4 ms·

Please let adults evaluate the risks and make up their own minds. Otherwise it sounds like MPTP https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/01/12/frozen-addicts-garage-drug

Please let adults evaluate the risks and make up their own minds. Otherwise it sounds like MPTP https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/01/12/frozen-addicts-garage-drugs-and-funky-brain-chemistry-10728 https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/01/12/frozen-addicts-garage-d... but that kills dopamine producing cells, so did he regrow these?

dctoedt 6y ago
> Please let adults evaluate the risks and make up their own minds. I imagine Ellen would have appreciated the same opportunity to decide how she would spend that part of her life. (Ellen is the now-estranged wife of the locked-in guy; she spent months helping to care for him.) Ditto the taxpayers of Massachusetts, who had to foot the bill for millions of dollars of medical care for the locked-in guy. Those dollars could have funded, say, education or infrastructure. Adults' choices affect more than just their own lives. That's why we have social norms, and laws.
- yostrovs 6y ago
  Other adults decided that they're going to take care of this guy. Whether the wife or the society of Massachusetts. That was their choice. That choice should not automatically impose limitations on 3rd parties that would like to make their own choices.
  - dctoedt 6y ago
    If we take that logic to the reductio ad absurdum, the other adults in your neighborhood could choose to band together, forcibly evict you from your house, and let one of their number live there — after all, that'd be their adult choice, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      I'm not taking sides here but, original post > Other adults decided that they're going to take care of this guy Taking care of people is a good thing. What you're suggesting, of other adults banding together and ruining someone's life (assuming for no good reason but their personal gain), is clearly a bad thing. I mean there are no absolute good and bad but you're
    - mikem170 6y ago
      > If we take that logic to the reductio ad absurdum, the other adults in your neighborhood could choose to band together, forcibly evict you from your house, and let one of their number live there — after all, that'd be their adult choice, right? The inaction of those who don't want to be caregivers is not the same as an action taken to forcibly evict someone. Making an equivalence of the two would mean that anyone who is capable of helping someone else and does not is in the wrong. If that were the case we would all be wrong for not donating all of our money to the poor. Philosophers better than you and I have grappled with this, I don't think they'd support your reductio ad absurdum.
      - dctoedt 6y ago
        > The inaction of those who don't want to be caregivers is not the same as an action taken to forcibly evict someone. Agreed, but the distinction might not be relevant. > Making an equivalence of the two would mean that anyone who is capable of helping someone else and does not is in the wrong. Depending on the jurisdiction, there are circumstances in which the law says exactly that. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
        throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        > Depending on the jurisdiction... well, ok, I see your point but is this one of those cases? I'm pretty sure it's not; to rescue is a transient thing and of extreme circumstances, and nothing like caregiving which is a long-term process. Edit: and therefore the distinction is relevant.
- pksebben 6y ago
  That is not why we have those social norms and laws. The War On Drugs was a political move by the Nixon administration that got doubled down on by the Reagan administration and has simply lasted long enough to become baseline cultural context. The costs associated with American drug policy far outweigh the costs of treatment, and our cultural attitude of abstinence only has been demonstrated to increase drug abuse, not curtail it. As for the taxpayers of massachusetts, why not ask them how it feels to get prison expenses _down_ to $1.4 B with a 33% nonviolent prison population? That's mostly black? Also take note, Jacob got his start on oxycontin, which is legal, and currently the focus of a series of state-led lawsuits against Purdue pharma and the sackler family, major campaign donors to conservative drug policy causes. I don't mean to come at you, but that argument of yours is one that I've heard and it's dangerous. https://www.mass.gov/service-details/quick-statistics https://www.mass.gov/service-details/quick-statistics
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    > Adults' choices affect more than just their own lives. That's why we have social norms, and laws. I take this to mean A. GP supports laws that limit am individual’s actions if they benefit the individual at the (non-consensual) expense of others. And B. GP implies drug use is one of those activities. With which part do you disagree? A. Do you believe that laws designed to protect the group from the individual will inevitably fail? B. Do you believe drug use is not one of those activities? Sub-question, do you believe this depends on the drug?
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      Edit: are you replying to the right post, because if not that would explain me getting in a tizz. I'm afraid I'm tired and having trouble understanding your post but am curious. Please correct me where I go wrong as I try to make sense of it. > A. Do you believe that laws designed to protect the group from the individual will inevitably fail? Doesn't it depend on the law? Bad laws will probably fail and certainly should fail. Bad laws do exist, as @pksebben was illustrating. Should this law was revoked recently https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iceland-revokes-400-year-old-legal-right-westfjords-district-kill-basques-sight-10278592.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iceland-revo... but should it not have been? I suspect I'm getting you wrong, so please put me right.
nkrisc 6y ago
If they live out in the woods on their own, sure. Otherwise I'm fine being part of a society that has some restrictions we impose on ourselves.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Are you from the US? If so do you agree with US gun culture which "2017, [...] the [the CDC's] National Center for Health Statistics reports that gun deaths reached their highest level since 1968, with 39,773 deaths by firearm" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...) One person paralysed by a contaminant (not heroin itself) = bad, but tens of thousands of deaths otherwise = ok. I agree with laws and social restrictions if they are good ones that reflect the proportionate level of harm. But you know this will go nowhere, unlikely you'll reply but this'll get downvoted because people aren't willing to face up to maybe being wrong. Edit: none of this is about drugs or guns. It's about common sense and thinking for yourself. Drugs particularly are where aberrations in these show up.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    This is a weird comparison. Most Americans both reject casual heroin use and support additional measures restricting gun sales.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      I struggle to see the weirdness. Whether or not what you say is true, and actually I suspect it is, that doesn't change the massive death discrepancy I gave.
      - morelisp 6y ago
        It’s weird because people agree both are bad. There is no aberration.
        6y ago

dctoedt 6y ago

> Please let adults evaluate the risks and make up their own minds. I imagine Ellen would have appreciated the same opportunity to decide how she would spend that part of her life. (Ellen is the now-estranged wife of the locked-in guy; she spent months helping to care for him.) Ditto the taxpayers of Massachusetts, who had to foot the bill for millions of dollars of medical care for the locked-in guy. Those dollars could have funded, say, education or infrastructure. Adults' choices affect more than just their own lives. That's why we have social norms, and laws.

yostrovs 6y ago
Other adults decided that they're going to take care of this guy. Whether the wife or the society of Massachusetts. That was their choice. That choice should not automatically impose limitations on 3rd parties that would like to make their own choices.
- dctoedt 6y ago
  If we take that logic to the reductio ad absurdum, the other adults in your neighborhood could choose to band together, forcibly evict you from your house, and let one of their number live there — after all, that'd be their adult choice, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    I'm not taking sides here but, original post > Other adults decided that they're going to take care of this guy Taking care of people is a good thing. What you're suggesting, of other adults banding together and ruining someone's life (assuming for no good reason but their personal gain), is clearly a bad thing. I mean there are no absolute good and bad but you're
  - mikem170 6y ago
    > If we take that logic to the reductio ad absurdum, the other adults in your neighborhood could choose to band together, forcibly evict you from your house, and let one of their number live there — after all, that'd be their adult choice, right? The inaction of those who don't want to be caregivers is not the same as an action taken to forcibly evict someone. Making an equivalence of the two would mean that anyone who is capable of helping someone else and does not is in the wrong. If that were the case we would all be wrong for not donating all of our money to the poor. Philosophers better than you and I have grappled with this, I don't think they'd support your reductio ad absurdum.
    - dctoedt 6y ago
      > The inaction of those who don't want to be caregivers is not the same as an action taken to forcibly evict someone. Agreed, but the distinction might not be relevant. > Making an equivalence of the two would mean that anyone who is capable of helping someone else and does not is in the wrong. Depending on the jurisdiction, there are circumstances in which the law says exactly that. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
      - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        > Depending on the jurisdiction... well, ok, I see your point but is this one of those cases? I'm pretty sure it's not; to rescue is a transient thing and of extreme circumstances, and nothing like caregiving which is a long-term process. Edit: and therefore the distinction is relevant.
pksebben 6y ago
That is not why we have those social norms and laws. The War On Drugs was a political move by the Nixon administration that got doubled down on by the Reagan administration and has simply lasted long enough to become baseline cultural context. The costs associated with American drug policy far outweigh the costs of treatment, and our cultural attitude of abstinence only has been demonstrated to increase drug abuse, not curtail it. As for the taxpayers of massachusetts, why not ask them how it feels to get prison expenses _down_ to $1.4 B with a 33% nonviolent prison population? That's mostly black? Also take note, Jacob got his start on oxycontin, which is legal, and currently the focus of a series of state-led lawsuits against Purdue pharma and the sackler family, major campaign donors to conservative drug policy causes. I don't mean to come at you, but that argument of yours is one that I've heard and it's dangerous. https://www.mass.gov/service-details/quick-statistics https://www.mass.gov/service-details/quick-statistics
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  > Adults' choices affect more than just their own lives. That's why we have social norms, and laws. I take this to mean A. GP supports laws that limit am individual’s actions if they benefit the individual at the (non-consensual) expense of others. And B. GP implies drug use is one of those activities. With which part do you disagree? A. Do you believe that laws designed to protect the group from the individual will inevitably fail? B. Do you believe drug use is not one of those activities? Sub-question, do you believe this depends on the drug?
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Edit: are you replying to the right post, because if not that would explain me getting in a tizz. I'm afraid I'm tired and having trouble understanding your post but am curious. Please correct me where I go wrong as I try to make sense of it. > A. Do you believe that laws designed to protect the group from the individual will inevitably fail? Doesn't it depend on the law? Bad laws will probably fail and certainly should fail. Bad laws do exist, as @pksebben was illustrating. Should this law was revoked recently https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iceland-revokes-400-year-old-legal-right-westfjords-district-kill-basques-sight-10278592.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iceland-revo... but should it not have been? I suspect I'm getting you wrong, so please put me right.

nkrisc 6y ago

If they live out in the woods on their own, sure. Otherwise I'm fine being part of a society that has some restrictions we impose on ourselves.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Are you from the US? If so do you agree with US gun culture which "2017, [...] the [the CDC's] National Center for Health Statistics reports that gun deaths reached their highest level since 1968, with 39,773 deaths by firearm" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...) One person paralysed by a contaminant (not heroin itself) = bad, but tens of thousands of deaths otherwise = ok. I agree with laws and social restrictions if they are good ones that reflect the proportionate level of harm. But you know this will go nowhere, unlikely you'll reply but this'll get downvoted because people aren't willing to face up to maybe being wrong. Edit: none of this is about drugs or guns. It's about common sense and thinking for yourself. Drugs particularly are where aberrations in these show up.
- morelisp 6y ago
  This is a weird comparison. Most Americans both reject casual heroin use and support additional measures restricting gun sales.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    I struggle to see the weirdness. Whether or not what you say is true, and actually I suspect it is, that doesn't change the massive death discrepancy I gave.
    - morelisp 6y ago
      It’s weird because people agree both are bad. There is no aberration.
      - 6y ago