3 ms·

The amount of people I want consuming recreational PCP around me is 0.

jurynulifcation 3y ago
Why should your preference impact my right to my body and what I put into it? That is downright psychotic. You mean to tell me that if someone simply takes PCP near you and does not in any way harm you, you would like for their fundamental human privileges violently stripped from them? Now, if someone takes PCP and is then a public nuisance, that should be dealt with. But it should be dealt with because they are being a public nuisance, not because you disagree with what they have put into their body.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  There exists a lag between becoming a public nuisance and being dealt with, within which damage can be incurred by those experiencing the nuisance. The probability and severity of the damage dictates whether or not society decides to allow it. As an uncontroversial example, maybe someone is well qualified to manipulate explosives in their garage. But society would still say the risk is not worth it, because by the time the “nuisance” is dealt with, there would be unacceptable losses. The relevant measures to be discussed are what is the probability of someone using PCP and not being a nuisance, and if they did use PCP, what severity would the nuisance be?
  - jurynulifcation 3y ago
    Do you have any high-quality studies towards these relevant measures? Because your proposition is: "I think this man might be on PCP. He is otherwise doing nothing wrong. He should be imprisoned." That is ridiculous. A sober person is equally as capable of becoming a nuisance. So your actual proposition is to jail people on your presumptions, values, and opinions.
- dlkf 3y ago
  Your argument would apply equally to a drunk driver who didn’t happen to crash that night. The problem is that taking pcp significantly raises the probability the user will commit an act of violence, by which point it’s too late.
  - jurynulifcation 3y ago
    I don't believe this to be a necessary truth. Do you have any high quality studies that PCP, itself as a substance, does indeed raise the probability of someone doing something untoward? Might it not, in fact, be a problem with the people using PCP? In which case, why should it be restricted for people who would not become a nuisance? Further, why should people who do not become a problem on it have their rights taken away for the simple fact of imbibing?
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > Why should your preference impact my right A little thing called democracy. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Why should your preference impact my right to my body and what I put into it? That is downright psychotic. You mean to tell me that if someone simply takes PCP near you and does not in any way harm you, you would like for their fundamental human privileges violently stripped from them? Now, if someone takes PCP and is then a public nuisance, that should be dealt with. But it should be dealt with because they are being a public nuisance, not because you disagree with what they have put into their body.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
There exists a lag between becoming a public nuisance and being dealt with, within which damage can be incurred by those experiencing the nuisance. The probability and severity of the damage dictates whether or not society decides to allow it. As an uncontroversial example, maybe someone is well qualified to manipulate explosives in their garage. But society would still say the risk is not worth it, because by the time the “nuisance” is dealt with, there would be unacceptable losses. The relevant measures to be discussed are what is the probability of someone using PCP and not being a nuisance, and if they did use PCP, what severity would the nuisance be?
- jurynulifcation 3y ago
  Do you have any high-quality studies towards these relevant measures? Because your proposition is: "I think this man might be on PCP. He is otherwise doing nothing wrong. He should be imprisoned." That is ridiculous. A sober person is equally as capable of becoming a nuisance. So your actual proposition is to jail people on your presumptions, values, and opinions.
dlkf 3y ago
Your argument would apply equally to a drunk driver who didn’t happen to crash that night. The problem is that taking pcp significantly raises the probability the user will commit an act of violence, by which point it’s too late.
- jurynulifcation 3y ago
  I don't believe this to be a necessary truth. Do you have any high quality studies that PCP, itself as a substance, does indeed raise the probability of someone doing something untoward? Might it not, in fact, be a problem with the people using PCP? In which case, why should it be restricted for people who would not become a nuisance? Further, why should people who do not become a problem on it have their rights taken away for the simple fact of imbibing?
mcpackieh 3y ago
> Why should your preference impact my right A little thing called democracy. Perhaps you've heard of it.