Obviously One_raven this is a subject that you are very passionate about. I do understand why as I have lost a brother to the ravages of drug addiction [ he is no longer alive due to suicide] I have also had to care for the son of a friend [for 3 years] who is also an addict since 14 yo. and who still is unable to work or maintain relationships because of his addiction even now. [ he is 28 yo now] Certainly legalisation would possibly have saved my brothers life. However by being legal there woudl be less pressure for this friends son to deal with his life of misery as he would find feeding his habit not only cheaper but actual justified in our laws. "It is now legal to be an addict and destroy you future" sort of reasoning. Thus our society leaders have indirectly, some would even argue "directly", become responsible for supporting someones self destruction by condoning it's use by legalising it. Of course there is valid arguement for legalisation but the one factor that keeps it from being so is the speed in which addiction can manifest itself with these drugs. For example weed is not as quick as herion or cocaine when it comes to addiction but weed is slightly quicker in addiction than Liquor. Even tobacco which is legal is probably more addictive than weed, however weed has certain psychotopic effects that outway it's benefit as to being legal. [ in some places it is legal ] If you can argue that drugs that rapidly addict a person should be legal compared to the slower drugs such as Liquor I might agree with you.
Why would psychotropic effects outweigh the benefit of being legal? I can certainly understand (even if I disagree with) the standpoint of "hard drugs" ruinging families and children suffering due to the adverse psychological effects on their addicted parents, but that argument does not hold water when it comes to weed. Liquor has ruined a LOT more families than weed ever can (discounting, of course, those sentenced to jail for using them). What does the speed have to do with anything? Sure, heroin and crack can cause massive heart attacks and death. They can cause serious psychological disorders that can cause innocent family members to suffer. I concede that. But what does how fast something becomes addictive have to do with anything? Cigarettes can be instantly addictive, but they do not ruin families due to things such as strung-out nicotine junkies. The same can be said for weed. There are no weed junkies!
The slow speed of addictionof say Liquor allows the user more time to find out whether he wants to bear the cost of his potential addiction. THu she can experience teh drug yet have time [ in many years for most ] as to whether the cost if worth it. Where as with cocain and the highly addictive drugs this time is considerably less.... HOwever this is not really what the arguement is about. It is more about whether you feel that society has the obligation to protect those who are less able to make qualified judgements. Laws such as credit laws and other contract including property purchaseing, cooling off periods, are just examples of how society is attempting to protect the weak. For example teh "cooling off period" is not designed to help the strong willed and emotionally disciplined but the less disciplined in society. LAws concerning drugs are just another way society is attempting to protect the less competent in society. The question is : "how far should society go in regulating behaviour to protect the weak or disabled or persons that are intellectually deficient......?"
Not so far that they infringe on the rights of those who do not "need" that protection, which is exactly what drug laws do now. Not to mention, you will have to clearly define "weak", "disabled" and "intellectually deficient". Let's take something a little less controversial to try and avoid muddling the issue - Seatbelt laws. The sole purpose seatbelt laws serve is to protect people in car collisions. There is no reasonably conceivabe way that ME not wearing my seatbelt will harm YOU in another vehicle. The law is simply there to protect me from making a "stupid choice" that can potentially harm myself. I think the only people that should be required to wear seatbelts are minors. An irresponsible jackass of a parent that doesn't force his child to wear a seatbelt is not risking HIS life, he is risking his child's life. The child is not capable of making a sound decision regarding that issue on his own, so I agree with making a law to protect children. I vehemently disagree with creating any law requiring adults to wear seatbelts. If I want to risk MY life and take MY life into MY OWN hands, fuck what other people think. Now, how about diasbled people? (I assume you mean mentally retarded. If not, please correct me) That's a tough one for me, honestly. I think for all intents and purposes, if a mentally retarded person is living on his own, and is not a ward of the state or under direct care of his parents, he should be free to make that decision on his own. A person who is NOT emancipated from his adults and relies on them for living and basic survival needs, is another story. My sister is neuroligically impaired. She's not severely retarded at all (think "The Other Sister" and "Forrest Gump"). She lives with my mother, but she has a job, takes the bus back and forth to the mall and work. If it weren't for the living expenses (especially where I live) she is capable of living on her own (though it WOULD be a struggle). She is fully capable of understanding the possible consequences of her actions and the risks involved with not wearing her seatbelt, therefore I think she should be free to make that decision herself. How about weak people? I'm really not sure what you mean by this. Weak-willed, perhaps? Easily swayed? Please claify. Intellectually deficient? You mean dumbasses? People who just aren't so bright? Those who have difficulty with math tests? What it really comes down to is whether or not the adult is able to fully comprehend the possible consequences of their actions. Now, it's obviously not feasible to give people competency tests to determine if they should be allowed to carry a card that allows them to not wear their seatbelts. So we must determine general guidelines. If you are a legally emancipated individual, you should be allowed to determine for yourself whether or not you should wear your seatbelt.
Please accept that a discussion on this subject is always going to be vexatious and will not be resolved if ever in a few posts. My responses aren't set in concrete and are not fully considered before posting. And also note this is no longer on topic to the threads original purpose....OK? OK lets take the seat belt issue and stick with that for a moment. Contention: We live in a society that has many elements of speciality within it. There are organisations that have investigated teh seat belt issue. We have come to realise that we are incapable as individuals of asssessing the seat belt issue on our own [ as with many other areas of expertise]so we defer to the specialist knowledge of those we want to assess these things. Our deferral leads us to come to realise that seatbelts if used correctly save lives in car accidents. Statistics are shown, medical evidence is provided and experience has shown that seat belts simply save lives if worn. Now Either I accept the findings or I do not. Do I wear a seat belt just because the law requires it or do I wear it because someone with specialist knowledge has made that advice that it would be in my best interests to do so? Ok so why should it become a law? To provide an incentive to those who do not study statistics, those who are unaware of the dangers of not wearing a seat belt, those who couldn't give shit anyway. To apply uniform pressure on society to teach it's children that seat belts are a good prevention to serious injury...etc etc.... The point is, You and I might be intellectually and emotionaly capable of working out the pros and cons for our sleves but to be frank most people couldn't give a rats arse as they automatically defer their decisions to a higher authority. They don't want to know the details they just want to get on with it with out critical thought. Most people are not that interested in critical assessment. They just go to work, and live their lives watching sitcoms on TV and rarely apply any depth to their thinking. So someone says that seat belts save lives and has the qualifications to support that. What does government gain by enforcing these determinations as laws? Roads that have a lower death toll. Why do they do that? Because people want a lower death toll. Why do people want a lower death toll [ re:seat belts]? Because if it's not them it might be their son or relative or girlfriend etc. who dies because she/he was complacent in wearing the seat belt. So the government recognises that a law on seat belts has the potential of saving so and so many lives. The death toll reduces and the law is a success. Thus reinforcing and justifying the citizens desire to allow a specialist make certain decisions about their lives. Not many people know about the intricacies of seat belt safety, most people are not interested in the physics or the technology , most people are very happy to be told what to do by a qualified person. Because they are too busy doing other shit. So they defer their best interests to a higher authority and do so happilly.
They have every right in the world to defer their best interest to a more informed person/group. If, however, it is law, they no longer have that right to choose whether they want to believe that it is safer, or whether they value that risk over whatever other factors they personally deem more important. There was not a single person in this country that has not heard that seatbelts save lives long before they were mandated by law. The people that chose not to wear them (many of whom STILL choose not to wear them) did that with the knowledge that they may be taking a greater risk. Who are the authorities to tell them that they CAN'T take a greater risk? If I want to skydive (which is greatly more dangerous than driving without a seatbelt) I can. Why? Because it is MY BODY and safety that I am allowed to risk! Those experts and the government should not be making those decision FOR us, they should be giving us information so we can make such a decision FOR OURSELVES. Making decisions for us and dictating how we are to live our lives because a panel of experts said that this is the right way to live should NOT be the role of the government. Why stop there? Why not require all people to stick to a panel-recommended 2000 calorie a day diet with the proper nutrition? Ban coffee. Make caffeine an illegal substance. People SHOULD be as informed as possible. people should also be allowed to make their own decisions on how to live their own lives! There have been studies that suggest that more than an hour or two a day at a computer screen is not heatlthy. It causes eye strain, fosters laziness, fosters anti-social tendencies etc. Do you think that adults should only be allowed to sit at a computer screen for less than two-hours a day? People are not automatons, nor should they be! People are aware that seatbelts save lives. if they choose, out of ignorance, carelessness, not wanting to wrinkle their suits or ANY OTHER REASON AT ALL to not wear one, they shouldn't have to. As for people's boyfriends, sons and daughters being safer... That is an absurd argument. "My son is living a reckless life! Skateboards should be banned!' Freedom of choice is the cornerstone of any free society.
Also, consider this... You raise your children to simply obey you, follow your lead, do what you tell them and never make decisions or take risks on their own. What kind of kids would you raise?
And freedom of choice still exists even if it is law you can simply ignore that law and pay a price for doing so....The law is always subject to your desire to obey it. The thing is the price of living in a society or a group is that one has to accepot it's laws and regulations or pay the price for not doing so. You still have that freedom to choose it's just now with regards to seat belts you have to pay a fine if your choice is no. There is no such thing as a free society, it is an ideal that is impossible due to the fact that it is a society.......or group ethic. The rights of one is diminished by the rights of all.......freedom is not attainable in a situation that involves more than one person. Being in a society demands compromise of freedoms as an ideal concept. If you were driving on your own private property on your own private road are you required to wear a seat belt? If you are driving on a road owned by every one then the collective will [governent] applies. If you choose to participate in a society compromise of freechoice idealism is inevitable...
I agree totally, but to raise them to ignore society with out critical thought does them no justice either. The word OBEY is not a word that sits well with me either. Obediance is actually a BS concept in the first instance.......The only obediance you have is to your self. The issue of minimising risk taking behaviour because of our desire to over protect is another issue although certainly a part of this conversation. There is no doubt that children need to learn how to take risks but also how to critically asssess those risks before takling them.
That is a bullshit cop-out answer, and I think you know it. We are discussing whether or not things should be illegal, if that is your answer, then everything might as well be illegal because it doesn't matter. Let's make it illegal to speak out against the government, it doesn;t matter, people can just ignore the law if they want to! I agree. When I get a ticket for not wearing my seatbelt I don;t try and fight it in court. That doesn't mean I agree with the law. I personally think it is an unfair breach of personal freedom with no valid justification. Obviously. "Free Society" is a misnomer at best and an oxymoron at worst. However, I think that the aim should be to offer member of a society as much freedom as reasonably possible. What I think is the ideal to strive for is what I said quite a few posts ago. People should be free to do what they please so long as that freedon does not infringe on the freedom of others. As I said in that post, as well, there are gray areas and nuances that need to be taken into consideration, and that's what legislation is for. Protecting me from myself and restricting MY freedom to do things that may risk my life or health, but have no reasonably conceivable way of harming ANYONE ELSE goes directly against the grain of that ideal, therefor is counter-productive. I welcome people informing me of health and safety issues, I whole-heartedly reject and abhor people telling me how to live my life and what to do with my body and mind.
Forcing people to wear seatbelts under threat of punishment has NOTHING to do with ignoring society or making concessions for someone else's freedom. It is EXACTLY the opposite. It is forcing members of a society to make concessions to their freedoms that have no reasonable affect one ANYONE ELSE. Speeding laws are examples of making concessions to freedoms in the interest of the greater freedom and safety of other members of society. Seatbelt laws are not even close to the same concept.
Hey, Quantum... I hope you don't think I am getting mad or upset with you. Like you said earlier, this is something I am passionate about, and sometimes I tend to come off a little harsh when I argue things I have strong feelings about. Please take nothing personally.
I have to leave the pc now but I thought I'd mention that I do agree with your main contention, however point out that whilst your ideal may be achieveable it woudl be extremely hard to put in place. The legal complexity I woudl guess would make it impossible. Have you thought about what rights the Emergency crews have when peeling a driver of the road after being flung out of a car because of an accident. If you could eliminate all others from the issue it would not be an issue. The rights of the medivac teams that have to clean up the mess you leave from not wearing a seat belt. These are rights too that may be worth a mention. any way must away......
It is their job to do. Their job is to arrive at grizzly secenes ALL the time. If they can not handle that, they should not be in the profession. Are you going to tell me that people who choose to be EMT's and Paramedics should have the right to not witness gruesome scenes? You are really grasping at straws now. Even WITH seatbelts, plenty of people die in car accidents every year. Should we ban driving in cars to protect the rights of the emergency workers? Come ON!
Cottontop 2003: Doing something one knows to be wrong, and doing it anyway, links with your notion of value, aka, seeking benefit (good) for oneself, as I said. Whilst I have, once or twice, done things I knew to be "wrong" (I once dropped a large wooden block on someone's head in Kindergarten out of morbid curiousity) such actions indicate my value shifted to the morbid curiousity, as opposed to caring for that person's temporary agony.
Quantum Quack: As regards the notion of laws to protect the weak from themselves: The government has no obligation, nor really any right, to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things, so long as that stupidity will not impact another person. If someone wants to not wear a seat belt, or take cocaine, or do any number of stupid things, the government should simply enforce laws of personal responsibility alone. If people ruin their lives, tough crap. By focusing on Personal Responsibility, we end up with a better society through the natural selection of Social Darwinism. Now, I fully agree with you in that people are slavish and detest personal responsibility, and in any Democracy the people are not likely to vote for such laws as they beg the State to take care of them, so this is only what I would consider an ideal world, as opposed to what I know any Democratic State's reality shall be.
Dunce_James: I notice you, like wesmorris and clockwood, still haven't answered my very simple questions. You seem to have a grudge against me. You a little pissed-off at me for some reason? Did I offend you somewhere else? Or just say something else that you can't think of an easy response to, as has apparently happened in this thread also? Did I say something that doesn't fit into your nice little deluded frame of mind? Here are the questions again, just in case I am wrong: So are you saying that the rapist, who raped the woman "cause the whore deserved it," is evil? Or that those who "perform horrible acts out of vengence or redirected agression, feeling that they are merely repaying a wrong done in the past to an individual or group" are evil? Or that the fanatic who "believes he is directed by god's mandate" is evil? Do you think each of them is all evil? So, what "value" do you think I got from torturing and killing small, innocent little kitty cats? I see. So you would actually call "morbid curiosity" a "value?"
Jeezus you're an angry person. Are you tortured by the visions of what you did? How cruel. Doesn't it stand to reason that you sought good for yourself in the pleasure of the sadism? What PJ said is that no person does anything without a reason, no matter how twisted or mundane. Perhaps you got kicks that way. Perhaps you even consciously decided "hey, how about some evil" and proceeded onto the deed. Whatever, it doesn't matter the details, the matter which was suggested is that you percieved it as a gain of some sort or you couldn't have chosen to do it, even if you bullshitted yourself into whatever at the time to justify it to yourself, or didn't. Perhaps you just proved something to yourself, or simply scratched that itch of curiosity... either way, you must have felt you'd ultimately gain something.. even if you thought you had to lose something to do it, or whatever the circumstance.
I don't even believe 'evil' exists as anything more than an illusion caused by one man's incomplete perception of another man's mind. Since you can't understand the inner workings of another man's mind, you demonize him. You call him evil to explain his actions. Everyone, at the time of the act, either believes themselves to be right or to have some excuse. No matter how bad it seems to us, it seemed right to them. Your perceptions have no place in the equation. Only theirs.
I tend to think that people often do things to offend others simply because it makes up for how utterly lost they are in knowing how to show they exist. Cottontop has repeatedly referred to his sadism and even now is enjoying the notoriety his actions generate. To have an impact on people when there is no other way I think fuels many a seemingly negative act. In the end it is the frustration of being a non-entity and the inability to do the work thats needed to be something that drives the drama or at least the need for drama. I guess for some people it is all to easy to establish their identity as a sadist than to take the harder road and actually develop something of greater value. So the more people react to this display of pride in kitty sadism the more justified the perp feels in his acts. Essentially it is about a low self esteem and how morbidity of this kind can be used to prop up a badly supported ego. I am not attempting to denigrate you Cottontop as I tend to feel you have made great strides since the cat issue...but I thought I'd share my thoughts any way....possibly you may even agree with me.....
