4 ms·

> no law shall be made preventing an informed and consenting adult from consuming whatever substance they so please Which is as stupid as it can get, unless y

by pif 3y ago

> no law shall be made preventing an informed and consenting adult from consuming whatever substance they so please Which is as stupid as it can get, unless you add the prescription that said adult must be the only one to bear the consequences of its consumption. You want to binge-drink every night? Sure, why not? Just make sure in advance that you won't come in contact with civilised people while intoxicated, and sign a statement releasing the society from any duty to assist you when your liver shuts down. Similar for lighter or heavier drugs. You want to smoke as a chimney? Damn, I'll fight with you to protect your right to fill your lungs with tar! Just don't go to the E.R. every time a small cold turns into a serious respiratory issue, and especially make sure you collect all the ashes and all the smoke, before they poison unwilling people.

indigo945 3y ago
But in the US, which does not have public healthcare, the burden "to bear the consequences of consumption" does already fall on the individual in those cases. This pro-prohibition argument is more impressive when made in countries that do have public healthcare, although it still falls short when trying to explain why doctors should mend bones that people break while engaging in some high-risk activities (like skiing or mountainbiking), but should not heal ailments that people incur while engaging in other high-risk activities (such as smoking). Banning drug consumption in public spaces, where they might harm others, is a different issue, and the drug that is most problematic here - tobacco - is in any case one of the least restricted ones.
- pif 3y ago
  It's not only a matter of medical insurance: it's also, and most important, a matter of driving while intoxicated, or putting yourself into such miserable conditions that you will forget any human decency and commit petty and/or dangerous crimes to get your next dose.
  - knewter 3y ago
    What about putting yourself in such miserable conditions that you will forget human decency and commit the non-petty crime of violating everyone's constitutional rights?
  - tekknik 3y ago
    Generally if you’re sick enough to need the ER you’re too sick to drive. Further, did you know that there is such a thing as legally impaired driving? > Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. Notice how that doesn’t say “only if they do what I say”?
- amalcon 3y ago
  This is not true, in a number of ways. The most obvious example: A person overdoses on something and is taken to the emergency department, treated, and then asked to pay. If they don't have the money, well, tough -- that cost simply ends up borne by the hospital. They also take up scarce resources (a bed, and the corresponding attention of medical professionals) thus delaying the treatment of other patients.
roenxi 3y ago
> Which is as stupid as it can get, unless you add the prescription that said adult must be the only one to bear the consequences of its consumption. By and large that is already the law. It is already illegal to harm someone else. This is a significant and annoying factor of many knee-jerk reactions that harshly criminalise already illegal things. That was how the rollback of basic liberties went after 9/11 for example - there was a pretence that somehow terrorism wasn't already illegal and effectively policed. And we ended up with mass spying and about as much terrorism as there ever was. Similar to this, really. I doubt the amount of drugs taken will change, they are just looking for excuses to spy more.
- pif 3y ago
  > It is already illegal to harm someone else. Which means that nobody should be surprised of measures meant to prevent people from getting harmed. Following your reasoning, as it is already illegal to harm someone else, then there is no point in banning weapons from aeroplanes; or in forbidding drunk people from operating a vehicle... I'd like to point out that I'm not a priori against drugs; but whoever proposes that anybody can do what he wants within a society, he does not know what society means.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
Your entire argument rests on the unfounded and frankly disgusting notion that addiction is a choice and not a disease. Should people be held responsible for crimes committed under the influence? Absolutely, to a significant extent, though there are some gradations there. Should people be denied medical treatment for their ailments because some people believe they're a moral failing, when all the evidence proves they are in fact medical ailments? Absolutely not.
- pif 3y ago
  I'm not sure we are talking about the same subject! I was responding to someone proposing to let everybody consume what he wants, and I replied that freedom to choose must imply obligation of bearing the consequences. Concerning the addiction, while freeing any addicted person from his shackles would be of great value for everybody (both the addicted person and the society at large), we must also insist on prevention as much as possible. And considering addiction only a disease, while forgetting that it usually stems from an initial deliberate choice, is a very dangerous stance. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot ever become dependent on a drug if you never consumed it. Which means that, short of being forcefully injected, every dependency on an illegal drug has roots in the initial choice. I feel the pain for the people already in it, but treating anything less than extremely serious has being, and is still, wreaking havoc on several generations. Just stop pushing the idea that there is anything cool or romantic in illegal drugs.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
    Choosing to take a drug is not choosing addiction any more than choosing to eat nuts is choosing anaphylactic shock due to an unknown allergy. Addiction is something some people are heavily predisposed to. And they don't generally find out about that fact until it's too late.
    - pif 3y ago
      > Choosing to take a drug ... choosing to eat nuts There is a HUGE difference between the two options: one is legal everywhere, the other is illegal everywhere. Stop conflating the two things.
P_I_Staker 3y ago
No these behaviors are core to our humanity. You have a responsibility to pay for a smokers medical care and to help addicts.
- pif 3y ago
  > You have a responsibility to pay ... I agree with you that this is the case in a sane society. And this responsibility gives me the right to implement policies to prevent such issues as much as possible.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  No I don’t, that’s actually just your political stance not an objective fact.
  - P_I_Staker 3y ago
    Everything everyone says is
tekknik 3y ago
Does this refusal of medicine extend to those who are incompetent? For example, if someone staples their finger to the wall should they be allowed to seek medical help? What about a car accident due to texting while driving? What about someone carrying a lot of boxes downstairs then trips and falls? Why when people do something you don’t like do you want to control them by removing access to medicine?

by pif 3y ago

indigo945 3y ago

But in the US, which does not have public healthcare, the burden "to bear the consequences of consumption" does already fall on the individual in those cases. This pro-prohibition argument is more impressive when made in countries that do have public healthcare, although it still falls short when trying to explain why doctors should mend bones that people break while engaging in some high-risk activities (like skiing or mountainbiking), but should not heal ailments that people incur while engaging in other high-risk activities (such as smoking). Banning drug consumption in public spaces, where they might harm others, is a different issue, and the drug that is most problematic here - tobacco - is in any case one of the least restricted ones.

pif 3y ago
It's not only a matter of medical insurance: it's also, and most important, a matter of driving while intoxicated, or putting yourself into such miserable conditions that you will forget any human decency and commit petty and/or dangerous crimes to get your next dose.
- knewter 3y ago
  What about putting yourself in such miserable conditions that you will forget human decency and commit the non-petty crime of violating everyone's constitutional rights?
- tekknik 3y ago
  Generally if you’re sick enough to need the ER you’re too sick to drive. Further, did you know that there is such a thing as legally impaired driving? > Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. Notice how that doesn’t say “only if they do what I say”?
amalcon 3y ago
This is not true, in a number of ways. The most obvious example: A person overdoses on something and is taken to the emergency department, treated, and then asked to pay. If they don't have the money, well, tough -- that cost simply ends up borne by the hospital. They also take up scarce resources (a bed, and the corresponding attention of medical professionals) thus delaying the treatment of other patients.

roenxi 3y ago

> Which is as stupid as it can get, unless you add the prescription that said adult must be the only one to bear the consequences of its consumption. By and large that is already the law. It is already illegal to harm someone else. This is a significant and annoying factor of many knee-jerk reactions that harshly criminalise already illegal things. That was how the rollback of basic liberties went after 9/11 for example - there was a pretence that somehow terrorism wasn't already illegal and effectively policed. And we ended up with mass spying and about as much terrorism as there ever was. Similar to this, really. I doubt the amount of drugs taken will change, they are just looking for excuses to spy more.

pif 3y ago
> It is already illegal to harm someone else. Which means that nobody should be surprised of measures meant to prevent people from getting harmed. Following your reasoning, as it is already illegal to harm someone else, then there is no point in banning weapons from aeroplanes; or in forbidding drunk people from operating a vehicle... I'd like to point out that I'm not a priori against drugs; but whoever proposes that anybody can do what he wants within a society, he does not know what society means.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago

Your entire argument rests on the unfounded and frankly disgusting notion that addiction is a choice and not a disease. Should people be held responsible for crimes committed under the influence? Absolutely, to a significant extent, though there are some gradations there. Should people be denied medical treatment for their ailments because some people believe they're a moral failing, when all the evidence proves they are in fact medical ailments? Absolutely not.

pif 3y ago
I'm not sure we are talking about the same subject! I was responding to someone proposing to let everybody consume what he wants, and I replied that freedom to choose must imply obligation of bearing the consequences. Concerning the addiction, while freeing any addicted person from his shackles would be of great value for everybody (both the addicted person and the society at large), we must also insist on prevention as much as possible. And considering addiction only a disease, while forgetting that it usually stems from an initial deliberate choice, is a very dangerous stance. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot ever become dependent on a drug if you never consumed it. Which means that, short of being forcefully injected, every dependency on an illegal drug has roots in the initial choice. I feel the pain for the people already in it, but treating anything less than extremely serious has being, and is still, wreaking havoc on several generations. Just stop pushing the idea that there is anything cool or romantic in illegal drugs.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  Choosing to take a drug is not choosing addiction any more than choosing to eat nuts is choosing anaphylactic shock due to an unknown allergy. Addiction is something some people are heavily predisposed to. And they don't generally find out about that fact until it's too late.
  - pif 3y ago
    > Choosing to take a drug ... choosing to eat nuts There is a HUGE difference between the two options: one is legal everywhere, the other is illegal everywhere. Stop conflating the two things.

P_I_Staker 3y ago

No these behaviors are core to our humanity. You have a responsibility to pay for a smokers medical care and to help addicts.

pif 3y ago
> You have a responsibility to pay ... I agree with you that this is the case in a sane society. And this responsibility gives me the right to implement policies to prevent such issues as much as possible.
edgyquant 3y ago
No I don’t, that’s actually just your political stance not an objective fact.
- P_I_Staker 3y ago
  Everything everyone says is

tekknik 3y ago

Does this refusal of medicine extend to those who are incompetent? For example, if someone staples their finger to the wall should they be allowed to seek medical help? What about a car accident due to texting while driving? What about someone carrying a lot of boxes downstairs then trips and falls? Why when people do something you don’t like do you want to control them by removing access to medicine?