Author Topic: War on Drugs  (Read 105778 times)

Offline jambutty

  • The Gok Wan of RAWK. Tripespotting Advocate. Oakley style guru. Hardman St. arl arse, "Ridiculously cool" -Atko- Impending U.S. Civil War Ostrich. Too old to suffer wankers and WUMs on here.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,864
  • June 20, 2009. Still no justice for Neda
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #80 on: November 18, 2011, 05:07:52 am »
I disagree. Using your logic, there should be barely any illegal drug use going on because anybody who fancies getting fucked-up has the option of alcohol available to them. If you legalised pot, the same people who take cocaine now would still be taking it then. It's not because they have no legal alternative - they do - they just find that high attractive, despite the risks it poses to them.

In many parts of urban America crack is cheaper and more rreadily available than weed.  Alcohol doesn't have the same allure or effect as pot.
Kill the humourless

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,379
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #81 on: November 18, 2011, 10:10:03 am »
Are people seriously questioning the merits of preventing people from committing suicide.
By virtue of you sticking a gun to your head, trying to drink acid, climbing onto a ledge with the intention of jumping etc. means you aren't of sound mind, there is no rational reason to do it.



Nonsense. Explain to me why suicide isn't rational. Here, have a look at this before you do.

http://www.dignitas.ch/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=44&lang=en

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #82 on: November 18, 2011, 10:44:29 am »
Nonsense. Explain to me why suicide isn't rational. Here, have a look at this before you do.

http://www.dignitas.ch/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=44&lang=en

The work that Dignitas do is for one very specific situation.  Amongst their aims is suicide prevention.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,379
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #83 on: November 18, 2011, 10:49:08 am »
The work that Dignitas do is for one very specific situation.  Amongst their aims is suicide prevention.

Either suicide is permissible or it isn't. Either it can be rationalised or it can't.

My own view is that there is nothing irrational whatsoever about suicide. If your life is intolerable, for whatever reason, then you have the right to end it. It might turn out to be a totally shitty thing to do, especially if you have kids or other dependents, but there you are. It's a subjective, personal thing, not something where anyone else has the right to interfere.

Offline Enemy

  • Fairly low-maintenance pritsatoixouphobic.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,121
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #84 on: November 18, 2011, 10:54:12 am »
Either suicide is permissible or it isn't. Either it can be rationalised or it can't.

My own view is that there is nothing irrational whatsoever about suicide. If your life is intolerable, for whatever reason, then you have the right to end it. It might turn out to be a totally shitty thing to do, especially if you have kids or other dependents, but there you are. It's a subjective, personal thing, not something where anyone else has the right to interfere.

I tend to think the only thing wrong with suicide is what other people think of it and how other people feel, so people claim it's 'selfish' but actually they're saying that out of selfishness themselves. If that makes sense.
Enemy, at that time, and now, I cant think of anything good to say about her. She's still being a c*nt

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #85 on: November 18, 2011, 11:14:07 am »
Either suicide is permissible or it isn't. Either it can be rationalised or it can't.

My own view is that there is nothing irrational whatsoever about suicide. If your life is intolerable, for whatever reason, then you have the right to end it. It might turn out to be a totally shitty thing to do, especially if you have kids or other dependents, but there you are. It's a subjective, personal thing, not something where anyone else has the right to interfere.

Your point though Corky was that suicide was rational and you cited Dignitas to aid your case.  If you have a terminal illness and face a long and painful death then I would agree that suicide is a rational option and Dignitas are there to support you in that choice.

Other than that narrow definition though their work is in suicide prevention.  What can seem intolerable can often be a temporary difficulty that can be overcome.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,379
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #86 on: November 18, 2011, 11:19:23 am »
Your point though Corky was that suicide was rational and you cited Dignitas to aid your case.  If you have a terminal illness and face a long and painful death then I would agree that suicide is a rational option and Dignitas are there to support you in that choice.

Other than that narrow definition though their work is in suicide prevention.  What can seem intolerable can often be a temporary difficulty that can be overcome.

True, and I'm sure that has happened to many people. I know people who have been suicidal and who got through it and are grateful they did. Nonetheless, the right to end one's life is non negotiable, as far as I'm concerned. It comes under the same heading as the right to bodily integrity and the right to refuse treatment.

Offline 1021

  • AD MXXI
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,193
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #87 on: November 18, 2011, 11:25:08 am »
Massive difference between deciding to walk to the top of a cliff and jump off or blow your brains out and having to make the soul destroying decision of ending your own life before the pain of a terminal illness becomes too much to bear.

Dignitas is one very, very, specific case, and is no way comparable to what was being discussed.
Suicide is not a rational choice, and quite why anyone would argue that we shouldn't stop people stop people from doing so just because it may impinge slightly on 'free choice' is beyond me. I consider myself pretty liberal but this is just insane.
I got the Lucas thing wrong. Will be right on Henderson though. Play him RM, play him CM - Not good enough and never will be.

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,379
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #88 on: November 18, 2011, 11:48:44 am »
Massive difference between deciding to walk to the top of a cliff and jump off or blow your brains out and having to make the soul destroying decision of ending your own life before the pain of a terminal illness becomes too much to bear.

Dignitas is one very, very, specific case, and is no way comparable to what was being discussed.
Suicide is not a rational choice, and quite why anyone would argue that we shouldn't stop people stop people from doing so just because it may impinge slightly on 'free choice' is beyond me. I consider myself pretty liberal but this is just insane.

My point in introducing Dignitas was that suicide isn't always irrational. Even so, people do irrational things all the time and we don't stop them.

Let's take your theory for a little walk, shall we? Suppose I decide that life is no longer tolerable for me. I am examined by a doctor and found to be in all respects compos mentis. What you seem to be saying is that if I make it known to society that I am about to kill myself, society will do what? Lock me up? For how long? Do I get an indefinite term of imprisonment? Will I ever be left out?

Offline Enemy

  • Fairly low-maintenance pritsatoixouphobic.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,121
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #89 on: November 18, 2011, 11:57:29 am »
We're all going to die anyway, why should it be a bad thing that you take control of the when and where?
Enemy, at that time, and now, I cant think of anything good to say about her. She's still being a c*nt

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,379
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #90 on: November 18, 2011, 12:00:36 pm »
Some interesting stuff on suicide here.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suicide/#MorPer

Offline 1021

  • AD MXXI
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,193
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #91 on: November 18, 2011, 01:45:32 pm »
My point in introducing Dignitas was that suicide isn't always irrational. Even so, people do irrational things all the time and we don't stop them.

Let's take your theory for a little walk, shall we? Suppose I decide that life is no longer tolerable for me. I am examined by a doctor and found to be in all respects compos mentis. What you seem to be saying is that if I make it known to society that I am about to kill myself, society will do what? Lock me up? For how long? Do I get an indefinite term of imprisonment? Will I ever be left out?

Can we take it for a walk after 4pm as I have an essay to write?

Fundamentally Dignitas is a very, very different thing to any other form of suicide, it isn't suicide really is it? It's having mercy on yourself and not prolonging an unpleasant inevitable.

Other suicides are preventable, I imagine most of the time they are cries for help, they aren't the decisions of a sane or stable man. And if you walked into a doctors surgery and said 'check out me mental health, doc., just want to make sure everything is a okay before I stick a gun in my mouth' something is wrong.

We're all going to die anyway, why should it be a bad thing that you take control of the when and where?

Because you cannot let people go around harming themselves, there is a root cause for why people feel as though they cannot go on any longer and it can be rectified. You have a duty in a civilised society to protect those who are vulnerable, not let them do themsleves in because they cannot cope.
I got the Lucas thing wrong. Will be right on Henderson though. Play him RM, play him CM - Not good enough and never will be.

Offline Enemy

  • Fairly low-maintenance pritsatoixouphobic.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,121
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #92 on: November 18, 2011, 01:50:11 pm »
Because you cannot let people go around harming themselves, there is a root cause for why people feel as though they cannot go on any longer and it can be rectified. You have a duty in a civilised society to protect those who are vulnerable, not let them do themsleves in because they cannot cope.

Why can't you? You're assuming that accepting that you're going to die (which is an absolute truth) and therefore deciding how you want to is somehow deluded, wrong and that person should be stopped from doing what they want. If I'm 80 years old, can't be arsed to carry on and I'm going to die anyway (even though I don't have cancer or anything, I just will die, just like everyone else) why shouldn't you be allowed to go out with a bang so long as it doesn't harm anyone else?
Enemy, at that time, and now, I cant think of anything good to say about her. She's still being a c*nt

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,379
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #93 on: November 18, 2011, 02:03:49 pm »
Can we take it for a walk after 4pm as I have an essay to write?

And yet you still managed a chunky enough post after that. Anyway, my question was...

Suppose I decide that life is no longer tolerable for me. I am examined by a doctor and found to be in all respects compos mentis. What you seem to be saying is that if I make it known to society that I am about to kill myself, society will do what? Lock me up? For how long? Do I get an indefinite term of imprisonment? Will I ever be left out?

Also, did you read the link stuff?

Offline 1021

  • AD MXXI
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,193
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #94 on: November 18, 2011, 02:11:51 pm »
And yet you still managed a chunky enough post after that. Anyway, my question was...

Also, did you read the link stuff?

I'm lurking around, I can't read that link yet (that's what I meant, sorry not clear) as I am trying to write about Bismarck at the minute and I have a million tabs open. One of which shouldn't be RAWK, but I don't learn ;)
I got the Lucas thing wrong. Will be right on Henderson though. Play him RM, play him CM - Not good enough and never will be.

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,379
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #95 on: November 18, 2011, 02:18:40 pm »
Well, when you do, consider this.

I walk into a doctor's office and ask him to give me an exam, physical and mental. He does and I pass with flying colours. I then say to the doc, right, I'm off home to kill myself. He says, why? I say, well, I don't like the world, I don't like people, I find my existence intolerably dull, brutish and uncomfortable and I would really rather not bother with any of it.

Again. Who are you to tell me, a sane, informed adult, what I can and can't do with my own life? If I have a right to life (as most civilised societies recognise) then surely I have the right to end that life, no matter what the circumstances?

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #96 on: November 18, 2011, 02:21:43 pm »
Well, when you do, consider this.

I walk into a doctor's office and ask him to give me an exam, physical and mental. He does and I pass with flying colours. I then say to the doc, right, I'm off home to kill myself. He says, why? I say, well, I don't like the world, I don't like people, I find my existence intolerably dull, brutish and uncomfortable and I would really rather not bother with any of it.

Again. Who are you to tell me, a sane, informed adult, what I can and can't do with my own life? If I have a right to life (as most civilised societies recognise) then surely I have the right to end that life, no matter what the circumstances?

It is a nonsense example though Corky because having a mental examination while witholding the fact that you intended to kill yourself would be rather pointless. 
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,379
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #97 on: November 18, 2011, 02:25:23 pm »
It is a nonsense example though Corky because having a mental examination while witholding the fact that you intended to kill yourself would be rather pointless. 

Why? That means you are working off the assumption that a desire to end one's life is obvious evidence of mental instability. What are you basing that on?

Same question for you, VdeM, as above. Now that you are ripping away my right to self (de)termination, what are you going to do with me? Lock me up indefinitely in a padded cell?

Offline LF

  • C
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,829
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #98 on: November 18, 2011, 02:35:44 pm »
I don't like the world, I don't like people, I find my existence intolerably dull, brutish and uncomfortable and I would really rather not bother with any of it.

“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ”

aristotle explains it much better than me....

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #99 on: November 18, 2011, 02:51:17 pm »
Corky - too long to quote the whole thing in full

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suicide/#MorRatSui

3.6 Autonomy, Rationality, and Responsibility

A more restricted version of the claim that we have a right to noninterference regarding suicide holds that suicide is permitted so long as—leaving aside questions of duties to others—it is rationally chosen, or to put it in a Kantian vernacular, if it is undertaken autonomously. This position is narrower than the libertarian view, in that it permits suicide only when performed on a rational basis and permits others to interfere when it is not performed on that basis.

This approach has given rise to a rich philosophical literature concerning the conditions for rational suicide. For the most part, this literature divides the conditions for rational suicide into cognitive conditions, conditions ensuring that individuals' appraisals of their situation are rational and well-informed, and interest conditions, conditions ensuring that suicide in fact accords with individuals' considered interests. Richard Brandt captures the spirit of this approach:

    The person who is contemplating suicide is obviously making a choice between future world-courses: the world-course that includes his demise, say, an hour from now, and several possible ones that contain his demise at a later point… The basic question a person must answer in order to determine which world-course is best or rational for him to choose, is which he would choose under conditions of optimal use of information, when all of his desires are taken into account. It is not just a question of what we prefer now, with some clarification of all the possibilities being considered. Our preferences change, and the preferences of tomorrow are just as legitimately taken into account in deciding what to do now as the preferences of today (Brandt 1975).

Other examples of this approach include Glenn Graber, who states that a suicide is rationally justified “if a reasonable appraisal of the situation reveals that one is better off dead.” (Graber 1981, 65). An appraisal is reasonable, according to Graber, if one judges rationally about the likelihood of her present and probable future values and preferences being satisfied. On Graber's view, a suicide is rational if it results from a clearheaded assessment of how suicide would further or impede one's overall interests. Margaret Battin identifies three cognitive conditions for rational suicide (a facility for causal and inferential reasoning, possession of a realistic world view, and adequacy of information relevant to one's decision), along with two interest conditions (that dying enables one to avoid future harms, and that dying accords with one's most fundamental interests and commitments) (Pabst Battin 1996, 115).

For the most part, suicidal individuals do not manifest signs of systemic irrationality, much the less the signs of legally definable insanity, (Radden 1982) and with the exception of severe psychopaths, engage in suicidal conduct voluntarily. However, these facts are consistent with the choice to engage in suicidal behavior being irrational, and serious questions can be raised about just how often the conditions for rational suicide are met in actual cases of self-inflicted death. Indeed, the possibility of rational suicide requires that certain assumptions about suicidal individuals' rational autonomy be true which may not be in many cases. A person's choice to undertake suicidal behavior may not be a reflection of her true self and her self-inflicted death could be an act that she would, in calmer and clearer moments, recoil at. In other words, even if there is a right to self-determination which in turn implies a right to suicide, it seems to imply a right to commit suicide only when one's true self is making that determination, and there are numerous factors that may compromise a person's rational autonomy and hence make the decision to engage in suicidal behavior not a reflection of one's considered values or aims. Some of these factors cognitively distort agents' deliberation about whether to commit suicide. The act of suicide is often impulsive and poorly thought out, reflecting the intense psychological vulnerability of suicidal persons and their proclivity toward volatility and agitation (Cholbi 2002). Suicidal persons can also have difficulty fully acknowledging the finality of their death, believing that (assuming there is no afterlife) they will continue to be subjects of conscious experience after they die. In what are known as dyadic suicides, the suicidal individual actually looks forward to the moment when she will (posthumously) enjoy having insulted or having exacted revenge upon another person.

Particularly worrisome is the evident link between suicidal thoughts and mental illnesses such as depression. While disagreement continues about the strength of this link (Pabst Battin 1996, 5) little doubt exists that the presence of depression or other mood disorders greatly increases the likelihood of suicidal behavior. Some studies of suicide indicate that over 90% of suicidal persons displayed symptoms of depression before death, while others estimate that suicide is at least 20 times more common among those with clinical depression than in the general population. In cases of suicide linked with depression, individuals' attitudes toward their own death are colored by strongly negative and occasionally distorted beliefs about their life situations (career prospects, relationships, etc.). As Brandt (Brandt 1975) observed, depression can “primitivize one's intellectual processes,” leading to poor estimation of probabilities and an irrational focus on present suffering rather than on possible good future states of affairs. The suicidally depressed also exhibit romanticized and grandiose beliefs about the likely effects of their deaths (delusions of martyrdom, revenge, etc.) Furthermore, suicidal persons are often hesitant about their own actions, hoping that others will intervene and signaling to others the hope that they will intervene (Shneidman 1985). Finally, although repeated suicide attempts by the same individual are common, the impulse to suicidal behavior is often transient and dissipates of its own accord (Blauner 2003). Taken together, these considerations indicate that, even if there is a right of self-determination, the scope of suicidal conduct that genuinely manifests fully informed and rational self-evaluation may be rare and so only occasionally will suicide be rational or morally permissible, even when excusable because irrational. (Philip Devine has even argued that suicide is necessarily irrational: Because no one has experience of death, a suicidal individual lacks the knowledge needed to judge continued life with its alternative (Devine 1978). See also Cowley 2006.) Moreover, if suicide is frequently not an expression of individuals' rational self-determination about their well-being, that suggests that others may have a prima facie reason to interfere with suicidal behavior and so is there is no general right to noninterference. (See section 3.7)
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,379
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #100 on: November 18, 2011, 02:55:28 pm »
“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ”

aristotle explains it much better than me....

"They tell us that suicide is the greatest act of cowardice... that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person."

Schopenhauer.

Offline Mumm-Ra

  • Dunking Heretic. Mexican drug runner. Can go whistle for a pair of decent trainees! Your own personal cheese. Yes.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,472
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #101 on: November 18, 2011, 02:55:41 pm »
The suicide argument is silly. If you see someone just about to do something that you perceive as being potentially fatal to themselves - whether it be
- drinking a cup of bleach
- climbing over the rails at the top of the empire state building
- putting a gun to their head
- loading up a syringe with a massive amount of heroin
- drink a glass with 20 shots of vodka in it (like that guy in Ireland)
Then, I think our society would say you have a moral obligation to stop them. Maybe some would disagree, but it's a separate debate

Completely different argument to whether people have the right to take drugs.

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,379
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #102 on: November 18, 2011, 02:59:33 pm »
Corky - too long to quote the whole thing in full

I gave that link on the last page, VdeM. Are you answering my question with that? If so, could you narrow it down a bit?

Completely different argument to whether people have the right to take drugs.

Considering two of the examples you gave involve taking drugs, I'd say you might want to rethink that. It's the same argument, i.e. does anyone but me have the right to dictate what happens to my body.

Offline Mumm-Ra

  • Dunking Heretic. Mexican drug runner. Can go whistle for a pair of decent trainees! Your own personal cheese. Yes.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,472
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #103 on: November 18, 2011, 03:16:15 pm »
Considering two of the examples you gave involve taking drugs, I'd say you might want to rethink that. It's the same argument, i.e. does anyone but me have the right to dictate what happens to my body.

No, I was going to put an explanation but got lazy and pressed post. Yes the drugs/suicide arguments do overlap, but not in any meaningful way.  The examples involving drugs were put there on purpose to illustrate a point - that it is down to the perception of the onlooker as to whether the act that's about to be committed is lethal, or dangerous, or not. Whether the act involves taking drugs or alcohol or doing something risky like train surfing.

1) does anyone but me have the right to dictate what happens to my body - very broad argument that includes drugs, suicide, and any kind of risky or ill-advised behaviour

2) does anyone but me have the right to dictate what intoxicants I use for personal pleasure - narrow argument that is more pertinent to the thread.



Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,379
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #104 on: November 18, 2011, 03:20:16 pm »
1) does anyone but me have the right to dictate what happens to my body - very broad argument that includes drugs, suicide, and any kind of risky or ill-advised behaviour

2) does anyone but me have the right to dictate what intoxicants I use for personal pleasure - narrow argument that is more pertinent to the thread.

They are the same principle, i.e. personal autonomy, the right to self determination. Be it drugs, suicide, hang gliding or refusing a blood transfusion for religious reasons, it's all the same issue.

Offline LF

  • C
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,829
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #105 on: November 18, 2011, 03:23:43 pm »
"They tell us that suicide is the greatest act of cowardice... that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person."

Schopenhauer.

durkheim would have loved you really...

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #106 on: November 18, 2011, 05:15:13 pm »
"They tell us that suicide is the greatest act of cowardice... that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person."

Schopenhauer.

Do you want me to come back at you with Kant, Hobbes, Locke and Dworkin?
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,379
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #107 on: November 18, 2011, 05:16:30 pm »
Do you want me to come back at you with Kant, Hobbes, Locke and Dworkin?

Nah. All thinkers of note, but what are you and I, VdeM, if not thinkers?

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #108 on: November 18, 2011, 05:17:06 pm »
I gave that link on the last page, VdeM. Are you answering my question with that? If so, could you narrow it down a bit?

Section 3.6 which I pasted.  Argues that although the vast majority of people who become suicidal are not sectionable or insane but at the time they make the decision they are not acting rationally either.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline rednich85

  • Gargantuan Wanker. Intimately linked to Keys and Gray.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,631
  • Stay Black. That's the most important thing.
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #109 on: November 18, 2011, 05:18:22 pm »
Nah. All thinkers of note, but what are you and I, VdeM, if not thinkers?

Tossers?? :wave
"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."

@rednich85

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #110 on: November 18, 2011, 05:25:20 pm »
Nah. All thinkers of note, but what are you and I, VdeM, if not thinkers?

I'm about to quit thinkin' and start drinkin' my friend. 

In summary, Q, bless his fucked up Libertarian socks, would claim that his question was black and white.  Though his failure to reappear and defend that position is interesting.  Personally I don't think it is, it is a sliding scale.  It's all part of that social contract thing again, we are social creatures, we care for each other and we balance the greater good against individual freedoms.  Where we draw the line is for society to decide.

You seem to be suggesting that we do not step in to prevent people killing themselves, though I suspect and hope that is your fine legal mind overruling your Irish heart.  Others would suggest that should extend to attempting to prevent people taking substances as destructive as heroin. 

There is no right answer and the "it is my body to do with as I will argument" does not really wash.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,379
  • Is it getting better?
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #111 on: November 18, 2011, 05:38:21 pm »
You seem to be suggesting that we do not step in to prevent people killing themselves

We try. We do our best, and that is part of the social contract you mention. We help and encourage and hope and all that. But ultimately, if someone is going to kill themselves, they're going to do it anyway (which is sort of where I was going with the locking up). I don't believe that anyone should have the power to stop someone doing anything harmful to their body, provided the person isn't mentally disturbed, but it's an academic question anyway, since short of locking them up (which I presume you wouldn't do) we are pretty powerless to stop them.

To be clear, I think that many people who kill themselves would regret it (if they could) and many more people who kill themselves (especially those with dependents) are selfish cowards but it's their choice.

Offline El Campeador

  • Capital of Culture's Campaign Manager...Transfer Board Veteran 5 Stars.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 20,721
  • The shupporters create chances, for sure, djes
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #112 on: November 18, 2011, 05:52:56 pm »
In summary, Q, bless his fucked up Libertarian socks, would claim that his question was black and white.  Though his failure to reappear and defend that position is interesting. 

Call it self-regulation.

Offline 1021

  • AD MXXI
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,193
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #113 on: November 18, 2011, 10:30:12 pm »
Corkboy, I've had a read.

For me the bottom line is suicide is the action of a desperate person who needs help, and as others have stated it is a good societies responsibility to protect the vulnerable and those having suicidal thoughts are vulnerable, they should be helped and cared for not waved off to the mountainside because of 'free will' or 'self liberty'.

And if you are going for a mental health assessement but withhold the fact that you find your life so throroughly miserable and without purpose that you've nothing to live for then the assessment would not be a conclusive.

Most of the time though, if someone wants to kills themselves they'll find a way, but if we can act to prevent it we should do, even if that impinges on their right to make choices for themselves because it is the sensible thing to do.

And what this has to do with drugs I don't know,

I got the Lucas thing wrong. Will be right on Henderson though. Play him RM, play him CM - Not good enough and never will be.

Offline -Q-

  • What's the Q for? The workhouse for the poor and the gallows for the left.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,972
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #114 on: November 18, 2011, 11:18:11 pm »
In summary, Q, bless his fucked up Libertarian socks, would claim that his question was black and white.  Though his failure to reappear and defend that position is interesting.

I've been busy :P and corkboy has done a stand-up job, almost sounding like a libertarian... ah, it warms my cold, wretched capitalist heart.

The question of rights and legality is black and white.  The moral question is a lot more murky.  I would counsel anyone against drug use, though obviously some are more harmful than others.

Quote
  Personally I don't think it is, it is a sliding scale.  It's all part of that social contract thing again, we are social creatures, we care for each other and we balance the greater good against individual freedoms.  Where we draw the line is for society to decide.

We are social creatures, but that does not give anyone else the right to take away the natural rights of others.

What if "society" wants to bring back the death penalty?  I don't care what the majority says.  It is wrong to take the life of another person (except in self-defence).

Quote
You seem to be suggesting that we do not step in to prevent people killing themselves, though I suspect and hope that is your fine legal mind overruling your Irish heart.  Others would suggest that should extend to attempting to prevent people taking substances as destructive as heroin.

And some would extend it to doughnuts and salt.
Welcome to Liverpool Brendan Rodgers
Quote from: Brendan Rodgers
Liverpool Football Club is the heartland of football folklore...     Liverpool are one of the dynasties of the game...     I will fight for my life for the supporters and the people of this city

Offline Mumm-Ra

  • Dunking Heretic. Mexican drug runner. Can go whistle for a pair of decent trainees! Your own personal cheese. Yes.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,472
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #115 on: November 19, 2011, 12:04:27 am »
Moving away from the suicide nonsense (  :P ), some promising news in my local area:

Quote
Chicago's City Council looks at the possibility of decriminalizing marijuana

Pot topic
By Georgia Garvey, RedEye

7:27 p.m. CST, November 17, 2011

You've heard the stoner arguments for legalizing pot: "Weed is 100 percent natural, dude. It's from the earth. Thomas Jefferson grew it, man. Thomas. Jefferson."

But lately the case for legalization and decriminalization of possession comes from entirely different camps, and they're using arguments with more finesse, research and economic impact than those tossed out at a party in your friend's smoke-filled basement. Witness the City Council, which is looking at reduced penalties for possession of amounts less than 10 grams.

Ald. Danny Solis (25th), who this month introduced the city proposal, lists things like discriminatory arrest practices, harsh penalties and a maxed-out city budget as some of the reasons he'd like to see Chicago's marijuana laws reassessed. And though not everyone's on the "pot is harmless" train, more cities are examining whether jailing people—as Chicago currently does—for small amounts is the way to go.

Police Supt. Garry McCarthy has said police officers might do better ticketing rather than arresting in small-time pot busts. The Cook County board already went the ticketing route for small amounts of marijuana in unincorporated areas; suburbs like Evanston have done the same. Add to that places including Connecticut and Philadelphia that have eased up, as well as states like Oregon and California—which legalized medical marijuana—and the pro-marijuana landscape looks increasingly green.

While opponents say there are a slew of negative consequences from reducing pot penalties, the wheels may already be in motion.

"What you're beginning to see is a more rational approach to marijuana laws and a less emotional approach," said Keith Stroup, founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "You're seeing the same kind of changes that we saw at the end of alcohol prohibition."

Stroup points to places across the country tackling the topic. He said 16 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana. Organizations including the California Medical Association have said legalization might be better than inconsistent enforcement.

Today, those arrested in Chicago for pot possession are looking at misdemeanor charges that could lead to six months in jail and a fine of $1,500. The Chicago proposal—which Solis stresses is in the early phases—would allow cops to write a $200 ticket for possession of amounts less than 10 grams, with punishments increasing for repeat offenders.

Turning pot possession from a jailable offense to a slap on the wrist, though, bothers anti-drug activists.

"There are a couple of prominent [pro-marijuana] organizations … preying on our tough economic times," said Amy Ronshausen, manager of congressional and legislative affairs for the Drug-Free America Foundation. She said the negative consequences of alcohol use can predict what would happen should marijuana use dramatically increase or be legalized. "The money that we get [from taxing alcohol] doesn't compare to the societal costs. … How can we say that our experience with marijuana would be any different?"

Mayor Emanuel isn't completely on board, either. He recently told reporters other cities that have made similar moves "have also created their own set of problems," though he has said he's willing to look at evidence on all sides.

People who like the city plan, though, said the economy and budget pressures mean it's the perfect time to question whether it makes financial sense to jail people arrested with small amounts of marijuana.

Solis offers some figures, including that 23,000 small-time pot possession arrests are made each year, of which "about 90 percent get thrown out of court." With what he estimated as more than 83,000 hours of police time being spent on the arrests, the alderman said the city can find better ways to use its law enforcement dollars.

"Police officers are taken away from patrolling neighborhoods in our city," he said, adding that police overtime for court appearances makes the financial toll even worse.

On top of that is data showing black people are arrested for marijuana possession in much higher numbers than white people, which Ald. Walter Burnett (27th) brought up to the Tribune recently. At events like Pitchfork and Lollapalooza, where attendants are mostly white, Burnett said, he thought he got a "contact high" from all the weed-smoking going on. The Reader reported in July that the ratio of black arrests to white arrests for marijuana possession in Chicago is 15 to 1.

The move toward marijuana decriminalization and legalization hasn't been smooth everywhere. In California, where medical marijuana is legal, some have said "doctor's note" requirements for a prescription card have led to laughably weak enforcement, for example.

More dangerous, anti-drug advocates believe, is the way children and teenagers might respond to decriminalization measures.

"You're kind of normalizing the drug use," Ronshausen said. "When perception of harm decreases, youth use increases."

As the city council debates the proposal, many of these issues in Chicago remain to be hashed out. How much a fine might be, whether cops would continue to have the option of arresting someone with marijuana or how a fine might be reflected on someone's criminal record are still up for debate.

One thing I don't put too much stock in is the racial disparity line they always trot out in these cases. The fact is, the majority of crime in the Chicago area is in black and hispanic neighbourhoods - so that's where the police patrol most, and do most of their arresting. That's not a racist statement it's just a reality of life in Chicago.

But if they can use those numbers to make their case for decrim or any positive changes in the law I'm all for it

Offline El Campeador

  • Capital of Culture's Campaign Manager...Transfer Board Veteran 5 Stars.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 20,721
  • The shupporters create chances, for sure, djes
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #116 on: November 19, 2011, 03:49:59 am »
Corkboy makes one unassailable point that nails the proverbial coffin, pun fully intended. What you gonna do, he asks, if one declares he will commit suicide tomorrow? Will you intervene, and if so, how? And will your intervention be effective?

Being selfish, I would like to stop corkboy from offing himself - I sort of like our impromptu football, hurling and baseball loya jirgas. Broken toilets aside, I'd be disappointed if he chose to punch his own ticket. In order to force him to see things from my own point of view and not kill himself, I'd have to move to Cork and stay awake all to wrestle him to the ground each time he tried to tie a noose around his neck, or lobby Ireland to lock him in a cell so that he cannot hurt himself.

Neither option is feasible.

Media outlets have legal teams.

RAWK has corkboy.

He has a point, as usual.

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #117 on: November 19, 2011, 10:43:33 am »
We try. We do our best, and that is part of the social contract you mention. We help and encourage and hope and all that. But ultimately, if someone is going to kill themselves, they're going to do it anyway (which is sort of where I was going with the locking up). I don't believe that anyone should have the power to stop someone doing anything harmful to their body, provided the person isn't mentally disturbed, but it's an academic question anyway, since short of locking them up (which I presume you wouldn't do) we are pretty powerless to stop them.

You presume wrongly.  I think that the system that we have where I believe you can be detained for a short period for your own safety is about right.  It is long enough to contact your next of kin and to get counselling and medical help.  In a great many cases it will prevent the suicide and allow people to rebuild their lives, often going on to have happy and fulfilling lives thereafter.

If our hypothetical Corkboy character convinces them that he is rational then he gets released and can repeat the act, this time taking more care not to be caught.  You could argue that his natural rights have been infringed, but not significantly, and for the vast majority of people that infringement will eventually be welcomed.

So for Corkboy, I am not sure if the laws are the same in Ireland, but I think that if he announced he was going to do it I would indeed "lobby the Irish authorities to lock him up".  In fact I'm tempted to do that anyway just for a laugh ;)
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #118 on: November 19, 2011, 10:45:31 am »
"society"

Thatcheresque mate. Thatcheresque ;)
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline gregor

  • Partial to a Swiss Roll
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,692
Re: War on Drugs
« Reply #119 on: November 19, 2011, 05:51:51 pm »
You seem to be suggesting that we do not step in to prevent people killing themselves, though I suspect and hope that is your fine legal mind overruling your Irish heart.  Others would suggest that should extend to attempting to prevent people taking substances as destructive as heroin. 

I'd agree that attempting to prevent people from doing heroin is the way forward. Is it right to make the person taking heroin a criminal though?