Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Happy Thanksgiving!


gleeful

Recommended Posts

Ah, but evil paedophile-terrorists are so dangerous that we need to enact laws against them NOW! We don't have time to think up justification. The whole proof thing is just academic anyway and only gets in the way of things, aiding these paedophile-terrorists. I'm telling you that we're in a state of emergency; there's a crimewave all over the nation that has reached "epidemic" proportions and it needs to be stopped before it's too late! Don't you care about kids and aren't you patriotic? We'll worry about the legal mumbo-jumbo of forming proofs of these clearly wonderful laws later. Anybody who disagrees is obviously on the side of evil paedophile-terrorists. You aren't on their side, are you? No? Good, then you support our "temporary" emergency laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think the problem of fear-mongering is due to our populace as much as laws. As long as it works, people will do it. And I have a hard time imagining laws that could effectively stifle it. If you get your populace riled up enough, you can get them to support ignoring any safeguards that are in place. The US constitution says that US citizens can't be held without charges. But with enough fear-mongering you can gain support to ignore those rules. And our government seems to have done just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obscurus, just because you say FACT doesn't make something true, you know. :) Would you like a single case where illegality discourages/prevents use? Would that be enough to make you realize that your adamant view just might have a crack or two in it? How about the campus of a school? Kids are walking all around during lunch, study hall, or break session, doing what? Yes, smoking cigarettes of course. Because despite the fact that it's illegal to sell to minors, it's legal for them to smoke. Are they smoking pot? Nope. Because it's not legal. If they did so, they would get busted. And if it wasn't illegal, kids would no doubt be rolling doobies during break. And as a side point, if smoking itself was illegal for minors, you can bet it wouldn't be happening on that school campus anymore, huh? At least not openly. Thus, it is prevented/reduced, at least during a period of every kid's day.

 

Now, if you can recognize that very simplistic, small, off-the-cuff example, you should be able to see that your claim is not so perfect as you seem to believe. In your statements to follow, like,

 

The fact that you think that legalising heroin for a strictly limited range of uses will turn everyone into heroin zombies

 

shows that you're really not getting what I'm saying at all. Because I didn't say that. "...full of zombies," as I said, is not intended to mean everyone. Obviously, those who have the problem, will continue to have the problem, and it might create more due to availability. That was the point. Sorry, I thought that would be obvious.

 

What you're putting forth is not really different from, "Guns are dangerous things in and of themselves; they lead to the death and injury of many people every year through unintentional accidents and intentional abuse. In order to fix this problem, LET'S GIVE GUNS TO EVERYONE! This will reduce overall abuse." What?

 

And I don't know why you keep arguing for heroin, that wasn't really the topic. I'm not singling out heroin, so why are you being its Defender of Might? Folks, we might have a closet heroin junkie here! Get out your tender loving care, for he needs our support. :P

 

 

 

 

I'm kidding, relax!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You back-handedly proved his point. The kids are smoking, despite the fact they can't buy them.

What? They can and do. And they can and do buy illegal substances today too. Not at the store, like cigarettes, but from friends or dealers. How does this prove anything for either side? My whole point is that it will likely change nothing, but if it does change anything, it certainly won't be for the better.

 

Let's spell this out:

1. No one has (and no one can or will) logically proven that making drugs legal will discourage abuse. As I said above, the quasi-legalization of pot has only led to its widespread embracing in US society at least.

2. "There will always be drug abusers." Yup.

3. If you're not discouraging abuse, what are you making them legal for? To make it easier? If abuse is not discouraged, increased use (why not? it's legal now!) will only be encouraged.

4. The junkies that are around today will still need/want their fix. They won't just disappear. So unless they're suddenly in a hospital courtesy of YOUR money (which costs a lot more than prison, sorry), they're going to have to find a way to get it. And last time I checked, your average junkie is not wealthy enough to afford a $300 a day habit. So, he'll get it on the street, from the same crack dealer he dealt with before the legal business, only now it'll be cheaper. Maybe. Yippee! More high for your buck.

 

The idea should be to stop abuse/use, not to support it, because it universally hurts users. Making it illegal is not the best way to do it perhaps, but putting it within everyone's casual reach is worse. Or should we micro-discuss a bit, and say, is heroin legal for adults, but illegal for children? Okay, what is a child? Don't make me point to the slippery slope again.

 

I know that you guys all want a naive free happy hippy Utopian society/world, and hey, I hate the government too. Scum, the lot of them. Peace and love all around. But some things are just not good things to do. And sometimes societies do need some boundaries. We have plenty of bad apples making that a fact. Anyway, this is going nowhere apparently, so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's going nowhere because you are arguing about two different things.

 

You are arguing that free, unrestricted access to drugs would be a bad thing, which is true.

 

Obscurus is arguing that the prohibition on heroin as a prescription drug is inconsistent with other painkillers being permitted, which is presumably also true (although I lack the knowledge to confirm it).

 

I don't think anybody would seriously argue that all drugs should be accessible to anybody, since the government is considered to have a duty of care towards its citizens which it would be abandoning by doing this (although there is a perfectly valid libertarian position that people should be allowed to make their own choices, in practice this does not always work).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has never been a socirty where wanton random murder of anyone for any reason is seen has right.

Of course there have been socirties where certain types of killing under specific circumstances are accpeted, but that occurs even in our own. War for example, or as punishment for some crimes, or self defence.

 

Or because you feel insulted and challenged them in the street, or your a higher rank and dont like the way they acted twards you or a paranoid ruler kiling those aound you to keep yourself safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Orbweaver. I am not arguing that drugs should be encouraged, or made readily available. Governments have an obligation to inform and protect their citizens form huting themselves.

 

What I am arguing is that:

 

Drugs are treated consistently by legislators, and that one drug isn't arbitrarily singled out and demonised as 'a hard evil drug', while an almost identicla drug is treated as a prescription painkiller, for example.

 

Now, I am interested in minimising the harm caused by society casued by drugs.

 

When you make a drug, especially an addictive drug, illegal, it becomes expensive to obtain, for obvious reasons. In order for an addict to maintain a steady supply of their drug of choice, they are given drugs by their dealer for free on the proviso that they deal and push drugs onto others, usually teenagers who don't understand what they are getting into. These illegal drugs are often cut with harmful substances, which make the drugs even more dangerous. I use heroin as an example, because pure, medical grade heroin is quite safe if you give the correct dose. But street heroin is not pure, and users cannot know how much to use to give them the effect they need to feel normal, or how much will kill them.

 

So making drugs illegal actually increases the harm caused by:

 

1. Addicts need to push drugs on other, and commit various crimes to pay for their habit,

2. Addicts are at greater risk of harming themselves because of the impurity and unknown qualities of the drug.

 

Given that making idrugs illegal does not stop people using them, it is better in my view to relax the restrictions on a range of drugs, with the proviso that they are available only through hospitals. The government needs to regulate the manufacture and supply of drugs, tax it, and regulate the distribution so that even if people do illegally obtain these drugs, they will be medical grade. Drug addicts are only concerned with getting their next fix - if they can obtain that without commiting crimes or pushing the drug onto children they will. Hospitals and clinics can treat drug addiction mroe easily if they can gradually wean the patient off the drug, rather than forcing them to go cold turkey

 

 

I am not for a second suggesting that legalising drugs will discourage their use significantly, what I am suggesting is that if you make the leash too tight, you will choke the dog i.e, relaxing prohibitive laws in certain respects will actually reduce the net harm caused by drugs, even if it does not reduce the use of those drugs, or slightly increases their use. That might seem counterintuitive, yet it is what a lot of doctors have been arguing for ages.

 

It costs more money to deal with enforcing laws against illegal drugs than it does to tax the production of a legal one (the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes more than pay for expense they cause governments via the health system).

 

SneaksieDave, I don't know what schools you have been around, but all of the reasearch in Britain, America and Australia indicates that over 50% of teenagers in these countries have used marijuana at school by the age of 15. Pot is rapidly overtaking cigarettes as the drug of choice for young people. While illegal, it is easy to grow in your backyard shed, and it is readily available, and is seen as harmless fun by most young people.

 

 

The idea is not to stop drug abuse, because you can't, it is just too unrealistic, and costs too much. The idea is to minimise the damage caused by drug use, and to educate and inform people, so that at least if they do use drugs, people know what users are doing, and can help them when the start to get into trouble. And you can tax a legal drug and use revenue to minimise and pay for any damage caused, whereas illegal drugs only cost governments money (unless you are the US government, who has deals with Columbian drug lords ;) ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what schools you have been around, but all of the reasearch in Britain, America and Australia indicates that over 50% of teenagers in these countries have used marijuana at school by the age of 15.

:huh: I wouldn't refute that. Probably 75% of my personal friends were included in that stat.

 

I use heroin

Aha! I knew it!

 

^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D'oh! I knew I should have worded that differently! :blush:

 

I once had half a cigar... Oh, and some Panadine Forte when I had my wisdom teeth out. And I occasionally have a glass of Cabernet Merlot with dinner. Man, am I one hard druggo, I think I need help... :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with obscurus completely on this issue. There are a number of interests here in the States that keep the racist, classist War on Drugs alive and keep idiotic laws on the books, prison guard unions, pharmecutical corporations, prison industry lobbys, politicians of every stripe, sectors of the military and police establishment as well.

 

No one should think for a second that the government acts out of some sort of concern for citizenry with its actions, its a profitable war with no defined targets, opening up avenues of encroachment against privacy and property rights by law eforcement/government. I was in the National Guard with a DEA agent years ago, he laughed out loud at the points against the war on drugs I presented to him. "It has nothing to do with that. We couldnt care less about kids ODing in schools, whatever, we care about busting people and getting promoted." Then he tried to get me to sell all my buddies out.

 

For cops, its a fast track, high profile career slalom run. Stumble on to one 50K bust and you will be getting that promotion for sure. For agencies its shitloads of cash. For politicians its political firewood, get the stick worshipers and LawNorder mooks out to the polls. For military types its a U.S. presence in Columbia and lots of orders for equiptment from boots to radar systems. For the media, its an ever flowing stream of scary racially slanted images to shock and awe.

 

For citizens, its guns on the streets, arrogant cops, violence in schools, accidental shootings, tax dollars wasted, opportunity lost, fear and unrest, the normalization of living in a state of siege. For users, its all of the above plus crappy product and a culture that stigmatizes what is at best harmless and at worst a medical condition. Some political thinkers point to the war on drugs and its similarities to the war on terror, a faceless, non-white enemy that could be anywhere, that will never stop coming and attempting to hurt you and your loved ones, that is insidious and can be standing right next to you without you even knowing.

 

For a fraction of the monies spent "fighting" drugs, (an idiotic notion in and of itself, how can you defeat the Hydra of Ten Zillion Heads) treatment centers could be opened up, offering the worst of drug users the treatment they need and counselling and support for those who do not.

 

As obscurus has noted important medical research/treatments with herion have been stymied due to this idiocy. Marijuana is another such substance. Oh, I know, I know, but dont take my word for it, take the word of Dr. Robert J. Mellamede, a biochemical researcher at the Uni. of Colorado, Colorade Springs.

 

http://www.uccs.edu/%7Ermelamed/

 

 

Note the last line. Then search around the site and listen to some of the interviews. Check out the links. I contacted this guy a few years ago and he confirmed most of what I had heard second hand, that pot has strong medicinal value, and specifically that THC seems to have an impact on tumor development in lab mice. I met a nurse from the Geisenger Medical Center in Central Pennsylvania. She worked in an experimental ward there where throat and neck cancer patients were inhaling marijuana vapor through face masks. She told me the effect was profound, tumors reduced in size, lifespans extended.

 

BTW, if there are any marijuana junkies on the thread, although there is NO correlation between pot smoking and cancers its still not a very healthy thing to smoke it. Water pipes are NOT as effective as was once thought, too. Here is an easy alternative, one I recommend........highly.

 

http://www.vaporgenie.com/

Edited by Maximius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn straight Maximius...

 

Like anything, drugs can be used appropriately, or abused. Most drugs that are given a very bad reputation are not as harmful as the anti-drug cotton-wool brigade would have you believe - it is a matter of how they are used, not if they are used.

Contrary to modern myths, steroids can be used more or less safely to enhance muscular growth, provided they are used in a limited and careful way (they will fuck your testicles though, even in small doses). Most of the dangerous side effects attributed to steroids are only experienced by those who take far too much (only a very small amount is needed to enhance muscular growth and strength).

Amphetamines can treat a range of behavioural disorders, but some people use them as recreational party drugs. Should you stop using them for a legitimate purpose just because a few people abuse them? Should you ban cars because people use them in ram raids or as getaway vehicles? You have to balance the valuable properties of something against the deleterious properties, and reach a balance that facilitates legitimate use while discouraging harmful abuse. That is not easy, by any means, but it is a hell of a lot less destructive than banning things outright and fighting an expensive and unwinnable "war".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4487366.stm

 

Choice quote: "Nguyen's case has prompted intense media coverage in Australia, though a poll released on Thursday suggested people were divided over whether the death penalty was justified."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not generally in favour of the death penalty for two reasons:

 

1. It is demonstrably not a deterrant - most jurisdictions with the death penalty have higher levels of crime than jurisdictions without.

 

2. I don't regard it as a punishment at all (it only punishes the living friends and relatives of the dead convict), since everyone dies regardless of what they do with their lives, and death can come at any time.

 

3. Death removes any chance of the convict redeeming themselves, or learning from their mistake(s).

 

I am in favour of the death penalty in certain limited cicrcumstances - if a convicted felon has reoffended repeatedly, or is demonstrably incapable of redemption, I see no point in wasting resources on keeping alive a person who contributes nothing to society, and poses an extreme risk to society should they escape or be released.

 

If a punishment is grossly disproportionate to the crime, it fails to act as a deterrent, becasue it becomes too abstract for people to percieve as a real consequence, or in the case of the death penalty, is not perceived as a penalty at all by many criminals.

 

Personally, I am not afraid of death anywhere near as much as I am of having my liberty taken from me, or of being raped in prison. And that is how a lot of criminals see it - they would rather be killed than spend twenty years being repeatedly sodomised in a prison cell.

 

The problem with prison is that, once released, people who might have been petty thieves (for example) now not only have picked up a range of other criminal 'skills', but their chances of finding gainful employment are greatly reduced, and the odds are they will end up reoffending just to stay alive. It creates a vicious cycle. So for minor offenses, even a very short stay in jail can ruin the prospects of the criminal being rehabilitated and re-entering society as a reformed individual.

 

And when considering the sentencing of a convicted criminal, the Judge/Jury/Society needs to ask this question:

 

Do we want this person to learn from their mistake and become a law abiding citizen, or do we simply want to exact vengeance upon them, or do you simply want to remove them from society altogether?

 

If the answer is the former, then prison is not the option you would take. If the answer is the latter, then imprisoning someone against their will is one of the worst things you can do to a human being, far worse than killing them IMO.

 

For people who commit serious offenses (serial rapists and mass murderers etc), I would prefer that their punishment is being subjected to medical experimentation that would otherwise be considered unethical and dangerous. At least that way, they will contribute to the general wellbeing of society, instead of uselessly languishing in prison or being killed and buried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recent Status Updates

    • The Black Arrow

      Hope everyone has the blessing of undying motivation for "The Dark Mod 15th Anniversary Contest". Can't wait to see the many magnificent missions you all may have planned. Good luck, with an Ace!
      · 0 replies
    • Ansome

      Finally got my PC back from the shop after my SSD got corrupted a week ago and damaged my motherboard. Scary stuff, but thank goodness it happened right after two months of FM development instead of wiping all my work before I could release it. New SSD, repaired Motherboard and BIOS, and we're ready to start working on my second FM with some added version control in the cloud just to be safe!
      · 2 replies
    • Petike the Taffer  »  DeTeEff

      I've updated the articles for your FMs and your author category at the wiki. Your newer nickname (DeTeEff) now comes first, and the one in parentheses is your older nickname (Fieldmedic). Just to avoid confusing people who played your FMs years ago and remember your older nickname. I've added a wiki article for your latest FM, Who Watches the Watcher?, as part of my current updating efforts. Unless I overlooked something, you have five different FMs so far.
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer

      I've finally managed to log in to The Dark Mod Wiki. I'm back in the saddle and before the holidays start in full, I'll be adding a few new FM articles and doing other updates. Written in Stone is already done.
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      TDM 15th Anniversary Contest is now active! Please declare your participation: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22413-the-dark-mod-15th-anniversary-contest-entry-thread/
       
      · 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...