Thus, you believe that if a small percentage are affected negatively by a drug, then it should be removed from society. Congratulations, you just removed every modern drug in existence. Ever listen to ANY pharmaceutical commercial? More than half of the spoken words are warnings about bad side effects that some people might have. Dolt.
It is not so simple as your statement indicates. I argue that for any society there is an acceptable rate of loss. A society that loses more than it's acceptable rate of loss is doomed to collapse.
The actual percentage is not a trivial point.
Congratulations, you just removed every modern drug in existence.
No I didn't, that's just your strawman talking. You are offering a false equivalence between losses from drugs by all causes, with no regard for cost vs benefit.
I dare say that some of those losses are from drugs that otherwise save people's lives, and so the cost versus benefit is worth it.
Then it's just painfully boring.
Every one of his "arguments" ends with either the statement or the implication that he's faultlessly educated, while you are, at best, a mere pathetic peon undeserving of his preposterously profound pearls. I have chunks of steaming, self-absorbed skank-stank like him in my stool.
;^)