The drugs and our inherent freedoms

[Soulforged]

Lately i've seen some members (i'll not give names) that call the drogadicts druggies (a kind of profiling), and that they need rehabilitation, because they've to be valuable members for the society, and false statements like this ones. The thing is that in all our constitutions wheter it be argentinian (art. 17), french (i don't know the part), german or USA (1 amendment), those simple mentions grants all the guarantee that all that we do in privacy are not for the society or the state to judge, period. So even if I can give more arguments in favour of drugs legitimacy. How can the moralists or conservatives justify this position still? This is something that still amuses me. But let's hear your opinions, it doesn't matter how archaic they are.

[Spetulhu]

Problem is that some drug users go beyond the privacy of their homes in pursuit of this hobby. For example those that use heavy stuff like heroin. It is expensive to feed a habit like that, so people turn to crime. Or how about driving while high on hashish?

Their drug use has become a public matter.

[Proletariat]

Feel free to smoke a can of Ajax, Soul. As long as I don't have to fund your lifestyle and it's consequences, be my guest.

[bmolsson]

I must say that I have a hard time to understand mystic around drugs. I have a Master of Science in Chemical Engineering and learned very early how to do heavy drugs in the kitchen. Even though I have never used them nor produced them.
Its also hard to blame the drugs themselves for the problems they actually cause. I believe that there is something else wrong when they are abused. An alcoholic, drug addict or even an obese person have all made the choice and if they need help they should get it. The whole blown up picture on "war on drugs" is more like a farse to me. With this said, I do understand the seriousness of the situation and the cost for society drugs cause as well as the many peoples lives that are destroyed.
One thing is sure, I am happy that I am not a politician that have to make any decision in this question...... :bow:

[Del Arroyo]

But let's hear your opinions, it doesn't matter how archaic they are.

Stop being such an Argentinian, SF! The reviews are coming back from your guys' world travels, and they are mostly not good (though we like your women). If you keep it up we'll just have to lump you all in with the French! ~D

DA

[Proletariat]

Uh, Soulforged, they are a detriment to society.

How archaic!

:dizzy2:

[Soulforged]

Uh, Soulforged, they are a detriment to society. If all the illegal drugs of the world suddenly dissapeared, we'd be living in a cleaner, safer, and more efficient environment. That's argument enough to make them illegal. I'll admit it GC i started this thread for your outdated coments ~;) . Ok, but that's moral the state cannot mess with moral, and period. The things that you do to your own life is your problem. Your first amendment protects those rights. And i think you're confusing all, the state (i said this a hundred of times but...) judges only the actions that damages others people rights, so this means that if the drugadict goes, under the influence of that drug, and kills someone then he has to be punished by that, so those excuses that they're detrimental are just stupid. I've seen you specially criticize a lot communism, you might want to know that this kind of believes are remanents of despotism and national socialism, wich pretended to enter others people lives. The legal system applied to crimes done in an "alterated" state is complicated to explain it here, but don't worry it's enough to disuade a man from taking drugs to commit the crime or taking drugs when he/she knows that will commit it.

Problem is that some drug users go beyond the privacy of their homes in pursuit of this hobby. For example those that use heavy stuff like heroin. It is expensive to feed a habit like that, so people turn to crime. Or how about driving while high on hashish?
Their drug use has become a public matter. Wrong the public matter are the actions under the influence and not the drugs, the actions derivated from drug using should be treated separately. The crime commited or the imprudence then should be punished properly, but the individual has to have all his rights to do you what he wants.
Feel free to smoke a can of Ajax, Soul. As long as I don't have to fund your lifestyle and it's consequences, be my guest. And why not togheter?...Just kidding, personally drugs don't atract me...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The drug laws are unconstitutional and a bigger detriment to society than a safegaurd. As long as you do it in your own home its no ones damn bussiness. I also cant believe conservatives back the most intrusive government intervention in the history of the US since prohibition. It seems we either learned little or the government learned it could make a lot of money and gain a lot of power by declaring a WAR on drugs. This makes the patriot act look tame but many of you defend this crap. The government created the drug problem by introducing the huge profits by making them ilegal in the first place.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It is not unconstitutional to throw the dealers and the makers into prison. And that's exactly what we should do. There are countless state laws against disturbing the order--and introducing drugs into the working class is the bane of any capitalist society. You destroy the productivity and most literally poison the community.

Then how do you reconcile the sale and manufacture of alcohol and ciggarettes. Again all your doing is encouraging crime. It dosent matter who makes or sells them. If people want them they will get them and someone will make and sell them. The only answer is education. Again untill we made them ilegal there was little or no drug problem here. There is no difference between this prohibition and the old one. Just the name of the drugs involved. Bye the way people usewd to get high by taking small amounts of arsenic yet you can still buy it over the counter and it will easily kill you. Just put a skull and crossbones on the packaging. That will discourage a few from trying it. ~D

[Soulforged]

The drug laws are unconstitutional and a bigger detriment to society than a safegaurd. As long as you do it in your own home its no ones damn bussiness. I also cant believe conservatives back the most intrusive government intervention in the history of the US since prohibition. It seems we either learned little or the government learned it could make a lot of money and gain a lot of power by declaring a WAR on drugs. This makes the patriot act look tame but many of you defend this crap. The government created the drug problem by introducing the huge profits by making them ilegal in the first place. This is my position, but again privacy doesn't mean just your home, privacy means that it doesn't affects others.

Drugs are harmful. Doing them should not be encouraged. Heck, doing them should not even be illegal. Manufacturing them, and selling them, however, should. Why the discrepcancy? Because to try and bust everyone who sniffs a bit of crack, of injects a bit of heroine would be impossible, and most intrusive upon the constitution. No, any intrusion in personal matters,are by nature even the most minimal measure, unconstitutional and against freedom.
It is not unconstitutional to throw the dealers and the makers into prison. And that's exactly what we should do. There are countless state laws against disturbing the order--and introducing drugs into the working class is the bane of any capitalist society. You destroy the productivity and most literally poison the community. No, but by legalicing them your country and you will have a lot less problems, that includes narcotrafic, though doing it now will create a lot of problems to the international community, and that's the main cause why the state keeps this kind of unconstitutional laws (keep in mind that narcotraffic represents a huge part of the product -something about the 30% of the PBI, or Internal Brute Product). The idea of poisoning community are very archaic too, the state cannot involve with customs of a group of people, nor with their separated private acts.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

They would still be a great debilitator of society.

And so is alcohol and countles other things. Heck I think liberalism is a great debilitator of society. Should we lock all the liberals up? ~D

[Bartix]

Uh, Soulforged, they are a detriment to society. If all the illegal drugs of the world suddenly dissapeared, we'd be living in a cleaner, safer, and more efficient environment. That's argument enough to make them illegal.
And alcohol and tobacco and chewing gum, yes. ~:cheers:

[AntiochusIII]

Perhaps because drugs are addictive? And that they CAN and WILL cause harms to others? Or perhaps because, if legalized, a single arsehole can, with some complications, forced unsuspected victims to become addicted to the drugs?

I myself hate tobacco, with a passion. But I guess as an interest group they're too powerful. ~:handball:

[Kagemusha]

My personal opinion in this matter is that after over decade of Smoking and occasional heavy drinking.I dont have what it takes to start a drug addiction.In that case i would prefer to lay down and die.(And dont ask me do i have a hangover right now). :sick2:

[Sjakihata]

Or how about driving while high on hashish?

Their drug use has become a public matter.

that's very true, and it is analogous with alcohol. when someone is drunk and driving, it is a public matter. does it make alcohol illegal? no, the same should be true for hash.

[BDC]

If drugs were legal we'd have far less problems with organised crime...

[AntiochusIII]

that's very true, and it is analogous with alcohol. when someone is drunk and driving, it is a public matter. does it make alcohol illegal? no, the same should be true for hash.Actually driving while drunk is illegal.

[Sjakihata]

Actually driving while drunk is illegal.

I know that, that's my point. It's illegal only WHILE driving. it's not illegal to consume alcohol at a party. however, it is illegal to consume hash at a party, im asking; why the difference?

[Steppe Merc]

I'm with you Soulforged. It's no one's business what another person does to himself, as long as it only impacts himself.


Problem is that some drug users go beyond the privacy of their homes in pursuit of this hobby. For example those that use heavy stuff like heroin. It is expensive to feed a habit like that, so people turn to crime. Or how about driving while high on hashish?

Their drug use has become a public matter.
Then they get in trouble, once it becomes a public matter. But people go to jail when it is just private. Blaim the person, not the drug.


Uh, Soulforged, they are a detriment to society. If all the illegal drugs of the world suddenly dissapeared, we'd be living in a cleaner, safer, and more efficient environment. That's argument enough to make them illegal.
It is not a detriment. The people who do crime on drugs would still commit crimes anyway.


Actually driving while drunk is illegal.
Yes. But alchol is not. Driving while high should be illegal, not getting high. Huge difference.
Damn, Sjakihata beat me to it. ~;)



Perhaps because drugs are addictive? And that they CAN and WILL cause harms to others? Or perhaps because, if legalized, a single arsehole can, with some complications, forced unsuspected victims to become addicted to the drugs?
Oh please. Most drugs are less addictive than tobacco, and no one can be forced to become addicted. There is no such thing as being forced to do drugs, it bull. And if someone commits a crime while on drugs, they should pay for that crime, not for doing the drugs.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh please. Most drugs are less addictive than tobacco, and no one can be forced to become addicted. There is no such thing as being forced to do drugs, it bull. And if someone commits a crime while on drugs, they should pay for that crime, not for doing the drugs.

Well, to be picky, someone could deceive you into trying something that is far more physically addictive than suggested, or you could be held against your will and made into a junkie. However, in defence of the theme if not the letter of your statement, in both these instances there are other types of crime being perpetrated as well.

The only way to win the war on drugs is to destroy the market for them. History in all ages and cultures show that if there is a market for some commodity, someone will find a way to provide it, as Gawain pointed out.

So, unless we are going to pursue and punish every user as well as the dealers and manufacturors, the war is inherently unwinnable. Legalizing all of this stuff would, in the long run, probably decrease the number of users -- but I pity the younger generations during the first decade or two after legalization. Some of these substances can do profound and lasting harm.

Seamus

[Soulforged]

Legalizing them won't solve any of the inherant problems created by drugs. It would only cause the problems we've caused by trying to get rid of them. Legalizing them won't make them safe. It won't make people realize that they can get addicted. It won't mean people use them responsibly. They would still be a great debilitator of society. You see GC, you're missing the point over and over again. Legal system doesn't rule over that, the sentence is very simple to comprehend: "what you do with yourself is your problem", morality is not the subject of the state, this theory you're talking about is called paternalist, the state assumes the role of your father, and that's beyond the atributtes they've. No there's no justification to keep drugs from being legal, legalicing them at least narco traffic (the most profitable bussnisess of all history) will be out, and narco traffic is a problem of the state, not the same with personal responsability on drugs, the only thing the state can do (and even in this case it will be like the subject of the pledge) is pass propaganda to disuade people, nothing more.

[Xiahou]

Indeed. Allow me to rephrase my position:

Drugs are harmful. Doing them should not be encouraged. Heck, doing them should not even be illegal. Manufacturing them, and selling them, however, should. Why the discrepcancy? Because to try and bust everyone who sniffs a bit of crack, of injects a bit of heroine would be impossible, and most intrusive upon the constitution.

It is not unconstitutional to throw the dealers and the makers into prison. And that's exactly what we should do. There are countless state laws against disturbing the order--and introducing drugs into the working class is the bane of any capitalist society. You destroy the productivity and most literally poison the community.

In keeping with my ethics, however, I think it should be up to the individual states.
I'm with you on that, with one (somewhat obvious) addition. It's fine not to bust people for just doing drugs- but, being under their influence should be no excuse for doing stupid things. Treat any criminal acts performed while high as intentional acts.

As to the alchohol comparison, I find it invalid. You can, and many people do, drink alcohol without becoming inebriated. The intended use of alcohol is not to get hammered. However, the intended use of drugs is to get high. Sure, people can abuse alcohol- you can abuse food, but the only purpose of these narcotics is abuse.

[Steppe Merc]

Well, most people I know just drink to get drunk. Of course they're all minors anyway.

Xiahou, I agree that crimes while under the influence should be punished like normal criminals. But as long as someone is doing drugs and does not commit any crimes (not couting the act of doing the drugs), there is no problem in my mind.

[Adrian II]

Lately i've seen some members (i'll not give names) that call the drogadicts druggies (a kind of profiling), and that they need rehabilitation, because they've to be valuable members for the society, and false statements like this ones.Would you also leave people with serious psychiatric disorders to fend for themselves as long as they do not ask for outside help? I guess not. Well, I have news for you, coming straight from the Sodom and Gemorra of the western hemisphere, Amsterdam.

Over here, addiction to certain substances (such as heroine) is treated as a serious psychiatric disorder requiring outside help, mandatory in many cases, varying from methadon therapy to cold turkey. These addictions are often part of a syndrom, a complex of related personality problems and social issues combined with alcohol abuse, medicin abuse, financial problems and outright crime.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to make a distinction between innocent drugs and the seriously addictive stuff. Marijuana is not a problem. Most drugs do not kill. But some drug addictst kill either themselves or others, or both at the same time, and experience informs us that we better take good care of them before they reach that stage.

[Soulforged]

Would you also leave people with serious psychiatric disorders to fend for themselves as long as they do not ask for outside help? I guess not. Well, I have news for you, coming straight from the Sodom and Gemorra of the western hemisphere, Amsterdam. That's a different case, try to focus.

Over here, addiction to certain substances (such as heroine) is treated as a serious psychiatric disorder requiring outside help, mandatory in many cases, varying from methadon therapy to cold turkey. These addictions are often part of a syndrom, a complex of related personality problems and social issues combined with alcohol abuse, medicin abuse, financial problems and outright crime. Well and your point? It doesn't matter if I want to put **** in me then i should be able to ******* do it, for God's sake is that people don't understand that, this subjects are not for the state to treat. The person that enters the influence and commits crimes (i've a surprise for you), yes, they're punished for that, but the state cannot act like the father and even less enter in your freedom. :wall:

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to make a distinction between innocent drugs and the seriously addictive stuff. Marijuana is not a problem. Most drugs do not kill. But some drug addictst kill either themselves or others, or both at the same time, and experience informs us that we better take good care of them before they reach that stage. And so? Again if the guy or all of us do that and kill other then we're punished for imprudent murder, or didn't you know that?

I'm with you on that, with one (somewhat obvious) addition. It's fine not to bust people for just doing drugs- but, being under their influence should be no excuse for doing stupid things. Treat any criminal acts performed while high as intentional acts. Hello this is an old theory called actio libera in causa (all this things that people have been saying on this thread and others makes me remember the trial by jury thread, i don't know why... :no:), this serves for your purpose and is justified, though wrongly, in many legislations. The guy who for example get's into an alterated state and then commits a crime is punished with imprudency. The one that get's in that state to commit a crime (intend) it's punished with unfinished tentative plus imprudency. As you see the legal system is always working on this. But the drugs should not be porhibited, is freedom for God's sake, it amuses me that the guys from the land of the free and of the braves keep saying things like this.

As to the alchohol comparison, I find it invalid. You can, and many people do, drink alcohol without becoming inebriated. The intended use of alcohol is not to get hammered. However, the intended use of drugs is to get high. Sure, people can abuse alcohol- you can abuse food, but the only purpose of these narcotics is abuse. Oh, sure and how about the ones that uses marihuana (that don't even kills) for medical purposes or just as social drugs (like alcohol, yes like alcohol, ~:eek: )?

[Steppe Merc]

Adrian, I never thought of that, but that is certaintly a good idea. I have always struggled with myself whether or not herion should be legal (not that it ever will be anyway), and I have never come to a conclusion. But locking up junkies is certaintly not a good way to go.

Now I finally have an answer for myself about heroin addicts. I assume that heroin is illegal over there, or not? And do they serve jail time, or just put in therapy?

I think that something like your country's system should be the way to go.

[Soulforged]

Adrian, I never thought of that, but that is certaintly a good idea. I have always struggled with myself whether or not herion should be legal (not that it ever will be anyway), and I have never come to a conclusion. But locking up junkies is certaintly not a good way to go. Oh, oh,... you're loosing your way Steppe.


Now I finally have an answer for myself about heroin addicts. I assume that heroin is illegal over there, or not? And do they serve jail time, or just put in therapy? It doesn't matter it's still a problem of personal freedoms. It's not that hard to understand, don't? ~:confused:

[Adrian II]

(..) the state cannot act like the father and even less enter in your freedom. :wall:I believe you have no idea what heroin addiction is, what it makes people do, and what it does to those around them. At your age many things appear simple and easy, as you state; that is because you lack the knowledge and experience to understand their complexity. There is no way, for instance, that freedom and heroin addiction are compatible. The one thing all heroin addicts have in common is that they are not in control of their thoughts and emotions, their actions and the direction of their life. The few heroin addicts I know who manage to live with their habit only do so because of a carefully controlled lifestyle, a sort of balancing act with lots of daily rituals, medicine and social and professional support - much like serious psychiatric patients.Usually they are the lucky ones who had good friends before addiction struck, friends who then moved heaven and earth to get them the best treatment.
Again if the guy or all of us do that and kill other then we're punished for imprudent murder, or didn't you know that?Murder is most imprudent.

[Steppe Merc]

Oh, oh,... you're loosing your way Steppe.
I have always despised heroin. It has ruined to many great people, and unlike pot, LSD, shrooms, alcohol and even cigarrettes and cocaine it is horribley addictive as well as being dangerous.


It doesn't matter it's still a problem of personal freedoms. It's not that hard to understand, don't? ~:confused:
I certaintly understand it being about personal freedoms. But there is a point between harming yourself and society, and I'm not sure if a heroin addict can not harm society. I would never want them in jail, but rehab, perhaps madatory is certaintly not a bad idea, IMO. After all, if they really wanted to, they could just start it back up.

[Soulforged]

I believe you have no idea what heroin addiction is, what it makes people do, and what it does to those around them. At your age many things appear simple and easy, as you state; that is because you lack the knowledge and experience to understand their complexity. There is no way, for instance, that freedom and heroin addiction are compatible. The one thing all heroin addicts have in common is that they are not in control of their thoughts and emotions, their actions and the direction of their life. The few heroin addicts I know who manage to live with their habit only do so because of a carefully controlled lifestyle, a sort of balancing act with lots of daily rituals, medicine and social and professional support - much like serious psychiatric patients.Usually they are the lucky ones who had good friends before addiction struck, friends who then moved heaven and earth to get them the best treatment I don't care what heroin addiction is Adrian but you're missing the point. If you tend to punish conssume then you're acussing the comsumer of delincuent just for expressing his rights to do whatever they want with thier bodies. If they suffer after that is their problem, the state cannot intervein, period. The freedom is guaranteed on the constitution, that I assume your country has, then quit using experience and use actual law or any rights, i don't care but experience doesn't serve as general rule. The state cannot act like father
Murder is most imprudent. Well I don't understand that statement, but I assume you wanted to say that murder cannot be imprudent. The people under any influence (here called by the doctrine "alterated facultades") is called inimputable (he has no capacity of clpability, in other words he cannot conprehend his acts or control his movements) so all crimes commited under any influece are imprudent, and have a reduced penal scale.

I certaintly understand it being about personal freedoms. But there is a point between harming yourself and society, and I'm not sure if a heroin addict can not harm society. I would never want them in jail, but rehab, perhaps madatory is certaintly not a bad idea, IMO. After all, if they really wanted to, they could just start it back up. You're wrong that's not the problem if it affects other people's rights then they get punished, period. The conducts are two different, one is not punishable the other yes. The responsability on health of the person and even of the entire society is not an atribution of the state, it may seem like it but it's not.

[Adrian II]

I don't care what heroin addiction is (..)No need to state the obvious.

[Soulforged]

No need to state the obvious. So? I'm expecting an answer...

[Adrian II]

So? I'm expecting an answer...Why would I answer? You say you don't care. And frankly I don't care to continue our discussion either.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~raza/pwned-facekick.jpg

[AntiochusIII]

Soulforge, many drugs are highly addictive, even with the damaging effect side ignored, are still very, very dangerous. For a simple example: heroin addicts, no matter how, when, where, or why they were addicted, were unable - not unwilling - to stop the behavior. These drugs take away their free will, literally by manipulating chemically (and possibly psychologically - I have never been addicted myself to tell you, and not intend to). They, practically, became slaves to the drugs. I'm not even mentioning side effects that often translates into harm against society and self.

Even less damaging drugs and chemicals are still addictive and work in the same fashion, but of less proportion. You can't possibly argue for things that take away one's free will like this using a personal rights/responsibility argument.

[Papewaio]

The responsability on health of the person and even of the entire society is not an atribution of the state, it may seem like it but it's not.

What is the responsibility of the state then? To provide laws? Why provide laws... to look after the people? To look after the people we need to look at their education, health and social infrasturcture (the ability to walk in park without getting mugged for instance).

If someone has an addiction they are costing the state somewhere:
Lost productivity.
People have to help them out, family, friends, nurses and doctors. I would much rather have medical resources spent on accidents then self inflicted injuries.
Diversion of resources in police and the law courts.
Motor vehicle accidents.
etc

Next time you see some kid on TV dying from some medical disorder think about all the medical resources that could have been used to help them that have been diverted to someone pursing their personal freedoms.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If someone has an addiction they are costing the state somewhere:
Lost productivity.
People have to help them out, family, friends, nurses and doctors. I would much rather have medical resources spent on accidents then self inflicted injuries.
Diversion of resources in police and the law courts.
Motor vehicle accidents.
etc

Next time you see some kid on TV dying from some medical disorder think about all the medical resources that could have been used to help them that have been diverted to someone pursing their personal freedoms.

That's the problem with Soul's position thus far. He advocates full legalization, but has elsewhere advocated a fairly socialist set of government responsibilities and actions. So, by implication, anyone would get to do whatever they wished as long as it did not directly impinge upon another's rights, but the government would pick up the health care tab and education tab etc. for all. That is the proverbial "having your cake and eating it too."

US Libertarians want the full freedom side, but they are also realistic enough to see that government - a.k.a. everybody - ought not pay for the priviledge. Total freedom without responsibility is, pardon the pun, nothing but a pipe dream.

Seamus

[Soulforged]

Soulforge, many drugs are highly addictive, even with the damaging effect side ignored, are still very, very dangerous. For a simple example: heroin addicts, no matter how, when, where, or why they were addicted, were unable - not unwilling - to stop the behavior. These drugs take away their free will, literally by manipulating chemically (and possibly psychologically - I have never been addicted myself to tell you, and not intend to). They, practically, became slaves to the drugs. I'm not even mentioning side effects that often translates into harm against society and self. Until when should I repeat this, FREEDOM (at the Braveheart style). It doesn't matter if it does wrong to the individual because the state doesn't judge on morals or on the way you carry your life, it's very simple, though people like Adrian II don't seem to understand it, it surprises me coming for a country that is evolving quickly.

Even less damaging drugs and chemicals are still addictive and work in the same fashion, but of less proportion. You can't possibly argue for things that take away one's free will like this using a personal rights/responsibility argument. Free will is not considered certain by all the scientific community, anyway that's just info, the real matter here is freedom, the man does what he wants unless it gets on others peoples rights, is a guarantee given to you and me, and to every person.
What is the responsibility of the state then? To provide laws? Why provide laws... to look after the people? To look after the people we need to look at their education, health and social infrasturcture (the ability to walk in park without getting mugged for instance). First the majority of the laws constitute a formal frame to ubicate material relationships between humans. In the relationships exists always at least two persons, in the way that one intervene in the other for good or for bad. Now we must differenciate, as the dogma states, between various types of areas. I'll just advocate to the one in question (having in count that the Consititution is forever and ever first to all the others, and the first article or amendment of the consitution is always first to the second and thus...), penal law. In penal law there's various principles, but one accepted now for all the doctrine is this: "we judge the actions of the man (not the man) that attacks or menace the rights or third parties", now does drugging intervene in the rights of thirds? No. Does the potencial actions under the influence does? Yes, but then it's another problem, and we cannot limitate the freedom of the people for the sake of morality, wich is not even a subject for the state to treat.
If someone has an addiction they are costing the state somewhere:
Lost productivity.
People have to help them out, family, friends, nurses and doctors. I would much rather have medical resources spent on accidents then self inflicted injuries.
Diversion of resources in police and the law courts.
Motor vehicle accidents.
etc More and more I'm convinced that there's other people that likes despotism more than I. :no:
Next time you see some kid on TV dying from some medical disorder think about all the medical resources that could have been used to help them that have been diverted to someone pursing their personal freedoms. So you're filled with propaganda, well it doesn't surprises me, though Penn & Teller's show has made a nice exposure of this subject i recommend you to see it. It's not the case you're extending the validity of penal law and surpasing constitution, let me see your constitution and I can asure you that a principle just like the first amendment will be there. But don't worry I'll cry much more when we lose all our freedoms because some people think that the state has to take care of us... :no:
That's the problem with Soul's position thus far. He advocates full legalization, but has elsewhere advocated a fairly socialist set of government responsibilities and actions. So, by implication, anyone would get to do whatever they wished as long as it did not directly impinge upon another's rights, but the government would pick up the health care tab and education tab etc. for all. That is the proverbial "having your cake and eating it too." Wrong, the responsability remains on the individual, that doesn't means that the state don't has to provide free services, including health, you misunderstood me. If the individual wants to makes use of it then fine, if wants to die from overdosis then it's his problem, not society's.
US Libertarians want the full freedom side, but they are also realistic enough to see that government - a.k.a. everybody - ought not pay for the priviledge. Total freedom without responsibility is, pardon the pun, nothing but a pipe dream. Total freedom is a dream as you say (i never said anything about that, did I?), but as you didn't understand me, I'll say that the answer to you is very easy look at the first amendment, it's a very simple and absolute principle in protection of your rights.

[Kanamori]

Freedom for Freedom's sake isn't always good. If that were the case, there would be no point to government and we would have anarchy. We have a government, and it is meant to govern. The people think that Heroin is indeed worthy of banning because it is so destructive to everyone. A persons actions have an effect on the society they live in. If someone wants to drive a car into a building because they think it is fun, they get charged under the law of crime. Similarly, I don't have the right to say anything I want to; I cannot lie about people or be totally obscene. If for no other reason than that our country doesn't like the drug-traffic, they still have every right to ban a substance, and they have incentive if the substance is harmful. The FDA regulates medicines that do not work as the should, or are too harmful.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Wrong, the responsability remains on the individual, that doesn't means that the state don't has to provide free services, including health, you misunderstood me. If the individual wants to makes use of it then fine, if wants to die from overdosis then it's his problem, not society's.

I can't understand you here (not trying to be insulting, your English is vastly better than my Spanish). Do you mean:

A: The State should provide free services, but cannot force individuals to use those services.

or

B: The State should not be forced to provide services to individuals whose drug use or other activity has resulted in them harming themselves.

or

C: The individual is on his own, and the State will neither hinder their individual actions nor assist should something go wrong.

?


dream as you say (i never said anything about that, did I?), but as you didn't understand me, I'll say that the answer to you is very easy look at the first amendment, it's a very simple and absolute principle in protection of your rights.

All of the first 10 ammendments to the US Constitution are an integral, and integrated,discussion of rights. Throughout that discussion, the emphasis on the personal responsibility of the individual for his/her own actions is clearly implied.

This may indeed mean that prohibition of any substance is implicitly unconstitutional, unless you accept the argument that drugs constitute a danger to others as well as the user her/himself, in which case the government must step in to prevent harm to another's rights.

What it does not do (or at least should not do), however, is allow the individual to do whatever they wish without paying for the consequences themselves. If you wish to addle your nervous system with heroin but are unable to pay for medical treatment resulting therefrom, why should the government take my money to pay for your care? If I pay for that care, it should be an act of charity on my part, resulting from my own decision and not "public" charity forced upon me by government under the threat of force.

Seamus

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If you wish to addle your nervous system with heroin but are unable to pay for medical treatment resulting therefrom, why should the government take my money to pay for your care?

Exactly. So the problem is the nanny state not the herion addict. ~D

[AntiochusIII]

Until when should I repeat this, FREEDOM (at the Braveheart style). It doesn't matter if it does wrong to the individual because the state doesn't judge on morals or on the way you carry your life, it's very simple, though people like Adrian II don't seem to understand it, it surprises me coming for a country that is evolving quickly.Well, how can you argue that heroin ADDICTS have FREEDOM? They're ADDICTED, for the sake of all things real! Addiction! Inability to get out! You can hide a small amount of heroin in, say, candy and voila: the victim addicted against his/her will. Or better yet, gang actions/manipulations. Or we can blame it on society; yes, we can, and thus society should take responsiblity as well in healing you. And examples go on and on. Or may be you're depressed, and, in your foolishness, take heroin. Oh wait, now you're addicted. You lost your rational ability (didn't we lock up mentally retarded people similarly, or take CLOSE care of them, as well?) and you're now an ADDICT.

Also, did you consider the possibility that drug addicts conduct more crimes like murder, robbery, rape, etc, than conscious people, and that simply means society now has the right to protect itself?

Free will is not considered certain by all the scientific community, anyway that's just info, the real matter here is freedom, the man does what he wants unless it gets on others peoples rights, is a guarantee given to you and me, and to every person.Fine. How about me rephrasing it to be clearer, and replace all "free will" with freedom? These drugs chemically manipulate you in a way that you lost your freedom to decide.

And did you just say records of drug addiction propaganda? Wow...

[Papewaio]

I see society and the individual have shared liberties and responsibilities.

Society should do its best to create better individuals. And individuals should work towards creating a better society. Symbiosis.

A drug addict is not a contributor to society. They are a self inflicted mental and physical handicap. I would much rather have the pool of resources for mental and physical health go towards those who do not create their own mess. At the same time it is better for both the individual and society for the person to be looked after. Society has to look after them, but society would be better off as a whole if the individual instead of being a drug addict had done something positive in their lives. As would the individual.

There is also a side issue in which society may have contributed to the individuals drug use. However given the amount of users who are from wealthy backgrounds it cannot purely be blamed on social conditions.

[Soulforged]

Society should do its best to create better individuals. And individuals should work towards creating a better society. Symbiosis.Wrong you always try to make this analogies, when social science works very differently to natural.

A drug addict is not a contributor to society. They are a self inflicted mental and physical handicap. I would much rather have the pool of resources for mental and physical health go towards those who do not create their own mess. At the same time it is better for both the individual and society for the person to be looked after. Society has to look after them, but society would be better off as a whole if the individual instead of being a drug addict had done something positive in their lives. As would the individual.Wrong again, society has to do something about him? Yes, society has to provide health. Society has to penalice the drugs use or prohibite them? No, the person should be free to take drugs or not to take. Period.

There is also a side issue in which society may have contributed to the individuals drug use. However given the amount of users who are from wealthy backgrounds it cannot purely be blamed on social conditions. This doesn't matter.

Well, how can you argue that heroin ADDICTS have FREEDOM? They're ADDICTED, for the sake of all things real! Addiction! Inability to get out! You can hide a small amount of heroin in, say, candy and voila: the victim addicted against his/her will. Or better yet, gang actions/manipulations. Or we can blame it on society; yes, we can, and thus society should take responsiblity as well in healing you. And examples go on and on. Or may be you're depressed, and, in your foolishness, take heroin. Oh wait, now you're addicted. You lost your rational ability (didn't we lock up mentally retarded people similarly, or take CLOSE care of them, as well?) and you're now an ADDICT. No. The person choose to take drugs, there's your freedom, if lately he/she is free or not, is his/her problem. If he/she then commits a crime then is society problem. You must understand that treating drugadicts like criminals is a fallacy. Also I'll make you a simple exposure: in law we've a principle called of proportionallity, thus all punishment has to be proportional. The justification from the side of reeducation is loosing partidiaries, but if you want to allegate them then it's ok, it has nothing to do with the subject. We've another principle called "prohibition of return", this prohibits the causal to return in the curse of action (for example: A takes drugs, then he takes a weapon and kills somebody, the causal will be the action of "trying to kill", and not taking drugs, thus it cannot be punished). I can continue to give you dogmatic arguments but it will do no good to the discussion, keep it on freedom, that you didn't understand anyway.
Also, did you consider the possibility that drug addicts conduct more crimes like murder, robbery, rape, etc, than conscious people, and that simply means society now has the right to protect itself? Then they'll be disuaded by the punishment to those crimes of taking drugs, simple.Fine.
How about me rephrasing it to be clearer, and replace all "free will" with freedom? These drugs chemically manipulate you in a way that you lost your freedom to decide.
And did you just say records of drug addiction propaganda? Wow... Then you'll have no point. Freedom is the ability to choose, if the state takes that then you've no freedom, the state can limit it to the point when you take the freedom of another person, not when you deliver your own. Again taking drugs is freedom, if you lost that freedom in drugs is another subject, besides all vices takes out your freedom, mostly alcohol. And yes I did say propaganda the one that shows how bad are drugs bla,bla,bla...

A: The State should provide free services, but cannot force individuals to use those services. This is what I say.

This may indeed mean that prohibition of any substance is implicitly unconstitutional, unless you accept the argument that drugs constitute a danger to others as well as the user her/himself, in which case the government must step in to prevent harm to another's rights. Not at all you see, as I said there's no causal relationship between drug taking and afectation on the real world, the action that causes that effect is the one done by the person. The drugging is an act done to yourself and yourself only.

What it does not do (or at least should not do), however, is allow the individual to do whatever they wish without paying for the consequences themselves. If you wish to addle your nervous system with heroin but are unable to pay for medical treatment resulting therefrom, why should the government take my money to pay for your care? If I pay for that care, it should be an act of charity on my part, resulting from my own decision and not "public" charity forced upon me by government under the threat of force. I agree with you, but many here don't seem to understand that. Though I think you don't understand one point, the medical care that I'm talking about don't reduces to drug cleansing (that should not be forced of course), but to advertisements (like the one done of cigars and alcohol products) and others medical cares.

[Papewaio]

So you are saying that society which is a group of individuals should provide for an individual who does not provide for them????


Wrong you always try to make this analogies, when social science works very differently to natural
If social science works very differently to natural science that is the fault with social science and its attempts to distance man from nature.


Wrong again, society has to do something about him? Yes, society has to provide health. Society has to penalice the drugs use or prohibite them? No, the person should be free to take drugs or not to take. Period.
So it is a one way street where everyone else has to look after people who refuse to look after themselves? Freedom with out responsibility is for those who are not adults. These resources that are spent looking after the health of drug addicts is diverted from looking after those who deserve them more.

Imagine a society purely of heroin drug addicts... how is it going to function? who is going to look after them?

If you want to be free of social consequences then you should not expect society to pick up your tab. Every action has consequences, regardless of it being free or not.

Man, this is like having an arguement with my wife, her degree is in political economics and management :tiny: ...

[Soulforged]

So you are saying that society which is a group of individuals should provide for an individual who does not provide for them???? Society is not simply a group of individuals (this is a very positive view, wrong may I say) it's a related group that creates a new entity, that in law is treated as a different person (juridic person). And they should provide for the individual, but forcing is not providing.


If social science works very differently to natural science that is the fault with social science and its attempts to distance man from nature.Are you trying to say me that when you studied science (in the speciality that you did) you never readed the works of Hegel, of Kun, of Focoult, of Marx? You'll see that society uses from the very basis an hermeneutic system, convined with ideal models (Hegel). So not, it's not wrong, man has an "spirit" wich doesn't respond to natural laws and that's why positive science is not applieble in perfect form. And man is distancing from nature, at least i hope so... ~:confused:


So it is a one way street where everyone else has to look after people who refuse to look after themselves? Freedom with out responsibility is for those who are not adults. These resources that are spent looking after the health of drug addicts is diverted from looking after those who deserve them more. Look, do you want to take all health for drugadicts off the function, then do it, it has nothing to do with our freedoms. The formule freedom ->responsability, could be applied this way= take drugs, but if you commit a crime the you'll be punished. You don't respond for the acts that affect yourself, but for those that affects others.


Imagine a society purely of heroin drug addicts... how is it going to function? who is going to look after them? Then it's not going to function, the state cannot act like your father, but this hipotesis is very inprobable...


If you want to be free of social consequences then you should not expect society to pick up your tab. Every action has consequences, regardless of it being free or not. Then for example is you commit a murder i can punish your father for having you? Is that what you're trying to say me. The phylosophy behind law is not that simple. The man is not allknowing thus he cannot be charged for every causal on the curse of an action, only for the most relevant, that wich directly causes the effect.


Man, this is like having an arguement with my wife, her degree is in political economics and management :tiny: ... Then your wife is right and you're not ~;) . Well like always... ~D

[Papewaio]

Society is not simply a group of individuals (this is a very positive view, wrong may I say) it's a related group that creates a new entity, that in law is treated as a different person (juridic person). And they should provide for the individual, but forcing is not providing.

Who at the end of the day ends up paying for the resources that will be used? The state... but where does the state get these resources? From individuals. Even if there is a whole 6 degrees of separation, the individuals will pick up the tab, either directly or by direction of the state.


Are you trying to say me that when you studied science (in the speciality that you did) you never readed the works of Hegel, of Kun, of Focoult, of Marx? You'll see that society uses from the very basis an hermeneutic system, convined with ideal models (Hegel). So not, it's not wrong, man has an "spirit" wich doesn't respond to natural laws and that's why positive science is not applieble in perfect form. And man is distancing from nature, at least i hope so... ~:confused:

No, we specialise at about 15 in Australia. You can drop virtually all social studies at this point and focus on the subjects relevant to your preferred speciality. It does mean a narrow focus, but a strong one that relies on other specialists.

I do not think man is beyond the natural laws. We try and think we are not because it is factual but because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy. A child would use a teddy bear, a miner jug of beer, while an intellectual will try and redefine the universe to make themselves feel better. However a quick step out in front of a train is a quick reminder of how far above the laws of nature we are.


Look, do you want to take all health for drugadicts off the function, then do it, it has nothing to do with our freedoms. The formule freedom ->responsability, could be applied this way= take drugs, but if you commit a crime the you'll be punished. You don't respond for the acts that affect yourself, but for those that affects others.

I agree if you commit a crime you should not be able to use drugs as a reason to explain impairment. However by legalising them would you not then allow someone to say that the drugs impaired them from making a sound judgement upon the correct course of action?


Then it's not going to function, the state cannot act like your father, but this hipotesis is very inprobable...

What is the function of the state? Even if the hypothesis is highly improbable, what would be the end result of a community of heroin addicts?


Then for example is you commit a murder i can punish your father for having you? Is that what you're trying to say me. The phylosophy behind law is not that simple. The man is not allknowing thus he cannot be charged for every causal on the curse of an action, only for the most relevant, that wich directly causes the effect.

I am saying that if you do something or the lack of doing something it will have an effect, a consequence. I was not stating that someone else should have to pay for your actions. You are in fact stating that the state (all the rest of the individuals) should pay for the mistake of the drug addict by picking up the tab for his health. I would rather the drug addict never take the choice of using drugs and instead help others.


Then your wife is right and you're not ~;) . Well like always... ~D

Yes, it is called marriage.

[Papewaio]

Well because you fastforward the death. You must think that what the legislative system is trying to prevent is not the actual death, but the actions that tend to create the lifeless body. So if there's a body or not is irrelevant. I'll say that it's wrong to tend to kill someone, just for the sake of humanity. We as society cannot let the humanity degrade itself because of the liberating of all actions, it will be simple and plain chaos, and will be a great obstacle for evolution and peace. But yes looking at it from your perspective it's just because of social contract.

And drugs of couse degrade humanity.

[Soulforged]

Who at the end of the day ends up paying for the resources that will be used? The state... but where does the state get these resources? From individuals. Even if there is a whole 6 degrees of separation, the individuals will pick up the tab, either directly or by direction of the state. This has nothing to do the point is tha society is considered a new entity, that acts formally through the state against the individual in most cases.


No, we specialise at about 15 in Australia. You can drop virtually all social studies at this point and focus on the subjects relevant to your preferred speciality. It does mean a narrow focus, but a strong one that relies on other specialists.It's a shame, those are wonderful jobs. :no:

I do not think man is beyond the natural laws. We try and think we are not because it is factual but because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy. A child would use a teddy bear, a miner jug of beer, while an intellectual will try and redefine the universe to make themselves feel better. However a quick step out in front of a train is a quick reminder of how far above the laws of nature we are. Well this has nothing to do. The sociology, history, etc. have a total new way to study the world, the real physical world is studied by positive science the metaphysical or spiritual by the social sciences (though it differences itself from religion in that it requires proof and study, as well as an element of natural law, to make all as exact as possible)



I agree if you commit a crime you should not be able to use drugs as a reason to explain impairment. However by legalising them would you not then allow someone to say that the drugs impaired them from making a sound judgement upon the correct course of action? No. This things happen normally (if you want to call it that way) with permited risks, like alcohol. The subject is transformed into an inimputable (one that has no capacity of culpability). The correct solution will be apreciating a tentative and an imprudent crime. In anycase this is covered by the previously mentioned prohibition of return. Look at it from logics: 1 (being first action)- take drugs (permited risk, even protected by constitution). 2- objective condition: man in alterated state. 3- Man without full control over emotions and movements takes a gun. 4- He aims it to other. 5-He shoots. The causal will be 4. So if you'll prohibite something you prohibite the nocive action, and not the self nocive one, as I always said the punishment of the crime is enough to disuade, if that's your position (because looking at it from the dogma it will be wrong to think in disuasion).



What is the function of the state? Even if the hypothesis is highly improbable, what would be the end result of a community of heroin addicts? Nothing the state cannot force the individuals to go against their freedoms. Also if all the people is drogadict, the ones on the state will be too, so nobody can do anything.


I am saying that if you do something or the lack of doing something it will have an effect, a consequence. I was not stating that someone else should have to pay for your actions. You are in fact stating that the state (all the rest of the individuals) should pay for the mistake of the drug addict by picking up the tab for his health. I would rather the drug addict never take the choice of using drugs and instead help others. Wrong, I never stated that. In fact for me the state cannot care less for the individual. The state only provides medical help and psycological assistence for those who wants to use it. But again for 100º time, this has nothing to do, you can take this out of the function, and focus on freedom, that's all that matter. And for the last sentence I answer: then the punishment of crimes will be enough to disuade, it's a wrong look at things, but if you want to still look at it from there, then know that for matters of the disuasion it's enough.

[Soulforged]

And drugs of couse degrade humanity. Yes but the state cannot take actions against all actions that degrade humanity, only those that go against another human. In fact privating you from your freedoms goes against humanity. :duel: