http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6272684.stm

 

I wouldn't encourage anyone to admit to doing class A drugs on an internet forum. However, I would ask the members whether they feel using drugs such as cocaine and heroin make them complicit in the activities of the drugs barons and terrorist groups that grow them.

Ive always found that to be a silly arguement and a poor attempt at trying to force users to shoulder some kind of guilt. Its like a "butterfly effect" to a ridiculous degree. Conceivably, every action taken by anyone can effect upstream and downstream results.

I am struggling to see how it is silly. I buy the drugs, the money goes upstream to an organisation that uses the money to create more rdrugs, but mroe importantly to grow in power and control over the producer country. Don't buy the drugs and they don't get the money. Or have I misssed something?

Ive always found that to be a silly arguement and a poor attempt at trying to force users to shoulder some kind of guilt. Its like a "butterfly effect" to a ridiculous degree. Conceivably, every action taken by anyone can effect upstream and downstream results.

I think I'll have to side with Gfted1 here. The argument presented easily turns around to say that government prohibition has the same effect.

 

I am struggling to see how it is silly. I buy the drugs, the money goes upstream to an organisation that uses the money to create more rdrugs, but mroe importantly to grow in power and control over the producer country. Don't buy the drugs and they don't get the money. Or have I misssed something?

 

Morality is pretty subjective. In that moral responsibility is what we believe it to be. For some people moral responsilibity extends to the immediate. For some people not using 100% recycled paper has you responsible for new diseases coming out of the rainforest.

 

Maybe I don't find it silly, but I don't subscribe to that philosophy. I do think it's a very forward thinking philosophy. But I also think it's very arrogant. The logic seems sound, but it is untested. It is also a blame tactic and I've never believed in blame without intent. Mens rea is not just a legal term for me.

 

Also, like I said with my comment about government prohibition, it is a two-way door. If we blame the consumers, we can equally blame the government. Both can supposedly see the consequences of their actions. Both continue with them. And once again making this is arrogant. Because neither we nor they know the full consequences of their actions, whether they be greater or smaller than we suspect.

Edited July 5, 200718 yr by Tale

Fair point, Tale. That's why I considered the second poll question necessary. You know I subscribe to both views. Prohibition came first, but given prohibition immediate responsibility passes to the individual.

Fionavar.

 

 

What was the question?

Fair point, Tale. That's why I considered the second poll question necessary. You know I subscribe to both views. Prohibition came first, but given prohibition immediate responsibility passes to the individual.

Why does it pass to the individual? Wouldn't immediate responsibility belong to those whose actions precipitated the situation and not to those who are acting in spite of it?

 

Just because it is government and law does not mean it is immune to the same criticisms we can try to lay upon the populace.

 

Either way it is a blame game. It is ignorant of understanding and solutions and only spreads guilt and shame.

Edited July 5, 200718 yr by Tale

I think when people use drugs in the US that they basically make money for the DEA and what not. The War on Drugs is more about justifing the amount of money taken from tax payers then any type of actual results. Legalizing or Decriminalizing drugs gets rid of the criminal element around them, but both sides have way too much to lose from this.

I guess I'd make a distinction between historical responsibilty and immediate responsibility. If I walk into a room doused in petrol, knowing it's doused in petrol and spark up a cigarette am I responsible for the fire or the guy who put the petrol everywhere?

I guess I'd make a distinction between historical responsibilty and immediate responsibility. If I walk into a room doused in petrol, knowing it's doused in petrol and spark up a cigarette am I responsible for the fire or the guy who put the petrol everywhere?

Depends, does the guy who put the petrol everywhere have the opportunity to clean it up? Does he know you're going to walk in there and light up a cigarette? And after you walk in there, light up a cigarette, start a fire and the town burns down. And then when the fire goes out, does he go back and douse that room in petrol again? Does this cycle continue with you lighting matches and him providing fuel?

 

It's the definition of a juvenile argument. Not what's between you and me here, but what's between the guy who lights the cig and the guy who douses the room. Neither wants the consequences, but neither is willing to accept that the other is not alone in the responsibility to change.

Edited July 5, 200718 yr by Tale

I agree. I think. I'm trying to say that we're both only partially responsible. But 'I' have the capacity to fix things. If I don't fix it then I'm a bad bad donkey.

 

I suppose the analogy that would be better is, someone lights a fire and I keep feeding it.

 

EDIT: By 'better' I mean supporting my initial claim. *coughs*

I agree. I think.

Are you sure? I am the only person to vote for bat country.

Legalize all of it, tax and regulate the hell out of them.

 

Everybody wins.

I guess we should legalize prostitution too!

Edited July 6, 200718 yr by Krookie

If you use the same argument for (foreign) oil it seems just as ridiculous or valid depending on your stance.

We should make them legal and then not tax them. That way, with no oversight and no scrutiny, the drug cartels can finally shape up and be responsible.

 

The free market fixes everything!

 

Also, we must stop Fionavar before he kills again.

Edited July 6, 200718 yr by Pop

I do think that everyone is equally to blame for the death and destruction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sidenote: it was first started by The Gnomes of Zurich lead by Fionavar but the invisible green evil monkey which is my friend whom convice them in the first place.

I guess we should legalize prostitution too!

 

It's not really any morally different from a strip club or an escort service, both of which are legal. Regulation by an appropriate state and/or federal board could help ensure the continued wellbeing of our nation's whores.

 

Seriously though, where I've grown up, anybody who has the money and the want can get ahold of these drugs. Legalizing them will take away some of the stigma from those that fall into the pit of addiction and make it easier for them to seek help; and it will also get rid of most if not all of the seedy elements involved in acquiring these drugs. They're here, they're not going to go away, might as well make them as safe as possible and negate their detrimental impacts to society as much as possible.

 

I know people who have used cocaine and all other manner of drugs recreationally for years without developing any sort of negative addiction, and I also know people who have crippling addictions to drugs as benign as alcohol and nicotine. It's all down to the individual how they react to the drugs and if they want them they'll get them.

 

Also taxes means money for rehabilitation programs!

Edited July 6, 200718 yr by Fenghuang

I guess we should legalize prostitution too!

I think that both prostitution and Drugs would loose their stygma if we were to just legalize them and make them live up to certain standards (like prostitutes must have a blood test every week type of thing.)

Also if they legalize drugs I'll be that much closer to getting my hands on some Super Soldier Serum.

Edited July 6, 200718 yr by Fenghuang

I guess we should legalize prostitution too!

I think that both prostitution and Drugs would loose their stygma if we were to just legalize them and make them live up to certain standards (like prostitutes must have a blood test every week type of thing.)

 

How would you do that? Organize some sort of prostitute sign up sheet? I don't think that would work.

Actually if you provided a legal way for women to prostitute themselves they probably would flock to it because they wouldn't have to give somebody else a cut for protection, nor would they have to fear being busted or contracting a virus from some sob who they can't take legal action against because what they were doing was illegal.

 

Prostitutes would jump at the chance to be legal... Just look at nevada.

How many women want to be known as the whore of the family?

*uses thread derailment/over-the-line/what the ... -o-meter ...

Actually if you provided a legal way for women to prostitute themselves they probably would flock to it because they wouldn't have to give somebody else a cut for protection, nor would they have to fear being busted or contracting a virus from some sob who they can't take legal action against because what they were doing was illegal.

 

Prostitutes would jump at the chance to be legal... Just look at nevada.

Ugh prostitution isn't big here at all. In fact it still has a lot of stigma attached even though it's infinitely safer than going to north las vegas and having your genitals rot off a month later. Probably a lot more comfortable and the girls are definitely hotter and not trashy. I mean there are a few places out of las vegas but the majority of girls would rather be in the strip club, get paid extra for sex on the side, then just have sex with greasy old men for a living.

 

Anyways on topic, I agree with Walshingham. If you buy drugs the money is inevitably going to reach the people who make and distribute it, thus allowing them to expand there power and influence. Like him, I don't really see how that is flawed.