5 ms·

We aren't all average Americans. Individual responsibility should apply here. I don't want my rights restricted because other people are fools. If it's consid

We aren't all average Americans. Individual responsibility should apply here. I don't want my rights restricted because other people are fools. If it's considered acceptable to tell people what they can and cannot put into their bodies because "average" people can't handle it, there's no limiting principle in place to stop our bodies from being controlled by others.

circlefavshape 3y ago
It actually is considered acceptable to tell people what they can and cannot put into their bodies. Legal restrictions on medicines and intoxicants are in place all over the world, and that hasn't led to "others" taking control of my body.
- SamPatt 3y ago
  >Legal restrictions on medicines and intoxicants are in place all over the world, and that hasn't led to "others" taking control of my body. If you say so. I believe prohibition exerts substantial control over our bodies, and also corrodes other aspects of personal freedom (such as the Fourth Amendment in the US).
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Well if you don't believe in any medicine prohibitions, then you'd be arguing against literally every government in the world (except maybe Somalia) plus the UN and hundreds of other IGOs, NGOs, etc...
    - Mordisquitos 3y ago
      Spain for instance does not impose any legal restriction as to what you knowingly choose to put into your own body. Not only is possession of any drug for personal use without an intent to distribute not a criminal offence in Spain, neither is consuming said drugs in the privacy of your own home. There is also no legal restriction on growing cannabis or psychedelic mushrooms on private property outside of public view, as long as the amounts are small enough that there is no reason to suspect an intent to distribute it.
    - randomNumber7 3y ago
      > then you'd be arguing against literally every government in the world I'd like to do that^^. 1. Imagine what would happen to the mafia etc... No more war in mexico for example. 2. Normal people wouldn't just start taking heroine for example 3. Imagine what happens to jails 4. You could use some of the new tax money (which goes to the mafia currently) to hire some medical professionals. That way you could help the really addicted. 5. 100% pure heroin would not destroy the body (it was developed as painkiller). Those junkies are that f*ed up because of the other stuff they pump in their veins. How is that a win for society?
    - SamPatt 3y ago
      Yes I believe every government in the world has made a mistake by implementing prohibition. I also believe they were all in error when slavery was legal everywhere. This is a combination of appeal to authority and appeal to majority.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Why would anyone take you seriously? (Anymore so then the fringe groups that call for disbanding the UN, all central banks, etc...)
        SamPatt 3y ago
        Ideas should be judged on their merit, not their popularity. I don't care if my views are fringe and others choose to not take them seriously as a result. That's outside my control. People accepting beliefs uncritically is the problem, and that applies equally to nutjob conspiracy theorists as well as people who accept the whatever the current groupthink believes. A cursory examination of history is all that's needed to know that, at any given point in time, there are many beliefs across society which are just flat out wrong. To think that in 2023 somehow we've finally got it figured out is arrogance.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        > Ideas should be judged on their merit, not their popularity. No, ideas that need to be applied broadly should be judged on a combination of their merits and demerits, and popularity, as there are enforcement and political costs associated with any proposal (as long as the government needs to do make any changes whatsoever). It would be different if it was a private proposal that will only affect you and immediate family. To be entirely honest, it seems like you need to rethink this more thoroughly instead of just repeating memorable slogans.
misja111 3y ago
I see what you mean and on the one hand I agree. On the other hand, what to do if some people don't act responsibly and get addicted; and then for instance ruin their health or neglect their children. Who should be responsible for helping them go to rehab, fixing their health problems or helping their children? If it means the society has to take care of this, then isn't it also fair that society tries to prevent people from getting addicted in the first place? And prohibiting drugs is one way of trying to do that.
- leetcrew 3y ago
  putting people in jail for doing drugs doesn't do much for their children or their health either. I also don't see why it has to be all one way or the other. I agree that people with dependent children have no business taking risks with drugs. like you say, this creates a mess other people are compelled to clean up. but what if a person doesn't have children (or successfully raised them to be independent adults)? as long as they pay whatever taxes they owe, why care what they do with their time?
- di456 3y ago
  > And prohibiting drugs is one way of trying to do that. The war on drugs had tried and failed for decades. All it's done is enrich the cartels, fill prisons with minorities, create an oxycodone epidemic, flood the streets with cheap and deadly fentanyl, and countless other problems. While the same government "protecting" citizens from harm is corrupt the point of the CIA becomeing drug traffickers on the side [1], making the problem even worse like throwing petrol on a fire. [1] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/big-white-lie-cia-and-cocainecrack-epidemic https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/big-whit... Prohibition has nothing to do with prevention.
- SamPatt 3y ago
  Prohibiting drugs is one way of trying to do that. Has it succeeded? No. Criminalizing it often makes it even more difficult to deal with the societal damage of addiction. Dealing with an addict is difficult, but dealing with an addict who is now a criminal is that much harder. Society has all sorts of tools to help people who are struggling. Our criminal justice system is one of the least effective. An addict is harming their family whether drugs are legal or not, and it's obvious from our current situation that their legal status doesn't prevent people from using drugs.
pixl97 3y ago
This is messy... Lets imagine a hypothetical drug so we don't have to argue about the effects of real ones. This drug removes the idea of responsibility from your mind when your on it. This drug creates a paradox in your framework. You dictate that individuals have ultimate responsibility. This drug removes any internal idea of responsibility as a concept leading to bizzare and potential dangerous actions from the user. Would you agree this drug should be banned then?
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  You’re talking about ethanol aren’t you.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Nope. Was talking about something hypothetical with a 100% responsibility removal rate. But with ethanol we tried that once, didn't work out well as you tend to create a police state to prevent it as it's easy to make.
- SamPatt 3y ago
  No, it should not be banned. The drug itself isn't the issue. If a person took precautions to ensure they couldn't harm others while using the drug (consenting trip sitter who can physically handle them, proper set and setting) then they should be able to do that. However they must also bear the cost of any harm done in that state. The problem isn't that someone took a drug, it's that they did X thing to hurt others. Punish X thing, not the drug use. I acknowledge that this has serious problems because not everyone acts responsibly. But the alternative is to implement a system which removes the basic freedom to control what goes into your own body... and still have people acting irresponsibly anyway.
refurb 3y ago
Not going to happen. People aren't even responsible enough to read their mortgage documents.
- SamPatt 3y ago
  Those people should bear the costs of acting irresponsibly. The alternative is worse.
  - refurb 3y ago
    We're already doing the opposite with most instances of personal responsibility. I agree it's unfortunate.

circlefavshape 3y ago

It actually is considered acceptable to tell people what they can and cannot put into their bodies. Legal restrictions on medicines and intoxicants are in place all over the world, and that hasn't led to "others" taking control of my body.

SamPatt 3y ago
>Legal restrictions on medicines and intoxicants are in place all over the world, and that hasn't led to "others" taking control of my body. If you say so. I believe prohibition exerts substantial control over our bodies, and also corrodes other aspects of personal freedom (such as the Fourth Amendment in the US).
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Well if you don't believe in any medicine prohibitions, then you'd be arguing against literally every government in the world (except maybe Somalia) plus the UN and hundreds of other IGOs, NGOs, etc...
  - Mordisquitos 3y ago
    Spain for instance does not impose any legal restriction as to what you knowingly choose to put into your own body. Not only is possession of any drug for personal use without an intent to distribute not a criminal offence in Spain, neither is consuming said drugs in the privacy of your own home. There is also no legal restriction on growing cannabis or psychedelic mushrooms on private property outside of public view, as long as the amounts are small enough that there is no reason to suspect an intent to distribute it.
  - randomNumber7 3y ago
    > then you'd be arguing against literally every government in the world I'd like to do that^^. 1. Imagine what would happen to the mafia etc... No more war in mexico for example. 2. Normal people wouldn't just start taking heroine for example 3. Imagine what happens to jails 4. You could use some of the new tax money (which goes to the mafia currently) to hire some medical professionals. That way you could help the really addicted. 5. 100% pure heroin would not destroy the body (it was developed as painkiller). Those junkies are that f*ed up because of the other stuff they pump in their veins. How is that a win for society?
  - SamPatt 3y ago
    Yes I believe every government in the world has made a mistake by implementing prohibition. I also believe they were all in error when slavery was legal everywhere. This is a combination of appeal to authority and appeal to majority.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Why would anyone take you seriously? (Anymore so then the fringe groups that call for disbanding the UN, all central banks, etc...)
      - SamPatt 3y ago
        Ideas should be judged on their merit, not their popularity. I don't care if my views are fringe and others choose to not take them seriously as a result. That's outside my control. People accepting beliefs uncritically is the problem, and that applies equally to nutjob conspiracy theorists as well as people who accept the whatever the current groupthink believes. A cursory examination of history is all that's needed to know that, at any given point in time, there are many beliefs across society which are just flat out wrong. To think that in 2023 somehow we've finally got it figured out is arrogance.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        > Ideas should be judged on their merit, not their popularity. No, ideas that need to be applied broadly should be judged on a combination of their merits and demerits, and popularity, as there are enforcement and political costs associated with any proposal (as long as the government needs to do make any changes whatsoever). It would be different if it was a private proposal that will only affect you and immediate family. To be entirely honest, it seems like you need to rethink this more thoroughly instead of just repeating memorable slogans.

misja111 3y ago

I see what you mean and on the one hand I agree. On the other hand, what to do if some people don't act responsibly and get addicted; and then for instance ruin their health or neglect their children. Who should be responsible for helping them go to rehab, fixing their health problems or helping their children? If it means the society has to take care of this, then isn't it also fair that society tries to prevent people from getting addicted in the first place? And prohibiting drugs is one way of trying to do that.

leetcrew 3y ago
putting people in jail for doing drugs doesn't do much for their children or their health either. I also don't see why it has to be all one way or the other. I agree that people with dependent children have no business taking risks with drugs. like you say, this creates a mess other people are compelled to clean up. but what if a person doesn't have children (or successfully raised them to be independent adults)? as long as they pay whatever taxes they owe, why care what they do with their time?
di456 3y ago
> And prohibiting drugs is one way of trying to do that. The war on drugs had tried and failed for decades. All it's done is enrich the cartels, fill prisons with minorities, create an oxycodone epidemic, flood the streets with cheap and deadly fentanyl, and countless other problems. While the same government "protecting" citizens from harm is corrupt the point of the CIA becomeing drug traffickers on the side [1], making the problem even worse like throwing petrol on a fire. [1] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/big-white-lie-cia-and-cocainecrack-epidemic https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/big-whit... Prohibition has nothing to do with prevention.
SamPatt 3y ago
Prohibiting drugs is one way of trying to do that. Has it succeeded? No. Criminalizing it often makes it even more difficult to deal with the societal damage of addiction. Dealing with an addict is difficult, but dealing with an addict who is now a criminal is that much harder. Society has all sorts of tools to help people who are struggling. Our criminal justice system is one of the least effective. An addict is harming their family whether drugs are legal or not, and it's obvious from our current situation that their legal status doesn't prevent people from using drugs.

pixl97 3y ago

This is messy... Lets imagine a hypothetical drug so we don't have to argue about the effects of real ones. This drug removes the idea of responsibility from your mind when your on it. This drug creates a paradox in your framework. You dictate that individuals have ultimate responsibility. This drug removes any internal idea of responsibility as a concept leading to bizzare and potential dangerous actions from the user. Would you agree this drug should be banned then?

amanaplanacanal 3y ago
You’re talking about ethanol aren’t you.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Nope. Was talking about something hypothetical with a 100% responsibility removal rate. But with ethanol we tried that once, didn't work out well as you tend to create a police state to prevent it as it's easy to make.
SamPatt 3y ago
No, it should not be banned. The drug itself isn't the issue. If a person took precautions to ensure they couldn't harm others while using the drug (consenting trip sitter who can physically handle them, proper set and setting) then they should be able to do that. However they must also bear the cost of any harm done in that state. The problem isn't that someone took a drug, it's that they did X thing to hurt others. Punish X thing, not the drug use. I acknowledge that this has serious problems because not everyone acts responsibly. But the alternative is to implement a system which removes the basic freedom to control what goes into your own body... and still have people acting irresponsibly anyway.

refurb 3y ago

Not going to happen. People aren't even responsible enough to read their mortgage documents.

SamPatt 3y ago
Those people should bear the costs of acting irresponsibly. The alternative is worse.
- refurb 3y ago
  We're already doing the opposite with most instances of personal responsibility. I agree it's unfortunate.