 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Victimless Crimes |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
Should Crimes That Hurt Only The People Doing Them Be Illegal| Yes |
42.9%, 6 votes | No |
57.1%, 8 votes | Multi-voting is disabled. 14 users have voted.
| |
| User | Post | ||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.                   Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield Link me if you will to a test that shows these genetic or personality traits. Then link me to a a conclusive study that says someone has no control over their personality traits. (I realize you're playing from a position you don't truly support, but I've never seen any scientific backing for that argument.)
Is ex addictive? The only reason I know about meth and heroine's addictiveness is because I know people that use or have used them. I'm talking about the effects though. D.A.R.E. in school pretty much taught you the cause effects of drugs. I paid attention, because I do that for some reason, and then I researched it on my own later to learn that they horribly exaggerated it all. We were pretty much told that after one use, you would be screwed up forever. Obviously this is untrue. Maybe from a bad teacher, I could take that, but anyone I approach online (friends who I talk to about this, it's really never been brought up here) has the same mentality. Simply that drugs are bad and they're screw you up, they can never say why they screw you up though. Sure a little digging into wikipedia or any medical research site will give me the true answers, but the thing is that these answers differ. I'm honestly in support of all drugs being decriminalized. I also would want a very strong education telling people why these drugs are harmful to you and not some bullshit one week program in the fifth grade and then again in the eighth grade. |
|||
SamuraiX Broom Hatter   Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff You're right, to reform people into fuctioning members of society, rehab is often the only real solution. But that brings up the problem of cost. Who's going to foot the bill for these people's willing mistakes. While I'm not saying that jail is cheap, I'm pretty sure rehab is more expensive. One comes to a prodigal son situation: you have one person who decided to do drugs and now needs rehab, and you have another who doesn't do drugs and on the whole is a "good" member of society. Why should law-abiding citizens pay for the misdeeds of drug users? Alcoholics are different because although alcohol can be addictive, society has a different perception towards it (than drugs, at least). It's okay to drink alcohol but it's not okay to do drugs. When one breaks that norm, they are the offender. Originally posted by KoryoOriginally posted by SamuraiX My problem is you try to refer to it as a pure democracy, the will of the masses. I'm not at all bothered that you refer to it as a democratic nation, but you treat it as a direct democracy. Which it's not. It's governed by elected officals, who in turn are bounded by a series of checks and balances. Therefore, whether or not 80% of people refer to themselves as Christians doesn't matter, or even the legitimacy of the statement. Originally posted by KoryoOriginally posted by SamuraiX No. Knowledge is wasted on the ignorant and insincere. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Sinfjotle http://www.nydailynews.com/city_life/health/story/390607p-331333c.html I only have access to 1000 medical journals, but I'm not willing to break my copyright agreement with them  I may sort through some of the journals and see if I can find some titles of studies so you can spend money and find them.
D.A.R.E. and all of those are sensationalist. But really, they're not too far off the mark for some of the harder drugs. I mean, pot really doesn't do too much to hurt you. I know this because I know MANY marijuana users. And not too many of them are screwed up because of weed. They're screwed up because my hometown is a festering hole 
Originally posted by SamuraiX Well, they actually work out to similar costs. IIRC, prison is unbelievably expensive. This is mostly due to the massive privatization in the system which has driven up costs recently. Although really, humanely imprisoning someone is going to be expensive whether or not they get a regular meal plan provided by a well known company or have a well known entertainment company providing services. If you remove drug users with very small criminal records from the prison population and insert them into a different environment then it would probably still cost about the same and generate more social capital when they come out. They'll be well functioning members of society. Another good tool would be to tie prison and rehab centres with MINOR scholarship and education programs in order to allow these people from the get go to reintegrate into society as contributing members. (edited by Ziff on 01-13-07 05:44 PM) |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Sorry, I wasn't really thinking about the true extent of the effects that prison system creates. Consider the situations(I'll try to not make them life stories):
a.) Person A does marijuana as a adult, over 18, but really, still pretty young. But more or less a decent person, I guess. Said person is caught and penalised to something-decades in prison. In prison, said person suffers, and society pays the economic price of his enprisonment, his suffering. After something-many years, Person A is a useless member of society. Even if said person no longer has any desire to do drugs again, they will likely be on welfare for the rest of their life, lacking any social skills or talents. Thus, they will be a further drain on society. b.) Person B does marijuana as a "adult." Said person is caught, and--taking from what Ziff said--does not have a violent criminal record. Said person is placed in a rehab facility, recovers, and reintegrates with the social structure. Yay. But Ziff, you know that article doesn't prove any conclusive results, the test hasn't even been done. Alcohol is "better" than marijuana, because society, in general, thinks so. The law system doesn't punish heavy drinkers as much because of this social tendency. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| No, it doesn't. But it does show a considerable amount of thought in the medical community is thinking there is some sort of genetic basis in some cases. | |||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff I'm not looking at one of the 1000 links I don't have access to though, so you might have a point. But you might not. I just see a single article about a small effort(only one million dollars in funding) to see if alcoholism is genetic. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/41/5/479
Study. Which says small effects associate with allele 1a as cited in that newspaper article. Probably more work done. |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| First link talks about addiction in general.
Small could also be explained better. =( |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| You probably only saw the ABSTRACT
You can follow other links to the 476 page study...You should've known about abstracts and other things if you wanted me present you with academic works. |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff I still think that this is going a bit too far away from the original discussion. It is my opinion that drinking is allowed and not marijuana, because one has become normalised. Drinking has become culturally acceptable, and I think that is more important as to a possible reason that there are more heavy drinkers. People look at someone drinking a glass of wine, a mug of beer, and on the whole they think that okay. People look at a person doing marijuana, and a good deal of them don't think that's okay. And certainly not the people who are making the laws, who mostly represent the older part of the population. |
|||
Silvershield   580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by emceeWhat you've said avoids my point. I never made a move to deny that an addict is "sick" under some definition of that term. However, your argument uses "sick" with the implied assumption that the afflicted is in a state of victimization. That is, this person who is sick is without personal fault for his illness. Originally posted by SinfjotleI don't think any sort of study is necessary. The self-evident fact is, heroin (to use it as a singular example that shall represent all addictive hard drugs, for simplicity) will invariably addict any person who uses it (with very few exceptions). On the other hand, alcohol will addict very few people who use it. Heroin is addictive regardless or who a person is, regardless of that person's personality or genetics or whatever; alcohol addicts only a small fraction of its users, meaning that the people within that fraction have some trait - as above, either personality or genetics or whatever else - that sets them apart and causes the addiction. The specific root of the problem is irrelevant. All that matters for the point I'm trying to make is that a person who uses a hard drug and becomes addicted is entirely at fault, because he knows that the drug addicts effectively every person who touches it. Conversely, a person who drinks alcohol is "less" at fault, because he could not have anticipated that his drinking would lead to an addiction. (Alcoholism is relatively uncommon when viewed as a percentage of the entire drinking population, which would make it a stretch to predict that any given person will become an alcoholic should he drink.) Originally posted by SinfjotleI have no idea, but you can bet that if I planned to use it, I would at least do the cursory research that would reveal that single, simple fact before actually going through with it. Originally posted by SinfjotleDARE was so long ago that I honestly could not tell you half - or any - of what I learned there. Every bit of knowledge I have about drugs and alcohol, I've learned through first-hand experience. And it's not as if I live in a ghetto or anything like that - even here in suburbia, knowledge about any sort of drug is so easily accessible that I can't imagine a single person being unaware that x drug is addictive and will ruin you if you go near it. Originally posted by SinfjotleMaybe not after one use, but how many people do you know that do it "just one time?" A stupid friend of mine tried cocaine, and he couldn't do it just once. He's done it maybe four or five times in total, and, in the end, had to be torn away from it, both literally and figuratively. And even now, months after he last went near it, he still craves it fairly often, and if he sees it or is otherwise near it, he cannot help himself and needs to be physically removed from the room. Addiction is a scary thing. Drugs are scary things. Marijuana might be more or less harmless, but take a step past pot and most anything you come across can potentially hurt you pretty darn bad. Edit for a misused homophone. (edited by Silvershield on 01-14-07 12:29 AM) |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield Well, then we have a misunderstanding rather than a disagreement. I wasn't trying to say they weren't at fault, just that they're sick and locking them up isn't adequate treatment. Unless you believe in introspection rundown. Originally posted by SamuraiX It's more likely the other way around, pot isn't illegal because it isn't socially acceptable, its not socially acceptable because it's illegal. Originally posted by Sinfjotle It's not completely untrue. Drugs that create a strong feeling of euphoria, often create an immediate strong psychological addiction. Crack cocaine is a good example of this. I know several former crack addicts, and they will all tell you that they were hooked from the first hit, simply because it creates such a powerful high, that they were never be able to attain again as they kept using it. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by emceeRight, which is why I was careful to say "what you've said avoids my point" rather than "you are avoiding my point"  . |
|||
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| The cultural acceptability of a substance can work both ways. Some things are illegal more because they are culturally unacceptable than because they are harmful. Other things are culturally unacceptable because they are illegal. However, the later is not always the case. Mary Jain is rapidly becoming more and more culturally acceptable despite its legal status. During American Prohibition, alcohol was illegal, but still culturally acceptable.
Obviously, not all drugs are the same. Some are more addictive than others. Still, most of them are more addictive than alcohol. You don't need to research these drugs to find that out. Information about them is readily available. It seems like some people are talking about weighing the costs and benefits of particular kinds of drugs. Why? All of them are more addictive than potato chips, so why try to determine which are more or less addictive or more or less harmful? They are all harmful and addictive in one way or another, which is why they are illegal. It seems many people are still fantasizing about a fairy land where middle aged middle class white guys do drugs in their living room on the weekends, and lead otherwise normal lives. The reality is kids and the impoverished being exploited by drug dealers. If you legalize or decriminalize drugs, you will see more drugs in the hands of kids, I guarantee it. Originally posted by Sinfjotle Let's look at Athens, the largest of the Ancient Greek democratic states, as our example. True, the democracy was much more direct than modern republics or constitutional monarchies. However, only adult male citizens with military training were allowed to vote. This excluded slaves, foreigners, and women. In fact, the voting population was a minority (and not a 49% minority, either). Further, the voting population was measured in the tens of thousands, not the tens of millions or hundreds of millions, as some democratic countries of today are. The democratic states of ancient Greece are a topic of interest to historians in large part because they were a rare item. I'd go so far as to suggest that modern democratic countries are more accountable to the people, considering that the "people" of Athens excluded so many. I'm not denying Athens' great contributions to history and culture. I am excluding them as a realistic example of how modern democratic nations of 300 million people are supposed to function. Originally posted by SamuraiX I have never referred to the US as a pure democracy. I don't even use that term. Nor did I use the term "will of the masses." And it does indeed matter what 80% of the people think. How many US presidents have not been Christians? How many congressmen? It will be harder to determine with congressmen, because their religious views are less closely scrutinized, as they have less power individually than the president. But a vast majority, in both cases, have been Christians. Why? First, its simple numbers. A person drawn from a pool that is 80% Christian already has an 80% chance to be a Christian. And beyond that, traditional Christians prefer a president who shares their religion. Why do you think the US presidents always close their speeches with "God bless America?" Is it because they are all such devout Christians that they think America will cease to function if God withdraws his blessings? No. They do it to curry favor with the Christians in America, of which there are more than a few. Despite the democrats characterization of the Republicans as the rich white Christian party, the democrats also try to curry favor with Christians. If you think the 80% Christian majority does not matter in elections, then ask yourself this: would any candidate in the 2008 presidential election dare say "I'm [insert name] and I am a hard line atheist. I categorically reject the existence of God, Jesus, or any higher power, and moreover I think that all Christians are woefully misguided." No one who said that would get elected president in the US unless the opposing candidate was assassinated.  It's not any religious extremism. It's the simple fact that people vote for candidates who think the same way they do. Since most voters are Christians, they will vote for Christians more often than not. Since the candidates know this, they all talk like Christians, whether they actually are or not. You don't need a direct "pure" democracy for the religious views of the majority to show through. I'm not sure why we are still debating this particular topic.
Originally posted by SamuraiX So I'm ignorant and insincere? (edited by Koryo on 01-14-07 02:15 AM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Not all atheists believe that Christians are misguided. Thus, an atheist would not necessarily say that. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| I didn't say all atheists are the same. Obviously, there is variation in any group. But the point stands that no president who said that would get elected. Obviously (again) that was exaggerating. That should be fairly obvious to you. But even if a presidential candidate only said that he was an atheist, without any of the other things I mentioned, his chances would be hurt. It doesn't mean that no one would vote for him, nor does it mean that no Christians would vote for him, but he would get less votes than he otherwise would have. Really, I don't see why this is a subject for debate. Does anyone doubt that the 80% majority opinions do not translate into American laws via our democratic elections, however indirect they may be? Its as if I'm trying to prove that birds fly. (edited by Koryo on 01-14-07 03:56 AM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| But that's assuming that the majority of that group is so willing to vote in only a "Christian" way, discounting a lot of opinion. I'm not arguing that the "Christian" demographic in America is powerful, it is. But its ability to become disillusioned is as dangerous as its ability to become disillusioned is helpful. Piss it off at society and gayz to get votes. Piss it off with yourself to drive voters into simply not doing it or pissing the ballot on a lame fundamentalist candidate. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| I think you know the facts and my point quite well. You really don't need to talk about how voters can become disillusioned. Back to my bird analogy, you might as well be arguing that birds have feathers. Yes, a fundamentalist candidate could go overboard and alienate the more moderate Christians. What's your point? That's pretty much the way humans work. And Christian voters look at issues just the same as everyone else. A black voter is more likely to vote for a black candidate. But, if that black candidate has political views that go against what that particular voter stands for, the color of his skin won't be enough to get him elected. In the same way, Christians are more likely to vote for Christian candidates. But, if that Christian candidate has political views that go against what that particular voter stands for, his religion won't be enough to get him elected. Savy? (edited by Koryo on 01-14-07 04:26 AM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| I was talking about general voter disillusionment. Not just being pissed off with the views of some vehement blowhard candidate. | |||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| So you're simply stating that ceteris paribus, voter with attribute A will vote for candidate with attribute A?
The point that I must stress is that one cannot apply ceteris paribus to this situation. The actual values of the people are inconsistant with the ideal, perfect Christian, so that religion would not be the sole ruling factor in deciding a candidate. In addition, not all Christians believe that atheists are misguided. Thus, having proven that one cannot assume ceteris paribus considering in said case that a given voter with attribute A will vote (to cast a vote for a given candidate in a given democratic system, such as that of the United States's democratic system) for a given candidate with attribute A, I continue to say that "Christian" values can be carried by one who is not in fact Christian. An atheist can spurn gays, stray from abortion, disagree with stem-cell research. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Victimless Crimes |
| |
