The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

But the point was that people should have the freedom to do what they wish to do if it solely affects themselves, not if it negatively impacts others (ignoring the debate on actions vs reaction, I'm assuming that in black and white terms the person using drugs is directly affecting others in a negative way). The examples you listed, such as driving, are not questions of freedom, but weighing up the benefits of an activity (or rather, the cost of not doing the activity) with the risks associated with it. Driving is not a victimless crime, but society has deemed the casualties of driving acceptable, when weighed against the benefit of driving on transportation.

The point is that banning someone from doing something, can arguably be seen from a certain angle as banning the influence others have over him, rather than impeding on his own personal freedom. If I am being peer pressured into taking drugs, preventing me from doing so from a certain perspective simply cancels out other influences that are impeding on my free will.

There is literally nothing you can do in life that will, unequivocally, absolutely, solely affect you and you alone. I'll touch on that again next paragraph, but suffice to say that determining the legality of an activity solely by the chance that it could negatively affect someone else, is an incredibly narrow view to take on the issue.

You're in favor of making alcohol illegal? And sports? They're both non-essential past times and one is a drug. The deaths and injuries associated with each are not acceptable for such things as "past times". They can hurt and kill the user and others the user comes in contact with. Logical, yes?

And that part about it being black-and-white is not something to be ignored--too many people look at things is such manner and it leads them to narrow-minded, extreme-ended conclusions. I'm willing to bet that an ungodly amount of people have been the co-casualty of someone else's actions. Not just driving or drugs, but any action. Literally anything. Think of something that one can do, put a second person in that scenario, and make something bad happen. You're the one who keeps on about statistics. Statistically speaking, if you interact with others, there is always a chance that one of you is going to accidentally kill or main another. Why does everything else in life get a free pass, but not drugs? And your black-and-white extremist example notwithstanding, just how many people do you think are the victims of drug-induced external harm?

Two other things to address: 1.) Do you really think the legal use of something should be determined by its convenience-to-cost ratio (and if so, what is that ratio, and who gets to determine it)? and 2.) Is the freedom of personal choice in regards to one's own body not something that society also deems acceptable in terms of the cost "casualties"? And if not, why not?

And that last sentence about peer pressure is something of a mess and it isn't very coherent. Try re-wording it a bit.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien

And that last sentence about peer pressure is something of a mess and it isn't very coherent. Try re-wording it a bit.

👆

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
There is literally nothing you can do in life that will, unequivocally, absolutely, solely affect you and you alone. I'll touch on that again next paragraph, but suffice to say that determining the legality of an activity solely by the chance that it could negatively affect someone else, is an incredibly narrow view to take on the issue.

I'm not talking about the unexpected consequences of an action, I'm talking about the expected consequences of an action. Ruining your life by abusing drugs is expected to have a profound negative impact on those that care about you.

You're in favor of making alcohol illegal?

I'll ignore notions of legality and address the heart of the matter: I do not believe someone should have the right to drink excessively to the point where it will expectantly harm others.

And sports? They're both non-essential past times and one is a drug. The deaths and injuries associated with each are not acceptable for such things as "past times". They can hurt and kill the user and others the user comes in contact with. Logical, yes?

The difference being that when engaging in a sport, harming others is a real possibility but not something to be expected, and those very other people, just like the user, chose to participate in the sport knowing the risks. By accepting the personal risk of participating in a sport, you are effectively giving consent to other participants to accept the risk of harming you, and vice versa.

And that part about it being black-and-white is not something to be ignored--too many people look at things is such manner and it leads them to narrow-minded, extreme-ended conclusions. I'm willing to bet that an ungodly amount of people have been the co-casualty of someone else's actions. Not just driving or drugs, but any action. Literally anything. Think of something that one can do, put a second person in that scenario, and make something bad happen. You're the one who keeps on about statistics. Statistically speaking, if you interact with others, there is always a chance that one of you is going to accidentally kill or main another. Why does everything else in life get a free pass, but not drugs? And your black-and-white extremist example notwithstanding, just how many people do you think are the victims of drug-induced external harm?

The point which you seem to have missed was that, for all intents and purposes we will assume that the person is knowingly engaging in something with expected negative consequences on others. Whether those negative consequences are a reflection of one person's action or another person's reaction is irrelevant with respect to the idea that you shouldn't have the freedom to do whatever you wish to yourself if it will directly have negative consequences on others.

Two other things to address: 1.) Do you really think the legal use of something should be determined by its convenience-to-cost ratio (and if so, what is that ratio, and who gets to determine it)?

Absolutely, it's always going to be about weighing the pros against the cons, and a world without the use of cars would simply be a far less productive place. Society would not function anywhere near the level that it does without accepting those small losses, which in the grand scheme of things are not of massive consequence.

You don't ban planes because they have been known to crash, and the reason for that is the benefit to society of aerial travel versus those relatively few casualties.

and 2.) Is the freedom of personal choice in regards to one's own body not something that society also deems acceptable in terms of the cost "casualties"? And if not, why not?

Because the personal benefit to the user is vastly outweighed by his life being destroyed in the process, not counting the negative externalities? This is hardly comparable to an essential component of civilisation versus the occasional casualty.

And that last sentence about peer pressure is something of a mess and it isn't very coherent. Try re-wording it a bit.

It was entirely coherent and I'm not sure if you're trolling right now or just have incredibly poor reading comprehension.

Being pressured into doing something can be said to nullify your capacity to freely choose something. As such, not being allowed to do so, from a certain perspective has a cancelling effect on forces that impede on your free will, rather than impeding on your free will itself.

Originally posted by The Renegade
👆

Really Renegade? Really? 🙄

Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
Ruining your life by abusing drugs is expected to have a profound negative impact on those that care about you.

So is being gay.

I'm assuming that you're referring to emotional harm when you say "profound negative impact", as physical harm inflicted upon others is not an expected consequence of doing most drugs.

If it is emotional, the loved ones need to just get the **** over it. It's not their life.

Next, it will be a lesson on how Lucien doesn't understand statistics. Well, less of a lesson and more like a you-don't-get-it-because-I-said-so-and-failed-to-demonstrate-that thingy.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
So is being gay.

I'm assuming that you're referring to emotional harm when you say "profound negative impact", as physical harm inflicted upon others is not an expected consequence of doing most drugs.

If it is emotional, the loved ones need to just get the **** over it. It's not their life.

Also, this.

This is the kind of debate I was hoping to avoid when I said we'll assume that the negative consequence the user inflicted on others is a direct and justified one.This is the kind of debate I was hoping to avoid when I said we'll assume that the negative consequence the user inflicted on others is a direct and justified one.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
So is being gay.

I'm assuming that you're referring to emotional harm when you say "profound negative impact", as physical harm inflicted upon others is not an expected consequence of doing most drugs.

If it is emotional, the loved ones need to just get the **** over it. It's not their life.

There are no standards by which you can say you are justified in being negatively impacted by a loved one being gay, and that you are is a product of a problem with society in how it treats people who are different. By comparison it's entirely justified that you would be negatively affected if someone you cared about was ruining their life.

That's a particularly heartless way of looking at it and I'd be pretty shocked if that was how you truly felt.

Originally posted by The Renegade
Next, it will be a lesson on how Lucien doesn't understand statistics. Well, less of a lesson and more like a you-don't-get-it-because-I-said-so-and-failed-to-demonstrate-that thingy.

Also, this.

😂

Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
There are no standards by which you can say you are justified in being negatively impacted by a loved one being gay

What "standard" or authority are you invoking that says any emotional outrage toward peoples' life-choices is justified or unjustified? Why is it not a problem for someone to be sad because their loved one is gay, or fat, or unemployed, or addicted to video games, or a cheating spouse, or a Republican, or any other number of things, yet it's apparently "wrong" for someone to be upset because their loved one is a druggie, to the point where you advocate criminalizing drug use?

There is literally zero objectivity in your argument here. And if you're going to bring "social norms" into the mix when discussing homosexuality, then explain to me how the acceptance of drug use is not a social issue? In many parts of the world, smoking pot is considered just as normal as eating a hamburger, for example. Drinking and smoking tobacco certainly is. Yet you advocate banning drugs (including alcohol, something very few people consider to be "bad" despite the horrifying side-effects from chronic usage) because some people in some parts of the world are emotionally impacted by the idea of a loved one using these substances. Wut?

Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
That's a particularly heartless way of looking at it and I'd be pretty shocked if that was how you truly felt.

Heartless? No. Realistic? Yes. Drug use is a rampant thing throughout my family. I have a string of close family members that are consistent drug users, and the severity of their usage ranges from some of them being functional enough to hold down jobs and raise families to some who are fiends and can't be invited to family functions because they steal shit. It hurts my heart to see people that I care about suffer because of the poor choices that they've made in their lives, but I also recognize that it's still their choice. The only thing we have in this world that's truly an inalienable right is our ability to make decisions for ourselves. So while it pains me to see people suffer from drug use or root for the Patriots, I accept that it's their right to do it, and as long as it doesn't cause physical or financial harm to others, it's none of my business.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
What "standard" or authority are you invoking that says any emotional outrage toward peoples' life-choices is justified or unjustified?

1. Wasn't talking about emotional outrage but suffering.

2. When you build a relationship with someone, you do so knowing that you have some degree of control over their happiness. In practically any relationship, there is a tacit agreement of treating each other fairly, and as such you should be held responsible for directly influencing their happiness.

Why is it not a problem for someone to be sad because their loved one is gay,

Because one should not be held responsible for something that causes unhappiness in somebody else for no good reason. You cannot justify being negatively impacted by somebody being guy by anything other than having bigoted views or by considering the perspective of a bigoted society.

or fat, or unemployed, or addicted to video games, or a cheating spouse,

Said no such thing, these are all things you can justifiably be upset over.

or a Republican,

Political orientation utterly subjective, and thus sadness over it unjustifiable.

or any other number of things, yet it's apparently "wrong" for someone to be upset because their loved one is a druggie, to the point where you advocate criminalizing drug use?

lol, are you kidding? I don't advocate criminalizing drug use nor do I advocate not using drugs at all, when done so responsibly. I was addressing Lucien's argument about how it's a matter of personal freedom, nothing more.

There is literally zero objectivity in your argument here.

Simply untrue.

And if you're going to bring "social norms" into the mix when discussing homosexuality, then explain to me how the acceptance of drug use is not a social issue? In many parts of the world, smoking pot is considered just as normal as eating a hamburger, for example. Drinking and smoking tobacco certainly is. Yet you advocate banning drugs (including alcohol, something very few people consider to be "bad" despite the horrifying side-effects from chronic usage) because some people in some parts of the world are emotionally impacted by the idea of a loved one using these substances. Wut?

😐

I was simply saying that when abusing drugs, your loved ones are justifiably impacted by it in a negative way, and that you should be held responsible for that.

Heartless? No. Realistic? Yes. Drug use is a rampant thing throughout my family. I have a string of close family members that are consistent drug users, and the severity of their usage ranges from some of them being functional enough to hold down jobs and raise families to some who are fiends and can't be invited to family functions because they steal shit. It hurts my heart to see people that I care about suffer because of the poor choices that they've made in their lives, but I also recognize that it's still their choice. The only thing we have in this world that's truly an inalienable right is our ability to make decisions for ourselves. So while it pains me to see people suffer from drug use or root for the Patriots, I accept that it's their right to do it, and as long as it doesn't cause physical or financial harm to others, it's none of my business.

I strongly disagree. If you don't want to be responsible for directly impacting others, don't engage in a relationship with them in the first place. By engaging in that relationship, there was an unspoken agreement of treating each other fairly, and you engaged in that relationship knowing the power you had over their happiness. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Of course I am solely speaking about meaningful relationships. And there's a slightly difference when it comes to the relationship between say, a mother and her child. While the child is being raised, I wouldn't say he's mature enough to understand the implications the relationship has on that unspoken agreement of fair treatment, nor did he willingly enter that relationship. However, when he reaches that point, not only is it something he owes his mother, but if he really cannot agree to that, he simply has to disengage from the relationship. But continuing the relationship, and possessing that level of maturity, is an unspoken statement of that fair treatment. This isn't something that is conventionally understood, but it's not subjective.

Engaging in a meaningful relationship with someone and choosing to not be responsible for directly causing them suffering (which would include engaging in something that you know would justifiably cause them sadness) and not informing them of that is a lie by omission. You either have that tacit agreement or you're building a relationship based on lies, it's really that simple.

teh dilemma is falz, guyz

Lol. An argument about meaningful relationships? Seriously?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
The only thing we have in this world that's truly an inalienable right is our ability to make decisions for ourselves.

It may be a right but it isn't an absolute, since the terrible thing about drugs is that they interfere with ones ability to choose and cloud their judgement. Forgive me if this is presumptuous, but your family member's are hardly choosing to be drugs addicts. One's ability to make their own decisions is only up to a point, where they become incapable of making informed, rational judgement and become influenced in their decision-making process. And it's not as if we as a society allow everyone the right to make their own decisions, is it? Criminals and the mentally insane cannot be trusted to run their own lives, not that being an addict makes you insane, mostly. Considering you just said though that some of your own family are fiends who can't be trusted not to steal things, I'm sure you're aware that some addicts can be desperate and unbalanced people. Those kinds of people can't be trusted to make decisions on their own, imo. Because they will make decisions that harm themselves and others, more often than not. As a society it's our responsibility to prevent that, even at the cost of their right to choose.

Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
I strongly disagree. If you don't want to be responsible for directly impacting others, don't engage in a relationship with them in the first place. By engaging in that relationship, there was an unspoken agreement of treating each other fairly, and you engaged in that relationship knowing the power you had over their happiness. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can hardly not have a relationship with your own family. 😬

One's ability to make their own decisions is only up to a point, where they become incapable of making informed, rational judgement and become influenced in their decision-making process.

If you're considering drugs, take a gander at Requiem For a Dream.

You wooly-headed liberals and your defense of drugs.

Most people are liberals, what are you? Your probably practice nudism.