Changing the World...

Started by Lord Lucien7 pages

Originally posted by inimalist
up until what point?
Up until you've caused serious pain and/or damage.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, I don't think we have to show that there is any long term damage from spanking for it to be a violation of the child's rights
"Child's privileges" (subjectivity, yay!). Conversely, I do.

Originally posted by inimalist
I could punch you in the face. It probably wouldn't hurt, and you would almost certainly have no long term damage from it. Should I be allowed to administer this to you when I feel you have violated some rule I created?
Nope, but the first defence shouldn't be "Police! Battery! Charter violation!" It should be reciprocated punch.

Originally posted by inimalist
not entirely. violent crime has a victim
There is no victim in drug abuse?

Conspiracy to commit murder is also a crime, by the by.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
There is no victim in drug abuse?
The victim's family and friends aren't themselves "victims", dummy. They're witnesses.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
There is no victim in drug abuse?

not in the same way

i dont feel the state has any obligation to protect you from your own idiocy

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The victim's family and friends aren't themselves "victims", dummy. They're witnesses.

in what other case would these people be considered victims?

even in suicides, the tendency is to feel that the person is now at peace, not that they have victimized those around them

Originally posted by inimalist
not in the same way

i dont feel the state has any obligation to protect you from your own idiocy

What about others from your idiocy?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What about others from your idiocy?

sure, and it does that. If i rob someone, i get arrested, if I murder someone, i get arrested.

That I am doing it because I need a fix or because I don't like your shoes, doesn't matter

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Not officially no. But the unspoken, unintended implications are there, nonetheless.

No, there aren't. The implications are that "wars on drugs" cost money and lives and should therefore be avoided.

Drug education would be easier, too, as it could be illuminated in a more comprehensive light rather than "just say no" which obviously doesn't work at all.

No one is saying there should be unrestricted access and unrestricted usage. Much like tobacco and alcohol, perhaps consuming drugs in confined spaces or in public in general should be banned. Of course no one should be driving under the influence of drugs. Children should be restricted from getting them to a certain degree. And perhaps registration should be asked for, not unlike certain gun laws.

But on the whole you'd get better product, that can be actively tested, and people responsible for dangerous mixes can be held accountable, not unlike food is handled now.

Additionally prisons would be emptier and we'd have to spend less on law enforcement.

All in all, the thing is the way it is atm is shit. Would the same problems we have now be a bit worse if drugs would be legal maybe, probably not, there's no evidence to suggest it, if anything indications go in the opposite way, but even if, there is a multitude of benefits derived from it that it is well worth it.

And then there's the international consequences, it would easily weaken a lot of South American crime, and in turn help their economies.

Originally posted by inimalist
in what other case would these people be considered victims?

even in suicides, the tendency is to feel that the person is now at peace, not that they have victimized those around them

Really? I've never felt that or known anyone who has felt that. The suicides I've been privy to in my life have all focused around the emotional trauma the deceased's family and friends must now go through. Same with the junkies.

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, and it does that. If i rob someone, i get arrested, if I murder someone, i get arrested.

That I am doing it because I need a fix or because I don't like your shoes, doesn't matter

Aye, but there's a victim there. If you kill someone because you're drunk, when normally you would have never done such, the alcohol is the catylist for you commiting the murder.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Really? I've never felt that or known anyone who has felt that. The suicides I've been privy to in my life have all focused around the emotional trauma the deceased's family and friends must now go through. Same with the junkies.

well, yes, exactly. are you saying this is the same type of victimization that comes from, say, rape or theft? what right is being violated?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Aye, but there's a victim there. If you kill someone because you're drunk, when normally you would have never done such, the alcohol is the catylist for you commiting the murder.

clearly alcohol should be illegal

This is getting convoluted.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I think it should be.

oh, well, fair enough then

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, there aren't. The implications are that "wars on drugs" cost money and lives and should therefore be avoided.

Drug education would be easier, too, as it could be illuminated in a more comprehensive light rather than "just say no" which obviously doesn't work at all.

Just like how MADD, anti-smoking campaigns, sexual education etc. have virtually eliminated drunk driving, smoking, STD and teenage pregnancies.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No one is saying there should be unrestricted access and unrestricted usage. Much like tobacco and alcohol, perhaps consuming drugs in confined spaces or in public in general should be banned. Of course no one should be driving under the influence of drugs. Children should be restricted from getting them to a certain degree. And perhaps registration should be asked for, not unlike certain gun laws.
That sounds dangerously close to becoming a bureaucratic nightmare. Talk about saving money.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But on the whole you'd get better product, that can be actively tested, and people responsible for dangerous mixes can be held accountable, not unlike food is handled now.
All true, every word. But this in no way destroys the existence of drug cartels. Same way that the long-time legalization of cigarettes has not stopped a multi-billion dollar underground industry of cheap cigarettes (much of it tied to Native reserves).

Originally posted by Bardock42
Additionally prisons would be emptier and we'd have to spend less on law enforcement.
A welcome positive.

Originally posted by Bardock42
All in all, the thing is the way it is atm is shit. Would the same problems we have now be a bit worse if drugs would be legal maybe, probably not, there's no evidence to suggest it, if anything indications go in the opposite way, but even if, there is a multitude of benefits derived from it that it is well worth it.
You say you hate the "(dis)prove a non-factor" gimmick. Well I hate the "We should do it because it's never been proven that it won't work" gimmick.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And then there's the international consequences, it would easily weaken a lot of South American crime, and in turn help their economies.
Maybe, maybe not.

And I don't know about you, and maybe I've been living in a fantasy land, but... I've never before heard or read of crack, heroin, or meth (and co.) compared to tobacco or alcohol. It's like people hear the word "drugs" and immediately lump all the "main ones" in to a single category of effect, treatment, and legality. "It works for alcohol, it will work for crack cocaine too."

I honestly can't comprehend those people.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And I don't know about you, and maybe I've been living in a fantasy land, but... I've never before heard or read of crack, heroin, or meth (and co.) compared to tobacco or alcohol. It's like people hear the word "drugs" and immediately lump all the "main ones" in to a single category of effect, treatment, and legality. "It works for alcohol, it will work for crack cocaine too."

I honestly can't comprehend those people.

you did the same thing with LSD

Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, exactly. are you saying this is the same type of victimization that comes from, say, rape or theft? what right is being violated?
None. But last I checked (Wikipedia), callous disregard for the feelings (shut up, it's not that wussiesh) of the victims isn't a good way to go about running society.

Neither is disregarding the financial turmoil, the rights of the children of junkies, or the collateral damage a drug fiend can cause. The movie Gone Baby Gone comes to mind.

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, well, fair enough then

That edit wasn't necessary, then. Oh well.

For the record, there is a difference between what I think should happen in a perfect world, and what I think should happen in the real world. Realistically, alcohol can't be outlawed for the reasons that you've stated several times here, and the same is true for most other popular drugs. I just don't think legalizing them and then regualting them will create change in the amount of positives vs. negatives.

Originally posted by inimalist
you did the same thing with LSD
Honestly I was just using that as an example. It was the one Kandy picked up on, so I went with it. From what I know, crack, heroine, and meth are more vicious, and I would pick them for criminalization before LSD.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Just like how MADD, anti-smoking campaigns, sexual education etc. have virtually eliminated drunk driving, smoking, STD and teenage pregnancies.

...are you supporting my side now? Exactly, forbidding someone from doing something fails to a large degree with people who want to do it...

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That sounds dangerously close to becoming a bureaucratic nightmare. Talk about saving money.

That's hardly close to being more bureaucratic than it is now, but the upside is that no one gets shot.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
All true, every word. But this in no way destroys the existence of drug cartels. Same way that the long-time legalization of cigarettes has not stopped a multi-billion dollar underground industry of cheap cigarettes (much of it tied to Native reserves).

It weakens them immensely, much like the end of prohibition marked the end of the glory years of the mafia, just that this time perhaps they wouldn't have something else to fall back. Crime won't go away, but it will diminish or turn legal as that becomes cheaper and easier.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
A welcome positive.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You say you hate the "(dis)prove a non-factor" gimmick. Well I hate the "We should do it because it's never been proven that it won't work" gimmick.

It's not a gimmick though. Like I said, indications in studies (like inimalist quoted) and previous experience (like prohibition and legalization in the Netherlands) suggest very much that there will be positive consequences. That there might be negative ones, is for the opposite to prove, since that's not happened, as the opposites' arguments are solely "my guts tell me", I think we should try it. Hey, lets compromise, lets start with Marijuana and LSD...maybe cocaine and see what happens, if we were right (as seems most likely judging from the evidence, atm) lets get the rest.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Maybe, maybe not.

Indeed, but since it is shit now, and there's all those other likely (scientifically likely) positive consequences, lets do it!

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And I don't know about you, and maybe I've been living in a fantasy land, but... I've never before heard or read of crack, heroin, or meth (and co.) compared to tobacco or alcohol. It's like people hear the word "drugs" and immediately lump all the "main ones" in to a single category of effect, treatment, and legality. "It works for alcohol, it will work for crack cocaine too."

I honestly can't comprehend those people.

Well, why wouldn't it, alcohol and tobacco are known to be more harmful and addictive than Marijuana and LSD...