Giving drugs to drug addicts

[metadigital]

Except that murder is a act against someone else in the society, and therefore must be fought against. Whereas drug taking only affects the individual, except currently, where the illegality of the process causes more, innocent other members of society to be affected.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your argument was about the legitimacy of drug laws in reference to their efficacy. That drug laws were wrong wasn't the issue, it was that they were ineffective. That drug laws harm the innocent is irrelevant to the argument that they fail as a deterrent, and that the laws fail as a deterrent is insufficient argument to conclude that those laws should not be in place, as evidenced by the murder analogy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No.

 

My argument was about the efficacy of the law that dealt with a reduction of personal freedoms (however valid).

 

Don't try to reduce my argument to absurdity: the whole point is that the law won't work because it will ALWAYS have individuals against it.

 

Whereas (apart from tarna and a few others) the vast majority of people do not support murder.

[Pop]

My argument was about the efficacy of the law that dealt with a reduction of personal freedoms (however valid).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet the point of my argument was that the efficacy of a law is not related to its justification for existing. Perfectly valid reasons (such as infringement on personal freedom) for revoking the law are made without having ever referenced the irrelevant issue of whether or not the law works. That issue is brought to the fore when we consider whether or not we want to adapt or optimize a law, not whether or not we want that law to exist. If the government intends to reduce drug consumption, but its law fails to that effect, that is indicative of failed policy; the intent can still be innoculated against the argument. In other words, the legitimacy of a law and its implementation are seperate, and efficacy arguments speak against the latter, not the former.

 

Don't try to reduce my argument to absurdity: the whole point is that the law won't work because it will ALWAYS have individuals against it.

Which, again, is irrelevant. That individuals defy a law does not make it illegitimate. If drug law is illegitimate because some individuals defy it, rape and murder laws are also illegitimate (if we want to be reasonably consistent) for the same reason. If drug laws are illegitimate and rape / murder laws are legitimate, then our criterion for legitimacy must come originally from something other than efficacy. If we don't want drug laws because they don't work, than we don't want laws against murder if they don't work. This line of reasoning is absurdity, but it is consistent with this line of argument. We want murder laws and we don't want drug laws, but neither of those things have anything to do with whether or not the policy is failsafe and effective. They have to do with whether or not those policies are fair and just.

 

Your other arguments and your conclusion may be sound, but that particular argument is not.

 

Whereas (apart from tarna and a few others) the vast majority of people do not support murder.

On the contrary, there is not a "vast majority" of people who take murder to be wrong all the time everywhere. Most people would agree that certain people deserve death (but most would take exception to things like capital punishment because they kill people who don't deserve it), and more still would make exceptions for self-defense or defense of others. I didn't see anything prima facae wrong with tarna's post. If he wanted to kill his landlord, that would be wrong, but he'd be reasonable in wanting your Slobodan Milosevichs or Pol Pots dead.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Pop

[metadigital]

Nope. Libertarian argument.

 

Society's right to curtail your freedom to injest toxic substances (or whatever) ENDS at the perimetrical volume marked by the tip of your nose.

 

A drug law is parentalism: society trying to save the pitiable drug takers from themselves.

 

I doubt I need to iterate the above points with respect to murder to highlight how taking a life is markedly different.

 

My point is that because this law is:

• completely incomperable to murder, AND
  
• society (others) imposing their will on individuals for the "benefit" of the indivuals (and society only indirectly)
  

it IS a failed piece of legislation and it will continue to be so.

 

Comparing prohibition to murder is disingenuous, specious and fallacious in the extreme. Apples and oranges.

[Pop]

That you're seeing the argument as an actual comparison between drug use and murder means either you're not acquainted with the rules of logic or you're just not bothering to read.

 

The issue is whether or not the inefficacy of a law is a good reason for repealing it. Your argument was: Drug laws don't prevent people from taking drugs, therefore the laws are invalid, therefore they should be repealed. My argument was: If that is true for that law, then all other ineffective laws aimed at deterrence are also invalid, and they should also be repealed. The logical conclusion, since there are laws that are ineffective that we still want in place, such as murder laws, is that we must either remove efficacy from our arguments or consistently repeal all ineffective laws, including those we wish to keep. Bringing up that drug use and murder are different confuses the issue. The issue is the law, not that which the law prohibits.

[metadigital]

No. You are just taking one part of my argument and arguing the logic of it on its own.

 

The law WILL NOT WORK because people DO NOT WANT IT TO WORK.

 

It is not related to murder (which YOU MADE the comparison with), because it is not a positive law, it is a negative law. By that I mean it is a law that is taking away from people's freedoms "for their own good", and not "for the good of everyone".

 

You can continue to argue that my ADDITIONAL argument was flawed as much as you like, but the above is all you need to understand why you are wrong.

 

The law doesn't work, and will not work, because it is not a law that the society wants. That is the point.

[Pop]

No. You are just taking one part of my argument and arguing the logic of it on its own.

 

The law WILL NOT WORK because people DO NOT WANT IT TO WORK.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, odd, that has nothing to do with your argument

 

Because I don't know one person who has trouble finding drugs if they want them. That's failure. And it is a foregone conclusion, just like prohibition didn't stop the speakeasies.

Where is it? I see an assertion that the law fails to stop people who want to defy it, not an assertion that people defying the law invalidates it. If you want to innoculate your argument against the refutation, you have to explicitly state that the support of the law is the crux of the argument, rather than the efficacy of the law, and the argument contains no such statements.

 

The way you determine the validity of a logical argument is to break it down into its individual premises, and test those premises against the conclusion. "The law is ineffective" was your premise. "Drug laws should be repealed" was your conclusion. The conclusion does not follow from the premise, and that argument is invalid. You seem to be bringing up arguments irrelevant to the discussion of this particular point, which you have yet to refute the point.

[metadigital]

No, that is just a reductionist pov.

 

Read it all again.

 

Now, I take it that you actually understand what my argument is, and are just arguing about the way I said it because you have no argument for it.

 

Which is fine for a while, but kinda boring after a time, too.

[~Di]

Besides the fact that history has proven that laws regulating one's behavior toward oneself are inevitably dismal failures, one thing folks seem to be conviently forgetting is that an enormous percentage of people sitting in jails at this very moment (I once read something like 80% or some similarly staggering number) are there for drug related crimes.

 

Can you imagine the massive sigh of relief from the penal system, the justice system, and the taxpayer if their burden was lessened by 80%? Just something to think about.

[Pop]

No, that is just a reductionist pov.

 

Read it all again.

 

Now, I take it that you actually understand what my argument is, and are just arguing about the way I said it because you have no argument for it.

 

Which is fine for a while, but kinda boring after a time, too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I agree with your conclusions, and your arguments from liberty. But your argument from efficacy is ****. I've tried my best to outline this, but your unwillingness to renege on faulty arguments because you've got other, better ones speaks ill of either my ability to communicate the problem (and I've tried to remedy that many times over in different posts) or your ability to understand / handle it.

Edited December 3, 2006 by Pop

[alanschu]

On the contrary, there is not a "vast majority" of people who take murder to be wrong all the time everywhere. Most people would agree that certain people deserve death (but most would take exception to things like capital punishment because they kill people who don't deserve it), and more still would make exceptions for self-defense or defense of others.

 

Killing someone in the defense of others or in self-defense isn't murder.

[Pop]

On the contrary, there is not a "vast majority" of people who take murder to be wrong all the time everywhere. Most people would agree that certain people deserve death (but most would take exception to things like capital punishment because they kill people who don't deserve it), and more still would make exceptions for self-defense or defense of others.

 

Killing someone in the defense of others or in self-defense isn't murder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's true. But there's no contradiction. Tarna says

There are several people I would kill tomorrow ( no joke ) if I thought the law would see it my way

Which does not presuppose killing in defense. For example, tarna might want to kill a father who beats his children every day such that they are in constant danger of being killed.

 

and Metadigital says

Whereas (apart from tarna and a few others) the vast majority of people do not support murder.

which supposes that tarna's intent to kill, regardless of good or bad reasons, is tantamount to support of murder. I was trying to point out that this was not necessarily the case.

[Walsingham]

I think Pop makes an interesting point, but as a decision maker we surely have to consider utility in our lawmaking. We could outlaw everything nasty in the world. But how in God's name could we enforce all those laws? I can outlaw thinking mean or racist thoughts, but what's the point?

 

Govt isn't just about principle, it's about what's achievable. I'm not going to debate the possibility of somehow halting illicit drug taking if we oriented our entire society on that purpose, but as we stand it's just not feasible. We're already pushing the limits of what many people find acceptable intrusion in trying to halt it.

 

As for your point Gfted, however wittily put , the cost of giving heroin away really is absolute peanuts. I'll reiterate for those sitting in the cheap seats, it costs less than 100 dollars to 'feed' the worst addict on Earth for a year. In fact if we grew the stuff without disruption it ought to be cheaper than wheat flour. Are you seriously telling me that you wouldn't like to see reduction in jail populations, and more free time for our cops to prosecute things like murder (not to mention less crimes in general) for such a trifling sum? Not to mention, as I said previously the benefits to our war on terror, and the weakening of oppressive regimes worldwide?

 

I apologise for sounding incredulous and patronising, but I really just don't get it. :">

[Guest The Architect]

I personally think it's a stupid idea, because aren't you letting the drug addicts win, by giving them the drugs?

[Walsingham]

I personally think it's a stupid idea, because aren't you letting the drug addicts win, by giving them the drugs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Obi-wan] There are alternatives to fighting... [/obi-wan]

[Surreptishus]

I personally think it's a stupid idea, because aren't you letting the drug addicts win, by giving them the drugs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Snot really about the addicts themselves...and they never win.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Surreptishus

[Guest The Architect]

[Obi-wan] There are alternatives to fighting... [/obi-wan]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but I still think it's as if they

Edited December 5, 2006 by The Architect

[Walsingham]

[Obi-wan] There are alternatives to fighting... [/obi-wan]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but I still think it's as if they

[Colrom]

I personally think it's a stupid idea, because aren't you letting the drug addicts win, by giving them the drugs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It is a loser to view the world in terms of "us" versus "them" units engaged in zero sum games.

 

Again - arn't we talking mostly about making it possible for registered addicts to get a prescription to BUY addictive drugs?

 

Even if we want to give away drugs to registered addicts the cost would not be much compared to other things we do.

 

Di has a good point about the cost to society of incarcerating so many people as well as the cost to the people of our current policies.

[metadigital]

Well, I find myself agreeing 100% with colrom's last statement, so I must go and lie down.

[alanschu]

On the contrary, there is not a "vast majority" of people who take murder to be wrong all the time everywhere. Most people would agree that certain people deserve death (but most would take exception to things like capital punishment because they kill people who don't deserve it), and more still would make exceptions for self-defense or defense of others.

 

Killing someone in the defense of others or in self-defense isn't murder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's true. But there's no contradiction. Tarna says

There are several people I would kill tomorrow ( no joke ) if I thought the law would see it my way

Which does not presuppose killing in defense. For example, tarna might want to kill a father who beats his children every day such that they are in constant danger of being killed.

 

and Metadigital says

Whereas (apart from tarna and a few others) the vast majority of people do not support murder.

which supposes that tarna's intent to kill, regardless of good or bad reasons, is tantamount to support of murder. I was trying to point out that this was not necessarily the case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Okay, but you said:

 

On the contrary, there is not a "vast majority" of people who take murder to be wrong all the time everywhere. Most people would agree that certain people deserve death (but most would take exception to things like capital punishment because they kill people who don't deserve it), and more still would make exceptions for self-defense or defense of others

 

So, when you say something like "On the contrary, there is not a vast majority of people who take murder to be wrong all the time everywhere," and then start talking about how "Most people would agree that certain people deserve death, and more still would make exceptions for self-defense or others" is moot, since apparently, you weren't relating the idea that there "is not a vast majority of people who take murder to be wrong all the time everywhere" to the concept that people would "make exceptions for self-defense or defense of others.

 

When trying to illustrate your point about whether or not the vast majority of people who take murder to be wrong all the time everywhere, there's no point in talking about a supposed exception of self-defense or provocation. Because if the death of someone was a result of self-defense, then no murder occurred. There can be no exception for self-defense when a murder occurs, because it goes against the definition of what a murder is.

[tarna]

Tarna says

There are several people I would kill tomorrow ( no joke ) if I thought the law would see it my way

Which does not presuppose killing in defense. For example, tarna might want to kill a father who beats his children every day such that they are in constant danger of being killed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

After having spent several years working at some of the local battered womens' shelters, I've definitely found that some lives are worth far less than others and I don't really think that any arguement is going to change that. Not a big fan of wife beaters. Rapists either. The reason I didn't continue with this line of discussion is because nothing good would come of it.

This is one of the reasons I don't post often.

[Guest The Architect]

Again - arn't we talking mostly about making it possible for registered addicts to get a prescription to BUY addictive drugs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought the problem was that drug addicts steal the money needed to buy the drugs they want. Who's to say they wouldn't continue to steal the money needed to buy the drugs they want, then buy the drugs legally? By giving them the drugs for free, there's no reason for them to steal.

Edited December 6, 2006 by The Architect

[Walsingham]

Again - arn't we talking mostly about making it possible for registered addicts to get a prescription to BUY addictive drugs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought the problem was that drug addicts steal the money needed to buy the drugs they want. Who's to say they wouldn't continue to steal the money needed to buy the drugs they want, then buy the drugs legally? By giving them the drugs for free, there's no reason for them to steal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Give that man a state-funded coconut. That is precisely the crux of my crime-reducing argument.

[~Di]

I honestly think if we de-criminalized drug use and emptied the prisons of the population that was there for drug-related crime (not crimes supposedly caused by drug use, i.e., robbery, etc... just crimes relating to possessing and selling drugs), there would be a windfall of tax money available to supply free drugs to addicts via medical means and have a chunk left over for free rehab centers. I do believe that most addicts want to kick the habit; they simply do not have the means or the support to do so.

 

I think we as a society should take that role. In the end, there would be fewer drug addicts, no drug-related crime or crime bosses, and taxpayers would have fatter wallets!

[Walsingham]

I don't think everyone in prison for drug related offences would be 'straight' without the drugs offences. But I certainly think that a large percentage of them would be outside and pretty much crime free with the drug.

 

And thinking about giving drugs away free is a soft option... in what way is heroin addiction soft? It is part of my argument that if the damn stuff was given away free and clean the people taking it might be left with no distractions to prevent them considering whether they wanted their entire life to amount to nothing more than a drugged haze. Which as I said earlier was the reason cited by both the recovered addicts I've met. I've never even heard about a heroin addict giving up the drug because law enforcement made it difficult to get, let alone met one.