posted
Tom, absolutely. Humans have the right to self-determination. I am not saying I would not try to stop someone I saw getting ready to jump, but if someone feels life is not worth living then it is wrong to force them to stay. Hurting themselves is even less an excuse as long as they know what they are doing.
Beverly, It is true that youth can get the drugs they want, but the legal drugs are harder to get. That is all I am saying. You cannot keep drugs from anyone who wants them badly enough, or for that matter is mildly curious enough, but you can make the barrier to entry higher for minors.
I firmly believe that alcohol use would drop if other drugs were legal. Lots of people have a drug of choice and then substitute others when their first choice is unavailable- look at the coffee machines and cigarette smokers at AA meetings.
You cannot keep your kids from trying drugs if they want to. My parents were no worse than any, and better than some. I still tried alcohol my senior year, and then read about all sorts of drugs for months before deciding to try them. It is like sex. I have used caffeine to get high ever since I can remember, because I wanted to get high. Abstinence is best, but realistically it will not happen, so educate them to make safe choices.
How is getting high damaging behaviour? The best narcotic high of my life was an IV of fentanyl at the dentist's office. How did that hurt me? How did that hurt anyone else? How did my taking my Percocets in greater numbers than prescribed hurt me or anyone else? (Well, the acetaminophen was probably not great for my liver, but that does not need to be put in the drugs.) I downright looked forward to getting my wisdom teeth out, and I was not disappointed.
You might as well say being gay or non-Mormon is damaging behavior. I am sure you believe it, but that does not give you the right to force your beliefs on me. I happen to sincerely believe that everyone would benefit from taking MDMA at least once. Somehow, that is not enough of a reason for me to attempt to force you to try it.
Why do you believe in obeying wrong laws? That is an entirely foreign concept to my mind, and I believe it to be a dangerous one.
Racism was worse than drug stigma until recently, but for the last decade or so it has been a lot worse to be a user than to be a minority. Minorities may have suffered more (they do not now), but just because drug stigma is not quite as bad does not make it acceptable in any way.
If you do not think it is worth breaking the law to get high, you probably have never done any drug worth doing. All I can say to that is do not knock it until you try it. Furthermore, it is a question of what we are allowed to think and what we may put into our bodies. I believe that individual sovereignty is a very precious thing, and it is worth ignoring the law for.
posted
Yes, Beverly, nobody's debating your right to an opinion or a vote -- but what right do you have to vote for a law which limits another's freedom? As an extreme example, if the majority voted to limit the rights of black people (or those of homosexuals, a limitation which, as I recall, you support), would that be allowable since, after all, you're entitled to your opinion and your vote, even if you aren't the Queen of the US of A?
I understand why you feel all drugs should be illegal, and the position isn't without a certain amount of sympathy from me. However, I realize no matter how opposed I am to recreational drug use, I've no right to force others to behave as I do beyond persuasion tactics -- no matter how opposed I am to, say, voting Republican, and no matter how self-destructive and willfully ignorant I may believe the act to be, do I have any right to prohibit people from voting as such? Even if I have an opinion and a vote?
It's not a matter of why, it's a matter of if you have the legal right to declare your personal preferences everyone else's, so long as those personal preferences you're attempting to suppress aren't inherently self-handicapping or self-destructive. I've yet to see evidence of marijuana being either. And thus I question your, our right to prohibit recreational marijuana use, not our right to speak against it or persuade others not to use it. There's a fairly distinct line between the two, isn't there?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, do you realize that alcohol is significantly worse for your brain and liver than the "hard" drug heroin? Heroin is slightly more addictive, but not by much, and with a constant supply the user is very functional. Alcohol withdrawal can easily kill you; heroin withdrawal is unpleasant but almost always non-fatal. Or if it is the word heroin that gets you, substitute hydrocodone or morphine.
Hard and soft drugs are poor metaphors. From soft to hard, they would go in approximately this order: Indole psychedelics, cannabis, nitrous, MDMA, phenethylamine psychedelics, narcotics, oral amphetamines, cocaine/alcohol, non-oral amphetamines, and nicotine. Some may need to be switched depending on how you weight actual overdose chances, ease of addiction, and death from long term use. However, alcohol and nicotine are quite a bit worse for you than the vast majority of currently illegal drugs.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, as with all behavior, we have to weigh for ourselves which we think is more valuable, the priviledge or the negative effect to society. For example, there are people who would like to ban cars. They cause so many deaths and injuries, and they create so much polution and waste. While I might support a gradual change to another form of transportation, I would not like to see cars suddenly banned. It would cause more problems than it helps.
I do have the right to decide if I think a behavior or priviledge falls under the category of "too destructive to society". If the powers that be tell me it is a right, then no, I don't have a right to try and prohibit it. But if it is only a priviledge, then I do.
So as with homosexual marriage, we must ask ourselves, is it a right or a priviledge? Others have brought this up and it is a very good and important point. I am not on the board of those who decide what is a right and what is a priviledge. Those far above me make such decisions. I can have an opinion on what is a right and what is a priviledge, but that doesn't have any efficacy on the laws of our country.
So long as the country says drug use is a priviledge and not a right (and that must be the case if most recreational drugs are illegal) than I am in my rights moving to oppose it, even if you personally believe it is a right rather than a priviledge.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard that before. I've also heard that alcohol, if discovered today, would be a class-one drug and banned from public use. I asked Hatrack for verification on it, as the information came from a decidedly biased friend of mine, but I've yet to hear anything about it.
As far as alcohol being more addictive than heroine, dude, I'm going to doubt your word on that one. Perhaps when undiluted. Perhaps to certain gene types. But I've no dependency whatsoever on alcohol, and I've also no problem with weekend indulgence -- from what I hear of heroine, I couldn't use it regularly and quit whenever I like.
I'm not very sympathetic to drug legalization, dude, but if marijuana's as harmless as I've been led to understand, I won't stand in the way of its legalization. That doesn't mean I'll spearhead or support the movement to legalize it, however, and I certainly won't advocate the legalization of addictive drugs. If alcohol's already spilled milk (or whatever), so be it, but just because alcohol's legal doesn't mean I'll support the legalization of heroine or opium or crack. I know users on each of the above, and I know them too well to pretend they aren't addictive, destructive drugs. My current half-support for marijuana rests on my understanding that it's safe to use -- no drug that isn't, except perhaps alcohol, will get my support for legalization.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear Alaska is such a pretty state and in the southern part you have more sun. Sounds awesome to me. I'd love to live there. If it's legalized there, that's just another reason to move.
Having it legal in California, however, is NOT a good enough reason to move there. Too many liberals!
posted
I did not say that. Heroin will addict you a bit faster than alcohol, but heroin addiction is a lot more fun. If you consider the opiates to be more or less interchangeable, I have chipped ever since I started. People try to tell themselves that oxycodone is different than heroin, but they are kidding themselves. I challenge you to go without drinking another drink for the rest of your life. You probably could, but why would you?
Alcohol probably would be banned if it were introduced today, because fun is wrong and alcohol is poison.
Why are you not more sympathetic to legalization? Do you think that homosexuality does not cause real problems? It destroys the institution of marriage, man! It is a sin! If there is one thing my parents would take worse than learning I use, it would be if I was gay. More seriously, who are you to judge what is best for someone else? Addiction would not be such a problem if drugs were legal- look at all the functional alcohol, benzo, stimulant, and even narcotic addicts in our society. Narcotics impair one less than cannabis or alcohol. Stimulants actually improve performance. People will self-destruct on anything, but that is no reason not to make it as easy to climb back out of the hole as possible.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can use heroin (or any other narcotic; generally one is as good as another when adjusted for dosage) in moderation as well. You never hear about those people because they do not make very good scare stories.
Edit: and yes, pretty much any amount of alcohol will take a larger toll on your brain and liver than heroin. It takes very little; about two drinks is the safe stopping point.
quote: Beverly, It is true that youth can get the drugs they want, but the legal drugs are harder to get. That is all I am saying. You cannot keep drugs from anyone who wants them badly enough, or for that matter is mildly curious enough, but you can make the barrier to entry higher for minors.
There is certainly some truth to that.
quote: I firmly believe that alcohol use would drop if other drugs were legal.
This is an interesting idea, but I am not as confident in it as you are. Certainly if marijuana were legal, more people trying to quit drinking or even using tobacco, might turn to it.
quote: You cannot keep your kids from trying drugs if they want to.
No, I know that. But if they are so determined, I don't think carding will help much.
quote: How is getting high damaging behaviour? The best narcotic high of my life was an IV of fentanyl at the dentist's office. How did that hurt me? How did that hurt anyone else? How did my taking my Percocets in greater numbers than prescribed hurt me or anyone else? (Well, the acetaminophen was probably not great for my liver, but that does not need to be put in the drugs.) I downright looked forward to getting my wisdom teeth out, and I was not disappointed.
Heh, I enjoyed being on the drugs after getting my wisdom teeth out, well, to a point I guess. I had them out right before Christmas and I remember spending Christmas morning "high". I didn't really like it. I felt my mind was not able to focus so well on what was going on and I was somewhat disconnected from reality. I didn't want to be disconnected from reality on Christmas morning. But even to the point I did enjoy the feeling, I would not have chosen to do it again for the experience. I used it for the proper medical purpose and then let it be.
I don't think my being "high" on those drugs was a negative thing in and of itself as I was using them only according to the doctor's prescribed intent. But seeking out a chemical high for the high is a negative behavior, IMO. The basic idea here is that using once may not actually hurt you. But can you use just once? But I feel like I am repeating myself here. I have already explained the reasons why I feel getting high on drugs is a negative thing.
quote: You might as well say being gay or non-Mormon is damaging behavior.
Do you think this is my mind on the matter? Why do you think I would feel that way?
quote: Why do you believe in obeying wrong laws?
Depends on how wrong they are. If they are just a little wrong, I would rather contribute to society by keeping the law. If the law is seriously wrong in my mind, then I would have reason to go against it. I understand that you feel the law concerning drugs is wrong. I don't. We disagree. You are trying to change minds on the matter. That is the way the system works. But if you get caught breaking the law, you will also have to pay. That is also how the system works. You do so at your own risk.
quote: If you do not think it is worth breaking the law to get high, you probably have never done any drug worth doing.
You seem to think that if I did I would change my mind. I might really really want to get high again, but I wouldn't change my mind to think that getting high was a good and positive thing. Therefore, I would prefer to continue as I am, not partaking of the forbidden fruit as it were.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig, I think you have a fact mixed up in there. You keep referring to heroin as only a bit more addictive than, say, alcohol. In actuality, it is a little less addictive than, say, crack cocaine. It is just a tiny bit more addictive than nicotine. Don't hurt your argument by playing down the seriousness of a drug's addictive nature. I don't necessarily agree with your outlook on the issue, but that's really the only thing that sticks out and bugs me.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can use heroin (or any other narcotic; generally one is as good as another when adjusted for dosage) in moderation as well. You never hear about those people because they do not make very good scare stories.
But those people are still addicts, regardless of whether they lead productive lives or not. If they were to stop using, they would suffer the same withdrawl symptoms as a regular junkie would. If you seriously don't believe that, go to a Narcotics Anonymous meeting and listen to some of the accounts from some people. Methodone is used for a reason, and is not just something used for the emaciated and broken down junkie.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does seem that those who are most in favor for legalizing marijuana are the users. Of course they want it legalized. It's not like they are breaking the law for the sake of breaking the law. They want to use marijuana and the law stands in their way.
What I find interesting is that most of the people who don't use it are not interested in legalization. Some might not be *against* legalization, and some might even be for it. But most are against it.
This is different than, say, homosexual marriage, where many of the strong supporters are not homosexual in the least.
I find that interesting. It seems to suggest that there are solid, logical reasons for opposing marijuana legalization beyond, say, religious matters.
My opposition to homosexual relations is logical and solid also, but the logic is based on a religious premise.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I do not view being high as being disconnected from reality. You might pay less attention, but you interact just the same.
I said the gay and non-Mormon because I was under the impression you were LDS and opposed gay marriage, as well as homosexual acts in general. Do you not feel this way?
Perhaps I am reading you wrongly, but you seem to think drugs are bad because you might use them too much. You have other priorities, which is fine for you personally, but I do not. You have no right to dictate, or even attempt to influence via force of government, my priorities for me.
I do not view society as something I owe anything to, and I have already said that a society that denies humans this basic freedom deserves to be destroyed as much as is needed to purge that behavior.
Do you believe it is wrong to use a legal, non-addictive drug to get high? Even more than once? They do (well, did) exist.
Why is DMT illegal? It is not addictive, and it is found in your brain.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not use methamphetamine, PCP, DXM (anymore), ketamine, or cocaine. I am all for their legalization, even if my drugs were kept illegal. Well, DXM already is legal. It is the only drug I regret ever doing, and it should still be legal.
Datura is legal. I have no plans to use it either. It should stay legal.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jutsa, you are wrong. Nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man. Heroin (or other narcotics) is only a little more addictive than alcohol, not because it is not that addictive but because alcohol is.
And yes, you can use in moderation. I have done a fair amount of narcotics ever since I started using drugs other than caffeine, and never once experienced withdrawal symptoms. It happens.
Edit: One last thing, why on earth is physical dependence a bad thing if one has a constant supply? If withdrawal symptoms never occur while the enjoyable parts do, then the "addiction" (really physical dependence; read the propaganda they give to people in pain- they are not addicts, because addicts are those bad people, they are merely physically dependent) is worth it.
quote:Why is DMT illegal? It is not addictive, and it is found in your brain.
Not in the amounts that taking it induces, which is the danger. Creating an overabundance of any chemical in the brain can lead to things ragning from disorders to damage. This is why overdoing is in the form of substance abuse is generally deemed bad.
quote:Jutsa, you are wrong. Nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man. Heroin (or other narcotics) is only a little more addictive than alcohol, not because it is not that addictive but because alcohol is.
You're going to have to prove this, because doctors and therapists have said otherwise to me when answering questions on this very topic.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Alcohol probably would be banned if it were introduced today, because fun is wrong and alcohol is poison.
You know what, I've been watching this thread with some interest. But you're killing your argument with statements like this.
Most of the people have been talking about the dangers of drugs as a reason to criminalize them. You can certainly disagree with their conclusion on this matter, but to characterize drug legalization opponents as "fun is wrong" folks is to prove you are either not listening or not comprehending their side of the issue.
Face it, to achieve your stated aim, you have to convince people the position they hold is wrong. This is a larger burden than legalization opponents have, simply because the status quo is easier to maintain than change is to achieve. So it would behoove you not to demonize the people you have to convince.
posted
Hmmm - I recall being told that nicotine was seven times more addictive than heroin, and that heroin withdrawals would not kill you (although you wished you were dead) whereas an alcoholic sobering up could easily die from the withdrawal.
I don't have the right to tell anyone how they spend their life, but I sure as heck have the right to ensure that my son has the right to enjoy his life. And me.
So, those of you that drive drunk, drugged, or do other things that put others and yourself in potentially dangerous and lethal situations while you are under the influence - I got NOOOO sympathy for you.
Keep it at home and off the streets, out of public places, and away from other folks, please and thank you.
And before you tell me I am unfair and judgemental - I like my evening beer or wine. Right here, at home. With my cigarette - outside and away from others, so that MY decision to pollute my body has the least impact on those around me.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it depends on how one measures addiction. Here is one scale. Here is the one I was referencing; apparently it originally came from In Health. The point is, heroin and alcohol are very close to each other, and nicotine is quite a bit worse than either. Cocaine has a similiar addiction profile with caffeine, and while I am not going to go search for more that is not the only place I read that.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said fun is wrong because that is what the DEA does to determine how to schedule drugs. When I said that alcohol was a poison I meant it; it is.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Edit: One last thing, why on earth is physical dependence a bad thing if one has a constant supply? If withdrawal symptoms never occur while the enjoyable parts do, then the "addiction" (really physical dependence; read the propaganda they give to people in pain- they are not addicts, because addicts are those bad people, they are merely physically dependent) is worth it.
They are not merely anything. If they ever decide the cost is too much or they just get bored of it, they cannot simply walk away. That is the problem, and it requires more treatment than even nicotine addicts to get off of. The danger with alcohol abuse is that it isn't so much creating a dependancy through addiction, but by creating behavioral and perceptual changes, which is more complex and difficult a thing to change, because it requires more than just not drinking to recover.
Once again, I recommend you check out some things discussed at AA/NA meetings to get some information. I'm not saying you should go there for yourself, just that the information you could get from there would be helpful to you getting all your information eggs into the same basket.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When measuring the impact of addictiveness on others than the user, which is what's required for a libertarian "anyone can do whatever doesn't hurt someone else" analysis, nicotine could be 10 times as addictive and still be more "legalizable" than heroin or alcohol, since nicotine has a much lower level of intoxication and therefore someone using it is much less likely to harm someone else.
quote:I said fun is wrong because that is what the DEA does to determine how to schedule drugs.
Can you show a link to the DEA "fun-rating" used to schedule drugs? Because right now your rapidly slipping from "thoughtful person I disagree with but who's made some good points" to "zealot with a major chip on his shoulder."
posted
You know, both of those links are conjecture. Do you have anything actually tested, repeated, and documented? If not, I shall ask my medical friends if they know of any sources online. I don't feel like transcribing pages of written text. Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although, it sure costs a lot in health care measures later on, Dag, and it could be argued that that is a significant harm to others - supporting the cost of all the disease that comes along with smoking.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, I do not view being high as being disconnected from reality. You might pay less attention, but you interact just the same.
That is exactly how I would describe being disconnected from reality.
Danzig, there are plenty of behaviors I think are wrong and detrimental to the individual and society that I am not in favor of banning. I feel drugs are a special case. It has to do with the very nature of drugs, the way they overshadow and pale the natural highs of life, and draw people away from what matters.
But you and I disagree on what matters, so how can we agree on this? Drugs are too potent, too powerful. Their use needs to be regulated by someone other than the user because the user is not going to be objective about it. Honestly, as I listen to you, many of the things you say scare me and support my feelings on this matter.
I might not have a right to tell you what to do. I don't think I have once told you what to do in our conversation. I have told you that I disagree with you, but that is not the same thing. I do have a right to support the regulations already in force. The only way for me to not have that right is for the government to declare the ban on these drugs unconstitutional.
You think I and the government are wrong. As I have said before, you are free to try and change how things are done. Remember that just because you think you are correct in this matter does not mean that you are.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to say that Jutsa has made some very good points and made them far better than I could.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I'm not saying that this changes Danzig's argument. If he would adjust that little fact, his argument still basically stays the same. At least, if I'm getting it correctly: the legality should not be based on imposed cost/value regarding the high versus possible later problems. Am I right, Danzig?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understand Danzig's argument, it's that:
1.) Nothing should be illegal unless it harms another person. 2.) Costs of caring for a person who receives injuries from the activity in question should not be counted as harm to another person. 3.) Recreational drug use in and of itself does not cause harm to others as defined in 1 & 2. 4.) Therefore, recreational drug use should not be made illegal, although it may be restricted in accordance with 1 & 2 (no heroin while driving, etc.).
Assuming this is an accurate summation, then it appears Danzig would support making illegal, or restricting to the point where it was practically illegal, a drug that 100% of the time caused the user to fly into a murderous rage and assault others.
Similarly, a drug that made the user have a pleasant high while being utterly paralyzed (this incapable of causing harm to others) would be legal, with restrictions such as "no paralysis drugs while babysitting."
If a drug had the murderous rage effect 999 times out of a thousand, I presume Danzig would still support banning it. If it happened 1 out 1000 times, maybe he wouldn't (or maybe the number is 1 out of 1000000). This broad band in the middle is where judgments about individual drugs come into play.
posted
I must admit I was exaggerating a bit there, but not by much. Basically, as near as I can tell they wait for something that is fun to get popular, then wait for someone to die because they did something extremely foolish. Then that is used as proof that the drug is a danger, and it is scheduled. Why would they go to the trouble of scheduling drugs that are not fun? No one uses them. The real reason datura is legal is because the high is generally not that fun, so the people who survive the experience (it is very dangerous) generally do not repeat it.
I am a zealot with a major chip on my shoulder, because you are saying I deserve to be sent to jail for smoking a joint or popping a pill. I am not fond of people who want me raped for all intents and purposes.
I do not have any links, but frankly I do not trust your doctor friends. They have an agenda as well. Not that it really matters whether heroin is less addictive than datura or more so than crack. I do try to get information from as many sources as possible, including anti-drug websites.
There is no likelihood of me hurting someone in the privacy of my own home. I feel that it would be hypocritical to let people drive slightly buzzed on alcohol but not stoned, but I really could care less if a zero-tolerance (or say .02 BAC and equivalent for other drugs) policy was instituted for that. Impaired driving endangers others.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
beverly, you supporting regulations already in place is close enough to you telling me what to do as to be lumped in with it.
Jutsa, yes.
Dagonee, your summation is basically correct, with the relatively minor addition that if we let people drive at .08 and Air Force pilots fly on speed, we should let people drive after smoking a bowl or two.
In your hypothetical drug situation, does the rage wear off? Because if it does, then it should be legal to do in your own home as long as no one is around and you take any necessary precautions not to murder anyone. Furthermore, I still believe that at some level you always have control. There is and probably never will be a drug that does that. Nor does any drug currently around come close to doing that. Remember, murder is already illegal. Perhaps this drug is also a good sink cleaner. Murder is wrong for any reason.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: beverly, you supporting regulations already in place is close enough to you telling me what to do as to be lumped in with it.
If you choose to look at it that way. I do recognize that it is easy for me to talk about the banning of things I don't use and never intend to use. To you, it is a threat to your way of life. You have to choose between going without--a meaningless existance in your mind, or breaking the law and risking being raped in jail. Not a happy choice.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You be reasonable. If your policies will lead to lots more prison rape, change your policies or change the prisons. Rape is a lot more likely in prison than it is from drug use in general, and you know that.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
You say that bev wants, for all intents and purposes, for you to be raped. I presume that you say this because she supports drugs being illegal, making you in danger of prison, and possible rape.
Because B (you could go to prison) is a consequence of A (drugs are illegal), and she supports A (drugs should be illegal), you are saying that she desires B (she wants you raped).
But I could say the same thing about you. You take drugs, which you know could put you in prison, and the possibility of rape.
Let's use the same logic here:
Because B (you could go to prison) is a consequence of A (taking illegal drugs), and you spport A (you take illegal drugs), I am saying that you desire B (you want to be raped).
Now, I know that you probably don't want to be raped in prison.
You should also know that bev probably doesn't want you raped in prison. It's pretty unfair for you to say that she does.
posted
I got it the first time. I am saying that she is supporting something that is quite a bit more likely to end up in me being raped than merely my using drugs. I will end up raped if I go to prison, but lots of people use drugs without ever getting raped. Not quite the same. I would have nothing to worry about if it were not for people who want me in prison, and could continue using drugs. Their very desire pretty much implies rape, and cannot be separated from it.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not the same. Sending me to prison affects me directly. Me using drugs affects no one directly besides myself. Apples and pears.
They were not always illegal. Some of them still are not, and I am guessing she wants those made illegal too.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether it affects you directly or not doesn't change the validity of your logic.
Again you are saying that if A causes B, and bev supports A, then it must follow that she desires B.
But you also say that if A causes B, and you support A, it doesn't mean that you desires B.
Are the situations the same? No. But the same logic can be applied to both situations. I don't see how the directness of the effect changes the logic one way or the other.
Oh, and you should probably not guess about other people's desires and then use your guess to support your argument.
posted
"I am not saying I would not try to stop someone I saw getting ready to jump, but if someone feels life is not worth living then it is wrong to force them to stay."
How do you feel about hospitalizing someone -- particularly mental patients -- on the grounds that they may be dangerous to themselves? Is the idea of involuntarily committing someone equally repugnant?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind that just because I think something should be illegal does not necessarily mean I want that person in prison. I don't go to prison when I get caught going too fast on the road. Remember my comment that I believe there ought to be a variety of options for punishment? My decry about the prison-rape situation? The consequences are already in place. Just because I support the law doesn't mean I support the current consequences of that law.
I believe that prison-rape shouldn't happen. For instance, I might be in favor of a prison that is able to watch the inmates every second of every day. It would see such behavior and severely punish perpetrators. Men who raped would be kept in solitary confinement, because obviously they can't keep their, uh, members to themselves. After all, what they are doing is a crime. It should be punished to keep them from doing it and discourage others.
I do think that one of the most important parts of prison life should be loss of rights. If someone breaks the rules in my household, they lose rights and priviledges. Should be the same when someone breaks the law. Their rights and priviledges are restricted according to their crime. Raping is far worse than drug-use and should be treated as such. I am not sure that a prisoner should have the same privacy rights as a law-abiding citizen. That doesn't mean they should be abused.
A lot of my feelings on this matter come from my experience so far in parenthood. If your child just can't keep themselves from doing something against the rules of your household, you find a way to make their breaking the rule less pleasant than keeping it. You have to find what that way is, yet temper it with the love you hold for your child. I would like to see these same principles applied to the inmates in prison.
Basically, I believe in treating inmates somewhat like children. Obviously they have trouble acting like fully functioning adults in society.
In my world, when I am Queen, my drug-use inmates will never need fear rape. The only thing they need fear is never, ever being able to use a drug again.
posted
It's the parent/child mentality that bothers me. I don't like the government treating me like I am their child.
I can understand parents protecting their children, but I am not a child and the government is not my parent or even my big brother, as much as they might think they are.
posted
Eh, I figured the "big brother" comment would come up. Probably many people already feel that inmates are treated too much like children and that the government doesn't have a right to do what it does.
As it is, prison is considered a sort of "rehabilitation program" for many inmates. There are parole boards regularly to decide if someone has been rehabilitated enough to return to society. I just think that prison could do a better job of it. Someone goes to jail for sexual crimes, yet their sexual crimes in jail go unpunished. Drug addicts may be sent to prison. But who cares if they take drugs while in prison.
Not in my world, baby. In my world, there would be laws to keep in prison also. Keep the laws and you are rewarded. Break them and you are punished. No privacy. Law abiding citizens would keep all the privacy they currently have. Due process of law would still function. Only prison would be an exception. No slippery slope arguments, this universe of mine would *not* turn into 1984.
Keep in mind, these "prison laws" would protect other prisoners. I would rather give up my privacy in prison than be raped. Maybe others don't feel the same. My brother-in-law works in a prison. As things stand now, prisoners have precious little privacy. Does that bother you?
Of course, the system would have to be kept in check because it could be abused so easily. As Queen of the World, I would see to it personally that no abuse of power happened in the prison system.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
