3 ms·

> I tend to go on the side of freedom, even if it's "free to be dumb" The issue is not as simple as you characterize it. Should 'freedom to be dumb' include fr

by abhi3 9y ago

> I tend to go on the side of freedom, even if it's "free to be dumb" The issue is not as simple as you characterize it. Should 'freedom to be dumb' include freedom to drive drunk/while texting? >And both attempt to say that their actions are addictive, therefore we cannot trust their actions, so we have to decide for them. You seem to think that these controls exist for the protection of the addicts. They don't. They exist to protect the society and economy from a downward spiral caused by widespread drug addiction - which is what will happen if you remove all controls.

lowmagnet 9y ago
DWI is a broad limitation on the use of any substance that impairs its user while driving. Texting is called "distracted driving" in some states/countries. The drugs can be made legal, the consequences would still be the same. Except in cases where someone smoked cannabis last week and it still shows up a week later as metabolites, which is only a problem because the substance is illegal in most states still.
crankylinuxuser 9y ago
> The issue is not as simple as you characterize it. Should 'freedom to be dumb' include freedom to drive drunk/while texting? But, it is. No law stops drunk driving. It is "illegal", but that's only a threat after the fact. And bringing cell phones is only a recent phenomenon.. How about people who read books while driving, or eating, or a thousand different things? You only need 1 law for this: distracted driving. Distracted can be from doing things unrelated to driving, or being high, or drunk, sleepy, or whatever. And I also have issue with "drunk driving". The .08 standard is not based in science. It's from MADD lobbying. And to be honest, if someone drives well at .08, so be it. People have different sensitivities - you should reasonably know if you're not safe. > You seem to think that these controls exist for the protection of the addicts. They don't. They exist to protect the society and economy from a downward spiral caused by widespread drug addiction - which is what will happen if you remove all controls. So throwing people in metal cages is a good solution here? Cause that's the cost that the US has accepted when violating these controls. And these laws don't exactly have a good result either.
- abhi3 9y ago
  >So throwing people in metal cages is a good solution here? Cause that's the cost that the US has accepted when violating these controls. And these laws don't exactly have a good result either. Compared to the Opium Wars where China had to go to war with Britain to prevent civilizational collapse from drug use, yes jailing peddlers of poison seems acceptable.
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    Given my ignorance on the subject, it was called the Opium wars, but it was more about direct trade routes and rights of sovereignty in China vs British. It's a lot more complicated than your comment portrays. All I can assume, is that you saw Opium wars, and try to use it as some emotional plea. Sorry, not buying it. I would rather have the Portuguese system than the current lock everyone up one. Cause we know it doesn't work. And thats experimental data, not theoretical.

by abhi3 9y ago

lowmagnet 9y ago

DWI is a broad limitation on the use of any substance that impairs its user while driving. Texting is called "distracted driving" in some states/countries. The drugs can be made legal, the consequences would still be the same. Except in cases where someone smoked cannabis last week and it still shows up a week later as metabolites, which is only a problem because the substance is illegal in most states still.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago

> The issue is not as simple as you characterize it. Should 'freedom to be dumb' include freedom to drive drunk/while texting? But, it is. No law stops drunk driving. It is "illegal", but that's only a threat after the fact. And bringing cell phones is only a recent phenomenon.. How about people who read books while driving, or eating, or a thousand different things? You only need 1 law for this: distracted driving. Distracted can be from doing things unrelated to driving, or being high, or drunk, sleepy, or whatever. And I also have issue with "drunk driving". The .08 standard is not based in science. It's from MADD lobbying. And to be honest, if someone drives well at .08, so be it. People have different sensitivities - you should reasonably know if you're not safe. > You seem to think that these controls exist for the protection of the addicts. They don't. They exist to protect the society and economy from a downward spiral caused by widespread drug addiction - which is what will happen if you remove all controls. So throwing people in metal cages is a good solution here? Cause that's the cost that the US has accepted when violating these controls. And these laws don't exactly have a good result either.

abhi3 9y ago
>So throwing people in metal cages is a good solution here? Cause that's the cost that the US has accepted when violating these controls. And these laws don't exactly have a good result either. Compared to the Opium Wars where China had to go to war with Britain to prevent civilizational collapse from drug use, yes jailing peddlers of poison seems acceptable.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  Given my ignorance on the subject, it was called the Opium wars, but it was more about direct trade routes and rights of sovereignty in China vs British. It's a lot more complicated than your comment portrays. All I can assume, is that you saw Opium wars, and try to use it as some emotional plea. Sorry, not buying it. I would rather have the Portuguese system than the current lock everyone up one. Cause we know it doesn't work. And thats experimental data, not theoretical.