Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Incorrect you presented facts, and you're very good on that, but that's all.
Facts are logic....
Quote:
Correction: "It might NOT be a causal relationship" How many times do I've to say this there's many direct consequences of many things, however that related to a crime is not causal. If I shoot my 45 into somebodies heart he'll probably die, and I do so with the intent of killing, objectively is the bullet that I've shooted wich killed the man, in taking drugs you do not kill anybody, you've to take another decision separeted from that to achive that.
Drugs decrease the ability for rational thought.
Quote:
Again those two things: 1- If it affects everyone different then it cannot be a causal, it cannot be stablished as a rule if A then B. 2- Even if it could there's still the decision of the individual to take or not to take. 3- Stop with the argument of the vegitable if you want to talk about what's just here.
Becoming a vegitable is a realistic outcome of drug use. If that is a problem for you then maybe you shouldn't discuss drugs as being a choice. If your unaware of the possiblities involved - which most drug users are not - then you can not make an informed decision concerning the use now can you.
Quote:
You've to take care of the vagrants and the homeless too, and many of them take personal choices to end up like that. That argument is not strong.
Sure we do - however I don't have to support drug use.
Quote:
Because they're POINTLESS, logical separation is first to your facts, I readed your claims but I don't care to refute them because I believe in them, it's just that it's irrelevant,
NOt irrelevant at all - informed decisions are what lead to personal freedoms - not the ability to use or not use drugs.
Quote:
you've to demonstrate that by my action of taking drugs inmediatly some other person suffers the consequences as a causal adequate relation. What's logic is the construction of causal relationships that I've pointed to you over and over.
THat casual relationship is not as casual as you would believe. Which is exactly the point. Can you guarntee that everytime someone uses a drug that alterates the mind that someone else will not suffer the consequences of thier drug use? Remember achocal leads to plently of deaths also - and its legal to use, care to guess how many people are killed by drunk drivers?
Quote:
Yes but also crime and poberty, and corruption, and religion, and extremist ideologies. What's important here is if the drug causes the crime or the person taking it...Those problems that you're adressing are all contigent problems.
People do the crime - the drugs prevent rational thought which lead to the crime being committed - the relationship might be causal in your opinion but the consequences are very real.
Quote:
That's funny because you attempted to state that retribution is the base of penal law, when in fact the tendences are relative. My arguments are bluster? Please Red you've being stating things related to both utilitarism and economics, justice has never been in your words
Actually I have used the term justice several times - but not in this discussion. Criminal law and punishment is about retribution.
,
Quote:
I've attempted to show some dogmatic, the little that I know, but you just keep ignoring it thrwoing facts over and over without stablishing a causal relationship.
your statement makes no since - facts show the relationship plainly.
Quote:
Yes it was refuted. Your problem is that you want your facts refuted, like finding some real evidence that shows that the fetus is not affected (in this case) wich I cannot provide, and I couldn't care less because I know and think the same.
Then its not refuted is it. Drug use by the female has a direct effect on the fetus - another human being. So does smoking tobacco and drinking achocal.
Quote:
But you fail to see that there's a personal choice in taking drugs wich means that it's facultative "I can, or I can't" that's all, if the consequences are noticed in the product or through publicity that begins to be a problem of responsability, such as driving a car carefully.
No that is not my failure - I know drug use is a personal choice - the effects of the drug on others that do not chose to use the drug is the issue. Certain drugs have a direct consequence on others beyond just the user - and therefore they should not be allowed for unprescribed consumption. In otherwords without a doctor's prescription the drug is illegal.
Quote:
Incorrect, I was refering to an example in wich I stated that the drugs do not cause any direct effect.
Smoke has a direct effect on people around the smoker - which is what you stated - ergo Marijuna use in public effects directly others not chosing to use the drug.
Quote:
Yes you're right, however stop with this kind of arguing because you know what I meant...If not I'll explain it to you: if you descriminalize drugs then you could tell to all your citizens how it must be done, what are the consecuences, where you should take it, establish prices and taxes, and so on, that's what I meant by regulated.
Again criminization of drugs is a regulation of the substance - you might not like the usage - but it is correct. Those who don't proscribe to the state regulation of the drug use would still be committing a criminal offensive - which happens all the time with both achocal and tobacco in this country.
Quote:
Poor attemp to turn my words. Even with my poor english you should have noticed that I clearly stated "blinded TO justice".
Oh I saw it - and your statement had just as much revelance to the discussion as what I stated. Blinded to Justice does not apply in this discussion. There is no justice involved with discussing if Drug use should remain criminalized or should it be regulated by the state.
Quote:
Yes it's ridicolous it's another advetorous causal. The same could happen by cooking everything and leaving the gas open. It's all about responsability, and that's a prerrogative of the individual.
Try hanging out with a Meth freak sometime - you might be surprised with what you find out about responsiblity, how the drug alters the brain, and how dangerous the drug is to the individual and those around him. Meth is a dangerous drug - the effects of it has a direct consequence to those that don't use it and live next door to the user.
Now guess what happens when you have an illegal munitions plant - you get arrested - its a criminal charge - just like the criminization of drugs. Drugs are prescribed by medical professional for legal use - that is the regulation you are speaking of, everything else the government has criminialized.
Quote:
You still are on the same direct consequences argument. If I use PCP in privacy or Meth do I damage others.
You are no longer in control once you use the substance - especially PCP.
Quote:
If I use them on closed doors in a place where it's allowed because it's isolated or protected, then where's the direct damage, that happens to be (at least for what you've posted here) a matter of responsability.
No such place exists in reality - and once the indivdual takes the drug his ability to think rationally does not exist.
Quote:
Wich are what? You better give me more than adventorous causals or contigent problems.
Done and done -
Quote:
You always end on the same street, the emotional appeal. Not at all, none of my comments were emotional appeal, they were logically based.
Care to place a wager on that?
Quote:
First you didn't answered my question. Second it has been adressed to you many times by now that the choice of taking or not taking is what matters about freedom, the consequences are part of your responsability.
Again drugs do not provide freedom - neither does the choice to use drugs outside of the medically prescribed reasons. Personal responsiblity would diciated that no-one takes drugs outside of the medically sound reasons for using them. You go on about regulation - and criminialization without realizing that drugs are regulated in the medical profession - and criminialized outside of it. Recreational use of drugs is not a freedom nor does it choice to do so lead to freedom.
Quote:
Yes it does. You can choose to use them.
Again drugs do not provide or grant freedom by their use.
[quote]
I never used hipotesys, except for the ocassions that you gave me hipotesys in wich case I only could answer to you the same way, because the situation does not exists.[quote]
Then you are sadly mistaken in your belief that you dont use them...
Quote:
So again an hipotesys and a suggestive question. The asnwer is none, because none have allowed drugs in the way that they should. Of course regulation is a restriction, but you've to adjust it having personal freedoms in your mind. Though it doesn't seem like a question adressed to me: "Care to guess how many societies last that use illicit drugs......... "
Yep no society exists that allows unrestricted use of illicit drugs - nor should there ever be.
Quote:
Of course, tough I'll tear it bit by bit:
So-called coffee shops are allowed to sell soft drugs openly, and to keep supplies greater than the amounts allowed by law for personal use, though they are only allowed to sell individual customers the amount allowed for personal use.This shows that the mentality is still there, they've only allowed it for the economic pleasure, and still with the chaos fear in their actions.
Not at all, it shows that the society understands that certain drugs are harmful to the wellbeing of the society.
Quote:
The coffeeshops' wholesale suppliers, however, are still criminalized.There's still criminalization, they still are in the same logical fallacies of causal relation.
Not at all - its because the wholesalers are often from countries where dealing drugs is illegal
Quote:
Why don't you take a look at your regulation it cannot be far from that. In fact in my country it's almost the same, you can have some for personal use (and only pot) as long as you don't exceed certain limits. The only progresist determination that I see there is allowing the user to have plants in their own houses, but also limited. Now...care to guess what is that they fear so much of soft drugs also?
That is a form of regulation - which is what you have been advocating.
Quote:
Creating a highly controlled, legal production chain for cannabis to combat this problem has been proposed by a number of Dutch politicians over the last few years, so far without results.Why without results? Well it's because you cannot fight against things that society wants.
Society has deemed the use of those substances to be harmful to the society.
Quote:
Logics are not an agregated system, more than often deduction comes in abstract.
Fact however is fact.
Edit: One final thought
