-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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:
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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:
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugh
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugh
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugh
Reductio ad absurdum is never a valid arguement.
Um, why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugh
I'm not concerned that he's from a different country either
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugh
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Actually, I am claiming that killing a Jew because they are a Jew is absolutely wrong.~;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugh
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
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......
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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:
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
Comparing this with being jew is just silly and seriously rather tasteless......
:bow:
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.
Quote:
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).
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Or economical punishment.
Glad to hear that then.~:)
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugh
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugh
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?
Quote:
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:
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
"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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
"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.~;)
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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:
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
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......
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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:
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
It's like bashing your head on a wall~:rolleyes: Just drop it, the thread is dead.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.~;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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....... ~:)
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
"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:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
If so...why do you keep arguing contradictorily?
I don`t.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Probably most drug takers have frequent thoughts about suicide that can free them from their horrible life.
You have a misconception of drugs.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc bean
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugh
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.
Yes, you seem to believe in the superiority of the values protected by the constitution, but then you argue against individual freedoms.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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: ?
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
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......
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
It is[ the case here. Drugs kills. Maybe even worse, they make you a wreck.
and your response to his statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Wrecking" worst than "killing"? Please tell me that this is a joke because if not the discussion ends here.
And my subsequenct response
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.... ~;)
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
In the case of Singapore, originally it was more a question of logistic rather than moral valuation....
Well that's sad :no:
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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'.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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?
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.......
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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."
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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/ResearchRepo...in3.html#short
Quote:
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/ResearchRepo...ph3.html#short
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Yes, it`s bad for society, and that`s exactly why Singapore has taken the steps they have.
LOL- Why?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Again the individual knows his actions when he consumes. Also you can also fall asleep, as simple as that.
Quote:
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
First 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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.....
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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,
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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
Free 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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
The law states that the certain drugs are illicit - not allowed - so you have lost me here
The 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).
Quote:
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:
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
didn't I just state that in a very simple form.....
When you said,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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,
Quote:
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..
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
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...
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
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:
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
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:
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
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:
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Thanks for the insight littlelostboy.~:)
I would be curious to see how it would work in the US.:bow:
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelostboy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
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...
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
In wich world do you live man?
Earth, thank you.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I expect that the economy involved is also bigger.
US tobacco industry is about $55 billion. Drug trafficking is about $60 billion (Wikipedia - tobacco; Frontline).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Noted. But I am still right when it comes to amount, I assume, wich is proving my point.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.
-
Re: Death Row, Van Nguyen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
