then the burden of proof is on you. If your side and claim is so right and accurate you can provide your own claims. That's how these things work.
and while you can choose to provide those sources or not when participating in debates or arguments, it's incredibly hypocritical of you to tell someone not to ask for citations RIGHT AFTER telling them they need to provide a " shitload of hard evidence "
Do you guys seriously need citations for something that would be considered general knowledge? Are we now arguing about how to argue? As to why I asked for evidence is because I cannot find any myself. Whereas my claims are easily proved even from memory alone. I'll provide the evidence you if can provide yours. Specifically, every single point I made. This is in response to the statement "is a broad claim and [entirely false]."
General knowledge is subjective, and even then many things that are " general knowledge " are false or twisted from the truth.
And there are rules and guidelines and stuff to debates, there have been for a long time. It's not an argument about arguments, just a rule for debates.
And you can ask for citations, I never said you couldn't or that you needed a reason why you asked for them.
Also, " Whereas my claims are easily proved even from memory alone. " but no one shares your memories. We can't go into your mind and see what you do or don't know ( especially with memory not always being accurate)
And if someone is calling your statement false ? Provide sources yourself. Prove them wrong. You were the one who made the first statement, you were the one who was called out first, so you're the one to provide sources first.
2
deleted
· 7 years ago
Dude, nobody gets addicted deliberately. Could you imagine that? “Oh yes I think I’ll get addicted to meth and ruin my life” No! People think they can just try it once or twice, then it becomes a habit and they think they can still quit whenever, and then they find out they can’t. As for the increase in crime, that’s very simple: legalise drugs and have the government regulate it, check the quality and such. Same idea with alcohol after the prohibition. You don’t see many crime syndicates making a fortune of moonshine, because it’s not profitable anymore
Guys, just read the materials that are available to you. There's nothing more to say. I'm just providing explanation why drug dealing carries a heavier punishment than rape. If you think that all the previous studies are wrong than your beef is with them. I'm not here to argue or to proof anyone wrong or whatever. Just read them, seriously. That's all I can say.
Also @yimmye, people deliberately take drugs and continues to do so. They don't accidentally ingest some drugs then accidentally buy more then accidentally get addicted. But I agree with the legalization of drugs. But that's up to the government to decide. I remember one country that did it successfully. Anyway that's not relevant to the subject.
·
Edited 7 years ago
deleted
· 7 years ago
Yes, people take drugs deliberately, but they don’t become addicted deliberately, even though all the steps leading up to it were deliberate
And not all drugs are addictive. Marijuana is an example of a drug that isn't addictive and is rather harmless. You have the general dangers, but the benefits of it can outweigh the negatives.
Addiction isn't a one time thing. You don't do meth once and get addicted. You do it everyday for weeks and weeks. Some people won't even be addicted after months of constant use. Addiction is really difficult to get - regardless of what those idiotic D.A.R.E. instructors told you.
@fyukkk When I asked for evidence, I was talking about you saying it makes people a burden on society. Some drugs do, but others don't. Most people who do drugs, like weed, will never do another drug either, so the "gateway drug" idea is false (Not that you said anything about it.) To say that all drugs are bad is entirely false because it is not true in its entirety. Some drugs are negative yes, most drugs are, but some drugs are beneficial and could become even more so if proper conditions were given.
@fyukkk It's VERY easily to get accidentally addicted to opiods. Step 1) doctor provides you pills for an injury that will take a while to heal and for the pain to subside. Step 2) doctor adjust dosage, increasing the dosage, since you need more for the same effect. Step 3) doctor cuts you off cold turkey. You'll only realize you were addicted when the withdraw hits. If you've ever seen someone in withdraw, you know it's not pretty at all, it can be life-threatening for them. At that point, either they have to find a source of illegal prescription pills, or turn to heroin.
It doesn't help that doctors prescribe these pills like they are freaking candy either.
Alright guys, I don't really care about the specific effect of each drug, or the psychology of drug users. Like I said before, I came here only to provide an explanation for the difference in sentence. Secondly, you guys are talking about specific drugs and a small group of people. Thridly, different places have different laws regarding drugs e.g. some places allow weed. At this point I don't know if you guys are trying to disprove me or discussing about special cases. Either way, this is a matter of law, outside the scope of my judgement. It doesn't matter whether meth and cocaine is good for you, that's just how the government thinks. Peace out. I'm unfollowinng this thread.
And 50% of women have a rape fetish and men are in the same neighborhood.
Anyway, outside of opiods, meth and coke, an overdose resulting in death is practically non existent for other recreational drugs, the only one I can think of is MDMA.
There is a clear difference between dealing those 3, and even I'd put in a different category, than dealing pot, shrooms, peyote, DMT, or collecting sonoran desert toad excretions to smoke.
I should also add I'm excluding alcohol and tobacco, because there is just no comparison when you add those two.
And wasn't what Britain did intentional ?
Secondly, possession of drugs means either abusing drugs or dealing drugs. Both of which are detrimental to society in the eyes of government because it leads to unproductive workers and increase in crime etc. Also the punitive for those 2 are usually different. At least in some countries.
Thirdly, what Britain did is intentional, and so is drug dealing and possession. People don't accidentally get addicted to drugs. I don't even see what point you're trying to make with that statement.
and while you can choose to provide those sources or not when participating in debates or arguments, it's incredibly hypocritical of you to tell someone not to ask for citations RIGHT AFTER telling them they need to provide a " shitload of hard evidence "
And there are rules and guidelines and stuff to debates, there have been for a long time. It's not an argument about arguments, just a rule for debates.
And you can ask for citations, I never said you couldn't or that you needed a reason why you asked for them.
Also, " Whereas my claims are easily proved even from memory alone. " but no one shares your memories. We can't go into your mind and see what you do or don't know ( especially with memory not always being accurate)
And if someone is calling your statement false ? Provide sources yourself. Prove them wrong. You were the one who made the first statement, you were the one who was called out first, so you're the one to provide sources first.
Also @yimmye, people deliberately take drugs and continues to do so. They don't accidentally ingest some drugs then accidentally buy more then accidentally get addicted. But I agree with the legalization of drugs. But that's up to the government to decide. I remember one country that did it successfully. Anyway that's not relevant to the subject.
Addiction isn't a one time thing. You don't do meth once and get addicted. You do it everyday for weeks and weeks. Some people won't even be addicted after months of constant use. Addiction is really difficult to get - regardless of what those idiotic D.A.R.E. instructors told you.
It doesn't help that doctors prescribe these pills like they are freaking candy either.