U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-22-2008, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,643,360 times
Reputation: 390

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
Therefore, we have proven that taking any drug (to this case - alcohol) is not safe for society.
(Aside from disagreeing with your use of the word "proof") Luckily, when I'm king, I do not base any legislation on whether something is "safe for society".
Quote:
But, we also know that one 100 percent of people who drink alcohol don't do so responsibly.
I certainly do not agree with that. Maybe you meant "We know that it's not the case that 100 % of people who drink do so responsibly"? That I agree with.
Quote:
So, we are legally introducing another 3-5 percent of the population to inherently endanger other innocent people.
Aside from a couple narrowly defined exceptions, I do not "legislate against potentialities".
Quote:
1. Why would we knowingly and willingly subject the public safety to a higher increase of impaired drivers/workers, etc.?
Because I think that (1) It's wrong except for that narrow class of instances to legislate against potentialities, and (2) I think it's wrong to prohibit ANY consensual activities, where I'm referring to people directly involved in a particular action, defining "action" in the standard way that it's defined in academic philosophy.
Quote:
If it's your mom, dad, brother, sister, or child, it might be worth it to keep the increased number of users legally off the road.
My ethics do not change based on my relationship to people.
Quote:
2. Why are we even discussing legalizing drugs?
Because some of us think it's ridiculous that consensual drug usage is illegal.
Quote:
What's the purpose of a drug?
Nothing. Non-sentient things do not have purposes. People have purposes and they very with the person.
Quote:
Other than medicinal purposes (which I am strongly in favor of), we are legalizing drugs for no other reason than for people to mess up their mental faculties, behavior, or physiological functioning. Don't we have better things to pay attention to in our society?
Assuming that drugs "mess up persons' mental faculties", I think it's wrong to prohibit anyone from choosing to mess up their bodies in any way they'd like to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2008, 08:49 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,534,815 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder
Quote:
And the studies that claimed that drug addiction is caused by mental illness?
That is the whole chicken and the egg discussion which is irrelevant anyway*.
My point is that if you don't do drugs there is roughly a 25% chance that you'll have to deal with a mental illness during your lifetime, but once you do drugs it increase to 50%.
And if someone in your family already suffers from a mental illness the chances will only increase.

Quote:
(in other words, it could be that people who seek treatment tend to have depressive symptoms, not opiate addicts in general)
It already is hard to differentiate between symptoms due to substance intoxication and unrelated psychotic episodes.
Quote:
*Determining the aetiology of co-morbidity results in a chicken and egg discussion: what came first? Existing research about the causal relations between psychiatric and substance disorders is inconclusive. The symptoms of mental disorder and addiction problems interact and mutually influence each other.
Source:Aetiology
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,643,360 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
My point is that if you don't do drugs there is roughly a 25% chance that you'll have to deal with a mental illness during your lifetime, but once you do drugs it increase to 50%.
Source?
Quote:
And if someone in your family already suffers from a mental illness the chances will only increase.
Okay, source for that too. It would probably be worthwhile looking at the research methodology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 09:24 AM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,254,031 times
Reputation: 3099
Quote:
"...Because I think that (1) It's wrong except for that narrow class of instances to legislate against potentialities, and (2) I think it's wrong to prohibit ANY consensual activities, where I'm referring to people directly involved in a particular action, defining "action" in the standard way that it's defined in academic philosophy."
Thank you very much. You have intelligently articulated why people who are proponents of legalization of currently illicit drugs have no valid argument.

You value personal freedoms resulting in potentially taking lives over personal freedoms to secure the right to live. Such logic is why a jury pays $2M to a woman dumb enough to pour hot coffee on herself. Such logic is why someone who breaks a leg breaking into a store to rob it receives compensatory money for it.

All I can hope is that the first 30,000 killed by the result of legalized drugs (because, sadly, it probably will become legalized in the not-to-distant future) are those who voted for it. It always takes a while in situations like this to shed light on the almighty dollar making decisions in America. Or the preceived injustices of the few to override the common sense of the many.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 09:25 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,534,815 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder
Quote:
Source?
That was a BBC program with Stephen Fry: The Secret Life of the Manic Depressive and a Dutch program about alcoholism and mental illness.
Anywayz:
Quote:
Compared with the general population:

- patients with mood or anxiety disorders are about twice as likely to also suffer from a drug disorder (figure).
- patients with drug disorders are roughly twice as likely to be diagnosed with mood or anxiety disorders.

Source: NIDA Drugs of Abuse and Related Topics - Topics in Brief
Quote:
Okay, source for that too. It would probably be worthwhile looking at the research methodology.
Same sources.
BTW are you denying that hard drugs eventually has a permanent impact on a person's mental health?
Quote:
Why Do Drug Abuse and Mental Disorders Commonly Co-occur?

- Overlapping genetic vulnerabilities.
Mounting evidence suggests that common genetic factors may predispose individuals to both mental disorders and addiction or to having a greater risk of the second disorder once the first appears.
- Overlapping environmental triggers.
Stress, trauma (e.g., physical or sexual abuse), and early exposure to drugs are common factors that can lead to addiction and to mental illness, particularly in those with underlying genetic vulnerabilities.
- Involvement of similar brain regions.
Some areas of the brain are affected by both drug abuse and mental disorders. For example, brain circuits linked to reward processing as well as those implicated in the stress response are affected by abused substances and also show abnormalities in specific mental disorders.
- Drug abuse and mental illness are developmental disorders.
They often begin in adolescence or even childhood, periods when the brain is undergoing dramatic developmental changes. Early exposure to drugs of abuse can change the brain in ways that increase the risk for mental illness (figure), just as early symptoms of a mental disorder may increase vulnerability to drug abuse.

Source: NIDA Drugs of Abuse and Related Topics - Topics in Brief
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,643,360 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
Thank you very much. You have intelligently articulated why people who are proponents of legalization of currently illicit drugs have no valid argument.
lol . . . obviously using some idiosyncratic definition of "validity" there.
Quote:
You value personal freedoms resulting in potentially taking lives over personal freedoms to secure the right to live.
Well, or I'm more of a libertarian than a liberal is another way to put that.
Quote:
Such logic is why a jury pays $2M to a woman dumb enough to pour hot coffee on herself.
No, something is wrong with your logic there. Logic was initially one of my aos's in grad school, so maybe I could help you out with that. My point of view is not that that woman was not responsible for spilling coffee on herself. And in cases where someone else's negligence would cause the kinds of physical harm I have prohibitions against, spilt coffee wouldn't get anyone 2 million dollars. If you're thinking that that logically follows somehow, we'd need to check out your logic.
Quote:
Such logic is why someone who breaks a leg breaking into a store to rob it receives compensatory money for it.
Maybe talk about how you're seeing that as following, and then we can figure out where it's going wrong. Could you list the steps from the views I've expressed to that conclusion?
Quote:
All I can hope is that the first 30,000 killed by the result of legalized drugs (because, sadly, it probably will become legalized in the not-to-distant future) are those who voted for it.
I see it as extremely unlikely that drugs would ever be legalized (in the US, at least) in my lifetime. As I get older, it seems to me that our society is becoming far less libertarian rather than moreso. I'd be far less surprised to see cigarettes banned in the US than I would be to see drugs legalized. I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that I have to come across as increasingly looney to others in my own culture on this stuff. I don't expect that to change any time soon.
Quote:
It always takes a while in situations like this to shed light on the almighty dollar making decisions in America.
Well, except my view on this has absolutely nothing to do with economic arguments. I think there are some economic upshots of it, but it's just not the basis of my view at all.
Quote:
Or the preceived injustices of the few to override the common sense of the many.
The idea of "common sense" might be fun to talk about in a thread dedicated to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 09:47 AM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,254,031 times
Reputation: 3099
Okay, Tungsten, I'm not going to go arbitrary item by arbitrary item (as you have done). I'll simplify this since I'm obviously not as intelligent or educated as you. Most are "yes" or "no" (or agree/disagree) questions so as to alleviate the need to for interpretation (or misinterpretation?) or bias.

1. Do you disagree with the statistics that between 10,000-30,000 people are killed annually in alcohol related traffic fatalities?
2. Do you agree that those numbers include innocent people, not just those who abused the consumption of alcohol?
3. Do you agree that the number of those fatalities are committed by the a large minority of those who drink alcohol to excess (or impaired levels) (less than 10%)?
4. Do you think it's inappropriate to put the same percentage of those abusing drugs in the future (if legalized) at the same rough percentage of those that abuse alcohol?
5. Then, by the logic above of application of statistics, (and what you said in your previous post) you are saying that you support the potential increase of innocent lives lost because it's only a potential, and that the gains of people having the freedom to destroy themselves overrides the right to the rest of society to expect to be protected from them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,643,360 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by Tungsten_UdderThat was a BBC program with Stephen Fry: The Secret Life of the Manic Depressive and a Dutch program about alcoholism and mental illness.
Any idea where they were getting their percentages from?
Quote:
Same sources.
Maybe I should clarify something here. When I ask for a source of information, I'm not asking for a website (or magazine article, or whatever) that claims something. I would hope that you do not buy something you read on a website, in a magazine, etc. just because that site, magazine, etc. claims whatever it is that they're claiming. These kinds of claims, if they're to have any legitimacy whatsoever, would have to be sourced in academic research. That academic research is almost always published in peer-reviewed journals. What I'm asking for is a source that would at least refer to the academic research, and the reason for this is that we need to check out the exact claims made in the journal, AND the methodology and reasoning that is being used as support for the claims. An example is the problems I noted earlier for the Williams study.
Quote:
BTW are you denying that hard drugs eventually has a permanent impact on a person's mental health?
Yes, stated that way, I'm denying that. Maybe you're not stating it very carefully however. The claim you're making is far too ambiguous.

I should mention though that all of that is irrelevant to my views on whether drugs should be legalized (so if the aim is to sway my views on that, it's a waste of time). The stuff we're bringing up is interesting in its own right, I think, but it's a different topic (for me at least) than whether we believe that drugs should be legal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,643,360 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
I'll simplify this since I'm obviously not as intelligent or educated as you.
I wouldn't agree with "you're obviously not as intelligent as I am". You know what formal education you've had, of course, and I don't, but it doesn't matter, imo. One can know just as much as anyone else without learning those things through the "official channels".

Anyway . . .
Quote:
1. Do you disagree with the statistics that between 10,000-30,000 people are killed annually in alcohol related traffic fatalities?
I'd have to look it up . . . seems like a lot of uncertainty there if the range is that large (20k +/- 10k would be a pretty large margin of error, lol), but whatever the number--it's not something I think is really worth quibbling about in this context, I'd agree that it's "many people" at least.
Quote:
2. Do you agree that those numbers include innocent people, not just those who abused the consumption of alcohol?
I agree it includes people who weren't drinking, sure.
Quote:
3. Do you agree that the number of those fatalities are committed by the a large minority of those who drink alcohol to excess (or impaired levels) (less than 10%)?
That claim isn't clear to me, but again, I don't think it matters. We can assume that it's the case.
Quote:
4. Do you think it's inappropriate to put the same percentage of those abusing drugs in the future (if legalized) at the same rough percentage of those that abuse alcohol?
I think that's arbitrary, but again, no problem assuming that.
Quote:
5. Then, by the logic above of application of statistics, (and what you said in your previous post) you are saying that you support the potential increase of innocent lives lost because it's only a potential, and that the gains of people having the freedom to destroy themselves overrides the right to the rest of society to expect to be protected from them?
Wait, lol--I should have read this whole thing before answering, because it's not showing the steps for what I was asking you to show the steps for.

We already know that I disagree in general with legislating against potentials. You could also just ask, "Could more people be accident victims because we're allowing people to do x, y and z" (there are hundreds of things we could plug into the variables there), and I'd say "yes". And you could ask for clarification (although I kinda already said this), "Do you think that it's more important to allow people to do things consensually than to take whatever measures you could take to make sure that no more people are accidentally harmed or killed than is absolutely necessary (or whatever you'd think is an acceptable risk)?" and I'd say "Yes". (Further to this, I also think there should be much harsher penalties in place for negligent homicide, by the way--I'm mentioning that because it's related to "the right to the rest of society to expect to be protected from them" (and by the way, I'm not at all a realist on rights).)

BUT, none of that has anything to do with believing that I'm in favor of people getting millions of dollars because they spilled coffee on themselves, or suing a business because they slipped and fell their leg while they were robbing it. That's what I was asking about. How are you reaching those conclusions based on what I had said?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 10:24 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,534,815 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder
Quote:
An example is the problems I noted earlier for the Williams study.
The problem with this is that every scientific study can 'cancel out' other scientific study.
The same way that for decades smoking was not considered unhealthy because of 'scientific' studies done by the tobacco industry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top