3 ms·

"If you’re not wearing a mask, when we have this highly communicable disease, then you’re potentially impacting the rights of other people." The same argument

"If you’re not wearing a mask, when we have this highly communicable disease, then you’re potentially impacting the rights of other people." The same argument could be made for heroin. The point is that 'not wearing a mask' does not endanger someone's life in any way unless someone is infected with covid. yet the author suggests that not wearing a mask is "potentially impacting the rights of other people" Then surely the same argument could be made for people using heroin, you're not endangering anyones life by using heroin unless you're causing drug-related crimes. Which is the exact argument the government used to declare war on drugs. This is quite a contradiction by equavalency. The rest of the article is reasonable. I dont think he has said anything that fell outside the mainstream medical and psychological view.

didibus 6y ago
> you're not endangering anyones life by using heroin unless you're causing drug-related crimes Are you saying heroin causes people to commit crime? > This is quite a contradiction by equavalency. I thought he meant it similarly. We created the war on drugs from this logic, yet do not have a war on people not wearing masks. You're right in that mask wearing is a tricky situation, and I think so is hard drug usage. He brushed that off maybe a little too quickly. I think smoking and covid masks are a better equivalence. Second hand smoking can cause you to maybe affect others, so areas where you are allowed to smoke were restricted. I see masks in a similar fashion.
- Out_of_Characte 6y ago
  >I thought he meant it similarly. There was no ambiguity, from the article "Your birthright to use drugs is part of the pursuit of happiness, you write." The author consideres it a birthright to use drugs irrespective of the consequences drugs have for a percentage of the population. To wear or not to wear masks however is "... potentially impacting the rights of other people." which is why I think its a slight contradiction. >Are you saying heroin causes people to commit crime? I dont understand what you're asking, drug-related crimes are drug related, using heroin in the states is a crime so the continued habit also constitutes committing crimes? My point was that anyone could be a heroin user who commits crimes or a heroin user and write an article, there's no way of predicting the future, mainstream society has deemed the 'risk' too great and instituted a method of preventing heroin use by making the use of the substance illegal. The article goes against that narrative with a libertarian point of view. I think I prefer the libertarian on this one.
  - didibus 6y ago
    I'm not sure I follow you. The way I read the author is that they argue that it's our birthright to do whatever we want, as long as it doesn't interfere with the same right of others to do whatever they want. So with that logic, it would need to be that one's use of drugs impacted another's persons rights for it to be regulated, similar to how cigarettes smoking isn't allowed everywhere, because it impacts others around, so too is not wearing a mask when around others during a global pandemic. But it doesn't justify why lots of drugs are banned, when they only affect the user and not others.
    - Out_of_Characte 6y ago
      >it would need to be that one's use of drugs impacted another's persons rights for it to be regulated Yes, the author claims that heroin and drug-related crimes have little to do with heroin and more with the addiction or background of a person which means that the crime of using heroin violates your birthright to do what you want as long as it does not impact the rights of others, because, the author argues, he uses heroin himself and does not infringe on other people's rights. >so too is not wearing a mask when around others during a global pandemic. If I have been tested negative yesterday and I do not wear a mask, Do you still think I am impacting the rights of others? The wearing ( or not) of a mask does not infringe upon anyone's rights. The invisible virus is. Another question for you, If I have contracted covid, show symptoms and go around in as many public places wearing a mask. Do you believe I was not impacting the rights of others because I wore a mask? The legal system is not to punish vices, the legal system is to round up behaviour that we've outlawed in a manner that proves it beyond reasonable doubt. I cannot think of any example where indirect behaviour correlated with a possible infringement of rights has been a crime. Exept in authoritarian states ofcourse. Dont take this as an endorsement of not wearing masks. I dont have a strong opinion on the subject.

didibus 6y ago

> you're not endangering anyones life by using heroin unless you're causing drug-related crimes Are you saying heroin causes people to commit crime? > This is quite a contradiction by equavalency. I thought he meant it similarly. We created the war on drugs from this logic, yet do not have a war on people not wearing masks. You're right in that mask wearing is a tricky situation, and I think so is hard drug usage. He brushed that off maybe a little too quickly. I think smoking and covid masks are a better equivalence. Second hand smoking can cause you to maybe affect others, so areas where you are allowed to smoke were restricted. I see masks in a similar fashion.

Out_of_Characte 6y ago
>I thought he meant it similarly. There was no ambiguity, from the article "Your birthright to use drugs is part of the pursuit of happiness, you write." The author consideres it a birthright to use drugs irrespective of the consequences drugs have for a percentage of the population. To wear or not to wear masks however is "... potentially impacting the rights of other people." which is why I think its a slight contradiction. >Are you saying heroin causes people to commit crime? I dont understand what you're asking, drug-related crimes are drug related, using heroin in the states is a crime so the continued habit also constitutes committing crimes? My point was that anyone could be a heroin user who commits crimes or a heroin user and write an article, there's no way of predicting the future, mainstream society has deemed the 'risk' too great and instituted a method of preventing heroin use by making the use of the substance illegal. The article goes against that narrative with a libertarian point of view. I think I prefer the libertarian on this one.
- didibus 6y ago
  I'm not sure I follow you. The way I read the author is that they argue that it's our birthright to do whatever we want, as long as it doesn't interfere with the same right of others to do whatever they want. So with that logic, it would need to be that one's use of drugs impacted another's persons rights for it to be regulated, similar to how cigarettes smoking isn't allowed everywhere, because it impacts others around, so too is not wearing a mask when around others during a global pandemic. But it doesn't justify why lots of drugs are banned, when they only affect the user and not others.
  - Out_of_Characte 6y ago
    >it would need to be that one's use of drugs impacted another's persons rights for it to be regulated Yes, the author claims that heroin and drug-related crimes have little to do with heroin and more with the addiction or background of a person which means that the crime of using heroin violates your birthright to do what you want as long as it does not impact the rights of others, because, the author argues, he uses heroin himself and does not infringe on other people's rights. >so too is not wearing a mask when around others during a global pandemic. If I have been tested negative yesterday and I do not wear a mask, Do you still think I am impacting the rights of others? The wearing ( or not) of a mask does not infringe upon anyone's rights. The invisible virus is. Another question for you, If I have contracted covid, show symptoms and go around in as many public places wearing a mask. Do you believe I was not impacting the rights of others because I wore a mask? The legal system is not to punish vices, the legal system is to round up behaviour that we've outlawed in a manner that proves it beyond reasonable doubt. I cannot think of any example where indirect behaviour correlated with a possible infringement of rights has been a crime. Exept in authoritarian states ofcourse. Dont take this as an endorsement of not wearing masks. I dont have a strong opinion on the subject.