I want to own the gun shop.

[kcochran]

Allow hospitals to deny care to those who have overdose? This would be an extremely ludacris choice. How would a hospital be able to determine the OD's origins? Say your brother accidentally ODs on that speed you kept hidden in your aspirin container. Should be be denied care?

Yes.  And then hammer the brother that hid the speed for murder.  Execute him.

Any hospital would be liable for turning away a patient that could be mistaken for a drug user, when in fact the symptoms were caused by some other problem.

That happens today.  That's what malpractice is for.  For what it's worth, hospitals do a pretty damned good job of doing their best to make proper diagnoses - they have to, in order to properly treat you to save your life.

Why would that change?

How about this, then?  One free OD, and you're in the computer.  If you come into the hospital a second time for an overdose, you're dumped on the curb.

That way, we ensure we catch the accidentals.  People don't accidentally OD twice or more.  If they do, then they're stupid, and, hey, the gene pool just got skimmed.

The hospital should not have the right to deny a patient in urgent need of care under any circumstances, they are there essentially to prevent death and not to determine who gets to live and die.

That's a shame.

Sure, it may make insurance costs go up for those of us who are fortunate enough to have it, but this is necessary in our economy if you wish to have the standard of health care that is available to us.

Necessary?  Nope.

That's the socialists talking.

I work for my money, and I should not have to pay for anyone else to live to my standards.  Welfare, foodstamps, free health care, Social Security, etc.  It's all bullshit.

Prior to the advent of socialist policies in this country (see above), charitable contributions were astronomically higher than they are now.  Fraternal organizations (and others) filled the role that the nanny-state government decided it could do better (and as normal, failed at it).

On the topic of free health care, you do realize that you get BETTER service when you pay for it rather than when it's given to you for free, right?

Do you really want the lowest bidder servicing you?

Do you really want to be worked on by a doctor who doesn't set his own rates, and therefore, is motivated only enough to do the bare minimum?

Malpractice will disappear once the government owns healthcare, and then nobody will be liable for any mistakes.

[kcochran]

Also, I feel that legalizing drugs would not have any effect on the level of personal responsibility of the users. Any individual that takes drugs and operates a vehicle, kills someone, etc.. is responsible for their actions according to the law. Any person who operates a vehicle while drunk is no different from a person that shot up a bunch of heroin and tried to drive in terms of operating a vehicle while intoxicated.  Both are committing a crime, which is that of unsafely operating a vehicle. Now, for those people who do not operate a vehicle or commit any type of other crime, and drink are left to their own devices. A person who shoots up heroin will be hunted and prosecuted. I feel that the crime should only be specified by the action which inflicts harm or danger externally on society.

Someone without medical insurance who overdoses and goes to the hospital for treatment (and receives it) inflicts harm on society.

Heroin is a drug that is horrible for you, and there should likely be no situation in which a person takes it for medicinal value, but due to its extreme taboo and its status as a highly illegal drug, it pushes the control of it down to some individuals with extremely poor ethics. It is common practice for drugs such as heroin to be combined with other chemicals in order to increase the mass by which it is sold. These people are a unnecessary evil in a society which tries to forget about people who have been ushered into the lower ranks of society, and the drugs in which they are dependent unbiased  on are generally have extreme risks in which they tend to pursue through any means in order to aquire. The war on drugs does nothing to help these people who follow such a path, by outlawing any persons drug of choice, it will generally just cause them to break the law. Through the means by which an addict will use to acquire drugs are generally the causes of external crimes in which drug addicts are generally associated with. Government distribution or at least relative availability of clean drug sources for addicts would ruin the business prospects of those who seek to exploit this aspect of society for their own personal gain. The fact remains is that drugs have been banned is essentially an act of reducing the liberties of your own personal lives. The goverment has made the decision for you about what you can and cannot put into your body, I feel that this should be a choice made by each individual given that they have the proper unbiased education before it is made available to them. Some people claim that this is a necessity of morality or civil responcibility, but these same people tend to believe just about everything they hear through propoganda about drugs. The war on drugs is an extreme misappropriation of funds, as all it does is spend money trying to fight an individuals personal health choice. In reality, it is generally due to the opposition of America's larger economic forces. Many pharmaceutical  lobbies prefer to not have a free alternative to their medicines readily available to anyone who wishes to grow it such as in the case of marijuana.

So legalize all drugs, allow everyone to self-medicate to their heart's desire, and allow hospitals to refuse treatment to abusers with the inability to pay for their care.  It's real simple.

If you're stupid, I shouldn't have to pay for you.


[/quote]

[kcochran]

Oh, prohibition was also perhaps the single greatest factor in giving organized crime the power it has had in the past. Also, with your asshole example, you could easily replace heroin with a legal substance such as alcohol and achieve identical results. Although you would have to disregard the standard effects of heroin making its users virtually unable to perform virtually all activities while they are under the influence, let alone a complex activity such as driving into a park. This would only be likely in most cases if say... they left the car running, in drive, foot on the gas, with the car pointed at a park.. then shot up. Liquor on the other hand pretty much influences people to attempt such things with a very high frequency. If heroin was legal, I predict there would still be less traffic accidents caused by it than liquor.

Yet, you're completely disregarding the junkie who, now that he's came down from the super-great high that heroin provides, is now feeling lower than shit, and willing to do almost anything (including kill) for his next hit.

It's funny that you bring up traffic accidents.

Automobiles kill more people every day than guns ever thought they could.

We should ban all automobiles, for the children.  Only the police and government should have automobiles.

[Raptor]

You have made over %25 of all your posts in this ONE thread!

[splynt0r]

Daammnn.....

[gangals]

Automobiles kill more people every day than guns ever thought they could.

We should ban all automobiles, for the children.  Only the police and government should have automobiles.

I see someone didn't learn risk management.

[badakku]

I enjoy the fact that I can be dragged into a hospital without proof of insurance, ID, or any known cause and be generally treated with the same care that I would recieve through my amazing insurance policy. My family pays alot of money for insurance, and Im fine with the fact that my insurance will cover emergencies for any person that could potentially be me dropped off at a hospital without ID, etc.. Also, a policy that essentially made even accidentall overdose essentially a death sentence after 1 time does not seem to be any kind of realistic solution. There are many accidental overdoses on legal perscription drugs. Any kind of blanket policy for such a complex problem is incorrect.

//oh yeah.. Im only posting because RBCP said he would delete my account if i didn't/

[kcochran]

Automobiles kill more people every day than guns ever thought they could.

We should ban all automobiles, for the children.  Only the police and government should have automobiles.

I see someone didn't learn risk management.

I was being facetious.  I don't advocate the banning of automobiles.  Banning automobiles due to accidents or misuse is stupid.

Just like banning firearms.

Banning an inanimate object due to stupid people is stupid.  Pure and simple.

[kcochran]

Also, a policy that essentially made even accidentall overdose essentially a death sentence after 1 time does not seem to be any kind of realistic solution. There are many accidental overdoses on legal perscription drugs. Any kind of blanket policy for such a complex problem is incorrect.

Really?

How many repeat accidental overdoses are there?

Obviously, I'd advocate exceptions for senile old people, and retards (though, I'm a big fan of eugenics - sterilization of mentally or physically defective people should be common sense...)

But continuing to treat junkies is a drain on everyone.

[mrpeanut]

guns cost too much

it cost 400 dollars for the cheapest handgun that wont fall apart

[nb7899]

Bringing back to the subject of general protection from guns, think about this Kcochran.  Let's say that you are a criminal who breaks into homes as his living.  You carry a hand gun every time, but just a precaution.  Now if you break into a house, and are confronted by a man with just his fists you would probably pull the gun as a threat, but not shoot.  Most petty criminals probably realize that murder is a hell of a lot more serious crime than breaking and entering.  Any way, you get the hell out and nothing really the bad happens.  Now lets say that the man has a gun, but you're quicker than him.  You're going to shoot, because you don't want to be killed.
My point is, if a civilian confronts a criminal with a gun, the criminal is going to be much more  aggressive, and it turns out worse for everyone.  Plus making guns more difficult to obtain will discourage plenty of criminals right there.   

[mrpeanut]

Shut up. Guns rule. It should be hard to buy a gun, but they should be cheaper and in greater supply.

That way, people will buy from the stores and it'll all be on record.

Plus I'll get to buy a sweet .44

[rbcp]

IT'S ALWAYS CHRISTMASTIME IN THE FLAME FORUMS!

[Nod]

IT'S ALWAYS CHRISTMASTIME IN THE FLAME FORUMS!

ZOMG TH3M3 H4x!

......(though, I'm a big fan of eugenics - sterilization of mentally or physically defective people should be common sense...)

It is common sense, but you'll never get those bleeding hearts in congress to approve it. The only way to implement this would be to take over the entire world and I've been plotting that for years.

[M-26-7]

UGH!
I hate this thread and I hate kcochran. Maybe I'm the first to say it, but I'm not the first to think it.
I'm not going to attempt to say much more, because I could go on and on, except that your bull-shit, NRA under Heston diatribe caused me to feel physically nauseated for 5 hours. Arbie, please, please, PLEASE delete this thread.