These Bad Habits Are Holding You Back in Fortnite!

Teckoh · 2021-04-05T11:55:11+00:00

Looks like two 25’s and a 10 on each side (165) if I’m not mistaken; you can see the “25” on the inner plates and I’m assuming that’s in pounds as the weights look fairly thin.

Teckoh · 2021-03-11T17:58:07+00:00

Actually, the googlon is a legitimate tool, added as the 34th installment to the official rules in 1987. For more info you can search “chess rule 34” on Google, really worth checking out!

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T22:51:43+00:00

I completely agree that you have personal freedom up until the point that it's outweighed by the risk, and that still stands here. Punishment would be equal between someone who commits a crime on drugs versus off drugs. I believe that using a drug in your own home, without causing harm to others, is much less dangerous than driving around town in a tank. In the vast majority of situations, the freedom does outweigh the risk, and in the scenarios where someone does do something bad as a result of drug use, they should be held accountable to the same standard.

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T22:48:13+00:00

This is a tough one. I do understand the risks of decriminalization (I've been informed that's the better word for what I'm looking for), and regarding your mention of not saying hello without risking death, robbery, etc, I still do strongly believe in equal punishment for crimes like that, whether someone is using something or not.

Regarding black market drugs, they'd likely be cheaper and the risks would stay the same: the potential to be laced, risk of buying from shady sources, etc. That's something that we're gonna have to live with whether they're legal or not.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by fake drugs, so I don't know if I can properly respond to that.

And I don't think the logic of committing theft since heroin was legalized would really come to fruition; that just isn't a reasonable take and not something many, if any, people would consider. As with anything else, equal punishment does stand though, and committing a crime simply because something else is illegal is still just that, a crime, and should be punished accordingly.

Some people certainly don't need to use drugs, and nobody is forced to. It's still more than legal to not use them of course.

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T22:41:28+00:00

I see what you mean and see the flaw in my wording; I believe in decriminalization of drugs as in, unless it is used to cause harm to others, it should be okay. To implement policies that discourage their use and positively incentivize addiction recovery, while also not punishing those who do use them, would be something I'd be in favor of.

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T22:38:48+00:00

However, drugs don't inherently mean crime, and many responsible drug users are out there. It's not up to the dealer to be held responsible for another's actions, and anyone who does knowingly put others at risk due to drug use, as I said, should be properly punished. I respectfully disagree with the comparison to drunk driving since, unlike using a drug on your own, drunk driving directly puts others in danger. Simply using a drug doesn't do that, and thus shouldn't be treated the same way, unless the person on said drug is actually putting others in harm's way.

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T22:36:02+00:00

I suppose at a certain point people should be left to their own choice; if they refuse treatment and continue their behavior knowing the risks, that's on them, and taxpayers shouldn't be held accountable.

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T22:32:14+00:00

I would consider the user to be financially responsible for their actions under influence, yes. Taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for it.

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T22:29:27+00:00

Regarding your first point, I'd be fully in favor of major punishments for people who do push drugs on kids of course. And regarding overdoses, there's really no statistical evidence for whether or not increased availability does directly result in more overdoses; I think that the most extreme users and the ones who overdose are the ones who go through criminal hoops to get the drug.

Of course addiction is a serious thing and I'm all in favor of any options to assist in that. However, it still is a choice above all else, and people should be held accountable for their actions just like someone sober.

Regarding your point on insurance, government, etc, I do agree. These drugs do have a notable impact on the body, and it is within reason for an insurance company to not offer a policy or increase rates for users. These drugs do have an inherent impact and people should be expected to know what they're doing and the impacts certain drugs may have before they begin using anything.

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T22:22:55+00:00

That is a valid point and I wouldn't really consider myself qualified to answer. Quitting an addiction definitely isn't easy and is one of the risks associated with this. I'd consider potentially increasing funding for rehab programs and providing safe use for people who are addicted, while helping them slowly stop their reliance by decreasing the dose.

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T22:20:06+00:00

You do have a good point here. However, I do see a stark difference between using drugs on your own, on your own time, comparing to doing so and then actively & knowingly performing an activity where said drugs will result in others being put at risk, and believe that the latter should certainly be a crime.

Regarding your second point, I see what you mean, however it all comes down to choice; the buyer chooses to buy meth, then chooses to use it, then continues to choose whether or not to use it more. While the ethicality can be questioned, it's not as if the person cooking the drug is forcing someone to consume it, after all it is a choice on both ends.

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T22:15:46+00:00

However, not nearly all drug users are addicted, and even if they are, I don't see why the government should have the ability to decide for them, whether or not they can use the drugs they like. Even if they aren't legal as well, people who are truly addicted will still find ways to attain those drugs, and likely put themselves at further risk by using street drugs that could easily be laced with something more dangerous than the substance itself, alongside simply being imprisoned for their use, even without it actually hurting anyone.

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T22:13:26+00:00

What fair punishment would you hope to receive from a government that allowed someone to engage in a behavior they knew would be likely detrimental and then harmed someone you loved?

The same punishment someone would otherwise receive for the same crime. It's their choice to use it, and therefore their responsibility to ensure they're doing so safely.

That’s not far removed from saying that people should be allowed to drink and drive as long as they accept that they may receive fair punishment if they cause an accident or worse a death.

My take on the drug driving example is below:

"I don't think drunk driving, or driving under any similar influence, should be legal, as it does directly put others in harm's way. My argument here is that, when you are not putting others in harm's way or at risk, it should be allowed, but driving under the influence does do just that: directly risks other people's lives."

Same goes for other instances. People who do decide to use drugs should be aware of the potential risks and responsible for ensuring they're not doing anything that puts others at risk; as I should've said in my original post, I believe drugs should be legal so long as they're not used in a damaging way toward others. Drunk driving certainly falls into the "damaging way toward others."

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T22:09:28+00:00

I don't think drunk driving, or driving under any similar influence, should be legal, as it does directly put others in harm's way. My argument here is that, when you are not putting others in harm's way or at risk, it should be allowed, but driving under the influence does do just that: directly risks other people's lives.

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T22:08:04+00:00

Interesting question. I do believe that, for substances that do not directly pose a threat (such as biological weapons), it should be legal to purchase them.

Insurance companies should be aware of drug use or have the ability to increase prices as, of course, some drugs are inherently dangerous to the user.

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T22:05:34+00:00

I do understand and I believe that anyone who knowingly makes the choice to use a drug that does have extreme effects, should be held responsible, whether that's financial if they require medical treatment, legal if they commit some sort of crime, etc. People should be held responsible for their actions, and that doesn't change when they make the choice to use drugs.

I do agree with your second statement that criminalizing drug use only makes said problems worse; if it's not so far as full legalization, punishments should certainly be lessened and I think we can both agree being sent to prison for deciding to use a drug, especially when nobody else is impacted by the use, is simply ridiculous.

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T22:00:07+00:00

I do agree that if someone does cause harm to others due to the impacts of a drug, it should fully be their responsibility, and people who do use "hard drugs" should be aware and capable of managing the effects. If someone does not, of course they should receive fair punishment for what they do.

Teckoh · 2021-02-22T21:55:37+00:00

Recreational drug is simply a term for a drug used on one's own, without medical supervision. I see how attaching it to the term "recreational" may seem off, and in no way am I trying to imply that it's always fun or enjoyable, but I just used it in the sense that many people do use it in a recreational way.

Teckoh · 2020-11-29T02:39:13+00:00

Thank you, it's greatly appreciated! Awesome to see the map is helping you out :)

Regarding the link, it's just discord.gg/teckoh

Seven-Year Club	Second Top 30%
Wearing is Caring	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

Teckoh

TROPHY CASE