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, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Texas
42,253 posts, read 49,796,479 times
Reputation: 67083

Advertisements

Legalize drugs and let people do what they want
but then deny them any medical care they can't pay for out of pocket.
Including 'life-and-death' emergencies.
Also stiffen up DUI laws to remove licenses and enforce mandatory jail time for first offense.
Death penalty for killing someone while 'intoxicated.'
Then we'll talk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2008, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,639,100 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by Tungsten_UdderThe 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.
I do not find epistemic skepticism a problem, but rather its opposite. (And that's intended with both meanings.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 09:35 AM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,248,538 times
Reputation: 3094
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4 View Post
Legalize drugs and let people do what they want
but then deny them any medical care they can't pay for out of pocket.
Including 'life-and-death' emergencies.
Also stiffen up DUI laws to remove licenses and enforce mandatory jail time for first offense.
Death penalty for killing someone while 'intoxicated.'
Then we'll talk.
Okay... I hate to admit I'd ever see a day where I'd support legalizing drugs... but this is the day. You get my vote!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 09:42 AM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,248,538 times
Reputation: 3094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder View Post
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?
No... my apologies for not addressing that. I was trying to stick with the original topic about ending drug prohibition, and looking for a reason as to why anyone would want to end something that will result in further deaths (I'm using a difinitive only because I always default back to the statistically proven results with alcohol being legalized).

It seems like the bottom line is tens of thousands of peoples lives are worth the millions (possibly billions?) of dollars saved by legalizing it. I just see that as a sad rationale, that's all.

Oh... and by the way... the approximate 10,000-30,000 annual death numbers are the high and low numbers from the 20 year period covered from 1986-2006 during the study I reviewed (which I can't find the academic basis from).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 09:43 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,523,427 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder
Quote:
I do not find epistemic skepticism a problem, but rather its opposite.
That probably is because of your personal philosophy; you believe that everyone has the freedom to do as he pleases.
The problem is that this is not the case, people infected with HIV have the responsibility to have safe sex, their individual freedom concerning sex has become irrelevant the moment they endanger the health of everyone else.

And what about the babies, don't they have the right to be born crack free (read: drug & disease free)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,639,100 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
Okay... I hate to admit I'd ever see a day where I'd support legalizing drugs... but this is the day. You get my vote!!
My views aren't very far from that, although re denying government-funded medical care, I don't make a moral distinction between drug use and other kinds of behaviors that might put someone more at risk for needing medical care.

In other words, if we're going to deny people government-funded medical care because they've chosen to do some activity that statistically results in a high percentage of practitioners (of that activity) needing medical care, then I do not agree that those denials should be based on a consensus moral approval or disapproval of the activity. If 30% of the people who regularly choose to do drugs recreationally end up needing medical care related to the drug use, AND 30% of the folks who regularly choose to play football recreationally wind up needing medical care that's believed to be related to playing football, then if we're going to deny relevant government-funded medical care to the one, we should deny relevant government-funded medical care to the other, too. I wouldn't agree with denying government-funded medical care to only one and not the other, just because most folks believe that it's "bad to do drugs" but "not bad to play football".

The way I'd actually solve that is that I wouldn't have a monetary system under my government, and society would function very differently than it does now. No one would be paying for medical care, but everyone would be receiving it as needed, because the country wouldn't revolve around money but helping others achieve their (consensual) needs and desires.

I'd also have much harsher penalties for negligent homicide (and many other kinds of negligent "harm", property damage, etc.). If you wanted to take a chance driving high and you screwed up, you might not be able to take that chance in the future (it would depend on just how you screwed up). Even if that didn't provide a deterrent to others (although I believe it would), it would provide separation from the main society for those who took chances and screwed up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 09:55 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,639,100 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
No... my apologies for not addressing that. I was trying to stick with the original topic about ending drug prohibition, and looking for a reason as to why anyone would want to end something that will result in further deaths (I'm using a difinitive only because I always default back to the statistically proven results with alcohol being legalized).
Well, for just one from hundreds of possible examples, allowing people to drive results in more deaths than if we didn't allow people to drive. Most of us do not agree that society should be structured so that "eliminating as many deaths as possible" is the trump card.
Quote:
It seems like the bottom line is tens of thousands of peoples lives are worth the millions (possibly billions?) of dollars saved by legalizing it. I just see that as a sad rationale, that's all.
I don't know why you seem to think that my view on this has anything to do with money.
Quote:
Oh... and by the way... the approximate 10,000-30,000 annual death numbers are the high and low numbers from the 20 year period covered from 1986-2006 during the study I reviewed (which I can't find the academic basis from).
Ah . . . I was reading it as uncertainty for some reason for any given year, lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Texas
42,253 posts, read 49,796,479 times
Reputation: 67083
My point is more that we shouldn't make any more mind altering substances legal until we strengthen our rules/laws. Our DUI rules right now are a joke. Many other countries take your license away first time you're caught - or even if you have an open container! There are practically no consequences for drinking and driving (even if you kill someone, the drinking actually mitigates the charge)...you want to make more drugs legal so there's more chaos? Well, find a way to fix the chaos first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 10:00 AM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,248,538 times
Reputation: 3094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder View Post
Well, for just one from hundreds of possible examples, allowing people to drive results in more deaths than if we didn't allow people to drive. Most of us do not agree that society should be structured so that "eliminating as many deaths as possible" is the trump card.
I understand your example, but there's a difference in legalizing driving (a system where no one is expected to be impaired) and legalizing drugs (where all you're doing is allowing people to be impaired - with the obvious exception of medicinal purposes, of course)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder View Post
I don't know why you seem to think that my view on this has anything to do with money.
Okay, so I obviously came in the tail end of the conversation , and if you don't mind, why do you support it if not for the money the goverment would save over needless law enforcement for drugs, money saved in giving money to other countries to combat drugs and cartels, and money saved in our judicial system by no prosecuting criminals for drugs that would now be legalized?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2008, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,639,100 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder That probably is because of your personal philosophy; you believe that everyone has the freedom to do as he pleases.
It actually has more to do with my philosophical views on things like epistemology and philosophy of science.

Re "Everyone [should have] the freedom to do as they please", I'd clarify that it has to be consensual for all of the parties directly involved in the action in question.
Quote:
The problem is that this is not the case, people infected with HIV have the responsibility to have safe sex, their individual freedom concerning sex has become irrelevant the moment they endanger the health of everyone else.
Again, with the clarification about consent as above, it should be clear what my view on that would be.
Quote:
And what about the babies, don't they have the right to be born crack free (read: drug & disease free)?
I see newborns to teens as being on a continuum from property to autonomous adults, with the unusual condition that during the property stage, actions are prohibited that would result in a physical state, persistent past adulthood, different than if the action hadn't been taken, that the person (the child) might not consent to once they're an autonomous adult, excluding actions taken with the aim of promoting the health and longevity of the person. Under that, if you do things during your pregnancy that would result in such a physical state in the child, you could be prosecuted for that (or you'd better just have an abortion prior to giving birth if you do not want to chance that).
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