Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Ending the Drug War
I Read This
September 25, 2018, 09:23:12 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16
  Print  
Author Topic: Ending the Drug War  (Read 35454 times)
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2009, 20:49:12 EST »

Oh, yes it does. Just feed it to the nearest four-year-old and watch your happiness plummet.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Bringerofpie
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1485



« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2009, 20:53:39 EST »

Drugs are a symptom of mass unhappiness not a source
No.  They are most definitely a source themselves once they start damaging your body and mind, regardless of why you took them in the first place.

What about people who experiment with marijuana out of curiosity, find that they enjoy the effects, and use it responsibly and seldomly?
Logged

Set a new standard
Defy the odds
Step up.

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

Does anyone else get more liberal every time they take the political compass test?
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2009, 21:01:05 EST »

Oh, yes it does. Just feed it to the nearest four-year-old and watch your happiness plummet.
Touché but on the other hand the kid probably be pretty happy while their sugar high lasts.
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2009, 01:46:09 EST »

Wait for four hours, for the sugar crash.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2009, 09:19:28 EST »

Because I view illegal drugs along with smoking/drinking as universally a source of unhappiness, due to the damage they inflict to the mind and body both of those who use and those who don't, something which I consider to far exceed any benefits they grant.
Well, I certainly don't.  Moderate use of many sorts of drug is not harmful.  In the case of alcohol there is some evidence that it is beneficial for health.  But more to the point I don't consider myself, or anyone else, qualified to make the judgment about whether such things are of benefit overall.  Ultimately we can not tell what enjoyment others gain from them, because we are not them.

Also, try to look at it from a wider perspective.  All forms of enjoyment come with a degree of risk.  A person who enjoys work can become a "workaholic", for example.  Individuals tend to view their own sources of enjoyment as safe and under their control, but view those of others as dangerous.  This is myopic.

From my discussions with you you seem the sort of person who is averse to "artificial" pleasures, drinking, smoking and taking drugs.  You are also averse to the pursuit of wealth.  That's fair enough, and that's your decision.  But whatever pleasure you do decide to take from life they will have their own associated risks.

What I think many people who wish to condemn other people's lives miss is that their own viewpoint is something they enjoy.  They enjoy looking down upon those they see as foolish, those who drink or are materialists, for example.  I've done this myself enough times.  Similarly the wish to control people's lives often comes from a simple desire for power and the kick of exercising it, rather than for any good.

Tim Worstall defined the verb to Bansturbate as "The word – a fusion of “ban” and the term for self-abuse – refers to both the public abuse of the rights of the citizenry as things that some people simply disapprove of are made illegal, and the near-sexual frisson of pleasure gained by those who pass such laws. "
Logged
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2009, 09:47:57 EST »

Wait for four hours, for the sugar crash.
That usually is fatigue, also the body does require a certain amount of sugar.
Logged
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #21 on: January 22, 2009, 15:00:51 EST »

Well, I certainly don't.  Moderate use of many sorts of drug is not harmful.  In the case of alcohol there is some evidence that it is beneficial for health.  But more to the point I don't consider myself, or anyone else, qualified to make the judgment about whether such things are of benefit overall.  Ultimately we can not tell what enjoyment others gain from them, because we are not them.
Not important.  Their actions impact others, regardless of their wishes.

Also, try to look at it from a wider perspective.  All forms of enjoyment come with a degree of risk.  A person who enjoys work can become a "workaholic", for example.  Individuals tend to view their own sources of enjoyment as safe and under their control, but view those of others as dangerous.  This is myopic.
I view things that are health hazards as bad.  Anything that inflicts health hazards on others without their consent, in a public place no less, should be banned, unless their is a VERY good reason for doing it.

From my discussions with you you seem the sort of person who is averse to "artificial" pleasures, drinking, smoking and taking drugs.
I am averse to things that are severely deleterious to my health and mental state in return for a limited short term gain, if you gain anything at all.  I have no problem with artificial pleasures that do not do that.

You are also averse to the pursuit of wealth.
I am averse to wealth for wealth's sake.  I am only interested in obtaining sufficient money to pursue that which interests me and stave off that which would be injurious to me.

But whatever pleasure you do decide to take from life they will have their own associated risks.
I think that inhaling carcinogens constitutes a higher health hazard than playing a boardgame.


What I think many people who wish to condemn other people's lives miss is that their own viewpoint is something they enjoy.  They enjoy looking down upon those they see as foolish, those who drink or are materialists, for example.  I've done this myself enough times.  Similarly the wish to control people's lives often comes from a simple desire for power and the kick of exercising it, rather than for any good.
No.  It is because I don't want to have to be poisoned whenever I walk to class, have the risk of being run over by a drunkard when I cross the street, or watch people die slowly of cancer, causing pain to themselves, those around them, and those who have to pay their bills, all because some people couldn't find a form of enjoyment that didn't involve injecting hazardous chemicals into their body.

Many behaviors have unpredictable consequences, and could be good or bad, but smoking and drinking can safely be considered to be bad.  They hurt those who use those products, they hurt their friends, they hurt the strangers that they walk and drive by, they are a tremendous burden to society.  I can see that chasing after these products could result in a slippery slope, but there is still a clear distinction between a form of pleasure that inflicts health hazards and displeasure to the person and those around them, and a form of pleasure that doesn't.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #22 on: January 22, 2009, 16:08:45 EST »

Well, I certainly don't.  Moderate use of many sorts of drug is not harmful.  In the case of alcohol there is some evidence that it is beneficial for health.  But more to the point I don't consider myself, or anyone else, qualified to make the judgment about whether such things are of benefit overall.  Ultimately we can not tell what enjoyment others gain from them, because we are not them.
Not important.  Their actions impact others, regardless of their wishes.
Fair enough.  But they only require action when they can be shown to impact others.  So, drunkeness when driving a car is an offence, but drinking is not.  The same goes for taking drugs.

Also, try to look at it from a wider perspective.  All forms of enjoyment come with a degree of risk.  A person who enjoys work can become a "workaholic", for example.  Individuals tend to view their own sources of enjoyment as safe and under their control, but view those of others as dangerous.  This is myopic.
I view things that are health hazards as bad.  Anything that inflicts health hazards on others without their consent, in a public place no less, should be banned, unless their is a VERY good reason for doing it.
Well, I agree that inflicting health hazards without consent should be legislated against.

From my discussions with you you seem the sort of person who is averse to "artificial" pleasures, drinking, smoking and taking drugs.
I am averse to things that are severely deleterious to my health and mental state in return for a limited short term gain, if you gain anything at all.  I have no problem with artificial pleasures that do not do that.

You are also averse to the pursuit of wealth.
I am averse to wealth for wealth's sake.  I am only interested in obtaining sufficient money to pursue that which interests me and stave off that which would be injurious to me.
Fair enough.

But whatever pleasure you do decide to take from life they will have their own associated risks.
I think that inhaling carcinogens constitutes a higher health hazard than playing a boardgame.
Yes.  But which a person does is their own personal decision.

What I think many people who wish to condemn other people's lives miss is that their own viewpoint is something they enjoy.  They enjoy looking down upon those they see as foolish, those who drink or are materialists, for example.  I've done this myself enough times.  Similarly the wish to control people's lives often comes from a simple desire for power and the kick of exercising it, rather than for any good.
No.  It is because I don't want to have to be poisoned whenever I walk to class,
That's fair enough.

have the risk of being run over by a drunkard when I cross the street,
That also is quite reasonable.

or watch people die slowly of cancer, causing pain to themselves, those around them, and those who have to pay their bills, all because some people couldn't find a form of enjoyment that didn't involve injecting hazardous chemicals into their body.
That however is a terrible attitude.  You have no right to tell other people what to do because they may cause you emotional distress by disobeying.

Many behaviors have unpredictable consequences, and could be good or bad, but smoking and drinking can safely be considered to be bad.  They hurt those who use those products,
As you admit later that is not always the case.  People can and do enjoy these things in moderation.

they hurt their friends,
A group who select themselves freely.

Don't get me wrong I take this point seriously.  During this past week in between working and reply to stuff here I've being trying to persuade one of my friends not to marry her current boyfriend.  This is not because I have any particular romantic attachment to her but because I think she is being rash.

However, just because my friends may make bad decisions doesn't mean that I want to have any degree of control over their decisions, or that I want others to have control either.  What should be obvious to people (but rarely is) is that such control can never be used wisely.

they hurt the strangers that they walk and drive by,
That's a different sort of matter though.

they are a tremendous burden to society.
That's probably not true, people who die early cost healthcare systems much less.  I pointed you at the evidence for this in a previous discussion.  Besides it still gives the rest of us no moral authority to tell others what to do.

I can see that chasing after these products could result in a slippery slope, but there is still a clear distinction between a form of pleasure that inflicts health hazards and displeasure to the person and those around them, and a form of pleasure that doesn't.
I don't really think that there is.  All pleasures have similar problems, as I mentioned previously work and materialism have their problems, as do other sorts of pleasure such as sexual pleasure or eating for example.  Some of these are not as extreme as drug addiction, but some are.
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #23 on: January 22, 2009, 19:27:29 EST »

Wait for four hours, for the sugar crash.
That usually is fatigue, also the body does require a certain amount of sugar.

So you're saying that the natural crash after a massive surge isn't a cause for unhappiness?
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
DavidLeoThomas
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3255


WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 22, 2009, 22:57:25 EST »

Many behaviors have unpredictable consequences, and could be good or bad, but smoking and drinking can safely be considered to be bad.

Wine, in moderation, has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease - which kills many, many more people than drinking.
Logged

"America means civil liberties.  Patriotism means protecting them."
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2009, 12:00:47 EST »

Not important.  Their actions impact others, regardless of their wishes.
Fair enough.  But they only require action when they can be shown to impact others.  So, drunkeness when driving a car is an offence, but drinking is not.  The same goes for taking drugs.
Is it reasonable to believe that drunk people won't operate cars?  I find the concept of intentionally destroying your own ability to make judgements, even when you know that those judgements can hurt not just you, but others, to be detestable.  However, I didn't say that drinking should be banned, merely restricted to minimize the odds of people being able to use it in situations where it could lead to them hurting themselves or others.

I think that inhaling carcinogens constitutes a higher health hazard than playing a boardgame.
Yes.  But which a person does is their own personal decision.
Don't dodge the issue.  You claimed that I was judging smoking was bad on subjective grounds, but the fact that it is far more likely to cause damage to your health, and in a direct manner, indicates that it is objectively a more risky form of pleasure than things like boardgames, which do not.

or watch people die slowly of cancer, causing pain to themselves, those around them, and those who have to pay their bills, all because some people couldn't find a form of enjoyment that didn't involve injecting hazardous chemicals into their body.
That however is a terrible attitude.  You have no right to tell other people what to do because they may cause you emotional distress by disobeying.
That depends on the degree of distress caused, and whether or not it would be reasonable to be distressed by such.  I think it is reasonable to be upset when someone injects themselves with chemicals, which causes 3 things to happen:
1. They slowly die in a painful manner.  This is probably pretty distressing
2. Their family gets to watch them die in a slow and painful manner.  This is also pretty distressing.
3. They wrack up a huge medical bill, which must be paid by their family.  This is distressing, and most likely taxpayers will end up paying for some of the care as well.
Not only that, they had full knowledge that exactly that would happen.

I'm curious.  If someone you cared said they were going to commit suicide right in front of you, would you say "okey dokey, its your personal decision" and let them go ahead with it?  Smoking is like that, except slower, and thus easier to rationalize.


Many behaviors have unpredictable consequences, and could be good or bad, but smoking and drinking can safely be considered to be bad.  They hurt those who use those products,
As you admit later that is not always the case.  People can and do enjoy these things in moderation.
Nicotine is addictive, and thus inherently undermines the judgement of people regarding using it in moderation.  Alcohol undermines people's judgement with regards to everything, including whether or not to moderate Alcohol consumption.  Last time I checked, excluding Die Macher, boardgames are not laced with addictive chemicals that undermine your judgement and make you think that playing a 4 hour game about German politics is a good idea.

they hurt their friends,
A group who select themselves freely.
Not really.  Given that they are, after all, friends, they probably enjoy the other person's company, and this is being either denied or made hazardous to their personal health.

Don't get me wrong I take this point seriously.  During this past week in between working and reply to stuff here I've being trying to persuade one of my friends not to marry her current boyfriend.  This is not because I have any particular romantic attachment to her but because I think she is being rash.

However, just because my friends may make bad decisions doesn't mean that I want to have any degree of control over their decisions, or that I want others to have control either.  What should be obvious to people (but rarely is) is that such control can never be used wisely.
Never?  I think that you are very wrong in that regard.  Despite what Ayn Rand says, people are NOT always in the best position to judge what action is best compared to others.  You shouldn't force your decision down their throats, of course, but nevertheless, if someone is dealing with a situation where their emotions are dominating their better judgement, you are in a position to offer them good advice.


That's probably not true, people who die early cost healthcare systems much less.
No, they die slowly of lung cancer and rack up huge bills.  The damages from drinking also tend to be longterm and expensive.

I pointed you at the evidence for this in a previous discussion.  Besides it still gives the rest of us no moral authority to tell others what to do.

I can see that chasing after these products could result in a slippery slope, but there is still a clear distinction between a form of pleasure that inflicts health hazards and displeasure to the person and those around them, and a form of pleasure that doesn't.
I don't really think that there is.  All pleasures have similar problems, as I mentioned previously work and materialism have their problems, as do other sorts of pleasure such as sexual pleasure or eating for example.  Some of these are not as extreme as drug addiction, but some are.
However, not many of them are addictive on a chemical level, or damage your ability to make sound judgements on a chemical level.  Sexual pleasure would qualify, given that tests have shown quite clearly that people's ability to make judgements are undermined when they are aroused.  However, eating food is less likely, and playing videogames less likely still.  Also, few cause as much physical harm with as little use as smoking and drinking do, but after you factor in the addiction/judgement disruption, smoking/drinking will be even more harmful.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2009, 12:16:21 EST by wodan46 » Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Bringerofpie
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1485



« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2009, 16:59:34 EST »

Wodan, have you ever tried any drugs?
Logged

Set a new standard
Defy the odds
Step up.

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

Does anyone else get more liberal every time they take the political compass test?
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2009, 18:57:15 EST »

Wodan, have you ever tried any drugs?
Unless you count Aleve and Claritin, not really.  There was that time I mistook Guinness for Coca Cola, but such would hardly count.  For that matter, I almost never eat anything with Caffeine either, though that's more because I think Coffee tastes bad and Soda is unhealthy for other reasons.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2009, 19:06:38 EST »

Wodan, have you ever tried any drugs?

What does that have to do with the price of fish in China?
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Bringerofpie
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1485



« Reply #29 on: January 23, 2009, 20:05:14 EST »

Wodan, have you ever tried any drugs?

What does that have to do with the price of fish in China?

Just wondering how he knows that all drugs cause unhappiness. I happen to know that in at least one case, they do not.
Logged

Set a new standard
Defy the odds
Step up.

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

Does anyone else get more liberal every time they take the political compass test?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!