3 ms·

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

by 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?
- unalone 18y ago
  There's a big difference between drugs and suicide. Suicide is final. Any damage drugs do are usually temporary. I think that people using drugs should talk to people as much as people thinking about killing themselves, because with drugs you can go too far, but that's not the same thing as thinking that the people using drugs are bad people. Similarly, if you're selling drugs, you should only be selling to the people who want drugs. There's nothing immoral about selling to people who want them. My argument was that making crappy products is a harmful thing. I recently broke up with a girl who was as close to a soul mate as I've ever found because she was insistent that everybody was like Sex and the City characters, and that my personality type was incompatible with her character. People who write and produce crap damage people's minds, and I will always find that repugnant. In my mind, making bad things is just as bad as selling bad product, possibly even worse because you ought to know better. That said, I don't think it's fair to persecute people who make crappy things. The best solution is to make better things and lead by example. I'm not a libertarian. I think that there ought to be solutions to the drug problem. I just think that such solutions should be enticing people to do something better with their lives rather than punishing them for using.
  - newt0311 18y ago
    "Any damage drugs do are usually temporary." Bullshit. Addiction is permanent. After withdrawal symptoms have subsided, the hinger for drugs is still there and needs to be continuously controlled by the addict. Thus the insanely high reversion rate among past addicts (from what I have heard, ~95% in the US. From other sources: 50% in harsher countries like Singapore). "Similarly, if you're selling drugs, you should only be selling to the people who want drugs. There's nothing immoral about selling to people who want them." This is a classic Humean ought. I personally think that drugs are addictive and thus the normal rational impulses that limit uses of such products are ineffective here. Thus, if a drug is sufficiently addictive and does not have any other use, it should be banned. Thus, medical uses such as pain killers are fine (as long as the supply chain is secured). The use of the death penalty arises from the fact that drug use is notoriously difficult to limit and anything less would be largely ineffective. We cannot resolve this issue by discussion of facts etc... as these positions do not depend on fact. They depend on our inherent value systems. "I just think that such solutions should be enticing people to do something better with their lives rather than punishing them for using." Point 1: punishing an action is equivalent (empirically, not morally) to encouraging the opposite action. Point 2: People have tried to talk people into not using drugs. Non-addicts think they can avoid addiction (which the lucky ones manage to do but quite a few don't). Addicts want to stop (at least the sane ones do) but can't due to the very nature of addiction. I know the death penalty is extreme. However, in this case, it is one of the few things that will work (at least at significantly reducing the drug trade) and I think the human cost is worth the benefit of not having as many addicts. EDIT 1: Found detailed data from the Singaporean govt. on recidivism rates from drug addicts. Short version: they have been improving and have gone from 81.4% in 1994 to 59.1% in 2000. Still extremely high. Details here: http://www.mha.gov.sg/basic_content.aspx?pageid=74 http://www.mha.gov.sg/basic_content.aspx?pageid=74. Scroll to the bottom. EDIT 2: When we consider drug use in Singapore and China, we must account for their close proximity to the golden triangle -- one of the most active areas of drug production on the planet. Imagine that instead of having Mexico as a buffer against the drug trade (which is becoming reality all too quickly), we were instead right next to Colombia and friends and how much worse the drug problem would be then. EDIT 3: Found sources for recidivism rates for US durg addict rehabilitation centers: Peterson KA, Swindle RW, Phibbs CS, et al: Determinants of readmission following inpatient substance abuse treatment: a national study of VA programs. Medical Care 32:535-550, 1994 (sorry for the firewall). Summary of results on recidivism rates: 25% within first 180 days. increasing to 35% in 1 yr. Rates specifically for the VA program which may have significantly different characteristics from other programs. The 95% rate stated above seems a bit high compared to that. More research needed here. EDIT 4: the Singapore recidivism rates are for 2 years so they are difficult to compare to.

by unalone 18y ago

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?

unalone 18y ago
There's a big difference between drugs and suicide. Suicide is final. Any damage drugs do are usually temporary. I think that people using drugs should talk to people as much as people thinking about killing themselves, because with drugs you can go too far, but that's not the same thing as thinking that the people using drugs are bad people. Similarly, if you're selling drugs, you should only be selling to the people who want drugs. There's nothing immoral about selling to people who want them. My argument was that making crappy products is a harmful thing. I recently broke up with a girl who was as close to a soul mate as I've ever found because she was insistent that everybody was like Sex and the City characters, and that my personality type was incompatible with her character. People who write and produce crap damage people's minds, and I will always find that repugnant. In my mind, making bad things is just as bad as selling bad product, possibly even worse because you ought to know better. That said, I don't think it's fair to persecute people who make crappy things. The best solution is to make better things and lead by example. I'm not a libertarian. I think that there ought to be solutions to the drug problem. I just think that such solutions should be enticing people to do something better with their lives rather than punishing them for using.
- newt0311 18y ago
  "Any damage drugs do are usually temporary." Bullshit. Addiction is permanent. After withdrawal symptoms have subsided, the hinger for drugs is still there and needs to be continuously controlled by the addict. Thus the insanely high reversion rate among past addicts (from what I have heard, ~95% in the US. From other sources: 50% in harsher countries like Singapore). "Similarly, if you're selling drugs, you should only be selling to the people who want drugs. There's nothing immoral about selling to people who want them." This is a classic Humean ought. I personally think that drugs are addictive and thus the normal rational impulses that limit uses of such products are ineffective here. Thus, if a drug is sufficiently addictive and does not have any other use, it should be banned. Thus, medical uses such as pain killers are fine (as long as the supply chain is secured). The use of the death penalty arises from the fact that drug use is notoriously difficult to limit and anything less would be largely ineffective. We cannot resolve this issue by discussion of facts etc... as these positions do not depend on fact. They depend on our inherent value systems. "I just think that such solutions should be enticing people to do something better with their lives rather than punishing them for using." Point 1: punishing an action is equivalent (empirically, not morally) to encouraging the opposite action. Point 2: People have tried to talk people into not using drugs. Non-addicts think they can avoid addiction (which the lucky ones manage to do but quite a few don't). Addicts want to stop (at least the sane ones do) but can't due to the very nature of addiction. I know the death penalty is extreme. However, in this case, it is one of the few things that will work (at least at significantly reducing the drug trade) and I think the human cost is worth the benefit of not having as many addicts. EDIT 1: Found detailed data from the Singaporean govt. on recidivism rates from drug addicts. Short version: they have been improving and have gone from 81.4% in 1994 to 59.1% in 2000. Still extremely high. Details here: http://www.mha.gov.sg/basic_content.aspx?pageid=74 http://www.mha.gov.sg/basic_content.aspx?pageid=74. Scroll to the bottom. EDIT 2: When we consider drug use in Singapore and China, we must account for their close proximity to the golden triangle -- one of the most active areas of drug production on the planet. Imagine that instead of having Mexico as a buffer against the drug trade (which is becoming reality all too quickly), we were instead right next to Colombia and friends and how much worse the drug problem would be then. EDIT 3: Found sources for recidivism rates for US durg addict rehabilitation centers: Peterson KA, Swindle RW, Phibbs CS, et al: Determinants of readmission following inpatient substance abuse treatment: a national study of VA programs. Medical Care 32:535-550, 1994 (sorry for the firewall). Summary of results on recidivism rates: 25% within first 180 days. increasing to 35% in 1 yr. Rates specifically for the VA program which may have significantly different characteristics from other programs. The 95% rate stated above seems a bit high compared to that. More research needed here. EDIT 4: the Singapore recidivism rates are for 2 years so they are difficult to compare to.