5 ms·

I'm going to assume that you're a younger guy? Back when I was in high school I might have thought the same way - this was before I actually made friends with s

by unalone 18y ago

I'm going to assume that you're a younger guy? Back when I was in high school I might have thought the same way - this was before I actually made friends with some drug users and tried some myself in college. Drug users are not bad people. Most drug dealers are not bad people. On my floor in college, the kid who sells drugs is a pretty cool kid: good student, active in sports. There's some social problems he runs across because he's "the kid that sells drugs," but he's a pretty cool guy. He's a typical college student who just happens to sell drugs to the kids who want to buy drugs. That is not deserving of death. When you talk about killing somebody, you're talking about ending a life, unconditionally terminating a person's future. Some things are worth that (I will hold to my dying day that enjoying the Twilight book series is admitting your lack of will to live), perhaps, but drug selling and drug use? No. Not at all. As I said: I tried marijuana a handful of times, and I thought it was pretty relaxing. Nobody was harmed. (To go to the extreme, if you use a vaporizer, you're not even risking lung damage, which means that your body seriously is not injured in any way, even minute.) It was voluntary on the part of myself and some friends. We were okay with paying for those drugs; the kid who sold them was fine with trading them for money. Do I deserve to die because I voluntarily used chemicals? Does the dealer deserve to die because he gave a product to somebody who wanted it? Who is the criminal here? Enforcing drug rules is basically punishing people not for actually doing anything bad, but for doing something that the government is telling you is a no-no. If I told you that it was bad to, say, whistle, and you whistled, and I told you I'd kill you if you didn't stop, maybe you'd stop, but that doesn't solve the real problem, which is "unalone is a dick who's setting arbitrary, pointless rules". The problem isn't your whistling, it's me. It's fun thinking of things so black-and-white when you're young, but once you reach the ripe old age of 18, you'll start maturing a little bit.

jimbokun 18y ago
You seem to be saying, in essence, "except for the drug dealing he is a pretty good kid, so therefore he is a pretty good kid." Um, what if you include the drug dealing into the equation, and all of the possible damage to the lives of people he is selling drugs to, or perhaps even to their friends, families, and loved ones? (You didn't say the kinds of drugs, and maybe you believe that whatever he is selling is not bad, since you argue that marijuana is harmless and maybe he is selling only marijuana. But you did not say that and it is a pretty important caveat.) While not condoning or agreeing with newt0311's argument, I wonder if whether the difference is a fundamental idsagreement with the place of individual human rights? Because newt0311 cites China and Singapore approvingly, I wonder if he believes that the harmony of society (or some other group-level values) are so important that the wishes and desires of individuals merit little consideration? In other words, drug addiction is so bad in its costs to society in general that the very lives of the individuals taking drugs are insignificant compared to the interests of society as a whole? I only suggest this because if the disagreement is really at this level, arguing specifics and details will not be very fruitful.
- unalone 18y ago
  I'm a big fan of individualism. I don't remember the last time anything great was made by anything other than individual will, so perhaps I'm biased. People who think we should be cogs in a big machine can feel free to disagree with me. You seem to be saying, in essence, "except for the drug dealing he is a pretty good kid, so therefore he is a pretty good kid." Not quite. It's more that I'm saying drug dealers aren't just drug dealers. The people who sell drugs are rarely more or less scummy than other people. Saying you want to kill them for drug sales is ridiculous, and it's vilifying a lot of people who are more than just drug dealers. "Um, what if you include the drug dealing into the equation, and all of the possible damage to the lives of people he is selling drugs to, or perhaps even to their friends, families, and loved ones?" If it's their choice to buy drugs, then if he wants to peddle, he should peddle. (I honestly don't know what else he sells. I don't buy drugs at all, so I've never asked.) You can argue over whether or not drugs are good for people, if they help them relax or if they're burning people out, but in the end it's the choice of the people who want to buy the drugs. And there's some complexity to that argument - I think that the only meaningful things worth doing are the things that actively help people, but that means that I dislike people who write slush stories or directors who are sloppy with camera work or pretty much most people, if I'm going to stand absolutely by that metric. But that's not a reason to incriminate somebody. It's their choice to sell and I think they have that right.
  - jimbokun 18y ago
    I wish you would just make the libertarian argument that people should be allowed to do whatever damage they want to themselves, as long as they don't damage others, and be done with it. I can understand that argument, because it appeals to the idea that government action intended to stop one bad thing can lead to something much worse. But you seem to be actively defending the idea that there is nothing immoral in a vocation that will inevitably destroy the lives of many people. You point out that the people being destroyed are complicit in their destruction, but I do not see that as a fully qualifying factor. If someone was contemplating suicide, and someone else happily persuades them to go through with it instead of trying to talk them out of it, that's a morally neutral choice? You also seem to be equating bad camera work and writing with drug dealing, which I will assume is not what you meant because that would be pretty silly. Now, if you are just re-iterating the point that you do not want to incriminate drug dealers, that position can be defended. But if you honestly believe that there is nothing morally wrong with intentionally and actively enabling people into addiction, I doubt that the gap between our views on morality can be bridged. I suspect there is some misunderstanding about where you are arguing for not criminalizing activities versus defending their morality. If so, could you clarify?
jfornear 18y ago
In the unlikely case that this cool, athletic drug dealer produced the drugs in his dorm room himself, I would agree with your position, but unfortunately the drug trade doesn't start in the dorm. Do you realize how many truly good people's lives are destroyed in the process of keeping supply of drugs up with demand in America? What about cool, athletic Juan in Mexico who was executed for refusing to join the Zetas? What about mayor Carillo who was gunned down in an intimidation assassination? What about Jake who died of an overdose in the frat house because he thought drugs were cool? > Do I deserve to die because I voluntarily used chemicals? I'm not going to go there, but ask yourself how innocent you really are.
- unalone 18y ago
  I'm not going to go there, but ask yourself how innocent you really are. I'm not innocent. I'm a human being. I've offended people and made an ass of myself and done things that I regretted. Does that make me somebody worthy of death? (Frankly, if I were to make a list of "things that would be good excuses for somebody else to kill me," drug use wouldn't be in the top 10, because at least that hurt nobody.) What about cool, athletic Juan in Mexico who was executed for refusing to join the Zetas? What about mayor Carillo who was gunned down in an intimidation assassination? That's a good reason to encourage legalization followed by business supervision. Used to be people were killed over alcohol. Now people have turned winemaking into an art, and not many alcohol gang deaths occur. What about Jake who died of an overdose in the frat house because he thought drugs were cool? What about my grandmother, who died of lung cancer? Or the people who die of alcohol abuse? The solution is education. My college has many hard drug users, and zero hard drug deaths.
  - jfornear 18y ago
    > drug use wouldn't be in the top 10, because at least that hurt nobody Unless you produce your own drugs and consume them secretly, that is not true. > That's a good reason to encourage legalization... The reality is, drugs are not legal. You can't go there.
    - 18y ago
plinkplonk 18y ago
Upvoted for "I will hold to my dying day that enjoying the Twilight book series is admitting your lack of will to live" :-)

by unalone 18y ago

jimbokun 18y ago

You seem to be saying, in essence, "except for the drug dealing he is a pretty good kid, so therefore he is a pretty good kid." Um, what if you include the drug dealing into the equation, and all of the possible damage to the lives of people he is selling drugs to, or perhaps even to their friends, families, and loved ones? (You didn't say the kinds of drugs, and maybe you believe that whatever he is selling is not bad, since you argue that marijuana is harmless and maybe he is selling only marijuana. But you did not say that and it is a pretty important caveat.) While not condoning or agreeing with newt0311's argument, I wonder if whether the difference is a fundamental idsagreement with the place of individual human rights? Because newt0311 cites China and Singapore approvingly, I wonder if he believes that the harmony of society (or some other group-level values) are so important that the wishes and desires of individuals merit little consideration? In other words, drug addiction is so bad in its costs to society in general that the very lives of the individuals taking drugs are insignificant compared to the interests of society as a whole? I only suggest this because if the disagreement is really at this level, arguing specifics and details will not be very fruitful.

unalone 18y ago
I'm a big fan of individualism. I don't remember the last time anything great was made by anything other than individual will, so perhaps I'm biased. People who think we should be cogs in a big machine can feel free to disagree with me. You seem to be saying, in essence, "except for the drug dealing he is a pretty good kid, so therefore he is a pretty good kid." Not quite. It's more that I'm saying drug dealers aren't just drug dealers. The people who sell drugs are rarely more or less scummy than other people. Saying you want to kill them for drug sales is ridiculous, and it's vilifying a lot of people who are more than just drug dealers. "Um, what if you include the drug dealing into the equation, and all of the possible damage to the lives of people he is selling drugs to, or perhaps even to their friends, families, and loved ones?" If it's their choice to buy drugs, then if he wants to peddle, he should peddle. (I honestly don't know what else he sells. I don't buy drugs at all, so I've never asked.) You can argue over whether or not drugs are good for people, if they help them relax or if they're burning people out, but in the end it's the choice of the people who want to buy the drugs. And there's some complexity to that argument - I think that the only meaningful things worth doing are the things that actively help people, but that means that I dislike people who write slush stories or directors who are sloppy with camera work or pretty much most people, if I'm going to stand absolutely by that metric. But that's not a reason to incriminate somebody. It's their choice to sell and I think they have that right.
- jimbokun 18y ago
  I wish you would just make the libertarian argument that people should be allowed to do whatever damage they want to themselves, as long as they don't damage others, and be done with it. I can understand that argument, because it appeals to the idea that government action intended to stop one bad thing can lead to something much worse. But you seem to be actively defending the idea that there is nothing immoral in a vocation that will inevitably destroy the lives of many people. You point out that the people being destroyed are complicit in their destruction, but I do not see that as a fully qualifying factor. If someone was contemplating suicide, and someone else happily persuades them to go through with it instead of trying to talk them out of it, that's a morally neutral choice? You also seem to be equating bad camera work and writing with drug dealing, which I will assume is not what you meant because that would be pretty silly. Now, if you are just re-iterating the point that you do not want to incriminate drug dealers, that position can be defended. But if you honestly believe that there is nothing morally wrong with intentionally and actively enabling people into addiction, I doubt that the gap between our views on morality can be bridged. I suspect there is some misunderstanding about where you are arguing for not criminalizing activities versus defending their morality. If so, could you clarify?

jfornear 18y ago

In the unlikely case that this cool, athletic drug dealer produced the drugs in his dorm room himself, I would agree with your position, but unfortunately the drug trade doesn't start in the dorm. Do you realize how many truly good people's lives are destroyed in the process of keeping supply of drugs up with demand in America? What about cool, athletic Juan in Mexico who was executed for refusing to join the Zetas? What about mayor Carillo who was gunned down in an intimidation assassination? What about Jake who died of an overdose in the frat house because he thought drugs were cool? > Do I deserve to die because I voluntarily used chemicals? I'm not going to go there, but ask yourself how innocent you really are.

unalone 18y ago
I'm not going to go there, but ask yourself how innocent you really are. I'm not innocent. I'm a human being. I've offended people and made an ass of myself and done things that I regretted. Does that make me somebody worthy of death? (Frankly, if I were to make a list of "things that would be good excuses for somebody else to kill me," drug use wouldn't be in the top 10, because at least that hurt nobody.) What about cool, athletic Juan in Mexico who was executed for refusing to join the Zetas? What about mayor Carillo who was gunned down in an intimidation assassination? That's a good reason to encourage legalization followed by business supervision. Used to be people were killed over alcohol. Now people have turned winemaking into an art, and not many alcohol gang deaths occur. What about Jake who died of an overdose in the frat house because he thought drugs were cool? What about my grandmother, who died of lung cancer? Or the people who die of alcohol abuse? The solution is education. My college has many hard drug users, and zero hard drug deaths.
- jfornear 18y ago
  > drug use wouldn't be in the top 10, because at least that hurt nobody Unless you produce your own drugs and consume them secretly, that is not true. > That's a good reason to encourage legalization... The reality is, drugs are not legal. You can't go there.
  - 18y ago

plinkplonk 18y ago

Upvoted for "I will hold to my dying day that enjoying the Twilight book series is admitting your lack of will to live" :-)