ust because its easy to get hold of drugs is not a reason to make them legal. Drugs are bad for society as they are addictive, expensive, mainly controlled by gangs and people will bad intentions, have serious health effects, can give you mental damage, its fcks up your body etc etc....
Actually, if you've studied law at all you should remember that one of the fundamental tenets of the law is that a good law is capable of being enforced. Everything is addictive, the internet is addictive for example and we are already seeing internet anonymous hotels appearing, do you plan on baning the internet as well? Drugs are expensive because of the risks involved in their trade, in fact, if they were sold by private companies in competition with each other the price would most likely fall. That said, if you're so worried about drugs shouldn't their high price be a good thing? Drugs at the moment are indeed controlled by gangs. This is because they are treated as illegal. If illicit drugs were legalised then private companies could step in and gangs would have no choice but to either go legitimate or be phased out. One of the statements I made in my original post was that governments should make sure that the people are accurately informed about the products they are buying. It is the companies responsibility to keep customers informed and the government's to make sure that is happening. If you've seen any of those fast foods movies then you'll no doubt realise just how bad McDonalds is for you, but do you intend to ban it? People have the right to choose things that may be bad for them, provided they have accurate understanding of the products beforehand.
As for prostitution, heres one reason http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostituti ... rostitutes
Also, prostitutes are more likely to get STD's.
You're still stuck in the mindset of prostitution being illegal. I don't have any statistics but I think it's a fairly obvious guess that prostitutes are less likely to be killed in legal brothels than on the streets. The use of condoms would become necessary if private enterprises were to own brothels, because otherwise they would face the risk of a law suit. While it's true that condoms do fail it's also true that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to contract HIV/AIDS, however you don't seem to want to make homosexuality illegal? Neither do I, I'm just puzzled about how the contraction of STI's should mean government banning prostitution.
If you cannot see any bad points with privatising education, then you really should not be talking about politics. Forget mind reading, its common sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_car ... e_Industry
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/778385.stm
If you really can't write a single reason why education should be privatised then you shouldn't be talking politics either. Then again, if you're not actually posting a reason I suppose it could be argued that you aren't talking at all.
Did you not expect me to click on those links or something? The first one simply said how much is spent on the average person in the US each year in health. The second was a list of the average life of people in a list of countries. Apart from the fact that Australia ranks second (go us!!) I don't quite see your point. If you are suggesting that the fact the US is lower than Australia is proof that private health is a bad thing than you are seriously mistaken. Australia also has private health (with a safety net, much like I suggested in my original post). The US figures are low because of the immense slum populations, largely, but obviously not entirely, of immigrants, legal or otherwise.
Yes, i was saying that people strike against governemtns and businesses. In your original post, you said that making the public sector smaller and private sector larger will reduce or get rid of strikes.
Would you please quote where I said that? I'm pretty sure that if you read back you'll notice that what I actually said was that governments should not have any say on when workers strike.
The fact that he is an old, unskilled worker? There is no need for him in any business, and no one will hire him.
These sort of statements really irritate me. Again, the work may not be wonderfully high profile, but you don't even need a resume to get work at your local Dixons/Target/Walmart etc. Jobs are available, you just need to look harder.
No, the point I was making was what exactly is a natural family? Every family is different and ahs parts which are not "natural" and may be looked down upon, but in the end its up to the parents, not the state, as to how the child is brought up.
A natural family is a man, a woman and X number of children. Some families may be missing one of the parents but that is still acceptable provided the other parent existed at one time or another. Natural families have nothing to do with alcohol addiction, however bad it may be.
.
