View Full Version : Death Row, Van Nguyen
what you guys think of this?
I personally feel that my country did the right thing as our harsh laws have given us a virtually durg-free environment and we have no worries of pushers handing drugs to kids on the streets. Also he is a drug trafficker and if we don't deal with him harshly, people like him may start using singapore as a stop over and ruining the socially. So I stand by my government decision of a death sentence.
Link (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1520247.htm)
Productivity
11-30-2005, 15:29
I disagree wtih the death penalty, I think a mandatory death penalty is inhumane, however I respect Singapores sovereignty and their choices in setting their penalties.
I agree with the death penalty, just not for drug crimes. I think it should be reserved for particularly gruesome murders/rapes/assaults. Then again, from what I know, the policy has worked wonders in your country and I'm an advocate of the punishments acting as deterrents too.
I hope they give his mother the visit with him before he dies though, it's a bit callous if they don't.
I don't like the TWUs' threats one bit.
I can't imagine this is really going to help Singapore a lot with Australian tourism and trade, but it's hardly as if their laws are a mystery to anyone. If it was all more dubius, eg he claimed they weren't his, then I'd be more suspicious.
English assassin
11-30-2005, 16:55
I disagree with the death penalty in principle in all cases, but I can't see any reason why this person should not expect to have the laws of Singapore applied to him just as they apply to anyone else.
I personally feel that my country did the right thing as our harsh laws have given us a virtually durg-free environment and we have no worries of pushers handing drugs to kids on the streets.
Er... I have never seen or heard of 'drug pushers' handing drugs to kids on the streets in England, and we don't kill people for selling drugs.
Prohibition and harsh sentences like this merely drive drugs further underground and create injustices.
Kanamori
11-30-2005, 17:10
Personally, I think most drugs should be legal anyways. People should be able to do w/ themselves as they please. I'm sure the guy did what he did w/ a very concious effort; I wouldn't imagine smuggling drugs in would be very easy. He knew what he was doing.
Er... I have never seen or heard of 'drug pushers' handing drugs to kids on the streets in England, and we don't kill people for selling drugs.
Prohibition and harsh sentences like this merely drive drugs further underground and create injustices.
It may not happen in your country but in the past before a concerted effort against drugs was made, pushers were caught outside the gates of some schools and we have herion addicts as young as 12 years of age.
What you mean by injustices?
Those are drug traffickers and they are doing harm to our soicety
I hope they give his mother the visit with him before he dies though, it's a bit callous if they don't.
As for this I am not too sure because prison rules do not allow physical contact for those on death row and their families
Those are drug traffickers and they are doing harm to our soicety
I would say that state murder is doing harm to your society.
yesdachi
11-30-2005, 20:33
So I stand by my government decision of a death sentence.
I think it is the right decision.:knight:
I am against the Death Penalty in principle, so I am against this one.
People who buy drugs, are not forced to buy them. People who sell drugs are just like the people who sold "Alcohol" during the Prohibition. Just criminals not murderers. (Tho some did kill to protect their patch, just like drig pushers today)
He had not killed anyone.
Adrian II
12-01-2005, 04:03
I am also principally opposed to the death penalty, but even if I were not I would be of the opinion that it is disproportionate and cruel in this particular case because Nguyen has not killed. I shun Singapore whenever I fly Eastward because two of my fellow countrymen have been convicted there on trumped-up drugs charges that were clearly politically motivated, and since Singapore is not a free country there is virtually no recourse in such cases. If the country gets its house in order at some future date, I will reconsider.
singapore is a strange place... although i dont agree with thier laws, i know that if i step foot in the country i am bound by them, so i have to be careful, its a shame others dont realise this as well
Soulforged
12-01-2005, 04:33
singapore is a strange place... although i dont agree with thier laws, i know that if i step foot in the country i am bound by them, so i have to be careful, its a shame others dont realise this as well
Actually it's a very good question: Why am I bound to the laws of another country?
On the subject. Everything was said about the irrational and authoritarian approach to the drugs subject that all countries around the world seem to fall into, so I won't repeat my thoughts on that matter. Regarding the death penalty, it seems that many systems have stucked on previous human generations, and still use the excuse of vengeance to transmite either state incompetence or society failures to the individual as a form of purge. The reality is different, and death penalty actually "ends a life" thing that under no circumstances can be done to any person whatsoever, but doing it as an example in a case of drugs? It's terrible, if I were the judge on that case (or the congresist if any) I don't know if I'll be able to sleep at night... :no:
I would say that state murder is doing harm to your society.
Yes, thats why we also give death sentence to them
doc_bean
12-01-2005, 12:23
Actually it's a very good question: Why am I bound to the laws of another country?
Because you weren't born in the US ? :hide:
Anyway, death sentence very bad, drugs trafficing bad, drugs trafficing in Singapore very stupid
The reality is different, and death penalty actually "ends a life" thing that under no circumstances can be done to any person whatsoever, but doing it as an example in a case of drugs? It's terrible, if I were the judge on that case (or the congresist if any) I don't know if I'll be able to sleep at night...It boild down to what purpose you think this aspect of the justice system serves. I nthis case, it's as much about detterece as punishment. There's good indications that the crackdwon by Singapore with the death penalty has reducedthe level of trafficking. Personally, if the death penalty reduced the level of pre-meditated murder or serial rape for example, in Ireland, I'd be all for it. Then again I also support the stripping of citizenship and constitutional rights for criminals too, so I'm a tad on the right in these things.
All this also applies to anyone saying he shouldn't die since he hasn't killed, it's a deterrent more than punishment.
People who buy drugs, are not forced to buy them.
The first time. Heroin is an agonist opioid, it creates a physical reduction in endorphin and the short story of this is that this is what creates withdrawal. Most other drugs are antagonist, and as a result less addictive, for example cocaine. heroine creates an actual physical dependency, not a psychological one.
The stuff is pure evil, I'd much rather the US moved their Columbian crop spraying operation to Afghanistan and start cracking down on opium production rather than coke.
I shun Singapore whenever I fly Eastward
Come on Singapore is not that a scary place, it is really friendly as long as you don't break the law ~;)
two of my fellow countrymen have been convicted there on trumped-up drugs charges that were clearly politically motivated
I am not familiar with this, can you tell me more about it ~D
Adrian II
12-01-2005, 20:19
Come on Singapore is not that a scary place, it is really friendly as long as you don't break the law ~;)And as long as you do not oppose the money-grubbing Lee clan. As a journalist I would be breaking the law by merely putting my paper to paper. So no, thanks.
I am not against Death penalty by principles. I am against foor good real reasons: What happend if you execute an innocent? Don't tell me that only the poepel you are sure they are guilty are killed because I hope that nobody will put a personn in jail for 25 years if there is no real proof the accused is guilty...
Sorry for thr spelling mistake, but I am tired... Worked all Saturdays and one Sunday this month... Need money before Xmas
littlelostboy
12-01-2005, 22:31
I think he was just executed. Its 5:31am in Singapore. The newspaper stated that he would be executed before dawn on Friday.
Papewaio
12-01-2005, 22:49
I would have preferred him sent back to Australia to serve a life sentence. :bow:
ArcticSonata
12-01-2005, 23:13
Though I am a far right winger American and definitely believe in the death penalty for violent crimes; i.e. rape, murder. . I think that the death penalty for this man is a little extreeme.
Is this the mans first time being cuaght with drugs in his possession, what other crimes has he commited? If it is his first offense ten to twenty years would have been just. If not not a long sentence, but not death for drugs.
Soulforged
12-02-2005, 00:10
Because you weren't born in the US ?Huh?~D
It boild down to what purpose you think this aspect of the justice system serves. I nthis case, it's as much about detterece as punishment. There's good indications that the crackdwon by Singapore with the death penalty has reducedthe level of trafficking. Personally, if the death penalty reduced the level of pre-meditated murder or serial rape for example, in Ireland, I'd be all for it. Then again I also support the stripping of citizenship and constitutional rights for criminals too, so I'm a tad on the right in these things.
All this also applies to anyone saying he shouldn't die since he hasn't killed, it's a deterrent more than punishment.Death penalty is a rest of vengeance like mentality. Justice is not about vengeance. It doesn't serves a purpose of general prevention, you've life in prison for that (even if it's wrong) at least you can take the person out of jail you cannot bring him back from death. Death penalty for utilitarian purposes is even more terrible, I hope to never see it here, in fact it's unconstitutional here.
Shaka_Khan
12-02-2005, 01:48
I'm anti-drug and I never took drugs; however, I know some friends who have taken drugs and distribute them to other students. They are actually good people who need help, not a punishment that's like a revenge. You shouldn't be afraid of those people. They're very different from the people who forced China to import opium many years ago. ~:grouphug:
solypsist
12-02-2005, 06:30
Don't mess with drugs in Asia. If you do, expect to die (officially or unofficially).
Don't mess with drugs in Asia. If you do, expect to die (officially or unofficially).
Agree...
I was chatting to my friends this morning about the news. As mothers, some of us were thinking, whose responsibility was it, didn't the mother know that her son was on debt and the other one was trying to repay by drug-trafficking? And who is the death sentence really punishing? The one who is being excuted or the ones who love him and watch he die?
Shaka_Khan
12-02-2005, 08:03
When I studied in the U.S., I was surprised by how many students took drugs. My roommate's friend shared the drugs with his other friends. I was annoyed when they came over and got high all night; but I never wished them to get executed. They're all people like us. I think Singapore doesn't execute the buyers, but I still think the punishment on the seller is excessive.
I understand the respect one must have on another country's law even if I disagree with it. Actually, Singapore is a wealthy city with low tax. Singapore's laws are not bad when compared to some other countries. Afghanistan under the Taliban comes to mind. I would've gladly broke the Taliban's laws if I was able to get away with it and live (and if the Taliban was still in power).
Btw- Japan and South Korea doesn't execute the people who distribute drugs, and very few of their citizens take drugs.
I think Singapores society is messed up if it values life so little. Maybe drugs would do you some good.
QwertyMIDX
12-02-2005, 08:40
Singapore is all about happy facism, its just raising its head again.
I think Singapore doesn't execute the buyers, but I still think the punishment on the seller is excessive.
Yes, most people think that the punishment is excessive but only with such a way can we send the message over to those traffickers that we really mean business.
Singapore is a wealthy city with low taxes too. Afghanistan under the Taliban comes to mind.
Japan and South Korea doesn't execute the people who distribute drugs, and very few of their citizens take drugs.
I agree that our laws are harsh but by comparing it to the Taliban reigme is way overboard as I believe most of our laws are similar to britain except the death penalty and chewing gum ban etc. And because of our laws I can walk home in the middle of the night without fear of being mug or anything.
I don't think Japan is that drug free as for Korea I am not too sure but one think is certain they are no where near the Golden Triangle.
I think Singapores society is messed up if it values life so little. Maybe drugs would do you some good.
We value life more then anything that's why we have such harsh punishment on drug traffickers.
you don't show value for life by killing people over something so small as drugs. That is holding the value of life too low. A human life is more importtant than some drugs.
Geoffrey S
12-02-2005, 09:41
While I disagree with the death penalty in principal and find it completely disproportionate to the crime in this case it's hardly as if Van Nguyen didn't know what he was getting into; he attempted to smuggle drugs into a country with strict drug controls where he could expect an execution if he were caught, and that's exactly what he got. A remarkably elaborate way of committing suicide, really.
As for the punishment itself as related to the crime it was applied to, thoroughly barbaric.
Shaka_Khan
12-02-2005, 09:59
...I agree that our laws are harsh but by comparing it to the Taliban reigme is way overboard as I believe most of our laws are similar to britain except the death penalty and chewing gum ban etc. And because of our laws I can walk home in the middle of the night without fear of being mug or anything...
Sorry I didn't mean it that way. I didn't mean that Singapore's laws were like the Taliban regime. I was trying to say that there are other countries with laws that are worse than Singapore. I put the order of the sentences wrong.
I've been to Singapore and I felt safe there; but I don't think drug addicts will mug anyone just because they're high.
you don't show value for life by killing people over something so small as drugs. That is holding the value of life too low. A human life is more importtant than some drugs.
What do you mean small, drugs destory thousands of lives and that is not a small matter and like you said human life is more important then drugs so by giving such a harsh punishment people will learn not to risk their life for drugs by trying to use Singapore as a transit point.
but I don't think drug addicts will mug anyone just because they're high (unless they're really high).
Hahaha so it's all a misunderstanding, no problem ~;) I don't mean getting mugged by addicts but more of not getting rob or hurt by some street gang.
Someone has to die, it be the drugtaker or seller. No big deal.
He might not have killed some directly, be he could certainly have done it indirectly.
yesdachi
12-03-2005, 00:23
you don't show value for life by killing people over something so small as drugs. That is holding the value of life too low. A human life is more importtant than some drugs.
Not directly focused at you Efrem but this BS liberal attitude is more destructive than a nuclear bomb! Nruyen is a piece of crap drug trafficker who was stupid enough to break a law that he knew had a death penalty punishment. He should be burned on a steak with a big sign next to it that says, “Drug traffickers stay the hell out!”
Human life is valuable, that’s why it needs to be protected from the evils that are out there. Do you invite the wolf that just ate all your chickens into your house and give it a hug and tell it not to do it again? NO, you shoot the mother f’er and save your family from having their faces chewed off. Singapore’s laws are harsh but I’ll bet they wont have as much drug trafficking problems in the future. The despicable part is that Nguyen and others like him and worse break laws that force the good people of the world to follow thru with punishments that shouldn’t have to be used. Screw them, IMO they deserve the punishments they get.
The death penalty is bad, war against terrorists is wrong, drugs are ok, we shouldn’t say merry Christmas, wal-mart is the devil, suicide bombers just want an escape from the pain, and gay marriage is ok! I feel like I just woke up in the twilight zone. Stick a fork in me… I’m done!
:hanged:
Kanamori
12-03-2005, 00:38
Human life is valuable, that’s why it needs to be protected from the evils that are out there.
In trafficking drugs, he did not harm another human. His actions may have enabled people to harm themselves, but he is not the force killing someone who OD's. Since he is not directly the force killing them, the action the government did to him is disproportionate, and greater, to the action he did to society.
Shaka_Khan
12-03-2005, 00:59
...I don't think Japan is that drug free as for Korea I am not too sure but one think is certain they are no where near the Golden Triangle...
Korea and Japan has one of the lowest execution rates in the world, partly because they have very low crime rates. So I'm sure there are ways to prevent crime without the execution.
Soulforged
12-03-2005, 01:02
Someone has to die, it be the drugtaker or seller. No big deal.No one has to die, ever, that kind of logic is contradictory with the premise of no more deaths. That only shows a disvalour for life.
He might not have killed some directly, be he could certainly have done it indirectly. That doesn't matter. That way I could blame his father for having him, it's not an apropiate cause. Drugs don't kill more than tabaco or alcohol, many do it less than the last. This kind of aproach is barbaric and authoritarian there's no other name to it. What amuses me the most is that kind of hypotetical thinking "he might this, he might that", law cares about reality not what may happen. :no:
yesdachi
12-03-2005, 02:19
In trafficking drugs, he did not harm another human. His actions may have enabled people to harm themselves, but he is not the force killing someone who OD's. Since he is not directly the force killing them, the action the government did to him is disproportionate, and greater, to the action he did to society.
Oh, I admit that the penalty is harsh but it is what it is. People could lobby to have it changed (I love my democracy but Singapore is a different ball game) but for now it is what it is and IMO it is harsh but just. Someone doesn’t need to kill to be worthy of the death penalty, they just need to be an evil. With the situation in Singapore it is just like seeing a giant sign on an electric wire that says “Danger you will die if you touch this wire” then having someone touch it and complain that they are dead. Don’t touch the wire, don’t traffic drugs, and don’t force good people to enforce deadly punishments.:bow:
Kaiser of Arabia
12-03-2005, 03:36
The world has a population problem, get over it.
So killing a couple of dozen people a year changes that?
No one has to die, ever, that kind of logic is contradictory with the premise of no more deaths. That only shows a disvalour for life.
No. He gives drugs to a drug taker that could die of it, or he get caught and killed; someone usually dies; this time the seller.
Drugs don't kill more than tabaco or alcohol, many do it less than the last.
Erm, that doesn`t matter at all if it is the case; the kill ratio is what counts. Do not come here and tell me that drinking alcohol or smoking tobaco is just as dangerous as taking drugs. The drug seller either kills people, or ruins their life, hence this death penalty.
Korea and Japan has one of the lowest execution rates in the world, partly because they have very low crime rates. So I'm sure there are ways to prevent crime without the execution.
We only have death punishment for serious crime like murder, kinapping and drug trafficing. For the other crimes they are punished by caning, jail terms and fine so i don't think our low crime rate is largely due to execution.
the action the government did to him is disproportionate, and greater, to the action he did to society.
I have to disagree here because i feel that the crime he comitted will do more harm to the society then what we do to him. His action will destory lives of thousands and we punished him for it. I know that you may think that we could just jail him or something, there is no need to kill but that is the law of my country and by comitting an offence on our soil he is subjected to our law.
Soulforged
12-03-2005, 19:43
No. He gives drugs to a drug taker that could die of it, or he get caught and killed; someone usually dies; this time the seller.You still don't understand it. First not always drugs kill, actually you can't die from abuse of marihuana. Second that doesn't matter for a penal case, but if you go to the moment when the police finds about him, not always he'll end death, but even then how is that this justifies capital punishment...It really escapes all logic.~:confused:
Erm, that doesn`t matter at all if it is the case; the kill ratio is what counts. Do not come here and tell me that drinking alcohol or smoking tobaco is just as dangerous as taking drugs. The drug seller either kills people, or ruins their life, hence this death penalty.I see that many people have problems to separate matters and treat them logically. The crime of the drug seller is to just sell the drug, not to kill, those are two separete actions, to separate moments that have two different disvalues. And you're right kill ratio doesn't matter, because all of this should be legal, wheter it's heroin or marihuana, in fact as said previously it's, but the problem is that people tend to forget that the Constitution is the primary law, above all others, of course I don't know what the Constitution of Singapore states, but if it suprimes individual freedoms, then excuse me but I'll stay here thanks.
Also I didn't know that "ruining a life" is a crime...LOL it's amazing how people see criminal law, they're capable of extending the states power to provide for their happines and selfconformity.~:rolleyes:
Shaka_Khan
12-03-2005, 23:00
We only have death punishment for serious crime like murder, kinapping and drug trafficing. For the other crimes they are punished by caning, jail terms and fine so i don't think our low crime rate is largely due to execution...
"Some 420 people have been hanged in Singapore since 1991, mostly for drug trafficking, an Amnesty International 2004 report said. That gives the country of 4.4 million people the highest execution rate in the world relative to population."
-SINGAPORE (Reuters) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051202/wl_nm/crime_singapore_australia_dc;_ylt=Al7ophPKoKD6nxolvBanxUVvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--)
In addition to that, there are people in Singapore who appose the execution, unless that news is wrong.
AntiochusIII
12-04-2005, 01:58
Singapore is a ruthless pseudo-fascist country that does not possess democracy and rigidly controls its own society. Nonetheless, it is a much better place than its surrounding countries, unfortunately, and ruthless penalty on criminals play its part. Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, India, Vietnam, etc, are all screwed up on various levels. Australia excepted. Most of the Asians nation (except Japan, perhaps), notably, however, are not-too liberal at all, if we base "liberal" on the American notion, and they have harsh penalties; if a criminal is ever caught, of course, considering the corruption.
I disagree on death penalty on principle, even if I have no mercy on drug"gies." Those who trade drugs should be on life sentence, but they should live. Those who claim hypocrisy of society when compare drugs to alcohol: I say I hate alcohol as much as drugs, but, unfortunately, it being mainstream protects it from the minority (really, really minor) attempts at ending its widespread and legal distribution. One only needs to see the failure of the Prohibition.
Ah, I could expect myself thrown out of the .org soon for hating beer. ~:joker:
Gentlemen, if our country don't impose death penalty as a deterant to would be offenders, we'll be seeing more similar tragic cases like this:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1848092.stm
" No Parents should bury their children " does this quote sounds familiar? ~;)
Tachikaze
12-04-2005, 04:50
Nruyen [sic] is a piece of crap drug trafficker who was stupid enough to break a law that he knew had a death penalty punishment. He should be burned on a steak with a big sign next to it that says, “Drug traffickers stay the hell out!”
Human life is valuable
This is why I'm so anti-conservative.
While I agree he seemingly made a stupid mistake (I don't don't know all the details and neither does Yesdachi), his life is valuable. Did he receive a trial with due process? Were his rights acknowledged? I thought Americans cared about these rights.
In my opinion, Yesdachi does not always consider human life valuable.
bmolsson
12-04-2005, 07:36
I think that it should be mentioned that the ASEAN countries where under heavy pressure 40 years ago due to all the drugs coming from the area. The golden triangle was filled with warlords that lived of drug trafficking and had political powers. The imposement of hefty penalties was due to weak law enforcement so a statement needed to be made. Even if I am against the death penalty, it worked and most offenders these days comes from countries like Australia, where you don't feel the fear.
In Asia a human life is worth much less than we are used to. It's sad, but reality.....
InsaneApache
12-04-2005, 10:16
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1848092.stm
Nice try, but there was recently a Police investigation into this as there was more than a suspicion of foul play. The family suspect that she was 'offed' because she was going to spill the beans on her junkie mates and suppliers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,1275540,00.html
Looks very iffy to me at least.
Adrian II
12-04-2005, 12:18
The golden triangle was filled with warlords that lived of drug trafficking and had political powers. The imposement of hefty penalties was due to weak law enforcement so a statement needed to be made.I think it has much more to do with the nature of tribal society where the individual is subordinate to the clan, tribe or nation. In Asia, this demand of subordination is reinforced by totalitarian leaders and by strong remnants of confucianism in a number of East-Asian countries. Individual pleasures divert the individual's attention and activity away from the group/tribe/wider society.
Secondly, totalitarian societies try to eradicate drugs because they are stimulants of the human imagination and as such subvert the hold of the thought police over society.
And thirdly, drug traffic usually fosters rival centers of power and corruption that obstruct the official power and corruption rackets run by the powers that be (for instance in Thailand or Pakistan).
You still don't understand it. First not always drugs kill, actually you can't die from abuse of marihuana. Second that doesn't matter for a penal case, but if you go to the moment when the police finds about him, not always he'll end death, but even then how is that this justifies capital punishment...It really escapes all logic.~:confused:
Firstly, all smoking can kill, logic should tell you that. Secondly, when someone sells (I`m talking about heavy drugs like heroin, wich I assume Van Ngyen was trafficking) drugs, the seller is leading the buyer closer to death and is fully aware of it. The buyer might die of an OD of what he bought. This is what one might call attempted murderer.
I see that many people have problems to separate matters and treat them logically. The crime of the drug seller is to just sell the drug, not to kill, those are two separete actions, to separate moments that have two different disvalues.
Ever heard about common sense?
And you're right kill ratio doesn't matter, because all of this should be legal, wheter it's heroin or marihuana, in fact as said previously it's, but the problem is that people tend to forget that the Constitution is the primary law, above all others, of course I don't know what the Constitution of Singapore states, but if it suprimes individual freedoms, then excuse me but I'll stay here thanks.
Argumenting about individual freedom.... :no: I don`t see why people should be able to ruin themselves if they want to, that`s just silly. They might be able to drag others with them into selfdestruction too. So much for individual freedom.
Also I didn't know that "ruining a life" is a crime...LOL it's amazing how people see criminal law, they're capable of extending the states power to provide for their happines and selfconformity.~:rolleyes:
Whoa; rape isn`t much else than "ruining a life". Imagine a society where as long as you don`t murder someone or doesn`t steal something, you can do whatever you want.
Soulforged
12-04-2005, 20:28
Firstly, all smoking can kill, logic should tell you that. Secondly, when someone sells (I`m talking about heavy drugs like heroin, wich I assume Van Ngyen was trafficking) drugs, the seller is leading the buyer closer to death and is fully aware of it. The buyer might die of an OD of what he bought. This is what one might call attempted murderer.Again that's all you've assumptions. It's wrong to kill a man under any circumstances, it's even worse for the state to do it and it's even worse if you only have assumptions. That's an attempted murder if the seller represented the possibility of the buyer dying because of the product. However that's not the case here, and not even death justifies another death.
Ever heard about common sense?I agree with you common sense is valuable, but it must be corrected in order to understand things. Specially things that have so terrible concecuences as an authoritarian law and capital punishment.
Argumenting about individual freedom.... :no: I don`t see why people should be able to ruin themselves if they want to, that`s just silly. They might be able to drag others with them into selfdestruction too. So much for individual freedom.I've explained this many times. Have you seen the movie 1984 (the one based on Orwell's book, I think it was "1984" but correct me if I'm wrong). The question that you've to ask yourself is that if you'll like to live in that world. The constitution however already protects the contrary values. The state provides for your freedom, and only that, the happiness of you or any other is unimportant princiapally because it's subjective. State doesn't have to look at morals it has to look at the free exercise of our RIGHTS, not obligations. And again assumptions and hipotesis "they might this, they might that..." I might be a terrorist, however I'm still free.
Whoa; rape isn`t much else than "ruining a life". Imagine a society where as long as you don`t murder someone or doesn`t steal something, you can do whatever you want.So for you any crime deserves capital punishment or jail? However rape isn't punished because you "ruined a life" it's punished so you and others will not repeat that conduct again. Ruining a life is a vague concept at best.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1848092.stm
Nice try, but there was recently a Police investigation into this as there was more than a suspicion of foul play. The family suspect that she was 'offed' because she was going to spill the beans on her junkie mates and suppliers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,1275540,00.html
Looks very iffy to me at least.
Related crime that still points to the same issue---> drugs. Thanks for the link, it give further support to why such deterant should be in place to deal with drug trafficking ~;)
Papewaio
12-05-2005, 01:59
Its not the death sentence that makes Singapore a nice society. After all all the surrounding countries have the death sentence.
The good standard of living in Singapore is due to its economy. Strong economy, based on knowledge skills leading to a well educated wealthy society. Compare that with other local economies that rely on oil wealth or minerals... those societies don't need knowledge and don't have a middle class as a result because they rely on primary goods and being sweatshops.
Shaka_Khan
12-05-2005, 02:36
Of 20 countries in Asia, only four nations -- Bhutan, Cambodia, Nepal and East Timor -- have abolished the death penalty, according to a 2005 U.N. report on capital punishment.
Three other nations -- Sri Lanka, Laos and Myanmar -- still subscribe to the death penalty, but have not carried out executions in more than 10 years.
Asia's 'grim view on drug crime' (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/12/01/execution/index.html)
bmolsson
12-05-2005, 03:44
I think it has much more to do with the nature of tribal society where the individual is subordinate to the clan, tribe or nation. In Asia, this demand of subordination is reinforced by totalitarian leaders and by strong remnants of confucianism in a number of East-Asian countries. Individual pleasures divert the individual's attention and activity away from the group/tribe/wider society.
Secondly, totalitarian societies try to eradicate drugs because they are stimulants of the human imagination and as such subvert the hold of the thought police over society.
And thirdly, drug traffic usually fosters rival centers of power and corruption that obstruct the official power and corruption rackets run by the powers that be (for instance in Thailand or Pakistan).
1. It might even be so easy that they are so many.... ~;)
2. That would explain the US drug policy.... ~:joker:
3. As in point 2.... ~:cool:
bmolsson
12-05-2005, 03:54
Strong economy, based on knowledge skills leading to a well educated wealthy society. Compare that with other local economies that rely on oil wealth or minerals... those societies don't need knowledge and don't have a middle class as a result because they rely on primary goods and being sweatshops.
Singapore lives of it's airport, harbor and banking systems. All these parts are providing services to the countries around. Trade is made through Singapore since it's so easy to smuggle goods from there and the banks keeps all the corruption money with high secrecy. The threat against Singpore is that one day will the nations around get their act together and not need Singapore anymore...... ~;)
Papewaio
12-05-2005, 03:59
The threat against Singpore is that one day will the nations around get their act together and not need Singapore anymore...... ~;)
Singapore is in a very good location as far as trade lanes.
Also the other nations would have to get their act together and based on past issues it may take awhile... like them all becoming modern, educated, secular states ~:joker:
bmolsson
12-05-2005, 04:21
Singapore is in a very good location as far as trade lanes.
Also the other nations would have to get their act together and based on past issues it may take awhile... like them all becoming modern, educated, secular states ~:joker:
Well, they are. If you been in Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur lately, you would know what I mean..... ~:cheers:
Papewaio
12-05-2005, 04:27
They are indeed scaling up and quickly... however will the societies adapt to a more educated middle class... and will the middle class adapt to a constrictive religious society.
KL is in a interesting situation, they have an oppourtunity to become a tech hub if they choose to do so. They are going down that line... however will it be thwarted by some of the hardline attitudes in Malaysia?
"Some 420 people have been hanged in Singapore since 1991, mostly for drug trafficking, an Amnesty International 2004 report said. That gives the country of 4.4 million people the highest execution rate in the world relative to population."
-) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051202/wl_nm/crime_singapore_australia_dc;_ylt=Al7ophPKoKD6nxolvBanxUVvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--)
SINGAPORE (Reuters
In addition to that, there are people in Singapore who appose the execution, unless that news is wrong.
I think the high execution is partly due to the fact that we enforce our laws strictly and give no quarter to the offencers.
Yes, there are some people in Singapore who oppose to execution but that is just really a small part of the population and i don't think that it will have much of an impact as major of the population still agree to this form of punishment.
Papewaio
12-05-2005, 05:45
[Devils Advocate :devil: ]
I think the high execution is partly due to the fact that we enforce our laws strictly and give no quarter to the offencers.
No quarter? It is a Judicial system that does not have the power to choose an approriate punishment for a crime. A judgement without the benefit of judicial choice is not justice, its a shortcut.
Yes, there are some people in Singapore who oppose to execution but that is just really a small part of the population and i don't think that it will have much of an impact as major of the population still agree to this form of punishment.
Minor or Major it does not matter as Singapore does not a democracy make.
Mouzafphaerre
12-05-2005, 08:10
.
I'm pro- death penalty, pro-corporal punishment (yes, including the cutting off of hands) and pro-forced labour vs. imprisonment.
Singapore seems to be following a consistent way with the first two. Anybody remember when they beat the rogue who vandalized cars parked in the street with bamboo sticks, the TV broadcasting it live?
.
bmolsson
12-05-2005, 09:34
They are indeed scaling up and quickly... however will the societies adapt to a more educated middle class... and will the middle class adapt to a constrictive religious society.
KL is in a interesting situation, they have an oppourtunity to become a tech hub if they choose to do so. They are going down that line... however will it be thwarted by some of the hardline attitudes in Malaysia?
Malaysia is a unique balance act. Political power with the pribumi and the economical power with the chinese. The Northern provinces are a threat to the whole region. I believe that Southern Thailand, Southern Phillipines and Aceh in Indonesia will be a similar "threat" when the polarization finish in those countries as well.
The middle class in ASEAN is far larger than you think. Definition is a yearly income of about USD 10,000 and that equals about 25 million in Indonesia. That is larger than Malaysia and Singapore.....
[Devils Advocate :devil: ]
No quarter? It is a Judicial system that does not have the power to choose an approriate punishment for a crime. A judgement without the benefit of judicial choice is not justice, its a shortcut.
Minor or Major it does not matter as Singapore does not a democracy make.
No, it's not a shortcut but a firm way of handling drug trafficking
Althrough Singapore is not as democracy as US, we do have some influence on our government, as most singaporeans support the death penalty it is very unlike to be an issue at the next general election and if it is not an issue then things will remain the same
yesdachi
12-05-2005, 17:07
This is why I'm so anti-conservative.
While I agree he seemingly made a stupid mistake (I don't don't know all the details and neither does Yesdachi), his life is valuable. Did he receive a trial with due process? Were his rights acknowledged? I thought Americans cared about these rights.
In my opinion, Yesdachi does not always consider human life valuable.
He didn’t make a “stupid mistake” he intentionally broke the law. He was caught with almost 400 grams of heroin*, more than 26,000 doses! That’s not a mistake; a mistake is having a pair of nail clippers in your travel bag, not taping a bag of H on your back and trying to sneak thru security! You can’t even admit he committed a crime, you have to say he made a mistake. That’s why I’m so anti-liberal (edit anti –liberal on crime and punishment. I am rather liberal on other topics.). Why try to sugar coat his actions and stand up for him when you know he is a criminal? Everyone should be mad at him for forcing Singapore’s hand. Mistake… pffft.~:rolleyes:
As best as I can tell from what I have read, he did receive a fair trial with plenty of time for investigating and extradition attempts as he was arrested in December of 2002.
As to my value of human life, it is practically the most valuable thing there is, but, and you knew there would be a but, IMO there is a line that people can cross where they change from humans to monsters who cant separate what’s good from what’s bad, they let greed, rage and self gratification overtake the parts that make them human. These are the people that I don’t care for at all. The murders, rapists, molesters, and hardcore drug dealers/traffickers lives have no value to me whatsoever.:knight:
Edit to add anti –liberal on crime and punishment.
*All you need is 15 grams to merit a death penalty in Singapore.
Kanamori
12-05-2005, 17:54
Why try to sugar coat his actions and stand up for him when you know he is a criminal? Everyone should be mad at him for forcing Singapore’s hand.
Similarly, if there is a law against being Jewish, it is a Jew's fault for breaking that law. That line of reasoning seems silly to me.
And still, you're telling me that moving 400g of heroin is equal to, or bigger than, killing an innoncent? Any punishment that is greater than the action committed is inherently unjust. It has nothing to do with how the punishment was carried out, in this case, or with how it was applied. There is no way a reasonable person can say that moving 26,000 doses of heroin, in itself, is equivilant to killing an innocent.
doc_bean
12-05-2005, 18:51
Similarly, if there is a law against being Jewish, it is a Jew's fault for breaking that law. That line of reasoning seems silly to me.
You can't help being jewish though, you can stop being a drug trafficer.
Any punishment that is greater than the action committed is inherently unjust.
He should take 400grams of heroin then...
yesdachi
12-05-2005, 19:02
Similarly, if there is a law against being Jewish, it is a Jew's fault for breaking that law. That line of reasoning seems silly to me.
And still, you're telling me that moving 400g of heroin is equal to, or bigger than, killing an innoncent? Any punishment that is greater than the action committed is inherently unjust. It has nothing to do with how the punishment was carried out, in this case, or with how it was applied. There is no way a reasonable person can say that moving 26,000 doses of heroin, in itself, is equivilant to killing an innocent.
Being Jewish isn’t really a choice, well I guess it could be if you decided to become Jewish but for the most part it isn’t but trafficking drugs is. He made a conscience, thought-out decision to break the law. Your comparison doesn’t make sense to me.~:confused:
Although not as violent as murder, I think that drug trafficking is every bit as criminal and the punishment could be the same. Hardcore drugs like heroin are very destructive drugs that lead to addiction and the corruption of good people. I would almost consider a distributor/trafficker of hardcore drugs in the same way I view someone distributing/trafficking small pox or anthrax. I think I am a reasonable person, perhaps it’s just a matter of perspective.
Pretty funny doc_bean, about taking 400 grams of H!~:joker:
doc_bean
12-05-2005, 19:11
Although not as violent as murder, I think that drug trafficking is every bit as criminal and the punishment could be the same. Hardcore drugs like heroin are very destructive drugs that lead to addiction and the corruption of good people. I would almost consider a distributor/trafficker of hardcore drugs in the same way I view someone distributing/trafficking small pox or anthrax. I think I am a reasonable person, perhaps it’s just a matter of perspective.
Actually, murder usually happens in a fit of rage, or as a form of self defense (even revenge is a form of self defense too, in a way). So drug trafficing is usually worse than murder in that it is definetly a concious decision.
Pretty funny doc_bean, about taking 400 grams of H!~:joker:
:bow:
Again that's all you've assumptions. It's wrong to kill a man under any circumstances, it's even worse for the state to do it and it's even worse if you only have assumptions. That's an attempted murder if the seller represented the possibility of the buyer dying because of the product. However that's not the case here, and not even death justifies another death.
It is[ the case here. Drugs kills. Maybe even worse, they make you a wreck.
What would you prefer of; living a (relative) long life as a narcotic wreck, with a high risk of getting AIDS, and always struggle to get more money for more heroin; or death?
I've explained this many times. Have you seen the movie 1984 (the one based on Orwell's book, I think it was "1984" but correct me if I'm wrong). The question that you've to ask yourself is that if you'll like to live in that world.
No, I haven`t seen that movie.
The constitution however already protects the contrary values. The state provides for your freedom, and only that, the happiness of you or any other is unimportant princiapally because it's subjective. State doesn't have to look at morals it has to look at the free exercise of our RIGHTS, not obligations. And again assumptions and hipotesis "they might this, they might that..." I might be a terrorist, however I'm still free.
Morale and ethics vary from individ to individ, so someone has find out what`s right, and what`s wrong. There`s the constitution; that`s created by the state, and made sure is followed, by the state.
You might be a terrorist, but you are not caught as one.
So for you any crime deserves capital punishment or jail?
Or economical punishment.
However rape isn't punished because you "ruined a life" it's punished so you and others will not repeat that conduct again.
Yes, that`s correct. However, it`s correct for any other crime also.
Kanamori
12-05-2005, 20:23
Being Jewish isn’t really a choice, well I guess it could be if you decided to become Jewish but for the most part it isn’t but trafficking drugs is. He made a conscience, thought-out decision to break the law. Your comparison doesn’t make sense to me.
You justified it on the grounds that he understood it was a crime. I applied the model of reasoning to something we could both agree would be bad.
Although not as violent as murder, I think that drug trafficking is every bit as criminal and the punishment could be the same. Hardcore drugs like heroin are very destructive drugs that lead to addiction and the corruption of good people. I would almost consider a distributor/trafficker of hardcore drugs in the same way I view someone distributing/trafficking small pox or anthrax. I think I am a reasonable person, perhaps it’s just a matter of perspective.
Nguyen was not even dealing, they only convicted him of trafficking. They didn't even show he intended to sell the drugs in Singapore. I fail to see such extreme evil in the sole act of moving drugs. Anthrax and small pox are fatal diseases forced on a population. A dealer does not mug someone on the street and stick them w/ a dose of heroin, so that they are always addicted. Personally, I've never had heroin, so I cannot say how addictive it is, but I have had drugs which are considered in the same light, and I'm not addicted. From my experiences, it takes a lot of personal abuse to become addicted to some of those drugs, and I feel that there is a popular misconception.
doc_bean
12-05-2005, 20:35
You justified it on the grounds that he understood it was a crime. I applied the model of reasoning to something we could both agree would be bad.
I don't see the link between being Jewish and being a druig trafficer though.
Nguyen was not even dealing, they only convicted him of trafficking. They didn't even show he intended to sell the drugs in Singapore.
...Is anyone going to risk moving drugs through a country like Singapore when they could go through less dangerous places, or directly to the destination country ? Let's be sensible here.
Personally, I've never had heroin, so I cannot say how addictive it is, but I have had drugs which are considered in the same light, and I'm not addicted.
Good for you, the majority of people do get addicted pretty fast to heroin.
From my experiences, it takes a lot of personal abuse to become addicted to some of those drugs, and I feel that there is a popular misconception.
I know people with addictive personalities who can get addicted to anything and people who never seem to get addicted to anything, most people fall somewhere in between. Heroin will probably get most people hooked.
Kanamori
12-05-2005, 20:57
I don't see the link between being Jewish and being a druig trafficer though.
It was hypothetical. The justification was, "he understood what he was doing was illegal." The retort was that knowing something is illegal doesn't make it any more just, in some cases. If being Jewish were illegal, one would not justify a punishment on the grounds that the Jew in question knew being Jewish was illegal.
...Is anyone going to risk moving drugs through a country like Singapore when they could go through less dangerous places, or directly to the destination country ? Let's be sensible here.
It was not shown, and conjecture is not grounds for execution.
Good for you, the majority of people do get addicted pretty fast to heroin.
I'm not asking for your personal approval, but thanks. It was an example that, contrary to popular belief, the addiction rates are far from 100%. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who has gotten addicted to drugs, and I know a substansial amount of drug using people. I have enough experience to tell me that how one uses a drug most often determines whether or not they will get addicted.
Edit: Some statistics, "[The conversion rate of cigarettes]
(i.e., from any use to dependence) was similar to conversion rates for use of cocaine
(24.5%) and heroin (20.1%) (5 )" (MMWR (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/youth/mmwr4719.pdf)).
doc_bean
12-05-2005, 21:21
It was hypothetical. The justification was, "he understood what he was doing was illegal." The retort was that knowing something is illegal doesn't make it any more just, in some cases. If being Jewish were illegal, one would not justify a punishment on the grounds that the Jew in question knew being Jewish was illegal.
You really don't see the fundamental difference between doing something and being something ?
Trafficing drugs is an action, being jewish isn't.
It was not shown, and conjecture is not grounds for execution.
Regardless, possesion and traffcing are illegal in Singapore, that was what he was convicted for. the reason they are also illegal and not just the selling of drugs is because the actions are related (almost 100%) and the possesion is far easier to prove.
I'm not asking for your personal approval, but thanks. It was an example that, contrary to popular belief, the addiction rates are far from 100%. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who has gotten addicted to drugs, and I know a substansial amount of drug using people. I have enough experience to tell me that how one uses a drug most often determines whether or not they will get addicted.
I've known a few addicts. Not a pretty thing. But apparently there's a huge amount of 'recreational' drug users (non-addicts) in Belgium, including a ton of cocaine users and some heroin users.
Kanamori
12-05-2005, 21:32
You really don't see the fundamental difference between doing something and being something ?
Trafficing drugs is an action, being jewish isn't.
Actually, being Jewish is an action... To beleive in the principles of Judaism is to be Jewish... I could have compared it playing billiards if you want to talk about physical actions; cancel that, being Jewish involves many physical actions anyways.
To admit it is a harsh punishment is to admit it is unjust. And deterrance is not a good basis for punishment in society. There are many things which could be used for deterrence very effectively. There is no question that quartering people for stealing would decrease theft rates, but we do not do it because it is unjust punishment.
doc_bean
12-05-2005, 21:44
Actually, being Jewish is an action... To beleive in the principles of Judaism is to be Jewish... I could have compared it playing billiards if you want to talk about physical actions; cancel that, being Jewish involves many physical actions anyways.
We regulate religious actions over here (okay mostly to annoy the muslims when they want to sacrifice animals). The actions of being jewish however, don't normally affect other people, whereas trafficing drugs leads to selling drugs, leads to drug addicts (most of the time with heroin anyway), which leads to drug related crime.
To admit it is a harsh punishment is to admit it is unjust. And deterrance is not a good basis for punishment in society.
I disagree, but then I live in a messed up place when it comes to punishing criminals.
There are many things which could be used for deterrence very effectively. There is no question that quartering people for stealing would decrease theft rates, but we do not do it because it is unjust punishment.
Depends on what was stolen from whom imho.
yesdachi
12-05-2005, 22:26
You justified it on the grounds that he understood it was a crime. I applied the model of reasoning to something we could both agree would be bad.
Nguyen was not even dealing, they only convicted him of trafficking. They didn't even show he intended to sell the drugs in Singapore. I fail to see such extreme evil in the sole act of moving drugs. Anthrax and small pox are fatal diseases forced on a population. A dealer does not mug someone on the street and stick them w/ a dose of heroin, so that they are always addicted. Personally, I've never had heroin, so I cannot say how addictive it is, but I have had drugs which are considered in the same light, and I'm not addicted. From my experiences, it takes a lot of personal abuse to become addicted to some of those drugs, and I feel that there is a popular misconception.
Kanamori your comparison between being Jewish and trafficking Drugs is just not working, stop defending it, I think we understand what you were trying to say but it was just a bad example.:bow: I get what you are saying about him maybe not knowing it was a crime but I am pretty confident he knew it was, that’s why he tried to conceal the drugs on his back and in his luggage.
Nguyen confessed to trafficking after being caught so there wasn’t much need to try and prove what he was doing. And it is true that dealers don’t usually force user to buy their products but if the products never reach the streets there or anywhere else they can never be available to the users or potential users.
Heroin is a terribly addictive drug and I know several people that have had their lives (and their family and friends who tried to help them lives) ruined or seriously effected, because of it. If I could execute the people responsible for supplying them I would do it.:knight:
I applied the model of reasoning to something we could both agree would be bad. It's still a false analogy. Better to compare him to a Jew who deliberately and conciously chose to travel into a State where he knew being Jewish would result in him dieing. Even then I'm pretty sure that's some kind of logical fallacy, we're not comparing like with like.
On heroin, read my post on the first page, it's instantly and physically addictive. We're not talking about getting a liking for smoking a few spliffs after work. The two drugs are realms apart, even harder drugs don't come close to heroine in sheer addictability.
Kanamori
12-05-2005, 23:16
Kanamori your comparison between being Jewish and trafficking Drugs is just not working, stop defending it, I think we understand what you were trying to say but it was just a bad example.:bow: I get what you are saying about him maybe not knowing it was a crime but I am pretty confident he knew it was, that’s why he tried to conceal the drugs on his back and in his luggage.
For two things to be compared, in order to illustrate the absurdity of a model of reasoning, they need not be the same. In fact, it best describes the absurdity of such reasoning to use a very different examples, where they only have one thing in common: that they are permissible under such a system. Your claim was: He knew what he was doing was a crime, therefore, he deserved to be punished. The defining aspect of the claim is that he knew it was a crime. Another hypothetical example would be if being Jewish were a crime, in order for it to be permissible under the system to be punished, the offender need only know that what they are doing, being Jewish in this example, is illegal. Obviously, punishing someone w/ death for being Jewish is outrageous. This comparison is used to show that your reasoning is fallible, thus, the claim is meant to be ridiculous in order to show that the system of reasoning used is ridiculous.
The point being, that is not reason enough to justify his punishment.
Heroin is a terribly addictive drug and I know several people that have had their lives (and their family and friends who tried to help them lives) ruined or seriously effected, because of it.
Some statistics, "[The conversion rate of cigarettes]
(i.e., from any use to dependence) was similar to conversion rates for use of cocaine
(24.5%) and heroin (20.1%) (5 )"
There are many examples of people who have used/are using "hard" drugs w/o getting dependant; myself and a lot of the people I know are examples.
The actions of being jewish however, don't normally affect other people, whereas trafficing drugs leads to selling drugs, leads to drug addicts (most of the time with heroin anyway), which leads to drug related crime.
Which amounts to the addition of another criterion. And my point being that trafficking isn't bad enough to require a death penalty, and that the action that leads to addiction is done by the individual, not by the dealer/trafficker.
doc_bean
12-05-2005, 23:20
Which amounts to the addition of another criterion. And my point being that trafficking isn't bad enough to require a death penalty
That, I'm afraid, is entirely subjective, as this discussion demonstrates. :bow:
Kanamori
12-05-2005, 23:29
It's still a false analogy. Better to compare him to a Jew who deliberately and conciously chose to travel into a State where he knew being Jewish would result in him dieing.
I'm not concerned w/ the fact that he was from a different country.
Even then I'm pretty sure that's some kind of logical fallacy, we're not comparing like with like.
If two things need to be the same to compare them, there is no point in comparing them in the first place. They only need to have the thing in common which is meant to be illustrated.
That, I'm afraid, is entirely subjective, as this discussion demonstrates.:bow:
Since he was not the agent causing the harm, addiction, he shouldn't be punished with that as the justification. Making addiction possible and causing it are two very different things, since there are many things which make addiction possible, and are needed for it, most importantly the persons choice in taking it in the first place, he should not be held accountable for that addiction. I'm not saying dealing/trafficking heroin isn't a harm, but it is not nearly as bad as killing someone.
My point is that they're not even simialar enough to be compared, you're talking absurdities. Reductio ad absurdum is never a valid arguement. I'm not concerned that he's from a different country either, the fact is he is, and you'r analogy doesn't take that into account.
Since he was not the agent causing the harm, addiction, he shouldn't be punished with that as the justification.
You're mistaking the reasoning behind the law. As I said before it's prevention, not punishment and in that it's fulfilling the aims of the legislators admirably.
Kanamori
12-05-2005, 23:56
Reductio ad absurdum is never a valid arguement.
Um, why?
I'm not concerned that he's from a different country either
the fact is he is, and you'r analogy doesn't take that into account.
This seems to be a contradiction, but I guess those don't matter.~:rolleyes:
What does his nationality have to do w/ the rationale put forward that he understood the law? I could change it to a Jew from another country, but the result is still ridiculous.
You're mistaking the reasoning behind the law. As I said before it's prevention, not punishment and in that it's fulfilling the aims of the legislators admirably.
The law is the prevention, not the punishment, at least in any non-barbaric model.
Sorry, that should have read invalid in matters of morality/ethics. Reductio ad absurdum relies on logical consistency and the presence of absolute truth. You can't find that in an ethical discussion, unless you're saying that there is an absolute truth in moral matters and you happen to have stumbled upon it?
This seems to be a contradiction, but I guess those don't matter.~:rolleyes:
What does his nationality have to do w/ the rationale put forward that he understood the law? I could change it to a Jew from another country, but the result is still ridiculous.
That's just my round about way of saying that I don't care that he's another nationality, but if I did, here's another demonstration of your arguements flaw.
The law is the prevention, not the punishment, at least in any non-barbaric model.
Exactly, the law is, bring drugs in and you die. It's a threat to deter/prevent drug smuggling. If someone breaks the law and it's not enforced, that undermines the laws level of deterrence.
Kanamori
12-06-2005, 00:36
Actually, I am claiming that killing a Jew because they are a Jew is absolutely wrong.~;)
Exactly, the law is, bring drugs in and you die. It's a threat to deter/prevent drug smuggling. If someone breaks the law and it's not enforced, that undermines the laws level of deterrence.
What I said should be understood as, "the act of forbidding it in law should be the deterrence, not the punishment for breaking that law." Punishments ought not to be justified by how much they can deter. For there are any number of extremely harsh punishments which could deter us all from crime very well, but that does not change that the society is acting harshly and w/o regard to justice.
Actually, I am claiming that killing a Jew because they are a Jew is absolutely wrong.It's still a logical fallacy, for all the reasons pointed out by many people. He wasn't killed because he was a drug dealer, which is a status independent of location or creed, he was killed for smuggling drugs in a country which punishes that crime with death. It's situation dependent and the fact that he willingly placed himself in that situation is key to the arguement.
What I said should be understood as, "the act of forbidding it in law should be the deterrence, not the punishment for breaking that law." Punishments ought not to be justified by how much they can deter.
I have to disagree.
Hrrm, just to clarify for anyone who hasn't read my first post in the thread, I'm actually playing devil's advocate here. I don't support the use of the death penalty in drug crimes not because I'm against the punishment but for other reasons. As in, it's going to divert both public rescources and attention from other issues, one's which I would support the penalty for. Or that the incidence of innocent prosecution is higher.
bmolsson
12-06-2005, 03:02
The laws againt drug trafficking in Singapore can't be missed. You are informed several times BEFORE you even enter Singporean airspace. There is no chance what so ever that anyone can enter Singapore with drugs and claim they didn't know.
Comparing this with being jew is just silly and seriously rather tasteless......
Kanamori
12-06-2005, 03:47
The actions of being jewish however, don't normally affect other people, whereas trafficing drugs leads to selling drugs, leads to drug addicts (most of the time with heroin anyway), which leads to drug related crime.Which amounts to the addition of another criterion.
The scope of the comparison wasn't meant to be considered in any aspect but as here
Your claim was: He knew what he was doing was a crime, therefore, he deserved to be punished. The defining aspect of the claim is that he knew it was a crime. Another hypothetical example would be if being Jewish were a crime, in order for it to be permissible under the system to be punished, the offender need only know that what they are doing, being Jewish in this example, is illegal. Obviously, punishing someone w/ death for being Jewish is outrageous [no matter if they knew it was a crime or not]..
Read the posts~:rolleyes:
Comparing this with being jew is just silly and seriously rather tasteless......
:bow:
Kanamori
12-06-2005, 03:56
Edit: vulgarities are not necessary. The example was meant for a limited scope, and was only meant to show that the one criterion acting on its own was not enough. It was not saying that the two were synonomous, and I was not saying that punishing one of those things was the same as the other. I was trying to limit the debate to the degree of the harm v. the degree of the punishment.
Soulforged
12-06-2005, 05:12
It is[ the case here. Drugs kills. Maybe even worse, they make you a wreck. "Wrecking" worst than "killing"? Please tell me that this is a joke because if not the discussion ends here.
What would you prefer of; living a (relative) long life as a narcotic wreck, with a high risk of getting AIDS, and always struggle to get more money for more heroin; or death?Neither? Why the goverment should tell you how you've to live and how you've to die? That doesn't makes sense to me. Since rational and liberal society exists we defend individual liberties, try to stick to that vision of the world. Many people criticize facism but they've it very present when they want to push their points, wheter it's because of irrationality or because they actually think they're right for some reason (mystirious).
No, I haven`t seen that movie.Well the idea is always the same. I asked you a question though, but I imagine the answer already anyway?
Morale and ethics vary from individ to individ, so someone has find out what`s right, and what`s wrong. There`s the constitution; that`s created by the state, and made sure is followed, by the state. If so...why do you keep arguing contradictorily?
You might be a terrorist, but you are not caught as one.That's exactly the kind of "wrong thinking". The point is, I don't expect you to be a terrorist, but as long as you don't do anything then better for both. And not "you're yet to be caught". It's just a way to correct common sense.
Or economical punishment.Glad to hear that then.~:)
Yes, that`s correct. However, it`s correct for any other crime also.Again it's a contradictory argument. Then death penalty has no "superior" function at all (it doesn't no matter how you look at it) even from your point of view.
Soulforged
12-06-2005, 05:33
It's still a logical fallacy, for all the reasons pointed out by many people. He wasn't killed because he was a drug dealer, which is a status independent of location or creed, he was killed for smuggling drugs in a country which punishes that crime with death. It's situation dependent and the fact that he willingly placed himself in that situation is key to the arguement.We all know it's for political reasons. In modern times death penalty is the paradigm of criminal policies. It's worst when the crime doesn't "deserves" it.
Hrrm, just to clarify for anyone who hasn't read my first post in the thread, I'm actually playing devil's advocate here. I don't support the use of the death penalty in drug crimes not because I'm against the punishment but for other reasons. As in, it's going to divert both public rescources and attention from other issues, one's which I would support the penalty for. Or that the incidence of innocent prosecution is higher.Are you a lawyer or an economist? Do you see the world filled with human beings or with numbers? Do you actually think in this utilitarian manner? All this questions point to a simple fact, not justice, nor justice process, can be justified nor fullfilled by simply looking at the budget, unless it's in favour of the innocent. Even if you've that archaic view of comaparing justice to vengeance then drug dealing doesn't carries that quatity of guilt in it, nor the disvalue of the action. Remember that the law is a social science, not a natural science you cannot make equations here, you've to look at it in terms of human dignity and the value of the human life, that the state has to protect, not destroy under any circumstances.
That, I'm afraid, is entirely subjective, as this discussion demonstrates. A discussion in the back of some forum doesn't demostrates anything, There are high voices expressing outside, that say: "Hey look it's actually very simple, drug dealing not equal to death" I think that every one with first degree on maths could understand that. Now we go even further in order to make the discussion more human and try to open some minds here: "But even then (in the case of murder), the question must be asked from the perspective of the suspect or even the convict, not only to respect his life, but to assure that this is not going to happen again". Times of tyrany, despotism and irrationalities must take an step aside.
The voices outside say: "This is not subjective, we need objectivity because humans appear to respect that above all, and they should, mostly to prevent that this consecuences don't appear again."
My point is that they're not even simialar enough to be compared, you're talking absurdities. Reductio ad absurdum is never a valid arguement. I'm not concerned that he's from a different country either, the fact is he is, and you'r analogy doesn't take that into account.Talking about absurds...What does it has to do with the matter that it's another country? Human dignity and life depends on where do you place your foots?
Comparing this with being jew is just silly and seriously rather tasteless......No it isn't. And I think that the Holocaust cloud is getting close again....~:rolleyes:
"Wrecking" worst than "killing"? Please tell me that this is a joke because if not the discussion ends here.
You ever see what happens when some one has a bad acid trip? Or how about how Meth kills your brain? Or how the addict ruins their family all in the course of getting their next fix.
Its not hard to understand where the individual is coming from.
yesdachi
12-06-2005, 05:51
"Wrecking" worst than "killing"? Please tell me that this is a joke because if not the discussion ends here.
Viking, please tell him its not a joke so we can end this discussion.~;)
Kanamori
12-06-2005, 06:04
Still, the distinction remains about who is doing what action. The dealer is not the one sticking the needle, and shouldn't be treated as if he were. Even if every heroin user turns into a junkie, the junkie is the one ruining his life, not the dealer.
yesdachi
12-06-2005, 06:24
Still, the distinction remains about who is doing what action. The dealer is not the one sticking the needle, and shouldn't be treated as if he were. Even if every heroin user turns into a junkie, the junkie is the one ruining his life, not the dealer.
If you remove the dealer you remove the junkie.:bow:
bmolsson
12-06-2005, 07:06
Singapore is a society. In this society it has been decided that drugs are banned and seen as a serious crime. Anyone entering the society are expected to follow the laws there. If you don't like it don't go there.
Any other country in the world have it's own norms and views on what is crime and what is not. If we don't like it, we don't go there. Rather simple actually......
doc_bean
12-06-2005, 11:52
Still, the distinction remains about who is doing what action. The dealer is not the one sticking the needle, and shouldn't be treated as if he were. Even if every heroin user turns into a junkie, the junkie is the one ruining his life, not the dealer.
Osama Bin Laden didn't fly a plane in the WTC, he's perfectly innocent ! ~:rolleyes:
The scope of the comparison wasn't meant to be considered in any aspect but as here
It's a comparison, it's going to be compared. Sorry if it's news to you but a comaprison has to be relevant and bear some relationship to the situation in question. You're basically saying that if in situation A, killing isn't right, then in situation B is can't be either. Since the situations are so vastly different, there's no degree of choice in yours for one thing, it's a logical fallacy and irrelevant to the discussion.
I'm not deleiberately misunderstanding you, I see your point but the fact that he knew he was commiting a crime isn't key, it's that he went into a state where he knew the crime was punishable by death.
What does it has to do with the matter that it's another country?
It doesn't, I've stated that. Read the above. Now the point is that the analogy isn't sound, that was a demonstration of one way it's unsound, got it?
No it isn't. And I think that the Holocaust cloud is getting close again....
Yarr, tis true. I can't think of any reason Kanamori would use that as an example other than it's emotive power.
@Soulforged.
Economist in training.
I think we differ irreconcilably. I see the states purpose as protecting it's innocent citizens. This man flouted the States efforts to protect it's citizens from harm and in kind forsakes any protection he would be due as an innocent. In this case, the lifes of the many many people that this man was inevitably going to harm are worth more than his, he who deliberately attempted to endager these people in the name of personal profit. In death, he serves some purpose in discouraging those of simialar tendencies from attempting what he tried.
You also seem to beleive in some higher authority, moral high ground. I don't, which I think is the most irreconcilable aspect of this.
Unfortunately, this is indeed the subject of economics. You have to calculate a formula by which you can protect as many of your dependents from as much external harm as possible. The use of the death penalty is part of this, the threat of it freeing other rescources to be used in protecting from other harms.
I don't like this, but the world isn't black and white, States do not have unimited funds and must make judgement calls on these matters.
Kanamori
12-06-2005, 16:05
It's like bashing your head on a wall~:rolleyes: Just drop it, the thread is dead.
yesdachi
12-06-2005, 16:13
It's like bashing your head on a wall~:rolleyes: Just drop it, the thread is dead.
So is Van Nguyen as of Dec. 2nd IIRC.
Kanamori
12-06-2005, 16:21
Very respectful. I remember similar comments about Reagan when he died. A life is a life, and it's a shame when it ends for anyone. I hope nobody spits on your grave when you die.
yesdachi
12-06-2005, 17:09
Very respectful. I remember similar comments about Reagan when he died. A life is a life, and it's a shame when it ends for anyone.
Well I wasn’t trying to give the guy an effigy, I was just making light that this thread was as dead as he. :bow:
I won’t spit on yours if you don’t spit on mine.~;)
I hope nobody spits on your grave when you die.
It’s the Backroom m8 try not to get too worked up. Here, pretend that this period --> . is a grain of salt, take it with each post. Here’s a few extra....... ~:)
"Wrecking" worst than "killing"? Please tell me that this is a joke because if not the discussion ends here.
Ehm, it do of course depend on what kind wrecking we`re talking about. Probably most drug takers have frequent thoughts about suicide that can free them from their horrible life. In their case, death might seem as a better option than life.
I will not compare wrecking to killing since their two quite different things, but in some cases they are about equally bad. Use your imagination.
Suits me just fine if the discussion ends here. ~:handball:
Neither? Why the goverment should tell you how you've to live and how you've to die? That doesn't makes sense to me. Since rational and liberal society exists we defend individual liberties, try to stick to that vision of the world. Many people criticize facism but they've it very present when they want to push their points, wheter it's because of irrationality or because they actually think they're right for some reason (mystirious).
You have choose one of them as a drug taker. Death usually comes soon, anyway.
If so...why do you keep arguing contradictorily?
I don`t.
Again it's a contradictory argument. Then death penalty has no "superior" function at all (it doesn't no matter how you look at it) even from your point of view.
Death penalty makes it 100% sure that the crime is not repeated, and it has a more preventing effect than jail.
Kanamori
12-06-2005, 19:19
Probably most drug takers have frequent thoughts about suicide that can free them from their horrible life.
You have a misconception of drugs.
You have a misconception of drugs.
It depends on what drugs, I believe. If it is an own word for people taking heavy drugs, like heroin, please direct me to it.
Edit: The drugs might not be bad in themselves, and probably is great to take, but the consequenses of them are bad.
Soulforged
12-07-2005, 01:04
You ever see what happens when some one has a bad acid trip? Or how about how Meth kills your brain? Or how the addict ruins their family all in the course of getting their next fix.
Its not hard to understand where the individual is coming from.Yes it's. That's because you've faith that there's another life after this, I don't think that way, and the state or society shouldn't treat criminal law based on those premises.
If you remove the dealer you remove the junkie.Do you think that the "junkie" as you call it will not find another source? Do you think that he/she doesn't has the right to put what he wants in his OWN body? Jesus is so difficult to explain, and talking about common sense...~:rolleyes:
"If you remove an human you remove humanity."
Osama Bin Laden didn't fly a plane in the WTC, he's perfectly innocent!Ok let's correct somethings here. The seller doesn't says to the buyer "use this because if not I'll kill you" or "if you use it you'll win paradise", he doesn't even induce that thought, he's not even an accomplice. Now if we're discussing this rationally it's better to actually defferenciate things a little before talking. And yes in criminal matter that does matter if you've have any doubt.
I think we differ irreconcilably. I see the states purpose as protecting it's innocent citizens. I too, but the problem is an strict view here. If you don't want to protect the humanity and dignity in the convicted also, then, why don't you throw them in a large hole, after all, both possitions have the value of the human life as null, or ralative, the value is absolute.
This man flouted the States efforts to protect it's citizens from harm and in kind forsakes any protection he would be due as an innocent. No he didn't. And will go even further, he gave this man an escape to tyranny and autoritarism.
In this case, the lifes of the many many people that this man was inevitably going to harm are worth more than his, he who deliberately attempted to endager these people in the name of personal profit.Your actions don't deminish the value of life, the value of life (human life) is considered in abstract. Endanger in what way? So for you the person couldn't do anything with his own body and the state has to be in your back everytime you want to do something to yourself, saying to you what's right or what's not? When you sell you're providing the buyer with the thing he wants, if that's good or bad for HIM then it's his choice, it's a choice for God's sake!
In death, he serves some purpose in discouraging those of simialar tendencies from attempting what he tried.In death he's no more. He could serve that purpose with any penalty, death penalty does not add any more preventive value to the punishment.
You also seem to beleive in some higher authority, moral high ground. I don't, which I think is the most irreconcilable aspect of this.No I don't. The only value that I've above all others, is the human life and his freedom, his ability to choose what he wants to do with his own life.
Ehm, it do of course depend on what kind wrecking we`re talking about. Probably most drug takers have frequent thoughts about suicide that can free them from their horrible life. In their case, death might seem as a better option than life.
I will not compare wrecking to killing since their two quite different things, but in some cases they are about equally bad. Use your imagination.Again probabilities, assumptions and hypotesys. I prefer to be doped than to live in facism thank you. And yes it's very hard to explain this simple matter it seems.
I don`t.Yes, you seem to believe in the superiority of the values protected by the constitution, but then you argue against individual freedoms.
Death penalty makes it 100% sure that the crime is not repeated, and it has a more preventing effect than jail.Then kill everybody. Kill the robber, kill the blackmailer, kill the instigator. kill the accomplice, hell kill me. Again utilitarism does not has justice like one of it's premises.
Edit: The drugs might not be bad in themselves, and probably is great to take, but the consequenses of them are bad.The badness of it is relative. But even if it weren't, bad for who? For you or for society? It's pretty easy, I think, that at least you can understand that it's the second. Or not:hide: ?
Yes it's. That's because you've faith that there's another life after this, I don't think that way, and the state or society shouldn't treat criminal law based on those premises.
Actually it has nothing to do with my faith - its from seeing what happens to individuals who been adversily effected by drugs. Such as being made into a vegitable from a bad acid trip, and a few other little tidbits of what happens to heavy drug users.
bmolsson
12-07-2005, 03:21
The reasoning in Singapore is far more simple. The easiest way to avoid repeat criminals is to terminate them. It also makes it less interesting for people who have something to loose, hence most of the people trafficking drugs in Singapore are on the edge anyway. It's a rather cold view, but it works......
Soulforged
12-07-2005, 03:51
Actually it has nothing to do with my faith - its from seeing what happens to individuals who been adversily effected by drugs. Such as being made into a vegitable from a bad acid trip, and a few other little tidbits of what happens to heavy drug users.It's not a crime to kill yourself or made yourself a wreck. This is clear as water.
The reasoning in Singapore is far more simple. The easiest way to avoid repeat criminals is to terminate them. It also makes it less interesting for people who have something to loose, hence most of the people trafficking drugs in Singapore are on the edge anyway. It's a rather cold view, but it works......But this could work without death penalty. If you want to look at it from pure "cold" logic, then life in prison is the way to go, you can go back if you commited an error. It's still inhumane, but at least you don't take away life.
It's not a crime to kill yourself or made yourself a wreck. This is clear as water.
Making yourself a wreck is an emotional appeal arguement against drug use - hince you must return to the orginial statement. Not once in that discussion have I argued the legal (state) aspect of the term "wrecking" as it relates to the individual destroying their life with illicit drug use.
It is[ the case here. Drugs kills. Maybe even worse, they make you a wreck.
and your response to his statement.
Wrecking" worst than "killing"? Please tell me that this is a joke because if not the discussion ends here.
And my subsequenct response
You ever see what happens when some one has a bad acid trip? Or how about how Meth kills your brain? Or how the addict ruins their family all in the course of getting their next fix.
Its not hard to understand where the individual is coming from.
None of these arguements were directed at the legal issue of the death penelty regarding the use of drugs. ITs a cold hard fact illicit drug use does indeed lead to the death of the drug user, and just as often the destruction of the individual in ways that can be seen to be worse then death by some.
But this could work without death penalty. If you want to look at it from pure "cold" logic, then life in prison is the way to go, you can go back if you commited an error. It's still inhumane, but at least you don't take away life.
If one does not wish to suffer the consequences of one's actions - then do not break the laws of the society. Or in the case of this thread - dont bring, sell, use, or have on one'sr person illegal drugs when visiting a nation that does not tolerate drugs.
bmolsson
12-07-2005, 04:30
But this could work without death penalty. If you want to look at it from pure "cold" logic, then life in prison is the way to go, you can go back if you commited an error. It's still inhumane, but at least you don't take away life.
In the case of Singapore, originally it was more a question of logistic rather than moral valuation.... ~;)
Soulforged
12-07-2005, 05:30
None of these arguements were directed at the legal issue of the death penelty regarding the use of drugs. ITs a cold hard fact illicit drug use does indeed lead to the death of the drug user, and just as often the destruction of the individual in ways that can be seen to be worse then death by some.Yes they were. Viking was arguing why one should die, hence the legal content of the issue inside the category of punishment that he was arguing.
If one does not wish to suffer the consequences of one's actions - then do not break the laws of the society. Or in the case of this thread - dont bring, sell, use, or have on one'sr person illegal drugs when visiting a nation that does not tolerate drugs.That's truth however: 1- Death penalty is not necessary, nor human. 2- He might be ignorant of the rules. 3- Free will is discussable, and I think that the whole point "you pay for your actions, better not to do it" has enough content of free will in it. I think that the actions of the "criminals" are succesfully explained by social failures, almost in a 90% (estimative cipher) of the cases. 4- It's also discussable if I should pay for an authoritarian law.
In the case of Singapore, originally it was more a question of logistic rather than moral valuation....Well that's sad :no:
Yes they were. Viking was arguing why one should die, hence the legal content of the issue inside the category of punishment that he was arguing.
I was refering to my postion - none were legal arguements.
That's truth however: 1- Death penalty is not necessary, nor human. 2- He might be ignorant of the rules. 3- Free will is discussable, and I think that the whole point "you pay for your actions, better not to do it" has enough content of free will in it. I think that the actions of the "criminals" are succesfully explained by social failures, almost in a 90% (estimative cipher) of the cases. 4- It's also discussable if I should pay for an authoritarian law.
Well that's sad :no:
1. I disagree about it not being necessary - but I reserve the death penalty only for the most horrendous of crimes - the killing of an individual to hide your crime, ie the killing of a child after the criminal has raped and abused the child.
2. Ignorance of the law - is not an excuse, nor does it give you a free pass for your action if it violates the law of that nation.
3. Free will allows you to make your choice - if it violates the law - your decision could lead you to having to face the consequences of your action.
4. If one does not wish to suffer the consequences imposed by the authoritarian law - then the one must avoid visiting places which has laws that you disagree with. or don't violated the law.
Then kill everybody. Kill the robber, kill the blackmailer, kill the instigator. kill the accomplice, hell kill me. Again utilitarism does not has justice like one of it's premises.
Let`s make thing clear here. I have not said that I support the way drugs are handled in Singapore, nor do I actually do so; though i find their methods 'admiring'.
The badness of it is relative. But even if it weren't, bad for who? For you or for society? It's pretty easy, I think, that at least you can understand that it's the second. Or not:hide: ?
Yes, it`s bad for society, and that`s exactly why Singapore has taken the steps they have.
A more alternativ solution, would be to illegalize farming of drugs in the country where the drugs are grown. That way, it would not become sufficient amounts of drugs to meet the demand. Poverty in other places of the world is certainly having its effects on the rich countries as well.
Kanamori
12-07-2005, 19:43
If someone understands the risk of the drugs they are using I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to use them anyways... The study I cited on the other page shows pretty well that the harms aren't nearly as bad as we are led to beleive anyways. It has shown that cigarettes are more addictive than heroin is, and that cocaine, probably freebase/crack or injected coke, is actually the most addictive, which is still only slightly more addictive than cigarettes. IMO, most of the drugs on the ban/restricted list are simply there because of social stigmas developed by propaganda from uncle sam.
If someone understands the risk of the drugs they are using I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to use them anyways... The study I cited on the other page shows pretty well that the harms aren't nearly as bad as we are led to beleive anyways. It has shown that cigarettes are more addictive than heroin is, and that cocaine, probably freebase/crack or injected coke, is actually the most addictive, which is still only slightly more addictive than cigarettes. IMO, most of the drugs on the ban/restricted list are simply there because of social stigmas developed by propaganda from uncle sam.
Your forgetting Meth which create major problems for the community because of the substances needed to make the drug and the risks associated with "cooking" up the drug. Try living next to a meth lab for awhile.
Oh, Meth is probably more addictive then Heroin, cocaine, and cigarettes.
And then the effects of Acid and Meth - have far creater costs to the society and the individual then most are willing to understand. So how can using a drug that many don't understand be acceptable?
Kanamori
12-07-2005, 20:28
most of the drugs on the ban/restricted
Meth is one of those exceptions not because of dangerous it is to make, but because of what it does to you. Which is why I will never touch the drug and recommend that nobody should touch it. Acid too carries many risks which are true and not imagined by uncle sam. Still, if people understand what they are doing, I am not to tell them what they can do in a matter that concerns only them.
So how can using a drug that many don't understand be acceptable?
There are such things as Surgeon General's Warnings, and in school we are taught so often that every drug on the planet will invariably ruin your life and leave you as a junkie on the street, besides of course cigarettes once you turn 18 and alcohol when you turn 21. But those are the only ones which are OK in moderation.
Meth is one of those exceptions not because of dangerous it is to make, but because of what it does to you.
Oh its almost as dangerous to take as it is to make. Ever see the effects of a meth lab explosion. A buddy of mine works for the Secert Service and they end up raiding counterfieter's who happen to have Meth Labs cooking at the same location. Its not a pretty site.
Which is why I will never touch the drug and recommend that nobody should touch it. Acid too carries many risks which are true and not imagined by uncle sam. Still, if people understand what they are doing, I am not to tell them what they can do in a matter that concerns only them.
However drug addiction does not just affect the individual who takes the drug. They lose thier jobs because of the addiction, they then begin to look for how to pay for the next fix, and spiral down into a cycle of destruction of self and often their family.
There are such things as Surgeon General's Warnings, and in school we are taught so often that every drug on the planet will invariably ruin your life and leave you as a junkie on the street, besides of course cigarettes once you turn 18 and alcohol when you turn 21. But those are the only ones which are OK in moderation.
There are no Surgeon General's Warning labels on a dime bag.......
Kanamori
12-07-2005, 21:45
This is a herring anyways, I don't care about meth. :charge: I've never tried to make it, but I can't imagine it is terribly dangerous in a professional setting, as there is obviously a supply that meets demand. Your arguments are assuming positions where it is still illegal to make or use at all. My argument is for a system which would legalize substances, and you cannot use harms which would arise only in the system as it is now.
They lose thier jobs because of the addiction, they then begin to look for how to pay for the next fix, and spiral down into a cycle of destruction of self and often their family.
Addiction can be treated.
These are worst case scenarios from people who take it upon themselves to do 20 lines a day or some such nonsense and is a result of incredible substance abuse. IMO, educating people about how these substances can be so addictive depending on how they are used would solve many of these problems, and would be much more effective than saying "just don't do it," because people obviously do.
The social problems related to the junkie lifestyle are more related to behavorial conditioning than to the actual drugs themselves. For instance, it is not wise to take uppers when you are depressed, because the mind often makes that connection between unconditional hapiness and using it, providing for the important psychological aspect, which copuled w/ the physical tolerance, can create the dangerous addictions. Point being, it is not the drug itself which leads to those situations, ie the drug does not cause those inetense cravings, rather it is an association in the mind. And the dangerous association can also happen in many things, from cigarettes to porn and severe video game "addictions."
This is a herring anyways, I don't care about meth. :charge: I've never tried to make it, but I can't imagine it is terribly dangerous in a professional setting, as there is obviously a supply that meets demand.
Why do you think the professionals refuse to make it - and when the lab is found everyone must gone through decon and the cleanup crews where EPA suits. Its a nice safe drug....~:eek:
Your arguments are assuming positions where it is still illegal to make or use at all.
Which is the current law is it not? But then I am not assuming a legal postion, I am speaking from peronsonal opinion.
My argument is for a system which would legalize substances, and you cannot use harms which would arise only in the system as it is now.
Then your arguing only for the individual.
Addiction can be treated, and heroin and coke treatments to addiction are far better than alcohol or tobacco treatments.
Once an addict always an addict. You can tell that to my uncle who was a herion addict until the day he died from hepatis. Or my bother who is a meth addict - and chain smokes to fight the cravings for meth.
These are worst case scenarios from people who take it upon themselves to do 20 lines a day or some such nonsense and is a result of incredible substance abuse.
Ah I was waiting for that - do a little more research into addiction - it does not take much to become addicted to drugs like herion and meth.
IMO, educating people about how these substances can be so addictive depending on how they are used would solve many of these problems, and would be much more effective than saying "just don't do it," because people obviously do.
Education and prevention is what I believe to be the key.
The social problems related to the junkie lifestyle are more related to behavorial conditioning than to the actual drugs themselves.
I don't buy into this arguement at all. If it wasn't for the drug and the individuals actions - the individual would not be a junkie Edit: to fix sentence structure - left a few words out.
For instance, it is not wise to take uppers when you are depressed, because the mind often makes that connection between unconditional hapiness and using it, providing for the important psychological aspect, which copuled w/ the physical tolerance, can create the dangerous addictions. Point being, it is not the drug itself which leads to those situations, ie the drug does not cause those inetense cravings, rather it is an association in the mind. And the dangerous association can also happen in many things, from cigarettes to porn and severe video game "addictions."
Herion is a physical addiction - so is several other drugs.
Kanamori
12-07-2005, 22:47
Which is the current law is it not?
You said, "There are no Surgeon General's Warning labels on a dime bag.......," as a response to my comment on surgeon general's warnings. In a system where it is legal, the distribution can and should be regulated, as with the production.
Once an addict always an addict. You can tell that to my uncle who was a herion addict until the day he died from hepatis. Or my bother who is a meth addict - and chain smokes to fight the cravings for meth.
Heroin addicts can be widdled off it effectively, while meth is much worse, I admit.
Ah I was waiting for that - do a little more research into addiction - it does not take much to become addicted to drugs like herion and meth.
As was shown, 20% of people who have heroin eventually become dependent, which is less than cigarettes.
I don't buy into this arguement at all. If it wasn't for the drug - the individual would not be a druggie.
If it weren't for people, there would be no murder... Being a necessary condition does not alone justify action against it.
Phsyical dependence occurs when the neurotransmitters are replaced and repressed by the drug and the body stops producing them. Thus the user is dependent on that drug as the replacement neurotransmitter. Psychological "addiction", characterized by the cravings, requires the mental associations.
Ultimately, people should be free to do w/ themselves as long as their actions do not directly limit another's liberty.
Big King Sanctaphrax
12-07-2005, 22:50
Ultimately, people should be free to do w/ themselves as long as their actions do not directly limit another's liberty.
Give that man a prize!
Totally agree with you here Kanamori, I don't think much more needs to be said.
Ultimately, people should be free to do w/ themselves as long as their actions do not directly limit another's liberty.
Hince you have now argued yourself into a corner - Drug use does not just directly effect the individual who choses to use drugs. There are both direct and indirect effects on others from the use of drugs. I can give you lots of anocendental (SP) evidence of direct effects on others from an individuals use of drugs. Hell it is available in the papers on a daily basis.
Legalizing drugs does not cure addiction - just look at achocal.
But just to make it clear - I am not talking about Marijuna (SP) - bag it, tax it, have the government sell it for all I care - it is no better and no worse then Tobacco in my opinion. I am speaking about the drugs that not only cause mental addiction but actuall physical addiction and often cause physical harm for first time use to your body.
Kanamori
12-07-2005, 23:30
There are both direct and indirect effects on others from the use of drugs.
Such as?
Even the addiction that may ultimately result from some drugs is not a direct action of the individual in question. Murder, rape, and forcing a drug on another are all direct actions limiting another indivual's liberty.
Legalizing drugs does not cure addiction - just look at achocal.
I am aware of that. Making the drug illegal, first of all, reduces the person's liberty, and secondly does not cure addiction. There are many drugs that may potenially result in addiction that do not necessarily result in addiction. IMO, even w/ many of the "hard drugs" like cocaine and heroin, how it is used, both physically and under what circumstances the indivual uses them, is the determining factor that leads to addiction.
Squirrel_of_hatred
12-07-2005, 23:41
The death penalty is a sick and evil means of revenge that does not belong in a civilised society. A society member's that condone this act to me are not civilised people. The deliberate cold blooded murder of an other human being is a line that should never be crossed.
To murder for suit one's own interest's for revenge makes one almost as bad as the offender. -My opinion.
Goofball
12-08-2005, 00:11
The world has a population problem, get over it.
If that's your feeling, then you should be against killing Nguyen. We've heard over and over in this thread how drugs kill people beyond number every year. It seems Nguyen was actually doing the world a public service by making drugs available to consumers.
Mouzafphaerre
12-08-2005, 00:51
.
Drug use does not just directly effect the individual who choses to use drugs. There are both direct and indirect effects on others from the use of drugs.
Very true.
.
Such as?
Robbery - if the express intent of the robber was to get money for his fix - the addiction to the drug has a direct effect on others. Without the addiction the individual in question would not need the cash to get his next fix.
A direct effect is when a pregant women takes crack while carrying a child.
Another direct effect is while on an LSD trip - you have a homicidial esposide where you kill or hurt another individual.
Another direct effect as a truck driver you are taking Meth to stay awake - and after hopping up your body it will eventually crash - and so do you into another vehicle. All these examble have happened - and all of them are a direct consequence to others of an individual who decided to use illicit drugs
Even the addiction that may ultimately result from some drugs is not a direct action of the individual in question.
Without the taking of the drug that causes physical addiction - the individual would not be addicted - so yes indeed the addiction is from taking the drug and is a direct result of that action
Murder, rape, and forcing a drug on another are all direct actions limiting another indivual's liberty.
Stealing another's property is also another direct action that effects another individual
I am aware of that. Making the drug illegal, first of all, reduces the person's liberty, and secondly does not cure addiction. There are many drugs that may potenially result in addiction that do not necessarily result in addiction. IMO, even w/ many of the "hard drugs" like cocaine and heroin, how it is used, both physically and under what circumstances the indivual uses them, is the determining factor that leads to addiction.
Herion and Meth cause a physical addiction just in the substance of the drug.
It does take some time - but every time someone does the substance it changes the brain - eventually the body begins to crave the drug.
Addiction is a chronic, relapsing disease, characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, and by neurochemical and molecular changes in the brain. Heroin also produces profound degrees of tolerance and physical dependence, which are also powerful motivating factors for compulsive use and abuse. As with abusers of any addictive drug, heroin abusers gradually spend more and more time and energy obtaining and using the drug. Once they are addicted, the heroin abusers' primary purpose in life becomes seeking and using drugs. The drugs literally change their brains and their behavior.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Heroin/heroin3.html#short
Long-term methamphetamine abuse results in many damaging effects, including addiction. Addiction is a chronic, relapsing disease, characterized by compulsive drug-seeking and drug use which is accompanied by functional and molecular changes in the brain. In addition to being addicted to methamphetamine, chronic methamphetamine abusers exhibit symptoms that can include violent behavior, anxiety, confusion, and insomnia. They also can display a number of psychotic features, including paranoia, auditory hallucinations, mood disturbances, and delusions (for example, the sensation of insects creeping on the skin, which is called "formication"). The paranoia can result in homicidal as well as suicidal thoughts.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/methamph/methamph3.html#short
Soulforged
12-08-2005, 03:03
1. I disagree about it not being necessary - but I reserve the death penalty only for the most horrendous of crimes - the killing of an individual to hide your crime, ie the killing of a child after the criminal has raped and abused the child.Well you can disagree...~D. Just remember it's an human life ok.
2. Ignorance of the law - is not an excuse, nor does it give you a free pass for your action if it violates the law of that nation.Yes it does. The ignorance, not of the law, but of the criminality of your actions are important to punish someone, it decreases or nulifies culpability.
3. Free will allows you to make your choice - if it violates the law - your decision could lead you to having to face the consequences of your action.That's simple freedom, free will is much more complicated and it involves external variables as well, such as social situation and other endless ones. For others it includes the genes.
4. If one does not wish to suffer the consequences imposed by the authoritarian law - then the one must avoid visiting places which has laws that you disagree with. or don't violated the law.That's incorrect, the law should change, and the state apolagize, the human life and freedom is always before any positive statute.
Yes, it`s bad for society, and that`s exactly why Singapore has taken the steps they have. LOL- Why?
A more alternativ solution, would be to illegalize farming of drugs in the country where the drugs are grown. That way, it would not become sufficient amounts of drugs to meet the demand. Poverty in other places of the world is certainly having its effects on the rich countries as well.We've to correct some usage of terms before keeping this discussion. To allow something we don't "legallize" somethin, we wipe the prohibition. In the case of drugs it will be "descriminalization". So you'll use the more authoritarian and irreflexibe form as possible. The way to go is to respect the individual freedoms. If you only look at the economic problem, then descriminalizing drugs will provoque the narcotrafic industry to fall. Your arguments are not strong.
Your forgetting Meth which create major problems for the community because of the substances needed to make the drug and the risks associated with "cooking" up the drug. Try living next to a meth lab for awhile.There's a lot of factories and laboratories that causes such problems, however you cannot forbid them because productions has to continue, you can however regulate them.
And then the effects of Acid and Meth - have far creater costs to the society and the individual then most are willing to understand. So how can using a drug that many don't understand be acceptable?It doesn't matter at all. The question here is the respect to individual freedoms.
However drug addiction does not just affect the individual who takes the drug. They lose thier jobs because of the addiction, they then begin to look for how to pay for the next fix, and spiral down into a cycle of destruction of self and often their family.Those are indirect consequences wich can happen in any way, and are not causally related to drugs. Different persons react different to different things. However the argument that it's inderect should be enough to understand the subject.
Which is the current law is it not? But then I am not assuming a legal postion, I am speaking from peronsonal opinion.In fact that's one of the major problems with the media, the courts, politicians and some other people. The law allows it, the Constitution allows it, a law that is beneath the supreme law cannot overrule the last.
Hince you have now argued yourself into a corner - Drug use does not just directly effect the individual who choses to use drugs. There are both direct and indirect effects on others from the use of drugs. I can give you lots of anocendental (SP) evidence of direct effects on others from an individuals use of drugs. Hell it is available in the papers on a daily basis.Taking or not taking drugs is a personal choise. The choise is in that moment, if the person knows what are the risks then it begins to be his problem. You make a lot of choices that are bad and there's no return.
Robbery - if the express intent of the robber was to get money for his fix - the addiction to the drug has a direct effect on others. Without the addiction the individual in question would not need the cash to get his next fix.So robbery is only a consequence if he has the "intent"? It's a consequence perhaps, but only indirect, they're two separete actions that are treated in separete moments. Robbery a direct effect? What are you talking about? If I consumme that doesn't means any harm to anyone...Robbery is only a side effect, it could be generated for an strong will of adventure or for low economical levels.
A direct effect is when a pregant women takes crack while carrying a child.That's certainly a valid point. However you still don't forbid drugs, you allow it and state what are the risks, if the person takes it as you say "he/she should respond for their actions" when it has consequences on the fetus.
Another direct effect is while on an LSD trip - you have a homicidial esposide where you kill or hurt another individual.That's not direct: Taking drugs-period of time-seeing the guy-willing to kill the guy (if he can even want something)-guy death. They're two different actions with to different and perfectly separable intents.
Another direct effect as a truck driver you are taking Meth to stay awake - and after hopping up your body it will eventually crash - and so do you into another vehicle. All these examble have happened - and all of them are a direct consequence to others of an individual who decided to use illicit drugsAgain the individual knows his actions when he consumes. Also you can also fall asleep, as simple as that.
Without the taking of the drug that causes physical addiction - the individual would not be addicted - so yes indeed the addiction is from taking the drug and is a direct result of that actionFirst the adiction is a probabilistic problem, related to the person. Second as said previously the choice is made at the moment of taking the drug.
The rest of your argumentation is pointless, and could be presented as a recomendation to the consumer, not as a prescreption.
Kanamori
12-08-2005, 03:15
Robbery - if the express intent of the robber was to get money for his fix - the addiction to the drug has a direct effect on others. Without the addiction the individual in question would not need the cash to get his next fix.
A direct effect is when a pregant women takes crack while carrying a child.
Another direct effect is while on an LSD trip - you have a homicidial esposide where you kill or hurt another individual.
Another direct effect as a truck driver you are taking Meth to stay awake - and after hopping up your body it will eventually crash - and so do you into another vehicle. All these examble have happened - and all of them are a direct consequence to others of an individual who decided to use illicit drugs
There is a dichotomy for direct/indirect effects of actions. The use of drugs, any that I know, does not necessarily result in some direct effect on another person (PCP is maybe an exception). The inclusion of direct in the original statement was meant to exclude actions which indirectly have negative effects on other people. Such as some chain of events which eventually results in some harm, which is disconnected to the actions of the person in question. For example, if someone says something to indirectly incite violence, a moving communist speech, and a person's liberty is infringed on because a person felt moved by a speech to commit violence, that didn't necessarily call for violence, that is not a direct infringement of liberty. Stealing is a direct limitation. When a junkie steals to support their habit, the drug contributed indirectly. The drug did not invariably lead to that action, so it cannot be said that stealing is a direct result of drug use. The person is still responsible for their actions, what you are suggesting is that the drug is responsible. Any legal system is based on the premise that people can be held accountable for what they are doing, and you are taking that away by saying the drug necessarily results in those things, which it obviously does not.
Without the taking of the drug that causes physical addiction - the individual would not be addicted - so yes indeed the addiction is from taking the drug and is a direct result of that action
If the addiction was caused by taking the drug, the use of said drug would always result in addiction. It cannot be said that drugs cause addiction, since it is not the case that every drug user is an addict.
It does take some time - but every time someone does the substance it changes the brain - eventually the body begins to crave the drug.
The physical addiction is the result of a tolerance to the drug. The body gets used to having the drug replace the neurotransmitters, and accordingly the body stops making as many of them. Thus, the steady user needs more of the drug to get the same high, and begins to physically need the drug for its neurotransmitters. Using it in wider time intervals does not cause this.
Well you can disagree...~D. Just remember it's an human life ok.
More then aware of it - and I am also aware that the individual in the cases I feel warrant the death penality took a human life.
Yes it does. The ignorance, not of the law, but of the criminality of your actions are important to punish someone, it decreases or nulifies culpability.
It lessens the amount of punishment one recieves - that I agree with - but Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.
That's simple freedom, free will is much more complicated and it involves external variables as well, such as social situation and other endless ones. For others it includes the genes.
Free will is not really all that complicated - its the ability to chose and decide on your own. If you decide on an action - then you should accept that sometimes your decision runs counter to the accepted standards of society. When you break the law - you must face the consequences of your actions in the criminal court of the nation
That's incorrect, the law should change, and the state apolagize, the human life and freedom is always before any positive statute.
Yes human freedom is important - but so are laws in regulating behaviors in society - if you break the law - you get to suffer the consequences of your actions. If an area has laws you don't agree with - avoid that area or if your a citizen - campaign to have the law changed - but until its changed you either abid by the law or suffer the consequences for your violation of the law.
There's a lot of factories and laboratories that causes such problems, however you cannot forbid them because productions has to continue, you can however regulate them.
Notice that you use the word regulated - Meth labs are regulated - they are regulated to the status of being unlawful.
It doesn't matter at all. The question here is the respect to individual freedoms.
The direct and indirect effects of certain drugs also effect others - so when in the instance of certain drugs there use by the individual also effect others - it is for the society to determine if its acceptable behavior or not.
Those are indirect consequences wich can happen in any way, and are not causally related to drugs. Different persons react different to different things. However the argument that it's inderect should be enough to understand the subject.
Nope some are indeed direct consequences of the drug use. Again Meth has direct effects on others because of the Individuals use of the drug.
In fact that's one of the major problems with the media, the courts, politicians and some other people. The law allows it, the Constitution allows it, a law that is beneath the supreme law cannot overrule the last.
The law states that the certain drugs are illicit - not allowed - so you have lost me here
Taking or not taking drugs is a personal choise. The choise is in that moment, if the person knows what are the risks then it begins to be his problem. You make a lot of choices that are bad and there's no return.
The problem is that many have no clue on the effect of the drug other then it makes them feel "good". When you take meth - you are placing a deadly toxin into your body - that changes your brain for the worse. The manafacturing of the drug is extremely hazardous to everyone around and both have effects that have life long consequences for the individual and often for the addict consequences for their family members as well.
There is a dichotomy for direct/indirect effects of actions. The use of drugs, any that I know, does not necessarily result in some direct effect on another person (PCP is maybe an exception). The inclusion of direct in the original statement was meant to exclude actions which indirectly have negative effects on other people.
if your action has an indirect negative effect on other people - and what you are doing violates the law - then you have effected other people with your actions.
Such as some chain of events which eventually results in some harm, which is disconnected to the actions of the person in question. For example, if someone says something to indirectly incite violence, a moving communist speech, and a person's liberty is infringed on because a person felt moved by a speech to commit violence, that didn't necessarily call for violence, that is not a direct infringement of liberty.
Freedom of speech is a tricky thing - are you really wanted to make that comparsion.
Stealing is a direct limitation. When a junkie steals to support their habit, the drug contributed indirectly.
The drug has the direct effect on the reason why individual decided to steal.
The drug did not invariably lead to that action, so it cannot be said that stealing is a direct result of drug use.
It can be said that stealing to pay for drugs is a direct effect of drug use.
The person is still responsible for their actions, what you are suggesting is that the drug is responsible.
That is not what I said - I stated that the drug is the reason that the individual decided on his course of action - the drug use has a direct effect on his decision. That decision has a direct effect on another individual.
Any legal system is based on the premise that people can be held accountable for what they are doing, and you are taking that away by saying the drug necessarily results in those things, which it obviously does not.
The desire to use the illicit drug has an direct effect on the individuals decsion making process - they are still responsible for their decisions and will be held accountable for their actions if caught and bounded over for train. To say using illegal drugs has no direct affect on others is incorrect - everyday we see evidence of someone's drug use having a direct effect on someone else - and even more indirect effects.
I see however that you have avoided the driving accidents caused by individuals who use drugs while driving.
If the addiction was caused by taking the drug, the use of said drug would always result in addiction. It cannot be said that drugs cause addiction, since it is not the case that every drug user is an addict.
Take Meth or herion and you will become an addict, it doesn't take long. Again just look at tobacco and achocal. Everyone that smokes tobacco is also an addict. Just watch them try to quit
The physical addiction is the result of a tolerance to the drug. The body gets used to having the drug replace the neurotransmitters, and accordingly the body stops making as many of them. Thus, the steady user needs more of the drug to get the same high, and begins to physically need the drug for its neurotransmitters. Using it in wider time intervals does not cause this.
didn't I just state that in a very simple form.....
Soulforged
12-08-2005, 03:44
More then aware of it - and I am also aware that the individual in the cases I feel warrant the death penality took a human life.The correct perspective is to put yourself in the shoes of the convicted not in the ones of the victim,
It lessens the amount of punishment one recieves - that I agree with - but Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.Of course it doesn't excuse ones actions, because we didn't knew it...
Free will is not really all that complicated - its the ability to chose and decide on your own. If you decide on an action - then you should accept that sometimes your decision runs counter to the accepted standards of society. When you break the law - you must face the consequences of your actions in the criminal court of the nationFree will is complicated in fact. All the discussion and agnosticism surrounding it prooves it. That's why I try to separate the simple ability to choose and the one influenced for the social life.
Yes human freedom is important - but so are laws in regulating behaviors in society - if you break the law - you get to suffer the consequences of your actions. If an area has laws you don't agree with - avoid that area or if your a citizen - campaign to have the law changed - but until its changed you either abid by the law or suffer the consequences for your violation of the law.But what if you don't know of the existence of that law before entering the country?
Notice that you use the word regulated - Meth labs are regulated - they are regulated to the status of being unlawful.Ha! Well nice joke ~:joker: . You know that the point is descriminalizing and then regulate.
The direct and indirect effects of certain drugs also effect others - so when in the instance of certain drugs there use by the individual also effect others - it is for the society to determine if its acceptable behavior or not.Almost everything that you do, good or bad, has an effect, what matters for criminal law is the direct correlation between an effect and it's cause.
Nope some are indeed direct consequences of the drug use. Again Meth has direct effects on others because of the Individuals use of the drug.Ok, this is another issue. If drugs are descriminalized, then they should be only used in places expressely constructed to that end or in privacy. That includes tabacco as well.
The law states that the certain drugs are illicit - not allowed - so you have lost me hereThe Constitution is law also, and it's above all others. In fact any rule against the constitution is illegitime. It's just a de facto aplication, it has no form (in the case of drugs).
The problem is that many have no clue on the effect of the drug other then it makes them feel "good". When you take meth - you are placing a deadly toxin into your body - that changes your brain for the worse. The manafacturing of the drug is extremely hazardous to everyone around and both have effects that have life long consequences for the individual and often for the addict consequences for their family members as well.Again, direct and indirect consequences into other people has nothing to do with the drug, but with the person that takes it, it will be good to separate this to understand why this is a simple matter of freedom. Now about the acknowlegment of the risks, as I said, if they're descriminalized then they should be regulated, that includes from taxes to simple recomendations or warnings about the possible consequences of it's usage, but as long as their usage is criminalized (well it's not really the usage it's the tenance) you cannot regulate them. Descriminalizing will bring a lot of solutions indeed.
Edit: Spelling...again :rolleyes:
Kanamori
12-08-2005, 04:41
if your action has an indirect negative effect on other people - and what you are doing violates the law - then you have effected other people with your actions.
OK, I should have thought of a better example than muddeling it w/ a free speech issue. If someone falls down some stairs into someone else accidentally, and consequently, the other person falls down the stairs and injures their head, the person who initially fell is not responsible.
The drug has the direct effect on the reason why individual decided to steal.
You are looking backwards in events. The drug did not cause him to steal any more than being poor causes someone to steal. Perhaps more concisely and clearly put: the action of taking the drug only directly resulted in effects in that person. Anything else that eventually happens is indirect. And it is quite another thing to say that it caused something.
It can be said that stealing to pay for drugs is a direct effect of drug use.
Drug use does not necessarily result in stealing. Addiction may provide motive for theft, but it does not cause it. At any rate, saying that stealing to pay for a drug is a direct effect of drug use is a tautology.
That is not what I said - I stated that the drug is the reason that the individual decided on his course of action - the drug use has a direct effect on his decision.
Which means that the drug did not cause the behavior. Addiction, which may or may not result from drug use, may or may not precipitate in theft. Ultimately, the person makes a choice, and saying that theft directly resulted from drug addiction is to say that drug addiction caused the theft, which is not the case.
To say using illegal drugs has no direct affect on others is incorrect - everyday we see evidence of someone's drug use having a direct effect on someone else - and even more indirect effects.
Only smoked drugs have direct effects on other people. Otherwise, the act of taking a drug only has a direct effect on the individual in question.
I see however that you have avoided the driving accidents caused by individuals who use drugs while driving.
It is illegal for someone to drive while under the influence, because their ability to make decisions related to driving are inhibited. The act of drinking itself is not illegal.
Take Meth or herion and you will become an addict, it doesn't take long. Again just look at tobacco and achocal. Everyone that smokes tobacco is also an addict. Just watch them try to quit
So, why is it OK to be addicted to those two and not others?
At any rate, I've had tobaccy many times more than once, and I'm not addicted. At this point, referring back to that study, cocaine is more addictive than heroin or cigs, and I've had it more than once, twice, three, or four times, and I'm not addicted. I respect what it can do to me if I abuse it, and that keeps me from abusing it. I can keep it from becoming a habit. Treating it like one would treat eating is how the addiction happens. Every person I know that has had it is not addicted, and they've had more than I.
didn't I just state that in a very simple form.....
When you said,
It does take some time - but every time someone does the substance it changes the brain - eventually the body begins to crave the drug.
I took it to mean that if someone continued to use some drug that is potentially addictive, they would eventually become addicted. This is not the case, your brain only gets dependent on the substance if it stops making the neurtransmitter. Spread out use does not cause your brain to cease making its transmitters.
OK, I should have thought of a better example than muddeling it w/ a free speech issue. If someone falls down some stairs into someone else accidentally, and consequently, the other person falls down the stairs and injures their head, the person who initially fell is not responsible.
Falling down the stairs is an accident of circumstances - so yes the individual who fell and landed on someone else is not responsible. Drug use is a choice - a decision is necessary. Every action that happens because of this choice is the direct responsiblity of the individual who chose to use drugs. That choice has both direct and indirect consequences to others.
You are looking backwards in events. The drug did not cause him to steal any more than being poor causes someone to steal. Perhaps more concisely and clearly put: the action of taking the drug only directly resulted in effects in that person. Anything else that eventually happens is indirect. And it is quite another thing to say that it caused something.
If I take meth and get on the road - two conscience decisions on my part - and I run into someone and kill them because I am crashing off of the drug - there is a direct consequence to someone else from my use of the drug.
Drug use does not necessarily result in stealing. Addiction may provide motive for theft, but it does not cause it. At any rate, saying that stealing to pay for a drug is a direct effect of drug use is a tautology.
Ah a new word - however I don't believe it falls into that category - it might be a logical fallacy - but I don't see the a : needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word If the sole reason for stealing is to pay for the drug use - that is a direct result of using the drug caused by the addiction to the substance.
Which means that the drug did not cause the behavior. Addiction, which may or may not result from drug use, may or may not precipitate in theft. Ultimately, the person makes a choice, and saying that theft directly resulted from drug addiction is to say that drug addiction caused the theft, which is not the case.
However reality shows that drug addiction does lead to crime - so saying that theft for the sole purpose of feeding your drug addiction is indeed correct and is a direct consequence of that individual's choice to use illicit drugs.
Only smoked drugs have direct effects on other people. Otherwise, the act of taking a drug only has a direct effect on the individual in question.
Getting runover by someone high on Meth is a direct effect of that individual being on drugs and driving. Two bad choices.
It is illegal for someone to drive while under the influence, because their ability to make decisions related to driving are inhibited. The act of drinking itself is not illegal.
Which is a direct consequence of that individuals use of achocal and/or drugs.
So, why is it OK to be addicted to those two and not others?
Its not in my opinion - addiction is a bad thing regardless if the substance is legal or illicit.
At any rate, I've had tobaccy many times more than once, and I'm not addicted. At this point, referring back to that study, cocaine is more addictive than heroin or cigs, and I've had it more than once, twice, three, or four times, and I'm not addicted. I respect what it can do to me if I abuse it, and that keeps me from abusing it. I can keep it from becoming a habit. Treating it like one would treat eating is how the addiction happens. Every person I know that has had it is not addicted, and they've had more than I.
The addiction comes from when your mind and your body crave the sustance. Different people require different amounts of the any substance to become addicted. Certain substances are more addictive then others - some of those substances have a tendency toward not only harming the individual that choses to use the substance but direct and indirect negative effects on the individauls around them.
When you said,
I took it to mean that if someone continued to use some drug that is potentially addictive, they would eventually become addicted. This is not the case, your brain only gets dependent on the substance if it stops making the neurtransmitter. Spread out use does not cause your brain to cease making its transmitters.
Continued use of the same drug has been shown to be addictive - so what I stated is exactly what you precieved it to mean. Meth changes the brain everytime the individaul decides to use it, through the damage caused by the toxins one has ingested
From a previous linked source..
In scientific studies examining the consequences of long-term methamphetamine exposure in animals, concern has arisen over its toxic effects on the brain. Researchers have reported that as much as 50 percent of the dopamine-producing cells in the brain can be damaged after prolonged exposure to relatively low levels of methamphetamine. Researchers also have found that serotonin-containing nerve cells may be damaged even more extensively. Whether this toxicity is related to the psychosis seen in some long-term methamphetamine abusers is still an open question.
Kanamori
12-08-2005, 06:53
OK, I should have thought of a better example than muddeling it w/ a free speech issue. If someone falls down some stairs into someone else accidentally, and consequently, the other person falls down the stairs and injures their head, the person who initially fell is not responsible.
Falling down the stairs is an accident of circumstances - so yes the individual who fell and landed on someone else is not responsible. Drug use is a choice - a decision is necessary. Every action that happens because of this choice is the direct responsiblity of the individual who chose to use drugs. That choice has both direct and indirect consequences to others.
Responsible was an ambiguous choice of a word on my part. The person's (B's) injury is not a direct result of the first person (A) falling, i.e. B slipped on a banana peel after A struck B. The injury would be a direct result of A's falling if B had gotten injured from the act of A falling, i.e. if A's elbow had struck B in the head.
If I take meth and get on the road - two conscience decisions on my part - and I run into someone and kill them because I am crashing off of the drug - there is a direct consequence to someone else from my use of the drug.
I do not suggest that a person should be able to use drugs while driving.
Ah a new word - however I don't believe it falls into that category - it might be a logical fallacy - but I don't see the a : needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word If the sole reason for stealing is to pay for the drug use - that is a direct result of using the drug caused by the addiction to the substance.
It is meaningless in the discussion. The statment is true regardless of whether or not the claims are actually true. And, it is not true that drugs cause theft. To say that drug addiction causes theft means that every drug addiction ever experienced caused theft, which is not true. Drug addiction may correlate with theft, but it does not cause it.
Researchers have reported that as much as 50 percent of the dopamine-producing cells in the brain can be damaged after prolonged exposure to relatively low levels of methamphetamine.
How long is prolonged? And prolong implies continuous use, not separate spaced out use. And still, any harm done to the individual is a result of choice.
How long is prolonged? And prolong implies continuous use, not separate spaced out use. And still, any harm done to the individual is a result of choice.
Yes its continous use and it doesn't take long.
Kanamori
12-08-2005, 07:03
Then, I believe the proper course of action is for the government is to recommend that people not use meth, just as they recommend that people not drink bleach...
Then, I believe the proper course of action is for the government is to recommend that people not use meth, just as they recommend that people not drink bleach...
And the government has done so by making the production and consumption of Meth illegal - because of the danger that it presents to the community and the individual
bmolsson
12-08-2005, 08:05
If someone understands the risk of the drugs they are using I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to use them anyways...
In the case of Singapore, that is irrelevant. Singapore have decided that so is not the case and they have created laws to enforce this. :bow:
doc_bean
12-08-2005, 12:34
About the Meth thing, I know several people who stopped using speed (which afaik is the same thing) without much trouble...
But I agree with redleg that drugs don't just affect the individual and hence can be forbidden or regulated by society. :bow:
LOL- Why?
You`ve got an astounding imagination.
All the money that`s spent to help drug takers might give you a hint, although I am afraid that it`s not enough.
We've to correct some usage of terms before keeping this discussion. To allow something we don't "legallize" somethin, we wipe the prohibition. In the case of drugs it will be "descriminalization". So you'll use the more authoritarian and irreflexibe form as possible. The way to go is to respect the individual freedoms. If you only look at the economic problem, then descriminalizing drugs will provoque the narcotrafic industry to fall. Your arguments are not strong.
Remove drug farmers in poor countries by iron fist, keep them away and the drug trafficking is mainly out. Finito.
By decriminalizing drugs you won`t get anywhere, that`s logic. Just look at the tobacco market, wich is much bigger than the drug market, though probably less valuable.
littlelostboy
12-08-2005, 19:15
Well, I've been out of the forum for a week due to some busy events like attending a concert (rock yah! ~:cheers: ) and also due to lots of homework. Damn IB. Anyway, I didn't read this whole thread and it seems that there's some very strong debate going on. Well, this is not the first time my little island country came under scrunity from the Western world who believe in human freedom and all those humane measure things. Sorry, if I sound ignorant but its 1am here.
Well, you have to look at it this way, when Singapore gained independence in 1965, Lee Kuan Yew (longest serving PM in the World) decided to crack down on all chinese secret societies (kinda like mafia but chinese and this secret societies had lots and lots of rituals) that was rampage in Singapore. My dad told me that in his neighborhood, there were lots of gangs and one or two secret societies. LKY reliezed that in order to bring in investors into Singapore, he had to bring Law and Order and he decided to do it the hard way. He cracked down on Communists (there is a reason why but I forgot and most of the Commies fled to Malaysia or Thailand) and also on the secret societies. He introduced the 'caning' system whereby a criminal will serve a number of years in prison and also get a certain amount of strokes of the 'cane' depending on the serverity on your crime.
Now, this canning is not just some 'pull down your trousers and bend over your knees' canning. What they do is that they tie your hands to two corners so that you are spread eagle in the air and then a guy will be behind you. When everything is ready, the guy will come running at you with full speed with this long inch thick cane and slash you across your bare butt. I've seen a video of a canning process, not pretty at all, some criminal even fainted and the canning process would stop only to resume the next time you feel better.
LKY believe that by doing this, criminal will feel the 'pain' and the shock and will think twice before commiting a crime again. That is how he brought crime down single-handly. In fact, I read somewhere that a reporter interview an ex-criminal and the reporter asked whether the criminal would commit a crime again and the criminal said never because he never want to experience the canning process again.
Well, there is a lot of other things behind the death penalty and this canning process but if possible, go to Amazon and search of 'Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and his Ideas', it explains a lot about his policies in Singapore.
Thank you for your attention to this lenghty post. :bow:
yesdachi
12-08-2005, 19:50
Thanks for the insight littlelostboy.~:)
I would be curious to see how it would work in the US.:bow:
Kanamori
12-08-2005, 22:50
LKY believe that by doing this, criminal will feel the 'pain' and the shock and will think twice before commiting a crime again. That is how he brought crime down single-handly. In fact, I read somewhere that a reporter interview an ex-criminal and the reporter asked whether the criminal would commit a crime again and the criminal said never because he never want to experience the canning process again.
If it is more effective to stop crime by executing people in gruesome ways, why not do it? In a system where the people are terrified of their government, there is not possibility for redress, and the government makes mistakes. It is far from being a God-like, all knowing, entity. Sorry, I'd rather have a higher crime rate than a system where the government hands out punishments which are more severe than the crime comitted.
But I agree with redleg that drugs don't just affect the individual and hence can be forbidden or regulated by society.
Unless the drug is the necessary cause for something done to another person, it doesn't matter. Anything else is a result of an individual's choice.
If we are talking about family relationships again, I don't remember the last time that the government made it illegal for a person to have a bad relationship w/ their family...
Soulforged
12-09-2005, 05:25
You`ve got an astounding imagination.
All the money that`s spent to help drug takers might give you a hint, although I am afraid that it`s not enough.Yes I've so little imagination that I think on other methods to improve human systems, while you get stuck in the middle age.
Remove drug farmers in poor countries by iron fist, keep them away and the drug trafficking is mainly out. Finito.If drug farmers were animals, if they had other jobs, if the industry of the narcotrafic weren't so big, if we lived in an ideal world where finding and removing causals was that easy, etc...Then I'll agree with you, but we're in the real world, where drugs are a personal choise and where there's real intelectual humans habitating it.
By decriminalizing drugs you won`t get anywhere, that`s logic. Just look at the tobacco market, wich is much bigger than the drug market, though probably less valuable.Tobacco much bigger than drugs? In wich world do you live man? This is really annoying, still surrounding the subject without accepting it's core that was proved over and over, it's a personal election, I'm sure that you don't want to live without your computer, even less if the state forces you to do so. Don't you get the power that you're giving the state? I already stated what you'll achieve by descriminalizing it. First you'll be living in a liberal republican state. Second your rights will be respected. Third the drugs could be regulated as tobacco and alcohol are. Four eventually criminal organizations that feed upon the weak will fall because they'll not be able to compite, and because people will find the legal method much more profitable. If you still don't get it then I suggest to you this: go work on the Congress you appear to be like the bunch of them really.
Then I'll agree with you, but we're in the real world, where drugs are a personal choise and where there's real intelectual humans habitating it.
Yeah, but... I don`t see how people destroying themselves can be called intelectuals. It sounds like a paradox.
Tobacco much bigger than drugs?
In my country it is much bigger in amount of units sold. I expect that the economy involved is also bigger. I don`t know for sure, but I can`t imagine the sold amount of drugs being bigger than the sold amount of tobacco, world wide either.
In wich world do you live man?
Earth, thank you.
This is really annoying, still surrounding the subject without accepting it's core that was proved over and over, it's a personal election, I'm sure that you don't want to live without your computer, even less if the state forces you to do so. Don't you get the power that you're giving the state? I already stated what you'll achieve by descriminalizing it. First you'll be living in a liberal republican state. Second your rights will be respected. Third the drugs could be regulated as tobacco and alcohol are. Four eventually criminal organizations that feed upon the weak will fall because they'll not be able to compite, and because people will find the legal method much more profitable.
There is a difference between tobacco and alcohol, and drugs. Drugs are blacklisted because they are way more dangerous to take than eg. tobacco is. Drugs reduces life time severly, among other things. That`s why common sense is placed above individual freedom in this case.
Decriminalizing of drugs would lead to an increase of drug takers, wich is not wanted.
People on the street agree in the way drugs are handled, or else it wouldn`t have been that way. We`re living in democraties for crying out loud! We have elected those who sit in control of things, the power they have, have been given by us; that is, those who voted for them. The people have spoken.
Kanamori
12-09-2005, 19:32
I expect that the economy involved is also bigger.
US tobacco industry is about $55 billion. Drug trafficking is about $60 billion (Wikipedia - tobacco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_industry); Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/math.html)).
There is a difference between tobacco and alcohol, and drugs. Drugs are blacklisted because they are way more dangerous to take than eg. tobacco is.
This simply isn't the case w/ soft drugs like marijuana. MJ has no longterm harms, besides the smoke in your lungs which is actually not as bad as cigs are. I think it's interesting to note that alcohol changes your state of mind a lot more than many of the other drugs which are illegal. Not to mention how toxic alcohol is.
That`s why common sense is placed above individual freedom in this case.
It's been my experience that only the people that make their "hard" drug use a habit -- doing it for days in a row, multiple times a day -- end up getting addicted. Meth and heroin are different stories, but heroin has similar dependence rates with nicotine.
And I think the American people have been grossly misled about drugs in general. Bush and friends focus on marijuana, which even by the very longest stretch is ridiculous to consider a Schedule I drug. The harms generated by the illegal drug trade (laced/impure/toxic versions of drugs which would normally be safer) -- and the trade is not going to go away as things are -- are much worse than they would be regulated, and the most effective way to combat their use is through proper education, not just saying MJ is bad don't do it. Which is what they do, saying that its a gateway drug and stopping it will stop use of the harder drugs~:rolleyes: I think if people understood how incredibly bad for you meth is, rather than the lies they are told about marijuana, even on one try, they wouldn't do it. Also, it would be better to treat addicts in the system, rather than throwing them in jail. By all accounts, being an addict isn't a good life, so I can't see how the argument, "it gives them an easy way out and would encourage addiction," has any weight. Either way, addicts are a harm to society and they are much less of a harm living normal lives being treated for their addiction.
On topic van Nguyen, he knew the law and took a risk. When you visit someones country you respect their laws. I don't think he deserves death penalty, but he got it for being stupid, Darwin in action.
US tobacco industry is about $55 billion. Drug trafficking is about $60 billion (Wikipedia - tobacco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_industry); Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/math.html)).
Noted. But I am still right when it comes to amount, I assume, wich is proving my point.
This simply isn't the case w/ soft drugs like marijuana. MJ has no longterm harms, besides the smoke in your lungs which is actually not as bad as cigs are. I think it's interesting to note that alcohol changes your state of mind a lot more than many of the other drugs which are illegal. Not to mention how toxic alcohol is.
For what I`ve been told, it`s usually marijuana drug(heroin, meth) takers start out with; or at least that`s what you might end up taking in the end. Though, that would change if you could buy marijuana in shops just like tobacco, so making marijuana legal might be a positive action. I would like to see other arguments against before I`m willing to say more in this case.
It's been my experience that only the people that make their "hard" drug use a habit -- doing it for days in a row, multiple times a day -- end up getting addicted. Meth and heroin are different stories, but heroin has similar dependence rates with nicotine.
All you need is a few cigarettes before you`ve become addicted; it can`t be much different with these other drugs you are talking about.
And I think the American people have been grossly misled about drugs in general. Bush and friends focus on marijuana, which even by the very longest stretch is ridiculous to consider a Schedule I drug. The harms generated by the illegal drug trade (laced/impure/toxic versions of drugs which would normally be safer) -- and the trade is not going to go away as things are -- are much worse than they would be regulated, and the most effective way to combat their use is through proper education, not just saying MJ is bad don't do it. Which is what they do, saying that its a gateway drug and stopping it will stop use of the harder drugs~:rolleyes: I think if people understood how incredibly bad for you meth is, rather than the lies they are told about marijuana, even on one try, they wouldn't do it. Also, it would be better to treat addicts in the system, rather than throwing them in jail. By all accounts, being an addict isn't a good life, so I can't see how the argument, "it gives them an easy way out and would encourage addiction," has any weight. Either way, addicts are a harm to society and they are much less of a harm living normal lives being treated for their addiction.
Agree mostly, but I still think I`m going to need to know more about marijuana.
Soulforged
12-10-2005, 03:51
Yeah, but... I don`t see how people destroying themselves can be called intelectuals. It sounds like a paradox.The human is an intelectual being, I think that in english it's more understandable if I use "sentient". But let's see ask one of the patrons who smoke it, if they can think and discern.
In my country it is much bigger in amount of units sold. I expect that the economy involved is also bigger. I don`t know for sure, but I can`t imagine the sold amount of drugs being bigger than the sold amount of tobacco, world wide either.World wide the industrie of drugs is the more profitable in the history of human kind.
There is a difference between tobacco and alcohol, and drugs. Drugs are blacklisted because they are way more dangerous to take than eg. tobacco is. Drugs reduces life time severly, among other things. That`s why common sense is placed above individual freedom in this case. Common sense against individual freedoms? Hell I'm giving you common sense against facist views of the world, but it appears that there's many "common senses" out there.
Decriminalizing of drugs would lead to an increase of drug takers, wich is not wanted. I certainly don't care. You don't want it, I'm indiferent. See, criminal law is not there for your or any body elses happiness or selfconformity, it's there to protect your freedoms, criminalizing drugs takes away your freedoms.
People on the street agree in the way drugs are handled, or else it wouldn`t have been that way. We`re living in democraties for crying out loud! We have elected those who sit in control of things, the power they have, have been given by us; that is, those who voted for them. The people have spoken.People in the street usually don't know what criminal law is, they don't know what society is and they don't know what drugs are, they're full of propaganda, like I'm regarding certain matters. That's when you lose it, because the government should provide for our freedom, happiness is to subjective to look for it, every government looking for happiness of their citizens will end in obssesion and loosing it all. You've spoken, there's other people who have spoken contrarily, even if it doesn't matter, because there's certain matters when reason and moral win over the majority wich is always more a presure than a rational force of dissent.
Common sense against individual freedoms? Hell I'm giving you common sense against facist views of the world, but it appears that there's many "common senses" out there.
Sometimes, people are not able think out what`s the best for them. Making drugs illegal make such decisions less likely.
Alternatively: let them take as many drugs as they want, as long as they don`t demand anything back from society; kill someone directly or indirectly with anything related to drugs, it be trade or while in intoxication, car accidents or guns. It`s not only about the drug takers personal freedoms, it innocent people involved too. It isn`t as simple as you want it too. Drugs spawn criminality. They would still have if decriminalized.
I certainly don't care. You don't want it, I'm indiferent. See, criminal law is not there for your or any body elses happiness or selfconformity, it's there to protect your freedoms, criminalizing drugs takes away your freedoms.
Drugs aren`t as rose red as you want them to. As I`ve said above, you can easily involve other freedoms as well when taking drugs. And when it is as a stupid freedom as destroying yourself, it`s better to loose some personal freedom and save a few innocents. Much better.
Your personal freedom is not set above others, drugs are on the edge when it comes to that, hence criminalized.
People in the street usually don't know what criminal law is, they don't know what society is and they don't know what drugs are, they're full of propaganda, like I'm regarding certain matters.
Not all propaganda is bad propaganda. Reminder.
Soulforged
12-10-2005, 23:11
Sometimes, people are not able think out what`s the best for them. Making drugs illegal make such decisions less likely. Yes it's deductable from this thread it seems.
Alternatively: let them take as many drugs as they want, as long as they don`t demand anything back from society; kill someone directly or indirectly with anything related to drugs, it be trade or while in intoxication, car accidents or guns. It`s not only about the drug takers personal freedoms, it innocent people involved too. It isn`t as simple as you want it too. Drugs spawn criminality. They would still have if decriminalized.That's exactly the idea. You get conviction as much dopes than sober...Or didn't you know that? There isn't personal freedom of "innocent" (I wonder what do you call innocent? What the drug takers are not innocent?) people involved in me making the movement of my arm to rise the syringe of heroin, that I buyed or stealed, and then pressing it with my finger to realese the liquid. That's drugging. What comes after that is another action and should be limited only if it involves a direct, concret causal of the loss of other people's freedom. Even if drugs span criminality...so what? Poberty spans criminality too, but I'm sure that you wouldn't want to say to the capitalist to give all their profits in the name of charity... That's not a concern of society. If you exercise your freedoms to do certain action, than lately could provoque effects in other people then you will get punished by that, but the first action is always separated in space and time, and is treated as such.
Drugs aren`t as rose red as you want them to. As I`ve said above, you can easily involve other freedoms as well when taking drugs. No you can't, and the propositions that Redleg posted were all refuted.
And when it is as a stupid freedom as destroying yourself, it`s better to loose some personal freedom and save a few innocents. Much better. No never. You only have to limit the freedom in concret cases when the action has been taken, not work with hypotetical situations and abstract representations.
Your personal freedom is not set above others, drugs are on the edge when it comes to that, hence criminalized.No but it appears that your personal happiness and selfconformity are actually above other people's freedom.
Not all propaganda is bad propaganda. Reminder.Yes actually it's. It's a form to send subliminal messages and control minds. A form of "mass hypnosis" and not all of us are immune to it.
No you can't, and the propositions that Redleg posted were all refuted.
Not exactly - they were countered - only one came close to being refuted.
That being that drugs cause crime in a direct way, and it wasn't refuted in the sense of the arguement being wrong - just that the effect is indirect because of the drug use. The rest of them no-one has refuted at all. You are picking and chosing the arguement. Go ahead smoke all the pot you want - it has only the effect on yourself much like tobacco and achocal until you become wasted to the point you can not function in society - and society must then take care of you.
Drugs have consequences both direct in their use and indirect because of thier use.
Those consequences effect other people beside those who chose to use drugs. Illicit drugs are not substances that only effect the user. Tobacco only directly effects the user - Marijuna only effects the user. Achocal also effects primarily the user - but does have some direct negative effects on others.
Herion and Meth - effect others besides just the user. The chemicals used to make Meth - leave a toxic area where-ever the drug is made. PCP has been know to have direct consequences on others - ie the user pops the PCP and then goes on a violent rage while on the drug.
You can live in a society that allows one to pop what ever drug into their system that they wish - however that society won't last long.
Kanamori
12-11-2005, 00:33
Drugs have consequences both direct in their use and indirect because of thier use.
The same can be said of many, many things. Crime is tenfold easier with guns than it would be w/ a knife or some such.
Go ahead smoke all the pot you want - it has only the effect on yourself much like tobacco and achocal until you become wasted to the point you can not function in society - and society must then take care of you.
Alcohol changes one's state of mind more than meth (if the mental effects are as similar to other drugs as I am led to beleive), marijuana or many drugs along the same lines. It changes your decision making more than them in a much worse way too. The point is, nobody questions that people can use alcohol responsibly, but everyone beleives that all the illegal drugs simply cannot be used responsibly. In fact, almost the exact opposite is true: so far, we have been narrowed to meth (because of its utter destruction on the body, regardless of addiction caused), heroin (because of the junkie stereotype w/ collapsed veins and such), and PCP (because it tends to make people irrationally violent and strong) as the bad drugs. Everything in the world can be used to make harm, or can accidently lead to harm when used, but the government recognizes that people can use them safely if they are informed properly. They have turned their eye on drugs because of popular fallacies.
The same can be said of many, many things. Crime is tenfold easier with guns than it would be w/ a knife or some such.
You will find I have no problem with regulating guns either - as long as it does not violate the ability to own the weapon.
Alcohol changes one's state of mind more than meth (if the mental effects are as similar to other drugs as I am led to beleive), marijuana or many drugs along the same lines. It changes your decision making more than them in a much worse way too. The point is, nobody questions that people can use alcohol responsibly, but everyone beleives that all the illegal drugs simply cannot be used responsibly. In fact, almost the exact opposite is true: so far, we have been narrowed to meth (because of its utter destruction on the body, regardless of addiction caused), heroin (because of the junkie stereotype w/ collapsed veins and such), and PCP (because it tends to make people irrationally violent and strong) as the bad drugs. Everything in the world can be used to make harm, or can accidently lead to harm when used, but the government recognizes that people can use them safely if they are informed properly. They have turned their eye on drugs because of popular fallacies.
I have seen first hand the effects of achocalism, herion addiction, Meth addictions and what happens to people from bad acid trips. All are not popular fallacies - all were destructive from the individual's use of the drugs.
littlelostboy
12-11-2005, 02:30
This may make me sounds like a sick person. But personally I prefer how the Singaporean government is very strict with their laws. Although the punishment seem harsh, it bought benefits too. I mean, if I want to I could go out for a run in the city at 3am knowing that I will not get mugged or kidnap. The system actually brought a sense of safety to Singapore where all citizen knows that their personal safety and property are well taken care off. Hell, that is why my parents allow my bro and I to stay out till 3am wondering around cause its safe, safe and safe. I mean, how many of you can do that in cities of U.S. if the crime rate is so high and when you walk around late at night knowing that your chances of being mugged or kidnap or murdered is high?
Soulforged
12-11-2005, 05:55
Not exactly - they were countered - only one came close to being refuted.Yes they were, and I don't need facts I only need logic.
That being that drugs cause crime in a direct way, and it wasn't refuted in the sense of the arguement being wrong - just that the effect is indirect because of the drug use. The rest of them no-one has refuted at all. You are picking and chosing the arguement. Go ahead smoke all the pot you want - it has only the effect on yourself much like tobacco and achocal until you become wasted to the point you can not function in society - and society must then take care of you.The argument is wrong Red. It has always been wrong. It's as the same as saying that corruption directly causes people's death. There's no causal relation between the action of taking drugs and another person's death. If your problem is again on the utilitarian or economic scale, then I can agree with you, you'll have to pay for the poor little boy that didn't knew what he was doing. However: 1- Justice is not reduced to economics. 2- There's free rehabilitation centers (in my country at least, they're not the result of government administration and sustain themselves through mutual work between the interns) 3- Don't worry man it will not be a total disaster and people running after each other for a pack of pot, nor will your pocket be emptied from one day to the other!!
Drugs have consequences both direct in their use and indirect because of thier use.
Those consequences effect other people beside those who chose to use drugs. Illicit drugs are not substances that only effect the user. Tobacco only directly effects the user - Marijuna only effects the user. Achocal also effects primarily the user - but does have some direct negative effects on others.Well actually Tobacco does affects directly through the smoke spreaded in the air that enters to yours, the passive smoker, the same could be said of pot. However this could be easily regulated. But again the economical effect is indirect, the action of taking drugs is very simple delimited, ie putting the drug on your body. The consecuences are separeted they could be bad or good, but that's for another analisys. As I said many things cause negative effects on society, many things cause a negative effect in everything. Perhaps if I don't go to work tomorrow the poor little replacement will have to hurry and will end up dead crushed by a truck, however that's what is called an "adventorous" causal, well in this case it's more ridicolous. But what you're giving as an argument are just that "adventorous" or "forced" causals. It has to be inmediat, no other relevant action has to be between the action of taking drugs and the crime (whatever it's).
Herion and Meth - effect others besides just the user. The chemicals used to make Meth - leave a toxic area where-ever the drug is made. PCP has been know to have direct consequences on others - ie the user pops the PCP and then goes on a violent rage while on the drug.Again. As long as they're criminalized you cannot regulate it's usage. When it's descriminalized, only then you can say what are the proper places to take it, what are the possible consecuences (to yourself and others), how you should use it yourself, etc.
You can live in a society that allows one to pop what ever drug into their system that they wish - however that society won't last long.I don't want to say "tinfoil hat" here but...Ok, first if the society falls into chaos :san_rolleyes:, even then it will be a society's choise, the state is not there to limit your freedom, but to improve them, is your election if you fall. Second your overreacting, not all people react the same way to all drugs, not all people become "slaves" of the drug. Third it's up to you to decide if you want more freedom or more "security" wich wouldn't be security because crime rate would not go down, it will probably aument given the crime organizations that will distribute "freedom" at high prices. Four people learn to see what's wrong for them and what's not, even if knowing that they keep on doing the damage to themselves then it's their damn election, you cannot go and take everybody's prerrogative over their own bodies.
Edit: I should also say this. Look in what ridicolous society we live today. In wich for exercising your freedom you can end up in jail, I mean the poor little boy who was playing with heroin will end up in jail. That's terrible and I don't think this can go on for much more time somebody has to change it, it can begin from you or from me, but descriminalization has to end right now. If you still think that taking drugs is wrong(:san_rolleyes:) then you could treat it like a civil matter, it will still be wrong, and it will have to be new method to treat such cases, but criminalization for doing something to your own body is to much, even the more facists around here have to recognize that...I think.
Yes they were, and I don't need facts I only need logic.
Then you should display some logic.
The argument is wrong Red. It has always been wrong. It's as the same as saying that corruption directly causes people's death. There's no causal relation between the action of taking drugs and another person's death.
And you would be incorrect. A person hopped up on PCP that kills another person was because that individual took drugs.
There are others - but don't let the facts get in your way of telling me that I am wrong.
If your problem is again on the utilitarian or economic scale, then I can agree with you, you'll have to pay for the poor little boy that didn't knew what he was doing. [quote]
Your attempting to define my rational is that it. Tsk tsk.
[quote]
However: 1- Justice is not reduced to economics. 2- There's free rehabilitation centers (in my country at least, they're not the result of government administration and sustain themselves through mutual work between the interns) 3- Don't worry man it will not be a total disaster and people running after each other for a pack of pot, nor will your pocket be emptied from one day to the other!!
Only one of your comments here are valid. The rest is just bluster. Justice is not about economics - it is about retribution. We have had this discussion before.
Well actually Tobacco does affects directly through the smoke spreaded in the air that enters to yours, the passive smoker, the same could be said of pot.
Then your actions have a direct consequence on other - so pot equates to causing harm to others. There goes your arguement that doing drugs just hurts yourself.
However this could be easily regulated.
Again regulation implies that what you are doing effects others besides yourself... A point from your agruement concerning drugs have no direct effect on others.
But again the economical effect is indirect, the action of taking drugs is very simple delimited, ie putting the drug on your body. The consecuences are separeted they could be bad or good, but that's for another analisys.
Its part of the same analisys.
As I said many things cause negative effects on society, many things cause a negative effect in everything. Perhaps if I don't go to work tomorrow the poor little replacement will have to hurry and will end up dead crushed by a truck, however that's what is called an "adventorous" causal, well in this case it's more ridicolous. But what you're giving as an argument are just that "adventorous" or "forced" causals. It has to be inmediat, no other relevant action has to be between the action of taking drugs and the crime (whatever it's).
Your cooking meth and your lab blows up - killing the next door apartment dweller. The drug has a direct effect on someone else....
Again. As long as they're criminalized you cannot regulate it's usage.
Criminalization is a form of regulation.
When it's descriminalized, only then you can say what are the proper places to take it, what are the possible consecuences (to yourself and others), how you should use it yourself, etc.
Bag it, tag it, and sell it for by the state. Sure makes a lot of money for the state - but creates other problems as well. Some drugs can be decriminalized because they are of little harm to society - no more then tobacco and achocal which are alreadly done in just this way. THe point that you are failing to notice is that some drugs can not be allowed to be done this way, because their is direct consequences on others by the use of such a drug.
I don't want to say "tinfoil hat" here but...Ok, first if the society falls into chaos :san_rolleyes:, even then it will be a society's choise, the state is not there to limit your freedom, but to improve them, is your election if you fall. Second your overreacting, not all people react the same way to all drugs, not all people become "slaves" of the drug. Third it's up to you to decide if you want more freedom or more "security" wich wouldn't be security because crime rate would not go down, it will probably aument given the crime organizations that will distribute "freedom" at high prices. Four people learn to see what's wrong for them and what's not, even if knowing that they keep on doing the damage to themselves then it's their damn election, you cannot go and take everybody's prerrogative over their own bodies.
Get your "tinfoil" hat modified with the rubber swimming cap - because your swimming in the goo. Drugs don't give anyone freedom - the state regulating drugs by criminalization does not limit your freedoms either. Now since you decided to make it personal - your actually the one over-reacting to the statment. Its really a rather simple one.
You can live in a society that allows one to pop what ever drug into their system that they wish - however that society won't last long.
Care to guess how many societies last that use illicit drugs.........
bmolsson
12-11-2005, 09:51
I mean, if I want to I could go out for a run in the city at 3am knowing that I will not get mugged or kidnap. The system actually brought a sense of safety to Singapore where all citizen knows that their personal safety and property are well taken care off.
Singapore don't have any spectacular crimestatistics. The robberies etc are similar to any other city of its size. In fact there are more convictions in Singapore per capita and for example Jakarta..... :san_wink:
Kanamori
12-11-2005, 10:18
I mean, how many of you can do that in cities of U.S. if the crime rate is so high and when you walk around late at night knowing that your chances of being mugged or kidnap or murdered is high?
I've never felt unsafe where I live, and it's slightly metropolitan, 300,000 people. You can stumble around drunk and nobody would do anything to you but maybe help you home. Damn liberal cities.:san_embarassed:
Soulforged
12-11-2005, 17:54
Then you should display some logic.Oh Red don't try to scare me please...The logic is there.
And you would be incorrect. A person hopped up on PCP that kills another person was because that individual took drugs.So what you're saying is that everytime I take PCP I end up as a killing machine? Because there's no other way that it could be established as a causal.
There are others - but don't let the facts get in your way of telling me that I am wrong.You're wrong because you fail to see my logic, and the logic of criminal law in general.
Your attempting to define my rational is that it. Tsk tsk.I'm not attempting anything, but it appears that when somebody starts talking about justice, some others try to stain the discussion including economic problems.
Only one of your comments here are valid. The rest is just bluster. Justice is not about economics - it is about retribution. We have had this discussion before.No it's not, I said to you many times, don't be so arrogant, it could be about retribution or general prevention. And if it's about retribution...What is there to retribute in a man having drugs in his pocket? Is a nice attempt to just ban all my comments as "bluster" and don't try to make a counter point.
Then your actions have a direct consequence on other - so pot equates to causing harm to others. There goes your arguement that doing drugs just hurts yourself.I never say that did I? However your versions of "hurting others" where all incorrect, except for the pregnancy example wich was refuted also. I only said that it was a personal election. I also said, in the beggining I think, that they could be regulated, for example only use it in privacy or in places contructed to that purpose.
Again regulation implies that what you are doing effects others besides yourself... A point from your agruement concerning drugs have no direct effect on others.No, they've, but they're not "crimes" as everybody posts it. Not every effect in others that involves his freedoms is relevant, it has to be grave.
Its part of the same analisys. This is called "blinded to justice".
Your cooking meth and your lab blows up - killing the next door apartment dweller. The drug has a direct effect on someone else....Oh this is ridicolous. You cook drug (COOK!!!) that's when it blows up, I-T C-O-U-L-D B-E R-E-G-U-L-A-T-E-D!!!! However you go to jail for having drugs. Also do you happen to have some nuclear plant or arsenal near your town?
Criminalization is a form of regulation.Ok Red keep on it, what do I care you fail to see that descriminalization will end with all the problems that you seem to have against drugs. You know how I'm using the term.
Bag it, tag it, and sell it for by the state. Sure makes a lot of money for the state - but creates other problems as well. Some drugs can be decriminalized because they are of little harm to society - no more then tobacco and achocal which are alreadly done in just this way. THe point that you are failing to notice is that some drugs can not be allowed to be done this way, because their is direct consequences on others by the use of such a drug.You mean the ol' meth or PCP argument. PCP appears to be a logical problem in your argumentation. About Meth and any other that appears to have "direct" effects while cooking it or doing anything with it, again you've to demonstrate that it has a causal effect, and that you cannot warn the user of the consequences, only then, and I doubt it, it will turn in a society problem, but even then justice is pretty clear about it, this is a personal choice problem and justice protects it as it should.
Get your "tinfoil" hat modified with the rubber swimming cap - because your swimming in the goo. Drugs don't give anyone freedom - the state regulating drugs by criminalization does not limit your freedoms either. Now since you decided to make it personal - your actually the one over-reacting to the statment. Its really a rather simple one.No it isn't: OH SOCIETY IS GONNA FALL OHHH!!! Please Red I thought you could do better than that. Drugs don't give freedom? Or you mean the possibility of even choosing drugs without being persecuted criminally? I never decided to make it personal, I also must say to you that hypotetical curses of action are not very well seen in criminal matter.
Care to guess how many societies last that use illicit drugs.........Oh How many Red?:san_shocked:. Perhaps the problem was that they were illicit...:san_rolleyes:
Oh Red don't try to scare me please...The logic is there.
So is mine - :san_rolleyes:
So what you're saying is that everytime I take PCP I end up as a killing machine? Because there's no other way that it could be established as a causal.
It might be a causal relationship - but its a direct consquence of the use of the drug. PCP effects everyone different - plus it has the direct consequence of frying some of the individuals who take the drug brain to the point that he is a vegitable having to be cared for by society.
You're wrong because you fail to see my logic, and the logic of criminal law in general.
Not wrong at all - I just don't buy into your logic. Your attempting to state I am incorrect in my logic becasue its taken a different course then yours. To refute my claims you have to first refute the claims - which has not been done. Criminal law is based upon the society in which issues the law. Your attempting to claim that your belief is more correct then my belief - that sir is not logic - its idealogical differences.
I'm not attempting anything, but it appears that when somebody starts talking about justice, some others try to stain the discussion including economic problems.
Not at all in my case. Crime and drugs have been shown to be related.
No it's not, I said to you many times, don't be so arrogant, it could be about retribution or general prevention. And if it's about retribution...What is there to retribute in a man having drugs in his pocket? Is a nice attempt to just ban all my comments as "bluster" and don't try to make a counter point.
Now who is being arrogant - tsk tsk - the arrogance is yours not mine. If you don't want an arrogant response - don't make one yourself. Yes notice that I said one was valid and the others were nothing but bluster - not deserving of discussing.
I never say that did I? However your versions of "hurting others" where all incorrect, except for the pregnancy example wich was refuted also. I only said that it was a personal election. I also said, in the beggining I think, that they could be regulated, for example only use it in privacy or in places contructed to that purpose.
The pregnancy examble was not refuted it was ignored. If second hand smoke causes medical problems for others - which is why there is a ban on smoking in public restraunts - it follows that pot smoke has the same issues.
And yes Soulforged you did state it - here are your own words.
Well actually Tobacco does affects directly through the smoke spreaded in the air that enters to yours, the passive smoker, the same could be said of pot.
No, they've, but they're not "crimes" as everybody posts it. Not every effect in others that involves his freedoms is relevant, it has to be grave.
regulation implies government control - criminal code is governmental control.
This is called "blinded to justice".
Justice wears a blindfold -
Oh this is ridicolous. You cook drug (COOK!!!) that's when it blows up, I-T C-O-U-L-D B-E R-E-G-U-L-A-T-E-D!!!! However you go to jail for having drugs.
Not ridicolous at all - it shows the danger of the drug making to others not just the drug user.
Also do you happen to have some nuclear plant or arsenal near your town?
They are also regulated by several agencies.
Ok Red keep on it, what do I care you fail to see that descriminalization will end with all the problems that you seem to have against drugs. You know how I'm using the term.
Again certain drugs is what I have concern over because they has direct consequences on others. Someone wants to smoke pot -bag it, tag it, tax it, its a minor drug just like achocal and tobacco - certain drugs must remain illicit because of the direct consequences of its use to more then just the drug user.
You mean the ol' meth or PCP argument. PCP appears to be a logical problem in your argumentation. About Meth and any other that appears to have "direct" effects while cooking it or doing anything with it, again you've to demonstrate that it has a causal effect, and that you cannot warn the user of the consequences, only then, and I doubt it, it will turn in a society problem, but even then justice is pretty clear about it, this is a personal choice problem and justice protects it as it should.
The problem with Meth, PCP, LSD, Heroin, and a few choice other illicit drugs is that they do indeed have consequences that exceed the individual, and goes into effecting others. You might want to do a little research on those drugs
No it isn't: OH SOCIETY IS GONNA FALL OHHH!!! Please Red I thought you could do better than that.
Sure I can - but its a good emotional appeal arguement. Which is exactly what several of your comments are - emotional appeal which is a logic fallacy.
Drugs don't give freedom?
Yep drugs don't give freedom - they provide an escape from reality.
Or you mean the possibility of even choosing drugs without being persecuted criminally?
Doesn't provide or give freedom that way either.
I never decided to make it personal, I also must say to you that hypotetical curses of action are not very well seen in criminal matter.
Several of the terms you use would give a lie to that statement. For instance don't be arrogant.....
Oh How many Red?:san_shocked:. Perhaps the problem was that they were illicit...:san_rolleyes:
The question was asked of you - how many societies have survived from that had no restrictions on drug use - illicit drugs describe the current drugs that are considered harmful when used for recreational purposes only. Regulation is a restriction regardless of how you wish to use the term. Even the Netherlands has restrictions on what drugs can be used - and some drugs are even illegal there as well.
A distinction is drawn between hard drugs (which bear "unacceptable" risks; e.g. cocaine, heroin and ecstasy) and soft drugs such as the psychedelic psilocybin mushrooms as well as cannabis products: hashish and marijuana (as defined in the Dutch Opium Act). The distinction is drawn on whether the substance is only psychologically addictive (i.e. producing no worse effect than moderate craving when withdrawn) or also physically addictive (i.e. there is solid proof the drug could cause dangerous withdrawal symptoms and/or lasting physical damage). One of the main aims of this policy is to separate the markets for soft and hard drugs so that soft drug users are less likely to come into contact with hard drugs. This policy also aims to take the soft drug market out of the hands of the criminals, thus reducing crime.
So-called coffee shops are allowed to sell soft drugs openly, and to keep supplies greater than the amounts allowed by law for personal use, though they are only allowed to sell individual customers the amount allowed for personal use. The coffeeshops' wholesale suppliers, however, are still criminalized. In practice, the limit of the "for personal use" clause is 5 cannabis plants per person for growing, or possession of 5 grams of hashish or marijuana per person. Example of sentence in 2004 for possession of 360 grams: confiscation and a fine of €750. Coffeeshops pay taxes just like any other business, though there are some special exemptions for them, mostly because they cannot show receipts for their supply of marijuana.
Large-scale dealing, production, import and export are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, even if this does not supply end users or coffeeshops with more than the allowed amounts. Exactly how coffeeshops get their supplies is rarely investigated, however. What is certain is that coffeeshops do sell cannabis that comes from countries where it is illegal. Large suppliers tend to be criminals motivated by profit who do not make the distinction between hard and soft drugs. Hence, the soft drug policy, by failing to address the issue of supply, has made the Netherlands the main centre for hard drug trafficking in Europe. Creating a highly controlled, legal production chain for cannabis to combat this problem has been proposed by a number of Dutch politicians over the last few years, so far without results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands
The Netherlands has the most liberial policies on Drug Use that I know of - and even they will not go as far as to allow certain drugs to be used in the open because of the harmful direct effects of those drugs.
So the logical fallacies are not mine when confronted with the reality of what is done.
Soulforged
12-11-2005, 22:21
So is mineIncorrect you presented facts, and you're very good on that, but that's all.
It might be a causal relationship Correction: "It might NOT be a causal relationship"
but its a direct consquence of the use of the drug. How many times do I've to say this there's many direct consequences of many things, however that related to a crime is not causal. If I shoot my 45 into somebodies heart he'll probably die, and I do so with the intent of killing, objectively is the bullet that I've shooted wich killed the man, in taking drugs you do not kill anybody, you've to take another decision separeted from that to achive that.
PCP effects everyone different - plus it has the direct consequence of frying some of the individuals who take the drug brain to the point that he is a vegitable having to be cared for by society.Again those two things: 1- If it affects everyone different then it cannot be a causal, it cannot be stablished as a rule if A then B. 2- Even if it could there's still the decision of the individual to take or not to take. 3- Stop with the argument of the vegitable if you want to talk about what's just here. You've to take care of the vagrants and the homeless too, and many of them take personal choices to end up like that. That argument is not strong.
Not wrong at all - I just don't buy into your logic. Your attempting to state I am incorrect in my logic becasue its taken a different course then yours. To refute my claims you have to first refute the claims - which has not been done. Because they're POINTLESS, logical separation is first to your facts, I readed your claims but I don't care to refute them because I believe in them, it's just that it's irrelevant, you've to demonstrate that by my action of taking drugs inmediatly some other person suffers the consequences as a causal adequate relation.
Criminal law is based upon the society in which issues the law. Your attempting to claim that your belief is more correct then my belief - that sir is not logic - its idealogical differences.What's logic is the construction of causal relationships that I've pointed to you over and over.
Not at all in my case. Crime and drugs have been shown to be related.Yes but also crime and poberty, and corruption, and religion, and extremist ideologies. What's important here is if the drug causes the crime or the person taking it...Those problems that you're adressing are all contigent problems.
Now who is being arrogant - tsk tsk - the arrogance is yours not mine. If you don't want an arrogant response - don't make one yourself. Yes notice that I said one was valid and the others were nothing but bluster - not deserving of discussing.That's funny because you attempted to state that retribution is the base of penal law, when in fact the tendences are relative. My arguments are bluster? Please Red you've being stating things related to both utilitarism and economics, justice has never been in your words, I've attempted to show some dogmatic, the little that I know, but you just keep ignoring it thrwoing facts over and over without stablishing a causal relationship.
The pregnancy examble was not refuted it was ignored. If second hand smoke causes medical problems for others - which is why there is a ban on smoking in public restraunts - it follows that pot smoke has the same issues.Yes it was refuted. Your problem is that you want your facts refuted, like finding some real evidence that shows that the fetus is not affected (in this case) wich I cannot provide, and I couldn't care less because I know and think the same. But you fail to see that there's a personal choice in taking drugs wich means that it's facultative "I can, or I can't" that's all, if the consequences are noticed in the product or through publicity that begins to be a problem of responsability, such as driving a car carefully.
And yes Soulforged you did state it - here are your own words.Incorrect, I was refering to an example in wich I stated that the drugs do not cause any direct effect.
regulation implies government control - criminal code is governmental control.Yes you're right, however stop with this kind of arguing because you know what I meant...If not I'll explain it to you: if you descriminalize drugs then you could tell to all your citizens how it must be done, what are the consecuences, where you should take it, establish prices and taxes, and so on, that's what I meant by regulated.
Justice wears a blindfold - Poor attemp to turn my words. Even with my poor english you should have noticed that I clearly stated "blinded TO justice".
Not ridicolous at all - it shows the danger of the drug making to others not just the drug user.Yes it's ridicolous it's another advetorous causal. The same could happen by cooking everything and leaving the gas open. It's all about responsability, and that's a prerrogative of the individual.
They are also regulated by several agencies.Exactly.
Again certain drugs is what I have concern over because they has direct consequences on others. Someone wants to smoke pot -bag it, tag it, tax it, its a minor drug just like achocal and tobacco - certain drugs must remain illicit because of the direct consequences of its use to more then just the drug user.You still are on the same direct consequences argument. If I use PCP in privacy or Meth do I damage others. If I use them on closed doors in a place where it's allowed because it's isolated or protected, then where's the direct damage, that happens to be (at least for what you've posted here) a matter of responsability.
The problem with Meth, PCP, LSD, Heroin, and a few choice other illicit drugs is that they do indeed have consequences that exceed the individual, and goes into effecting others. You might want to do a little research on those drugsWich are what? You better give me more than adventorous causals or contigent problems.
Sure I can - but its a good emotional appeal arguement. Which is exactly what several of your comments are - emotional appeal which is a logic fallacy.You always end on the same street, the emotional appeal. Not at all, none of my comments were emotional appeal, they were logically based.
Yep drugs don't give freedom - they provide an escape from reality.First you didn't answered my question. Second it has been adressed to you many times by now that the choice of taking or not taking is what matters about freedom, the consequences are part of your responsability.
Doesn't provide or give freedom that way either.Yes it does. You can choose to use them.
Several of the terms you use would give a lie to that statement. For instance don't be arrogant.....I never used hipotesys, except for the ocassions that you gave me hipotesys in wich case I only could answer to you the same way, because the situation does not exists.
The question was asked of you - how many societies have survived from that had no restrictions on drug use - illicit drugs describe the current drugs that are considered harmful when used for recreational purposes only. Regulation is a restriction regardless of how you wish to use the term. Even the Netherlands has restrictions on what drugs can be used - and some drugs are even illegal there as well.So again an hipotesys and a suggestive question. The asnwer is none, because none have allowed drugs in the way that they should. Of course regulation is a restriction, but you've to adjust it having personal freedoms in your mind. Though it doesn't seem like a question adressed to me: "Care to guess how many societies last that use illicit drugs......... "
The Netherlands has the most liberial policies on Drug Use that I know of - and even they will not go as far as to allow certain drugs to be used in the open because of the harmful direct effects of those drugs.Of course, tough I'll tear it bit by bit:
So-called coffee shops are allowed to sell soft drugs openly, and to keep supplies greater than the amounts allowed by law for personal use, though they are only allowed to sell individual customers the amount allowed for personal use.This shows that the mentality is still there, they've only allowed it for the economic pleasure, and still with the chaos fear in their actions.
The coffeeshops' wholesale suppliers, however, are still criminalized.There's still criminalization, they still are in the same logical fallacies of causal relation.
In practice, the limit of the "for personal use" clause is 5 cannabis plants per person for growing, or possession of 5 grams of hashish or marijuana per person. Example of sentence in 2004 for possession of 360 grams: confiscation and a fine of €750. Coffeeshops pay taxes just like any other business, though there are some special exemptions for them, mostly because they cannot show receipts for their supply of marijuana.Why don't you take a look at your regulation it cannot be far from that. In fact in my country it's almost the same, you can have some for personal use (and only pot) as long as you don't exceed certain limits. The only progresist determination that I see there is allowing the user to have plants in their own houses, but also limited. Now...care to guess what is that they fear so much of soft drugs also?
Creating a highly controlled, legal production chain for cannabis to combat this problem has been proposed by a number of Dutch politicians over the last few years, so far without results.Why without results? Well it's because you cannot fight against things that society wants.
So the logical fallacies are not mine when confronted with the reality of what is done.Logics are not an agregated system, more than often deduction comes in abstract.
Incorrect you presented facts, and you're very good on that, but that's all.
Facts are logic....
Correction: "It might NOT be a causal relationship" How many times do I've to say this there's many direct consequences of many things, however that related to a crime is not causal. If I shoot my 45 into somebodies heart he'll probably die, and I do so with the intent of killing, objectively is the bullet that I've shooted wich killed the man, in taking drugs you do not kill anybody, you've to take another decision separeted from that to achive that.
Drugs decrease the ability for rational thought.
Again those two things: 1- If it affects everyone different then it cannot be a causal, it cannot be stablished as a rule if A then B. 2- Even if it could there's still the decision of the individual to take or not to take. 3- Stop with the argument of the vegitable if you want to talk about what's just here.
Becoming a vegitable is a realistic outcome of drug use. If that is a problem for you then maybe you shouldn't discuss drugs as being a choice. If your unaware of the possiblities involved - which most drug users are not - then you can not make an informed decision concerning the use now can you.
You've to take care of the vagrants and the homeless too, and many of them take personal choices to end up like that. That argument is not strong.
Sure we do - however I don't have to support drug use.
Because they're POINTLESS, logical separation is first to your facts, I readed your claims but I don't care to refute them because I believe in them, it's just that it's irrelevant,
NOt irrelevant at all - informed decisions are what lead to personal freedoms - not the ability to use or not use drugs.
you've to demonstrate that by my action of taking drugs inmediatly some other person suffers the consequences as a causal adequate relation. What's logic is the construction of causal relationships that I've pointed to you over and over.
THat casual relationship is not as casual as you would believe. Which is exactly the point. Can you guarntee that everytime someone uses a drug that alterates the mind that someone else will not suffer the consequences of thier drug use? Remember achocal leads to plently of deaths also - and its legal to use, care to guess how many people are killed by drunk drivers?
Yes but also crime and poberty, and corruption, and religion, and extremist ideologies. What's important here is if the drug causes the crime or the person taking it...Those problems that you're adressing are all contigent problems.
People do the crime - the drugs prevent rational thought which lead to the crime being committed - the relationship might be causal in your opinion but the consequences are very real.
That's funny because you attempted to state that retribution is the base of penal law, when in fact the tendences are relative. My arguments are bluster? Please Red you've being stating things related to both utilitarism and economics, justice has never been in your words Actually I have used the term justice several times - but not in this discussion. Criminal law and punishment is about retribution.
,
I've attempted to show some dogmatic, the little that I know, but you just keep ignoring it thrwoing facts over and over without stablishing a causal relationship.
your statement makes no since - facts show the relationship plainly.
Yes it was refuted. Your problem is that you want your facts refuted, like finding some real evidence that shows that the fetus is not affected (in this case) wich I cannot provide, and I couldn't care less because I know and think the same.
Then its not refuted is it. Drug use by the female has a direct effect on the fetus - another human being. So does smoking tobacco and drinking achocal.
But you fail to see that there's a personal choice in taking drugs wich means that it's facultative "I can, or I can't" that's all, if the consequences are noticed in the product or through publicity that begins to be a problem of responsability, such as driving a car carefully.
No that is not my failure - I know drug use is a personal choice - the effects of the drug on others that do not chose to use the drug is the issue. Certain drugs have a direct consequence on others beyond just the user - and therefore they should not be allowed for unprescribed consumption. In otherwords without a doctor's prescription the drug is illegal.
Incorrect, I was refering to an example in wich I stated that the drugs do not cause any direct effect.
Smoke has a direct effect on people around the smoker - which is what you stated - ergo Marijuna use in public effects directly others not chosing to use the drug.
Yes you're right, however stop with this kind of arguing because you know what I meant...If not I'll explain it to you: if you descriminalize drugs then you could tell to all your citizens how it must be done, what are the consecuences, where you should take it, establish prices and taxes, and so on, that's what I meant by regulated.
Again criminization of drugs is a regulation of the substance - you might not like the usage - but it is correct. Those who don't proscribe to the state regulation of the drug use would still be committing a criminal offensive - which happens all the time with both achocal and tobacco in this country.
Poor attemp to turn my words. Even with my poor english you should have noticed that I clearly stated "blinded TO justice".
Oh I saw it - and your statement had just as much revelance to the discussion as what I stated. Blinded to Justice does not apply in this discussion. There is no justice involved with discussing if Drug use should remain criminalized or should it be regulated by the state.
Yes it's ridicolous it's another advetorous causal. The same could happen by cooking everything and leaving the gas open. It's all about responsability, and that's a prerrogative of the individual.
Try hanging out with a Meth freak sometime - you might be surprised with what you find out about responsiblity, how the drug alters the brain, and how dangerous the drug is to the individual and those around him. Meth is a dangerous drug - the effects of it has a direct consequence to those that don't use it and live next door to the user.
Exactly.
Now guess what happens when you have an illegal munitions plant - you get arrested - its a criminal charge - just like the criminization of drugs. Drugs are prescribed by medical professional for legal use - that is the regulation you are speaking of, everything else the government has criminialized.
You still are on the same direct consequences argument. If I use PCP in privacy or Meth do I damage others.
You are no longer in control once you use the substance - especially PCP.
If I use them on closed doors in a place where it's allowed because it's isolated or protected, then where's the direct damage, that happens to be (at least for what you've posted here) a matter of responsability.
No such place exists in reality - and once the indivdual takes the drug his ability to think rationally does not exist.
Wich are what? You better give me more than adventorous causals or contigent problems.
Done and done -
You always end on the same street, the emotional appeal. Not at all, none of my comments were emotional appeal, they were logically based.
Care to place a wager on that?
First you didn't answered my question. Second it has been adressed to you many times by now that the choice of taking or not taking is what matters about freedom, the consequences are part of your responsability.
Again drugs do not provide freedom - neither does the choice to use drugs outside of the medically prescribed reasons. Personal responsiblity would diciated that no-one takes drugs outside of the medically sound reasons for using them. You go on about regulation - and criminialization without realizing that drugs are regulated in the medical profession - and criminialized outside of it. Recreational use of drugs is not a freedom nor does it choice to do so lead to freedom.
Yes it does. You can choose to use them.
Again drugs do not provide or grant freedom by their use.
I never used hipotesys, except for the ocassions that you gave me hipotesys in wich case I only could answer to you the same way, because the situation does not exists.[quote]
Then you are sadly mistaken in your belief that you dont use them...
[quote]
So again an hipotesys and a suggestive question. The asnwer is none, because none have allowed drugs in the way that they should. Of course regulation is a restriction, but you've to adjust it having personal freedoms in your mind. Though it doesn't seem like a question adressed to me: "Care to guess how many societies last that use illicit drugs......... "
Yep no society exists that allows unrestricted use of illicit drugs - nor should there ever be.
Of course, tough I'll tear it bit by bit:
So-called coffee shops are allowed to sell soft drugs openly, and to keep supplies greater than the amounts allowed by law for personal use, though they are only allowed to sell individual customers the amount allowed for personal use.This shows that the mentality is still there, they've only allowed it for the economic pleasure, and still with the chaos fear in their actions.
Not at all, it shows that the society understands that certain drugs are harmful to the wellbeing of the society.
The coffeeshops' wholesale suppliers, however, are still criminalized.There's still criminalization, they still are in the same logical fallacies of causal relation.
Not at all - its because the wholesalers are often from countries where dealing drugs is illegal
Why don't you take a look at your regulation it cannot be far from that. In fact in my country it's almost the same, you can have some for personal use (and only pot) as long as you don't exceed certain limits. The only progresist determination that I see there is allowing the user to have plants in their own houses, but also limited. Now...care to guess what is that they fear so much of soft drugs also?
That is a form of regulation - which is what you have been advocating.
Creating a highly controlled, legal production chain for cannabis to combat this problem has been proposed by a number of Dutch politicians over the last few years, so far without results.Why without results? Well it's because you cannot fight against things that society wants.
Society has deemed the use of those substances to be harmful to the society.
Logics are not an agregated system, more than often deduction comes in abstract.
Fact however is fact.
Edit: One final thought
The criminalization of drugs does not remove the individual choice to use or not to use the substance, criminalization deals with the consequence of that choice. To claim that de-criminalization provides a choice is not completely correct - the choice is still there.
Soulforged
12-13-2005, 06:54
Facts are logic....Only if you link them logically...
Drugs decrease the ability for rational thought.And...
Becoming a vegitable is a realistic outcome of drug use. If that is a problem for you then maybe you shouldn't discuss drugs as being a choice. If your unaware of the possiblities involved - which most drug users are not - then you can not make an informed decision concerning the use now can you.I know all that, you're missing the point that this is not an economic discussion, if your problem is with the care I already gave you a solution. The final part is exactly the same I think.
NOt irrelevant at all - informed decisions are what lead to personal freedoms - not the ability to use or not use drugs.Of course but you're obstaculazing them by criminalizing the use.
THat casual relationship is not as casual as you would believe. Which is exactly the point. Can you guarntee that everytime someone uses a drug that alterates the mind that someone else will not suffer the consequences of thier drug use? Remember achocal leads to plently of deaths also - and its legal to use, care to guess how many people are killed by drunk drivers?Again you turned the question to me? Very well, I can guarantee you that everytime I put PCP in myself that's the only thing that happens. Perhaps minutes later I'll kill another man and I'll be persecuted for doing so. Also you've to notice than in the scientifical method the peson on my example is treated as two "persons". The first is a person technically speaking who can direct his movements. However the second is little more than a thing, something that will only function by the natural rules of action-reaction. So of course they get different treatment.
I can also guarantee you that everytime I press the trigger of a gun with a man in the other end and charged I'll probably kill him. I also do it with the intent, wich is important for all social sciences.
You may come with the argument that there's "unnintentional" crimes also. For this there's two constructions to persecute. I'll go with the one that appeals more to me, it states that you actually use your intent in the time that you violate the principle of trust or you go beyond the allowed risk (of course knowing the risks). So in this case if the person knew the risks and even then he keep doing it he'll still be responsable. I repeat if that's your problem.
People do the crime - the drugs prevent rational thought which lead to the crime being committed - the relationship might be causal in your opinion but the consequences are very real. The consequences are real with everything we use without getting in other people's life. A car, a chainsaw, even a chair. The trick is doing it responsabily.
Actually I have used the term justice several times - but not in this discussion. Criminal law and punishment is about retribution.Well suit yourself, even if this leads us to unreconciliable separate ways in this discussion and others of the type.
your statement makes no since - facts show the relationship plainly.The relationship is there, but it's not causal. This means direct, inmediat, adequate, previsible and in many cases done by the same subject that's being accused.
Then its not refuted is it. Drug use by the female has a direct effect on the fetus - another human being. So does smoking tobacco and drinking achocal.Yes it's refuted, because the problem is still on the unability to choose. If I know I've a child in me and I take it I'll most certainly face the consequences of such action. The only thing that the government can do is recommend.
No that is not my failure - I know drug use is a personal choice - the effects of the drug on others that do not chose to use the drug is the issue. Certain drugs have a direct consequence on others beyond just the user - and therefore they should not be allowed for unprescribed consumption. In otherwords without a doctor's prescription the drug is illegal.If you see it's a personal choice then you don't see that there's still the issue of causality. It's like saying that I need a prescription to get a kitchen because other wise I could end up burning my house and my neighborgs's.
Smoke has a direct effect on people around the smoker - which is what you stated - ergo Marijuna use in public effects directly others not chosing to use the drug.Exactly, and where's the non-direct-effect-at-all-statement?
Oh I saw it - and your statement had just as much revelance to the discussion as what I stated. Blinded to Justice does not apply in this discussion. There is no justice involved with discussing if Drug use should remain criminalized or should it be regulated by the state. Well if you don't see where justice is involved then all this discussion was pointless. I think you can guess it for yourself, I don't feel like writing more.
Try hanging out with a Meth freak sometime - you might be surprised with what you find out about responsiblity, how the drug alters the brain, and how dangerous the drug is to the individual and those around him. Meth is a dangerous drug - the effects of it has a direct consequence to those that don't use it and live next door to the user.The responsability and the responsable choice is taken on the moment of the first try, and every try after that while you can hold on your reason, wich should be periodically.
Now guess what happens when you have an illegal munitions plant - you get arrested - its a criminal charge - just like the criminization of drugs. Drugs are prescribed by medical professional for legal use - that is the regulation you are speaking of, everything else the government has criminialized.Of course. But weapon production is allowed, drug production isn't.
You are no longer in control once you use the substance - especially PCP.Read above.
No such place exists in reality - and once the indivdual takes the drug his ability to think rationally does not exist.Of course there isn't, if they're illegal it will be a kind of oxymoron for the administration to construct such places.
About rationality. That's rubbish. I could loose reason for minutes even hours, or days, but I'll recover it sometime. And not always I loose it completely.
Done and done No.
Care to place a wager on that?How about 10000 of your bucks? They'll do pretty well to the poor little me.:san_laugh:
Again drugs do not provide freedom - neither does the choice to use drugs outside of the medically prescribed reasons. Personal responsiblity would diciated that no-one takes drugs outside of the medically sound reasons for using them. You go on about regulation - and criminialization without realizing that drugs are regulated in the medical profession - and criminialized outside of it. Recreational use of drugs is not a freedom nor does it choice to do so lead to freedom.And you go out about in the same topics without realizing that there's a moment of choice and other various moment of choice (deminished for that matter, but still), before and after the first "try".
Again drugs do not provide or grant freedom by their use.No they don't, in the major part of the cases. But the freedom is the choice, to take or not to take, that's the question.
Then you are sadly mistaken in your belief that you dont use them...Hipotetic courses of action or situations are of no use in criminal law because they're not concret.
Yep no society exists that allows unrestricted use of illicit drugs - nor should there ever be.Well that's your opinion I prefer freedom.
Not at all, it shows that the society understands that certain drugs are harmful to the wellbeing of the society.Only if you follow your concept of "harmful" wich only adresses to contigent problems of society.
Not at all - its because the wholesalers are often from countries where dealing drugs is illegalAnd because there's still drugs that they don't allow freely, wich is my point.
That is a form of regulation - which is what you have been advocating.Wich is not if you read my words.
Society has deemed the use of those substances to be harmful to the society. Society? Or do you mean representatives and the state? Do you mean the opressive majority or the marginalized minority?Those are the wonders of procedimental democracy.
Fact however is fact.Yes.
The criminalization of drugs does not remove the individual choice to use or not to use the substance, criminalization deals with the consequence of that choice. To claim that de-criminalization provides a choice is not completely correct - the choice is still there.Ha! This is rich...Only of course if you don't fear being persecuted...
Only if you link them logically...[quote]
Which has been done
[quote]
I know all that, you're missing the point that this is not an economic discussion, if your problem is with the care I already gave you a solution.
I am not discussing drugs in the economic sense - I am discussing them in the social sense. The pure economics of it would lead one to say regulate and tax the hell out of drugs to gain even more revenue for the state.
Of course but you're obstaculazing them by criminalizing the use.
Criminalizing is a form of regulation. All regulations is placing an obstacle in the path of "free" use.
Again you turned the question to me? Very well, I can guarantee you that everytime I put PCP in myself that's the only thing that happens.
THe problem with PCP is that you can not predict how you will behave each and everytime, nor can you guarntee that you will remain in the safe harbor that you placed yourself in.
Ha! This is rich...Only of course if you don't fear being persecuted...
Not rich at all - a matter of pure simple fact. Criminalization of drugs does not remove your choice to use the drug or not - all it does is add a level to the consequence of your decision.
Soulforged
12-14-2005, 05:10
I am not discussing drugs in the economic sense - I am discussing them in the social sense. The pure economics of it would lead one to say regulate and tax the hell out of drugs to gain even more revenue for the state.Then what's your problem with taking care of them?
Criminalizing is a form of regulation. All regulations is placing an obstacle in the path of "free" use.Criminalization forbids the use, it doesn't restricts it. But this is just semantics can we pass to another more important subject?
THe problem with PCP is that you can not predict how you will behave each and everytime, nor can you guarntee that you will remain in the safe harbor that you placed yourself in.That's truth however you know the risks and the possible consequences, wich probably will get you convicted.
Not rich at all - a matter of pure simple fact. Criminalization of drugs does not remove your choice to use the drug or not - all it does is add a level to the consequence of your decision.Ok Red, I don't know the asnwer to this you've shocked me :san_shocked: , I'll just laugh and ask me why am I laughing when Red just pwned all my arguments?:san_laugh:
Then what's your problem with taking care of them?
None at all - however I don't think the state should take care of people for thier own bad decisions.
Criminalization forbids the use, it doesn't restricts it. But this is just semantics can we pass to another more important subject?
You can pass on it if you wish - criminalization is just another form of regulation.
That's truth however you know the risks and the possible consequences, wich probably will get you convicted.
Without the drug - those risks are avoided.
Ok Red, I don't know the asnwer to this you've shocked me :san_shocked: , I'll just laugh and ask me why am I laughing when Red just pwned all my arguments?:san_laugh:
Yes arguing for freedom to choice is a tough arguement when discussing drugs - the freedom of choice is always there, regardless of the consequences.
Soulforged
12-15-2005, 05:03
None at all - however I don't think the state should take care of people for thier own bad decisions. Actually the state should do nothing to take care of people, the state only has to "take care" of your freedom.
You can pass on it if you wish - criminalization is just another form of regulation.Oh yes I wish.
Without the drug - those risks are avoided.Yes again truth. However at what price?
Yes arguing for freedom to choice is a tough arguement when discussing drugs - the freedom of choice is always there, regardless of the consequences.You've no formal freedom, the law doesn't allows it.
Actually the state should do nothing to take care of people, the state only has to "take care" of your freedom.
Well there goes socialism. :san_cool:
You've no formal freedom, the law doesn't allows it.
Oh but there is, you always have the freedom of choice.
Byzantine Mercenary
12-15-2005, 18:10
on the subject of execution by the state, i have read the autobiography of an executioner in england, he came from a long line of executioners and performed many executions as well as developing new techniques for execution. At the end of his career after all those executions, he said, that he honestly did not think that anyof the executions that he had performed had prevented crime.
bmolsson
12-16-2005, 02:36
Guy's, I think the guy is dead already so no reason to argue more about it..... ~;)
Soulforged
12-16-2005, 04:26
Well there goes socialism. :san_cool: Yes you're right. Though it could be interpreted in alternative ways, I was never a big supporter of socialism. Another :san_cool:
Oh but there is, you always have the freedom of choice.OK Red whatever you say...:san_rolleyes: :san_laugh:
Guy's, I think the guy is dead already so no reason to argue more about it..... Well that's kinda my thoughts too...but is all about prevention my friend, prevention....:san_grin:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.